AN ANALYSIS OF THE EVALUATION, USE, AND VALUE OF CERTAIN COMPETENCIES FOR BEGINNING THE STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE A Dissertation Presented to the School of Graduate Studies Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Ross Jean Fligor June 1953 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the presidents, deans, directors of student teaching, supervisors, and other members of the faculties of the various colleges and universities for their cooperation and assistance in collecting the d a t a for this study. He is extremely grateful for the able assistance so gener­ ously given by those persons at Eastern Illinois State College, Indiana University, Northwestern University, Southeast Missouri State College, Southern Illinois University, a n d the University of Illinois who aided in the preliminary survey that made the remainder of the study possible. Also the author wishes t o sincerely thank the members of his doctoral committee,* Dr. Troy L. Stearns, Chairman; Dr. Clyde M. Campbell; Dr. Carl H. Gross; Dr. Leonard J. Luker; and Dr. Cecil V. Millard for the interest, helpful criticisms, suggestions, and encouragement that was so necessary for the completion of this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES vii CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM ............. 1 Statement of Problem ....................... Importance of the Problem........................ Scope of the Problem 1 1 ........... 3 Definition of T e r m s ...................... i± Procedure Used in Carrying Out the Study.......... i+ Limitations of the Study......................... 5 Organization of the Remainder of the Study. . . . . . . H. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. 6 ................... 7 Competencies Now in Use as Criteria of Admission. . . . 7 Experimental Practices in Screening Student Teachers. 0 15 Conclusions and Implications for this Study . . . . . . H I . METHODS USED IN ACQUIRING TEE DATA.................. 18 21 Development of the Questionnaire........... 21 V a l i d a t i o n ............... 2R Contacting Respondents............. 26 Distribution of Questionnaires.................... Establishing the Jury ...................... IV. ANALYSIS CF PRESENT PRACTICES..................... Introduction 27 ........... Influence of Competency on Time of Student Teaching . . 28 30 31 32 iv CHAPTER PAGE Importance of Competency............................. 35 Analysis of Methods of Evaluation ................... 39 With Reference to General Academic Ability.. .. With Reference to Knowledge of Major Subject Area. .12 With Reference to Professional Courses........ 13 With Reference to Mental Ability .... 11 With Reference to H e a l t h ................... With Reference to Understanding of Major Aspectsof Child Growth and Development................. . • R0 16 18 With Reference to Physical Characteristics.... 50 With Reference to Language Facility 52 With Reference to Background of Experience Prior ........ 55 to College With Reference to Professional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching F i e l d ......................... 57 With Reference to Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While in College . . . . . . . . 58 With Reference to Experiences as a College Student Interacting with Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and in G r o u p s ........... 60 With Reference to Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching Such as Planning with Students, Helping Students Carry Out Plans, and Evaluating Progress ................... 62 V CHAPTER PAGE With Reference to Problems and Factors Affecting a Learning Situation. ............. 6U With Reference to the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While ................. 65 . . . . . . . . ........................... 66 He Was in High School Summary V. IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN A PROJECTED SITUATION. . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . ..................... The Use of the Chi Square Method ........... 68 68 70 Effect of the Location of the Question............. 71 Changes in R a t i n g 79 Comparison of Rankings............................. 80 Comparison of Rank Order of Competencies............ 98 Summary ........................... 100 VI. OTHER SUGGESTED COMPETENCIES ......................... 103 P u r p o s e ............................ 103 List of Suggested Competencies 103 Analysis of Items ............... ....................... ..... 106 S u m m a r y .......................................... 107 VII. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Findings .......................... 109 ................................ 110 Conclusions.................................. 118 vi CHAPTER PAGE VIII. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE.......................... 125 Trends Revealed by this Study. ..................... 125 Needed Areas of Improvement............... 129 Suggestions for Meeting Needed Improvements.......... 137 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . li+2 A P P E N D I X ................................................ 11+6 BIBLIOGRAPHY.............................................. 211 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Effect Upon Entrance into Student Teaching............. II. Value of Competencies . „ .......... 33 37 III. Comparison of Values of Competencies........ .......... 38 IV. Techniques of Evaluation Used with Child Growth and and Development.................................... k9 V. Methods of Evaluating Language Facility............... 53 VI. Methods of Evaluating Mental Health and FknotionalMaturity 59 VII. Influence of Position on Rating Given with Reference to Mental Ability . . . . . . . ....................... 72 VIII. Influence of Position on Rating Given with Reference to General Academic Ability. ................... 73 IX. Influence of Position on Rating Given with Reference to Background of Experience Prior to College. . . . . . . 7k X. Influence of Position on Rating Given with Reference to the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He Was in HighSchool • 79 XI. Influence of Position on Rating Given with Reference to Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development* 77 XII. Influence of Position on Rating Given with Reference to Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development. ........... 78 viii TABLE PAGE XIII. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to -the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While in College. . . . 82 XIV. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development......... 83 XV. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Language Facility...................... 8ij. XVI. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Professional Courses ................. • 85 . 86 XVTI. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Sensitivity to Problems and Factors Affecting a Learning Situation XVIII. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Health .............................. 87 XIX. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to General Academic Ability ............... 88 XX. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Knowledge of Major Subject Area . . . . . 89 XXI. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching Such as Planning with Students, Helping Students Carry Out Plans, Evaluating Progress 90 ix TABLE PAGE XXII. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Professional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching Field.............................. * . . 91 XXIII. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Experiences as a College Student Inter­ acting with Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and in G r o u p s ......................... 92 XXIV. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Physical Characteristics............... 93 XXV. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Mental Ability......................... 9k XXVI. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He was in High School . . . ... ........................ . . . . . 99 XXVII. Comparison of Replies of Respondents and Jury with Reference to Background of Experience Prior to College. XXVIII. Comparison of Rank Order Values . . . . . . 97 ........... 99 XXIX. Competencies Suggested by Respondents . . . . . . . . . . 10i± XXX. Respondents Completing Questionnaires ................. 110 XXXI. Required Minimum Attainment Frequency Total . . . . . . . 121 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of Problem The purpose of this study was fourfold: (1) to discover from selected college programs how certain competencies operate in determining when a student is ready for the student teaching experience: (2) to discover the techniques used periodically to evaluate each student in terms of these competencies prior to student teaching; (3) to determine the rank order of the compet­ encies as they were valued in the selected colleges; and (U) to discover, under an assumed ideal student teaching program, the de­ gree to which each competency was important in determining when a student is ready for student teaching. Importance of the Problem One approach to improvement in the pre-service programs of colleges engaged in teacher education begins with the programs as they now exist, A survey of studies dealing with student teaching reveals that information is available concerning the criteria used for admissions, but little has been written about the application of these criteria. Still less is available about the means by which prospective student teachers are evaluated by supervisors 2 and directors of student teaching with reference to desirable competencies. The problem of assigning a student to student teaching at the right time is indeed a difficult one. This was pointed out by McGrath, who stated that it was a false premise to assume " that students are ready for student teaching at the completion of certain required courses, and that they are ready to teach on their jobs as soon as student teaching is completed".1 Blyler^ criticised the lack of adequate selection and retention plans in state teachers colleges and said that the best interests of society cannot be served unless all teacher training institutions have comparable plans for pre-training selection. One step in the direction of improvement under ex­ isting conditions is further study of desirable competencies for the individual student teacher. With the added emphasis now being placed on laboratory techniques in the pre-training of student teachers, increased information is highly desirable about the degree of competence necessary in particular areas before a student is ready for stu­ dent teaching. Although no objective measures of such competency ^G. D. McGrath, "Philistinic Deluders in Teacher" Education", Education, 71:137* November, 1950. ^Dorothea Blyler, "The Pre-Training Selection of Teachers", Educational Administration and Supervision, 3^: 275-2814, May, 1 9 I4 8 . 3 were planned in this study, the collection of opinions and inter­ pretations of a large group of educators who are concerned with this problem, should point the way for a better understanding of the problem. Pressures are constantly being exerted to change the pattern of training prior to student teaching, of the changes requested are: general education; (1) emphasizing to a greater degree (2) extending, increasing, and modernizing pro­ fessional educational offerings; college instruction; and process. 3 Lindsey states that four (3) improving the methodology of (U) increasing skills in the democratic One of the goals of professional educational offerings is the development of the competence necessary to succeed in the student teaching experience. This study was designed to add to the understanding of such competence. Scope of the Problem This study was an analysis of the findings of a survey of the evaluation, use, and value of fifteen competencies in ninetyone colleges in the area comprised by the North Central Association, The methods used in the selection of the competencies, the selection of colleges, the validation of data are described in detail in Chapter III, ^Margaret Lindsey, "Wha.t They're Saying in Teacher Education, Opinions of Important People", Education, 70:135-1^1, November, 19U9• k Definition of Terras For the purpose of this study certain terminology was de­ fined as follows: (1) A Director of Student Teaching is one xvho assigns stu­ dents to student teaching positions, (2) A Supervisor of Student Teaching is one who is re­ sponsible for a class or a course to which a student teacher is assigned, working with the student teacher and the class, (3) A Supervisor is one who travels from room to room or school to school and who is responsible for working with a teacher and a student teacher, (1;) Competency is the degree of ability, skill, and under­ standing required to successfully participate in the student teaching experience, (3) Readiness is the degree of competence attained with reference to a particular factor. Procedures Used in Carrying Out the Study In order to obtain respondents in each institution, a pers­ onal letterwas sent to the president or to the dean of the school ofeducation asking persons who might reply to the questionnaire. for the names of two These persons were to be a director of student 5 teaching and either a supervisor or a supervisor of student teaching, as indicated in the above definitions. Two directors of student teaching in each state in the United States were written personal letters asking them to list the five most important people in the field of teacher education. It was decided to use the ten people most frequently mentioned as a jury of experts to check against the opinions of respondents in connection with question two of the questionnaire. from an extensive review of related literature and contacts with five representative institutions, a questionnaire was prepared. Certain validity checks were used in its preparation. explained in Chapter III. These are A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix K. The data were collected in the following manner. naires were mailed to the respondents and to the jury. foiiow-up cards were sent at opportune times. Question­ Appropriate When sufficient re­ turns were available, an analysis of the data was begun. After the data were analyzed the report of the study was written. Limitations of the Study The questionnaire survey method of collecting information is subject to many limitations.^ Limitations recognized as applicable ^Carter V. Good, a . S. Barr, and Douglas ifi. scates, The Method­ ology of Educational Kesearch, (.New Yorks D. Appleton Century Company, l9hl), pp. 32ii-33’/« 6 in this study were difficulty of validating the questionnaire, biases and limitations of the respondents, the tabulation of unstructured responses, the failure of respondents to complete all parts of the survey instrument, the difficulty of procuring returns from each college, and the various shades of meaning found in educational terminology. A further limitation was exercised in the selection of colleges for the survey area. The total number surveyed was a small percentage of the number of colleges in the United States and were located primarily in the mid-west. Organization of the Remainder of the Study The remainder of this study is divided into seven chapters. Chapter II contains a review of literature previously published which is related to this stucfy. Chapter III presents in detail the methods used in this study to obtain data. the data collected on question one of the study. Chapter IV includes Chapter V in­ cludes the analysis of the data collected on question two. Chapter VI contains other competencies added to the questionnaire by re­ spondents. Chapter VII presents findings and conclusions. In­ cluded in Chapter VIII are the recommendations and implications for teacher training. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Within the past five years publications in the field of education have carried increasing numbers of reports of research and learned articles on the improvement of pre-service teacher education. Some of these articles are in the nature of investi­ gations of the status quo. Some are reports and evaluations of experimental programs now under way, while others are studies of devices to evaluate competencies. In this chapter such materials as are pertinent to this study will be reviewed and summarized. Competencies Now in Use as Criteria of Admission In 19l|8 in the First Yearbook of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Lindsey reported that admission to student teaching was more or less automatic in terms of courses completed. The practices most frequently listed by the schools in the study were as follows: '•report on scholarship and completion of course require­ ments by the registrar's office; review of student's cumulative record by designated faculty representatives; application of student orally or in writing; and health examination prior to admission."! iMargaret Lindsey, "Major Findings and Recommendations In The Study of Professional Laboratory Experiences", First Yearbook, (The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,' ' National Education Association, I9I18 ) pp. 197-212, 3 This particular study is also reported by the Sub-committee of the Standards and Surveys of the American Association of Teachers Colleges,^ A summary of the more important findings show that: Assignments are made by directors of student teaching* Requests of students are recognized. Laboratory teachers are informed a day or two prior to arrival of the student* Laboratory teachers have personal conferences with the student to acquaint him with the pupil group, with the physical organization of the room and the school, and to share work plans. Schools used are in urban situations and have hetero­ geneous groups. Needs and backgrounds of individuals are recognized in some schools as a basis for assignment to student teaching*3 In the First Yearbook of the American Association of Colleges For Teacher Education, Lindsey adds one more interesting comment. In the program for elementary teachers little attention is given to providing contact with youth; in the secondary program little attention is given to pro­ viding contacts with children,^ It is quite obvious from Lindsey's study that admission to student teaching by the participating schools was largely a mechanical one with little regard for individual competency, especially applied ^American Association of Teachers Colleges, School and Comm­ unity Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education, (American Association of Teachers Colleges, 19h8.), 333 PP« 3lbid., p. 159. ^•Lindsey, Op. Cit., p. 202* 9 understanding in the area of child growth and development. The review of the cumulative record may be listed as a technique in understanding individual differences. However, the committee report states that a follow-up showed many cumulative folders to contain only such data as freshman tests results, courses and grades, £ and records of special difficulties. Thus, the value of one of the better techniques in arranging for individual differences is compromised at the outset through lack of adequate up-to-date information. In the American Association of Colleges For Teacher Edu­ cation, Yearbook I, Flowers pointed out with relation to Standard VI (Professional Laboratory Experiences Including Student Teaching) that a student should participate in the student teaching exper­ ience when he is ready for it. He emphasized that readiness for this experience is conditioned by: sensitivity to problems and factors affecting a teaching learning situation; understanding of major aspects of child growth and development; ability to become acquainted with study needs, interests, and abilities of a given group of learners; understanding of how to apply basic principles governing guidance of the learning process.° 5American Association of Teachers Colleges, Op. Cit., p. 156. 6 j. G. Flowers, “Standard VI Professional Laboratory Experiences including Student Teaching", First Yearbook, (The American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education, national Education Association, 19U8) p. 92. 10 The contrast between the findings reported in Lindsey1s study and the implications of Flower's statement is extremely important. Whereas the operational procedure of colleges has tended to set a definite pattern to which students adhere, and a pattern which to a great extent permits a mass production approach to teacher edu­ cation, Flower's statement implies an approach based on a better understanding of individual differences and individual competencies. Such an approach involves in many instances a reorganization of pre-student teaching curricula and administrative policies. In 19k9 McGrath,? formerly director of teacher training at the University of Illinois, reported a study covering 216 different requirements for admission to student teaching. However, a common pattern did exist centering around fifteen criteria that were used most frequently in the institutions studied. The criteria cited by McGrath do not differ in many respects from those reported prev­ iously. They do, however, give a more detailed insight into the common practices in use at that time. Those admission practices most commonly reported were: 1. Successful passage of a battery of tests such as psychological, general culture, personality} con­ temporary affairs, English, personality, etc. 2. Approval through committee action which has reviewed the assets and limitations of a candidate. ?G. D. McGrath, "Criteria for Admission to Student Teaching". Education, 70sl8l-l85, November, 19k9» 11 3. Passage of a general health examination. ll. Presentation of three or more faculty recommendations. 5. Acceptable grade point average. 6. Presentation of a thesis prepared by the student de­ fending his plans to become a teacher* 7. A successful record of e:xperience in working with youth. 8. Acceptable rating on a mental health examination. 9* Satisfactory achievement in a speech and hearing test. 10. Average or above in required professional courses in education. 11. Approval by composite judgment of the faculty who had contact with the trainee as a classroom student. 12. Evidence of integrity of character and emotional stability. 13. A successful report from an interview system. lit. A.verage or above in a teaching major and minor, 1E>. Social adequacy as indicated by tact, poise, love of people, sensitivity to social realities, etc.® No statement is made as to the relative importance of any of the fifteen, although it is extremely doubtful that each factor as used was of equal importance in admitting a student to student teaching. Colleges using this pattern of admission apparently ®Ibid., pp. 182-183. 12 assume that when these fifteen basic conditions, or certain ones of them, are met the student is ready for student teachingo As a result of his findings McGrath recommended seven crit­ eria for uniform adoption. A summary of McGrath’s recommendations follows:^ 1. Successful report on a physical health examination (administered semester, quarter or month prior to student teaching)* 2, Successful ratings on a battery of tests. 3* Written recommendations of at least three faculty members. In Satisfactory speech and hearing test. 5. Successful record of participating experiences with youth groups, base level fifty hours. 6* Satisfactory grade point average, meeting certifi­ cating requirements, and requiring at least an equiv­ alent of the graduation average and preferably a little above. 7. Committee action to consider all factors when a can­ didate is low in any one of the above areas, committee of three to be composed of one of faculty from the education department, one from the appropriate academic department, and the director of teacher education. ^Loc. Cit« 13 In concluding his recommendations McGrath pointed out that it is not logical to give too much weighting to any one individual criterion because it is the total profile that is important. McGrath11"* also reported a student teacher questionnaire study in which 697 questionnaires were completed anonymously after stu­ dent teaching. Among the critical problems checked, two of the highest mean ratings were (1 ) getting pupils to study and work, and (2) adjusting instruction to individual needs. Both have some significance in terms of competencies since each is related to a phase of training which usually precedes student teaching. This generalization is further substantiated by the opinion section of the questionnaire where h9k students agreed that "participation with pupils and observation of them in activity should be conducted throughout all required education courses",^ and that "Trainees 12 should have a course in mental hygiene before doing student teaching,-," (reported by U92 students.) From this it is apparent that a large majority of students were dissatisfied with their competence in the area of pupil-teacher relationships at the time of their student teaching. 1 0 G. D. McGrath, "Some Experiences With a Student Teacher Questionnaire", Journal of Educational Research, ii326U1— 6k7» May, 1950 •^■Loc. cit. ■^Loc. cit. it ai* Duganl3 emphasized the need of a personal interview in determining readiness for student teaching. He also believes that appraisal techniques must be introduced at the pre-college level, at the time of admission, during training, at graduation, and on the job. The general pattern of admission to student teaching has changed little since 19^8. From a study in 1951 of readiness pro­ grams in 125 schools, Junge concluded: 1. Opportunities for readiness experiences prior to student teaching are not common and the readiness programs vary greatly in quality and scope. 2. Admission to student teaching is determined largely by: a. the completion of a sequence of education courses (reported in Qh% of the cases) and/or b. the completion of a certain number of hours in the major field (reported in 57/ of the \ 1U cases). ^ A list of thirteen factors was given by Junge as determining admission to student teaching. This list of thirteen is contained in McGrath's list of fifteen previously cited, with one exception. 13willis E. Dugan, 11Counseling in Teacher Education1', Oc'cupations« 29t3Ul-3Uh, February, 1951. ■^Charlotte W. Junge, ''Readiness for Student Teaching", Thirtieth Yearbook, the Association for Student Teaching, (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Edwards Brothers Inc., 1951) p. 3l. 15 Junge listed "Judgment of director of student teaching" as used in 51% of the schools.^ McGrath listed approval by faculty but did not mention the role of the director of student teaching. It is reasonable, however, to assume that the generalized statements of McGrath's earlier findings included the decision of the director of student teaching. Thus there was practically no difference in the findings of admission practices in the two studies. Experimental Practices in Screening Student Teachers Recently reported experiments indicate that there is some evidence of progress in investigating competencies of students prior to the student teaching assignment. An example in point is the secondary teacher selection program at the Minot State Teachers College, Minot, North Dakota. has three phases.1^ This program as reported by DeLong Two of these begin functioning preceding the student teaching experience. Definitely considered are certain competencies that are reported in this present study. Briefly the plan consists of an initial screening at the sophomore level by a committee on registration, admission, and selection. This committee (1) approves, (2) recommends further preparation, or (3) rejects. pt 3 2 . l^O. A. DeLong, "Teacher Selection Program at Minot State Teachers College", Journal of Teacher Education, 2sll7, June, 1951. 16 This screening committee examines: 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. Achievement and ability level. Scholastic requirements, Health. Effectiveness of educational program in meeting students’ needs. Character and conduct. Skills in written and oral communication. Immediately prior to student teaching the committee again reviews the student's status of development. While this is in no way a radical departure from the pattern set forth in the research already cited, it further emphasizes the types of competencies that are currently investigated before assignments to student teaching are made. Andrews 17 reported a September Field Experience for students in which sophomores are assigned for a two or three week service period to schools to assist in opening the school. This experience enables many students to realize more fully the importance of the teacher1s position and the necessity of adequate preparation, which must not be taken lightly. Butterweck in reviewing teacher preparation pointed out that the future teacher develops by learning about his profession "with­ out enough first hand experience with the activities of his profession."^® He then reviewed the laboratory experience afforded students in a ■^L. 0. Andrews, "School Exploratory Experiences for Prospective Teachers", Educational Research Bulletin, 29:1^7-157, September, 1950. ■^Joseph S. Butterweck, "A Laboratory Approach to Teacher Preparation", Educational Administration and Supervision, 36:275-283, May, 1950. 17 program now in progress. This program consists of: 1. Visitation of four types of elementary schools - a private progressive, a conservative, a middle of the road, and a rural school. During the course of this visitation in which small groups of students travel together peer group relationships are given attention. 2. A student problem course, in which places of sociological and pyschological interest are visited.^ As an outcome Butterweck pointed^0 out that these experiences have involved (1) observation, (2) participation, (3) creation, (ij.) self evaluation, and (5) group dynamics. following professional skills result: In addition the (1) personal satisfaction in and ability to work with many others, (2) acceptance of group responsibility under group leadership, (3) work with a small group through an extended period of time. In a more recent article Butterweck^l presented a plan in which student teaching is begun at the Junior level. As a result of this student teaching experience, which is accompanied by a tech­ niques course, the students are divided into three groups. The l^Lo'c. cit. ^Loc. cit. 21joseph S. Betterweck, "Student Teaching, When, Where, and How", The Journal of Teacher Education, 2:139-lh2, June, 1951. 18 three groups that emerge are categorized as (1) the core-teacher, (2) the good "run of the mill1' teacher, and (3) a group "slow in maturing, who have basic intelligence and personality requisites to become a good teacher". ?2 Since the type of preparation beyond this point in the training depends on the type of category into which the student falls, it is apparent that this technique offers a different approach to the problem of individual differences. Conclusions and Implications for this Study The traditional policy of admission to student teaching has been one of course requirements and grade point averages, with little opportunity for an individual's competencies or abilities to influence greatly the length of time of the individual's trainingo Admission to student teaching has been made in terms of the completion of these requirements. In many cases the requirements were of such nature that their completion was at best a rather poor guarantee of competency in student teaching. phasizes this. A recently reported study em­ Replies from eighty administrators in fifty-nine 2 °, schools were reported by Stout J in a study of weaknesses of beginn­ ing teachers. Competencies that were lacking or underdeveloped 22l q c . cit. 23john B. Stout, "Deficiencies of Beginning Teachers", The Journal of Teacher Education, 3 slt.3—i+6, March, 1952. 19 were listed. Equal emphasis was given instruction and discipline but inability to motivate, to plan procedure, to adjust to the slow learner, to hold respect without aloofness, to promote good public relations, and to sponsor extra class activities were also emphasized. Not only were these competencies apparently lacking at the time student teaching was begun, but the student teaching experience had also failed to give adequate preparation. Within the past few years educators have been examining carefully the traditional pattern. has been proposed. A more individualistic approach Whereas course requirements previously per­ mitted the college student to learn about teaching through lecture and discussion, the new requirements stress participation with children and youth in a guided laboratory situation. It is now conceived that these experiences will need to differ, often to a marked degree, for different individuals. It is further realized that all experiences are not of equal value in aiding individuals and that the total pattern of experiences must be carefully eval­ uated throughout the time the student is engaging in them. Finally, this evaluation should result in determining when a student is ready to engage in the student teaching experience. Although many colleges have changed their pre-student teaching programs, the overall picture of training for student teaching has not changed greatly within the past five years. These colleges that have 20 been revamping their training practices have been moving in the direction of increased recognition and use of laboratory exper­ iences and greater adjustment in terms of individual differences. Further progress in this direction can be fostered by in­ creasing the amount of information available about the many com­ petencies that the student is expected to develop prior to student teaching. Information is needed concerning the importance of one competency as compared with another. More information is de­ sirable concerning the total profile of competencies of the student teacher candidate. Furthermore, better understandings of the de­ vices and techniques of evaluation used by directors of student teaching to assign students to student teaching positions, as well as the ways in which supervisors (and critic teachers) decide when the student teacher is ready to assume responsibility for the learning situation are essential if individual differences are to be recognized. in these areas. It is the purpose of this study to add information CHAPTER III METHODS USED IN ACQUIRING THE DATA Development of the Questionnaire A review of published articles and individual conferences with numerous supervisors at a regional meeting of the Association for Student Teaching indicated that basically each institution utilized professional courses and a period of student teaching under supervision to train student teachers. However, the administrative practices used to accomplish these two basic features varied widely among institutions. Among the more prominent variations found were these: 1. Student teaching off campus as opposed to student teaching in campus laboratory schools, with some institutions using both# 2. Relationship of supervisor, supervising teacher, or critic teacher to the training institution, 3. Time of assignment to student teaching, li. Method of assignment to student teaching, 5. Length of assignment to student teachingand number of required hours in student teaching. 6. As a Experimental plans under way. result of use by institutions the many different operationalpractices in training teachers, it was decidedthat an un­ structured questionnaire would be necessary if each institution was 22 to supply accurately the information necessary for this study. Recognizing the difficulty of building a meaningful questionnaire of this type and the problem of obtaining sufficient replies, a plan was made for developing and refining the instrument. The problem and the purpose of the study were presented to the directors of student teaching in five institutions engaged in teacher preparation.'*' Each individual was asked to help with the construction of the questionnaire by completing it and offering criticisms. Five supervisors were also contacted in these institutions, and they agreed to complete and criticize a questionnaire. Two unstructured questionnaires, Form DI and Form SI were prepared. The directors of student teaching were mailed Form DI and the supervisors Form SI. 2 Each questionnaire had two purposes, (1 ) to determine current practices and (2 ) to determine what practices, whether in use or not, were considered most important from the standpoint of maximum student teacher growth. . The criticisms and suggestions that were returned with these indicated that they were unusable. The respondents in one large state university and one teachers college were contacted and ~It was felt that these institutions should be representative types of teacher training institutions. From a list of colleges in the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education two large state universities, one large private university and two state colleges were selected. 2Appendix A, B, C, D. i 1 23 appointments for discussing the questionnaire were made. From these discussions and from the written comments it was obvious that the second page of both forms was entirely unusable. The examples given to illustrate the technique of filling out the questionnaire were also criticized, and the instructions accompanying the question­ naire were thought to be inadequate. As a result Forms D II and S II were prepared.^ questionnaire was left unstructured. Again the The respondents pointed out that this form was an improvement over the first but that: (1 ) it was still exceedingly difficult to give meaningful replies; (2 ) cer­ tain responses needed adequate definitions; (3 ) too much responsi­ bility was placed on the respondents; and (I;.) the questionnaire was entirely too subjective. From the standpoint of analyzing the data it was found that entirely too little similarity could be found in the replies* Thus it appeared that some form of a check list with specific factors must be utilized since a completely unstructured form was unsatisfactory. From items listed by respondents to Forms D I, S I, D II, and S II and from related studies a list of ten compet­ encies was developed*^ This list was discussed with representatives of three of the institutions. 3Appendix E, F, G, H. ^Appendix I. On the basis of these discussions 2h and further examination of related literature this list of ten competencies was expanded to fifteen. Two questions were postulated under each competency. questions followed the original intent of the earlier forms. These The first question was designed to determine the influence of each com­ petency in current practices, while the second asked for an opinion on the amount of importance that could be attached to the item und.er assumed ideal conditions. In order that the latter purpose might be accomplished with a minimum of subjectivity a five-point rating scale was prepared on which the resDondent's opinion was to be checked. Each point in the rating scale was then defined in the instruction sheet.^ This form of the questionnaire with fifteen items was admin­ istrated to twenty-three supervisors. apparent, and these were corrected. Certain deficiencies were The questionnaire was then presented to the committee in charge of this study. After a few minor changes it was accepted and printed in its final form,^ Validation Three different methods were used to make the questionnaire as valid as possible. First, a constant effort was made to confine terminology to standard or explicitly defined meanings. ^Appendix J„ ^Appendix K. Second, 25 a method was devised to check the influence of position in the questionnaire on the importance attached to any particular compet­ ency. Third, a check of the change in opinion was made by admin­ istering the instrument to the same group twice. During the construction of the items in the questionnaire terms were used as often as possible that had standard meanings. Meanings attached to terms were constantly checked in the conferences with members of the participating schools. Definition of terms used in the rating scale were presented in the instruction sheet that accompanied the questionnaire. These definitions were sub­ mitted to five supervisors? for criticism as to clearness of cong tent and wording before they were adopted in final form. Because it was felt that the position of a factor in the study might influence the importance attached to it by respondents, three factors were placed on each page of the questionnaire. The questionnaires were then separated into five groups of equal size and the front pages alternated so that each page appeared as one in one group, two in another group, three in another, four in another, and five in another. Influence of position in the question­ naire was then checked by using the Chi Square method. ^Colleagues of the writer. ^Appendix K. As a technique of developing the questionnaire, it was submitted in tentative form to twenty-three supervisors in May, 1951. The final form of the questionnaire was again submitted to some of the same supervisors in March, 1952. Certain items in the final form were exactly the same as in the tentative form. parisons were then made with the original statements. Com­ The con­ clusions drawn from the second and third validation procedures are presented in Chapter V. Contacting Respondents The list of institutions to be studied was prepared in the following manner. First, a list of the sta.tes located in the regional territory of the North Central Association was prepared. o All institutions in each state that were members of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education as of June, 1951* were then listed under the appropriate state,^ This list was then checked against the membership list of the North Central Association, The result was a list of 105 colleges that were members of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the North Central Association. 11 °The North Central Association Quarterly, "List of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education", 26:3l-Wi, July, 1951, ■^American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, "List of Accredited Institutions March 1, 1951 to March 1, 1952." ■^Appendix L. 27 A personal letter 12 was sent to the president or dean of each college appearing on the list asking for the names of two persons who might be interested in replying to the questionnaire. A total of nine institutions failed to answer this letter. declined the invitation to assist with the study. Five This left a total of ninety-one institutions. A card system was then set up. On each card was the name of the institution, the address, and the name of the two respondents to whom questionnaires were to be mailed. The cards were then separated into five equal groups, since questionnaires with a diff­ erent order of pages were to be mailed to each of the five groups of people. Distribution of Questionnaires A personal letter was prepared to accompany each question­ n a i r e , F i v e equal groups of questionnaires with a different order of pages were prepared. In group one the pages ran consecutively 1 , 2 , 3 , U, $} 6 , 7 j in group two, 1 , 3 , i;, 5 , 6 , 2 , 7 ; in group three, 1, U, 5, 6 , 2, 3 , 7i in group four, 1, 5, 6 , 2, 3, U, 7; and in group five, 1, 6 , 2, 3* U, 5, 7. Page seven was left in last position because the respondents were asked to add additional items on that page. •^Appendix M. ^ A pp en dix N. 28 Follow up cards were mailed approximately two and one-half weeks later to those respondents whose questionnaires had not been returned#'^ A total of 116 replies were received. Of these, 110, or 6 0 .U percent of the initial distribution were returned in usable form. This percentage, while not high, compares favorably with other studies. Shannon found that in 285 questionnaire studies for masters and doctors degrees the mean percentage of returns for _ , mailed questionnaires was 65.16 percent. iU Since the questionnaire for this study was seven pages with answers to be completed by writing, it is to be expected that the percentage would be lower. Establishing the Jury Since question two under each competency listed in the questionnaire was an opinion question, it was decided to establish a jury of experts in the field of teacher education and submit the same items to them. Two institutions of higher learning were selected at random in each state and a personal letter was mailed to the director of ■^Appendix N. R. Shannon, ’’Percentages of Returns of Questionnaires in Reputable Educational Research", Journal of Educational Research: l;2:138-lij.l, October, 19b8 . 29 student teaching in each school® 15 Each was asked to list the five most outstanding living educators in teacher education. replies were received, sixty of which were usable. Sixty-five This equalled a percentage of 6 1 .3 2 . A frequency tabulation was made of the persons listed. ten highest were selected for the jury. The 1A All items in the questionnaire which the jury was to omit were inked out. questionnaire, 17 A personal letter was prepared to accompany the and copies of the letter and the questionnaire were mailed to the jury. the jury. A total of eight replies were received from Of this total only seven were usable since one person had asked a colleague to fill in his questionnaire. Using the Chi Square technique the replies of the jury were compared with the replies of the other respondents. can be found in Chapter V. ^Appendix 0 . •^Appendix P. ■^Appendix Q. This material CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF PRESENT PRACTICES Introduction The first question listed under each competency was pre­ pared to determine three related types of information. This in­ formation was sought because it could give information which could be compared with the type of program that was envisioned in question two. First each respondent was asked to check in terms of present practices in his institution, whether a particular item might retard, accelerate, or have no influence upon the time when a student was permitted to begin his student teaching. Space was also provided for ranking each item listed in the questionnaire. The instructions were to rank each item, one through fifteen, in terms of its importance in determining in the present program of the institution when a student was ready for student teaching. Some respondents replied that this was impossible for fifteen items and ranked four or five. A few stated that although they had ranked the items they felt that little significance could be attached to them. One replied that there was enough interrelation­ ship between the separate items that they were not considered inde­ pendently when an individual was judged ready for student teaching* 31 However, the total replies were treated in such manner that an average rank was determined for each of the items. A discussion of the significance of such rankings will accompany the presentation of the table of rankings. Also under each competency listed in the questionnaire a space was provided for respondents to write answers to two questions. These questions "What are you doing to evaluate this factor?" and "What devices do you find most effective?" were included to give respondents an opportunity to reply with greater freedom than a check list could provide. It was felt that this could more ade­ quately provide for the variations in practices in the schools in­ cluded in the study. A grand total of 9$% written replies were received. The largest number of replies, seventy-eight, were received in answer to the above questions under the item With Reference to Academic Ability. The fewest replies were twenty-four to the item with Reference to Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While the Student was in High School. number of replies per item to the nearest tenth is 63.9* median number of replies per item is 6?.0. The mean The In this instance the median is a more accurate measure of central tendency since only four items received replies totaling less than sixty, while six items received seventy or more replies. I 32 With the exception of mental health and emotional maturity measured at the high school level, the replies indicate that super­ visors and directors of student teaching are making sincere efforts to evaluate each competency. in nature. Much of this evaluation is subjective Further analysis shows that objective type measuring instruments are used in many schools where they are thought appli­ cable to the competency. The evaluation devices mentioned most frequently are conferences or interviews, testing programs, exam­ ination of students' records including health, tests, grades in courses, and screening by committees* Influence of Competency on Time of Student Teaching In constructing the questionnaire it was postulated that any particular competency might alter the time when student teaching was begun in three ways. First, demonstrated superior competency might accelerate the student's progress. competency might retard the student. Second, the absence of Third, the presence or ab­ sence of competency might have no influence on the time of student teaching. The following table presents the frequency totals for each competency* TABLE I 33 EFFECT UPON ENTRANCE INTO STUDENT TEACHING Retard Accelerate No Particular Influence Checked both Retard and Accelerate Mental Ability U2 16 26 19 Physical Characteristics 35 17 ho 13 11 27 12 Health Background of Experiences Prior to College 12 21 61 11 Experiences as a College Stu­ dent Interacting with Adoles­ cents and Younger Children In­ dividually and In Groups 16 29 k6 11 Professional Outlook and Inter-est in the Teaching Field 25 25 h6 8 General Academic Ability 60 16 15 Hi Knowledge of Major Subject Area 53 19 23 10 Professional Courses 55 23 11 13 Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of Student Teacher Measured While in High School 25 9 56 12 Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of Student Teacher Measured While in College I46 17 26 15 Language Facility 50 16 26 13 Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth & Development JU7 25 22 11 Sensitivity to Problems and Fac­ tors Affecting a Learning Situation 3h 26 31 10 Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching 31 25 _37 7 585 295 h93 179 Totals 3k From this table it is readily apparent that there were more chances for retardation than for acceleration. was slightly more than 1^- to 1. In fact the ratio While it is undoubtedly desirable to postpone student teaching until the student has acquired enough competence to be ready for the experience, it is probably equally desirable to be able to speed up the process for those students who demonstrate such competence. There are two major reasons for retardation possibilities exceeding acceleration possibilities. accurate evaluation. The first is the lack of This is related to the second in many ways. The second is the amount of reliance placed on grades in courses. At the present time in most teacher training institutions this practically limits acceleration to the pace the student sets in completing the courses prescribed and elected. Of the fifteen competencies studied, only two were not partially evaluated in terms of grades previously made by the students. The subjective nature of evaluative devices and the lack of acceptably defined goals or outcomes in the area of teacher training are a contributing factor in this situation. Until further refinement in both is accomplished, practices of acceleration are likely to be tied to progress in pre­ scribed courses. It is also interesting to note that of the six items ranking highest in the retard column four are checked closely through the student’s record in college and two, health and mental health, are 3* indirectly involved in all the others. demic ability and mental health. The two highest are aca­ These six, also comprise the group for which the most commonly accepted measuring devices are currently available* Almost the opposite can be seen in the accelerate column. There the five top ranking items are the five for which generally acceptable evaluating devices are not at present available. Those persons who checked both retard and accelerate apparently thought in terms of the value of the competency rather than from the standpoint of an individual student’s progress. The underlying reasoning seemed to be that if a certain degree of com­ petence could accelerate the student’s progress then a deficiency could retard it. In the retard and accelerate column the six high ranking items follow the pattern of the retard column. As the pattern of evaluation is presented in this chapter it will become increasingly obvious that to a great degree the problem of acceleration is closely connected to the problem of accurate evaluation. Importance of Competency As a part of the analysis of the present situation in colleges, the establishment of a rank order of importance for the items studied was highly desirable. The skepticism with which some respondents viewed the results of their rankings limits somewhat 36 the amount of significance that may be attached to the final totals. However, a total of 917 opinions of highly trained professional people lends considerable weight to this concensus. Each item was studied individually and a frequency table of the rankings for it was prepared. By multiplying each rank by the frequencies occurring in that rank, adding the products and dividing by the total number of replies for that item the mean or average rank of each item was determined. These rankings show a definite grouping toward the center, a common tendency in ranking procedures. The large number and the difficulty of measurement further complicate the ranking process. It would seem though that each has a measure of importance in the present training of student teachers. The original purpose of ranking the items was to give a basis for comparing present practices with the ratings made in the second question. The feeling of some respondents that their rankings were inaccurate lessens the amount of importance which may be attached to the comparison. Although the results of such a comparison must be treated with a measure of skepticism, a table presenting both rankings is included on page thirty-eight. The questionnaire was constructed on the hypothesis that if a definite lag existed between present practices and a number of generally accepted principles such lag could be discovered by com­ paring present practices with an assumed situation where ideal 37 TABLE II VALUE OF COMPETENCIES Factor T o t a l A v e r a g e R a n k by Replies kank Position Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of Student Teacher Measured "While in College 66 lj.92 1 Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development 63 5.52 2 Sensitivity to Problems and Factors A.ffecting A Learning Situation 63 6.13 3 Knowledge of Major Subject Area 62 6.57 h General Academic Ability 63 6.73 5 Language Facility 62 6.87 6 Health 61 6.97 7 Professional Courses 59 6.98 8 Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching 63 7.3C 9 Professional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching Field 68 7.62 10 Mental Ability 63 7.65 11 Physical Characteristics 63 8.90 12 Experiences as a College Student Inter­ acting "With Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and In Groups 58 9.29 13 Background of Experiences Prior to College 53 11,83 Ik Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of Stu­ dent Teacher Measured "While in High School 50 12.56 15 Total 917 38 TABLE III COMPARISON OF VALUES OF COMPETENCIES #Total Number of points Rank in Theoretical Present Rank practices Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of Student Teacher Measured While In College 1*99 1 1 Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development 1*35 2 2 Language Facility 1*72 3 6 Sensitivity to Problems and Factors Affecting a Learning Situation 1*70 1* 3 Health 1*67 5 7 Professional Courses 1*61 6 8 Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching 1*60 7 9 Professional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching Field 1*58 8 10 Knowledge of Major Subject Area W*9 9 1* Experiences as a College Student Inter­ acting With Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and in Groups 1*1*8 10 13 General Academic Ability W* 11 5 Mental Ability 1*36 12 11 Physical Characteristics 1*29 13 12 Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of Student Teacher Measured While in High School 1*01* H* 15 Background of Experience Prior to College 392 15 il* ned for utmost importance* four points for considerable importance* three for some importance* two for little importance, and one for no importanceo Total number of points in column one is equal to the sum of the products of the frequencies multiplied by the assigned weights for each of the five divisions on the scale. 39 practices were supposed to be in operation. The comparison dis­ cussed in the preceding paragraph would have proved or disproved this hypothesis as well as given some indication of where this lag was most pronounced. The returns seem to indicate that there is a difference between theory and practice. table on page thirty-eight. quotation from one respondent. This is shown by the This is also illustrated by the ’’This seems to indicate quite a bit of difference between what we believe and what we do. ever, we are not as bad as this indicates.'» How­ This reply and other similar ones seem to indicate an awareness at least, of a lag be­ tween theory and practice. Analysis of Methods of Evaluation One-hundred ten questionnaires were returned in usable form. As was expected not all respondents replied to each of the fifteen separate items. Two items, with Reference to Sensi­ tivity to Problems and Factors Affecting a Learning Situation and, with Reference to the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He Was in High School, received such few replies that the percentage fell below the fifty percent level. These two items will occur last in the analysis of items. The re­ maining thirteen items will be listed according to the number of responseso 1 ho With Reference to General Academic Ability A total of seventy-eight persons submitted statements re­ garding the evaluation of general academic ability. It was apparent from these replies that average competency was expected in this area since an overall grade average of "C" was required,, Fifty-eight of the seventy-eight responses to this item indicated that prospective student teachers were required to have a specific grade average before the student was permitted to do student teaching. The chief single method of evaluating this competency was to examine grade records. However, ten of these fifty-eight schools using grade averages, also utilized scores on achievement tests or recommendations from instructors. Another method used in the area of academic ability was the requirement of a definite sequence of courses and a minimum of hours of credit before student teaching. As examples of this type of requirement one school listed completion of three-fourths of all the work in the major and minor fields; while another listed ninety hours of college work. While marks in college classes are an indication of academic ability and are a convenient means of evaluation, it is encouraging to see that other means of evaluation are being used. Among the more promising ones listed were observations of instructors, guid­ ance program records, student conferences with their major advisors, u evaluations by department heads in major and minor fields stating approval of the students ability, and the use of general achieve­ ment tests. Many of these were used in conjunction with grade point averages. The replies made it clear, however, that there were some schools using grade averages below ’’C" and in one in­ stance the reply was a minimum passing average* Although no one has demonstrated beyond question that superior competence academically automatically brings about better teaching, it is obvious that a serious lack of general knowledge would severely handicap any teacher who daily deals with the ever shifting interests and needs of boys and girls. It is reasonable to assume that the same conditions are true for student teachers. Such being the case it is desirable that other means of evaluation be used to supplement the grade average. Such evaluation should provide those people working with student teachers with concrete evidence of weak and strong areas of knowledge before a teaching situation uncovers this. At present the conference and the planning situation plus testing are the chief means of discovering such deficiencies at the time of student teaching. It is highly probable that such discoveries prior 'to student teaching would go far to improve the caliber of work and certainly the confidence of the student teacher. k2 With Reference to Knowledge of Major Subject Area A total of seventy replies were received pertaining to this item. Slightly more than half (forty six) indicated that grades in college courses were used as evaluating devices. Four of these schools indicated that the students average in his major field must be higher than his overall grade point average. Eight of the forty six using grades in courses used conferences with the student or recommendations from advisors, teachers or heads of departments to augment the evaluation by grades. In twenty colleges minimum hour requirements had to be met or the student had to have a recommendation from his major department. Other methods of evaluation commonly used were con­ ferences, test results, North Central Association’s standards for teachers, and ability to plan with students. This pattern of evaluation was quite similar to the one reported above for general academic ability. In some instances the average requirements were higher, for example grades, a psych­ ological examination and a pattern of courses were required by one institution while another used courses, grades, a profile evaluation by instructors and conferences with instructors. At the other extreme was the requirement that the student must be a Junior or Senior in college. 1*3 An analysis of the replies showed that there was a general preference for grade and course requirements in the students’ major areas. In addition the use of more than one evaluation device was frequently sought as a means of supplementing grade averages. Finally, recommendations of several instructors were used in some schools to complete the evaluation process. With Reference to Professional Courses Of the seventy-five replies to this item sixty-five in­ dicated a requirement of professional courses. Fifty-one stated definitely that professional courses must precede student teaching or that student teaching was fitted into a sequence of professional courses. The method of evaluating competency with respect to this item was largely through the grades received by the student. Twelve colleges required a grade standard for professional courses, one as high as a ”B” average. Other methods of evaluation that were mentioned were con­ ferences, recommendations, observation of students attitude, demon­ stration of ability to apply professional knowledge, and teaching tryouts. It is obvious that a teacher should be competent pro­ fessionally. The evidence here, indicated that course work was expected to aid in the professional development of the student. lilt It is also important to note that a preponderance of the replies indicate that the student by the time he reaches student teaching was required to have demonstrated professional knowledge. The number of requirements reported leads one to assume that consider­ able significance was attached to competence in this area. It is unfortunate that evaluation in the majority of cases reported is in the nature of marks made in courses, which in many instances would tend to be verbalization about the profession rather than actual experience in situations where professional understanding can be used. Undoubtedly student teaching can contribute to the latter along with increased use of other professional laboratory experiences. With Reference to Mental Ability Seventy-four answers were received to the questions on evaluation of mental ability. It was apparent from the state­ ments made that there was some uncertainty and differences of opinion with reference to this item. Only thirty-four institu­ tions stated that they used a testing program that included standardized tests of mental ability. Nineteen others reported evaluation indirectly through grades and honor points. Five re­ lied upon counseling situations to evaluate mental ability. It is probably safe to assume that tests were used by the counselors h5 to gain information about the counseiees. This would increase the total of institutions relying on tests to thirty-nine or slightly more than half of the schools reporting. The crux of the problem seems to be this. It is granted that mental ability is necessary in certain amounts to teach successfully. Whether superior mental ability makes for more success in teaching is questioned. Certain institutions reported a high-degree of selectivity at the time of entrance to college. One report stated that students with low mental ability were guided away from student teaching while students with ability and personality were encouraged to enter the teaching profession. however, did not define the term "low". The respondent, Other schools relied on the grade average requirements to secure students with sufficient mental ability to succeed in student teaching. An opposing point of view is expressed by seven schools which applied no system of evaluation to mental ability. In such institutions the ability to do college work was sufficient. One statement made the point that there is an almost negligible positive relationship between mental ability and success in teaching. The middle position in this division of opinion seems adequately expressed by the report that "a 1C’ average in scholastic marks must be maintained to begin and continue practice". i Further investigation restricted to teaching fields might produce a clearer picture of the opinions of supervisors. Al­ though, as previously reported, only a very small number of schools required a higher grade average in the student teacher's major field, this summary of opinion includes elementary and secondary supervisors' opinions. The supervisors' opinions at the secondary level include many different fields. Further study might show a distinct difference of opinion within these fields. Aside from course grades which are often highly subjective, most attempts at evaluation in this area used standardized measuring instruments. Evaluation techniques such as the interview, the conference, and consultation with instructors were conspicuous by their absence. With Reference to Health Replies were received from seventy-one institutions ex­ plaining the procedure for evaluation of health. Forty-four of these indicated that reliance was placed in a health examination administered by the school doctor or school nurse. Two schools indicated adherence to state requirements. The frequency of examinations and use made of the results differed widely in different colleges. Yearly exminations with a check preceding student teaching was cited by one college. The re­ sults of the college entrance physical examination were sufficient in some schools* The use made of the results obtained from the examinations was not always clear in the reports given. A few types of ill­ nesses such as contagious diseases (tuberculosis, venereal diseases, etc.) were listed as cause for elimination. Bad posture, physical handicaps, cough, bad breath, were listed frequently and discussed with the student later. In one institution it is explained to the student that a poor health record interferes with placement. But none of the replies indicated the extent of unhealthiness involved in eliminating students. One director of student teaching pointed out "that poor health at present does not necessarily predict the future. Another institution operated on the theory that physical health was closely tied in with mental health and the examination given had been broadened to include elements of both. This school reported that approximately ten percent (1C$) were then referred to the mental hygiene clinic, enrolled in group guidance, or were required to make up a physical health deficiency. Only two schools indicated the absence of health exam­ inations. The majority of institutions replying to this question use one or more examinations to determine the health status of the prospective student teacher. Most require "good health", a term which needs a more adequate definition than was indicated in the replies. With Reference to Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development Fifty-eight institutions required one or more courses dealing with child growth and development prior to the assignment to student teaching. Only two of the seventy replies received answering this item indicated that a study of child growth and development should depend upon the student teaching experience. Twenty-one replies indicated that working with children of var­ ious ages was believed necessary to improve the quality of under­ standing. Types of experiences reported were observation, pre­ paring case studies, interviewing children, and writing anecdotal records. This was most often done in connection with formal courses. However, supervisors indicated that they frequently used all of the above types of assignments to help them evaluate student teachers* understanding of child growth and development. Thus, the competency of the student teacher in this area was evaluated by grades in courses, conferences with the student teacher, observation of the student teacher as he participated in class experiences and his ability to collect and interpret infor­ mation about various children and groups. Faculty recommendation was sometimes sought in case of doubt. Evaluation of student teachers* competence in this field followed one or both of the following patterns. In some institutions k9 the student teacher was required by supervisors to demonstrate ability with reference to a particular situation. course grades were accepted. of the two. In others the Other schools used a combination The requirements reported by many schools were in­ troductory in nature. Eighteen of the fifty-eight schools reporting course requirements listed only one course. one course was educational psychology. In some instances this Other institutions relied up­ on the entire sequence of professional courses. Only a few specifi­ cally mentioned courses in child growth and development. The nature of the requirements and the types of evaluation relied upon lead to the conclusion that in this area which all groups have ranked high in importance most institutions have yet to develop a sound policy of building and evaluating the competence of their students prior to a student teaching. Competence was evaluated in the following ways: TABLE IV TECHNIQUES OF EVALUATION USED WITH CHILD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 5^* 1. Required Course or Courses......... 2. Observation, case studies, interviews . . . . . 3. Seminars. b. General Education Program................. ........... 1 3. Pre-student teaching laboratory experiences . ........... 6. Student Teaching Experience ........ 7 ......................... ....................... 2 Total Replies 70 ■^Fourteen of this group indicated that the courses included experience with children. 1 1 5o Well publicized experiments with pre-teaching experiences indicate a rapidly awakening recognition of the need for competence in understanding the processes of child growth and development* Two respondents indicated a revision of policy in their institutions along such lines. Since this item was ranked second in importance in the second part of this study, it is quite likely that many im­ portant changes in the direction of increased participatory exper­ iences for the student are to be expected in the immediate future. With Reference to Physical Characteristics A total of sixty-nine replies were received in answer to the questions concerning evaluation practices used with this item. Six schools replied that nothing was being done to evaluate the physical characteristics of student teachers* Although this factor receives much attention no really common pattern was discernible from the replies. A number of colleges relied upon conferences between student teachers and supervisors to bring about improvements in manners and dress. Others utilized a written statement in a handbook or mimeographed instructions. with improvement. Guidance personnel were frequently used to help One school depended upon a special course pre­ ceding student teaching. also used. Opinions of college instructors were 51 It appears in the majority of institutions studied the evaluation of physical characteristics was done through obser­ vation on the basis of subjective standards. However, some attempts were being made to make the evaluation more objective in nature* One school used a check sheet to rate student teachers. was made from anecdotal reports in two schools. used the personnel deans’ reports. ported by one school. Evaluation Three colleges A profile evaluation was re­ Instructors ratings were used in several institutions. Competency in the area of physical characteristics was expected in the majority of schools replying to this item. The method of checking and the decision as to whether the prospective student teacher was competent or incompetent was rather subjective differing somewhat in different places but influenced greatly by the standards commonly set for teachers. for dress, grooming, manners and the like. This was especially true As one supervisor states it, "This is one of the things brought out at the beginning of the student teaching experience. I always emphasize that grooming, suitable dress, poise, etc., are of great importance. Once in a great while I have to remind student teachers that garish color combinations and certain types of costumes and unconventional manners don’t go in a public school. These are brought to the attention of the student teacher in the private weekly student teacher conference." 52 An almost entirely different approach was indicated by the following supervisor. “This factor or sub factor under it may result in our rejecting a student. Poise is the most import­ ant part of it, but I believe that poise is an evidence of mental health rather than a separate factor. I do not pay much attention to manners or grooming in themselves, but I watch to see whether trouble here may indicate such emotional disturbance as it often seems to". Competency was expected in both instances quoted above. The former attempts to establish competency before student teaching, with corrections if necessary during student teaching, while the latter was primarily concerned with this factor after student teaching has begun, and the student teacher was checked through the area of relationships with their pupils. minority one in the replies received. This position was a It seems safe to assume that for the most part directors and supervisors of student teaching relied on the formal courses taken ty the student teacher and other means of instruction prior to student teaching to produce the de­ sired degree of competency in this area. With Reference to Language Facility Sixty-seven replies were received concerning the evaluation of this factor. Seven essentially different techniques of evaluating language facility prior to student teaching were listed. A breakdown of the replies follows in Table V. TABLE V METHODS OF EVALUATING LANGUAGE FACILITY Use of one or more tests ......................... 15 instit Tests and remedial work ..... ............... Required course in English and Speech ait 10 n . . . . 7 n Screening or recommendations committee . . . . . . . 5 ii .......... • 2 n Interview or personal conference . . . • . ........ Checked in education courses . . . . . Cared for during student teaching Evaluated during student teaching n ............ u Gradepoint average in English and/or Speech n 1 it . 1 ii . • 1 n ............... ......... Evaluating written work and through observation Total . . • . 67 These figures indicate the present trend of evaluation with regard to this competency. Fifty-seven of the replies show that preparation and evaluation have been given over to the departments vitally connected with language facility, namely English and Speech, The supervisor or the director of student teaching then abides by the evaluation of the departments concerned. It is probably true that members of the staffs concerned with teacher training were among the group that arrived at the standards set for approval or rejection* It is of further interest to note that twenty nine schools used one or more tests to determine the facility of the student teacher in speaking and writing. In many instances these were listed as entrance exams, English tests, or qualifying tests. schools listed the names of tests being used. Other This would indicate an effort on the part of these institutions to use objective instru­ ments to measure students abilities. A highly desirable practice, indicated by fourteen institutions, was the operation of remedial clinics for the assistance of those persons deficient in this ability. Few indications were given whether work in such clinics as spelling clinic, English clinic, speech laboratory, or writing laboratory carried credit or was simply a deficiency to be made up. Those indicated were the latter no credit type. One school stated that students could be reassigned to the clinic if the student re­ gressed after completing the work the first time. Thus, the concensus of replies indicated a rather thorough going check of competency in the area of language facility. Only three schools indicate postponement until the student teaching period. Also in so far as possible the evaluating devices used are in the majority of schools objective in nature. given those who were deficient. Clinical aid was often The replies indicated that marked deficiency would eliminate the student from student teaching since most grade point requirements were average (C). % With Reference to Background of Experience Prior to College Sixty five replies were received in answer to thequestion on evaluation listed under this item. factor was not considered. Eleven stated that this Fourteen used a questionnaire or pers­ onal data sheet to obtain information about the student. quired autobiographies. Seven re­ Nine reviewed high school records. The remaining twenty four relied upon conferences to obtain information. The importance attached to this item and the type of eval­ uation done was not listed in many statements. It is significant that in not one instance was there an attempt to list the character­ istics of an adequate background of experience for studentteaching. However, the background of experience was evaluated. was quite clear from the comments made by respondents. This In many instances student teachers have additional experiences arranged for them as a result of some deficiency in their background. It is to be expected that the types of experiences would vary widely with different supervisors, as widely as the difference in their concepts of an adequate background. In the questionnaire prepared for this study the item was listed “With Reference to Background of Experience Prior To College (including home background, high school activities, peer relation­ ship, community participation, etc.)H In none of the sixty five replies was reference made to any experience other than the four 56 suggested above. Of these four, community experiences, and home background were most frequently mentioned. Furthermore in only a very few instances was any effort made to list the type of com­ munity activities that were evaluated. Apparently the evaluation of this factor was extremely nebulous. Established criteria against •viiich students’ back­ grounds could be studied were almost totally lacking in the reports. In cases where criteria were applied they were local in nature. However, there is some evidence that this competency was felt to be important. One reply implies that when the academic rating of a student was low his background was the deciding factor in permitting him to do student teaching. Probably the following quotation summarizes the viewpoint of the majority ’’Peer relationship is es­ pecially important. If this is not good, we will be suspicious but so far we have not rejected anyone, because of a poor record in this. Sometimes I wish we had, but our instruments are not good enough to justify it. We pay some attention to previous experiences with children e.g. siblings in the home." Thus it seems that both directors and supervisors of student teaching evaluated student teachers with reference to their back­ ground of experiences prior to entrance in college. stances this was a rather subjective evaluation. In many in­ Because of the nature of the measuring devices little emphasis was given toward 57 acceptance or rejection for student teaching, although the im­ portance of an adequate background was readily recognized. Further­ more inadequate techniques were used for the collection of this information in many colleges. This resulted in an area where com­ petency was desirable for a successful student teaching experience, but as yet facilities were not available to attain the goal. With Reference to Professional Outlook and Interest In the Teaching Field The sixty replies to this item indicated that considerable importance was attached to competency in this area. In five in­ stitutions students could be eliminated from student teaching if their professional attitude was not good. The fact that one in­ stitution was adding a course that was specifically designed to produce a good professional attitude and that eleven others indicate that they depended on courses or parts of courses to develop pro­ fessional attitudes, further substantiates the above statement. Only two replies stated that this was solely a part of student teach­ ing. In only one instance was there an indication that professional attitudes can grow from success in teaching without first being fostered by other experiences. The techniques by which this item was evaluated were many and varied. Nine respondents stated that they evaluate the student through conferences and interviews. Eight used the student’s record in. clubs similar to the Future Teachers of America. Course grades, recommendations of faculty, students statement of purposes, obser­ vation, and anecdotal records were all listed. In many instances more than one of the above was utilized as a basis for judgments about competence. In one instance a test was given to determine the students knowledge of teacher ethics. That the importance of professional outlook cannot be minimized was shown by the attention given to it in these replies. It was also clear that no single measuring device was available with which professional outlook and interest in the teaching field could be measured. The result was a diversified system of measurement employing many different devices. It was also significant that one reply attempted to state the extent to which a professional attitude needs to be developed prior to student teaching, although there was one reply which stated that a professional attitude was begun in student teaching and grew after the student teacher became a teacher. With Reference to Mental Health And Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While In College Sixty respondents replied to this item. Although many re­ spondents failed to reply to this item, it was obvious from the replies received that most of thos who did reply felt that this item was ex­ tremely important. A breakdown of the replies showed the following methods of evaluation: 5? TABLE 71 METHODS OF EVALUATING MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY Judgment of designatedgroup ............................. 26 Use of 1 or more tests Judgment of the supervisor ................... 19 ............................... Checked through admission policy of the school............. 7 . 3 Checked through grades.................. 1 Checked by guidance program of school. 1 Other. ................ .................................................... 3 T o t a l ............60 There was some overlapping in the replies included in the above table. An example is found in items one, two, and six. Of the nineteen statements included in item two, fourteen indicated that observation, clinical work, counseling or interviewing were also used to supplement the test findings. It is reasonable to assume that the guidance personnel of the school assist in these matters. The use of further testing and group judgment probably enter in extreme cases. It is significant to note that mental health was felt to be very important by those who attempt to evaluate it. This was supported by the fact that standardized instruments and group judgment as represented by faculty ratings, screening committees, personnel 60 officers and others were used to aid in the evaluation. Further­ more, in only a few cases was the evaluation of this item left to the judgment of the supervisors involved in working with the stu­ dent teacher. With Reference To Experiences As a College Student Interacting With Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and In Groups Fifty-eight replies were received in answer to this item. An analysis of these showed that a large majority of schools were trying to provide or at least insure that prospective student teachers have such experiences. As is to be expected the pattern of requirements in this area varied greatly with different situations. Only nine schools reported that such experiences are not required. Even so, six of this group of nine reported that students were encouraged to participate in such experiences on a voluntary basis. The most prevalent devices used for evaluating such exper­ iences were personal conferences and evaluation as a part of the course in which the experiences were required. In some instances the extent to which such experiences are evaluated seems to be a systematic checking by those responsible for the experiences re­ quired or by the director of student teaching to insure that require­ ments have been met. Various schools reported requirements such as participation in scouts, playground activities, recreational groups, Sunday School 61 classes, camp counseling, assisting teachers with various school activities, case studies, observation of children, and laboratory work with children. Undoubtedly the evaluation of these exper­ iences by the students and the teacher who directed them has merit in the stimulation of growth it provides students in preparing for the student teaching experiences. In no instance did a director of student teaching or a supervisor report that his evaluation of the student teacher began with a full knowledge of previously eval­ uated experience in this area. On the contrary the student teacher was checked through conferences and records to ascertain that such experiences requirements have been met, but the depth of under­ standing and the degree of competency developed by such experiences as a prerequisite for a more worthwhile student teaching experience were usually left unexplored. From this it would appear desirable and necessary that institutions hoping to make the most of experiences evaluated prior to student teaching must develop a close liason relationship between those people responsible for pre-student teaching laboratory experi­ ences and those persons responsible for the student teaching experi­ ence. Otherwise, the increased use of the laboratory experiences is likely to prove just another educational fad looked upon as a possible panacea. It is obvious that the results of such experiences will not produce equally competent students who will be ready for student teaching at the same time. It is equally apparent that a 62 conference between a supervisor and a student teacher is not likely to acquaint the supervisor with the kind of classroom situation in which the student teacher can best begin his teaching. An alter­ native to the development of a functioning relationship between the teacher who directs the pre-student teaching experience and the supervisor is the use of an orientation period for the student followed by a progression from the easy to the more difficult types of teaching. Apparently little attention is given to how the student teacher might begin working with a challenging situation that will call forth his top level abilities. With Reference to Abilities Necessary To Good Teaching Such As Planning With Students, Helping Students Carry Out Plans, And Evaluating Progress A substantial majority of the respondents replying to this item believed these abilities were developed through the student teaching experience and methods courses. Of the fifty-eight re­ plies received, fifteen placed the development of these abilities within the period of student teaching. Eighteen others said they should develop during the methods courses preceding student teaching. Nine respondents stated that they resulted from a combination of student teaching and methods courses. Thus a total of forty-two of the fifty-eight replies limited the development of these abilities to two particular phases of the student teachers training. 63 Other ways in which these abilities are developed were listed as participating experiences, laboratory experiences, obser­ vations, conferences, references, participation in committees, pre­ paring materials, previewing movies, marking papers and informal activities and discussions. The instruments of evaluation used most frequently were conferences, references, observation, and self-evaluation by the student. A few references were made to screening committees, grades in courses and tests. There was a marked difference in the tone of replies to this competency. This was one of two items that many respondents relegated to the student teaching experience. Apparently they felt that abilities of the type mentioned above were the result of growth during the student teaching experience and in many instances indi­ cated that they developed as a result of participation and guided experiences in teaching-learning situations rather than in dis­ cussions of methods and techniques. Since in many ways the abilities to plan for and with stu­ dents, to help them work out plans and to evaluate progress were con­ sidered as some of the more important accomplishments of student teaching, these abilities were without doubt subject to all the various techniques of evaluation that have thus far found application in the student teaching field. While conferences, observation, and self-evaluation were reported most frequently, it is reasonable to 6k assume that other devices such as check lists, rating scales, profiles and many others were in use and were used as a part of the total evaluation of this competency. Significant by its absence was any reference to academic average as a means of evaluation in this area. In some instances reference was made to consultation with other faculty members. In none of these statements were there definitely implications that such faculty members might be in the students' major academic field. Most of these statements specifically referred to those of the fac­ ulty who taught professional courses or methods courses. Of course there is the possibility that the methods courses referred to are offered within the academic departments. There is some basis however, for the conclusion that the abilities listed here are pri­ marily the concern of professional education rather than that of the academic fields. With Reference To Sensitivity To Problems and Factors Affecting A Learning Situation The fifty-two replies received in relation to this item further emphasized the position stated under the preceding competency. Professional courses and student teaching were relied upon to de­ velop competency in this area. The method of evaluation was largely through observation in situations where the student participates. These plus conferences, 65 recommendations of teachers of professional and methods courses were used to evaluate the students ability. Such statements as, "Stressed before student-teaching, but largely taken care of during student teaching," "Begun in methods courses but largely taken care of in a student teaching situation," and "Result of practice teaching, we hope", summarize the position taken by most respondents with reference to this competency. With Reference To The Mental Health And Emotional Maturity Of The Student Teacher Measured While He Was In High School Only twenty-four replies were received to question one under this competency. Those replying depended primarily on the admission policy of the school and the students' high school records which were sent to the college by the high school. The formation of judgments from these records, conferences, leadership displayed, and ability to work with peers were the only means of evaluation mentioned. The small number of replies to this item indicated with reason­ able certainty that directors of student teaching and supervisors were not concerned with evaluation in this area. In many instances they only become concerned with the students as they reach the latter two years. This probably explains the fact that only a small number reported on evaluation in this area. Furthermore, the fact that most colleges have admissions policies which make them selective by nature coupled with the tendency of those students who can’t stand the strain to drop out of school before the third year partially eliminates the necessity for concern in this area. Summary Fourteen of the fifteen competencies studied were con­ sidered important to directors of student teaching and supervisors. These competencies were evaluated either prior to the student teach­ ing experience, during student teaching, or on a profile basis during the student’s entire college career. Only the measuring of the emotional maturity of the prospective student teacher while he was in high school received little consideration from the dir­ ectors of student teaching and supervisors. Practices followed at the time of investigation showed a greater possibility for the absence of competence in a given area to retard the progress of the student than for demonstrated com­ petence to accelerate it, although in some institutions there was noticeable flexibility. The importance of the competencies studied cannot be accurately reduced to a rank order one to fifteen. The inter-relation­ ship of the items in such that a deficiency in competence in one may be off set by superior competence in another area. 67 The evaluation practices in use were generally highly sub­ jective in nature. Since they were a matter of judgment, the opinions of more than one person were frequently sought. Standard­ ized measuring instruments were utilized where they were feasible and the results of such measurement became a part of the total evaluative process. The process of evaluation of the student’s competence began at the time the student entered the teacher training institution. Certain aspects of it culminated in a decision to admit or reject the student for the student teaching experience at the time of his application for student teaching. Further evaluation of his com­ petence continued in some areas during the period of student teaching. The chief methods of evaluation prior to student teaching were grades in courses, scores on test, conferences and interviews, and other school records. The evaluation methods listed above were the work of various departments. The review of the students entire record was frequently the work of a committee but in many instances it was done solely by the director of student teaching or his assistants* CHAPTER V IMPORTANCE OF COMPETENCIES IN A PROJECTED SITUATION Introduction While the first question under each competency was de­ signed to investigate the status quo of that particular item, the second question asked the respondent to estimate the impor­ tance of the competency in a projected ideal situation. It was also recognized that an ideal situation is never achieved. However, it was felt that only by attempting to think through to an ideal situation is it possible to determine the re­ sults which teacher preparation is to attain. It was further understood that any plan which might be developed as ideal for a particular situation would not remain so. The everchanging conditions of life inside and outside the school necessitate the constant revision and refinement of all plans and goals set up as means and ends. Yet, it is possible to reason through to the best possible solution in the light of present facilities and knowledge. It is only through this process that a comparison of the present position and the eventual goal can be made. Because of the thinking described above, no ideal sit­ uation was outlined. Rather each respondent was asked to project for himself an ideal situation and to check the importance of each competency in terms of this perfection. 69 In an effort to give the scale the same meaning to all respondents the following interpretation of terms was given. Of utmost importance-student is not ready to begin stu­ dent teaching unless he has demonstrated pro­ ficiency in the area covered by this factor. Of considerable importance-student is not ready to begin student teaching unless he has demonstrated in limited situations that he has ability in the area of this factor. Of some importance-student is ready to begin student teach­ ing when his previous education has provided him with an understanding of the need for ability in the area covered by this factor. Of little importance-student is ready to begin student teaching without the presence of this factor. Any necessity that exists in the area of this factor as far as student teaching is concerned will develop from the experiences of student teaching. Of no importance-has no bearing on when a student is ready to begin student teaching. Each respondent was then asked to rate each competency by means of the following question. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teach­ ing on the following scale? (Check one) () Of utmost importance, () Of considerable importance, () Of some importance, () Of little importance, () Of no importance. Two means of checking the reliability of the answers were devised. First, the respondents were divided into equal groups and the pages of the questionnaire alternated to place each item in a different position. Second, the questionnaire was given to a group 70 of supervisors in 1951 and to the same group again in 1952. Each of these will be presented in the first of this chapter. To serve as a check on the importance attached to each item by respondents, a jury of outstanding educators in the field of teacher preparation was selected and the opinion of the jury was compared with that of the respondents. From this comparison of opinions the final importance attached to the competency was estimated. The Use of the Chi Square Method The Chi Square test was selected as the best means of re­ ducing the collected data to an understandable mathematical con­ cept. However, even this test has certain limitations as applied to the data here. In many instances the observed frequencies are smaller than five. The Chi Square test gives distorted results when the theo­ retical frequency is below five.-1- Even the recommended procedure of combination of columns did not completely eliminate these low theoretical frequencies. Realization of this weakness in applying the Chi Square technique to this data must temper the conclusions drawn from the results. 1 g . Milton Smith, A Simplified Guide To Statistics, (New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc. 1956), pp.86-8?. 71 Effect of the Location of the Question By alternating the pages of the questionnaire and sending them to five equal groups of respondents, it was believed that an accurate check could be made of the influence of position on the importance attached to any particular competency. However, a number of respondents returned the questionnaire rearranged in the normal consecutive page order. This resulted in one group having a larger rate of return than the others since it was necessary to treat this entire group of papers as though they had been sent out with the pages arranged consecutively. As a check on the influence of location on importance in rating, five competencies were selected for Chi Square tests. These five were: With Reference to Mental Ability, With Reference to Background of Experience Prior to College, With Reference to General Academic Ability, With Reference to the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He Was in High School, and With Reference to Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development. These items were selected be­ cause they appeared representative of the entire group. In addition each was the first item on one of the five pages, and each occurred in each of the following positions, first, fourth, seventh, tenth, and thirteenth. 72 The following tables show the actual frequencies, the theoretical frequencies that were calculated, the Chi Square value and the P value from Fisher's Table of Chi Square. being tested in each case is this. The hypothesis There is no significant diff­ erence in the ratings of the various competencies by the different groups. The P value of .90-.10 found for both Mental Ability and Academic Ability indicated that there was no significant difference in the ratings given these two competencies irrespective of location in the questionnaire. 2 TABLE VII INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON RATING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL ABILITY Group 1 Utmost Importance U U.83) Group 2 k (6.71) 15 (12.73) 6 (5.56) 25 Group 3 9 (8.06) 15 (15.28) 6 (6 .6 6 ) 30 Group i* 8 (6 .I4I+) 1 0 (1 2 .2 2 ) 6 (5.310 21* Group 5 Jt (2*96) _U (5 .6 0 ) __3 (2.100 Totals 29 55 2li degrees of freedom = 3 Considerable Importance 11 (9.17) Some Importance 3 (li.O) () - Theoretical frequency Totals 18 11 108 Chi Square 14.2855 P - .90— .10 -------- Smith, op.cit. p.89. 73 TABLE VIII INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON RATING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO GENERAL ACADEMIC ABILITY Considerable Importance 15 (11.10) Some Importance 0 (2.02) Totals Group I Utmost Importance 3 (iuBB) Group 2 10 (6.77) 10 (15.U2) 5 (2.81) 25 Group 3 8 (8.13) 18 (18.51) (3.36) 30 Group h 3 (6.51) 17 (lii.80) 2 (2.69) 2h Group 5 _3 (2.71) __6 (6.17) _1 (1.12) 10 Totals 29 66 12 degrees of freedom s 8 () - theoretical frequency 18 107 Chi Square 10.3057 P - .90— .10 7k 'When the Chi Square test was applied to the competency with Reference to The Background of Experience Prior To College a P value of .99 was obtained. A Chi Square value small enough to result in a P - .99 indicates almost perfect agreement among the rating groups. TABLE IX INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON RATING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO COLLEGE Utmost Importance Group 1 ■"? C3V<5£)' Considerable Importance 7 (7.22) Some Importance 6 (5.61) Little Importance 2 (1.12) 9 (10.19) 9 (7.92) 2 (1.59) 21+ .. Totals . 1 7 - Group 2 k (1+.3) Group 3 7 (5.38) 13 (12.7k) 9 (9.9) 1 (1.98) 30 Group h 1+ (1+.1+8) 11 (10.61) 9 (8 .2 6 ) l (1.65) 25 Group 5 _2 (1.79) Totals 19 _5 (1+.21+) 1+5 degrees of freedom - 12 _2 (3.31) JL (.66) 35 () = theoretical frequency 7 . 10 106 Chi Square 3.8011; P = .99 75 As has been previously indicated in chapter four, super­ visors and directors are not highly concerned with the evaluation of the mental health and emotional maturity of the student teacher while he is in high school. Consequently it was felt that this competency would be one in which a divergence of opinion might be expressed. However, the P value of .95— *90 obtained indicates that there is no significant difference in the rankings given this competency by the different groups. TABLE X INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON RATING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL Group 1 Utmost Importance 1* (h.&) Considerable Importance 6 (7.51*) Some Importance 5 (3.77) Group 2 7 (5.7D 9 (10.06) 3 (5.03) 5 (3.20) 21* Group 3 6 (6.90) 11* (12.15) 6 (6.08) 3 (3.87) 29 Group L 6 (5.1*8) 10 (9.6U) 6 (i*.82) 1 (3.06) 23 Group 5 _2 (2.62) __5 (i*.6l) _2 (2.30) _2 (1.1*7) 11 22 11* Totals 25 degrees of freedom = 1 2 1*1* Little Importance 3 (2.1*0) () = theoretical frequency Totals 18 105 Chi Square 5*8633 P r .95— 90 f l 76 Two Chi Square tables are presented below testing the above hypothesis in connection with the competency With Reference To Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development. In the first table the P value of .05-.02 gives reasonable grounds for rejecting the hypothesis and stating that the rankings by the various groups differ significantly. A close examination of the tables shows an observed fre­ quency of one, one, none, none, three in the column some importance. The total Chi Square value is 16.2515. Of this total value the cell containing three, supplies 11.8276 or about two-thirds. As was previously stated small values frequently distort the total in the Chi Square test. In this instance three cases contribute al­ most twice as much to the total value as the other 1 0 3 cases. TABLE XI INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON RATING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO UNDERSTANDING OF MAJOR ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Group 1 Utmost Importance 10 (10.55) Considerable Importance 6 (5.61) Some Importance 1 (.80) Totals 17 Group 2 15 (1L.9I0 8 (7.93) 1 (1.13) 2k Group 3 20 (18.68) 10 (9.90) 0 (1.1*2) 30 Group U 17 (1k.9k) 7 (7.93) 0 (1.13) 2h Group 5 _ k (6.85) Totals degrees of freedom - 8 66 h (3.63) _ 3 (.52) 35 () - theoretical frequency 5 11 106 Chi Square 16*2138 P = .0$— .02 78 A standard procedure Used to overcome this distortion is combination with the next groupm3 in the following table the column Some Importance has beep combined with the column Consid­ erable Importance. The r e s u l t j_s a p value of .90— .10 which indicates that there is no grea-t difference in the rankings of the various groups. TABu e XII INFLUENCE OF POSITION ON RATING GIVEN WITH REFERENCE TO UNDERSTANDING OF MAJOR ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH A N D DEVELOPMENT Group 1 Utmost Importance 10 (I0.$9j Considerable Importance 7 (6.41) Totals 17 Group 2 15 (14.94) 9 (9.06) 24 Group 3 20 (18.68) 10 (11.32) 30 Group 4 17 (14.94) 7 (9.06) 24 7 (4.15) 11 Group 5 _k Totals degrees of freedom » 4 (6.85) 66 () = theoretical frequency ^Smith, op. cit., p. 87* 40 106 Chi Square 4-2282 P = .90— .10 79 In this instance the P value of ,90— .10 is probably the more accurate rating. By assuming from Table XI that there is a significant difference it could be shown that only three rankings give this result. To attribute such value to three out of a total of 106 rankings would be highly questionable. While the Chi Square test is not one of the most rigorous tests and since it has a definite weakness in dealing with small theoretical frequencies, it seems safe to assume that in this instance little if any influence was exercised by the position of the item on its total rating in the questionnaire. Changes in Ratings In 1951 the second question under each competency was ad­ ministered to a group of supervisors at Southern Illinois Univer­ sity. Ten months later the same question was administered to fifteen of the original group. In each instance the following hypothesis is being tested: There is no significant change in the rankings made in the 1952 replies when compared with the rankings in the 1951 replies. The calculations to determine Chi Square and the corresponding P values used to test this hypothesis may be found in Appendix S. In no instance has there been a really significant shift in the rankings. In fact a larger shift might have been expected as a result of num­ erous in-service training projects in operation during the elapsed time. 80 It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that with ref­ erence to the fifteen competencies studied, changes in opinion about the relative importance of each, remain rather stable for given individuals. A partial explanation seems to be that the individual's opinion is tempered by his professional knowledge and experience. In the above instance the average years of teaching service repre­ sented by this group of supervisors is well advanced. A more rapid rate of change might be found if a group of beginning teachers were studied. Comparison of Rankings After examining the present practices in use with regard to each competency the data compiled from the second question was treated to determine the total importance attached to each com­ petency in a projected ideal situation. First, the Chi Square test was used to compare the opinions of the jury with the opinions of the respondents. The total number of replies by respondents ranged from 106 to 110 distributed on a five-point rating scale. The total number of replies by the jury ranged from sax to seven also distributed on a five-point rating scale. Comparison without some form of statistical measure was almost impossible. Due to the wide variation in number, the Chi Square technique was chosen. 81 Realizing the limitations of the Chi Square method as applied to such frequencies the data under each competency were treated in the following two ways. First, the total responses of the jury and the respondents on a five-point rating scale were tested using the Chi Square technique. Second, the responses on the five-point scale were combined into a two-point scale and the data again tested by the Chi Square method. The purpose of this combining procedure was to eliminate as far as possible small frequencies of none, one, and two. According to the definitions given on page one of the questionnaire, the first two points on the scale, of utmost importance and considerable im­ portance, required the student to demonstrate his ability or pro­ ficiency. The iast three ranged from mere awareness of the need for ability to no bearing on beginning the student teaching experience. Following what seemed to be a practical division, the two frequency totals, utmost and considerable importance, were added together and the three frequency totals, some, little and no importance, were combined. The following tables present the results of the Chi Square tests as applied to each competency. In each table part A is the Chi Square value calculated from the total responses on the fivepoint rating scale. explained above. hypothesis is: In part B the responses have been combined as In both parts of Tables XIII through XXVII the There is no significant difference between the rankings of the respondents and the jury. 82 TABLE XIII COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE IN COLLEGE Part A Utmost Importance Respondents 73 (7L.23) Jury Considerable Importance 33 (31.95) 1 (2.09) _ 6 (L.77) Totals 79 degrees of freedom : 3 Little Importance 1 (.9k) __0 (.12) Totals 100 0 (.06) 2 3k 0 Some Importance 2 (1.88) 1 = theoretical frequency 7 116 Chi Square 1.1011 P r .90— .10 Part B Respondents Utmost and Considerable Importance 106 (106.18) 7 (6.82) Jury 113 Totals degrees of freedom * 1 Some, Little or No Importance 3 (2".82) Totals 109 _0 (.18) 116 3 () = theoretical frequency 7 Chi Square .196l|. P - .9 0 — .1 0 In both parts of Table XIII the P values of .90— .10 in­ dicate that there was no significant difference in the ranking given to this competency by the jury and the respondents. rated it very high on the scale of importance. Both groups 83 T A B L E XIV COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO UNDERSTANDING OF M A J O R ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH A N D DEVELOPMENT Part A Utmost Importance Respondents Jury Considerable Importance 36 (3 6 .3 S T 6B (67.65 3 3 Th.76) __0 (.30) _3 ( 2 . 3 3 ) J t ^ -3 5 ) 72 Totals Some Importance 39 3 ' degrees of freedom = 2 () theoretical frequency Totals lo9 7 116 Chi Square .5U02 P B .90— .10 Part B Utmo s t and. C o n s i derable Importance Respondents Jury Totals i c m (M.3) 7 Some, Little or No Importance 3 U.7) _0 (.3) (6.7) 3 111 degrees of freedom a 1 () theoretical frequency Totals 109 7 116 Chi Square .3333 P— .90— .10 The Chi Square test r e v e a l e d no significant difference in the replies of the respondents a n d the j u r y . The preponderance of replies found under utmost and c o n s i d e r a b l e importance indicated a great deal of importance was a t t a c h e d to t h i s competency. 8U TABLE XV COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO LANGUAGE FACILITY Part A Respondents Jury Totals Utmost Importance 5u (5i.7l) Considerable Importance U1TGi9.83) 1 (3.29) 6 (3.17) 55 degrees of freedom ■ 2 Some Importance 9 (D.L6J Totals 110 _0 (.5U) 7 9 53 () = theoretical frequency 117 Chi Square U.9568 P » .io— .05 Part B Utmost and Considerable Importance 101 V101.5U) Respondents Jury 7 (6.U6) Totals 108 degrees of freedom = 1 Some, Little or No Importance 9 (8.1*6) _o_(.5U) Totals llO ___7 117 9 () = theoretical frequency Chi Scruare .6223 P = .90— .10 In Table XV, part A, the Chi Square test as applied to the uncombined frequencies showed some divergence of opinion although not significant. closely. The combined frequencies, part B, agreed quite It appears that there was no significant difference in the value attributed to this competency by the respondents and the jury. As part B of the table indicates it was rated highly important. TABLE XVI COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES PART A Utmost Considerable Some Importance Importance Importance Respondents 1+6 (k6.1+2) "FS (FU'.oy _ 1 (2.58) Jury Totals _J. (3.) degrees of freedom ■ 3 6 (F.69) 6 0 Totals 10ff 2 (1.89) _0 (.11) __0 (.31) 57 1+9 Little Importance ___6 2 » theoretical frequency 111+ Chi Square 2.8565 Pa. 90— .10 PART B Utmost and Considerable Importance Respondents lo o (loo.i+2 ) ___6 (5.58) Jury 106 Totals degrees of freedom - 1 Some, Little or No Importance 8 (7.FH) JO (.1+2) Totals 108 ___6 ___ 8 ________ _ () - theoretical frequency lll+ Chi Square .L?65 P=.90— .10 No significant difference of opinion was discovered by application of the Chi Square test to the ratings given ’’With 86 Reference to Professional Courses•" The combined frequencies in part B indicated that both groups felt this to be a highly im­ portant competency. TABLE ffll COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING A LEARNING SITUATION PART A Respondents Jury Utmost Considerable Some _ Little Importance Importance Importance Importance 60 (60.Oh) (36.5H1 7 (8.hit-) 1 (.2R) U (3.96) _ 1 (2.L2) Totals 6k degrees of freedom s 3 39 _2 (.56) Totals 106 J> (.06) 9 7 1 () s theoretical frequency 113 Chi Square L.9011 P « .90— .10 PART B Respondents Utmost and Considerable Importance R8 (96.62) Some, Little or No Importance 8 (9.38) Jury __5 (6 .3 8 ) _2 (.62) Totals 103 10 degrees of freedom * 1 () - theoretical frequency Totals 106 7 113 Chi Square 3.5927 P = .10— .05 In part A of Table XVII the uncombined frequencies treated by the Chi Square method showed close agreement. The combined 87 frequencies in part B showed a greater spread of opinion. In neither case was the Chi Square value sufficient to reject the theory that there is no significant difference in the ratings given this competency. The point of difference was probably one of time rather than value. As indicated in Chapter IV some re­ spondents believed this to be a part of the student teaching ex­ perience. Consequently, in a projected ideal situation it did not become as important in preparation for student teaching as some other competencies. However, the majority opinion appears to indicate that Sensitivity to Problems and Factors Affecting a Learning Situation was felt to be important prior to student teaching. TABLE XVIII COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO HEALTH PART A Respondents Jury Totals Utmost Considerable Some Little Importance Importance Importance Importance lo i n . 28; 2 U.88; '53(53.59) L5 U3.25) _h (3Ml) 57 degrees of freedom - 3 1 k6 (2.75) 2 (.72) 12 () = theoretical frequency _0 (.12) 2 Totals llC) 7 117 Chi Square 3.8L11 P = .90— .10 88 PART B Utmost and Considerable Importance 98 (96.SU) Respondents Jury __5 (6.16) Totals 103 degrees of freedom = 1 Some, Little or No Importance 12 (1 3 .1 6 ) Totals llO __2 (.81*) __ 7 11* () - theoretical frequency 117 Chi Square 1.9363 p - .90— .10 The Chi Square test applied to the opinions on health in­ dicated that there was no significant difference of opinion. The jury and the respondents agreed that competence with reference to health was important. TABLE XIX COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO GENERAL ACADEMIC ABILITY PART A Respondents Jury Totals Utmost Considerable _ Some Little Importance Importance Importance Importance 29 (28.1^) 67 (68.59,) 12 (il.28) 1 (-9-U) __1 (1.81) 30 6(l*.i*l) 73 s s g a e B B M a s c a s s a a c s s a a c s g a a c g g a a s g a a s e a B s g B S ■■r degrees of freedom - 3 _ 0 (.72) 12 1 r sis a .s s s g a _0 (.06) 1 ..g g a s g g a a a g r () s theoretical frequency Totals 109 7 116 i, .■ ■ g a a a a a Chi Square 1.8253 P = .90— .10 89 PART B Utmost and Some, Little Considerable or No Totals _____________________________ Importance_____ Importance__________ Respondents 9 6 (94.78) 13 (12.22) I09 Jury 7 (6.22) __0 (.7 8 ) 7 Totals______________________ 103______________ 13____________ 116 degrees of freedom ■ 1 () = theoretical frequency Chi Square .9337 P s .90— .10 Table XIX seems to indicate that there was little difference of opinion with regard to academic ability. The combined responses in part B showed more difference than the uncombined responses in part A. However, this difference is not great enough to warrant rejection of the hypothesis that no significant difference exists. TABLE XX COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR SUBJECT AREA PART A Respondents Jury Totals Some Considerable Little Utmost Importance Importance Importance Importance 56 (57.29) H (10.33) 2 (1.08) 39 (38.5) __2 (2.5) U1 degrees of freedom s 3 5 (3.71) 61 0 (.67) 11 _0 (.12) 2 ( ) s theoretical frequency Totals 108 __ 7 115 Chi Square 1.1*21*9 P * .90--.10 90 PART B Utmost and Considerable Importance % (95.19) Respondents Some, Little or No Importance 13 (12.21) 7 (6.21) Jury degrees of freedom » 1 16a 0 (.79) 102 Totals Totals 7 13 115 () - theoretical frequency Chi Square .9U80 P - .9 0 --.10 The respondents and the jury seem to be in close agreement concerning knowledge of major subject area. In both parts of Table XX the Chi Square test revealed no significant difference of opinion. TABLE XXI COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO ABILITIES NECESSARY TO GOOD TEACHING SUCH AS PIANNINC- WITH STUDENTS, HELPING STUDENTS CARRY OUT PLANS, EVALUATING PROGRESS PART A Respondents Jury Totals Little Considerable Some Utmost Importance Importance Importance Importance 56 (5 0 .U T k5 (k3.22) "12 "(1’3 '.K) 2 (1.88) U (3-26) 5k degrees of freedom « 3 1 (2.78) he __2 (.8U) Totals lo £ _0 (.12) Hi () = theoretical frequency 2 7 116 Chi Square 3.2233 - .90--.10 P 1 91 PART B Utmost and Some, Little Considerable or No Totals ____________________________ Importance_____ Importance__________ Respondents 95 (93.97) lit (15.03) 109 Jury 5 (6 .0 3 ) Totals 100 degrees of freedom = 1 2 (.97) 7 16 116 () = theoretical frequency Chi Square 1.3513 P . .90— .10 Apparently no significant difference of opinion existed with reference to Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching. The Chi Square test of combined and uncombined data resulted in P values insufficient for rejecting the hypothesis. TABLE XXII COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL OUTLOOK AND INTEREST IN THE TEACHING FIELD PART A Respondents Jury Totals Some Utmost Considerable Little Importance Importance Importance Importance Totals U6 (it6.0£t) "UTTffl.WJ 13 U3.16) 1 (.91;) “ 109 ' 3 (2.96) It9 degrees of freedom * 3 _J 52 (3.1U) _1 (.8U) JD (.06) lit () * theoretical frequency 1 7 116 Chi Square .103iUt P - .99 92 PART B Utmost and Considerable Importance 95 (Rk.9i) Respondents Jury _6 (6.09) Totals 101 degrees of freedom s 1 Some, Little or No Importance Ik (Ik.09) __1 (.91) Totals " W ' 7 116 15 () - theoretical frequency Chi Square .01088 P = .90— 95 The Chi Square value obtained for Professional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching Field revealed very close agreement in the replies of the respondents and the jury. The uncorabined data in Part A showed less difference of opinion than the combined data in Part B. TABLE XXIII COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO EXPERIENCES AS A COLLEGE STUDENT INTERACTING WITH ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNGER CHILDREN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN GROUPS PART A Respondents Jury Totals Little Some Considerable Utmost Importance Importance Importance Importance Totals 16 (15.63) 2 (1.88) " O T ” kl (kl.32) 49 (49.77) _ J (2.68) kk degrees of freedom * 3 4 (3.23) 53 0 (.97) _0 (.12) 16 () s theoretical frequency 2 ___7 115 Chi Square 1.3962 P - .90— .10 93 PART B Utmost' and Considerable Importance 90 (91.10) Respondents Jury 1o5" __ 7 115 18 97 degrees of freedom » 1 Totals _0 (1.1) J L (5.9) Totals Some, Little or No Importance IF ' O T () * theoretical frequency Chi Square 1.3897 P = .90— .10 There was apparently no significant difference in the opinions of the respondents and the jury. The total number of ratings of utmost and considerable importance seem sufficient to conclude that both the respondents and the jury felt this compet­ ency to be important. TABLE XXIV COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS PART A Jury Totals _ 0 (1.1*) 23 degrees of freedom ■ 3 6 (U.38) 72 _ 1 (1.16) Totals T5F“ _0 (.06) 7 _ Respondents Utmost Considerable Some Little Importance Importance Importance Importance 2 3 '('21.6')— 66 ('67.'62) 1FT1T.WJ— i T ^ D 19__________ 1__________115 () * theoretical frequency Chi Square 2.2158 P - .90— .10 9k PART B Utmost Considerable Imoortance 89 (89.22) Respondents Jury __6 (5.78) Totals Totals 108 1 (1.22) 7 20 95 degrees of freedom = 1 Some, Little or No Importance 19 (18.78) 115 () = theoretical frequency Chi Square .0511 P - .90--.10 The Chi Square values for Part a and part B for Table XXIV indicate that there was no significant difference in the opinion of the respondents and the jury with reference to Physical Characteristics. TABLE XXV COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL ABILITY PART A Respondents Jury Totals Some Utmost Considerable Little Importance Importance Importance Importance 29 (2'tf.20) 57 (58.29) 23 (22.57) 1 (.9*0 1 (1.80) 30 degrees of freedom = 3 5 (3.71) 62 1 (1.U3) _0 (.06) 2L () r theoretical frequency 1 Totals 110 7 117 Chi Square 1.0563 P - .90— .10 95 PART B Respondents Utmost Considerable Importance 86 (86.5) Some, Little or No Importance 2k (23.5) Jury _ 6 (5.5) — i Totals 92 degrees of freedom - 1 110 7 ^ 25 () - theoretical frequency Totals 117 Chi Square .22563 P - .90— .10 A large majority of the respondents and the jury ranked this competency as important. The Chi Square test indicates that there was no significant difference in their opinions. TABLE XXVI COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL PART A Utmost Considerable Some Little No Impor-ImporImporIrapor-Impor- Totals ______________ tance_____ tance_____ tance____ tanee tance_______ Respondents 27 (26.29) L2 (Ul.32J_'2'3 (2L.L2) l5 (15.03) 1 (.94) 108 Jury Totals __l(1.71) __2 (2.68) _ J (1-58) _JL (.97)__ _0 (.06)__ 7 28 hk_________26_______ 16______________ 1_115 degrees of freedom s It () * theoretical frequency Chi Square 1.9208 P s .90— .10 96 PART B Utmost and Considerable Importance 69 (67.62) Respondents Jury 3 On38) 72 Totals degrees of freedom s i O r Some, Little or No Importance 39 O t f . W Totals 108 h (2.62) 115 U3 theoretical frequency 7 Chi Square 1.2367 P _ .9 0 --.10 Although a majority of the respondents and almost one-half of the jury ranked this competency of utmost or considerable im­ portance, it appears that much less importance was attached to this competency than to any of the preceding ones. The Chi Square test indicates that there was no significant difference in the opinion of the respondents and the jury. Apparently both groups agree that Mental Health Level and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He Was in High School is likely to be less important as a factor in the readiness of the student for student teaching in a projected ideal situation. 97 TABLE XXVII COMPARISON OF REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS AND JURY WITH REFERENCE TO BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO COLLEGE PART A Utmost Considerable Some Little No ImporImporImpor­ Impor­ Impor­ Totals tance tance tance tance tance Respondents 20 (19.72) US ( R3.2) 35 (35.69) 6 (7.51) 2 (l.'BH) 108 Jury _1 (1 .2 8 ) _ _ 1 (2 .8 ) 21 Totals J l (2*31) ._2 (.L9) ._0 (.1 2 ) ___7 U6 38 8 2 degrees of freedom - i*. () r theoretical frequency 115 Chi Square 6.6010 P > .10— .90 PART B Respondents Utmost and Considerable Importance 65 (62.92) Jury 2 (lj.,08) Totals 67 degrees of freedom - I Some, Little or No Importance U3 (h5.0B) Totals lOb __5 (2.92) U8 () s theoretical frequency 7 115 Chi Square 2.7065 P - .10 Table XXVII seems to indicate that there is no significant difference in the opinions of the jury and the respondents. Part B indicates a greater divergence of opinion but the P value obtained is insufficient for rejecting the theory that there is no significant 98 difference. However, this competency received the lowest rating of importance of any of the fifteen studied. Although the application of the Chi Square test has limit­ ations for such small frequencies, the area of agreement between the respondents and the jury was so close it seems safe to conclude that the competencies listed in tables XIII through XXV were con­ sidered as significantly influencing the time when a student would be ready for student teaching in an assumed situation. Thus it becomes apparent that if conditions were to be improved and accurate evaluations of the above competencies were made available these evaluations would become a partial basis for assigning students to the student teaching experience. Comparison of Rank Order of Competencies Using the frequency totals obtained by combining the rank­ ings of utmost and considerable importance the following rank order of competencies is obtained from the replies of the respondents. 99 TABLE ECrai COMPARISON OF RANK ORDER VALUES f m CL) ^3 G With Reference to: Q) +> a, q w q -p a. q . 0a E-mJpipS'dEMpitf.O Jury Competency Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While in College 106 1 7 3.5 Understanding of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development 1 QU 2 7 3.5 Language Facility 101 3 7 3.5 Professional Courses 100 k 6 8.5 Sensitivity to Problems and Factors Affecting a Learning Situation 98 5.5 5 12 Health 98 5.5 5 12 General Academic Ability 96 7 7 3.5 Knowledge of Major Subject Area 95 9 7 3.5 Abilities Necessary to Good Teaching Such as Planning with Students, Etc. 95 9 5 Professional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching Field 95 9 6 8.5 Experiences as a College Student Inter­ acting with Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and in Groups 90 11 7 3.5 Physical Characteristics 89 12 6 8.5 Mental Ability 86 13 6 8.5 Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He Was in High School 69 Hi 3 Hi Background of Experience Prior to College 65 15 2 15 12 100 An appraisal of the total replies in the third column shows that six competencies were equally ranked by the jury each receiving a maximum number of seven. The jury ranking of the three competencies, Academic Ability, Knowledge of Major Subject Area, and Experiences as a College Student Interacting With Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and in Groups, does not agree with the ranking of the respondents. Also the competencies Physical Characteristics and Mental Ability would be one rank higher on the list, while Profess­ ional Outlook and Interest in the Teaching Field would be lower. However, the distance between the first and thirteenth places in the respondents ranking is only twenty which indicated rather strongly that all are regarded as very important. Assuming that the Chi Square values previously cited are not greatly distorted the rank orders differ only slightly. Summary Thirteen of the fifteen competencies studied were deemed highly important by both the respondents and the jury for a pro­ jected ideal program of teacher training as opposed to fourteen deemed important in present practices. The data collected did not furnish enough evidence to conclusively state which of the thirteen was of most importance. The difference between the first and thirteenth positions in a rank order list was so small in terms of the total possibilities that the total group of competencies was emphasized rather than ranked. 101 Two competencies, With Reference to the Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While He Was in High School and With Reference to Background of Experience Prior to College, are in a questionable category. In both instances a plurality of the respondents rated each competency under "considerable Importance." In both instances a plurality of the jury rated each as "some importance." In part B of Tables XXVI and XXVII a majority of the respondents have checked each as "utmost and considerable importance" while a majority of the jury has rated each as "some, little or no importance." Since this was a rating of opinion in a projected ideal situation and since there seemed to be less agreement than was the case with the preceding thirteen competencies, the importance of these two has been constantly minimized in this part of the study. Further substantiation for this position was presented in Table XXVIII where they ranked fourteenth and fifteenth respectively. In all probability Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured while He Was in High School was ranked fourteenth because personnel engaged in teacher training felt that this problem was a concern of the high school, and that grad­ uation indicated an acceptable degree of attainment. While Experience Prior to College was ranked last, it was considered important enough to be evaluated. In Chapter IV sixty- nine replies were received concerning present methods of evaluation. It seems reasonable to assume that this competency was ranked, last because the educators replying believed that college training could make up marked deficiencies in this area. The position occupied by any particular competency in the questionnaire influenced only slightly if at all the checked position on the rating scale. The opinions of the respondents presented in completing this questionnaire apparently changed slowly and only to a small degree. Opinions checked over a ten months period had not changed appreciably. CHAPTER VI OTHER SUGGESTED COMPETENCIES Purpose On the final page of the questionnaire each respondent was asked to add other factors which might be of equal or greater im­ portance than the fifteen listed. While a great amount of care was exercised in the selection of the fifteen competencies listed, it was felt that others might have been added. By providing opportun­ ities for respondents to add other items a safeguard against the omission of an important item was established. Further more, it provided an additional o p p o r t u n i t y for individual respondents to add items that were peculiar to their own teaching situations. List of Suggested Competencies A grand total of thirty-two items were listed by the re­ spondents and rated as to importance. Of the thirty-two listed only four were repeated with approximately the same wording although many were related to each other and to the original fifteen factors listed. The following table presents the total list and ranking of the suggested factors. COMPETENCIES SUGGESTED BY RESPONDENTS Competency No. of Times Listed Utmost Import­ ance Moral characteristics h k Resourcefulness, ingenuity, creativity, prompt­ ness, sense of responsibility, etc. 8 6 Goal orientation 2 2 Liking for living 2 2 Understanding democracy and democratic way of lifei 2 2 Knowledge of philosophy of school where student is assigned 2 Maintain harmonius relations with students and faculty 2 1 A master teacher 1 1 Communication skills 1 1 Senior status and approval by dean 1 Broad general education 1 Understanding community and world 1 Knowledge of contemporary society 1 Promise of success in opinion of others 1 Students sociometric index 1 Considerable Import­ ance Some Import­ ance Little Import­ ance 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 No Import­ ance Homemaking skills that command respect 1 Social maturity 1 Intellectually alert 1 Rate of maturation in student teaching 1 Place of school in our society 1 1 Fixed prejudices 1 Family and economic problems faced by student Kind of people we want when they are through school 1 Emotional stability 1 Philosophy of education 1 Ability to work with adults 1 Ability in business (buying) 1 Age 1 Sex 1 Energy or general tension level 1 1 Desire to serve Ability to deal with people 1 H Analysis of Items Many of the difficulties of studying competencies for student teaching are apparent on this list. To a great degree this problem is one of phraseology and clarification of meaning. An example in point is presented by the second item in this list and the second item in the questionnaire. The latter item is listed with reference to physical characteristics such as poise, manner, grooming. The former is a composite listing of individual items that seem to go together. Such items as promptness, sense of responsibility, resourcefulness, ingenuity, creativeness, drive, etc., are perhaps personal characteristics if one needs a distinction between the phys­ ical and psychological sides of the individual. as personal characteristics might be more apropos. There a term such However, as one respondent stated, such characteristics are closely related to the state of mental and physical health as well as native ability, and an accurate evaluation of them alone is next to impossible* On the other hand there is a general core of subjective agreement among supervisors and directors of student teaching with relation to such items. Further refining of such agreements with widespread study could aid in the problem of terminology. Isolated studys have previously pointed this direction^ but much progress still 3-A. S. Barr, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Edu­ cation, 16:25-U6, June, 19U8. needs to be made. The following quotation from one respondent* s reply illustrates this position quite well. "The wording of your questions is particularly good because it will cut out a lot of use­ less discussion about whether you can measure and find out about these things. Everybody knows you can judge them pretty well with reputable subjective controls, and that’s the thing we’re after.” Summary The significance of the factors listed by respondents is two-fold in nature. First it emphasizes the overlapping of the phraseology in the field of teacher training. In the second place it clearly illustrates that teacher preparation must be viewed as a total development process, one in which professional educators concern themselves with all of the ad­ justments to life. This positively places education in the position of implying that the entirety of the teacher’s life influences his teaching. Furthermore, a grouping of the factors in which prospective teachers must gain a measure of competence centers around various aspects of (1 ) physical-personal characteristics (broadly person­ ality), (2 ) academic and professional ability, (3 ) ethics, philos­ ophy, and morals, (h) an understanding of the existing relationships at any given time of man to man, and to established institutions. In these broad areas the educational goals of teacher training are subject to many pressures from within and without, and must be capable of constant refinement and adjustment or become value­ less as goals for teacher education. CHAPTER VII FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS This study was concerned with the evaluation, use, and value of certain competencies as they were related to the training of student teachers. It attempted to discover methods of eval­ uation currently in use with regard to fifteen competencies, and how each of the fifteen was valued in determining when a student was ready for student teaching. It further attempted to deter­ mine how each competency was valued in a projected situation. The data for this study were gathered from colleges in the geographical area of the North Central Association. Each of these colleges was also a member of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. The persons supplying data for this study can be divided into three groups: (l) directors of student teaching, (2) persons engaged in supervision, (3) and other college personnel. The following table gives the numbers of persons in each category. In this table the term ’’others" is used to include ail persons that perform duties such as director of student teaching and supervisor, or supervisor of student teaching and professor of education teaching college courses, or other similar combinations of duties. It also includes the members of the jury that completed a questionnaire. 110 TABLE XXX RESPONDENTS COMPLETING QUESTIONNAIRES Classification of Persons Number Directors of Student Teaching L9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 32 Supervisors 15 Others 36 Total 132 Findings The following general points of information were discovered during this study: 1. At the time of this study, thirteen of the fifteen competencies were evaluated prior to the beginning of the student teaching assignment in most of the colleges. 2. Chances for retardation as a result of the evaluation were greater than chances for acceleration. 3. Various methods of evaluation were used. upon to the greatest extent were: Those relied (1) grades in courses, (2) interview or conference technique, (3) written opinions of competent people, (U) checklists, and (5) records of examination. Ill iu In many schools a need for improving practices of evaluation was felt. The most important improvement that was thought necessary in relation to evaluation was the improvement of instruments of evaluation. 5. It was impossible to establish from the data a valid rank order of the value of the competencies as they functioned at the time of this study. The following specific points of information were identi­ fied as true for the competencies under which they are listed below. A. With Reference to General Academic Ability 1. A minimum grade average was required by 7k >3 percent of the schools that replied to this item. The most frequently mentioned grade was "C". 2. Scores on achievement tests were used in several schools as a means of evaluating academic ability. 3. Evaluations by department heads in major and minor fields were used as evaluation instruments in some schools. h. This competency was ranked as highly important in an assumed ideal situation by both respondents and the jury. B. With Reference to Knowledge of Major Subject Area 1. Sixty-one percent of the schools reported the use of grades in college courses as the chief means of evaluating knowledge in the major subject area. I jiil 112 2. Minimum hour requirements were reported by twenty-six percent as a method of requiring competence in this area. 3. A few schools utilized recommendations as a means of determining competence. ii. The use of a combination of evaluating devices was common practice. 5. This competency was rated as highly important for an assumed ideal situation by respondents and members of the jury. C. With Reference to Mental Ability 1. Grades and honor points were used by forty-six percent of the schools to evaluate mental ability. 2. 2E>.6 percent of the schools used testing pro­ grams to evaluate mental ability. D. With Reference to Health 1. The chief means of evaluating health was a re­ port of a health examination administered by pro­ fessionally trained persons. This technique was employed in a majority of the schools. 2. Health was rated as highly important in an assumed ideal student-teaching situation. With Reference To Understanding Of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development 1. The degree of success attained in required courses dealing with this area and evaluated through course grades was used by 82.8 percent of the schools to evaluate competency in this area. 2. Actual experience in guided laboratory situations k was used as a means of evaluation in many schools. 3. Coupetency in this area was rated as highly im­ portant by supervisors and members of the jury. With Reference To Professional Courses 1. Competency in this area was expected as an out­ growth of required courses. 86.7 percent of the colleges reported professional course requirements. 2. Evaluation of competency was obtained through grades given during the courses. 3* A few colleges require a minimum grade average in professional courses as a guarantee of competency. In a very few cases this minimum requirement was higher than the minimum requirements for all college courses which was used as a guarantee of academic ability. U. The interview technique was used occasionally as the only means of evaluation or more frequently as a supplementary method of evaluation. lUU Professional competency was ranked high in importance in a projected teacher training sit­ uation by the respondents and the jury. G. With Reference To Understanding Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development. 1. 82.9 percent of the colleges replying to this item indicated required courses in this area designed to develop competence in the student teacher prior to student teaching. 2. Evaluation of competence was largely through course grades. 3. Auxiliary means of evaluation were observation, interviews, and recommendations. U. This item was rated highly important by respond­ ents and jury. H. With Reference To Physical Characteristics 1. This item was reported very difficult to eval­ uate and all techniques used were highly sub­ jective. 2. Evaluation was generally achieved through observation. 3. This item was rated at the lower end of the im­ portance scale. 115 I. With Reference To Language Facility 1. Competence was checked thoroughly in most colleges, usually ty several methods. 2. Preparation and evaluation was largely the con­ cern of the English and Speech departments. 3. Lack of competence in this area generally re­ tarded the time of entry into student teaching. U. This item was rated highly important on the rating scale by the respondents and the jury. J. With Reference To Professional Outlook And Interest In The Teaching Field 1. The majority of the institutions replying to this item relied upon courses to develop competence in this area. 2. Evaluation of competence was often accomplished through grades in courses. 3. Other means of evaluation such as recommendations, interviews, observation, and students' statements of purposes were also used. if.. This item was ranked as important by the respond­ ents and the jury. K. With Reference To Mental Health and Emotional Maturity Of The Student Teacher While In College I 116 1. This item was ranked first in importance by the respondents and the jury. 2. Evaluative judgments about competencies in this area were based on subjective and objective evi­ dence in a majority of the schools. 3. Judgments were frequently those of a group rather than individual. it. In only a few instances was the final decision left to the judgment of the supervisor of the student teacher. L. With Reference To Experience As A College Student Interacting With Adolescents and Younger Children Individually and In Groups 1. The majority of schools replied that such ex­ periences were required and were evaluated. 2. Evaluation was accomplished through interviews and as a part of regular courses in which such experiences are required. 3. Competence in this area was rated as important by the respondents and the jury. M. With Reference To Abilities Necessary To Good Teaching Such As Planning With Students, Helping Students Carry Out Plans, Evaluating Progress 1. A majority of the respondents believed that this competency was developed by means of methods courses and the student teaching experience, 2. Evaluation was accomplished in a majority of instances as a part of courses taken and through observation and interviews during student teaching. 3, This competency was ranked as highly important by the respondents and the jury. N. With Reference To Sensitivity To Problems And Factors Affecting A Learning Situation 1* A majority of the respondents stated that the development of this competency was begun in methods courses and continued during student teaching. 2. This competency was evaluated in courses and in student teaching largely through interviews and observation. 3. The respondent and the jury rated this competency as highly important. 0. With Reference To Mental Health And Emotional Maturity Of The Student Teacher Measured While He Was In High School 1. Evaluation in this area was accomplished as a part of the college entrance policy. 118 2. This competency was not ranked important by the respondents or the jury. P. With Reference To Background Experience Prior To College 1. The background of experience of the student teacher prior to college was evaluated. 2. Autobiographies, personal data sheets, or question­ naires were frequently used to obtain the necessary information. 3. Criteria for evaluation were not well developed. 4. Competency in this area was not ranked important by the respondents or the jury. Conclusions The following conlusions were drawn from the findings of this study. 1. All fifteen of the competencies listed in this study were used at the time of study by some colleges to help determine when a student was ready for student teaching. Also certain competencies exerted more in­ fluence on advancement to student teaching than others. This conclusion is substantiated by the findings con­ cerning retardation and acceleration patterns. 2. In all fifteen of the competencies studied the absence of competence may retard the time of student teaching. In only one area, Background Of Experience Prior To College, was there little chance for retardation. This conclusion is supported by the findings on re­ tardation. Furthermore the chances for an accelerated preparation for student teaching were not as good as the chance for retardation at the time of this study. How to begin with the individual with an understanding of his individual capacities and abilities and provide maximum opportunity for advancement has long been a challenging problem in the field of teaching. Practices followed at the time of this study indicated that this problem was by no means solved in the field of teacher preparation. Many more devices existed for delaying progress toward student teaching until a minimum attain­ ment was reached, than existed for speeding progress for those individuals who could meet the minimum attain­ ment in less than the normally required time. Thus individual differences were not well cared for at the time of this study. This position is substantiated by the findings on retardation, acceleration, and pro­ cedures of evaluation. All fifteen of the competencies studied were evaluated. While it is true that not all schools evaluated all fifteen, there were some schools that did evaluate each. Furthermore, the schools omitting some of the com­ petencies did not always omit the same ones with the result that the total pattern presented information about each. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that various methods of evaluation were reported under each competency. Many different techniques of evaluation were used during the period prior to student teaching to eval­ uate the competence of each student. The total pro­ file of the individual seemed to be more important than superior development in anyone or a few compet­ encies. This fact is substantiated by the pattern of rather low minimum attainments set for several of the competencies. In many instances both subjective and objective methods are used to evaluate the same competency. These conclusions may be confirmed by examination of the report of types of evaluation presented in Chapter IV. The most frequently used subjective techniques of evaluating students prior to student teaching were observation, conferences or interviews, and grades in courses. Standardized tests for which estab­ lished norms were available were the most widely used objective methods of evaluation. This fact may be verified by the frequent number of times each is listed as a means of evaluation. 121 7« Minimum standards of attainment generally existed for those competencies that could be evaluated by accept­ able objective instruments. Conversely, competencies for which no recognized objective instruments of evaluation are available usually have no set minimum standard. This conclusion is substantiated by the following table. TABLE XXXI REQUIRED MINIMUM ATTAINMENT FREQUENCY TOTAL Competency With Reference To Major Subject Area Number of times ;a. required minimum attainment was reported 66 With Reference To Understanding Of Major Aspects of Child Growth and Development 59 With Reference To Academic Ability 58 With Reference To Professional Courses 51 With Reference To Language Facility kl With Reference To Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of the Student Teacher Measured While In College 19 With Reference To Health It 30h Total No minimum attainment standards were reported for the other competencies studied. 122 8* For those competencies that were largely evaluated by subjective means the evaluations were recorded and these became the basis for judgments that resulted in the admittance to or rejection for student teadhing. This final decision was made in two ways: (1) the final decision to admit a student to student teaching, was the responsibility of the director of student teaching, or (2) it was the result of the thinking of a committee especially activated for that purpose. 9. The evaluation process for certain competencies began shortly after the student entered college. it was delayed until the third year. For others The time when the evaluation of any particular competency began varied greatly in different colleges. 10. At the time of this study, it was impossible to pre­ pare a valid rank order of the competencies expressing the value of each as a determinant of readiness for student teaching. Some were more important than others, and one had very little if any importance. Moreover, several competencies were regarded as of almost equal value. The total evaluation pattern for all the competencies was of more importance than the individual rank order. These facts are substantiated by the rank order prepared for Chapter IV as well as failure of many respondents to rank them even though an attempt was made. 123 11, All fifteen of the competencies were important for an assumed ideal situation. This fact was shown by the ratings given each competency on the rating scale. With the exception of two competencies, With Reference To The Mental Health and Emotional Maturity of The Student Teacher Measured While He Was In High School and With Reference To Background Of Experience Prior To College, the ratings were so high in terms of the importance to readiness for student teaching that the prospective student teacher would be required to demon­ strate proficiency or ability with respect to each. This would mean a situation in which the prospective student teacher would be observed in his relationships with children for at least four competencies and in experience situations for possibly three others. These conclusions are verified by the substantial majority of high rankings, utmost importance and considerable importance, given all competencies with the exception of the two mentioned above. 12. Since the assumed ideal situation represented improve­ ment over present practices, the thirteen competencies ranked most frequently as utmost or considerably im­ portant are significant for further progress in the field of teacher preparation. It seems safe to conclude 12h that they have a very important bearing upon the time when a student is ready to begin student teach­ ing. Furthermore, if accurate evaluations of the degree of competence attained can be made available, they will greatly influence the decisions reached before admittance to student teaching is gained. Taken together .they seem to comprise the major portion of competence that was recognized as necessary for be­ ginning student teaching. Thus it would seem that further study of the ways and means of improving and evaluating the above competencies is one approach to the problem of improving teacher education. The above reasoning is verified by the general agreement on the importance of each competency, the fact that few other competencies were added by respondents, and the fact that efforts were being made at the time of this study to evaluate these competencies prior to student teaching. CHAPTER VIII IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE In this chapter, the writer summarizes the trends revealed in the study just described, points out needed areas of improvement in student teaching programs and suggests means for developing readiness programs for student teaching. Trends Revealed By This Study 1. At the time of this study the concept of readiness for the student teaching experience was accepted. The idea that a student can only achieve a maximum of desirable understanding in a learning situation for which he is ready in terms of meanings, skills, attitudes, and purposes had slowly been gaining momentum since the publication in 19L8 of School and Community Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education by the American Association of Teachers Colleges. Although the concept of readiness for student teaching had wide theoretical acceptance, many limitations existed in the actual application of this theory in practice. As diff­ erent institutions have endeavored to implement the theory, a wide variation of practices has developed with reference to the inception, follow-through, and evaluation of programs that lead to readiness for student teaching. 2. The literature reviewed as a background for this study emphasized the theoretical rather than practical approach to the 126 problems of readiness. Research publications, in which the attempts of schools to solve the practical aspects of this problem were reported, frequently devoted equal space to the theoretical aspects of the experiment. Very little in the way of experimental research has been reported concerning the actual areas of competence which are essen­ tial to achieving a state of readiness. Additional progress may be achieved as experimental research is able to translate the theo­ retical concept of readiness into practices that can be used and evaluated. Certain areas of competence included in this study were presented to a number of supervisors and directors of student teaching. They appeared reluctant to emphasize any particular one or two, but rather showed concern for the entire group as indicative of the student's readiness for the student teaching experience. Judging from this study, it seems that the present trend at the practical level is to consider many areas of competence in deter­ mining readiness for student teaching. Evidence from this study also supports the assumption that many educators desire further research in this area for the purpose of further refining the com­ ponents of the readiness concept. 3. Many institutions reported innovations in the cur­ riculum of teacher preparation at the time of this study but no single pattern for developing a readiness program was evident. 127 h. Emphasis on academic achievement evaluated through grades and standardized tests was still the single greatest factor in determining the time when a student was to be admitted to the student teaching experience. The progress of the student through a pattern of courses largely determined his time of admission to the student teaching experience. 3. Data collected in this study indicated that the judg­ ment of one individual was frequently the deciding factor in ad­ mitting students to student teaching. Junge's statement that the director of student teaching1 determined the time of the students entry into student teaching in fifty-one percent of the institutional cases surveyed, was apparently still true at the time of this study. 6. Despite the wide divergence of programs in different institutions, indications of promising practices noted at the time of this study were; (1) an increasing emphasis on a systematic sequential experience program prior to student teaching in which the prospective student teacher is afforded varied contact opportunities with various age level groups^ kjunge, Op. Git, p. 32. 128 (2) a growing concern that the student’s pro­ fessional preparation be made an important part of each of his four years in college with a tendency to increase the rate of par­ ticipation as rapidly as the student can effectively handle the responsibilities involved; (3) an expanding recognition of the fact that student teaching is closely interrelated with all parts of the teacher education pro­ gram. Furthermore these experimental pro­ grams appear to be emphasizing a readiness program through (a) offering students types of first hand learning experiences which increase student responsibilities as soon as the student is able to assume them; (b) a questioning attitude toward verbalization about teaching in the absence of experiences that give meaning to the concepts discussed; (c) recognizing the highly complex nature of readiness and the many factors bound up in getting the student ready; and (d) an increasing emphasis on the total development of the student physically, socially, emotionally and mentally. 129 7. At the time of this study there was limited evidence to show that there was an increasing concern for improving readiness programs through better understanding, better relationships, and closer cooperation between: (a) supervisors and the members of de­ partments of education engaged in training student teachers, (b) the various departments in colleges of education, (c) the education personnel and the academic personnel of the institution, (d) the entire institution and the surrounding area which it serves# Needed Areas of Improvement The data collected and examined during the course of this study seems to indicate that needed improvements in teacher edu­ cation fall into two categories. First, there are broad general areas that deal with the overall pattern of educational procedure that need improvement. Second, there are the more specific and practical approaches where initial experimentation on a limited scale has already begun. These need wider study under a variety of conditions and further evaluation to determine more fully their value as educative measures. The first seven points listed below are devoted to the larger overall problems. They are followed by a second group of twelve points which deal with the practical problems of a more specific nature. 1. Although the approaches used by different institutions to the problem of readiness for student teaching were 130 •widely divergent, a healthy attack on the problem is evident. Research to date is inadequate to de­ termine the values of the most recent experiments. At no time during the course of this study was scientific research encountered that attempted to determine which of two or more experiments could be rated better or best for one particular school. Administrative and technical requirements discourage such experimentation. The possibility of simultan­ eous pilot programs operating with control groups and the sanction of accrediting agencies needs to be explored as a means of comparing the effectiveness of the more promising patterns in operation at the time of this study. 2. While several reports have been published about current experimental programs, further reports of continuing projects need to be made which will emphasize practical aspects and evaluative measures as well as theory. Only as more adequate findings are reported will criteria exist against which tent­ ative plans may be compared, revised, and finally evaluated as a part of the process of curriculum re­ vision in the field of teacher education. More adequate accounts need to be made of the many and varied means by which institutions use demo­ cratic practices to initiate programs of action in curriculum revision. The "how11 of departmental, interdepartmental, institution wide, and institution and community cooperation needs to be fully reported along with the results and their evaluation. A more detailed account of methods used by individual institutions in the process of curriculum evaluation and revision, including the organizational set-up and the resources used, is also needed. As more adequate facilities are made available for determining and reorganizing students’ needs it seems likely that improved systematic sequential laboratory type experiences will become increasingly necessary to fit these reorganized needs. It seems safe to assume that one of the more important needs in this part of the program will b e adaptation of experience possibilities to the recognized individual differences in the prospective student teacher group. Little opportunity was afforded at the time of this study for the prospective student teacher to partici­ pate, except passively, in the act of his admission to his placement in student teaching. Active parti­ cipation by the student in both cases might well serve to make the student teaching experience more meaningful. Certainly the felt needs of the in­ dividual could become more meaningful in an inter­ view situation than from an application form. Admission to and placement in student teaching* needs to become more of a shared process than has generally existed in the past. The evaluation process must be a part of the evolving readiness program. All persons working with the prospective student teacher including administration, staff, other students, and the student himself should be involved in this evaluation process. Reputable subjective controls need to be instituted in areas where objective evaluation is next to impossible. While evaluation in the academic area is important it should not remain the chief factor in determining whether a student is ready to be admitted to the student teaching experience. As the student's back­ ground becomes more varied and richer through the increased use of laboratory experiences prior to ad­ mission to student teaching, supervisors will need to study critically and revise their present procedures 133 for initiating the student teacher into his role in the classroom situation. Finally the evaluation of the student teaching experience could very well furnish the key that would unlock for the student other areas of participation for which he is ready. 7. There is need for further exploration and evaluation of agencies outside the school which can assist in the readiness program for student teaching. Activ­ ities of this sort probably should be dual in pur­ pose. First, they should seek to determine how the area served by the school can be utilized effectively to assist in the total educative process, and second, they should seek to improve the area itself. appear to be of extreme importance. Both Improvement of the general welfare of its supporting area is obviously one of the reasons for the existence of an educational institution of higher learning. However, it is only through the improvement of the supporting area that the program of teacher education can be improved. This study sought to deal intensively with certain compet­ encies over a rather wide geographic area. With actual experimentation this and other similar studies might prove to be the means by which 13k accepted theories could be implemented. Consequently,, the following needs are expressed for the more restricted areas of competence in­ cluded in this study. 1. Present evaluation procedures need to be broadened so that they include not only grades, test records, and interviews, but also evaluation of students' abilities in experience type situations. Such situation should include persons of various age levels approximating those normally encountered in teaching. 2. Since the competence required to be ready for student teaching includes various special areas, the total evaluation of the student in the area of each com­ petence should include the judgments of individuals or groups appropriately trained to evaluate it as accurately as possible. This evaluation should be the result of cooperative measures with the aim of well-rounded competence in many areas always in mind, and it should constantly strive to eliminate the de­ velopment of one area at the expense of other areas. 3o Sufficient administrative organization should be de­ veloped under the position of director of student teaching or a similar title, to prevent overlapping and eliminate confusion in the evaluating process. This office should further serve as the coordinating agency for all evaluation records that are reviewed immediately prior to the student teaching assignment. The evaluation of each competency should be continuous throughout the student's college career. More cumulative records of the student's abilities, background, and previous evaluation records need to be started during the freshman year. To this should be added the results of competence gained from each new course or experience in which the student par­ ticipates. This cumulative record should become the basis for further advisement for the student toward the goal of attaining a maximum of competence in the desired areas prior to the student teaching assignment. A continuous effort should be made by appropriate personnel to improve all instruments and techniques of evaluation used in measuring the competence of the student as he progresses toward the time of student teaching. Efforts should be made to more adequately care for the individual differences and needs dis­ covered among prospective student teachers. All community resources that can contribute to the improvement of the competence of the student teacher candidates should be utilized. To this end community surveys and up to date community statistics should be made available to all teaching personnel who are in a position to utilize the resources of the community in the preparation of student teachers. In ail situations where minimum attainments are em­ ployed to insure certain degrees of competence, con­ stant study of the results obtained from such re­ quirements is necessary to accurately ascertain whether such requirements are successfully meeting the goals for which they were established. Revision of these requirements should be undertaken when they fail to accomplish the purpose for which they were originally established. Constant efforts need to be made to standardize the terminology used in the field of teacher preparation. Such efforts might in the beginning proceed through the media of definition and example. Professional 137 organizations, such as the Association for Student Teaching might utilize their summer workshops for activating these efforts. 12. Continuous experimentation with various techniques such as role-playing, psycho-drama, socio-drama, sociometric tests, and others need to be carried on in different situations and evaluated as a means of improving the competence of student teachers. Suggestions for Meeting Needed Improvements Continuously throughout this chapter, it has been implied that the key to many needed improvements lies in the area of in­ creasedresearch effort. From this study it appears that this re­ search could follow two lines to effectively improve teacher education in the United States. First, research is badly needed in the large areas previously cited as needing improvement. Second, research could deal with practical problems of implementation at the individual in­ stitutional level. Although the "Cooperative Action Research" movement has re­ ceived much support, too few institutions have adequately reported their findings. The consumption of research is as important for general improvement as the research itself. The support of state, regional, and national organizations in reporting major findings will almost be a necessity if progress is to be made. The research necessary to deal with the types of needs reported previously is likely to have the following characteristics: 1. The research will be initiated, carried on, and O evaluated through democratic group action. 2. The group involved will discover the need and define the purposes of its experimentation. 3. The values sought will be clarified and the limit­ ations necessary will be imposed. h» The experimentation necessary will be performed by members of the group and the necessary evidence gathered. 3. All members of the group will be involved in the evaluation, interpretation, and the decision con­ cerning next steps to be taken. 6. Periodic evaluation of changes will be made to in­ sure continued progress. During the course of this study a number of problems have been encountered that lend themselves to the type of research just outlined. 1. As was previously noted there has been a definite up­ swing in the use of observation, planned partici­ patory experiences, and sequential laboratory ex­ periences extending throughout the students four ^Stephen M. Corey, “Curriculum Development Through Action Re­ search". Educational Leadership, 7:lii7-15>3« December, ±9h9* years in college. Research dealing with these ex­ periences could aid in (1) determining which ones are most valuable to the prospective student teacher and at what stage in his preparation, and (2) how these experiences are most accurately and efficiently evaluated. 2. Closely related to number one is the area of student needs. How can the needs of the prospective student teacher be adequately determined? Also how can needs once discovered be best met in the curriculum of teacher training? 3. Since our entire educational system is dedicated to promotion of the democratic way of life and to demo­ cratic school room practices, research is needed that deals with the problem of efficiently educating student-teachers-to-be in the development of demo­ cratic understandings and techniques which they will be expected to utilize in their classrooms. iu Early in this study it was discovered that the terminolgy that has developed around many educational terms leads to much confusion. This appears to imply research at the local level to insure a satisfactory degree of uniformity for terms used in student teacher rating scales and other instruments which are of importance to the student*s career. It also in­ dicates a need for clarification at the state, regional and national level through research sponsored for the purpose of clarifying existing concepts. Another ever present area where research can help to improve teacher training is curriculum revision. Research in this area is frequently so broad that many groups are likely to be involved. Cooperation between persons working in professional education and the academic subjects becomes extremely import­ ant at the general education level and in the areas of specialization. The problem of research here might well become two problems (1) how to work together, and (2) how to revise the curriculum. The specific areas of competence covered by this study appear to be of sufficient importance to warrant consideration in teacher training programs. Present programs need to be examined to determine how each part functions in the development of competence. If it is discovered that certain important areas of competence are not adequately cared for in the present educational program, steps need to be taken toward improving such deficiencies. Students doing student lai teaching at the time of the evaluation as well as the academic personnel of the school should probably assist in the study of the program. Where experi­ mentation is attempted reports need to be made to show if certain competencies are of value in the general program of readiness for student teaching. A by product of this experimentation that also needs elaboration is the success of the methods used to achieve desirable competencies. Many research problems attacked by groups will involve con­ tinuing study over an extended period of time. This will necess­ itate a degree of administrative support that comes from a funda­ mental desire of administrators to improve existing practices. Evi­ dences of administrative support will be manifested in released time for key individuals, budgets for travel, the use of visiting experts, the provision of adequate clerical help, the purchase of materials necessary for carrying on the experiment, and opportunities for all personnel to share in the activities of the group. The adminis­ tration may also need to assist from time to time in reorganization necessary for the establishing of pilot studies and serve as a iiason agent between the research group and accrediting agencies. State, regional, and national organizations may also have an important role in assisting research groups. Such organizations 1U2 can disseminate information compiled in the organizations head­ quarters, provide workshops, promote study groups during summer months and at annual meetings, and assist in convincing adminis­ trative officers of the desirability of undertaking needed research. Members of state, regional, or national associations who are qualified to assist in constructive research work might encour­ age their own institutions to cooperate in working on problems of recognized importance. A final service that these associations could perform would be to use their annual meetings and publications to aid in the con­ sumption of findings. Meetings built around the problem approach where latest findings could be explained and discussed by inter­ ested groups could replace many of the current type study sessions which frequently are carried on under limitations of time, prepar­ ation, and participation. Summary This chapter has covered trends, needs, and patterns of improvement in teacher preparation. Several problems have been presented as pressing needs of the present. Advanced as a partial means of dealing with these problems have been research of individ­ uals and groups, the use of democratic processes in working toward improvement, the need for administrative support, and the role of state, regional, and national associations in the entire program of improvement. 1U3 In many instances the trends reviewed were of an encouraging nature. Some frontier thinking and doing in the area of readiness for student teaching was evident from the published reports. On the other hand criticisms of present frontier practices are in evidence and the desire has been expressed that we return to the older es­ tablished patterns. The superiority of a single pattern has not been validly established. In some instances where courses were changed and established course outlines were altered, the improvements ex­ pected did not materialize. Explanations of what happened must wait for the collection of factual evidence. not entirely pessimistic. However, the picture was Some schools were well pleased with changes made and were working toward further improvements. The most pressing needs discovered grew out of the trends observed. Further experimentation, both latitudinal and longitud­ inal is needed. It is to be hoped that democratic action research groups involved, will have a deep feeling of sincerity in the exper­ imentation that is needed. An abiding faith in the success of the research method of solving problems should become a part of the pro­ fessional make up of educators if research is to become our chief means of attack upon our problems. Action type research groups frequently are involved in broad areas of research. In such instances problems often appear so broad in scope that it appears worthless to attack only a small part of the total problem. Interpretation of data as often reported lilii is also laborious. Some evidence Ttfas found during this study of a need for the research specialist to assist with the setting up, pursuing, and interpreting research in the area of teacher education. Finally, and certainly not least important from the standpoint of a readiness program for student teaching is the refinement of tools and techniques of research and evaluation. This area of need begins with the use of descriptive terminology and extends to the firea of "objective" testing. Inability to cite conclusive proof for sus­ pected difficulties interferes with admission and supervision pol­ icies. Certainly this problem will not improve, in fact it seems safe to predict that it will grow worse, as sequential laboratory experiences are increased, unless more adequate means of dealing with it are found. Apparently administrative groups are anxious to come to grips with the problem of readiness for student teaching. Over one hundred presidents and deans were contacted during the course of this study. In each case cooperation was solicited. Only nine failed to reply. It is easily assumed from this broad display of interest in one phase of teacher education that they are vitally interested in the entire process. The interest of many national, regional, and state groups in teacher preparation is shown by many of their recent publications. This interest and cooperation shown by administrators and by professional organizations indicates a constructive and forward looking trend which should be utilized to the greatest possible extent, By pooling and sharing facts not now known about readiness factors in student teaching, these individuals and agencies can show ways to new practices which will bring about improved teacher education programs and better teachers* APPENDIX 1U7 APPENDIX A - D First Unstructured Questionnaires Developed, , , 1U8 APPENDIX E - H Second Unstructured Questionnaires Developed , , 152 APPENDIX I First Structured Questionnaire Developed . . . . 156 APPENDIX J Second Structured Questionnaire Developed, . . . 160 APPENDIX K Final Form of Questionnaire ................ 168 APPENDIX L List of Institutions Surveyed . . . ......... 175 APPENDIX M Contact Letter Mailed to each School ......... 181 APPENDIX N Letter to Accompany Questionnaire. . ......... 182 APPENDIX 0 Letter Used in Establishing the Jury . . . . . . 185 APPENDIX P Jury Selections........................... . 186 APPENDIX Q Letter Sent to Jury......................... 187 APPENDIX R Frequency Tabulations for Each Competency. . . . 188 APPENDIX S Chi Square Tables Testing Effect of Time on Rating Value . ............................. 203 1U8 APPENDIX A FORM D I READINESS FACTORS IN STUDENT TEACHING In the space provided on the left side of the center line please list those factors which are now considered before it is decided that a student is ready for a student teaching assignment. Opposite the factor listed please state briefly the amount of importance attached to the factor. READINESS FACTORS CONSIDERED Example: Successful completion of 8 weeks pre-professional laboratory work with varying age groups. IMPORTANCE OF FACTOR Very important. Cannot be assigned to student teaching without it. Please number in descending order of importance 1-5j the five most important items listed. Please use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. U+9 APPENDIX B FORK D I In the space provided at the left of the center line please list those readiness factors by which the assignment of students to student teaching positions could be made with the greatest assurance that the student could achieve a maximum of growth during the period of student teaching. SKILLS, EXPERIENCE, ABILITIES, ETC. IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF READINESS Please number in descending order of importance 1-5, the five most im­ portant items listed. If you are interested in obtaining the results of this study, please check here. 0 Please return completed questionnaire in enclosed envelope tot R. J. Fligor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 150 APPENDIX G FORM S I READINESS FACTORS IN STUDENT TEACHING In the space provided on the left side of the center line, please list those factors which are now considered before it is decided that a student teacher is ready to begin teaching the class to which he is assigned. Opposite the factor listed please state briefly the amount of importance attached to the factor. READINESS FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANCE OF FACTOR Examples Must know all pupils names Rather important but can begin teaching without it. Please number in descending order of importance 1-5, the five most important items listed. Please use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. 151 APPENDIX D FORM S I In the space provided at the left of the center line please list those readiness factors which indicate with the most assurance that a student teacher is ready to begin teaching the group to which he is assigned. SKILLS, EXPERIENCES, ABILITIES, ETC. IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF READINESS Please number in descending order of importance, 1-5, the five most important items listed. If you are interested in obtaining the re­ sults of this study, please check here. 0 Please list the number of persons that participated in filling out this questionnaire. Please return completed questionnaire in enclosed envelope to R. J. Fligor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. APPENDIX E FORM D II READINESS FACTORS IN STUDENT TEACHING In the space provided on the left side of the center line please list those factors which are now considered before it is decided that a student is ready for a student teaching assignment. Opposite the factor listed please state briefly the amount of importance attached to the factor. READINESS FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANCE OF FACTOR Example: Successful, completion of 8 weeks pre-professional laboratory work with varying age groups. Very important. Cannot be assigned student teaching -without it. Please number in descending order of importance 1-5, the five most important items listed. Please use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. 153 APPENDIX F FORM D II Please list, in the space to the left of the center line, the experiences, skills, abilities, attitudes, understandings, and the like that are ideal from your standpoint for assigning students to student teaching positions, with the greatest assurance that the student is in a position to profit to the maximum from his student teaching. It is hypothe­ sized here that at present it may be impossible to obtain adequate valid information about some things that you may wish to list. Please list them anyway and indicate in so far as possible their importance. SKILLS, EXPERIENCES, ABILITIES, ETC. IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF READINESS Please number in descending order of importance 1-5* INe five most important items listed. If you are interested in obtaining the re­ sults of this study please check here. 0 Please return completed questionnaire in the enclosed envelope to R. J. Fligor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 15U APPENDIX G FORM S II READINESS FACTORS IN STUDENT TEACHING In the space provided on the left side of the center line please list those factors which are now considered before it is decided that a student teacher is ready to begin teaching the class to which he is assigned. Opposite the factor listed please state briefly the amount of importance attached to the factor. READINESS FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANCE OF FACTOR Example: Must know all pupils names Rather important but can begin teaching without it Please number in descending order of importance l-5>> the five most important items listed. Please use the back of this sheet if more space is needed. 1 155 APPENDIX H FORM S II Please list in the space to the left of the center line, the experi­ ences, skills, abilities, attitudes, understandings, and the like that are ideal from your standpoint for permitting a student teacher to be­ gin teaching in a class, with the greatest assurance that the student is in a position to profit to the maximum from his teaching experience. It is hypothesized here that at present it may be impossible to obtain adequate valid information about some things you wish to list. Please list them anyway and indicate in so far as possible their importance. SKILLS, EXPERIENCES, ABILITIES, ETC. IMPORTANCE IN TERMS OF READINESS Please number in descending order of importance 1-5* the five most important items listed. Please list the number of persons that participated in completing this questionnaire. If you are in­ terested in obtaining the results of this questionnaire, check here. Please return completed questionnaire in enclosed envelope to R. J. Fligor, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, (). 156 APPENDIX I The following questionnaire contains certain factors that help determine the readiness of an individual for student teaching. Please answer each question concerning the various factors. 1. 2. 3. k. HEALTH 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (POISE, MANNER, GROOMING, ETC.) 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? MENTAL ABILITY 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? ACADEMIC ABILITY - KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR SUBJECT AREA 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices to you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? 157 PROFESSIONAL COURSES 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? GENERAL ACADEMIC ABILITY 1, What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 5. 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3» How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY - HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? COLLEGE LEVEL 1, What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 6. 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? LANGUAGE FACILITY (ORAL AND WRITTEN) lo What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 158 7. 8. 9. 10. 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3» How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? UNDERSTANDING OF MAJOR ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT !• What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS OF A TEACHING-LEARNING SITUATION 1# What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? ABILITY IN THE USE OF SUCH TECHNIQUES OF TEACHING AS PLANNING WITH STUDENTS, HELPING STUDENTS CARRY OUT PLANS, EVALUATING PROGRESS la What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCES - PRIOR TO COLLEGE 1, What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? 159 AS A COLLEGE STUDENT INTERACTING WITH YOUNGER INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? PLEASE LIST BELOW OTHER READINESS FACTORS THAT YOU DEEM VERY IMPORTANT (Factor)_____________________ __ ________________________________ 1* What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? 3. How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? (Factor)________________________________________________________ 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. 3. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? (Factor )_________ ______________________________ ________________ 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? 2. 3. What devices do you use most in your evaluation? How do you rank this factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching? 160 APPENDIX J INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE The attached questionnaire lists fifteen factors that seem to influence the time when a college student is ready for student teaching experience. You are asked to do four things in this order. 1. Answer question one (1) under each factor. This question deals with the present status of readiness practices in your student teaching program. 2. Check on a scale provided under question two (2) the importance you would attribute to each factor as a determinant of readiness for student teaching if the time, money, personnel, measuring devices, etc., were available to organize an ideal student teaching program. In an attempt to make the scale used in question two (2) have approximately the same meaning to all respondents the following description of terms is given: SCALE Of utmost importance - student is not ready to begin student teaching unless he has demonstrated proficiency in the area covered by this factor. Of considerable importance - student is not ready to begin stu­ dent teaching unless he has demon­ strated in limited situations that he has ability in the area of this factor. Of some importance - student is ready to begin student teaching when his previous education has provided him with an understanding of the need for ability in the area covered by this factor. Of little importance - student is ready to begin student teaching without the presence of this factor. Any necessity that exists in the area of this factor as far as student teaching is con­ cerned will develop from the experience of student teaching. 161 Of no importance - has no bearing on when a student is ready to begin student teaching. 3. Add in the space provided on the final sheet any other readiness factors that you deem important and answer the questions indicated. h. Rank all the factors (including those you add on the final page) in terms of importance to readiness for student teaching as your student teaching program now exists. This should be done by placing number one (1) in the parenthesis preceding the factor that is of most importance, two (2) before the factor that is second in importance, etc. Please check below the description that most nearly corres­ ponds to your present position. Director of student teaching - one who places college students in student teaching positions. Supervisor of student teaching - one who is actually responsible for a class or course and who remains in the classroom and works with the student teacher and the class. Supervisor - one who travels from room to room or school to school working with a teacher and the student teachers assigned to that teacher. Other. Please state position._________________________ Return to; R. J. Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois I 162 ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO GENERAL ACADEMIC ABILITY 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR SUBJECT AREA 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What devices do you find most effective? 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance* ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES 1, What axe you doing to evaluate this factor? What devices do you find most effective? 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL ABILITY 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 163 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS (poise, manners, grooming, etc., or the lack of these) 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of someimportance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO HEALTH 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 16U 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE IN COLLEGE 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO LANGUAGE FACILITY (written and oral) 1, What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What devices do you find most effective? 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO COLLEGE 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 165 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO EXPERIENCES AS A COLLEGE STUDENT INTERACTING WITH ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNGER CHILDREN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN GROUPS 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL OUTLOOK AND INTEREST IN THE TEACHING FIELD 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO UNDERSTANDING OF MAJOR ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 166 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS OF A LEARNING SITUATION 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH REFERENCE TO ABILITIES NECESSARY TO GOOD TEACHING SUCH AS PLANNING V7ITH STUDENTS, HELPING STUDENTS CARRY OUT PLANS, EVALUATING PROGRESS, ETC. 10 What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. Please do not forget to rank the factors listed. Use the parenthesis preceding the factors. Use 1 for the most important factor, 2 for the second in importance, etc. ( ) FACTOR__________________________________ __ 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 167 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) FACTOR.________________________________________________ 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) FACTOR__________________________________________________ 1. What are you doing to evaluate this factor. do you find most effective? What devices 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is possible to obtain an experimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. 168 INSTRUCTIONS FOR C O M P L E T IN G T H E Q U ES TIO N N A IR E The attached questionnaire lis t s fifteen factors that seem to influence the time when'a collpge student is ready for student teaching experience ■ You are asked to do four things in th is order. 1 Answer question one (1) under each factor. T h is question d ea ls with the p resen t statu s o f readiness practices a s your college stu den ts prepare for and begin th eir student teaching. 2 Check on a sca le provided under question two (2) the importance you would attribute to each factor a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching if the time, money, personnel, measuring d ev ic es, etc. were available to utilize that factor to its fu llest extent. ; In an attempt to make the sca le used in question two (2) have approximately the sam e meaning to all respondents the following description o f terms i s given; SCALE Of utmost importance—student is not ready to begin student teaching u n less he h a s demonstrated profi­ ciency in the area covered by th is factor. : Of considerable importance—student is not ready to begin student teaching u n le ss he has demonstrated in lim ited situations that he has ab ility in the area o f this factor, r Of some importance—student i s ready to begin student teaching when h is previous education has provided him with an understanding of the need for ab ility in the area covered by this factor ; Of little importance—student i s ready to begin student teaching without the presence of this factor. |Any n e c e ssity that e x is ts in the area o f th is factor a s far a s student teaching is con­ cerned w ill develop from the experiences of student te a c h in g .: Of no import a n c e -h a s no bearing on when a student i s ready to begin student teaching. ; i ;Add in the space provided on the final sh eet any other readiness factors that you deem important and answer the questions indicated. ; I Rank all the factors (including those you add on the final page) in terms of importance to readiness for student teaching as your student teaching program now e x is ts . This should be done by placing number one (1) in the parenthesis preceding the factor Ithat is o f m ost importance, two (2) before the factor that is second in importance, etc. ; P lease check below the description that m ost nearly corresponds to your present position. : Director of student teach in g-on e who p la c e s college students in student teaching p osition s. : Supervisor of student teach in g-on e who i s actually responsible for a c la s s or course and who remains in the classroom and works with the student teacher and the c la s s . ; Supervisor—one who travels from room to room or sch ool to school working with a teacher and the stu­ dent teachers assigned to that teacher. ' .Other. ; P le a s e state position ___________________________________________ ______ ___ Return to R. J. ;Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illin ois University Carbondale, Illin ois 1 169 ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO MENTAL A B IL IT Y 1 How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2 Pre-supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f th is factor, how would you rank it as a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of som e importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance, ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO PH Y SIC A L C H A R A C T E R IS T IC S ( p o is e , m a n n e r s , grooming, e t c , or t h e lack of t h e s e ) 1 How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a se check ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What devices do you find most effective? 2 ; Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation of th is factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of read in ess for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) OPconsiderable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. : ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO H E A L T H 1 How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a se check, ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What d ev ices do you find most effective? 2 Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved v a lid evaluation o f th is factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sca le? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance, ' 2 170 ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO BACKGROUND O F E X P E R I E N C E P R I O R TO C O L L E G E ( in c lu d in g home background, high school a c tiv i tie s , p e e r r e l a t i o n s h i p , com munity p a r t i c i p a t i o n , etc .) 1. How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d evices do you find m ost effective? . 2 Pre supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an e x ­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f this factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance, ' ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO E X P E R I E N C E S A S A C O L L E G E S T U D E N T IN T ER A C TIN G WITH A D O L E S C E N TS AND YOUNGER C H IL D R E N INDIVIDUALLY AND IN GROUPS 1 How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ‘ ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you. doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2. P re supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it i s p ossib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f th is factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the following sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance, ; ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO P R O F E S S IO N A L O U TL O O K AND I N T E R E S T IN T H E TEACH IN G F IE L D 1 How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2. Pre supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an e x ­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f this factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the fallowing sca le? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. : 171 ( ) W I T H R E F E R E N C E TO G E N E R A L ACADEMIC A BILITY 1. How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. • ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you.find most effective? 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation of th is factor, how would you rank it as a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of som e importance, ( ) O f little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ; () WITH R E F E R E N C E TO KNOWLEDGE O F MAJOR S U B JE C T AREA 1, How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a se check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2, Pre-supposing that you are in an id eal student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation of th is factor, how would you rank it as a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sca le? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of som e importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance, ; ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO P R O F E S S IO N A L CO U RSES 1. How does th is factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a se check. ' ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find most effective? 2, Pre-supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sca le? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. " ' 4 172 ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO T H E M E N TAL H E A L T H AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY O F T H E S T U D E N T TEACHER MEASURED WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL 1 How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. : ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence, What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2. Pre supposing that you are in an id eal student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f th is factor how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance, ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO MENTAL H E A L T H AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY O F T H E S T U D E N T T EAC H ER MEASURED WHILE IN C O L L E G E 1 ;How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check, ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular in flu en ce. What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2. Pre supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f this factor,, how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. • ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO LANGUAGE F A C IL IT Y (w ritten an d oral) 1, How does th is factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2 Pre supposing that you are in an id eal student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sca le? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no im portance." 5 173 ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO UNDERSTANDING O F MAJOR A S P E C T S O F C H IL D GROWTH AND • DEVE L O PM EN T 1. How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What d ev ices do you find most effective? 2, Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f th is factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ; ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO SEN SITIV ITY T O P R O B L E M S AND F A C T O R S A F F E C T I N G A L E A R N IN G SITUATION ( s u c h a s stim u la tin g i n te r e s t, g a u g in g s t u d e n t i n te r e s t, u s in g v a r io u s a p p r o a c h e s to d iffe re n t s t u d e n t s ’ problem s, r e a liz i n g when c l a s s a t te n t io n h a s w andered from t h e to p ic a t hand, r e a liz i n g when p la n s nee d r e v isio n , u n d e r s ta n d in g w hen a c t i v i t i e s h a v e b e e n c a r rie d to th e ir maximum worth, etc.) 1, How d o es th is factor influence th e time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate this factor? What d e v ic e s do you find most effective? 2. Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f th is factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable ‘ importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ( ) WITH R E F E R E N C E TO A B IL IT IE S N ECESSARY TO GOOD TEA C H IN G SUCH AS PLA N N IN G WITH STUDENTS, H E L P IN G STU D E N T S CARRY O U T P L A N S, EV ALU A TIN G P R O G R E SS , ETC, 1. How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a se check. ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you.doing to evaluate this factor? What d ev ices do you find most effective? 2 Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation of th is factor, how would you rank it a s a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance,, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ; 6 17U lease do not forget to rank the factors lis te d . U se the parenthesis preceding the factors. ;Use 1 for the ost important factor, 2 for the one second in importance, etc. ) F A C T O R ________________________________________________________________________________ :_______________ 1. How does this factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check, ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence, What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find most effective? 2, Pre-supposing that you are in an ideal student teaching situation, and it is p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant of readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance ) FACTOR _________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ 1, How does th is factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a se check. ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2 Pre-supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation o f this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing sc a le ? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance. ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ; ) FACTOR __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 How does th is factor influence the time when a student begins student teaching? P le a s e check. ; ( ) May retard ( ) May accelerate ( ) No particular influence. What are you.doing to evaluate th is factor? What d ev ices do you find m ost effective? 2.Pre supposing that you are in an id ea l student teaching situation, and it i s p o ssib le to obtain an ex­ perimentally proved valid evaluation of this factor, how would you rank it as a determinant o f readiness for student teaching on the follow ing scale? (Check one) ( ) Of utmost importance, ( ) Of considerable importance, ( ) Of some importance, ( ) Of little importance, ( ) Of no importance. ; 7 175 APPENDIX L THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION List of Accredited Institutions Located in North Central Association Effective March I, 1951 to March 1, 1952 INSTITUTION LOCATION Arizona Arizona State College Flagstaff Arizona State College Tempe Arkansas Henderson State Teachers College Arkadelphia Arkansas State Teachers College Conway- Agricultural, Mechanical and Normal College Pine Bluff Arkansas State College State College Colorado Adams State College Alamosa Colorado State College of Education Greeley Western State College of Colorado Gunnison Department of Education, University of Denver Denver Illinois Southern Illinois University Carbondale Eastern Illinois State College Charleston Chicago Teachers College Chicago University of Chicago Chicago Northern Illinois State Teachers College DeKalb National College of Education Evanston School of Education, Northwestern University- Evanston Western Illinois State College Macomb Illinois State Normal University Normal College of Education, University of Illinois Urbana Indiana School of Education, Indiana University Bloomington Ball State Teachers College Muncie Indiana State Teachers College Terre Haute Iowa Iowa State Teachers College Cedar Falls School of Education, Drake University Des Moines College of Education, State University of Iowa Iowa City Kansas Kansas State Teachers College Emporia Fort Hays Kansas State College Hays School of Education, University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas State Teachers College Pittsburg College of Education, University of Wichita Wichita Bethany College Lindsborg Michigan School of Education, University of Michigan Ann Arbor College of Education, Wayne University Detroit Division of Education, Michigan State College East Lansing Northern Michigan College Marquette Central Michigan College of Education Mt. Pleasant Michigan State Normal College Ypsilanti Minnesota State Teachers College Bemidji University of Minnesota, Duluth Branch Duluth State Teachers College Mankato College of Education, University of Minnesota Minneapolis State Teachers College Moorhead State Teachers College St. Cloud State Teachers College Winona Macalester College St. Paul Missouri Southeast Missouri State College Cape Giradeau Northeast Missouri State Teachers College Kirksville Northwest Missouri State College Maryville Karris Teachers College St. Louis Stowe Teachers College St. Louis Department of Education, Washington University St. Louis Southwest Missouri State College Springfield Central Missouri State College Warrensburg Nebraska State Teachers College Chadron State Teachers College Kearney Teachers College, University of Nebraska Lincoln Department of Education, University of Omaha Omaha State Teachers College Peru State Teachers College Wayne New Mexico College of Education, University of New Mexico Albuquerque New Mexico Highlands University Las Vegas New Mexico Western College Silver City North Dakota State Teachers College Dickinson State Normal and Industrial School Ellendale School of Education, University of North Dakota Grand Forks State Teachers College Minot State Teachers College Valley City Ohio College of Education, University of Akron Akron College of Education, Ohio University Athens College of Education, Bowling Green State University Bowling Green Teachers College, University of Cincinnati Cincinnati St. John College Cleveland College of Education, Ohio State University Columbus College of Education, Kent State University Kent School of Education, Miami University Oxford College of Education, University of Toledo Toledo Central State College Wilberforce Wilmington College Wilmington Oklahoma East Central State College Ada Northwestern State College Alva Southeastern State College Durant Central State College Edmond College of Education, University of Oklahoma Norman School of Education, Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College Stillwater Northeastern State College Tahlequah Department of Education, University of Tulsa Tulsa Southwestern Institute of Technology Weatherford South Dakota Northern State Teachers College Aberdeen General Beadle State Teachers College Madison Black Hills Teachers College Spearfish Southern State Teachers College Springfield West Virginia Concord College Athens Bluefield State College Bluefield Fairmont State College Fairmont Glenville State College Glenville Marshall College Huntington Shepherd College Shepherdstown West Liberty State College West Liberty Wisconsin Eau Claire State Teachers College Eau Claire State Teachers College La Crosse School of Education, University of Wisconsin Madison The Stout Institute Menonoraie Alverno College Milwaukee Wisconsin State College Milwaukee Wisconsin State College Oshkosh State Teachers College Platteville State Teachers College River Falls State Teachers College Stevens Point State Teachers College Superior State Teachers College Whitewater Wyoming College of Education, University of Wyoming Laramie 181 APPENDIX M CONTACT LETTER MAILED TO EACH SCHOOL President James Brown Winona State Teachers College Winona, Minnesota Dear President Brown: As a part of my doctoral dissertation, I am planning to survey all the institutions of higher learning in the North Central Association that are also members of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Will you please suggest two persons on your faculty that you feel would be willing to cooperate in completing a question­ naire? The persons suggested should be working in the field of student teacher training. In order to obtain consistency among the respondents I am asking that one respondent be a director of student teaching or someone who places college students in student teaching positions. The other person is to be super­ visor of student teaching or someone comparable who works with student teachers as they teach the classes to which they are assigned. I am enclosing a self-addressed stamped envelope for your convenience. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Very truly yours, R. J. Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illinois University RJFtaeb Enclosure 182 APPENDIX N LETTER TO ACCOMPANY QUESTIONNAIRE Carbondale, Illinois April 13, 19$1 Dr. Richard Gail Director of Student Teaching Kansas State Teachers College Pittsburg, Kansas Dear Dr. Gails I am seeking your cooperation in completing the enclosed questionnaire. As you know, educators have become increasingly aware in the past few years of the importance of readiness in the student teaching assignment. This is one of several studies now being made that deal with some vital phase of readiness for student teaching. This study covers the collecting and analyzing of data with regard to certain readiness factors listed in the questionnaire. For this purpose, only institutions of higher learning that are members of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education have been selected. I sincerely hope that you will find time to complete the questionnaire including the last page, where you are asked to contribute factors other than those listed. I realize only too well the amount of time consumed in replying to questionnaires. I wish to thank you in ad­ vance for the time and trouble necessary for your reply. Very truly yours, R. J. Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illinois University 183 APPENDIX N (continued) FACSIMILE OF FOLLOW-UP LETTER Carbondale, Illinois April 271 19!?1 Dr. James Brown Director of Student Teaching Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois Dear Dr. Brown: Approximately W o weeks ago I mailed a questionnaire to you sol­ iciting your answers to certain questions concerning competencies necessary for student teaching. I realize the tremendous amount of time required to complete question­ naires today. If you can find the necessary time, I would greatly appreciate your reply. I have enclosed an addressed postal card for your convenience in replying to this letter. If you have mailed the questionnaire, please disregard this letter and the postal card. Thank you very much for the time and consideration you have given me thus far. Sincerely yours, R. J. Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illinois University 18U APPENDIX N (continued) FACSIMILE OF FOLLCW-UP CARD I have misplaced the questionnaire and would like another copy,. I still have my questionnaire and plan to return it as soon as I have time to complete it. Name 185 APPENDIX 0 LETTER USED IN ESTABLISHING A JURY Carbondale, Illinois April 20, 1951 Miss Emily Frank Director of Student Teaching Iowa State Teachers College Cedar Falls, Iowa Dear Miss Frank: You have been selected as one of the two or three people in your state to assist in compiling a list of living American educators who are at the present time outstanding in the field of teacher preparation. This list is being prepared as a part of a doctoral dissertation. Please list in the space provided near the bottom of this letter the five persons, who in your opinion, are most outstanding in the field of teacher preparation today. Please return your list in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. Sincerely, R. J. Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illinois University 1. 2. 3. k. 5. i 186 APPENDIX P JURY SELECTIONS Dr. Harold Benjamin Dr. John G. Flowers Dr. William Burton Dr. Lawrence D. Haskew Dr. Hollis L. Caswell Dr. Margaret Lindsey Dr. Harl R. Douglas Dean Ernest 0. Melby Dr. Edmund S. Evenden Dr. Florence Stratemeyer 187 APPENDIX Q Professor James Brown New York University32 Washington Place New York 3> N. Y. Dear Professor Browns In the preparation of my dissertation on the relative importance of certain competencies as they pertain to readiness for the student teaching experience, it was deemed advisable to secure the opinions of a number of outstanding educators. In response to personal letters to two directors of student teaching in each of the fortyeight states, you were selected as one of ten leading authorities. My questionnaire was originally prepared to determine actual con­ ditions in each institution with relation to the factors listed as well as the respondent’s opinion of the importance of the factor. For this part of the study I want only your opinion as to the im­ portance of the factor on the scale presented in the questionnaire. Accordingly I have inked out all parts of the questionnaire with which this part of the study is not concerned. Will you please follow the instructions on page one to complete question two under each factor? I realize the tremendous amount of paper work and time consumed by questionnaire studies. I wish to thank you in advance for the time and effort necessary for your reply. Sincerely yours, R. J. Fligor Counselor of Boys University School Southern Illinois University RFJjaeb Enclosure Retard 19 Accelerate 6 No Particular Influence 10 Accelerate and Retard 10 Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 5 5 1 Supervisors 5 3 2 3 Others 13 2 9 5 Total h2 16 26 19 Directors of Student Teaching Considerable Importance 7 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance h Supervisors, 1952 6 d 1 0 0 15 12 2h 12 1 0 h9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 6 9 2 0 0 17 Supervisors 6 7 2 0 0 15 Others 5 17 7 0 0 29 Jury- 1 5 1 0 0 7 Uo 77 26 1 0 lUb Directors of Student Teaching Total Some Importance 1 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 12 a xrcmsciav TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL ABILITY TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS Ho Particular Influence l6 Accelerate and Retard 7 Retard 19 Accelerate 5 Supervisors of Student Teaching h 6 6 1 Supervisors 3 k 5 1 Others _9 2 Totals 35 17 Directors of Student Teaching 13 Supervisors, 1951 Supervisors, 1952 6 7 0 0 0 13 11 32 5 1 0 k9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 1 13 2 0 0 16 Supervisors 5 6 1* 0 0 15 Others 6 15 7 0 0 28 Jury 0 6 __ 1 0 __ 0 7 36 87 19 1 0 11*3 Totals Some Importance 0 i*o Utmost Importance 7 Directors of Student Teaching Considerable Importance 6 J2 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 15 TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO HEALTH Retard ^3 directors of Student teaching Accelerate 6 Accelerate and Retard 7 No Particular Influence 9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 8 3 5 1 Supervisors 5 1 6 1 Others 18 1 _l _3 Totals 51* 11 27 12 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 8 Considerable Importance "5" Some Importance 1 Little Importance 0 Supervisors, 1952 11 2 1 0 o m Directors of Student Teaching 22 23 k 0 0 h9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 9 7 1 0 0 17 Supervisors 9 k 2 0 o 15 13 11 3 2 0 29 1 _2 _0 o __7 53 lit 2 i 0 Hi5 Others Jury Totals _k 76 No Importance 0 Total iu TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCES PRIOR TO COLLEGE Retard 5 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 10 Accelerate and Retard 7 No Particular Influence 2k Supervisors of Student Teaching 1 2 12 1 Supervisors 2 3 8 1 6 17 _2 21 61 11 Others _h 12 Totals Supervisors, 1951 Supervisors, 1952 Utmost Importance 1 Considerable Importance ""B" ' Some Importance 6 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 15 2 11 1 0 1 15 12 19 13 3 2 k9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 1 7 8 0 0 16 Supervisors 0 7 7 0 0 1U Others 7 12 7 3 0 29 Jury- _1 1 _2 2 _0 _7 Total s 2h 65 ii5 8 3 1U5 Directors of Student Teaching TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS 'WITH REFERENCE TO EXPERIENCES AS A COLLEGE STUDENT INTERACTING WITH ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNGER CHILDREN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN CiROUPS Retard lo Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 10 No Particular Influence 16 ■Accelerate and Retard 7 Supervisors of Student Teaching 0 7 10 0 Supervisors 0 6 6 l Others _6 6 Hi _2 Totals 16 29 1|6 li Utmost Importance U No Importance Considerable Importance 8 Some Importance Little Importance 3 0 0 15 7 6 1 1 o 15 20 25 k 0 0 1*9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 6 8 3 0 0 17 Supervisors 6 k 5 0 o 15 Hi 12 1 0 1 28 3 3 l 0 0 mmm— 60 66 18 1 1 li*6 Supervisors, 1951 Supervisors, 1952 Directors of Student Teaching Others Jury Totals Total 7 . TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL OUTLOOK AND INTEREST IN THE TEACHING FIELD Retard 13 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate d No Particular Influence 18 Accelerate and Retard 6 Supervisors of Student Teaching 1 8 8 0 Supervisors 1 6 6 0 Others 10 3 Jh 2 Totals 25 25 h6 8 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance h Considerable Importance d Some Importance 3 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 15 7 6 l 1 0 15 20 25 h 0 0 U9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 6 8 3 0 0 17 Supervisors 6 k 5 0 0 15 12 l 0 1 28 3 3 l 0 0 7 60 66 18 1 1 ll».6 Supervisors, 1952 Directors of Student Teaching Others Jury Totals m TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO ACADEMIC ABILITY Retard 32 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 5 No Particular Influence 2 ----- Accelerate and Retard -ff Supervisors of Student Teaching k 6 7 0 Supervisors 8 1 1 3 Others 16 li 5 __3 Totals 60 16 15 lit Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 9 Supervisors, 1952 10 5 0 0 0 15 Directors of Student Teaching 13 27 7 1 0 1*8 Supervisors of Student Teaching 8 7 2 0 0 17 Supervisors 7 7 0 1 0 15 11 15 2 0 0 28 2 5 0 __ 0 0 7 60 71 11 2 0 1bh Others Jury Totals Considerable Importance 5 Some Importance 0 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 111 TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR SUBJECT AREA Retard 27 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 6 Accelerate and Retard 5 No Particular Influence 8 Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 7 5 0 Supervisors 8 2 3 1 Others 13 h 7 _k Totals 53 19 23 10 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 9 Supervisors, 1952 10 5 0 0 0 15 Directors of Student Teaching 13 27 7 1 0 hS Supervisors of Student Teaching 8 7 2 0 0 17 Supervisors 7 7 0 1 0 15 11 15 2 0 0 28 2 5 0 __ 0 __ 0 7 60 71 11 2 0 Others Jury Totals Considerable Importance 5 Some Importance 0 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total lii U ik TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES r Accelerate and Retard 7 7 3 0 7 U 1 2 Others 16 5 2 k Totals 55 23 ii 13 Retard 26 Accelerate 7 Supervisors of Student Teaching 6 Supervisors Directors of Student Teaching Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 5 Supervisors, 1952 h 7 22 Supervisors of Student Teaching Supervisors Directors of Student Teaching Others Jury Totals Considerable Importance 9 Some Importance 1 No Particular Influence Little Importance No Importance Total 15 0 0 3 1 0 15 2h 3 0 0 h9 6 8 2 1 0 17 7 8 0 0 0 15 13 12 1 0 1 27 __ 1 5 __ 0 0 0 __ 6 58 73 10 2 1 lhk TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT? TEACHER MEASURED WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL Retard liji Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate h No Particular Influence 20 Accelerate and Retard 8 Supervisors of Student Teaching U 2 10 0 Supervisors 2! 2 8 1 18 3 56 12 _5: Others Total Supervisors, 1951 _i 25 Utmost Importance a Supervisors, 1952 Considerable Importance 1 9 Some Importance 2 Little Importance 0 No Importance 1 Total 12 7 3 3 1 0 Hi lit 18 6 9 1 2*8 Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 5 6 1 0 17 Supervisors 2 3 6 3 0 1h Others 6 16 5 2 0 29 Jury 1 __2 3 1 __ 0 7 2*3 2*8 31 17 2 12*1 Directors of Student Teaching Totals TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE IN COLLEGE Retard Directors of Student Teaching 26 Accelerate 5 Accelerate and Retard 8 No Particular Influence B Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 7 k 0 Supervisors 3 3 6 1 Others 12 2 8 6 Totals k6 17 26 15 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 9 Supervisors, 1952 11 3 1 0 0 15 Directors of Student Teaching 31 18 0 0 0 h9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 11 6 0 0 0 17 Supervisors 11 3 0 0 0 lit Others 20 6 2 0 1 29 6 1 0 0 0 7 99 la 3 0 1 lLf.it Jury Totals Considerable Importance k Some Importance 0 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 13 TABULATED REPLIES 01'' RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO LANGUAGE FACILITY Retard 26 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 5 No Particular Influence 9 Accelerate and Retard 7 Supervisors of Student Teaching 7 6 h 0 Supervisors 3 h 5 2 Others JJ± __ 1 8 Totals 50 16 26 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 9 Supervisors, 1952 Considerable Importance 6 Some Importance 0 Little Importance 6 _k 13 No Importance 0 Total 15 6 8 1 0 0 15 26 16 7 0 0 U9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 8 8 1 0 0 17 Supervisors 9 6 0 0 0 15 11 17 1 0 0 29 1 6 __ 0 __ 0 __ 0 7 70 67 10 0 0 1U7 Directors of Student Teaching Others Jury Totals TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO UNDERSTANDING OF MAJOR ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT Retard 22 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 12 No Particular Influence 7 Accelerate and Retard 6 Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 8 3 0 Supervisors 6 3 h 1 Others _1U 2 8 Totals k7 25 22 _h 11 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 10 Supervisors, 1952 10 5 0 0 0 15 Directors of Student Teaching 30 17 2 0 0 k9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 10 7 0 0 0 17 Supervisors 10 3 1 0 0 1h Others 18 9 2 0 0 29 __k ___3 0 0 0 7 92 U7 6 0 0 thS Jury Some Importance 1 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 1U 200 Totals Considerable Importance 3 TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING A LEARNING SITUATION Retard 15 Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 10 No Particular Influence 12 Accelerate and Retard 7 Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 7 U 0 Supervisors 5 5 3 1 Others 8 h 12 2 Totals 3k 26 31 10 Some Importance 1 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 11 Supervisors, 1952 12 2 0 1 0 15 Directors of Student Teaching 28 17 2 0 0 1+7 7 8 2 0 0 17 Supervisors 11 3 1 0 0 15 Others 1U 10 2 1 0 27 _A 1 2 __ 0 0 __ 7 87 hh 10 2 0 H+3 Supervisors of Student Teaching Jury Total 15 201 Totals Considerable Importance 3 TABULATED REPLIES OF RESPONDENTS WITH REFERENCE TO ABILITIES NECESSARY TO GOOD TEACHING SUCII AS PLANNING WITH STUDENTS, HELPING STUDENTS CARRY OUT PLANS, EVALUATING PROGRESS, ETC. Retard m Directors of Student Teaching Accelerate 11 No Particular Influence m Accelerate and Retard h Supervisors of Student Teaching 5 6 0 Supervisors h h 1 Others 7 5 13 2 Totals 31 25 37 7 Supervisors, 1951 Utmost Importance 10 Supervisors, 1952 Considerable Importance h Some Importance 0 Little Importance 0 No Importance 0 Total 2b 8 5 0 1 0 lb 22 20 6 0 1 b9 Supervisors of Student Teaching 6 8 3 0 0 17 Supervisors 9 5 1 0 0 15 13 12 2 1 0 28 _± 1 2 __ 0 __ 0 7 72 55 2 1 Directors of Student Teaching Others* Jury Totals m *The terra others as used in all data presented in Appendix S includes college professors and individ­ uals that have combinations of duties, such as teachers of college classes and supervisors. 203 APPENDIX S EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 1952 Utmost Importance 6 (6.oiO Considerable Importance 7 (6.96) 1951 7 (6.96) 8 (8.0U) Totals 13 15 () : theoretical frequency degrees of freedom - 1 Totals 13 J$ 28 Chi Square .0 0 0 7 P = .95— .98 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO MENTAL ABILITY 1952 Utmost Importance 6 (5.56) Considerable Importance 8 (8.33) 1951 U (U.iUO 7 (6.67) Totals degrees of freedom - 2 10 Some Importance 1 (1.11) 15 () s theoretical frequency Totals 15 1 (.89) 12 2 27 Chi Square .1199 P r .90— 95 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO GENERAL ACADEMIC ABILITY 1952 Utmost Importance U (3.6S) 1951 3 (3.38) 10 (9.65) 1 (.97) m Totals 7 20 2 29 degrees of freedom - 2 Considerable Importance 10 (10.35) Some Importance 1 (1.03) Totals 15 () = theoretical frequency Chi Square .10891 P = .95— .90 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO HEALTH 1952 Utmost Importance 11 (9.1?) Considerable Importance 2 (3.5) Some Importance 1 (1.0) Totals 1k 1951 8 (9.5) 5 (3.5) 1 (1.0) 111 7 2 28 Totals degrees of freedom - 2 19 () = theoretical frequency Chi Square 1.7592 P = .90— .10 205 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO BACKGROUND OF EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO COLLEGE Utmost Importance Considerable Importance Some Importance Little Importance Totals I'952 2 (1 .5 ) 11 (9 .5 ) 1 (3 .5 ) 1 (.5 ) 15 1951 1 (1.5) 8 (9 .5 ) 6 (3 .5 ) 0 (.5 ) _15 Totals 3 7 1 19 degrees of freedom - 3 O r theoretical frequency 30 Chi Square 5*3782 P s .90— .10 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO EXPERIENCES AS A COLLEGE STUDENT INTERACTING WITH ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNGER CHILDREN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN GROUPS Utmost Importance Considerable Importance Some Importance Little Importance Totals 1952 h (3 .5 ) 7 (6 .5 ) 2 (3 .0 ) 1 ( l.o ) lit 1951 3 (3.5) 6 (6.5) it (3 .0 ) i d .o ) Jit Totals 7 6 2 degrees of freedom - 3 13 () ■ theoretical frequency 28 Chi Square .8862 P x .90— .10 206 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL OUTLOOK AND INTEREST IN THE TEACHING FIELD Utmost ImDortance 1952 ' 7 (F31 1951 it (5.5) Totals Considerable Importance 6 11 8 (7 .0 ) lit degrees of freedom = 3 0 Some Importance Little Importance Totals I (2.6) 1 (.5 ) 15 3 (2.0) o (.5) 15 h 1 = theoretical frequency 30 Chi Square 3*1036 P = .90— . 1 0 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR SUBJECT AREA Utmost Importance Considerable Importance _ 5_ 10 ( 9 . 83) 5 ( S .i f ) 1951 9 (9.17) 5 (it.83) Totals degrees of freedom * 1 19 () = theoretical frequency 10 Totals IT " Jh 29 Chi Square .01761+ P = .90— .10 207 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE IN COLLEGE Utmost Some Totals 15" 11 (10.71) 3 (3.75) T'l'Sk) 9 (9.29) k (3.25) 0 (.1*6) 13 7 1 28 1951 Totals Considerable 20 degrees of freedom a 3 () = theoretical frequency " Chi Square 1.1916 P = .90— .10 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO LANGUAGE FACILITY 1952 Utmost Importance 6 (7.5) 1951 Totals 9 (7.5) 15 degrees of freedom = 2 Considerable Importance B (7.0) Some Importance 1 (.5) 6 (7.0) Hi () - theoretical frequency 0 (.5) 1 Totals 15 JS 30 Chi Square 1.8856 P - .90— .10 208 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO UNDERSTANDING OF MAJOR ASPECTS OF CHILD GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT 1952 Utmost Importance 10 (10.3k) 1951 10 (9.66) 3 (3.86) 1 (.U8) Totals 20 8 1 degrees of freedom s 2 Considerable Importance 5 (k.lk.) ()-theoretical frequency Some Importance 0 (.52) Totals 15 Jk 29 Chi Square 1.L767 P = .90— .10 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS AND FACTORS AFFECTING A LEARNING SITUATION Considerable Importance 2 (2.5) 1952 1951 11 (11.5) 3 (2.5) 1 (.5) o (.5) 15 Totals 23 5 1 l 30 degrees of freedom = 3 Some Importance 0 (.5) Little Importance i'1.5J.... . Utmost Importance 12 (11.5) () .theoretical frequency Totals 15 Chi Square 2.21*3^6 P = .90— .10 209 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO ABILITIES NECESSARY TO GOOD TEACHING SUCH AS PLANNING WITH STUDENTS HELPING STUDENTS CARRY OUT PLANS, EVALUATING PROGRESS, ETC. 1952 Utmost Importance B (9.0) 1951 Totals Considerable Importance Some Importance 5 (4.5) 1 (.5) Totals 1k 10 (9.0) 4 (4.5) o (.5) 14 18 9 l 28 degrees of freedom = 2 () = theoretical frequency Chi Square 1.33332 P - .90— .10 EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO PROFESSIONAL COURSES 1952 Utmost Importance 4 (4.5) Considerable Importance 7 (8.0) Some Importance 4 (2.5) Totals 15 9 (8.0) 1 (2.5) 15 5 30 1951 5 (4.5) Totals 9 degrees of freedom s 2 () = theoretical frequency 16 Chi Square 2.1610 P = .90— .10 I EFFECT OF TIME ON RATING VALUE WITH REFERENCE TO THE MENTAL HEALTH AND EMOTIONAL MATURITY OF THE STUDENT TEACHER MEASURED WHILE HE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL 19^2 1951 Totals Utmost Importance 7 (8.08) 8 Considerable Importance 3 (2.15) Little Importance 3 (2.69) 1 (1.8g) 2 (2.31) 1 (.92) 12 U 5 2 26 (6.62) 15 degrees of freedom = 3 0 Some Importance lTl.oS) _____ ■ theoretical frequency Totals W ~ Chi Square 1.129U P = .90— 10 211 BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Almack, John C., Research and Thesis Writing. Mifflin Company, 1930. 310 pp. Boston: Houghton Barr, A. S., Characteristic Differences in the Teaching Performance of Good and Poor Teachers of the Social Studies. Bloomington, Illinois: Public School Publishing Company, 1929. 127 pp. Barr, A. S., William H. Burton, and Leo J. Brueckner, Supervision. New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1938. 981 pp. Bossing, Nelson L., Progressive Methods of Teaching In Secondary Schools. Boston! Houghton Mifflin Company, 19^2. 779 pp. Bracewell, George (Chairman), Handbook For Student Teaching. Carbondale, Illinois: University Duplicating Service, Southern Illinois University, 1950. 80 pp. Campbell, William Giles, A Form Book For Thesis Writing. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,' 1939. 120 pp. Charters, W. W. and Douglas Waples, The Commonwealth TeacherTraining Study. Chicago: The University'of Chicago Press, 1929. 666 pp. Commission On Teacher Education, The Improvement of Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Council On Education, 19L6, 283 pp. Goetting, M. L., Teaching In The Secondary School. Prentice Hall Inc., 19^7. 519 pp. New York: Good, Carter V., A.S. Barr, and Douglas E. Scates, The Methodology Of Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts Inc., I9UI". 890 pp. Hart, Prank W., Teachers and Teaching. Company, 193C! 285 pp. Mew York: Koos, Leonard V., The Questionnaire in Education. The Macmillan Company, 1928. 178 pp. Melvin, A. Gordon, Teaching. 1910;. 270 pp. New York: The Macmillan New York: The John Day Company, 212 Richey, Robert W., Planning For Teaching. New Yorks Hill Book Company, Inc., 1952. iiS? pp. McGraw- School and Community Laboratory Experiences In Teacher Education. American Association of Teachers Colleges, 19^8. 333 pp. Schorling, Raleigh, Student Teaching. New Yorks Hill Book Company, 19^9. Ul9 pp. McGraw- Smith, G. Milton, A Simplified Guide To Statistics For Psychology And EducationT New Yorks Rinehart and Company,' Inc'., 19u 6. Troyer, Maurice E. and C. Robert Pace, Evaluation In Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.s American Council On Education, 19LL. JSF pp. Whitney, Frederick Lamson, The Elements of Research. Prentice-Hall Inc., 1952T i*97 pp. New Yorks 213 B. PERIODICAL ARTICLES Allen, Hollis P., ''Earmarks of a Good Teacher", American School Board Journal, 96: 25-26, March 1938. Andrews, L. 0., "School Exploratory Experiences for Prospective Teachers," Educational Research Bulletin, 29: 11+7-57, September 1950". Baker, M. Elizabeth, " S u m m a r y of the Relation of Personality Adjustment of Teachers to Their Efficiency in Teaching," Journal of Educational Research, 1+1: 661+-675, May 191+8. Ball, Lester, Paul Misner, and Harold G. Share, "The Teachers Our Schools Need," Educational Leadership, 7: 79-82, November 191+9• Barr, A. S., "The Evaluation and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency," Journal of Educational Research, 1+0: 717-720, May 191+7. Barr, A. S., Editor, "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Efficiency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of Experimental Education, 16: 203-283, June 191+8. Blyler, Dorothea, "The Pre Training Selection of Teachers," Educational A.dministration and Supervision, 3l+: 275-281+, May 191+8. Bohn, J. E., "Adequate Preparation for Successful Teaching," School Executive, 69: 61+-65, May 1950. Bond, Jesse A., "Strengths and Weaknesses of Student Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, 1+5: 110-122, September 1951. Brameld, Theodore, "Educational Philosophy: Its Need and Function in the Training of Teachers," Harvard Educational Review, 17: 162-167, May 191+7. Brookover, Wilbur B., "Person-Person Interaction Between Teachers and pupils and Teaching Effectiveness," Journal of Educational Research, 35: 272-287, December 191+0. Brookover, Wilbur B., "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching Ability," Journal of Experimental Education, 13: 191-205, June 191+5* Brownell, S. A., "What an Administration Expects of the New Teacher," Education, 56: 230-233, December 1935. J Brownell, William A., "Readiness for Subjectmatter Learning," N.E.A. Journal, hO:kk5-hh6, October 1951* Butterweck, Joseph, "A Laboratory Approach to Teacher Education," Educational Administration and Supervision, 36: 275-283, May 1950. Butterweck, J. A., "Student Teaching When, Where, and How,” Journal of Teacher Education, 2: 139-1^2, June 19J?1. Caswell, Hollis L., "Who Shall Teach?," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principles, 31: 85-89, October 19U7* "Check List for Teachers," School Executive, 67: 27, June 19i*8. Corey, Stephen M., "Curriculum Development Through Action Research, Educational Leadership, 7: 12*7-153, December 19h9» DeLong, 0. A., "Teacher Selection Program at Minot State Teachers College," Journal of Teacher Education, 2: 117, June 1951* Dodge, A. F., "A Study of the Personality Traits of Successful Teachers," Occupations, 27: 107-112, November 192*8. Dugan, Willis E., "Counseling In Teacher Education," Occupations, 29:3Ul-3UU, February 1951* Durflinger, C. -W., "A Stucty- of Recent Findings on the Prediction of Teaching Success," Educational Administration and Super­ vision, 3h: 321-336, October 192*8. "Earmarks of a Good Teacher,” May 192*6. School Executive, 65: 15-18, Fishback, W. W., "A Rationale for the Evaluation of Student Teaching," Elementary School Journal, 2*8: 1*98-501*, May 19i*8. Flesher, W. R., and Darrell Holmes, "A Note on the Evaluation of Teacher Effectiveness," Educational Research Bulletin, 30: 29-33, 56, February 12+,' 1951. Hearn, Arthur C., "Traits of a Good Teacher," Nations Schools, 37: i+8, April 192+6. Jensen, Alfred C., "Determining Critical Requirements for Teachers, Journal of Experimental Education, 20: 79-85, September 1951* Jersild, Arthur T., "Characteristics of Teachers Who are 'Liked Best' and 'Disliked Most', "Journal of Experimental Education, 9: 139-151, December 192+0. 215 Kandel, I. L., ’’Measuring the Competence of Teachers,” School and Society, 65: 188, March 15, 1947. Kelner, Bernard G., ’’The Personal Qualifications Requisite for Modem Teaching,” The American School Board Journal, 115: 19-20, October 1947 • Krail, J. B.,’’Teachers Common Errors,” Clearing House, 25: 232-235* December 1950. Lindsey, Margaret, ’’What They're Saying In Teacher Education: Opinions of Important People”, Education, 70: 135-141, November 1949. "List of Accredited Institutions for March 1, 1951 to March 1, 1952.” The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. "List of Accredited Institutions of Higher Education Effective July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1952,” North Central Association Quarterly, 25: 31-44, July 1951. McGrath, G. D., "Criteria For Admission to Student Teaching,” Education, 70: 181-185, November 1949. McGrath, G. D., "Philistinic Deluders in Teacher Education,” Education, 71: 135-138, November 1950. McGrath, G. D., "Some Experiences VJith a Student Teacher Questionnaire," Journal of Educational Research, 43: 64-67, May 1950. Mead, A. R., and Supervising Teachers, "A Non-Statistical Means of Evaluation of Student-Teaching,” Educational Administration and Supervision, 35: 414-420, November 1949. ' Riley, T. M., "What are the Qualifications of a Good High School Teacher?,” California Journal of Secondary Education, 22: 92, February 1947. Shannon, J. R., "Percentages of Returns of Questionnaires in Reputable Educational Research,” Journal of Educational Research, 42: 138-141, October 19484 "~ Stoudt, John B., "Deficiencies of Beginning Student Teachers,” The Journal of Teacher Education, 3: 43-46, March 1952. i 216 Wey, Herbert W., "A Study of the Difficulties of Student Teachers and Beginning Teachers in the Secondary Schools as a Basis for the Improvement of Teacher Education," Educational Ad­ ministration and Supervision, 37: 98-107, February, 195l« Wey, Herbert W., "Difficulties of Beginning Teachers," School Review, £9: 32-37, January 1951* 217 C. PUBLICATIONS OF PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS First Yearbook, The American Association of Colleges For Teacher Education, National Education Association, 1914-8. 228 pp. Fourth Yearbook, The American Association of Colleges For Teacher Education, National Education Association, 1951. 160 pp. Grim, Paul R., editor, The Evaluation of Student Teaching, 19U9 Yearbook, The Association For Student Teaching, 191+9, 190 pp. Malter, Morton S., and Troy L. Stearns, editors, Off-Campus Student Teaching, 1951 Yearbook, The Association for Student Teaching. 206 pp. Miel, Alice and Kimball Wiles (co-chairmen), Toward Better Teaching a Report of Current Practices, 19U9 Yearbook Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development of the National Education Association. 282 pp. Sasman, Erwin H., (chairman), Ways of Working to Bring About Desired Change in Teacher Education, 1952 Yearbook, The Association for Student Teaching! 2R3 pp. Second Yearbook, The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Education Association, 19U9. 187 pp. Tanruther, S. M. (chairman), Professional Laboratory Experiences An Expanding Concept in Teacher Education, 19^8 Yearbook, The Association for Student Teaching, 1914-8. 138 pp. Third Yearbook, The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Education Association, 1950. 23k pp. 218 D. ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLES Monroe, Walter S., editor, Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: The Macmillian Company, 1950. 1^20 pp.