MHHIHIUHIIIIHWIUH||||U|\UII$I|UHIUlllllell‘ll 3 1293 104815 ’r-‘J’m I) :1‘ "I '\ r' - I ' L ' ‘I (xx) A "JUDY C Teach I E :5 study and e graducts ' the 2-55 in teache :gesdonnaire teachers. The :3: providing :Lassrooms was zelp. It was th let: 5 of allev Gerience i "EmViOI‘ . Du: ‘ “g teaCherE ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN IN-SERVICE MODEL FOR ELEMENTARY SUPERVISING TEACHERS BASED UPON THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR STUDENT TEACHERS BY Barbara Jean Sullivan Teacher education is continually undergoing a process of study and evaluation in an effort to improve one of its products - the elementary school teacher. An area of weak- ness in teacher education programs was identified by a questionnaire sent to elementary principals and first year teachers. The results of these questionnaires indicated that providing for individual differences in elementary classrooms was an area in which teachers need additional help. It was the purpose of this study to investigate one means of alleviating this shortcoming in the pre-service education of teachers. The researcher planned to work through supervising teachers during the student teaching experience in order to attempt to change student teacher behavior. During in-service sessions with supervising teachers in the experimental group a teaching model on providing for individual differences was used. The super- vising teachers in turn worked with their student teachers to help them improve in this area. In order 0 :55: for an ex; :easure the 5t": fife: noes '3 inator and :he surest on tilt" Last observatic :5 student tea: group only the The result 3;;nificant gai teachers as rat :iversity coor ;:oviding prope ‘ditional 331a including: (1) There :al ‘ difference: We levels . Barbara Jean Sullivan 131 order to evaluate this procedure a pre- and post- test for an experimental and a control group was used to measure the student teacher's provision for the individual differences in her classroom. Both the university coor- dinator and the supervising teacher used the evaluative in- strument on the occasion of the coordinator's first and last observation of each student teacher during the term of student teaching. In the case of the second control group only the post-test was used. The results of the study indicated that there was no significant gain in the experimental group of student teachers as rated by the supervising teacher. Hewever, the university coordinators' ratings showed a gain in one area: providing prOper time allotments to complete tasks. Additional information was forthcoming from the study's data including: (1) There was no difference in providing for-individ- ual differences of students by student teachers at various grade levels. (2) Comparison of student teachers' use of varying materials with whether or not supplementary materials were available in the schools yielded no significant difference. (3) Other information including the degree held by the supervising teacher, whether or not he had taken a course in supervising student teachers, how he perceived :z-e role of .. i;:':'erence. (4) Tne :eacn r in tr. iii not cor: 2.26 student t This Stu teachers in t & teach in; me .‘""“‘~ . ““M: 111-58: Barbara Jean Sullivan the role of the student teacher all showed no significant difference. (4) The amount of time spent by each supervising teacher in the experimental group in follow-up activities did not correspond to the degree of improvement shown by the student.teacher. This study highlighted first the use of supervising teachers in teacher preparation programs in an effort to improve student teacher behavior and secondly the use of a teaching model in providing for individual differences during in-service sessions with supervising teachers. A STUDY or THE EFFECTIVENESS or AN IN-SERVICE MODEL FOR ELEMENTARY SUPERVISING TEACHERS BASED UPON THE PERFORMANCE or THEIR STUDENT TEACHERS By Barbara Jean Sullivan A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 /i ,0 “'7 I' .009 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express her appreciation to the Chairman of the Doctoral Committee, Dr. Robert Hatfield, who gave so much assistance. Likewise, appreciation is due to the other members of the committee for their help and encouragement, Dr. Henry Kennedy, Dr. John Phillips, and Dr. Troy Stearns. Special recognition is due to the Directors of the Centers used in the study for their cooperation and help - Dr. John Phillips, Dr. Hugo David, and Dr. John Cragun. Without their assistance the study would not have been possible. The Coordinators in these Centers who also have 'dhe deep gratitude of the writer for their help include Mrs. Marie Niel, Mrs. Mary Ann Robinson, Mrs. Helen Rein- hardt, Mrs. Laura Miller and Mr. Donald Bourdon. The writer is deeply indebted to the supervising teachers who gave so generously of their time to complete forms and attend the in-service sessions; also to the stu- dent teachers who completed forms. The author is grateful to Mr. Roy Gabriels, Mr. Geoffrey Yager, and Miss Mary Kennedy, members of the Office of Research, Michigan State University, for their assistance in the treatment of the data. ii Specie Kazareth Co Hrs. Lelane NH ...8 CO '.‘.'FAI‘* .I! .Obc¢Vub taae :232‘. is owe Special thanks are due to the writer's colleagues at Nazareth College for their encouragement and help, especially Mrs. Lelane Hardie and Dr. James Brown. The completion of the study would not have been pOssible without the support of the writer's devoted family to whom much is owed . iii ‘ --" .( 9. .¢. (1' (D 'U r‘r A. H- O {D O a. m : h'g n h ..m ” R O 1h“! U) (D t.) mumzrvrammmm .. ‘- \‘o-b-ih ) RE 'H U} Relai The 1 The \ The I In-Se Tea ReSp: Ins The J Teas} Ci; Prov: Summa DESI( State Proc¢ POPE: Sourc S 1131316 STAT: Ana1\ Summg TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . Purpose and Scope of the Study . . . . . . General Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . Assumptions of the Study . . . Significance Of the Problem . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REPORT OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . Related Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Student Teaching. . . . The Vital Role of the Supervising Teacher The Partnership Approach to Teacher Educa- tion 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O In-Service Sessions for Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Responsibilities of Teacher Preparing Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Classroom Observations . Teacher Evaluation by Elementary Prin- cipals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providing for Individual Differences . . . smary O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O DES IGN OF THE STUDY 0 O O O O O O O C O 0 Statement of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population for the Study . . . . . . . . . Sources of the Data for the Study . . . . Summary I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . Analysj-S Of Data 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv PAGE .16 . 24 . 37 113 332.3 0? cc rem V. CCNC TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER v. CONCLUSIONS, Conclusions IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Implications . Recommendations Summary . BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX . 114 114 119 122 127 128 133 In. 0 U! 3.8 4.2 4.3 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Responses From Supervising Teacher's Survey in the Experimental Group in Grand Rapids . . . . . 41 3.2 Responses From Supervising Teacher's Survey in the Control Group in Benton Harbor . . . . . . .‘ 41 3.3 Responses From Supervisin Teacher's Survey in the Control Group in Batt e Creek . . . . . . . . 42 3.4 Summary of the First Three Choices on the Ele- mentary Principal's Questionnaire Receiving . the Most Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3.5 Summary of the First Three Choices on the First Year Teacher's Questionnaire Receiving the Most Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 3.6 Summary of the First Three Choices on the Ele- mentary Principal's Questionnaire and First Year Teacher's Questionnaire Receiving the MOBtResponses......o.ooo.o.... 47 3.7 Summary of the First Three Choices on the Ele- mentary Principal's Questionnaire for the Addi- tional Responses... eeeeeee 0 see see‘8 3.8 Summary of the First Three Choices on the First Year Teacher's Questionnaire for the Addi- tional Responses e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e ‘9 4.1 F Ratio for Multivariate Tests of the Difference Between Experimental and Control Student Teacher Groups on All Sixteen Evaluation Pre-Test Scores for Both the University Coordinator and Super- V1lingTBQCherRat1-393eoee oeeeeeeeee7o 4.2 Analysis of Variance Tables for Differences Between the Experimental and Control Groups for Each Question on the Pre-Test Evaluation . . . . . 72-75 4.3 F Ratio for Multivariate Tests of the Difference Between Experimental and Control Groups on All Sixteen Evaluation Post-Test Scores for Both the University Coordinator and Supervising , Teacher Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 76 vi 4.13 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 44.4 .Analysis of Variance Tables for Differences Between the Experimental and Control Groups for Each Question on the Post-Test Evaluation . . . .78-81 Means and Pooled Standard Deviations on Pre- Test by University Coordinators . . . . . . . . . 83 .Means and Pooled Standard Deviations on Pre- Test by Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . 84 .Means and Pooled Standard Deviations on Post- Test by University Coordinators . . . . . . . . 85-86 Means and Pooled Standard Deviations on Post- Test by Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . 87-88 Average Gain on Each Question.in Evaluation Grand Rapids 0 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 90-91 Average Gain on Each Question in Evaluation Benton Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93-94 Comparison of Gain Scores Between Grand Rapids and Benton Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96-97 Student Teacher Scores on Summed Total of the Pre-and Post-Tests Grand Rapids . . . . . . . . 99 Experimental Group Average Gain, Number of Minutes for Follow-up Activities, Number of Student Teachers Advised by a Supervising Teacher, Course in Supervision of Student TeaChing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 100 Benton Harbor Student Teacher Scores on Summed Total of the Pre and Post-Tests . . . . . . . . . 104 Battle Creek Student Teacher Scores on Summed Tetal Of the POSt-TeSt e e e e e e e e e e e e e 105 University Coordinators' Grade Means and Stand- ard Deviations for Question 5 and the Total Instrument Post-Test Scores . . . . . . . . . . 107 Analysis of Variance Tests for Differences Between Grade Levels on Question 5 and the Total Instru- ment-University Coordinator . . . . . . . . . . 107 Supervising Teachers' Grade Means and Standard Deviation for Question 5 and Total Instrument Poet-Te3t Scores e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 108 vii 4.24 4.26 4.27 LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Table Page 4.19 Analysis of Variance Tests for Differences Between Grade Levels on Question 5 and the Total Instrument - Supervising Teachers . . . . 108 4.20 Group Means and Standard Deviations on the Total Summed Evaluation Score for Availability of Supplementary Materials in Schools . . . . . . . 109 4.21 Analysis of Variance Test for Showing the Effect of Available Supplementary Materials in Schools on the Total Summed Evaluation Test . . . . . . 109 4.22 Groups Means and Standard Deviations on the Total Summed Evaluation Score for Degrees Earned by Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . 110 4.23 Analysis of Variance Test for Differences on Total Summed Evaluation Score for Degree of Education Achieved by Supervising Teachers . . . 110 4.24 Group Means and Standard Deviations on Total Summed Evaluations Score for Course Taken by Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 4.25 Analysis of Variance Test for Differences on Total Evaluation Between Means of Groups Who Had a Supervisor with Course Work and Those Who Had NOt I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 111 4.26 Group Means and Standard Deviations on Total Summed Evaluation Score Indicating Supervising Teacher's Perception of the Role of Student TeaCher O O O O I 0 O O U 0 O O O O O O O I O O 112 4.27 Analysis of Variance Test for Differences on Total Summed Evaluation Score Based on the 'Responses to the Perception of Student Teacher's R013 question 0 I O O I O O O O I O O O O O O I 112 viii APPENDICES Page Questionnaire Sent to Elementary Principals . . 133 Questionnaire Sent to First Year Teachers . . . 134 Supervising Teacher Survey . . . . . . . . . . 135-136 . Student Teacher Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . 137-138 U1 .5 U N H e . Pre-Test Observation of Experimental Group of Student Teachers - Supervising Teacher . . . . 139-141 6. Pre-Test Observation of Experimental Group of Student Teachers - University Coordinator . 142-144 7. Post-Test Observation of Experimental Group of Student Teachers - Supervising Teacher . . 145-147 8. Post-Test Observation of Experimental Group of Student Teachers - University Coordinator.. 148-150 9. Teaching Model for In-Service Sessions with superViSing TeaChers e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 151-154 10. Objectives of the Teaching Model . . . . . . . 155 11. Summary of Suggestions Proposed at First In-SerVice 86881011 0 e e e e e e e . g g . . . 156-158 12. Record for Experimental Group of Supervising Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 ix In this La: to be 5:. :e.‘.:‘.eated l: o.- .‘R .. we signif ::.e condition 933951 under terns used t3: ::~~: , ~5~ph£3¢1 Of tn 5.9re ‘. " nary a.) .at; CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In this introductory chapter a statement of the prob- lhmn to be studied together with its purpose and scope are delineated in the general and specific statements given. Theelimitations which can be expected are enumerated. The :hnportance of undertaking a project of this nature appears in.the significance of the problem. What is assumed about the conditions relative to the setting of the study is re- ported under the assumptions of the study. The principal terms used throughout the study are defined in the last section of the chapter. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Among his numerous re3ponsibilities, the teacher educa- tor must seek better ways of preparing prospective teachers. In the preparation prOgram, the success of the experience designated as student teaching has not been adequately studied. It is necessary to investigate varied alternatives as means of improving the performance of student teachers. The persons in higher education institutions and those in elementary and secondary schools who are responsible for edu- cating teachers should jointly assume the task for improving student teaching behavior. This study, which is based on such cooperation, sought to investigate one method of working 1 through the :t‘aleht tea: In 0rd :ified an a. first year established area for the During 33! use vi t} ~~~~~ ”a... TEES i". a spent and tr tudEnt tEa transmit the t8 lie diSCr Study Could are no Wil through the supervising teacher in an effort to influence student teacher behavior. In order to study this problem the first phase iden- tified an area of weakness in teacher education programs through questionnaires sent to elementary principals and first year teachers. The results of the questionnaires established providing for individual differences as the area for the study. During the second phase a teaching model was devised for use with the supervising teachers in the experimental group. These teachers then attended in-service sessions in how to provide for individual differences and in turn worked with their student teachers to help them improve in this area. It was the teaching model used with the supervising teachers during the in-service sessions which provided them thelneans for improving the performance of their student teachers. There was no prescribed pro- cedure for these follow-up activities but the super- vising teachers were asked to keep a record of the time spent and the type of the activity engaged in with the student teachers. How the supervising teacher chose to transmit the content of the in-service sessions was left to the discretion of the supervising teacher. Such a study could not be undertaken if the supervising teachers ‘were not willing to assume the partnership role necessitat- ed by the design of the study. Cooperation between supervising If thi teachers to ers proved :ated for u -r_; ~ ...is would, :izer unive would be us The gap 'e-Ching be‘ 1‘9 l"'Q‘L’liir‘ic supervising teacher and researcher was essential. If this method of working through and with supervising teachers to improve the teaching behavior of student teach- ers proved successful, the teaching model could be repli- cated for use with other groups of supervising teachers. This would, of course, be subject to the limitations of other universities, school districts, and areas where it would be used. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY GENERAL STATEMENT The general purpose of this study is to work through and with supervising teachers in an effort to improve the teaching behavior of the student teachers with whom they are working. How much difference, if any, was observable in the one group of student teachers in their ability to provide for individual differences if supervising teachers had attended in-service sessions in providing for individ- ual differences as contrasted with two control groups whose supervising teachers had not attended such in-service ses- sions, is the basis for this study. The test of this procedure in working through and with supervising teachers is the crux of this study. SPECIFIC STATEMENT It was the specific purpose of this thesis to make :czparisons a? :arzine how t 1:. their clas teachers whcs me sessions 2. t‘ rn were area were cc: teachers who i: such sess The fol vising teac} 35353'9 Stud. (2) T 3‘ individ J.Eir Super comparisons among three groups of student teachers to de- termine how they provide for the individual differences in their classes. In the experimental group the student teachers whose supervising teachers had attended in-ser- vice sessions in providing for individual differences and in turn were to work with their student teachers in this area were compared with two control groups of student teachers whose supervising teachers had not participated in such sessions. The following hypotheses were used to develop this study: (1) That the strategy of working through the super- vising teachers to aid student teachers does significantly change student teacher behavior. (2) That the ability of student teachers to provide for individual differences can be increased by giving their supervising teachers special assistance in this area. (3) That the university coordinator and supervising teacher using the same evaluative device for measuring the student teacher's provision for individual differences in a class would show similar results. (4) That the strategy used for instructing super— vising teachers to individualize instruction would be a beneficial one. The data from the study will also convey other infor- mation including: 1. The difference in the provision for individual differences by student teachers at various grade levels. were availa 3. E): e:, whether the superv: :2Le of st‘ J; '10 to ,_ . kdl’d p C (2) 2. A comparison of the student teacher's use of vary- ing materials with whether or not.supplementary materials were available in the school. 3. Examination of degree earned by supervising teach- er, whether Or not the supervising teacher took a course in the supervision Of student teachers, how he viewed the- role of student teacher, and the number of student teachers ' he had. 4. A comparison of the student teacher's actual be- havior in providing for individual differences with students' individual needs. 5. A comparison of the supervising teacher's attitude toward providing for individual differences with the stu- dent teacher's success in this area. It is assumed that the study will demonstrate that both the university coordinator and supervising teacher can per- ceive the varying degrees of providing for individual dif- ferences using a percentage scale during the classroom ob- servation of a student teacher. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY The study raised questions as to the mechanics for providing the in-service sessions with supervising teachers: (1) Are supervising teachers permitted to leave their classrooms to attend in-service sessions? (2) If so, are student teachers allowed to serve as substitutes or is it necessary for the school district to Lure substitu (3) Are attend or nOt :.;'.'ersity cc {4) Ca: 5:12:01 distri It has i 1.3 05 the sci were assignec 35 the study ~ Providing It woul; ‘vaticn } . USS 25:1" Le the S“:A hire substitutes? (3) Are supervising teachers given the choice to attend or not to attend in-servicé sessions called by the university coordinator? (4) Can all supervising teachers be absent from the school district or building at the same time? ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY ‘It has been assumed that any differences in the make- up Of the school populations where the student teachers ‘were assigned did not influence the study. The emphasis of the study was upon the performance of student teachers in providing for individual differences in the classroom. It would be impossible to establish groups of student teachers with identical backgrounds, grade point averages, experiences with children, etc. Therefore the assumption is made that the student teachers involved in the study ‘were typical groups of student teachers: students from the same university, at the same level in their pre-service education, having fulfilled pre-student teaching experiences and with similar majors. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM Quality supervision of student teaching emerges from a superior education program which provides for continuous growth and improvement. By quality supervision is meant the utilization of personal and professional attributes and techniques on the part of the supervising teacher which en- hance the optimal acquisition of teaching competency by the student teacher. This study is one step in this direction. “(ten the Sui“?I :ared works wi ‘ .. ' n- Elation Prw the supervisi :ency of tea: The long and resngp‘si'I tiday by the lore soPhist: CCT.S€qUent 1] Sims. When the supervising teacher*who is professionally pre- pared works with Student teachers in his classroom, he can be a vital resource in the development of a teacher education program. He can represent the single most in- fluential force in shaping new teachers'professional be- havior. The value of this professional worker has not yet been fully realized nor has he been fully used in the total program of teacher education. This study involves the supervising teacher in an effort to raise one compe— tency of teacher preparation to a higher level of achieve- ment. The long-standing issue of fragmentation of authority and responsibility within teacher education is compounded today by the greater demands placed on teachers, requiring :more sophisticated professional preparation, and by the consequent inorease in resources needed for preparation pro- grams. The necessary combining of theory and prac- tice in teacher education underscores the need for close and continuing cooperation among schools, colleges and universities preparing teachers, and state departments of education, based upon appropriate definitions of roles and responsibilities of each. However, the long neglect of meaningful school involvement has resulted in a current movement toward total assumption of professional preparation respon- sibilities by school systems.1 This study, although not delineating roles of authority, does tend to draw the schools into this partnership with 1The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Edu- cation, Crises in Teacher'Education: A Dynamic'Respgnse to AACTE's Future Role (Washington, D.C.: The American Assoc- iation of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1971), p. 4. riversities ' mite role in teacher. But program another, of a so; neers. provide training possible dental I far bet1 and grov All who deal however, be a If for tea: 0f meet. these t. abOut t4 the tecl ing itSl into in. teacher 0f teacj m0us' a by the A the mat at the almost he majority in teachEr e “We; ““3 par ticu universities by giving the supervising teacher a defi- nite role in imparting special knowledge to the student teacher. But there is no conclusive evidence that any program of teacher training is superior to another, just as there is no conclusive evidence of a superior way to train physicians or engi- neers. So it is the better part of wisdom to provide explicit programs, carefully designed training materials, and to rely as little as possible upon haphazard instruction and inci- dental learning. Systematic instruction is a far better basis for subsequent self-correction and growth in skills. All who deal with students and supervising teachers must, however, be aware that: If teacher education is to meet the demand for teachers of professional quality, capable of meeting the challenge of an open society in these times, it must be based upon what is known about teaching behavior and learning and about the techniques and procedures of teacher train- ing itself. The task of building this knowledge into instructional materials, and training the teacher educator to use them, is at the heart of teacher education today. This task is enor- mous, and the burden of coping with it increased by the fact that the personnel that must prepare the materials and train itself to use them.must at the same time carry on a program to supply almost 200,000 new teachers per year. The majority of college and university personnel involved in teacher education are well aware of this challenge. This particular study involves the classroom teacher to a great degree in the partnership role of teacher educa- tion. In this partnership arrangement it is the school 23.0. Smith, Teachers for the Real World (Washington, D.C.: The American’AssocIatIOn of CoIIege for Teacher Education, 1968), p. 80. 3Ibid., 172-173. it? .53 .9 new \a 9v system which provides training opportunities while the colleges and universities are responsible for additional training and academic preparation. Each component of the total process does play an important role in the total picture of teacher education. In the final analysis, the student teacher's development is determined by the quality of the student teaching experience which in no small part is due to the skills and attitudes of the supervising teacher. Improving the skill or increasing the ability of the supervising teacher through the use of the instruc- tional model is a goal of this study. In a U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Bulletin, is stated: At the present time we have various plans for dif- ferent teacher education programs, but relatively few opportunities to develop instructional mate- rials which have a proven capability for helping a trainee learn and perform a particular teach- ing skill.4 An analysis of the data for the study will indicate the success of the use of the teaching model with super- vising teachers in their follow-up work with their student teachers. In the final analysis teaching effectiveness must be translated into behavior. In Order to modify teaching behavior of student teachers it is necessary to modify the teaching behavior of supervising teachers. 4U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, HOW Teachers Make a Difference,(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing office. I571). P- 103- . ,‘.; . -‘PH ' s-I' vs ha”. 0 III-vote .. VII-Ida a- c s M' 3- e ‘_"‘,Vvly Ad" 10 DEFINITION OF TERMS Throughout this study the use of the following terms imply the meaning as given. COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY SUPERVISOR OR COORDINATOR A staff member of the college or university who regularly visits or Observes student teachers; the college supervisor usually has additional responsibility for on-campus seminar or college courses. ‘ IN-SERVICE TEACHER EDUCATION Activities on the part of employed teachers that contribute to their professional growth and quali- fications, for example, travel, professional read- ing, participation in supervisory and curriculum development programs, attendance at summer-session courses, etc. INDIVIDUALIZED INSTRUCTION Teaching undertaken in a manner that provides for each individual within a classroom. Considera- tion is given to the individual differences of the pupils insofar as emotional, social, physi- cal, mental and moral growth are concerned. 5Carter V. Good, Editor, Dictionary of Education, (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959?, p. 240. 51bid., p. 550. 7Edward W. Smith, Stanley W. Krause, Jr., and Mark .M. Atkinson, The EducatOr's Encyclopedia, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), p. 256. ._,.—p- I .n! .,n --\' r.- s._.as—o« 9—7] ‘Qc-qfi‘ \ . Heads-o '6 ,:’h A “MMD ‘ elm 11 SUPERVISING OR COOPERATING TEACHER The teacher to whom a student teacher is assigned is responsible for guiding and supervising his learning experiences as well as his initial teaching experiences. STUDENT TEACHING That segment of a teacher's pre-service training which provides the beginner with classroom teach- ing experiences under the close supervision of an experienced teacher. SUMMARY This chapter has defined the purpose and scope of the study and its importance fOr educational purposes. Also included were assumptions made by the writer regard- ing the project, the limitations and the definition of terms used. 8Ibid., p. 869. 9Kevin Ryan, "Student Teaching", The Teacher's Hand- 2225, ed. Dwight W. Allen and Eli Seifman,(Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company, 1971), p. 16. . n. -—l.._.—- «J vaa.uc luau. FR ey.e .A * EV _ CHAPTER II REPORT OF RELATED RESEARCH This study did not have its conception in any pre- vious research findings and thus the related research is rather limited. Only one study was found to have similar implications, but several related areas of research whichare pertinent to the study are reported here. These areas include the importance of student teaching, the vital role of the supervising teacher, the partnership approach to teacher education, responsibilities of teacher preparing institutions, in-service sessions for supervising teachers, importance of classroom observations, teacher evaluation by elementary principals, and providing for individual differences. RELATED RESEARCH The report of a study conducted by Jay A. Monson and Aldon M. Beeb at the Westfield Public Schools, New Jersey, in conjunction with the Tri-University Project in Elemen- tary Education at New York University 1968-69 has some areas of similarity with the study being reported. The (college supervisors, serving as consultants, were respon- sible for in—service training seminars with supervising 12 1' A a. - ‘4‘“.-— u'vJV“ III . nlyas'eO U.V I O h C NAIQ~~ kuuh as f: 13 teachers for the purpose Of identifying and vauiring supervisory skills. The supervising teacher, in this pilot program, was given major responsibility for guiding the professional growth of the student teacher.10 The means of utilizing the supervising teachers and providing in-service sessions for them are similar to those conducted in this study. The conclusions of the pilot study in New Jersey were as follows: (a) Supervising teachers can satisfactorily assume major responsibility in student teacher supervi- sion provided they receive training for such. (b) College supervisors, supervising teachers, and stu- dent teachers all favor such a supervisory program and the results obtained therefrom. (c) College supervisors can make better utilization of their professional time and training by conducting in- service training sessions for supervising teachers rather than by directly supervising student teach- ers in classroom situations. (d) By using analy- sis systems developed to study teaching, supervis- ing teachers can better provide analytical super- vision for student teachers, and also can improve their own classroom instruction. (e) (An on-site in-service training program provides for an immediate opportunity to try theoretical ideas in a real situation. (f) A college and local school district program of student teacher supervision, cooperatively planned and oriented, results in improved relationships between these two groups and enhances the overall student teaching program. 10Jay A. Monson and Aldon M. Beeb, "New Roles for the SuPervisor of Student Teaching," Educational LeadershipL XXVII (October, 1970), 44-47. llIbid., p. 47. 14 THE IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT TEACHING It is for the following reason that teacher preparing institutions have long considered teacher education their primary challenge. Teacher education - both pre-service and in-service - has long been considered a necessary ingredient in any formula that effectively alters the con- ventional method of educating children. That portion of the pre-service teacher education called student teaching which provides practical teaching exper- ience under the close supervision of an experienced teach- er is perhaps more significant today than at any other time since the certification of teachers became accepted prac- tice. It is the most common element of teacher education and is considered by many to be the most valuable of the pre-service professional courses. In the early years following the creation of the North Central Association for Colleges and Secondary Schools in 1896, this association recommended that teachers should have some professional study including practice teaching in addition to academic course work. In 1956 another aCcrediting agency, the National Council for the Accredita- tion of Teacher Education was formed. The approval of these accrediting agencies has been sought by teacher 12A Newsletter of the Conference for Educational DeveIOpment and Research, D & R Report,(Denver, Colorado 1972) Volume 1, No. 3, p. l. all. .15).. .. is. s. I. I... , 15 preparing institutions. Therefore, the standards which .have been established by these agencies for student teach- ing have exerted considerable influence upon student teach- ing programs. As a result, the recent trends in student teaching have been toward: An.almost universal acceptance of this part of teacher education: allowing the student teaching to be the center of the professional core; full time student teaching: more off-campus student teaching; the awarding of more credit hours for student teaching: longer student teaching assign- ments: the use of higher standards in student teaching; the provision of more and higher qual- ity supervision: and increased research activi- ties in student teaching.13 The importance of student teaching is stressed in the Association of Student Teaching Bulletin No. 1. Student teaching is almost universally accepted as the most dynamic phase of teacher education. While serious questions are being raised in many quarters about the effectiveness of student ' teaching as it is being practiced today, those responsible for the preparation of teachers see in the student teaching process a most valuable resource for helping the prosgactive teacher become a student of teaching. With the establishment of the fact that student teaching is an essential ingredient of any program.of teacher education it behooves the teacher preparing insti- tutions to guarantee such an experience. Laboratory ex- Periences should be provided which enable the student to -_ , 13James A. Johnson, A Brief Histor Iof‘Student Teach- §§%o (DeKalb, Illinois: Creat ve E ucat onal Mater ale, 8) I pe 197. l4Pauline Hilliard and Charles L. Durrance, Guidin‘ Student Teachin ‘Ex eriences, (Washington, D.c;: Assoc13_ tion or Stu ent Teac ng, 968), p. 1. l6 broaden and deepen his understanding of principles and apply them to the practical problems of teaching. Guiding student teaching experiences is a highly complex task for which no simple answers and certainly no prescriptive answers can be given. Admittedly, the quality of the student teaching experience depends upon numerous variables. Many of such variables can be control- led only by the cooperating college and its cooper- ating student teaching centers within the frame of reference of the college's philosophy of teacher education. Nevertheless, an analysis of the litera- ture devoted to student teaching and of the shared perceptions of persons responsible for designing effective programs of teacher education does tend to identify a core of questions of continuing con- cern to college supervisors and to administrators and supervising teachers in the student teaching centers. There is evidence that the measure of success attained in guiding the student teaching experience is directly related to the ways in which these questions are resolved.15 THE VITAL ROLE OF THE SUPERVISING TEACHER The vital position of the supervising teacher is stressed by Marvin A. Henry and W. wayne Beasley. There is no other sequence of study in teacher preparation which has a more profound impact upon a college student than the experience of student teaching. It is almost universally advocated by critics and friends of education salike as a necessary process for teacher certi- fication and its practice is virtually unques- tioned. One authority has stated that a student undergoes greater personality change during his student teaching experience than at any other equivalent period of time in his life. In a few short weeks he moves from college student to beginning teacher acquiring a whole new set of skills, attitudes, and responsibilities. This lslbid. l7 drama of change and development does not unfold on the college campus but takes place in our elementary and secondary schools under the pri- mary direction of a public school teacher. The ‘basic action is realized in the classroom and the supervising Eeacher is the key to the develop- mental process. This study acknowledges the key role of the supervising teacher in the student teaching experience. In this study the supervising teacher was asked to teach the content of the teaching model to the student teacher. This is not a new role for the supervising teacher since it is during the student teaching experience that the supervising teacher becomes actively involved in the education of the student teacher. In the Association for Student Teaching Bulletin, No. 28 it is stated: The teaching of the student teacher occurs pri- marily in the individualized teaching situation of the conference. It is during the conference between the student teacher and his supervisor that there is an opportunity to talk about the . central concern of the student of teaching-- the nature of teaching itselfll7 Considering that the success of this study was depen- dent upon the supervising teachers, the report of the study conducted by Susan A. Gregory was useful. As background information on the teachers taking part in this study 16Marvin A. Henry and W. Wayne Beasley, Supervising Student Teachers the Professional Way, (Terre Haute, Indiana: Sycamore Press, l97_), p. vii. l7Aldon M. Beeb, Arlene F. Low, and Floyd T. Waterman, Supervisory Conference as Individualized Teachin ,_ (Washington, D.C.: Association for Student Teachingpl969), p. 9. 18 the survey asked whether or not they had taken a course in the supervision of student teachers. Gregory found that seven percent of the institutions responding to her survey required a course in supervision.18 In 1966 the Associa- tion for Student Teaching recommended that supervising teachers be certified. I V? Of the eighty institutions responding to Gregory's questionnaire on recognizing and providing for individual differences as a criterion for supervising teachers the {v.- rank order of importance in the responses were as follows We with six not responding to the question: Important Criterion Non-important Criterion (l) (2) (3) (4) 48 18 3 5 Recognizing and providing for individual dif- ferences reflects upon a democratically run classroom. It seems that the two would work together by recognizing individual differsnces as an integral part of such a classroom.1 The influence of the supervising teacher was crucial to the study being reported here. Research bears out this fact. Of the human components of the student teaching experience, a survey of the research has revealed that the cooperating teacher is the single most . potent figure in affecting the practical experience of the prospective teacher. Dr. Leslie emphasized that when efforts were made to maxi- mize the effectiveness of cooperating teachers they were often directed at the existing compatibility between them lgIbid., p. 181. 20Larry L. Leslie,_"Matching Student Teachers with Cooperating Teachers: A Fruitful Effort?”, The Journal of Teacher Education,XxII (Fall, l97l),303. ‘ - i... .._,.,. I. and thei am} Hal; in; stud gatibil: mich S‘ the stu: 't'iSng ‘l‘n ‘ ‘Vsnd t St‘l’i n 6- “L student THE T1". College Student r eports tiOn if remrtg 2: dent Te of Teac \ 23 and Cha (Waship TeaCher‘ 1968) I l9 and their student teachers. He cited studies by Sorenson and Halpert, Curtis and Andrews, Lindsey and Monahan link- ing student teacher success with supervising teacher com- patibility. Leslie also cited studies by Price and Stolfer which stressed the impact of the cooperating teacher upon the student teacher.21 James H. Young reported a study investigating a change in authoritarianism in elementary student teachers. The study attempted to investigate the relationships between super- vising teachers and student teachers in this regard. Itflwas found that student teachers did change significantly during student teaching. Many factors accounted for the change in student teacher behavior including the supervising teacher.22 THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO TEACHER EDUCATION The joint publication by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the Association for Student Teaching entitled Partnership in Teacher Education reports on an accelerating movement toward more collabora- tion in teacher education during the laboratory phase. It reports on some already established cooperative ventures.23 211bid., pp.303-308. 22James H. Young "Authoritarianism in Elementary Stu- dent Teachers and Their Supervising Teachers," The Journal Of Teacher Education, XXII (Spring, 1971), 70-71: 23E. Brooks Smith, Hans C. Olsen, Patrick J. Johnson, and Chandler Barbour (ed.) Partnership in Teacher Education, w'ashington, D.C.: The American.Association of Colleges for leacher Education,l968 and Association for Student Teaching, -5’68), p.v. The mstitut lawing 5 pl! fo fe ed Th Spellir 'ct yet 'BUtI RC delinea IN-! T} teache: I Ann Gri 20 The partnership role of supervising teachers and institutions of higher learning is reiterated in the fol- V lowing statement : Student teaching is a joint responsibility of public schools and academic and professional divisions of teacher education institutions. Teachers cannot be educated in a vacuum nor can they be educated in isolation from the classroom. The total responsibility for the preparation of high quality teachers is shared by those who em- ploy them as well as those who provide for their formal education, including academic and pro- fessional departments of institutions of higher 24 education. Knowledge and method go hand in hand. This study emphasizes the partnership role without spelling out the responsibilities simply because it has not yet been done satisfactorily. Paul H. Masover stated: "But, no one has yet provided appropriate answers that delineate clearly the partnership role. "25 IN-SERVICE SESSIONS FOR SUPERVISING TEACHERS The importance of in-service sessions for supervising teachers was stressed by William A. Bennie and Patricia Ann Graham. For Teacher Education, (Atlant c City: International Reading R 53: Han—“Fan ‘1‘5' C 80 a 1971): P. 19 ‘ It is common knowledge that among the most per- sistent problems in the student teaching field is the lack of qualified supervising teachers. The literature concerned with student teaching supervision is replete with pleas for colleges to provide in-service education to classroom teachers in order that they might become better 24Hilliard and Durrance, op. cit., p. 15. 2 5Pau1 H. Masover, An' Im ' r’a‘t'ive: A? National- Policy- - e olleges for Teacher Education, April . l.“"~:fi"& sup! Harald E servic The way for enl and se] One mea: a 2311-: classw as bein A; n Such Ou ab 'QE Th itprove Witter} St' ca; 21 supervisors.26 Harold E. Turner concurs with the need fOr improved in- service training for supervising teachers. The educator is constantly trying to find a better way to reach individual students and to provide for their needs in a relevant fashion. A more enlightened understanding of the training process and the steps involved inzthe teaching act it- f; self is very much needed. i? One means of in-service training for teachers is the use of - a mini-course whereby the teacher teaches himself those classroom skills and approaches identified by researchers as being most effective. Wood reported on the effectiveness of such in-service. Our research indicated that the mini-course brings about greater changes in specified teaching skills than does any approach that has been reported in the professional literature. Evidence to date indicates that the improvements becomezg perma- nent part of the teacher's repertoire. This reference gives emphasis to the importance of in- service training. I The strategy of teaching teachers should result in improved teacher education programs. Edward L. Ruman has Written: Student teaching programs of desirable quality cannot be achieved unless we assist those who M 25William A. Bennie and Patricia Ann Graham, "In- Service Education of the Supervising Teacher," Contemporary Education, XLII (May, 1971), 295. 27Harold E. Turner, "A Challenge for SuperviSors," Clearing House, XLV (October, 1970), 116. . g§Walter W005: "This Mini Seems Here to StaY11'American Quotation, VII (December, 1971), 15. ——-—-—- ‘79. “TE 5 t] TeaChe: I iflu‘ha+. ug‘y .‘ 22 supervise student teachers to prepare them- selves for this unique responsibility. Effective in-service education programs will, however, focus upon providing opportu- nities for individuals to modify perceptions of themselves in relation to their responsi- bility in teacher education.2 One objective of the teaching model for the in-service sessions with the supervising teachers was the intended change in the behavior of the participants. To change another person's behavior, it is necessary somehow to modify his beliefs (and) perceptions. When he sees things differently,. he will behave differently.30 RESPONSIBILITIES OF TEACHER PREPARING INSTITUTIONS Some research studies have spelled out responsibilities for teacher preparing institutions such as David E. Purpel's study on ”Student Teaching" in which he states: Teacher training institutions must face up to the responsibilities of finding and training qualified supervisors and putting the necessary resources at their disposal; in a word they must professionalize super- vision. The study by Albert H. Yee reports that the attitudes of student teachers toward young people generally reflect the 29Ruman, Edward L., ”In-Service Education of Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors,"'Partnershiprin'Teacher Education, ed. Smith and others (Washington, D.C.:iThe Ameri- can Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and Associa- tion for Student Teaching):1968, 272. 3°Ibid. 31David E. Purpel, "Student Teaching", The Journal QfipTeacher Education, XVIII, no. 1,.(Spring,,I§67S,25-23. "EDITH mesa re Tee to tea te. 23 predominant influence of their cooperating teachers. With these results the author sm ated that: Teacher educators should continue their efforts to improve the Conditions under which student teachers age influenced by their cooperating teachers. The challenge to improve teacher preparation as postu- lated by Ronald Marso is one shared by both friends and foes of education. The need for adequate teacher preparation becomes increasingly pressing as school systems grow larger and more complex,_social problems more acute, and knowledge continues to explode. Newly prepared teachers, especially in urban'schools,. must be prepared to cope with students of di- verse social backgrounds and values, and yet teach more knowledge effectively while operating within an extremely complex and often frustrating organizational structure. Preparing teachers to meet these demands is and will continue to be a most challenging task for the laboratory ex- perience programs of the universities.3 This study was an attempt to alleviate or lessen one area of weakness in teacher preparation programs. A study explaining another way of meeting deficiencies in teacher education programs was reported by James V. Mitchell, Elizabeth 2. Howard and Toni E. Santmire. This particular program was designed to fOIIOW'the student teaching experience. While the student teacher's experiences were 32Albert H. Yee, ”Do Cooperating Teachers Influence the Attitudes of Student Teachers?" Journal of Educational Psycholggy, LX (August, 1969), 331. 33Ronald M. Marso, "Project Interaction: A Pilot Study in a Phase of Teacher Preparation,” The Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Summer, 1971), 194. still :4 to eval' am act 4: '5 went L teacnez I; A. ~‘ 5:833 . an: Sax In tie to ide: T 31' E. 1Wiram at 24 still recent and vivid it provided him with the opportunity to evaluate himself and his teaching. In a course following the student teaching experience, the student teacher assumed responsibility and was given the opportunity to plan his own activities and method of improvement. This procedure identified a strong student need at a critical point in the 1. 7.7.14. '1‘ teacher education sequence.34 a If student teachers are capable of analyzing their 4.-.."- strengths and weaknesses as reported by Mitchell, Howard, V? and Santmire so should first-year teachers be able to do this. In the study being reported first-year teachers were asked to identify areas of weakness in teacher education programs. THE IMPORTANCE OF CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS Classroom observations of the student teachers by the university coordinator and supervising teacher were impor- tant to this study by providing necessary data. Howsam Stressed this: In education the classroom is the laboratory. Whatever the interest of the investigator -— be it students, teachers, administrators, the physical plant, the teacher -- learning process or any combination of these -- what goes on in the classroom and the results of the process constitute the most fundamental data. 5 34James V. Mitchell, Jr., Elizabeth Z. Howard, and Toni E. Santmire, "A Terminal Individualized Instruction Program for Prospective Elementary Teachers,T‘ThefJournalv 0f Teacher Education, XX (Fall, 1970), 362-365. 35Robert B. Howsam, New Desi ns for Research in Teach- er Competencx (San Francisco: CaIifornIa Teachers Associa- tion. 1960 , p, 10. Mec observe: It ef: te; tion sy 25 Medley and Mitzel both asserted the role of the observer: It is widely believed that a trained super- visor or expert of some type can assess the effectiveness of a teacher by watching him teach. Within the past decade a number of classroom observa- tion systems have become available to teacher educators. Although much of the early developmental work in affective systems was done by H.H. Anderson and John Withall, the system developed by Ned Flanders has become the best known and most widely used of all observation systems. The Flanders system utilizing only ten categories, has been modified and expanded by other re- searchers. The Verbal Interaction Category System (VICS) developed by Edmund Amidon and Elizabeth Hunter is basically the Flanders ' system expanded to provide more detailed infor- mation. Affective systems have been developed by Robert L. Spaulding, Marie Hughes, and others. Cognitive observation systems developed by Arno A. Bellack, B.O. Smith, and M.O. Muex are among the best known. Multi-dimension- a1 systems have been developed by Robert L. Spaulding, Fred K. Honigman, Medley and Mitzel, David G. Ryans, and Psenshaw and Cyphert. A common characteristic of all classroom observation systems, whether affective, cogni- tive or multi-dimensional, is that they require an observer who employs a systematic method of recording teacher and student behaviors.37 36Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel, ”Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation", Handbook W: ed- N-L. Gage (Chicag_—'To: Ran MCNQ Y a Company, 63), p. 249. . 37J.T. Sandefur and Alex A. Bressler "Classroom Obser- Vation Systems in Preparing School Personnel", Interaction~ éfléififiifi ATE Research Bulletin No. 10, Associat on o :eac er Educators and ERIC Clearing House on Teacher Educa- lon. Washington, D.C. (November. 1971). p- 32- S‘nce no availa teacher's prom necessary to de Classroom vehicle f: a measure: able to t} In addition, A major c‘: to develo; as to wha‘ behavior a observati: qualify t1 TEACHER rv‘ Principal evaluations of AVailable can be re SUPErvisc ‘0 or abc This oPinion j 9‘3 'head is usual tea1Cher ministra e bESt Y teas 26 Since no available instrument could measure the student teacher's provision for individual differences it was necessary to devise an appropriate instrument. Classroom observation systems provide the vehicle for measurement of teaching behavior - a measurement which has not long been avail- able to the teaching profession.38 In addition, A.major challenge of the next decade will be to develop more unanimity in the profession as to what constitutes effective teaching behavior and to develop the categories for observation systems which both quantify and qualify these behaviors.3 TEACHER EVALUATION BY ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS Principals, for the most part, are competent in their evaluations of teachers. Fattu reported: Available studies show that in general teachers can be reliably rated by administrators and supervisory parsonnel with a correlation of JO or above. This opinion is also shared by Brighton who reported: As 'head teacher' in the school, the principal is usually in the best position to conduct teacher evaluations for (a) he holds the ad- ministrative authority, and (b) he is often the best qualified member of the entire system by reason of training and experience. 331bid., p. 31. 39Ibid. . 40N.A. Fattu, ”Can Principals Evaluate Teachers?” The National'ElemehxaryiPrincipal, XLIII, No. 2,(November, l§3§) v u a _ 41Stayner F. Brighton, Increasin Your-Accurac :in Teacher Evaluation. (Englewoad CIiffs, New 3ersey: grentice- Ha I InC. ' 'po 20. 27 In the first phase of the study being reported here the elementary principals were asked to complete questionnaires identifying areas of weakness in teacher preparation as they saw them. PROVIDING FOR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES A centuries old idea in education is that of the in- dividualization of instruction. This was the content of the teaching model devised for use with the supervising teachers in the experimental group of the study. It was prepared from a variety of resources including the following: Lloyd K. Bishop, Individualizing'Educational Sgstems, Harper-E—Raw, PuBliShers, New—Tafk,‘ Richard W. Burns, New Approaghes to Behavioral Objectives,. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers,. Dubuque, Iowa, 1972. Belen Collantes Mills and Ralph Ainslee Mills,, Designing InstructiOnal’Stratggies~for—Young- Children, Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 1972. Virgil M. Howes,‘Individualization'of‘Instruc- tion - A Teaching Strategy, The MacMillan Co., New York, I970. Bryce B. Hudgins, The Instructional Process, Rand McNally & Company,‘Chicago,.I§71. Paul D. Plowman, Behavioral Objectives : Teacher Success Through Student Performance, Science Research Associates,_ChIcago, I971. Sixty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education - Individuagizing Instruction Part I Chicago, Illinois: The University of C - cago Press, 1962 , 28 There is much material written today expounding the importance of providing for individual differences in ele- mentary classrooms. It is one of the favorite concepts in American education. Likewise, it is consistent with the basic dream in America of helping each learner achieve his potentiality. The new instructional devices and.materials also further this concept. Such is the thinking expressed by Karoree Yamanoto,42 Postulating "New Goals for Individualization" Ronald Stodghill quoted John Childs. All deliberate education is a moral undertaking. That morality, it seems to me, is acted out when we deal with individualized instruction not only as a sound educational strategy, but also as a process by which this nation begins to feel the joy and strength implicit in its moral commit— 43 ment to respect the uniqueness of the individual. Albert F. Eiss reiterated the need for learning activ- ities and media to accomplish the objectives.44 Individualized instruction has no well defined boun- daries because each condition influences and is influenced by the other. This is the thinking expressed in a summary of individualized instruction by Patrick A. O'Donnel and 42Karoree Yamanoto, "Better Guidance For the Individ- ual”, Educational Leadership, XXIX (January, l972),319-322. 43Ronald Stodghill, ”New Goals for Individualization", Educational Leadership, XXIX (January, 1972), 295. 44Albert F. Eiss, "Individualized Learning", Science and Children, IX (April, 1962), 9-11. 29 Charles W. Lavaroni.45 Mildren McQueen also pointed out and described the many facets of "Individualized Instruction."45 One of these diagnosing the needs of students and doing something about them, is described by S. Samuel Shermis and John E. Bolen in ”Creating Change Agents via Student Teaching Experiences."47 An integral part of individualizing instruction has to do with the variety and availability of instructional re- sources. Arthur W. Combs has written: Teachers-in-training need to be surrounded with rich opportunities to see the kind of methods and materials other peOple have found useful. 8 The important role of the teacher in any study of in- dividual differences is very well defined by Harmon D. Burch and Robert C. Reardon.49 45Patrick A. O'Donnel and Charles W. Lavaroni, ”Ele- ments of Individualized Instruction", Education Digest, XXXVI (September, 1970), 17-19. 46Mildred McQueen, "Individualized InstructionT,‘Edu- cation Digest, XXXVI (April, 1971), 25-28. 47S. Samuel Shermis and John E. Bolen, "Creating Change Agents via Student Teaching Experiences", Peabody Journal of Education, XLVII (May, 1970), 338-41. 48Arthur W. Combs "The Personal Discovery of Ways to Teach”, Selected Readings for'the Introduction'to the Teach- in ProfessiOn, ed. Milton Muse (BerkéIey, California: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1970),.29. 49Harmon D. Burch and Robert C. Reardon, ”Individual Differences and Learning Efficiency: A Re-examination and a Re-emphasis,” Contemporary Education, XLI (January, 1970), 119-22 0 30 Alan H. Wheeler concurs with the above report in his study. The role of the teacher is basic in creating a learning environment which will recognize and respond to individual needs and differences.50 The teacher needs to have assistance in this all im- jportant task of individualizing instruction. Robert G. Scanlon and Mary V. Brown discuss this need in their report.51 An especially helpful resource in planning the teach- ing model was the report by Madeline Hunter. Individualized instruction is no one way of conducting education, nor any one special program. It is the process of custom- tailoring instruction so it fits a particular learner. An individualized program is not necessarily different for each learner, but must be appropriate for each. It is based on the premise that there is no one best way for all learners, but that there are best ways for each learner, which may be different from those for another learner. 2 SUMMARY In this chapter were reported the areas of re- lated research which gave meaning and importance to this 50Alan H. Wheeler, ”Creating a Climate for Individual- izing Instruction,Young'Children, XXVII (October, 1971), 12-16. 51Robert G. Scanlon and Mary V. Brown, “In-service Education for Individualizing Instruction, Educational- Technology, X (February, 1970), 62-64. 52Madeline Hunter, "Tailor Your Teaching to Individual- ized Instruction, Instructor, LXXIX (March,_l970), 53-54. L- Study by t is vital t dent teach supervisir :ooperatic a:.ieve ti“. atong s turj 31 study by their emphasis upon the groups whose cooperation is vital to providing successfully for education: the stu- dent teacher and his institution of higher learning: the Vsupervising teacher and his classroom and school. Such «cooperation is necessary if in-service sessions are to achieve the goal of providing for individual differences among students as investigated in this study. In th LII :ated to; data. The al study 1' lation use and how t1“ CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY In this chapter the hypotheses of the study are stated together with the design for collecting necessary data. The procedure followed in conducting this experiment- al study is explained along with a description of the popu- lation used, listing of the data, collecting instruments and how the statistical analyses will be applied to the data. STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES As a means of developing this study the following hypotheses were used: (1) That the strategy of working through the super- vising teachers to aid student teachers does significantly change student teacher behavior. (2) That the ability of student teachers to provide for individual differences can be increased by giving their supervising teachers special assistance in this area. (3) That the university coordinator and supervising teacher using the same evaluation device for measuring the student teacher's provision for individual differences in a class will show similar results. 32 :3." ’ " 5—] (4) vising teat “senef ici a 1 When q informatio: (l) ' iifference varying ma rials were (3) S‘QPeWisin :30}: a COL] haw he Vie ber of Stu 33 (4) That the strategy used for instructing super- vising teachers to individualize instruction would be a beneficial one. When gathering the data to test these hypotheses other information of importance was also obtained: (1) The difference in the provision for individual differences by student teachers at various grade levels. (2) A comparison of the student teacher's use of varying materials with whether or not supplementary mate- rials were available in the school. (3) Examination of the academic degree earned by supervising teacher, whether or not the supervising teacher took a course in the supervision of student teachers, how he viewed the role of the student teacher, and the num- ber of student teachers he had. (4) A comparison of the student teacher's actual be- havior in providing for individual differences with stu- dents' individual needs. (5) A comparison of the supervising teacher's atti- tude toward providing for individual differences with the student teacher's success in this area. The main problems raised in how to carry out the study centered around the mechanics for providing the in-service sessions with supervising teachers: (1) Are supervising teachers penmitted to leave their classrooms to attend in-service sessions? 34 (2) If so, are student teachers allowed to serve as _substitutes or is it necessary for the school district to hire substitutes? (3) Are supervising teachers given the choice to attend or not to attend in-service sessions called by the university coordinator? (4) Can allsupervising teachers be absent from the school district or building at the same time? PROCEDURE This particular study is basically an experimental study. Its design was nonrandomized control-group, pre- test - post-test. Pre-Test Treatment Post-Test Experimental Group T1 X T2 Control Group T1 T2 Control Group T2 The subjects in each group were not assigned at random. The preassembled groups of student teachers with their supervising teachers were selected as similar as avail- ability permitted. Pre-test means and standard deviations were then compared for similarity. The design of this study utilized the procedure of a pre- and post-test administered to an experimental group and a control group. A second control group did not have pre- testing but took only the post-test. The same evaluation instrument for the pre- and post-test was used by both the 35 university coordinators and supervising teachers. The treatment in the study given to the experimental group was in the form of a teaching model used with the supervising teachers during two in-service sessions. For the statistical analysis of the data comparing the effect of the treatment upon the groups, the analysis of variance and multivariate conclusions were employed. The data for the study were gathered by utilizing the following procedure: (1) Sent a questionnaire to all elementary principals in the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District seek- ing an identification of an area of weakness in teacher education programs as evidenced by their evaluation of new teachers. (2) Sent a questionnaire to all first year elementary teachers in the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School Dis- trict seeking an identification of an area of weakness in teacher education programs as evidenced by their short term of experience in the classroom. (3) Compiled the results of both questionnaires and selected the one area for the study which was providing for individual differences in the classroom. (4) Arranged for the experimental group of the study to be student teachers from the Michigan State University Teacher Education Center in Grand Rapids under the direc- tion of Dr. John Phillips. 36 (S) Arranged for the first control group taking both the pre- and post-tests to be student teachers from Michigan State University Teacher Education Center in Benton Harbor under the direction of Dr. Hugo David. (6) Arranged for the second control group taking just the postrtest to be student teachers from Michigan State Uni- versity Teacher Education Center in Battle Creek under the direction of Dr. John Cragun. (7) Prepared a teaching model in providing for individual differences in the classroom to be used with the super- vising teachers in the Grand Rapids Center. (8) Devised the evaluative instrument for the pre- and post- test observations by the university coordinators and super- vising teachers. (9) Devised the record sheet for the use of the supervising teachers in the Grand Rapids Center. (10) Prepared surveys for use by all the supervising teach— ers and student teachers involved in the study for the comparisons of group data. ‘ (11) Met with university coordinators and supervising teachers working on the study in each center when such a meeting could be arranged. (12) Presented the teaching model in providing for individ- ual differences in the classroom to the supervising teachers in the experimental group in the Grand Rapids Center during two sessions. 37 (13) Arranged with the university coordinators in the three centers to administer the pre- and post—test observations of the student teachers and collect the necessary forms from the supervising teachers. (14) Compiled and analyzed the data obtained in the study which resulted in the final conclusions,_recommendations, implications, and further questions. POPULATION FOR THE STUDY The population for this study was the student teachers from Michigan State University for the Spring term .1972. The sample used from this population was not randomly se- lected. In order to have groups of comparable size, three centers where Michigan State University students are placed for student teaching were used. The choice of the three centers was made on the basis of travel convenience for the writer. All of the elementary student teachers in each of the three centers were included unless otherwise indicated. Therefore, there was no special selection of subjects since the student teachers were assigned prior to the writer's initial contact with the center coordinators to conduct the study. The student teachers'placement in these centers was based on their own choice. The elementary student teachers and supervising teach- ers in the Grand Rapids Center during the 1972 Spring Term at Michigan State University numbered fourteen. Of this number, thirteen supervising teachers participated in the StUdY by completing instruments and attending in-service sessions. Due to a death in the family one supervising 38 teacher was unable to attend the in-service sessions and was absent from schdol during the post-teSt. The students teaching in special education classes did not participate. The schools to which the student teaChers were assign- ed to work with one supervising teacher each were as Godfrey Elementary School Lee Sch. Dis. Kindergarten First Grade follows: Crestview School Grand Rapids 1 Second Grade Wellerwood School Grand Rapids 1 First Grade Lowell Intermediate School Lowell 2 Fifth Grade Runciman School Lowell 1 First Grade 3 Third Grade 1 Fourth Grade Lee Elementary School Lee Sch. Dis. 1 Second Grade 1 l 1 Third Grade In addition to Dr. John Phillips, Mrs. Marie Neil served as a coordinator for Michigan State University. The elementary student teachers and supervising teach- ers in the Benton Harbor Center during the 1972 Spring Term at Michigan State University numbered sixteen. Of this number, all supervising teachers*who participated in the study completed the instruments. None of the students aSSigned to special education classes participated in the study. 39 The schools to which the student teachers were assigned to work with the supervising teacher were as follows: Fairplain West School Benton Harbor 1 Primary-inter- ' mediate 2 Grades 4-5-6 Roosevelt School Lakeshore Kindergarten Washington School Ste Joseph Kindergarten First Grade Second Grade Third Grade Fourth Grade Fifth Grade Sixth Grade Edwardsburg Elementary Edwardsburg School ' First Grade Second Grade ‘ Third Grade Fourth Grade Id hi hi id #1 rd F‘ ea Ia h‘ r4 id F' Fifth, Sixth Grades Representing Michigan State University as coordinators were Dr. Hugo’David, Mrs. Mary Ann Robinson, Mrs. Helen Reinhardt, and Mr. Donald Bourdon. The elementary student teachers and supervising teach- ers in the Battle Creek Center during the 1972 Spring Term at Michigan State University numbered thirteen. Of this number, eight supervising teachers participated in the StUdY by completing the post-test instrument. None of the students assigned to teach in special education classes 40 took part. The Battle Creek schools to which the student teach- ers were assigned to work with one supervising teacher each were as follows: Level Park School Battle Creek 1 Grades 1-2 North Pennfield School Battle Creek 1 Second Grade. La Mora Park School Battle Creek 1 Second Grade Urbandale School Battle Creek _1 Third Grade Roosevelt School Battle Creek 1 Third Grade Franklin School Battle Creek 1 Fourth Grade. Ann J. Kellogg School Battle Creek 1 Sixth Grade McKinley School Battle Creek 1 Grades 5-6 Mrs. Laura Miller served as the university coordinator with Dr. John Cragun. For comparison of the three centers where the student teachers were assigned the information about the schools in which they were teaching was important. The following responses were tabulated from the super- vising teacher survey regarding the number of student teachers, enrollment in the school, teaching staff, and *whether or not teacher aides, volunteers, and supervising personnel were available. l as m the 1 their tee No. of Str Teachers Per School Hut: The tear Economic leVe 41 TABLE 3.1 Responses From Supervising Teacher's Survey in the Ex erimental Gro i 'GRAND RAPIDS CENTER No. of Stu. Teachers Enroll- Teacher Volun- Per School ' ment ' “Staff ' Aides "teers 2 . 210 7 yes yes 5 450 15 no yes 1 220 7 yes yes 1 350 13 yes ' no 3 525 20 yes no 1 260 9 no no The majority of students in these schools Supervisory "Personne1 yes yes yes yes no yes were placed in the lower socio-economic level in the estimation of their teachers. TABLE 3.2 Regppnses From Sgpervising Teacher's Sgrvey in the Control Gro in BENTON HARBOR CENTER No. of Stu. Teachers Enroll- Teacher Volun- Supervisory Per School ment Staff Aides teers Personnel 1 442 15 yes yes yes 3 260 10 yes yes yes 7 355 13 yes yes no 3 471 19 no no no 1 187 10 no no no The teachers in these schools checked the socio- economic level of their students to be middle class. ReSponses F: —-——-‘-—_ So. of Stu. Teachers Per School H The sc these schoc These three cent; had Simila] filamentary ranged frOr in 14 SCho< l2 SChOOls‘ able in 11 catiOn o 42 TABLE 3.3 Responses From Su ervisin Teacher's Survey in the Control Group‘in'Batt'e‘Creek. BATTLE CREEK CENTER No. of Stu. Teachers Enroll- Teacher Vblun- Supervisory Per School __mgp£_ ‘§235£__I‘Aidgg__ Egg£g_ ‘Personnel 1 350 12 yes yes yes 1 540 48 yes yes no 1 525 17 yes no yes 1 --- 9 yes yes no 1‘ 430 17 yes yes yes 1 400 18 yes yes no 1 307 12 no no yes 1 270 9 yes yes no The socio-economic level of most of the students in these schools was checked by the teachers as being low. These data indicate that basically the schools in the three centers to which the student teachers were assigned had similar characteristics: size - both large and small elementary schools; socio-economic level of students - ranged from low to middle class; teacher aides 4 available in 14 schools, not in 5 schools; volunteers - available in 12 schools, not in 7 schools; supervisory personnel - avail- able in 11 schools, not in 8 schools. MAJOR AREAS OF CONCENTRATION FOR TEACHER CERTIFICATION FOR STUDENT TEACHERS The major areas of concentration for teacher certifi— cation of the student teachers were especially similar between the ' control 91'0“ of student t this term wa special educ 8 - Special 2- Social : l - Languag 1- Fine A: Benton Harb 11 " Specia 3 ‘ Mathem 1 - Social 1 ‘ Fine A 3- Social 2. 2. Fine 1:; Englisr 1 ' Specia; 43 between the experimental group in Grand Rapids and the control group in Benton Harbor. Even though the majority of student teachers were majoring in special education this term was not their student teaching assignment in special education. Grand Rapids Center- 8 - special Education 2 - Social Science 1 - Language Arts 1 - Fine Arts Benton Harbor Center 11 - Special Education 3 - Mathematics - Science 1 - Social Science 1 - Fine Arts Battle Creek Center 3 - Social Science 2 - Fine Arts 2 - English 1 - Special Education SOURCES OF DATA FOR THE STUDY The data for the study were obtained from the follow- ing sources: (1) Questionnaire sent to elementary principals and first year teachers in the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School District to identify an area of weakness in teacher pre- paration programs. (2) vSurvey distributed to all student teachers involved in the study for information for comparison of groups. (3) Survey in the stud (4) Pre-te coordinator (5) Pre-ts teachers. (M Post-t coordinator (7) Post-1 teachers. {M Record 3011;) of t} the in‘Serv The ex inS'Cruments Phase q‘estionnai teachers in trict, The 44 (3) Survey distributed to all supervising teachers involved in the study for information for comparison of groups. (4) Pre-test observation of student teachers by university coordinators. (5) Pre-test observation of student teachers by supervising teachers. (6) Post-test observation of student teachers by university coordinators. V (7) Post-test observation of student teachers by supervising ' teachers. (8) -Record kept by supervising teachers in the experimental group of the follow-up work done with their teachers after the in-service sessions. The explanation of and use for these data collection instruments are essential to the understanding of the study. Phase 1 of the study involved the distribution of a questionnaire to all elementary principals and first year, teachers in the Kalamazoo Valley Intermediate School Dis- trict. The purpose of the questionnaire was to determine an area of weakness in teacher education programs. It was the writer's Opinion that elementary principals through their observations of first year teachers are in an advan- tageous position to be aware of any shortcomings of new teachers. The reports by Fattu and Brighton in Chapter II concur with this opinion.53 Fattu and Brighton, op. cit. 45 First year teachers during their first experience of being on their own in the classroom are likewise aware of their own deficiencies. One study reported that upon com- pletion of student teaching the students were asked to enumerate their areas of weakness as they saw them at that time. This study by Mitchell, Howard, and Santmire cited in Chapter II gives credence to the writer's opinion that first-year teachers just as well as student teachers are in a position to know their strengths and weaknesses.54 Therefore, a questionnaire was constructed to ascertain one area of weakness common to both of these groups. The list of elementary principals was obtained from the current directory for the Kalamazoo ValleyIntermediate School District. Procuring the list of first year teachers proved more difficult. Some school districts had a policy whereby they did not give out the names of staff members. In these cases, school secretaries agreed to distribute the questionnaire by means of the school mail. In cases where teachers' names were given, the questionnaire was . mailed directly to them. All of the questionnaires sent included a stamped self-addressed envelope. The respondents were asked to mark the first, second, and third areas of concern as they saw them. Samples of the questionnaires sent to elementary principals and 54Mitchell, Howard, and Santmire, op.'cit. 46 first year teachers appear in Appendices l and 2. The results of the questionnaires were as follows: ' Of the sixty-three principals to whom the questionnaire was sent fifty-one responded indicating areas in need of im- provement in teacher education programs. TABLE 3.4 Principal's Questionnaire Receiving Egg Mpg; Responses Disciplinary Matters Providin 'for Individual ’Digferences First Choice 13 First Choice 7 Second Choice‘ 8 Second Choice 10 Third Choice 4 Third Choice 3 Marked as other Marked as other Choice 1 Choice 4 26 Total 24 Total Motivation First Choice 1 Second Choice 4 Third Choice 7 Marked as other Choice "1 I3 Total Of the one hundred teachers to whom the questionnaire was sent, fifty-nine responded indicating areas in need of im- provement in teacher education programs. 47 TABLE 3.5 Summary of the First Three Choices 9n the First Year Teagh- Disciplinary Matters 'Providing'for‘IndividualI 'Diiferences First Choice 7 First Choice 16 Second Choice 6 Second Choice 8 Third Choice 4 Third Choice 2 Marked as other . Marked as other Choice "4 - Choice ‘6 . 21 Total ' _ 32 Total Motivation First Choice 8 Second Choice 8 Third Choice 5 Marked as other Choice 3 24 Total TABLE 3.6 i h ar 991i ' O ‘: .Ooggt ' {go : -; ‘- o; ' O -: o.— naire Receiving ghe Mpg; gggpgngeg Totals From Both Questionnaires Disciplinary_Matters Providinpfor‘lndividual AMotivation D' 'erences Principals 26 Principals 24 Principals 13 Teachers 21 Teachers ' 32 Teachers 24 47 Since the greatest number of respondents indicated providing for individual differences as an area needing improvement in teacher education programs this was the area chosen for concentra- tion in this study. The ing I espc Erznc 13a ._# Instruct Student Applica1 Planning Objectix Pupil W: other - E Sindent Applica PrePara Flamin Objecti Tillle SC PUpil w Expel-im Studth 48 The following information is the summary of the remain- ing responses on both questionnaires. TABLE 3.7 Summary of Egg First Three ghoigeg on the Elemeptary Principals Questionnaire For the Additional Responses PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRES First‘Choice Instructional Skill, Methods - 4 Student Participation - 2 Application - 2 Planning - 4 Objectives - l Pupil Work Habits - 2 Other - 4 Second Choice 'Third Choice Student Participation - 2 Student PartiCipation - 1 Application - 1 Assignment - 1 Preparation of Subject Matter - 3 Planning - 3 Planning - 3 Objectives - 3 Objectives - 2 Use of Resources - 1 Time Schedule - 1 Classroom Management - 2 Pupil Work Habits - 2 Pupil Work Habits - 7 Experimentation - 1 Student Evaluation - 5 Student Evaluation - 2 '6’; 'u licat Preparat Planning ObjECtiv USe Of T ‘. I; «e Sch p“Til W0 EXPerime RECOrdS Student 35hr - 49 TABLE 3.8 WWW Teacher's Questionnaire For the Additional Respgnses I Y '1‘ ES 0 'First'Choice Application - 2 Preparation of Subject Matter - 1 Planning - 2 Objectives - 2 Pupil Work Habits - 1 Student Evaluation - 1 Other - 4 Second Choice Third Choice Application - 1 Application - 1 Preparation of Subject Matter e 1 Preparation of ' - Subject Matter - 1 Planning - 2 . Planning - 3 Objectives - 4 Objectives - 1 Use of Resources - 1 Use of Resources - 5 Classroom Management - 2 Classroom Management - 1 Time Schedule - 1 Time Schedule - 2 Pupil Work Habits - 5 Pupil Work Habits - 3 Experimentation - 2 A Experimentation - 4 Records and Reports - 1 Records and Reports - 6 Student Evaluation - 1 Student Evaluation - 1 Other - 2 Other - 4 1."! 50 The second phase of the study was to make arrangements to work with student teachers and supervising teachers dur- ing the spring session of the 1971-72 school year. The original plan was to use the student teachers from Western Michigan University in its three centers in Kalamazoo, Portage and Comstock. This necessitated seeking the permis- sion from the proper authorities. Such permission was grant- ed without delay by all of the administrators involved. It was decided that the Kalamazoo center would serve as the experimental group since it constituted the largest number. When a letter was sent to each of the thirty-three super- vising teachers in the Kalamazoo Public Schools requesting their voluntary participation in the study only five of them responded with a willingness to serve in the experimen- tal group. With so few participants it was imperative to find other centers with student teachers. In order to have student teachers from only one uni- versity and the three groups - one experimental and two control - it was deemed appropriate to secure participants from Michigan State University. The excellent cooperation from the university coordinators and supervising teachers in Grand Rapids, Benton Harbor, and Battle Creek enabled the study to be continued. The next Challenge at hand was the preparation of all the necessary forms. For background information and comparative data, both a supervising teacher survey and student 51 teacher survey were constructed and appear in the Appendix as numbers 3 and 4. This kind of background information for the study resembled in part the data elicited from the supervising teachers and student teachers in the Impact Study conducted by the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan in 1969.55 Of special importance on the supervising teacher survey was the infor- mation about whether or not they had taken a course in the supervision of student teachers. This provided an interest- ing comparison with the number of student teachers they had and how they perceived the role of the student teacher. Michigan State University does not require the course for their supervising teachers which is in agreement with the study by Gregory cited in Chapter 11.55 The open ended responses as to how they provided for individual differences in their classrooms were solicited from both groups. These responseswere used for comparisons of how the supervising teachers perceived their roles in pro- viding for individual differences with the progress made by the student teachers as judged on the pre4 and post-test evaluations. 55Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan, ' The Im ct of Student Teachin Pro rams U 'n the Cogperati_g P 'C”SChools in Mic- an, Mic igan Counc1 tate College‘Presidents: finsing, Michigan, June, 1970). 56Gregory, op. cit. ’ _-.a l u 52 The student teacher survey, along with routine informa- tion for group comparisons, asked the amount of pre-Student teaching experience each student had. This information, too, could then be compared with the student's success in pro- viding for individual differences as judged by the univer- sity coordinator and supervising teacher. The pre- and post-test evaluative instrument to be used by the university coordinator and supervising teacher were basically the same except for the title and place for sig- nature. These appear in the Appendix as numbers 5,6,7, and 8. In its preparation stage, the instrument was given to a num- ber of persons for their opinions as to clarity of content as well as for their overall comments and suggestions. These persons included university coordinators, supervising teachers and members from the unchigan State University Office of Research Consultation. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final instrument as used. It was de- cided that the most logical procedure was to use groupings cof the percentages of students within a class for whom the student teacher was taking into consideration their individ- ual differences. To make sure that these observations were consistent in lxath the experimental and control groups it was important 'fihatt (l) The university coordinator and supervising teacher kxyth observed the student teacher teaching the same class at the same time. 53 (2) That the same subject be taught by the student teacher during both the pre- and post-test observations. According to Ryan: In the observation and assessment of teacher behavior it is necessary to keep in mind that teacher behaviors occur in relation to pupil behavior and therefore may be expected to vary to some extent from one group of pupils to f“ another, and also that teacher behavior is a ' function of the content or subject matter taught.-- e.g., behavior manifested by an elementary teacher while engaged in arithmetic ‘ instruction may differ from those demonstrated , during a class in music or rhythms. Although ; such conditions have an attenuating effect on , assessments of teacher behavior, they are ;5 integral parts of the teaching situation, and, in the interest of preserving the naturalness of the behavior under study, it would seem desirable not to attempt to eliminate or con- trol such conditions, but rather to replicate the observations and observational situations in order to provide as broad and comprehensive an assessment basis as possible.57 The five main categories on the pre- and post-test evaluative instruments were the same behavioral objectives *which constituted the basis for the teaching model used 'with.the supervising teachers in.the experimental group. The ultimate goal of the teaching model is best ex- pressed by John I. Goodlad emphasizing the importance of each individual when he wrote: But even before looking toward what we want to be perhaps we should ask fundamental questions about where we are. To what extent is each individual being provided with opportunities to develop his unique potentialities? To what ex- tent is each individual developing a deep sense 57David G. Ryans, Sharacteri‘s‘ti'c‘s' of: Teacher-LEI (Washing- txni, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960), p. 76. 54 of personal worth--the kind of selfhood that is prerequisite to self transcendence? To what extent are our young people coming into critical possession of their culture? And to what extent are our people developing a mankind identity-- an identity that transcends all men in all times and in all places?58 The preparation of the teaching model to be used with the supervising teachers in the experimental group was cru- cial to the success of the study since this constituted the treatment. The teaching model is number 9 in the Appendix. According to Esther Swenson, teachers in service can benefit from many of the activities in which student teach- ers participate. Their better background of experience often makes it possible for them to‘get new insights from activities very similar to those in which they participated while at the pre-service level. Help with providing and making use of these representative activities may be given by a, teacher-education institution or by a profes- sional organization or other agency. Some of these kinds of activities were provided in the teaching model planned by the writer. Like all lesson plans, the teaching model needed to have objectives. These were determined as behavioral ob- jectives for the student teacher to achieve and are listed separately in the Appendix number 10. How they could be 53qohn I. Goodlad, ”The Schools vs. Education,” Select- (xi Readin s for the Teachin ”Profession _ed. Milton Muse (BerkeIey, CaIifornia: McCu c an . o., 1970):.P. 22. ..... 59Esther J. Swenson, "Teacher Preparation", IndiVidual- :izin Instruction, The Sixty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago, Illi- xuais: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), P- 299' 55 accomplished was explained during the in-service sessions with the supervising teachers. The teaching model was pre- pared with the assistance of the authorities in the field (p.27) guided also by personal experience of fifteen years of teaching in the elementary school and five years experience in teaching and supervising student teachers at the college level. The central purpose of teacher education with respect to individualization of instruction .is to prepare teachers and prospective teachers to teach in such ways that the learners for whom they have responsibility may derive opti- mum individual benefit from their learning experience.60 Such was the goal of the teaching model used with super- vising teachers in the experimental group of this study. The supervising teachers, in turn, were entrusted to trans- Init the content of the teaching model to the student teach— ers. Each session had follow-up suggestions for the teach- er to use. John I. Goodlad emphasized the importance of teachers observing a model in order to get them to change behavior. Small wonder that teachers practice so little individualizing instruction, inductive teaching, non-grading, team teaching, or other recently recommended practices. They have not seen them. If teachers are to change, they must see models of what they are going to change to: they must practice under guidance the new behaviors called for in the exemplary models. If teachers are to change, the occupation itself must have built into it the necessary provisions for self- renewal.61 —' q 6°Ibid., 288. 6IGoodlad, op. cit., p. 18. 56 In the follow-up activities of the in-service.sessions it was planned that the supervising teachers would serve as models for the student teachers. It was assumed that the student teachers could benefit much from their observa- tions. The follow-up activity for the supervising teacher in the form of the supervisory conference does have much merit also. By analyzing, studying, and practicing behavior through the conscious selection and examination of various aspects of interaction between teacher and students during a variety of teach- ing activities a student teacher can be helped to acquire teaching skills. Through the con- ference where the focus is on the study of the teaching act, student teaching becomes the laboratory in which new teaching behaviors can be discovered, practiced,_and experimented with.62 The success of the teaching model was dependent on this kind of conference between supervising teacher and student teaCher. The planning of the teaching model in the area of PIOViding for individual differences considered that there are many factors involved in the total teaching - learning enVironment in the elementary school and some of them are uncontrollable variables. It was necessary then to plan the sessions in the areas in which the teachers have con- trol and not consider the broader spectrum of administra- tion and other agencies. Therefore, the major emphasis is on the role of the teacher and does not include the organi- zational pattern within the school, the curriculum, physical —__ ‘ 62Beeb, Low, and Waterman, op.'cit.,_p. 8. 57 facilities of the school, nor parents, Boards of Education, local community or state and federal government. The phrase 'individual differences' refers to the dissimilarities among the various members of a class or age group in any characteristics that.can be identified. It is common to speak of the individual differences in such things as problem-solving, reading ability, spelling, visual and auditory acuity,‘ language skills,, height.and weight, dexterity, readiness to learn, interest, emotional stability, persistence, moti- vation, ability to work alone, co-operativeness, and many other social, personal, intellectual, and academic characteristics. ' Far beyond the problems of the nature and extent of individual differences is the problem , Of the effect on various learners of the count- less instructional strategems to which they are subjected. Even more pertinent (and unfortunate- ly more remote) is the whole question of devising educational procedures that are feasible enough to maximize the clusters of potentialities that :make up the individual in any classroom, for good instruction will aim to incgease differences rather than decrease them.6 .And, of course, the key to quality instructional pro- grams is the effective teacher. To provide this effective instructional program, teachers, must make a skillful blend of 4 (a) their academic and professional knowledge, (b) their professional skills, and (c) their artistry in teaching. The development and skill- ful combining of these three agpects of teaching call for both science and art. N 63Theodore Clymer and Nolan C. Kearney, "Curricular .and Instructional Provisions for Individual Differences,” IndiVidualizin Instruction, the Sixty-first Yearbook of :Efie National Society for the Study of Education, Part III (Chgzago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 7-268. ‘ 64Ibid., 271. 58 In order to begin to undertake a successful proqram of adjusting to individual differences it is imperative that the teacher have a knowledge of the students in his class. Included in this information are personal and social data as well as academic ability and achievement in the various skills being developed under the teacher's 51 directiorn There is no shortcut to gathering these data but a wide variety of methods are at the disposal of the alert classroom teacher. A valuable source of information about a student's y? strengths and weaknesses is the cumulative record with re- corded data of grades, test scores, attendance, health records, units carried out in previous grades, groupings in skill subjects, textbooks covered in content fields, and extra-curricular undertakings. - Conferences are extremely helpful in providing infor- :mation about students, including conferences with students and Parents as well as previous teachers. Perhaps the most useful source of information about a Pupil's probable success in school is that of the teach- er's observation. Most often this takes the nature of informal observational procedures but may be systematized by'a check list or rating scale. Informal testing, together ‘flith oral and written classwork constitute major Opportuni- ‘ties for observation. 59 A summary of the first objective of the teaching model regarding the gathering of data about students appears in Appendix 11. Following the first session with the super- vising teachers, this summary was compiled from the come ments.and suggestions discussed. It.was distributed to the teachers at the second in-service session. F3 The individualization of instruction requires that.the teacher attend to and utilize detailed information about each student in cager to design appropriate instructional programs. Careful planning of the work to be done, which is one of the major needs in adjusting to individual differences: 'was the second objective. If it is thoroughly done, care- ful planning involves a great deal more than class routine. It necessitates an evaluation and anticipation of any in- struction which must be provided prior to the undertaking of any activity, project, or lesson. The foundation of a suc- cessful program has the full attention and efforts of devoted teachers to its careful planning coupled with hard work. When curriculum is being planned every unit of work should be tested to see how many roads to success are built into it--how many ways for individuals to contribute diversely to the com- mon whole. The third objective of the teaching model having to do *with the importance of the learning climate in the class- room was very aptly expressed by Fred T. Wilhelms: —— _— 65Virgil M. Howes, Individualization‘of'Instruction, (New York, New York: The Macmillan Company, I970), p. 134. 661bid., 46. 60 Nevertheless, the school and classroom can be blankly barren or vividly stimulating. The very texture and appearance of building and hall and room can invite exploration and adventure. So znodest a matter as how charmingly and invitingly jbooks are put in reach can make a great difference in how a child will venture into the worlds of ‘thought and phantasy.67 {The entire school environment can be examined for (opportunities to help each child learn in his E :private way. The main prerequisite is simply the a .recognition that in school--as in society-- it is , all right to come at things in different ways and even to arrive at different destinations.6 The diagnosis that the teacher makes about the needs of his students is not restricted but has now become an , intrinsic part of the teaching act. A part of this diag- nosis is the use of appropriate materials to meet the needs of each individual childuwhich was the fourth objective of the teaching model. Individualizing is a way to think about managing the classroom. It is not a method of instruction. It is the way a teacher arranges children, equip- ment, and materials so that each child can learn eagerly at the peak of his potential, without undue stress and strain.69 It is a difficult task which calls for enormous resources in materials, ability, and skills on the part of the class- room teacher to adjust to the differences in ability,. needs, and interests. Part of this in-service session was devoted to a sharing of materials appropriate to meeting individual needs. 67Ibid., 38. 68Ibid., 46. 69Ibid., 90. 61 The fifth objective of the teaching model in individ- ualizing of instruction was: for the teacher to individualize his teaching behavior -- to decide what he must do to make each student's learning more efficient and more successful. To accomplish this, you must gear your teaching to the needs of the individual student rather than to the demands of the large group. Teacher fairness and consistency do not imply identical treatment for each learner. Rather the teacher who has these qualities insures that each student receives the assistance and support that are necessary to further his learning. Some teachers modify their teaching behavior uncon- sciously when he jokes with one student, praises one, scolds another, gives help to one, and insists that one work alone. For experienced teachers this behavior! is not automatic but rather a genuine reflection of the needs of particular students. Dr. Hunter stressed that the sensitivity of the teacher to varying personality patterns and needs is an important factor in this aspect of individualization.“- It is left to the teacher to provide different types of activities so a student can participate in those that are best for him. This is how the teacher accomplishes a major objective of the individualizing of instruction, namely that of helping the student learn how to learn. W ”Hunter, '02. c‘it., .p. 59. 62 Dr. Hunter further emphasized how important it is to realize that individualization of instruction is not limited to the intellectual skills. Other areas in which individ- ualization can also be accomplished include the development of interests, attitudes, and appreciations as well as the psYchomotor skills. These aspects as related to the teach- ing behavior in providing for individual differences con- stiouted the fifth and last section of the teaching model.72 During the in-service sessions, the supervising teach- ers expressed concern about being able to know all that is necessary about each student. ‘Although it may be impossible to know everything about each child in a class, it is amaz- ing how much teachers really know when.they start to ask themselves questions about their students. Such thinking gives valuable and productive insights into possible ways to individualize teaching behavior. The teacher's purpose be- comes one of finding out what behavior best helps the child to learn in his own style. This behavior is not constant but dependent upon many variables of which the teacher must be aware: the nature of the student's task, his state of health, progress of his maturity, his mood and even the *weather. When the teacher has the added dimension of flexi- lbility and can adjust to the situation, it is easier for each child to learn. 721bid., p. 56. Huff} v‘l 'JIP"! . 63 For informational purposes the record sheet for super- vising teachers in the experimental group was developed (Appendix 12). It was imperative to know how much time the supervising teacher spent in the follow-up activities after the iJr-service training sessions. It would seem that there would be a correlation between the time spent with the stu— "’- dent teacher and the amount of progress made by the student teacher as evidenced by the pre- and post-test observations. Upon completion of the needed forms, the next step in 'L".L_.,. , . the study was to make further arrangements with the coordi- nators in the three centers being used for the study. In the Grand Rapids Center which was designated as the experimental group all arrangements were made through Dr. John Phillips. The first order of business was to make plans for the in-service sessions with thesupervising teachers. The dates were determined at a convenient time ‘when the student teachers would be able to teach and the supervising teachers were given the necessary permission to attend the sessions. The teaching model was originally de- signed to provide for five one-hour sessions. However, it *was deemed more advisable to meet twice in two-hour sessions considering that the teachers were being asked to come to the Center Office for the meetings where parking was a problem. The evaluative instrument for the observations of the student teachers was explained to the coordinator who would 64 be making the observations. At the Benton Harbor Center, Dr. Hugo David made con- tacts with the school districts involved to secure the needed administrative approval for suchresearch. In this center, serving as the first control group, Dr. David dis- cussed the evaluative instrument with his three coordinators. A personal contact was made with each school involved in this group and the study was explained to each of the respective principals. When it was possible in the‘school schedule, a conference with the supervising teachers was held as well. Both the supervising teachers and student teachers completed their respective surveys. ' In the Battle Creek Center, Dr. John'Cragun made the contacts with the school districts' administrative personnel for the research approval. This Center served as the second control group for the study by completing only the post-test data. Prior to the coordinator's last observation of the term, when the evaluative device was to be used, a meeting at the Center Office with the supervising teachers and university coordinators was scheduled. Through this direct contact an opportunity was given to explain the research project and the means of gathering the data. After the forms to be used were distributed and ex- plained to all persons involved, the time sequence had to be synchronized. With the varying schedules for observa- tions in the three centers, it was decided that the pre- test would constitute the first observation by the 65 university coordinator. The post-test observation occurred during the last observation of the term by the university coordinator. Thus the time span of the observation during the term varied in the centers, with the time between the pre- and post-tests varying from four to six weeks. For comparison purposes the student teacher taught the same r: subject during each observation. Following the post-test ' observations the coordinators returned all of the forms to the writer. The final step of the study was the analysis of the ‘fi. is O ’_\ il"__ . data. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS APPLIED TO DATA FINDINGS In this study, with an experimental group and two con- trol groups, a comparison was made between the groups to determine the effects of the treatment on the experimental group. The treatment in this study constituted two in- service sessions with the supervising teachers. This comparison utilized the analysis of variance and multi- variate analysis for the statistical study of the data. SUMMARY The design of the study which was elaborated upon in detail in this chapter contained: (1) A statement of the hypotheses of the study and the additional information to be found. (2) The procedure in conducting the experimental study. 66 (3) A definition of the population. (4) A thorough explanation of the data instruments. (5) The statistical analysis applied to the findings. CHAPTER IV STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA All of the data together with the application of their statistical analyses are reported in Chapter IV. The , gm. _' «Rx analyses of the following data are included: (1) the pre- and post-test total evaluations by both supervising teachers and university coordinators (2.) question five (teaching i behavior of student teachers) (3) variations at different Ly! grade levels in providing for individual differences (4) the availability of supplementary materials in the schools compared with the student teacher's use of supplementary ' materials (question 4) on the pre- and post-tests. The F ratio was the statistic which has been used in all the in- stances to determine whether or not there was a significant difference between two or more means. The selection of the .05 significance level was decided because of the small sample size. For the comparison between the results of the experi- mental and control groups the gain scores of each are re- ported. This was necessary due to the fact that for the repeated measures analysis there were problems encountered due to little or no variations in many of the pre- and post- test evaluations . 67 68 In the case of comparing the student teacher's success in providing for individual differences with the supervising teacher's attitude toward providing for individual differ- ences in the classroom, the score on the pre- and post-test is reported on each subject with a brief summary of the I teacher's comments. The amount of time each supervising teacher spent on the follow-up activities after the in-service sessions is compared to the gain each student teacher in the experi- mental group made in providing for individual differences. The test of all the hypotheses of the study were dependent upon the data obtained from the pre- and post-test evaluation instruments. These data are reported in Tables 4.1 through 4.19. Analysis of the data which provided additional informa- tion important to the outcome of the study are reported in Tables 4.20 through 4.27. ANALYSIS OF DATA The following tables from 4.1 through 4.11 are all con- cerned with pre- and post-test evaluations of the student teacher in providing for individual differences in their classrooms. These evaluations of student teachers were done by both the university coordinator and the supervising teachers at the time of the first and last classroom obser- vation by the university coordinator. 69 The basic content of the questions on the instruments (complete instruments in Appendix numbers 5,6,7,8) is as follows: Question 1 - the written evidence gathered by the student teacher on the needs of his students Question 2 - provision for these needs in the student ”bf-5 teacher's written lesson plan Question 3 - provision for an environment conducive to students' needs - intellectual, physical, emotional, W social ‘ Question 4 - use of a varietw'of materials to meet students' needs Question 5 - evaluation of the actual teaching behavior of the student teacher in providing for the needs of all students. 1., ,. NJ.“ 70 Ho>ma mocsowmwsmam mo. u « memo.o aahao.o Ho>mq mosses acmam mueswxou e on» room How mos oom unmajmsm coaumoam>m cmmuxam_HH4 co m oouo assumes ucmmoum vece.~ NH .oa neurones meama>soosm moeee.m NH .ma muoumsaauooo muemso>eso m .mmommum mo assumed .mmouojmcaumm mmdeuem useomma.msama>ummm‘ cm Houses Hooo wuamuo>aso ii“ Houucoo use HmucmEHuomxm consumo mocmumuuao use no mummy oumanm>auasz Mom oaumm m H.v mqmda 71 In the preceding table across all sixteen measures of the pre-test, it is indicated that the multivariate 1? ratio shows. that there is a significant difference between the experimental and control groups of student teachers at the .05 level as rated by the university coordinators but not as rated by the supervising teachers. The F ratio is used to determine whether there is a significant difference between two or more means. In the following table 4.2 the F ratio is used for the questions on the pre-test observation form rated by both the super- vising teachers and the university coordinators. 'With the value for e<= .05 the only significant difference to be noted by the supervising teachers' observation is in Question 4 and SC; for the university coordinators there is a significant difference for all questions except Questions 1, 2 and 5G. The results of Question 4 demonstrate the student teach- er's ability to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. The results 0f Question 5C demonstrate the student teacher's ability to individualize the difficulty of the task. Question 1 is concerned with the written data gathered by the student teacher about the students in the class. Question 2 deals with the written lesson plan to meet in- dividual needs. Question 56 deals with student teacher behavior in seeking participation by all students. 72 «mHoo.o NmmN.o «Hmoo.o mwmv.o «mHoo.o oomN.o mmno.o mmmm.o Hmmo.o memm.o mesmOHchmHm mumstoueo< comm.NH hNhN.H MOHm.m mmhv.o mva.NH mmmm.a .vmmv.m oomo.o mHMH.v mash.” h 5N. H mm H mm H mm H mm H mm H mm H mm H 5N H mm H Someone mo mmummo NMHH.H mmoouo cHsqu nmvm.MH mucosa sowsuom mNOH.H mmov.H NNHh.o mHmw.o mmhm.o OHNm.o omHm.o mmmN.HH mmvh.o memo.H Noom.H mHmm.m mooo.H Homo.o mmHm.m NmNm.vH. Mme.N enmw.m mums m new: mucosa deuHB mmoouo coosuom mmoosu cHsuHS mesouw.com3umm .mmsouw cHsuHS mmcouw cmo3uom masons sense: meoouo somsumm mucosa cHdUHZ mmoouo somsumm mucosa cHnqu mucosa cmmsumm mesons senses mooouo cmosumm mooouo canqu mmsosw cmmsuom masons senses mmoouo cmwBumm mOCMHHm> mo moouoom muoumcatuoou .>aco neuroses mchH>uomsm Um ZOHBmmDO muoumcHouoou .>Hco neuroses mchH>smmcM mm onemmoo muoumcwouooo .>asD neuroses thmH>HmemM _cm onammDo m HOHMCHGHOOU o >HGD muonomos msHmH>nompM N ZOHBmmDO msoumswtsooo .>Hso msmromoe msHmH>quom _MWOHO mcHumm H ZOHBmMDO soeumon>m umoelmum emu so cmwpmmoo roam How mmsouo Houucou one HmuowEHummwm or» cowsuom mmOGGHmMMHQ How mmHnt mOGMHsm> mo meNHmcd ~.e mqmda 73 hm eHooo.o «Hem.mv H hm «mono.o mmmm.v H hm «Hooo.o mmom.~o H hm mmmo.o mOHm.m H hm «Hooo.o noeo.m~ H hm ommo.o mHmH.o H 5N «vmoo.o HomH.m H hm «omeo.o eHme.e H mm «omoo.o oomo.HH H hm mevm.o memm.o H oocooHMHcme m Eoooosm ouoEonsmo< mo ooumoo memo.H mmmv.Hm Home.H mHVN.h Hmom.o omnm.om movh.H hHmm.m MHch.H N¢H0.N¢ mamm.o meH.o .memn.a mem.mH Nmeh.H h¢Mh.h vmvo.H eemm.HH hmHH.H memo.H ouoomw coo: mmcouo cHrqu mesouo coosuom mucosa cHauH3 mucosa cooSuom mmoouw sHsqu omoouw coosuom mucosa anuHB meooso coo3uom omooso cHsuHS mmoouw coozuom. mucosa cHSUH3 omoouo coosuom mucosa anUHS mmooso coosuom mmooso cHsqu meoouo soosuom mosouw anqu mmoouw coosuom mosouo sHsqu mooouo coosuom smooHHo> mo moonoom AooocHueouv N.v momma ououochuooo .>Hso muomoooa msHmH>uomaM Um onammoo muouochuooo .>Hso muomoooa ommmm>uoemm mm onemmoo ououocHouooo .>Hso msosoooa mcmmmeuomom «m onemomw msouocHoHoou .>Hco muosoooe msHmH>uodmm w onemmoo mHOUMCflUHOOU . >HCD muonoooa mchmpuomom om onammDo nmwouo mcHuom 74 «Hooo.o Hmmm.o~ meH~.o mmHo.H ommh.o oOOH.o HHNm.o OOHo.o smooo.o maem.es Hmom.o mbmm.o «Hooo.o emmm.om mmm~.o Hoev.H «Hooo.o anm.ov omHH.o ommo.m oocoOHMHsmHm m ouoEonummd hm hm hm hm hm hN hm hm um um. Eoooosm mo oosmoo .hovh.H mon.mm HHHH.H HmmhoH mmmv.H mmvH.o mMH¢.o Hvoo.o oooo.m hamm.mm mmmo.H vmmw.o swam.H mqu.hm HHmN.H ommm.H mth.H thH.Nm mmHv.H Nomm.m osoomm coo: mmsouo anqu mucosa coo3uom mmoouo cHsqu mmsoso coosuom odooso.cHduH3 mucosa coosuom mucosa cHsqu mesono coosuom mmoouo cHrqu mmoouo coosuom masons sashes mmsoso soozsom mmsouo chqu mucosa coosuom mesons seeps: mooouo soosuom mesons segues mesouw coosuom mososo sHsqu mooosw coosuom oocoHHo> mo moonoom HUoSCHuGOUV N.v mqmdfi muouochuooo .>Hco muonoooa.mcMoH>HomoM mm onBmmoo muouochHooo .>Hco muonoooa.mchH>Homom Um ZOHBmmDO muouosHouooo .>Hso msosoooa msHmH>eomsm mm onBmmoo msouosHpuoou .>HsD whosoooa mchH>HoomM mm onsmmoo muouocHoHooo .>H:D muonoooe msHmH>uooom om onemmoo .moouu moHuom 75 Ho>oH oosoonHsmHm mow hm emom.H moooso sHmuHS «Hooo.o omHm.mm H oomH.mv mucosa coosuom muouocHosoou .>Hco em mmmm.o mosouo sashes hmmo.o Hhow.o H onH.o mmsouo cooSuom msosoooa msHmH>nomom Hm chemmoo .MUcooHMHcmHm m Eooooum oeoomm oocoHuo> moouw mcHuom ouoEonumde mo ooumoo coo: mo moouoom AUoDCHHGOUV N.v MHm€B r? 76 'Nl I Ho>oH oocoOHMHcmHm mo. u s is muonoooa mcHoH>uomsm mm-.o mmm~.H mm .mm «eooo.o ommH.m mm .mm muoumsHouoou muHmuo>Hso_ Ho>oqwoosooHMHcmHmll m Eooooem mo mooemoa moosu ouoEonumm< A mcoHMoHomoe HoroooenmsHmH>uomom was sound IHoHooo huHmuo>Hcs one room now monoom umoalumom cOHpooHo>m cooume HHd co mmoouo Honucoo too HousoEHuomxm coozuom oocouomMHo one no mumoe ouoHuo>HuHoZ How oHuom M m.v mqmfifi 77 In the preceding table acroSs all sixteen measures of the post-test it is indicated that the multivariate F ratio shows that there is a significant difference between the experimental and control groups at the .05 level for ratings by university coordinators but not for ratings by supervising teachers. Just as for the pre-test evaluation, the F ratio is used for the post-test. In the following table (Table 4.4) there is a significant difference inthe supervising teaCh- ers' observations in questions SB, 5C, 5D, and 5E. ‘For the university coordinators there is a significant difference in all of the questions except 1, 3A, 3C, and SG. Questions 5B, 5C, SD, SE and 5G are concerned with the student teacher's demonstration of ability to provide for individual differences. Question 1 is regarding the written evidence gathered by the student teacher about the individual students in the class. Question 3A and 3C deal with the intellectual and emotional climate in the classroom. 78 amomo.o Nmmb.o OMHH.o vwnm.o «Hooo.o eth.o mva.o momm. oOCMOHMHc Hm ouoEonumo< memm.¢ mmvm.o momm.~ momH.o mNmm.MH mmmm.H movo.m HNmm.H h on on em on em N Eoooonm mo ooumoo vwmm.o mhmv.N «Hem.o memo.o .Hmvh.o hoeh.H oomm.o omho.o mmmm.o th¢.m thm.o. omoh.o oomo.m mmmH.v mmvm.o omen.“ oeosom coo: mucosa anuHB mmsouo soosuom mdsouo senses oesouo coo3uom omooso cHdqu meoosw soosuom meoouo cHnuH3 omoouu coosuom museum seeuHs mesouo cooSuom mososo cHsuHS omsoso coozuom mesono :Hrqu mmoouo :oo3uom nmdouw chuHS mooouo coozpmm oocoHuo> mo moosoom muouocHouoou .>HcD muonoooa msmmmbuomcm mm onemmoo muouosHouooo .>Hco muonoooa msHmH>uoemM em onBmMDo m HOUMGHUHOOU o >HGD muodoooe mswmw>uoomm N onsmmoo muouocHoHooo .>Hco muonooos mchH>sodsm \mwouw mcHuom H onemumm soHumoHo>m umoejumom one so comumooo room www.mdmomm Homecoo one HousoEHsomxm on» coozuom moosoHoMMHQ sow ooHnoB oocoHuo> mo mwmmHomm v . v @493 79 «Hooo.o. mmoo.mm mom0.o omH>.m «Hooo.o mHNm.om hmmo.o NHmv.N. «MHHo.o omMH.m mmmv.o «Hmm.o nhmm.o nHHv.H NhHm.o Hmo~.o oosoonchwm m ouoEonuomd em em on em em em em on Eooooum mo mooumoo wmmm.o HmeH.mN momm.o flamm.o Homo.H ONmm.HN mNm¢.o ONNN.H hmh¢.o vmmv.m bhmv.o cuem.o mmmw.o mnmo.o mvmm.o hNHH.o onomMm coo: mmoouw cHsqu mmsouu coosuom .omoouw cHnuHS omsouw coosuom masons segue: omsouo.coosuom masons sHsqu oesouo coosuom masons segues mesouo soosuom mesouw GHnqu mmoouw coosuom mesonw cHsqu mmsouw soo3uom meoouw :HnuHx meoouw coosuom ooooHso> mo moouoom «tossHusooo v.v memes muoumcHouooo .>Hso muonoooa msHoH>uomsm 4m ZOHBmmDO muouocHosooo .>Hso muonoooa mcHoH>uomom fl ZOHBmmDO muouocHouoou .>Hso onoroooa mchH>uomsm Om ZOHBmMDO muouosHouooo .>Hco muomoooe monH>uomom om onemmmw moouwlmeHuom 80 «tho.o «mmmo.o «Hooo.o «omoo.o «Hooo.o «movo.o «Hooo.o «mmHo.o oocoonHome ouoEonummd \ .. fimm ; i; ‘ll hmMH.v mem.m thm.vm mmmm.m momv.mm OHmm.m mmmm.mw mumm.v vm em em on em em um em Eooooum mo ooumoo mth.H mom~.m owwm.o MN¢N.N mmmm.o HHHm.mN mHmm.o .vooo.m mmmh.o. mowN.o¢ momh.o mth.N Homm.o mmoe.~v mHmo.H mOHm.¢ oHoomm GMT: mmoouw cHnqu mmsouo soosuom mucosa :Hnqu mmoouw coosuom mmcouw cH:UHB omoosu coozuom mucosa cHsqu mmoouw coosuom masons sHsqu oesoso coosuom mmsouw chUHs mmoouo coosuom mesono cHnqu mmoouw coosuom mesons sHsqu mmoouo coosuom oocoHHmw mo moouoom HooocHucouv v.v mHm¢B msouocHtuooo .>HcD muosoooe msHoH>Homsm mm onemmmm muouocHouooo .>Hco muomoooa mcHoH>Homsm om onemmom muouocHouooo .>Hso muoeoooa msHmH>uomom Um ZOHBmmDO mHOHMCHUHOOU o>flQD whosoooe mchH>somom mm ZOHBmMDO moose oeHuom 81 II. helm! . Ls Ho>oH oOGoOHMHcmHm mo.« em mmmm.o omoouw cHnqu eHooo.o emom.om N hmov.Hm oeoouw soosuom muouosHouooo .>Hso «m mmm~.o masons segues . omHH.o ooom.~ N mmHoJo mucosa coosuom muosoooa mcHoH>uomsm 7 Hm onammoo em oomo.H mmoouo sHsqu .Hooo.o ~vme.ee N emvm.ne masons awesome muoumseeuooo .>Hso 4m mmme.o masons sashes eohH.o somm.H m o~m~.H omsouo soosuom muosoooa.mcHoH>uoesm mm onsmmoo em mmmH.o mesons sHsuHs emmv.o mOHs.o m movH.o mesons somsumm muoumseouooo .>Hss em «Hm~.o masons sHsuHs momm.o omom.H N Hmmm.o omoouo soosuom muomoooa mcHoH>uommm 0m ZOHBmmDO em momo.H mmoouo anqu «Hooo.o mooH.mm N oom~.om mmoouo cooauom muosocHouooo .>Hso em same.o masons sashes oth.o Hmmm.H m omHm.o mmoouo coo3uom mnomoooa mchH>uomom mm ZOHBmmDO oocooHMHcmHm m Eoooomm ouooom oocoHHo> AmmouomcHuom ouoEonummd wo oonmoo coo: mo moohoom «toscHucoov v.v mqmoe 82 Tables 4.5 - 4.8 present the means and pooled standard deviations for the pres and postetests as rated by the uni- versity coordinators and by the supervising teachers. In- spection of these tables indicates, in general, the means for each question do tend to indicate_greater agreement » with choice Options on the higher end of the scale (1's rt and2's) rather than on the lower end (4's and 5's). The 1 range of these means are given below. These means demonstrate the equality of the two control ‘K. t C . -.. groups in Benton Harbor and Battle Creek. Pre-Test - Benton Harbor Post-Test - Benton Harbor Univ. Coordinators 1.3-2.5 Univ. Coordinators 1.0 91.6 Supervising Teachers 1.3-2.0 Supervising Teachers 1.0-1.4 EEe-Test - Grand Rapids; PosthTest -‘Grand'Rapids Univ. Coordinators 1.7-4.6 Univ. Coordinators l.2-4.4_. S“Per-vising Teachers 1.4-2.6 Supervising Teachers 1.1-2.3 Post-Test - Battle Creek ' Univ. Coordinators 1.1-1.7 Supervising Teachers 1.0-1.5. 83 TABLE 4.5 Means and Pooled Standard Deviations on Pre-Test 5y University Coordinators Pre-Test Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Que8tion Queation QueStion 3A BB 3C 30 5A SB 5C SD 5E 5F 5G SH SG "Location Grand Rapids . Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor ' Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor 1.6250 “Mean. ‘ Pooled Standard Dev. 3.9230 '1.8750 2.5000 2.6923 1.2650 1.8125 4 2.6923 0.9566 1.4375 ' 2.4615 0.8439 1.5000 2.7692 1.0551 1.3750 2.7692. 1.0239 1.5000 3.6153 1.3169 2.1250 4.0000 1.3044 1.5625 4.6923 0.9530 1.8750 4.6153 1.0186 1.9375 4.3846 1.1306 1.6875 4.1538 1.1776 1.8750 4.0000 1.4142 2.0000 1.7692 1.2180 1.6250 4.0000 1.3194 1.7500 4.0769 1.3426 84 TABLE 4.6 Means and Pooled Standard Deviations on Pre- Pre-Test: Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question Question .Question Test by Supervising Teachers Mean“ Pooled Standard Dev. 3A 3B 3C 3D 5A SB 5C SD 5E 5F 56 SH SI Location Grand Rapids Benton Harbor' Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Grand Rapids Benton Harbor 2.6923 2.0000 1.6153 1.5625 1.6923 1.3125 1.4615 1.2500 1.6923 1.2500 1.6923 1.3125 2.5384 1.5000 1.5384 1.3750 2.5384 1.5625 2.6923 1.6875 2.2307 1.5000 2.0769 1.5625 1.8461 1.5000 1.4615 1.4375 2.0000 1.5000 21.5384 1.3750 1.7080 1.0003 0.8651 0.8217 1.0500 1.0577 1.3226 0.9996 1.3217 1.2203 1.1911 1.1363 1.0127 0.6431 1.0541 0.9619 85 {EMBLE 4.7 Means and 1299ng Standard Deviations on Post- t b niversit oordinat r' Post-Test Location ‘Mean "Pooled'Standard Dev. Question 1 Grand Rapids 2.6153 1.4215 Benton Harbor 1.6250 Battle Creek 1.6250 Question 2 Grand Rapids 2.3846 0.6319 Benton Harbor 1.2500 Battle Creek 1.2500 Question 3A Grand Rapids 2.0000 0.8650 . Benton Harbor 1.3125 Battle Creek 1.5000 Question 33 Grand Rapids 2.1538 0.7513 Benton Harbor 1.5000 - Battle Creek 1.2500 Question 3C Grand Rapids 1.7692 0.8280 Benton Harbor 1.2500 Battle Creek 1.5000‘ Question 30 Grand Rapids 2.0000 0.6927 Benton Harbor 1.1875 Battle Creek 1.3750 Question 4 Grand Rapids 3.6923 1.0248 Benton Harbor 1.3125 Battle Creek 1.7500 Question 5A Grand Rapids 4.0000 0.9305 Benton Harbor 1.3125 Battle Creek 1.5000 Question SB Grand Rapids 4.4615 0.8063 Benton Harbor 1.2500 Battle Creek 1.3750 Question 5C Grand Rapids 4.4615 0.8518 Benton Harbor 1.3125 Battle Creek 1.5000 Question SD Grand Rapids 3.8461 0.9076 Benton Harbor 1.1875 ' Battle Creek 1.3750 L i Post-Test Question 5E Question 5F Question 5G Question 5H Question SI 86 TABLE 457 (Continued) ‘ Location Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton.Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek 2.3846 1.1875 1.5000 3.9230 1.1875 1.3750 1.2307 1.0625 41.2500 3.3076 1.3125 1.1250 3.7692 1.0000 1.2500 “Mean"PooIed Standard'Dev. 1.1313 1.0180 0.4454 1.0443 0.9265 87 TABLE 4.8 Means and Pooled Standard ia i P s - ' sx_§222£!isiss_zussanssi Post-Test Location 'Mean ' Pooled Standard Dev. Question 1 Grand RapidS' 1.7692 '0.9739 Benton Harbor 1.4375 Battle Creek 1.0000 F* Question 2 Grand Rapids 1.6153 0.6187 in Benton Harbor 1.1875 1 Battle Creek 1.2500 Question 3A Grand Rapids 1.5384 0.7484 Benton Harbor 1.4375 ‘ Battle Creek 1.3750 Ly Question 38 Grand Rapids 1.1538 0.6095 * Benton Harbor 1.3125 Battle Creek 1.2500 Question 3C Grand Rapids 1.5384 0.7447 Benton Harbor 1.3750 Battle Creek 1.3750 Question 3D Grand Rapids 1.4615 0.6540 Benton Harbor 1.1875 Battle Creek 1.1250 Question 4 Grand Rapids ‘ 1.7692 0.7018 Benton Harbor 1.1875 Battle Creek 1.5000 Question 5A Grand Rapids 1.4615 0.5747" Benton Harbor 1.0000 Battle Creek 1.0000 Question 5B Grand Rapids 2.3076 1.0158 Benton Harbor 1.1875 Battle Creek 1.3750 Question 5C Grand Rapids 1.9230 0.8700 Benton Harbor 1.0625 Battle Creek 1.3750 Question 5D Grand Rapids 2.3846 0.9807 Benton Harbor 1.1250 Battle Creek 1.3750 Post-Test Question 5E Question 5F Question SG Question 5H Question SI 88 TABLE 4.8 (Continued) LOCdtiOn Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton.Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek Grand Rapids Benton Harbor Battle Creek “Mean 1.7692 1.0625 1.0000 1.5384 1.1250 1.0000 1.3846 1.0625 1.1250 1.7692 1.1875 1.5000 1.4615 1.0625 1.1250 ' P’O‘O‘l'ed Standard Dev. 0.7524* 0.7067 0.5113 0.8179 0.5157. m. w. 89 The following table (Table 4.9) indicates the average gain on each question on both the pre- and post-test evalua- tions by both the supervising teachers and university coordinator in the Grand.Rapids Center. It can be noted that there was a gain on all questions as observed by the supervising teachers with the exception of 2 and 5D. On the other hand, university coordinators show gains on fourteen of the questions. The two exceptions were questions 4 and 5A. Originally a repeated measures analysis had been planned to test differences between groups. However, this was found impossible due to a large redundancy between ratings on different scales. Therefore, it is the gain scores which are reported to show the comparisons. . The items where there were the exceptions were ques- tion 2 about the student teacher's written lesson plan: questions 5A and SD deal with the student teacher's be- havior in providing expectations for the students and capitalizing on the students' individual interests and aptitudes. Question 4 was concerned with the student teach- er's ability to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. 90 TTEHUE 4.9 AES£§£EtJiflh1 gs. \ lssitiissstiss is_Ezslsstiss. Grand Rapids__ E2. Signif- j Pre-Test Post-Tee t‘ ‘Ga‘in' i‘cance {7 Question 1 Super. Teachers . 4 1.76 -0.92 . i Univ. Coordinators 3.92 _ 2.61 -1.30 .143 3 Question 2 Super. Teachers 1.61 1.61 '0.00 1.00 E Univ. Coordinators' 2.69 2.38 .-0.30 .367 ‘E . ' ;5 Question 3A Super. Teachers 1.69 1.53 -0.15 .613 5 Univ. Coordinators 2.69 2.00 -0.69 .022* Question 3B Super. Teachers 1.46 1.15 -0.30. .367 Univ. Coordinators 2.46 2.15 -0.30- .303 Question 3c Super. Teachers 1.69 1.53 -0.15 .656 ' Univ. Coordinators 2.76 1.76 -1.00 .031* Question 3D Super. Teachers 1.69 1.46 -0.23 .570 Univ. Coordinators 2.76 2.00 -0.76* .011* Question 4 Super. Teachers 2.53 1.76 -0.76 .165 Univ. Coordinators 3.61 3.69 0.07 .794 Question 5A Super. Teachers 1.53 1.46 -0.07 .829 Univ. Coordinators 4.00 4.00 0.00 1.000 Question 5B Super. Teachers 2.53 2.30 -0.23 .553 Univ. Coordinators 4.69 4.46 -0.23 .190 Question 5C Super. Teachers 2.69 1.92 -0.76 .011* Univ. Coordinators 4.61 4.46 -0.15 .337 Question 5D Super. Teachers 2.23 2.38 0.15 .721 Univ. Coordinators 4.38 _3.84 -0.53 .222 Question 5E Super. Teachers 2.07 1.76 -0.30 .303 Univ. Coordinators 4.15 - 2.38 -1.76 .004* Question 5F Super. Teachers 1.84 1.53 -0.30 .303 Univ. Coordinators 4.00 3.92 “0.07 .794 91 > TABLE 4.9 (Continued) Super . Teachers Univ . Coordinators Question 56 Question 5H Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Question SI Signif- ‘Pre-Test'Posthest”Gain icance 1.46 lo 8 -0007 .584 1.76 1.23 -0.53 .188 2.00 1.76 -0.23 .489 4.00. 3.30 ~0.69 .201 1.53 1.46 -0.07 .837 '“u 4.07 3.76 —0.30 .337 ' *.05~significance‘level 92 The following table (Table 4.10) indicates the average gain on each questionon both the pre- and post-test evalua- tions by both the supervising teachers and university coor- dinators in the Benton Harbor Center. It can be noted that :there was a gain on all questions as observed by the super- vising teachers with the exceptions of 3A, BB and 3C. The university coordinators, on the other hand, show a gain on all of the questions with one exception, 38. The items where exceptions were noted had to«do with the learning environment in the classroom: 3A - intellec- tual climate, 3B - physical climate, 3C - emotional climate. ‘ . "I ‘L-. Question 1 Question 2 Question Question 'Question Question Question Question‘ Question Question Question Question Question 3A 3B 3C 3D 5A SB 5C SD SE SE 93 TABLE 4.10 aygggge Gain 22 .Essh.9222£iss_ . J |° Benton‘Harbor Super . Teachers Univ . Coordinators Super . Teachers Univ . Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers .Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators 2000 T043 - e 2050 1.62 -0087 1.56 1.18 -0.37 1.81 1.25 -0.55 1.31 1.43 0.12 1.43 1.31 -0.12 1.25 1.31 0.06 1.50 1.50 0.00 1.25 1.37‘ 0.12 1.37 1.25 -0012 1.31 1.18 -0.12 1.50 1 1018 -0031 1.50 .1.18 -0.31 2.12 1.31 -0.81 1.37 1.00 '0.37 1056 1.31 '0025 1056 1.18 -0037 1.87 1.25 -0.62 1068 1006 -0062 1093 1.31 -0062 1.50 1.12 -0.37 1.68~ 1.18 “0.50 1056 1.06 -0050 1.87. 1.13 '0.68 2000 1.18 V -0081 ’ . Signif- Pre—Test'Post-Test Gain.icance .074 .083 .0235' .544 .544 .718 1.000 .580 .697 .544 .206 .352 .022* .029* .362 .054* .020* -.001* .028* .054 .056 .006* .022* .083 .007* 94 TABLE 4.10 (Continued ' Pre-Test Post-Test ‘Ga‘in' icance Question 5G Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Question 5H Super. Teachers ' Univ. Coordinators Question SI Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators . 3 1.62 1.50 1.75 1.37 1.62 1.06 1.18 1.31 1.06 1.00 Signif- -0.56 .070 -0031 .096 '0.31 .055 -0.62 .013* *_05 significance level ‘§-"' fir! ‘v 5; v. .I' l ‘r'm' - 1 I 95 The gain score comparison between Grand Rapids and Benton Harbor in the following table shows: A gain as rated by the supervising teachers in Grand Rapids on 14 questions. A gain as rated by the university coordinators in Grand Rapids on 15 questions. A gain as rated by supervising teachers in Benton Harbor on 14 questions. A gain as rated by university coordinators in Benton Harbor on 15 questions. In the case of the supervising teachers ratings, it can be seen that the control group showed greater gains (i.e. greater gains in the negative direction) on nine of sixteen questions. For the university coordinator ratings, the split was even: eight greater gains for the experi- mental group and eight for the control group. In general, then despite fluctuations, the gains seem to be nearly equivalent across the two treatment groups. The one area in which there was a significant differ- ence as rated by the university coordinators was question SE, adjusting time allotments for tasks. 96 TABLE 4.11 Comparison of Gain Scores Between Grand Rapids and Benton Harbor Grand. ZBenton Signifr Rapids"HarbOrv icance Question 1 Super. Teachers -0.92 1-0.56 0.60 Univ. Coordinators -l.30 -0.87 0.63 Question 2 Super . Teachers 0. 00 -0 . 37 0. 27 Univ. Coordinators -0. 30 —0. S6 0. 51 Question 3A Super . Teachers -0 . 15 0 . 12 0 . 43 Univ . Coordinators -0 . 69 -0 . 12 0 . 09 Question BB Super. Teachers -0.30 0.06 0.29 Univ. Coordinators -0.30 -0.00 0.48 Question 3C Super. Teachers -0.15 0.12 0.48 Univ. Coordinators -1.00 -0.12 0.09 Question 3D" Super. Teachers -0.23 -0.12 0.80 Univ. Coordinators -0.76 -0.31 0.20 Question 4 Super. Teachers -0.76 -0.31 0.44 Univ. Coordinators 0.07 -0.81 0.05* Question SA Super. Teachers -0.07 -0.37 0.41 Univ. Coordinators -0.00 -0.25 0.62 Question SB Super. Teachers -0.23 -0.37 0.71 Univ. Coordinators -0.23 -0.62 * 0.20 Question SC Super. Teachers -0.76 -0.62 0.62- Univ. Coordinators -0.15 -0.62 0.14 (Question SD Super. Teachers 0.15 -0.37 0.22 Univ. Coordinators -0.53 -0.50 0.93 Question SE Super. Teachers -0.30 -0.50 0.54 Question SF Super. Teachers -0. 30 -0. 37 0. 84 Univ. Coordinators -0.07 -0.81 0.07 Question SG Super. Teachers -0.07 -0.37 0.25 Univ. Coordinators -0.53 -0.56 0.96 ~ \‘. .. 97 TABLE 4 .11 (Continued) Question 5H Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators Question SI Super. Teachers Univ. Coordinators 4.05 significance level Grand ‘ Rapids ' -0023 -0069 -0007 -0030 Benton Harbor -0031 -0043 -0.31 -0062 Signif- icance 0.81 0.64 0.52 0.39 YV- 98 Tables 4.12, 4.14 and 4.15 compare the summed student teacher scores on the pre- and post-tests by the university coordinator and supervising teacher in each of the three Student Teaching Centers involved in the study. Table 4.13 provided additional information about the experimental group: the student teacher average gain, the amount of time spent in follow-up activities by the supervising teacher and the number of student teachers with whom the supervising teacher had previously worked. 99 TABLE 4.12 Grand Rapids Student Teacher Scores on Summed Total of the Pre- and‘Post-Tests Subject Pre-Test "Fost-Test Coordinator' Super. Teacher fCoordinator"Super. Teacher 1 58 50 58 42 2 59 16 w 60 21 3 66 34 50 21 4 38 16 42 20 5 68 21 46 16 6 63 44 60 26 7 36 27 34 28 8 57 61 61 51 9 74 52 52 48 lo 65 36 41 25 ll 65 42 43 16 12 72 17 58 17 13 16 18 16 16 The scores in the above table were arrived at by giving the answers on the pre- and post-test observations a rating of from one to five and summing across all ratings. On this basis, the lower score is the more desirable one. For the comparisons of the ratings by uniVersity coordinator and supervising teacher, it can be noted from the above table that the coordinator, with one exception, consistently ranked the subjects lower than did the supervising teachers. 100 TABLE 4.13 ime a G 0 Average Gain, Number of Minutes for Follow-up Activities, gumber of Student Teachers Advised by a Supegyiging Teacher, Course in Supervision of Student Teaching Subject Av. Gain No. of Minutes go. of Stu.‘ Course in Followeup'Act. Teachers Supervision 1 -4 O 3 - 2 +3 0 3 no 3 -l4.5 O 1 no 4 +4 240 3 no 5 -l3.5 300 2 - 6 -10.5 120 5 no 7 -0.5 30 4 no 8 -3.0 220 6 no 9 -13.0 70 2 - 10 -17.5 55 1 yes 11 -24.0 105 2 no 12 -7.0 40 1 yes 13 -1.0 345 1 no ' In the above table when the average gain on the pre- and post-tests by both supervising teachers and university coor- dinators is compared with the time spent in follow-up acti- vities by the supervising teachers, the indication is that the most time spent by the supervising teacher did not necessarily result in the greatest gain by the student A teacher. 101 In the experimental group of thirteen supervising teachers, seven indicated that this student teacher was either their first or second. Two of the thirteen teachers had taken a course in the supervision of student teachers while eight had not. Three of the teachers did not answer the question. Comments by the Sn ervising Teachers in the Experimental Group Regardinggfhgir'AttitudeszEWEEHFProviding'TEE—__— Individual Differences'in‘fihe Classroom Subject 1 -Seeks the success of each student Subject -Differentiates materials and assignments 2 Subject 3 -Uses grouping to meet individual needs Subject 4 -Differentiates assignments and expectations Subject 5 -Uses varied methods and grouping procedures Subject 6 -Varied expectations; uses variety of materials Subject 7 -Varied materials Subject 8 -Use of varied materials, teacher aide, reading teacher, varied assignments and expectations Subject 9 -Use of grouping procedures, teacher aide Subject lO-Varied materials and volunteer help Subject ll-Varied assignments and student helpers Subject lZ-Varied assignments Subject lB-Extra assignments for those who show the ability The brief statements above by the supervising teachers in the experimental group indicate their means of providing for individual differences in the classroom. 102 Summary of Follow-up.Activities by Supervising Teachers 10 ll 12 in the Experimental Group. no follow-up no follow-up no follow-up activities not listed planning time each day - 15 min. daily conference session weekly showing materials, discussion of individual children, lesson plans conferences, planning lessons, preparing individual activity cards assignments, dividing children into groups, ways to help top group provide individual manipulative material, provide graphs for reading,separate worksheets for individuals in math studied data about children and discussed information obtained; discussed ways to provide for individual differences; discussed the 40 different teaching methods and their application in providing for in- dividual differences discussed all subject areas 103 13 - discussed sources of information about students and asked student teacher to write a profile on two stu- dents; began plans for taping lessons for slower students for social studies; discussed math regroup- ing to meet needs of individual students; individual math assignments; began devising tests to check com- prehension. A Much of the follow-up activities was devoted to regular conferences with the student teacher and did not include the content of the teaching model. 104 TABLE 4.14 BentOn'Harbor Student Teacher Scores on Summed Total of the Pre- and Post-Tests Subject Pre-Test Post-Test Coordinator Super. Teacher Coordinator super. Teacher 14 28 28 l7 17 15 32 31 29 26 16 30 16 ' 24 16 17 17 17 18 17 18 34 23 32 30 19 16 16 16 16 20 39 40 17 17 21 32 32 ' 18 18 22 22 20 17 16 23 63 32 18 17 24 33 32 17 17 25 24 15 22 19 26 19 16 18 19 27 20 21 25 22 28 19 16 19 21 29 23 24 17 16 The scores in the above table were arrived at by giving the answers on the pre- and post-test observations a rating Of from one to five and by summing across all ratings. On this? basis, the lower score is the more desirable one. For *3“? comparisons of the ratings by university coordinator and 105 supervising teacher, it appears that the coordinators' ratings tend to be slightly higher. On the pre-test three subjects were rated higher by the supervising teacher, nine by the coordinator and four scores were the same. On the post-test two subjects were rated higher by the super- vising teacher and nine by the coordinator with five scores the same by both coordinator and supervising teacher. TABLE 4 . 15. Battle Creek Student Teacher Scores on Summed Total of the POst—Test Subject Post-Test Coordinator Super. Teacher 30 28 26 31 17 16 32 16 16 33 15 . 15 34 16 16 35 35 30 36 16 16 37 36 25. The scores in the above table were arrived at by giving the answers on the post-test observation a rating of from one to five and summing across all items. On this basis, the lower score is the more desirable one. For the com- parisons of the ratings by university coordinator and super- vising teacher, the table indicates that the coordinator rat- ing on four subjects was higher than that of the superViSing teacher and four scores were the same. 106 Tables 4.16 through 4.19 are concerned with the stu— dent teacher's actual teaching behavior in providing for individual differences in the classroom which was question five on the pre- and post-tests. These scores were compared with the scores on the total instrument and across grade llevels. The following tables (Tables 4.16 - 4.19) indicate that there is no significant difference between grade levels on either the rating of question 5 (teaching be- havior) or on the total instrument by both the university coordinators and the supervising teachers. The grade means and standard deviations for each grade level are given. The F ratio was used to determine if there were a significant difference between various grade levels in the student teachers' provision for individual differences in their classrooms. Withtheapproximate sig- nificance level at .05, it can be noted that there is no significant difference observed at any grade level. 107 Hm>ma cosmowMflsmwm mo.« hm mamm.am moomuo swnuw3 unassummsH mwm.o onmwm.o m vmmh.ma moomuo som3umm Hmuoa ......... -- - .i..-..---...............i..-.i-..Mm-------m.~.Mmu.mwmn $25 5533 .u.......... m coaummao (remap mommm.o m4 . m moomuu somzvmm «Hm>mq conceamwsmwm m Eooooum mumsmw moqmwum> mumswxoummd no common cum: mo mooudom Houmswpuommmmwmum>wsouusmesuumsH mmuowimnu can m coeummso so mam>mq momma smmzumm moosmumwmeo How mummy mosmwum> mo mwmhamsd hH.¢ Manda oooo.c oooo.oa oooo.o oooo.m H MINIH mmmm.v oooo.ma mmam.~ mmmm.mH m mum v MHNH.N ooom.ha ommv.m oooo.ma N N H moam.m mmmm.oa vmom.~ mmmm.oa m m mama.m mmmm.HH memH.NH oooo.oH m m ommm.h oomh.ma mwvm.va oomh.om e v mmao.m oomh.mH omnm.ma omNm.H~ m m hoeh.m oooo.va mhm¢.ma mwma.md m N mmmm.¢ ooom.NH vmmm.HH ooom.ma w H vwmm.m oooo.ma mmmm.mH mmmm.NN m & soHumw>mo Uumpcmum and: soeumw>oo pumpsmum cam: .demovmnm mpcmm m ZOHBmmDO unmeouumcH Hmuoe mmuoom ummenumom usoeouumsH Hmuoa map can m c0eummoo now mcoHumH>mo pumpcmum was memo: momuu .mnoumsflouoou auwmuo>wmm mH.v mqm<8 108 Hm>oH mUQMOHMHsmHm mo.« mopmuw sHauHx ucoeonumcH mopmuo soo3uom «menus aHnqu mmwmmw cmozumm OOGMHHM> mo moousom oooo.o m¢HN.m N¢H¢.H mHmo.N mnnm.o mmmh.m vovm.m mHom.h thN.N mmmm.v coHuMH>mo ouncemam oooo.m momm.HH oooo.vH mmmm.m momm.m ooom.HH omNH.HH mmmm.HH oomN.OH oooo.vH smmz uswfisuumsH Hmuoe mH.v oooo.o nmvw.N wmmm.m hva.H thm.H oooo.~ mmvm.h momv.h oooo.m thm.HH mflmfifi mumapmma imchH>ummnmlunmEpnumaH Hmuoa mam was m cOHummso so mHm>mq opmno swm3uwm mmocmumMMHo now mummy mosmHum> mo mHmmlmcé oooo.m oooo.NH oooo.¢H momm.m mmmm.cH coco.OH omhm.NH mmmm.MH ooom.HH mmmm.mH :oHHMH>wQ pumccmum mH.v WAQGB mmuoom unmalumom unmaduumcH Hmuoe can m soHummsO How :oHuMH>mo pumocmum can memos mocuo MVWCDV'MMNMH Hmuoe m GOHumumm an . Hem~.- ~mm.o msHm.o m- ammo.» h~ vHHh.hm omw. o . (mmmm.b n mmmm.o~ «Ho>mq mosmOHMHsmHm m Eoowoum mumswm oumEonummm mo ooumon and: mu—GNMV'LHKDHVFI Ilncmmz (Nosmsvmum momma m ZOHBmMDO .mumcomma mchH>ummdm 109 The supervising teacher survey asked whether or not supplementary materials were available in their buildings. Question four on the pre- and post-tests evaluated the stu- dent teachers in their use of a variety of materials to meet individual needs. In tables 4.20 and 4.21 these responses are analyzed. I TABLE 4.20 E 3 5| 3 i I . I' I] I | J 5 1 Evaluation Score for Availability 9f Supplgmgggggy Materials i Sch Supplementary Materials Available in Schools Frequency, Mean Standard Dev. Yes . 31 1.419 .820 No 4 1.750 .957 No Response 2 1.500 I .707 TABLE 4.21 411-. ' ‘ 00. 0° 0 0 0. 0. 7 ‘ 0 ‘ ‘ O U.— able Supplementary Materials in SchOols on the Total Summed Evaluation Test Sources of Degrees of Mean Approximate Variance Freedom Square F" ‘ Sig. Level* Between Groups 2 0.1954 0.35342 0.705 Within Groups 34 0.5528 * .05 significance level The means on Question 4 are close and there is no sig- nificant difference in the use of varied materials by student teachers based on the questionof whether supplementary materials were or were not available in their schools. 110 Questions on the supervising teachers' survey asked about the degree earned4.'whether or not teachers had taken a course in the supervision of student teaching and how ‘ teachers perceived the role of the student teaCher. The supervising teachers' responses to these questions are analyzed in Tables 4.22 through 4.27. TABLE 4.22 Gro 5 Mean and 8 Evaluation Score for De rees Earne S i Degree Frequency, M222. Standard;peviation AB 27 11.5555 4.8145 MA 9 10.2222 2.3333 MA + 30 hrs. 1 14.0000 0.0000 TABLE 4.23 Ana lysisWWlm_ Evaluation S or for De of uiains_Ieashers Sources of Mean Degrees of Approximate Variance Square Freedom F Sig. Level* Between Groups 9.7537 2 0.51318 ._ 0.603 Within Groups 19.0060 34 *-05 significance level From the above tables indicating information about the' degrees earned by the supervising teachers, it can be noted that there is no significant difference in total evaluation based upon the degree earned by supervising teachers. 111 TABLE 4. 24 Group Means and Standard! Deviations on Total Summed Evaluation che for Course Taken by Supervising Teachers ‘ Course in Supervising Student Teachers Frequency ' Mean ‘ ' Standard Deviation Yes 10 9.4000 2.3664. No 24 11.4166 ' 3.7868 No Response 2 17.0000 12.7279 TABLE 4.25 Analysis of Variance Test for Qiffgggnggg 9g nggl gyglna- Sources of V Mean Degrees of Approximate Variance Square Freedom F Sigijevel* Between Groups 41.1654 3 2.50531 0.076 Within Groups 16.4313 33 *.05 significance level From the above tables indicating whether or not super- vising teachers had taken a course in supervising student' teachers, it can be noted that there is no significant difference in total evaluation. 112 TABLE 4.26 Group Means and Standard Deviations on Total Smed Evalua- tion Score Indicating Sggeryising Teacher's Pergption of the Role of Student Teacher Role ' Standard Perception Frequency Mean . ' Deviation Aide 2 9.0000 1.4142 rt Team Member 34 11.5294 4.4054 1 Substitute 1 8.0000 0.0000 TABLE 4.27 Analysis of Variance Test for Qif ferences on Iota; summed . lp‘ Evaluation Score Based on the Respgnsgs t9 the Pegggggign of Stydent Teacher's R91: Que stign Sources of Mean Degrees of Approximate Variance Square Freedom“ " F Sig. Level* Between Groups 11.6295 2 0.61545 0.546 Within Groups ' 18.8961 34 *.05 significance level From the above tables indicating the supervising teachers' perception of the role of the student teacher, it can be noted that there is no significant difference in total evaluation based on the supervising teachers' perceptions of student teacher role. 113 SUMMARY , This chapter comprises an analysis of all the data used in the study. The F test was used to analyze the variability among mean scores. Gain scbres were reported on the data obtained from the experimental and control groups pre- and post-tests. The remaining data were re- I {5“ ported in summaries from the surveys. Much of the data recorded in this chapter had to do with an analysis of the prep and post-test evaluations by super- vising teachers and university coordinators. These data were IL! reported in summary form as well as by individual items on the instruments. One area which indicated a significant dif- ference was on the evaluation by university coordinators in the student teachers' adjustment of time allotments for tasks. There was one area which indicated a significant difference by the university coordinators in the control group. It was on question 4--the student teacher's ability to utilize in- structional materials commensurate with the learning capa- bilities of each student. ‘ Other data which indicated no significant difference in- cluded: provision for individual-differences at various grade. levels; use of varied materials by student teachers with availability of materials in buildings; academic degree held by supervising teacher, whether or not he had taken a course in supervising student teachers and how he perceived the role of student teacher. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions drawn from the analysis of the data are ‘ 7 r T ”‘7‘.- 1.1.12]; p' ,. presented in this chapter with recommendations for further study and research in the light of the findings of this study. The implications which this study has for further educational ‘Lim ‘ research are also highlighted in this final chapter. CONCLUSIONS The conclusions which one can draw from the data are based upon the evidence presented in Chapter IV. With re- ference to the first hypothesis of the study, one would con- clude that the strategy of working through the supervising teachers was not as successful a vehicle in changing stu- dent teachers' behavior as originally expected. The evidence presented indicated slight gains made by the student teach- ers on their pre- and post-tests. While a comparison of the gain scores between the experimental and control groups indicated no significant difference in the evaluations by the supervising teachers, those by the university coordi- nators showed a significant difference in one area: the teacher's adjustment of time allotments for tasks. Even though there was not complete success as evidenced by the 114 115 results, the gain in the one area did indicate the pos- sibility of further success in the use of this strategy. As a result of the fact that the student teachers did make some gain, one can conclude that the ability of stu- dent teachers to provide for individual differences can be re... increased as stated in the second hypothesis. The gain was .' made but was not.a direct result of the in-service sessions with supervising teachers. Although it must be emphasized that there Was a gain by the student teachers in the control !# group as well there was one area in which a significant dif- ference was noted by the university coordinators; adjusting time allotments to complete tasks was an important area covered in the teaching model with supervising teachers. The evaluations of the student teachers in the control group by the university coordinators indicated a significant dif- I ference on question 4, the student teacher's ability to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learn- ing capabilities of each student. The findings reject the notion that using the same evaluative device for measuring the student teacher's provi- sion for individual differences in a class could be equiva- lently employed by both the university coordinator and 116 supervising teacher. The coordinators consistently rated the student teacher lower than did the supervising teacher. The fact that the difference in the rating of student teach- ers by the university coordinators and supervising teachers existed does not necessarily mean that they did not utilize the device the same way. The differences could have been due to the instrument itself as well as to how each rater viewed the situation. The conclusions which can be drawn from the fourth hypothesis of the study that the strategy used for instruct- ing supervising teachers would be a beneficial one converge upon the follow-up activities provided by the supervising teachers. Summaries of those activities indicate that when time was spent with the student teacher it involved pri- marily day-to-day planning. Thus the planning did not always present the suggestions and techniques advanced by the teaching model. Perhaps the supervising teachers were at a loss to implement the content of the teaching model for two reasons: (1) they lacked in experience in work- ing with student teachers (for seven of the thirteen super- vising teachers, this was their first or second student teacher); (2) only two of these supervising teachers had teken a course in the supervision of student teachers where they would have learned various procedures to use with student teachers. The data reviewed in this study revealed additional 117 information. It was found that there was no difference in providing for the individual differences of students by the student teachers at various grade levels. A comparison of the student teachers' use of varying materials with whether or not supplementary materials were ‘ available in the school yielded no significant difference. Other information including the degree held by the supervising teacher, whether or not he had taken a course in supervising student teachers, how he perceived the role of the student teacher, all showed no significant difference. When a comparison was made of the student teacher's actual behavior in providing for individual differences in the classroom (questionS on the pre- and post-tests) with the total instrument scores by grade levels, the results indicated no significant difference between experimental and control groups. The amount of time spent by each supervising teacher in the experimental group in follow-up activities did not correspond to the degree of improvement shown by the student teacher. For example, the student teacher who showed no gain but rather a loss between the scores on the pre- and post-test had a supervising teacher who indicated she spent 240 minutes in follow-up activities. The 240 minutes rep- resented the third highest recording of minutes spent by the supervising teacher. The student teacher who demon- strated the most gain between the pre- and post—test scores 118 had a supervising teacher who recorded 105 minutes in follow-up activities. In this instance the 105 minutes represented the sixth highest recording of minutes spent by the supervising teacher in follow-up activities. All of the supervising teachers in the experimental group responded on the Supervising Teacher Survey with their procedures for providing for individual differences in their classrooms. Their comments indicated that grouping, varying the assignment or objectives constituted providing for in- dividual differences in their classrooms. The many facets of providing for individual differences which were utilized in the teaching model were not considered by many of the supervising teachers in the experimental group. The limitations of the study raised questions relative to the mechanics of providing for in-service sessions with supervising teachers which remained unanswered: (1) are supervising teachers permitted to leave their classrooms to attend in-service sessions? (2) if so, are student teachers allowed to serve as substitutes or is it necessary for the school district to hire substitutes? (3) are supervising teachers given the choice to attend or not to attend in-service sessions called by the university coordinator? (4) is it possible for all supervising teachers from a building or school district to be absent at the same time? 119 IMPLICATIONS Some implications were inferred from the data. Today's educators are interested in improving teacher education as evidenced by the response of elementary principals and first year teachers to the questionnaires. Many teachers today feel pressures for one reason or another and are nothilling to commit themselves to addi- tional responsibilities such as in-service sessions. Exactly how much of the outcome of the results of the study was due to the researcher and the research design or to other uncontrolled variables remains uncertain. Never-' theless they exist and raise questions to be considered. Why'didn't the student teachers in the experimental group Show more growth? How much of the growth achieved by the student teachers in providing for individual differences was due to: (1) the teaching model design (2) the supervising teacher's follow-up activities (3) the amount of time spent in the follow-up activities (4) 'the teaching experience of the supervising teachers (5) the experience of working with student teachers (6) normal growth during a student teaching experience (7) the innate competencies of the student teacher (8) personality conflict between supervising teacher and student teacher (9) differences within schools For examPle, one of the variables in this study which may have been significant to the outcome was the fact that in the experimental group of thirteen supervising teachers, Seven indicated that their present student teacher was 1 120 either their first or second. No supervising teacher had had more than six student teachers and only three teachers had had more than three student teachers. This leads to the queStion of the success of the more experienced supervising teacher in working with the student teacher. How much more influence does the experienced supervising teacher have over the less experienced? Also only two of these supervising teachers had taken a.course in supervising student teachers. Of what value would such a course have been in their follow- .up activities with their student teachers? There was no significant difference in the student teacher's provision for individual differences at different grade levels as measured by the present evaluation instrument. This information is important in that often this is thought to be done more successfully at the early elementary level. The fact that there was no significant difference in' the student teacher's use of varying materials based on whether or not supplementary materials were available in the schools has implication for further research. Is this true for elementary classroom teachers as well as student teachers? Having a variety of materials is highly empha- sized in most readings on individualized instruction. How necessary are the materials? The results of this study did not rule out that the strategy of working through the supervising teachers to 121 improve an area of weakness in teacher education is a good procedure. According to Allen A. Schmeider: The classroom teacher is probably the most under-utilized resource for change and improve- ment in American Education. It would warrant trying this procedure again in different situations. . It is difficult.to judge the actual effectiveness of the teaching model itself. This is due to the thoroughness of the follow-up activities conducted by the supervising teachers as well as the amount of time spent in the follow- up. These variables are difficult to control and have un- known effects on the results. The fact that providing for individual differences was suggested as an area for concentration in this study indi- cates the concern of principals and first year teachers in this regard. This study sought one means to alleviate or lessen the problem for prospective teachers. Other means should be explored and investigated.‘ This study has another implication which has no means of reporting data available. It is the effect of the in- service sessions upon the supervising teachers themselves in the experimental group. Each teacher's involvement hope- fully had meaning for him by changing his behavior. . 73Allen A. Schmeider, "Teaching Power and Local-to-Local 1:721ergi; The Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Summer, I o ' it? V1.4. “WU; 122 Another dimension which could be considered in repli- cating the study would be that of including the student teachers in the initial planning. It might also be advan- tageous to include them in the instructional procedures along with the supervising teachers. ThiSIOf course, would change the initial focus of the study. RECOMMENDATIONS In the light of the study's findings certain recommenda- tions can be made. The in-service sessions with supervising teachers are basic to the study. In order to replicate the study, the researcher would need to find answers to the ques- tions raised in the preceding section. If teachers are given a choice of attendance, it could be feasible that enough or not.enough teachers would choose to participate to make the study worthwhile. On the other hand, when supervising teach- ers are not given an option to attend but are required to do so their attitudes may affect the result of the outcomes. The teachers who would opt to participate should be involved in the planning. John Moffitt writing about in- service education points out that: Only under those circumstances in which teachers find their own problems and want to do something about them can effective in-service education programs exist.74 With this in mind the teachers who would be participating in the study should determine the area to be studied. There should be a joint meeting of all coordinators ~—__ 74John Clifton Moffitt, In-Service Education for Teach- _er_s,_ (Washington, D.C.: The Center for Appliediesearch, InC., 1963), P. 59. 123 participating in the study rather than in the individual cen- ters. This lends to more uniformity. It is advantageous also that the supervising teachers meet in groups prior to conduct- ing the study. When several coordinators explain the proce- dure and forms, this could account for variances in the results. In considering replicating the study, it is the mechanics of conducting the study which need the thorough planning and prior investigatnons of the researcher. Establishing groups willing to participate is crucial to the success of the study. How differently the teaching model could be utilized is a possibility for further investigation. Perhaps the five ses- sions originally planned would have been better than the two longer sessions used in the study. The supervising teachers, college coordinators, and the researcher felt that one of the most beneficial sections was the sharing of ideas and sugges- tions. More time could be allocated for this.procedure in a similar teaching model. Perhaps another area of study would be more conducive to a workable teaching model. At any rate the teaching model, in order to be effective, needs to present diversified activities and techniques as well as involvement of the participants. In reSponse to the unanswered questions regarding the mechanics of the study (p.118), a very recent study satisfac- torily resolved the problem. Since the conclusion of the study being-reported here, a similar study was reported by Dr. Miles A. Nelson with the formal evaluation presently under 124 study. He had as his purpose an in—service type of train- ing program for cooperating teachers in which they would acquire and practice some necessary skills and also inform them of one role they might assume in supervising student teachers. The subjective evidence indicated the success of the program. One interesting aspect of Dr. Nelson's study m “a. was the means of providing for the in-service sessions with supervising teachers. These were held during the school day at a time when the student teacher could be left in charge. This parallels the procedure as reported in this study.75 This particular study highlighted some voids in educa- tional research which need further in-depth study. The investigations of related research revealed the lack of studies in in-service education, the availability of in- struments to measure teacher behavior, and the evaluation of the student teaching experience. This particular study stressed the role of the super- vising teacher and included an added dimension to the role as a teacher of student teachers. In order to accomplish this, however, the need for in-service education for the supervising teacher was of paramount importance. This need which was accentuated by Dr. Gilfay still remains an unmet need of educational research. Dr. Gilfay wrote: 75». Miles A. Nelson, ”Cooperating Teacher Training," The JOurnal of'Teacher‘EducatiOn, XXIII (Fall, 1972), 367-370. 125 Recognizing that the most important influence in the professional preparation of the student teach- er is the supervising teacher, teacher education institutions and public school administrators must move forward in developing an adeguatein-service program for supervising teachers.‘6 7 It has been indicated in this study that the need exists for better instruments which would stimulate educational re- search. Frederick R. Cyphert pointed out that teacher edu- ileJ cators are reluctant to conduct research due to the unavail- ability of adequate instruments.77 Historically, the student teaching or practice' 3‘ teaching experience has been the least criticized, J and often the least researched part of the total 1%“ education program. Since this is true it would seem to indicate that further research is needed in this neglected area as well. There is continuous pressure to improve people who are connected with schools which seems to be a part and parcel of the culture in which society finds itself today. Even though it is not always improvement, change is widely as- sumed to be good because standing still is to stagnate. American society has placed on education new and greater 76Lewis W. Gilfay, "How Can Teacher Education Institu- tions and Public Schools CoOperate in Providing a More: Effective Ianervice Education Experience for the Super- vising Teacher?" New Developments,_§esearch, and Ex‘erimen- tation in Profe331onaI Laboratory Eerriences, (The.AssocIa- tion for Student Teaching; Ce er a 8, Iowa, 1965), p. 111. 77Frederick R. Cyphert, ”An Analysis of Research in Teacher Education," The Journal of Teacher Education, XXIII (Summer, 1972), 145-151} 73Robert L. Ebel, Editor, Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Fourth Edition, (The‘ acm1 an ompany: Toronto, Ontario, 1969), p. 1417. 126 responsibilities. Schools must provide an education for increased numbers of people, for a longer span of productive life and at higher levels of skill andncompetence. As a result of these greater responsibilities education is not only concerned with large numbers of students but increasing- ly concerned with the individual as an individual. Educa- tion has been concerned with the individual in the past but not to the extent that it is today. One of the primary goals of education today is the personal development of the individual. Therefore, this area is one which educators need to study in greater depth in order to meet the challenge. This study sought one means to alleviate or lessen the prdb- lem for prospective teachers but other means should be ex- plored and investigated. 1 i What is important as a result of this study is the fact that a definite need in teacher preparation programs was identified and steps were taken in setting up a procedure to remedy the need. Two separate groups, both elementary principals and first year teachers identified an area of need which is not being adequately met in pre-service educa- tion. This experimental research study investigated one method of alleviating the weakness of providing for individ- ual differences in elementary classrooms. Although this study did not provide a clear cut solution to the problem, it did investigate a method which does have merit and could be successful given the proper conditions. 127 The strategy of the in-service sessions with supervis- ing teachers for a purpose other than increasing supervisory skills was likewise a worthwhile outcome of this study. Even though the hoped-for complete success was not achieved, the fact that some success was evident makes further study in this area important. SUMMARY The conclusions_which can be drawn from the study were reported in this chapter along with the recommendations for replicating the study. The chapter concluded by suggesting the implications which the study has for additional educa- tional research. BIBLIOGRAPHY, BIBLIOGRAPHY . BOOKS The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Crisis in Teacher Education: AiD amic”Response'to AACTErs Future Role, WaShington, D.C.: T e American Association of CoIIeges for Teacher Education, 1968. 'Beeb, Aldon M., Arlene F. Low, and Floyd T. Waterman, Supervisogy Conference as Individualized Teaching, ‘ washington, D.C.: Association or tu ent Teac ing, 1969. Bishop, Lloyd K., Individualizing Educational Systems, New York: Harper & Row, 1971.1 Brighton, Stayner F., Increasin Your Accuracy in Teacher Evaluation, Englewood_CIiffs, New Jersey: Prentice- HaII, Inc.,l965. Burns, Richard W., New Approaches to Behavioral Objectives, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company ublishers, 1972. Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan, The Impact Study of Student Teaching Programs Upon The Cooperating Public Schools'in'Michigan, Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Council 0 State Co ege Presi- dents, June, 1970. Ebel, Robert L. (ed)., Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Fourth Edition, Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Com- pany, 1969. Gilfay, Lewis W., "How Can Teacher Education Institutions and Public Schools Cooperate in Providing A More Effective In-Service Education Experience for the Supervising Teacher?", New Develppments, Research, and Ex erimentation in Professional Laborator Ex eriences, Cegar FaIIs, Iowa: The Association for Student Teach- ing, 1965. Good, Carter V., (ed)., Dictionary of Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959} 1 - . Henry, Marvin A. and W. Wayne Beasley, Supervising Student Teachers The Professional way, Terre Haute, Indiana: Sycamore Press, 1972. 128 Henry. Si) StL Chi Billie Stl Howes. Tee HOWSdE Cc: ti: Hudgii Ra] JOhhs: Dei Masov. 129 Henry, Nelson B. (ed)., Individualizing Instruction, Sixty-first Yearbook of'the-National_Society for the Study of Education, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Hilliard, Pauline and Charles L. Durrance, Guidinngtudent Teaching ExperienCes, Washington, D.C.:hAssociation’fEr Student Teaching, 1968. Howes, Virgil M., Individualization of Instruction - A Teaching Strategy, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1970. Howsam, Robert B., New Designs for Research in Teacher Competengy, San Francisco: California Teacher Associa- tion, 1960. Hudgins, Bryce B., The Instructional Process, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company,7l§7l. Johnson, James A., A Brief Historyof Student Teaching, DeKalb, Illinois: Creative Educational Materials, 1968. Masover, Paul H., An Imperative: A National Policy For Teacher Education, Atlantic C1Ey: International' Reading Association and The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, April, 1971. Medley, Donald M., and Harold E. Mitzel, "Measuring Class- room Behavior by Systematic Observation", Handbook of Research on Teaching,. ed. N.L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Mills, Belen Collantes and Ralph Ainslee Mills, Qesigning Instructional Strategies for Young Children, Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, 1972. Moffitt, John Clifton, In-Service Education for Teachers, Washington, D.C.: The Center for—Applied Research, Inc., 1963. Muse, Milton (ed)., Selected Readings for the Introduction to thefiTeachingProfessign, 'Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1970. Plowman, Paul D., Behavorial Objectives--Teacher Success Through Student PerformanceLChicago: Science Research Associates, 1971. Ruman, Edward L., "In-Service Education of Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors,"'Partnership in Teacher Education, ed. Smith and others Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and Association for Student Teaching, 1968- 130 Ryan, Kevin, "Student Teaching, The Teacher' 3 Handbook, (eds. ) Dwight W. Allen and Eli Seifman, Glenview,jllli— nois: Scott Foresman and Company, 1971. Ryans, David G., Characterist1CS'of'Teachers, Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1960. Sandefur, J. T. and Alex A. Bressler, "Classroom Observation Analysis, Washington, D. C.: ATE Research— Bulletin No. 10, Association of Teacher Educators and ERIC Clearing- house on Teacher Education, November, 1971. Smith, B. 0., Teachers For The Real World, Washington, D. C.: American Association of7Colleges for Teacher Educa- tion, 1968. , Smith, E. Brooks, and others (ed. ), Partnership in Teacher Education, Washington, D. C.: American Association 0 Colleges for Teacher Education and Association for Student Teaching, 1968. Smith, Edward W., and others, The _Educator' s Encyclopedia, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, How Teachers Make a Difference, washington, D.C.: U. Government Printing Office, 1971. . Williams, Stanley W., New Dimensions in Supervision” Scranton, Pennsylvania: Intext Educational Phhlishers, 1972. PERIODICALS Bennie, William A. and Patricia Ann Graham, ”In-Service Education of the Supervising Teacher ", Contemporary Education, XL (May, 1971), 295-7. Burch, Harmon S. and Robert C. Reardon, "Individual Dif- ferences and Learning Efficiency: A Re-examination and a Re-emphasis",'Contemporarijducation, XLI (January, 1970), 119-22. Cyphert, Frederick R., "An Analysis of Research in Teacher Education", The Journal of Teacher'Education, XXIII (Summer, l972),_145-151. Eiss, Albert F., "Individualized Learning”, Science'and ChildrenL' IX, (April, l972),_9-11. 131 Fattu, N.A.,-"Can Principals Evaluate Teachers?", The National'Elementary'Principal,, XLII, No. 2, (November, 1963),19+20. Gregory, Susan A., "Criteria for Selecting Supervising Teachers", ClearinngouSe,_ XLVI (November,_l97l), 178—82. Hunter, Madeline, "Tailor Your Teaching to Individualized Instruction", Instructor, LXXIX (March, 1970), 53-64. - Kinger, Suzanne M., "On-Being a Teacher Educator: A Chang- .ing Conception", Educational Leadership, XXVIII (OCtOber' 1970), 33-70 Knowles, Gerald M., "A Strategy for Teacher Education", Educational Leadership, XXVIII (March, 1970), 564-7. Leslie, Larry L., "Matching Student Teachers with Coopera- ting Teachers: A Fruitful Effort?", The JOurnal of Teacher Education, XXII No. 3 (Fall, I9715,1303-09. Long, Bruce E., "A Guide for Supervising Teachers", Clearing HouseI XLVI (November, 1971), 151-4. Marso, Ronald M., ”Project Interaction: A Pilot Study in A Phase of Teacher Preparation”, The Journal'of Teacher Education, XXII, No. 2, (Summer, 19715, 194-98. McQueen, Muldred, "Individualized Instruction", Education Digest, XXXVI No. 8, (April, 1971), 25-28. Mitchell, James V., Jr., Toni E. Santmire, and Elizabeth Z. Howard, "A Terminal Individualized Instruction Pro- gram for Prospective Elementary Teachers", The Journal of Teacher Education, XX No. 3, (Fall, 19705, 262-65. Monsom, Jay A.,and Aldon M. Beeb, "New Roles for the Super- visor of Student Teaching", Educational Leadership, (October, 1970), 44-47. Nelson, Dr. Miles A., "Cooperating Teacher Training", The gpurnal of Teacher Education, XXXIII (Fall, 1972), 367L370. O'Donnel, Patrick A., and Charles W. Lavaroni, "Elements of Individualized Instruction",‘Education'Digest, XXXVI, No. 1, (September, 1970), 17-19. OPenshaw, Karl, "Culling Impressions from Teachers in Prep- aration", The Journal of Teacher Education, XX, No. 4, 132 Purpel, David.E., "Student Teaching",‘The‘Journal'of Teacher' Education, XVIII, No. 1, (Spring, 1967), 20-23. Scanlon, Robert G., and Mary V. Brown, "InnService Education for Individualized Instruction", Educational Technology, X (February, 1970), 62-4. Schmeider, Allen A., "Teacher Power and Local-to-Local Delivery", The Journal of Teacher Education, XXII Shermis, S. Samuel, and John E. Balen, ”Creating Change Agents via Student Teaching Experiences ", Peabody Journal of Education, XLVII (May, 1970), 33 - . Stodghill, Ronald, "New Goals for Individualization", Educational Leadership, XXIX, No. 4 (January, 1972), Turner, Harold E., "A Challenge for Supervisors", Clearing House, XLV (October, 1970), 116-19. Wheeler, Alan H., "Creating a Climate For Individualizing Instruction", Younnghildren, XXVII (October, 1971), 12‘16 a Wood, Walter, "This Mini Seems Here to Stay“, American Education, VII (December, 1971), 14-17. Yamanota, Karoree, "Better Guidance for the Individual", Educational Leadership, XXIX, No. 4 (January, 1972), 319-322. Yee, Albert H., "Do Cooperating Teachers Influence The Attitudes of Student Teachers?", Journal of Educational Psychology: LX (August, 1969), 327-32. Young, James H., "Authoritarianism in Elementary Student Teachers and Their Supervising Teachers", The Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Spring, 1971), - . NEWSLETTER A Newsletter of the Conference for Educational Development and Research, D & R Report (Denver, Colorado), Volume 1: No. 3, 1972. APPENDICES 133 -APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO ELEMENTARY PRINCIPALS February 10, 1972 Dear In an effort to improve the effectiveness of elemen- tary teacher preparation programs, it would be to our ad- vantage to know the areas which you feel are deficient in these programs today. I am of the opinion that you are in a decidedly advantageous position to have this information due to your thorough evaluation of new teachers. The results of this survey sent to all elementary principals in Kalamazoo County will serve as the basis for. a study to demonstrate one way in which elementary teacher education programs might be improved. Would you please indicate in order of priority (1,2,3) the three areas b610W'mOSt in need of improvement in elemen- tary teacher education programs at the undergraduate level? 1. Disciplinary matters 4. Classroom manage- ment 2. Instructional skill, a. Time schedule methods ' b. Pupil work a. Motivation b. Providing for in- dividual differences habits c. Experimentation d. Records and c. Student participation 'Reports d. Review _ ._____ e. Application 5. Student Evaluation f. Assignment '-——' ' . . ' 6. Other 3. Preparation of subject --- identify matter a. Planning ‘b. Objectives c. Use of resources I would appreciate your returning this survey to me in the enclosed stamp addressed envelope by February 17, 1972. l I Thank you for your cooperation in this all important task of preparing qualified teachers. Sincerely yours, flrvAw/Zflwu Miss Barbara Sullivan Coordinator of Elementary Education Nazareth College 134 .APPENDIX 2 QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO FIRST YEAR TEACHERS Dear February 10, 1972 In an effort to improve the effectiveness of elemen- tary teacher preparation programs, it would be to our ad- vantage to know the areas which you feel are deficient in these programs today. I am of the opinion that you are in a decidedly advantageous position to have this information due to your short term of classroom experience and very re- cent preparation for your present position. The results of this survey sent to all first year teach- ers in Kalamazoo County will serve as the basis for a study to demonstrate one way in which elementary teacher education programs might be improved. WOuld you please indicate in order of priority (1,2,3) the three areas below most in need of improvement in elemen— tary education programs at the undergraduate level? 2. Instructional skill, 1. Disciplinary matters 4, Classroom manage- ment a. Time schedule methods _____. . a. Motivation _____ b- hzgiiswork b. Providing for in- . dividual differences ————— 3° gzggiégegfigtlon ______ c. Student participation -———— ' Re orts e. Application . f, Assignment 5. Student evaluation 3. Preparation of subject 5, Other matter — W a. Planning b. Objectives c. Use of resources I would appreciate your returning this survey to me in the enclosed stamp addressed envelope by February 17, 1972. Thank you for your cooperation in this all important task of preparing qualified teachers. Sincerely yours, Miss Barbara Sullivan . Coordinator of Elementary Education Nazareth College «L S‘_ I \ '- J‘11fl') 1‘. ‘1; .111" w" .1: v 135 APPENDIX 3 SUPERVISING TEACHER SURVEY Name School , Grade Level Total years of teaching experience Total years of teaching experience at present grade level_; ' ' Number of student teachers including the present one Earned credit for a graduate course supervising student teachers Yes( ) No ( ) Degrees earned BA MA Ed.S Other Probationary Teacher Tenure Teacher Briefly outline your procedure for providing for individual differences in your classroom. 136 How do you perceive the role of your student teacher? 1. as an aide 2. as a team member 3. as your substitute SCHOOL‘INFORMATION The number of students in your school The number of classroom teachers in your school Socio-economic level of the students lower middle class middle class upper middle class Do you have available in your school - Supervisory personnel in subject matter areas yes no Teacher aides _ yes no Volunteer help yes no Supplementary resources in your building yes no 137 APPENDIX 4 STUDENT TEACHER SURVEY, Name Age Single Married‘ Number of Children School " City" Supervising Teacher' Grade Level Approximate hours of pre-student teaching experience Kinds of previous experience with children Length of I Service Will complete student teaching experience (date) Will earn degree (date) Major__ Minor_g 138 Briefly outline your proposed procedure for providing for individual differences in your classroom. PRE-TEST OBSERVATION 139 APPENDIX 5 Student Teacher OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF STUDENT TEACHERS Supervising Teacher School Subject Evaluation of the Student Teacher in His/Her Ability to Grade Level Date Providelfor'IndividualiDifferences The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/ her class as to their capabil- ities and potentialities. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher gathered written data relative to understanding their basic needs? Per cent of Students 90 to 100 75 to 89 50 to 74 25 to 49 24 to The student teacher is able to compose an appropriate plan to provide for the needs of all the students in his/her class.. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher written a lesson plan with a teaching method appropriate to their needs? ' ' 3. 140 The student teacher is able to Per cent of students 90 75 50 25 24 to to to to to 100 89 74 49 0 provide the learning environ- ment in the classroom which is conducive to each learner's needs. a.For what per cent of the stu- ‘dents has_the student teacher provided an intellectual cli- mate conducive to learning? b.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a physical climate conducive to learning? c.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an emotional climate conducive to learning? d.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a social climate conducive to learning? 4. The student teacher is able to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided appropriate diver- sified instructional materials? 1 141 Per cent of Students 90 75 50 25 24 to to to to to ~100 89 74 49- 0 5. The student teacher is able to demonstrate his/her ability to individualize instruction by his/her teaching behavior in the classroom. For what per cent of the stu- dents does the student teacher accomplish the following? .a.expectations not the same for all students b.differentiates learning activi-1 ties for all students c.1ndividualizes the difficulty of the task d.capitalizes on individual interests and aptitudes e.adjusts time allotments for tasks ‘ ' f.is sensitive to varying pere sonal and social needs g,seeks participation by all students_ ‘ h.gives each student the as- sistance and support appro- priate for his needs i.shows genuine concern for each student_¥ " Comments: Supervising Teacher 142 APPENDIX 6 PRE-TEST OBSERVATION OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF STUDENT TEACHERS Student Teacher Supervising Teacher School Grade Level Subject__r A__Date Eyaluation of the Student Teacher in His/Her Ability to Provide fhr Individual'Difference§_ Per cent of Students 90 75 50 25 to to to to 100 89 74 49 l. The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/ her class as to their capabil- ities and potentialities. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher gathered written data relative to understanding their basic needs? 24 to 2. The student teacher is able to compose an appropriate plan to provide for the needs of all the students in his/her class. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher written a lesson plan with a teaching method appropriate to their needs?_ h 3. 4. 143 The student teacher is able to provide the learning environ- ment in the classroom which is conducive to each learner's needs. a.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an intellectual cli- mate conducive to learning? Per cent of Students 90 to 100 75. to 89 50 to 74 25 to 49, 24 .to 0 b.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a physical climate conducive to learning? c.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an emotional climate conducive to learning? d.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a social climate conducive to learning? The student teacher is able to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided apprOpriate diver- sified instructional materials? 144 Per cent of Students The student teacher is able to 90 to 10 75 to 89 50 to 74 25 to 49 24 to 0 demonstrate his/her ability to individualize instruction by his/her teaching behavior in the classroom. For what per cent of the stu- dents does the student teacher accomplish the following? a.expectations not the same for all students b.differentiates learning activi- . s ties for all students c.1ndividualizes the difficulty of the task d.capitalizes on individual interests and aptitudes e.adjusts time allotments for tasks f.is sensitive to varying per- sonal and social needs g.seeks participation by all students 5 h.gives each student the as- sistance and support appro- priate for his needs i.shows genuine concern for ' . each student Comments: University Coordinator 145 APPENDIX 7 POST-TEST OBSERVATION OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF STUDENT TEACHERS Student Teacher Supervising Teacher School Grade Level Subject Date__ Eyeluation of the StudenpyTeacheryin His/Her Ability pp Provide fer'Individual‘Differences Per cent of Students The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/ her class as to their capabil- ities and potentialities. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher gathered written data relative to understanding their basic needs? ’ ' 90 to 100 75 to 89 50 to 74 25 to 49 24 to 0 The student teacher is able to compose an appropriate plan to provide for the needs of all the students in his/her class. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher written a lesson plan with a teaching method appropriate to their needs? 146 Per cent of Students 90 75 50 25 24 to to to to to 100 89 74 49 0 3. The student teacher is able to provide the learning environ- ment in the classroom which is conducive to each learner's needs. a.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an intellectual cli- mate conducive to learning? b.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a physical climate conducive to learning? c.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an emotional climate conducive to learning? d.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a social climate conducive to learning? 4. The student teacher is able to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided appropriate diver- sified instructional materials?_ 147 The student teacher is able to Per cent of Students 90 75 50 25 24 to to to to to 100 89 74 49 0 ' P demonstrate his/her ability to individualize instruction by his/her teaching behavior in the classroom. For what per cent of the stu- dents does the student teacher accomplish the following? a.expectations not the same for all students b.differentiates learning activiw ties for all students c.1ndividualizes the difficulty of the task d.capitalizes on individual interests and aptitudes e.adjusts time allotments for tasks ' f.is sensitive to varying per- sonal and social needs g.seeks participation by all students___ ‘ h.gives each student the as- sistance and support appro- priate for his needs i.shows genuine concern for each student ' Comments: University Coordinator POST-TEST OBSERVATION OF EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF" STUDENT TEACHERS 148 APPENDIX 8 Student Teacher Supervising Teacher School Subject__ Evaluation of the Student Teacher in His/Her Ability to Grade Level Date Pfevidehfor Individual'Differences The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/ her class as to their capabil- ities and potentialities. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher gathered written data relative to understanding their basic needs?___ * Per cent of Students 90 to 100 75 to 89 50 to 74 25 to 49 24 to O The student teacher is able to compose an appropriate plan to provide for the needs of all the students in his/her class. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher written a lesson plan with a teaching method appropriate to their needs? ‘ 3. 149 The student teacher is able to provide the learning environ- ment in the classroom which is conducive to each learner's needs. a.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an intellectual cli- mate conducive to learning? Per cent of Students 90 to 100 75 to 89 50 to 74 25 to 49 24 to 0 b.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a physical climate conducive to learning? c.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided an emotional climate conducive to learning? d.For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided a social climate conducive to learning? The student teacher is able to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. For what per cent of the stu- dents has the student teacher provided appropriate diver- sified instructional materials? ' 150 Per cent of Students The student teacher is able to 90 75 50 25 24 to to to to to 100 89 74 49 0 demonstrate his/her ability to individualize instruction by his/her teaching behavior in the classroom. For what per cent of the stu- dents does the student teacher accomplish the following? a.expectations not the same for all students b.differentiates learning activi- ties for all students c.1ndividualizes the difficulty of the task d.capitalizes on individual interests and aptitudes_¥ e.adjusts time allotments for tasks__» ' f.is sensitive to varying per- sonal and social needs g.seeks participation by all students___ ' h.gives each student the as- sistance and support appro- priate for his needs‘ i.shows genuine concern for each student Comments: _Supervising Teacher 151 APPENDIX 9 'TEACHING‘MODEL‘FOR IN-SERVICE'SESSIONS'WIT§_ SUPERVISING‘TEACHERS SESSION I OBJECTIVE I - The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/her class as to their capa- bilities and potentialities. PROCEDURE - During this session the supervising teachers discussed with the writer the following means of evaluating the abilities of students in their classes: 1. How information is obtained relative to the individ- ual differences of children a. Test results , b. Records-health, scholastic, etc. o. Observations d. Conferences-parents, teachers 2. What data are available on students a. Enumeration of the kinds of data available 3. Where such information is obtained . a. Enumeration of the sources of such information 4. What to do with such information a. Action to be taken 5. How to have ready access to pertinent vital informatior: a. Means available and used by the supervising teachers The material discussed during this session was compiled and distributed to supervising teachers at the second in-service session. It should prove helpful because of the variety of ways teachers deal with the topic in their own classrooms. EQLLOW-UP BY SUPERVISING TEACHERS - When the supervising teacher had a.eohierence with hih/her student teacher, the compiled information could serve as a means of discussion with the student teacher. It is assumed that the student teacher will implement the suggestions. . H" ‘ 152 QBJECTIVE II - The student teacher is able to compose an PROCEDURE - EQLLOW-UP - SESSION 11 appropriate plan to provide for the needs of all students in his/her class. The supervising teachers considered the role of planning in order to provide for individual differences in their classes: 1. Lesson plan format 2. Need for varied objectives, procedures, materials, and assignments 3. How to develop assignments with built-in flexibility in expectations for children 4. How varied teaching techniques can be appropriately matched with varying stu- dent abilities a. Example of higher ordered questions- use of filmstrip Asking Questions by Bel Mort Films b. varied techniques-use of filmstrips (l) dervi w Methods' f Teachin (2) Teaching Types by Bel Mort 1 ms 5. How to make use of specialized personnel and aides available within the school setting When the supervising teachers had conferences with the student teachers they discussed the above material with them. The topic of plan- ning is so important that it should be re- viewed periodically during the term. OBJECTIVE III - The student teacher is able to provide the PROCEDURE - learning environment in the classroom which is conducive to each learner's needs. The supervising teachers discussed the entire learning environment as it relates to meeting the needs of all students: ‘1. Aspects of the physical, emotional, social, and intellectual environment 2. Individual or group work 3. Place and facilities in the classroom to ac- complish fulfillment of task at hand 4. Open classroom concept-centers or stations for a variety of tasks 153 How to cope with peer relationships when different assignments are made How to keep records of accomplishments sim- ple and easy to maintain Key to successful planning to activate a de- sire to learn by self-motivation - use of the filmstrip Motivation-by Bel Mort Films FOLLOW-U P - Much of the material in this session can be demon- strated by the supervising teacher's behavior. The supervising teacher by his/her teaching serves as an example of how to provide and maintain a desirable learning environment in the classroom. OBJECTIVE IV - The student teacher is able to utilize in- PROCEDURE - @LLow-UP - QBJECTIVE V BBOCEDURE - structional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. The supervising teachers discussed the use of instructional materials which is the key to providing an individualized program that is both workable and economically feasible: 1. a. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Procedure for obtaining and returning materials Forms, length of time needed for ordering,etc. Criteria used in making appropriate selection of materials Where materials are available to peruse Place to use in room for easy access How to work within available funds Samples of materials from various areas of the curriculum were displayed and shared by the teachers The supervising teacher needs to give the stu- dent teacher time to select materials as well as offer suggestions and help in making selec- tions. - The student teacher is able to demonstrate his/ her ability to individualize instruction by his/ her teaching behavior in the classroom. The supervising teachers considered and discussed the kind of teaching behavior which demonstrates that the teacher is providing for the individual differences in the classroom: EQLLow-UP - 154 Execution of the written lesson plan Evidence of ability which provides for stu- dents' varied capabilities a. Expectations not the same for all students Differentiates learning activities for all students Individualizes the difficulty of the task Capitalizes on individual interests and aptitudes Adjusts time allotments for tasks Is sensitive to varying personal and social needs Seeks participation by all students Gives each student the assistance and support appropriate for his needs Shows genuine concern for each student The supervising teacher needs to use the above criteria in evaluating the daily lessons pre- sented by the student teacher. How to improve and also maintain the success achieved needs to be brought to the student teacher's atten- tion. Nothing succeeds like success. 155 APPENDIX 10 OBJECTIVES‘OEjTHE'TEACHING'MODEL The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/her class as to their capabilities and potentialities. The student teacher is able to compose an appropriate plan to provide for the needs of all the students in his/her class. The student teacher is able to provide the learning en- vironment in the classroom which is conducive to each learner's needs. The student teacher is able to utilize instructional materials commensurate with the learning capabilities of each student. The student teacher is able to demonstrate his/her abil- ity to individualize instruction by his/her teaching be- havior in the classroom. 156 APPENDIX 11 SUMMARY-OF'SUGGESTIONS’PROPOSED'AT'FIRST’IN‘SERVICE ‘SESSION' OBJECTIVE: The student teacher is able to evaluate the students in his/her class as to their capabil- ities and potentialities. In order to accomplish this objective the student teachers need to be aware of the procedures for gathering the data relative to the individual differences in the class. They need to know not only the sources of information in the schools to which they are assigned, but also, if any restric— tions are placed on certain privileged information. What data are available on students? Test scores - achievement, IQ, diagnostic Academic information - grades Health records - physical, psychological Parent-teacher conference reports Observation reports ‘ Home visit information Anecdotal records Special school personnel reports Index cards and other sources of information gathered by the teacher 10. Extra-curricular activities of the students mmqmmwaH a o a o a a a 0 Where is such information obtained? 1. Records in the school office 2. Special school personnel with whom the student teacher could consult a. School nurse b. Diagnostician c. School social worker d. Counselor e. Reading consultant f. Physically handicapped consultant g. Principal h. Other teachers-music, art, physical education ‘Fm "I in -‘_ I'- 157 3. Information compiled by student teacher by a. Observation . b. Correcting assignments c. Attending parent-teacher conferences d. Writing a case study e. Keeping anecdotal records f. Home visits and trips into the community 9. WOrking with individual students What should the student teacher do with the compiled data? 1. It is expected that the student teacher will take any necessary action after first conferring with the supervising teacher, e.g. to talk with the appropriate personnel about the course of action which is best for the individual student. 2. The student teacher should utilize the appropriate information in working with the students in the class. How can the student teacher have important information about the students readily available when necessary? 1. Card file . Notebook . In plan book . In substitute folder . Health records on special Charts e.g. allergies . Listing of emergency numbers eschew» What do supervising teachers expect from their student teach- ers about gathering data and using it in providing for in- dividual differences in the class? 1. Fall student teachers should work as a team member with the supervising teacher in collecting the pertinent data. 2. Winter and spring term student teachers should avail themselves of compiled information; they should also have the experience of knowing how to use the procedures for gathering data by going through the process for a couple of students. in. 158 It is important that the student teacher not only knows how to evaluate the students in his/her class as to their capabilities and potentialities on the basis of thorough investigation, but also that he/she knows how to and does use it in plan- ning for individual differences. The lesson plan objectives, procedures and materials should reflect the student teacher's awareness of the needs of each child in the class. 159 APPENDIX 12 RECORD FOR EXPERIMENTAL GROUP OF SUPERVISING TEACHERS Supervising Teacher _ - School Attendance at in-service sessions Date Follow-up with Student Teacher Activity. Amount of Time Date HICHI BRARIES 111111111»: