A PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR JUNIOR-HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS By Leland W* Dean AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1956 Approved An Abstract Leland W. Dean The failure of the junior high school to become a fully distinctive institution has resulted in the lack of a clear conception of what the proper preparation program should be for prospective junior-high-school teachers. In this study, an attempt was made to learn from in-service teachers their judgments of what ought to be included in a practical junior-high-school teacher training program. Opinions were also sought in reference to desirable preparation programs for both upper-elementary and seniorhigh-school teachers. This was done to discover the relationship between advisable training programs for teachers at all three instructional levels. A rating instrument was developed which provided each respondent an opportunity to rate the significance of each of 15 possible training areas to a preparation program for teachers at the instructional level or levels at which he had had experience. In addition, teachers with junior-high- school experience were asked to respond to an open-end question concerning the most desirable type of training program for teachers at that instructional level. Leland W. Dean 2 The selection of the sample took into consideration the various sizes and kinds of school systems in southern Michigan. The results were then tabulated according to the background of experience that each respondent possessed. Conclusions. Prom the analyses of opinions expressed by teachers and administrators cooperating in this study, the following conclusions were reached: 1. Certain areas of training are uniquely important to the prospective junior-high-school teacher. 2. Teachers1 judgments concerning suggested training areas are not significantly affected by dissimilar types of teaching experience. 3. The following five training areas are most essential to the preparation program of junior-high-school teachers: guidance and counseling, special methods of teaching, general or liberal education, human growth and development, and methods of teaching reading and other basic skills. 1|. A majority of teachers who have had experience in the junior high school believe that a separate preparation program for teachers at this instruc­ tional level should be offered. 5. Of the two common types of teacher preparation programs now available, the elementary training Leland W. Dean 3 program offers the best possibilities for producing adequately-prepared junior-high-school teachers. 6. A lack of homogeneity between the preparation programs judged to be best for senior-high-school teachers and for junior-high-school teachers results mainly from the great difference in emphasis placed upon training in a specialized subject. 7. The time is long overdue for teacher-training institutions to encourage young men and women who possess the necessary personal and professional characteristics to prepare for and remain in the junior high school. A PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR JUNIOR-HIGH-SCHOOL TEACHERS By Leland W. Dean A THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studie of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1956 ProQuest Number: 10008518 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10008518 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his deep appreciation to the many persons who gave their time and thought to the preparation of this study. His greatest obligation is to his Guidance Gommittee, Drs. Raymond N. Hatch, Chairman, Walter F. Johnson, Clyde M. Campbell, Cecil V. Millard, and Wilbur Brookover for their helpful suggestions and criticisms. Grateful acknowledgment is also due Drs. David Krathwohl and Kenneth Arnold for their suggestions and advice relative to the statistical treatment of the data. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. Page INTRODUCTION ............................... 1 The P r o b l e m ........................... ^ Definition of Terms .................... 11 Limitations ............................ 12 S u m m a r y ................................ 13 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE................... 15 Objectives of JuniorHigh Schools III. IV. ..... l5 Preparation Programs ............... 19 S u m m a r y ................................ 27 METHODOLOGY................................ 29 Development of the Rating F o r m ........ 30 Obtaining the Ratings .................. 3if S u m m a r y ................................ 36 ANALYSIS OF THE STATISTICAL D A T A ........... 38 Analysis of Variance Results for Teachers Having Experience at One Instructional Level......... 39 Analysis of Variance Results for Teach­ ers Having Experience at Two Instruc­ tional Levels .......................... IfO Comparison of the Responses of the Four Groups ............................ If6 iv CHAPTER V. VI. Page Comparison of the Ratings Between Junior High and Each of the Other Two Levels ...................... 50 Relative Rankings for the Three Levels of Instruction ......... £3 Summary ................................ 57 UNSTRUCTURED RESPONSES ..................... 60 Reasons for Choices .................... 63 Responses Favoring the Secondary P r o g r a m ................................ 61f Responses Favoring the Elementary P r o g r a m ..................... .. ........ 65 Responses Favoring a Different Program . 67 S u m m a r y ............. 69 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................... 72 Conclusions ............................ 73 Recommendations ........................ 77 Suggestions for Further Study 811- .... BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................... 85 APPENDIXES A. Copy of Questionnaire Submitted to 38 Teachers who Helped Develop Final Rating F o r m ......................... 90 B. A Preparation Program for T e a c h e r s ......... 93 C. List of Michigan School SystemsCooperating in the Study ............................... 102 V APPENDIXES (continued) D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. M. Page Distribution of Frequencies of the Ratings Given by Teachers with Experience at Only One Instructional Level .................... 10if Analysis of Variance of Ratings Given by Teachers with Experience at One Instruc­ tional Level ........... ................... 106 Distribution of Frequencies of the Ratings Given by Teachers with Experience at Two Instructional Levels ....................... 110 Analysis of Variance of Ratings Given by Teachers with Experience at Two Instruc­ tional Levels ............ ................. 112 Distribution of Frequencies of the Ratings Given by Teachers with Experience at Three ........... Instructional Levels 116 Analysis of Variance of Ratings Given by Teachers with Experience at Three Instruc­ tional Levels .............................. 118 Distribution of Frequencies of the Ratings Given by Administrators with Experience at Three Instructional Levels ............. 122 Analysis of Variance of Ratings Given by Administrators with Responsibilities at Three Instructional Levels ................. 12if Analysis of Variance of Ratings Given by Total Sample of Teachers and Administrators. 128 Unbiased Estimates of the Variance Between Group Means ..................... 132 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. II. III. Page F Ratios Resulting from Ratings by Teachers with Experience at Only One Instructional Level ............. 1 F Ratios Resulting from Ratings of Teachers with Experience at the Junior High and One Other Instructional L e v e l lj.2 F Ratios Resulting from Ratings by Teachers with Experience at All Instruc­ tional Levels ...................... i-fJp IV. F Ratios Resulting from Ratings by Administrators with Responsibilities at All Instructional Levels .................. V. F Ratios Resulting from Combined Ratings of All Respondents ......................... I4.9 Test of Significance of Difference Between Means for Junior High School Level and Each of the Other Two Levels ofInstruction ..... 5l Ranking of Importance of Training Areas for Each Instructional Level .............. $$ Opinions Concerning Best Junior High School Preparation Program .............. 6l VI. VII. VIII. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The junior high school had its beginnings in America early in the twentieth century after dissatisfactions arose with the traditional eight-year elementary school that had been transplanted here from Europe. for this displeasure varied. The reasons Some expressed the belief that the elementary program was too long and that students could be prepared to enter college at an earlier age If the high school subjects were introduced sooner. Others were alarmed at the large numbers of students who withdrew from school when their elementary training had been completed. Still others demanded that the school system on every level meet the changing interests and needs of the students. Following its early beginnings, there developed an extreme faith in the worthwhileness, possibilities, and effectiveness of the junior high school. This confidence is shown by the rapid increase in the number of reorganized secondary schools in the United States. Since 1920 more than one-half of the public four-year high schools in this 2 country have been replaced by reorganized high schools. Even more significant, the number of students enrolled in the traditional four-year high school has declined until they made up in 1952, only 25.2 per cent of the total 1 attendance in public high schools. Despite the rapid growth in numbers, junior high schools have never been able to develop the same degree of self-identification as have the elementary and senior high schools. Probably one of the principal reasons for this is that often the junior high school has been established only as an appendage of either the elementary or the senior high school program, rather than as a unit worthy of equal status in the school organization. A recent publication of the United States Office of Education describes the plight of the junior high school thus: Too often this school was regarded as an ”in between” institution. Those working in elementary education thought of it as a part of the program of secondary education; those working with the secondary schools regarded it as a part of the elementary system. Those look­ ing at it from the standpoint of building space considered it a handy device to provide flexibility of space. If more room was needed in the elementary school, all or part of grade 6 Junior High School Facts, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, 1955, p. 16. 3 was sent to the junior high school; when the high school was crowded, all or part of grade 10 was sent to the junior high school "catch­ all •** When the junior high school was found to be "bursting at the seams," 7th graders might be sent back to the elementary school or 9th graders to the senior high school. The point is that the junior high school, instead of being given a definite place in its own right having specific educational purposes affecting young adolescents which neither the elementary or senior high school could serve as well, was not taken with sufficient serious~2 ness to become a fully distinctive institution. The reference made in the preceding quotation to the junior high school being an "in between" institution applies equally well to the teachers at this grade level. Junior high schools have usually been staffed by teachers who were trained primarily for senior high or elementary school teaching. Seldom does a prospective teacher consider that his future may lie in the junior high school and thus try to prepare himself specifically for working with youngsters at this level. Probably even if he wishes to be trained for this level, he would find no such training program offered. Lloyd Elliot explained the problem when he wrote: In the teacher-training institutions it is too commonly found that programs are designed to train either elementary or high school teachers or both with the addition of a simple professional course on the junior high school or some phase thereof made available to 2Ibid., pp. k students who may have to begin their teaching at this level. In some colleges even this course has been pushed to the graduate level out of reach of the beginning teacher. With such as a background of training it is not surprising that junior high school curricula still show a dominent pattern of patchwork subjects - an initial barrier to the fulfill­ ment of the most fundamental functions of this new division.3 Even if teacher-training institutions did provide a preparation program especially for junior high school teachers, it is unlikely that such a program would fulfill the teacher certification requirements of many states. These requirements for teachers of grades seven, eight, and nine vary widely in America. Some states allow only holders of secondary teachers’ certificates to teach in these grades. Others will permit both secondary and elementary certificate holders to work at this level. In still others, elementary certificates are valid in grades seven and eight if the school is organized with an eightyear elementary school, but not if it is organized on a six-six plan. k In Michigan and many other states, teachers in grades seven and eight may be licensed to teach by meeting the Llovd H. Elliot, ”The Junior High - A School Without Teachers.” Education, Nov. 19U-9* PP. 186-190. Robert C. Woellner and M. Aurilla Wood, Requirements for Certification, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 193S>. 5 preparation requirements for either an elementary or a secondary teaching certificate. Since the training programs for these two types of certificates are quite different, a junior-high-school teacher may qualify for certification after completing either of two quite unlike programs of preparation. Teacher certification requirements naturally dictate, to a large degree, the type of teacher preparation programs offered by training institutions. It has followed, there­ fore, that the same lack of agreement has existed among teacher trainers concerning what a proper junior-high-school teacher preparation programshould be. The Problem Statement of the problem. It was the purpose of this study (1 ) to determine what in-service teachers judge to be the most practical preparation program for junior-high-school teachers; (2 ) to ascertain the relation between the pre-service training needs of junior-high-school teachers and the pre-service training needs of senior-high-school teachers; (3 ) to ascer­ tain the relation between the pre-service training needs of junior-high-school teachers and the pre-service training needs of teachers of the upper elementary grades; and (Ij.) to discover the implications for teacher training 6 institutions regarding the composition of a practical preparation program for teachers in the junior-high schools. Importance of the study. The junior-high-school teacher in the United States is a part of a new and peculiarly American institution. While he is not concerned primarily with the mastery of the fundamentals, as is the elementary school teacher, he has correspondingly great responsibilities. For it is he who must work with youngsters during their critical years of transition from childhood to young adulthood. Few teacher-training institutions, however, have shown evidence that they regard the preparation necessary for teachers of seventh, eighth, and ninth grade children as being any different from the preparation suitable for teachers of other grade levels. As a result it is virtually impossible for a school administrator to employ a teacher who has been trained specifically for junior-high-school teaching. Eminent psychologists, however, have asserted that children of junior-high-school age constitute the greatest challenge to teacher resourcefulness. Luella Cole points out that the maturation of the sex glands is the most I important single development of the adolescent years. But 7 she says that the mere physical ability to produce offspring is not nearly as significant at the moment as the added depths and nuances of emotional life that develop along with physical puberty. She writes: In order to pass from childhood to adulthood_the adolescent must solve a number of problems. He must develop heterosexual interests, become free from home supervision, achieve economic and intellec­ tual independence, and. learn how to use his leisure time; he must also make new emotional and social adjustments to reality, and begin to evolve a philosophy of life.2 6 Studies have shown that approximately 85 per cent of American boys and girls reach maturity between the ages of 12 and 16, the age range that includes the great majority of junior-high-school youngsters. Gertrude Noar described the characteristics of juniorhigh-school students when she said: In early adolescence, accompanying new spurts of physical growth, curiosities about the world and society, interests in developing new social and manual skills, needs for relating self to other human beings, urges toward independence of thought and action, and a quickening wonder about the meaning of life become awakened. These are the characteristics of the period that follows childhood. With few exceptions, children are in it for some part of the time they spend in junior high school.' _ Luella Cole, Psychology of Adolescence. Rinehart and Company, Inc., 19pJ, p. 5^. New York: ^Ibid., pp. 69-70. 7 Gertrude Noar, The Junior High School Today and Tomorrow. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953j p. 39. 8 Cole illustrates the complexity of the junior-highschool age group in the following way: In a hypothetical school containing twohundred 13 year old children, one-half of whom were boys and one-half girls, there would be the following situation: seventy girls would be physically mature and thirty immature, while half of the boys would be mature and half immature. Because of the paramount importance of sexual maturity to adolescents, this mixture would show differences in emotional attitude and interest that would make the group difficult to teach.^ The actual school situation Is even more complex than the example just given because in any one class the range of chronological ages is about four years, with children in each age group showing varying degrees of maturity. Robert Havighurst writes that, "Prom the age of thirteen or fourteen, most boys and girls are preoccupied with social activities and social experimentation. is their most important business. 9 social laboratory." This They make school their In addition to the problems resulting from emotional changes in adolescent boys and girls, the difficulties of junior-high-school teachers are compounded because of still another factor. Students who are retarded in their normal 5“ Ibid., pp. 56-57. 9 Robert J. Havighurst, Human Development and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1953, p. 112. 9 progression through the grades tend to reach a maximum in junior-high school. Many of them withdraw from school as soon as they reach the age when school attendance is no longer compulsory. Thus, senior-high-school teachers do not have to work with as many of this more difficult group of slow learners. This fact is illustrated by figures from the last national census. In the total continental United States, 95.9 per cent of children ages 12 and 13 were in school. Only a very slight drop occurred in the 1JL|_ and l5-year age group since 92.9 per cent of them were in school. However, 10 only 7^.^ per cent of children 16 and 17 were in school. It does not follow, of course, that those youth in these age groups who were in school were necessarily enrolled in juniorhigh-school grades. Children of 12 and 13 who were retarded in their progress would naturally have not yet reached the seventh-grade level. Many of these 16 and 17-year-olds would normally be enrolled in senior rather than junior-highschool grades. All of these age groups, however, are closely enough related to the intermediate level of education to suggest the extent of school retention and elimination. 10 Data from Bureau of Census, United States Department of Commerce, 19^0, Col. 1 from state reports marked P-C, Table 62, and Cols. 2 and 3 from state reports marked P-B, Table 19. 10 Dr. S. M. Brownell, United Stated Commissioner of Education, had this to say about the junior-high school in an article published in the California Journal of Secondary Education; Educational authorities insist that a great many of the original purposes of the junior high school have been accomplished and that it has overcome many of the criticisms originally levied against 8-lj. plan. However, there is wide agreement that much progress needs to be made. Not enough is known about young adolescents and how they grow; a more positive and carefully considered program of teacher education needs to be devised for school staffs dealing with these young adolescents; both in policy and in program, the school should be more of an institution in its own right rather than a weakened replica of the senior high school; the basic findings of adolescent psychology should be used more than they have been thus far; further research is needed, and controlled experiments should be launched to dig much more deeply into the basic issues involved. The task of developing a more positive and carefully considered program of teacher education for school staffs dealing with young adolescents falls to the teacher-training institutions of this nation. For, "if the junior high school of tomorrow is to become a reality today, the college departments of education will have to do their part by 12 providing the kinds of courses that are needed.” •^California Journal of Secondary Eduoation. Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 266-267, May, 19%l±. 12 Yearbook of the New Jersey Secondary School Teachers Association, "We Look At Curriculum Growth," 19^2, p. 72. 11 Definition of Terms Junior High School. According to the most recent 13 information available, of all of the more than 3,000 junior high schools in the United States, approximately 75 per cent consist of grades seven, eight, and nine. The other 25 per cent are made up of various combinations of grades seven through ten. In most states, all or nearly all of the junior high schools conform to the common grade grouping, namely seven, eight, and nine. Since this is the generally accepted grouping, the term "junior high school" in this study refers to grades seven, eight, and nine. Upper Elementary G-rades. The term "upper elementary grades" in this study refers to grades four, five, and six In any school system. Secondary School. The term "secondary school" in this study refers to grades seven through twelve. Senior High School. The term "senior high school" in this study refers to grades ten, eleven, and twelve. Core Curriculum. The term "core curriculum" in this study refers to a plan of organization of learning experiences so that they may be clearly related to each other and lead 13 Walter H. G-aumnitz, Supp 1 ementary Statistics of Public Secondary Schools, 1951-52, with Special Emphasis upon Junior and Junior-Senior High Schools. Circular Number 523, February, 1955• Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1955, p. 5. 12 more directly to well-integrated learning outcomes. ll± Another term often used to describe such learning experiences is "fused curriculum." Reorganized Secondary School. Recently there has been a marked trend in the United States away from the traditional 8-1]. plan of organization, commonly referred to as the "regular" or "four-year" high school. Many schools have shifted to an organizational plan which includes some form of junior high school. The term "reorganized secondary school" in this study refers to secondary schools whose organizational pattern does not include the traditional four-year high school. Limitations Limitations of the study. The limitations to be found in this study fall into two main categories: (a) limitations related to the sample; and (b) limitations related to the instruments used. The limitations inherent in the sample result from the relatively limited area from which it was chosen. Since teachers taking part in the study were selected from Michigan school systems, generalizations must be handled with care "^William T. Gruhn,"Junior High School," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Revised Edition), p . 6I4.O. 13 and. with full recognition that they are only indicative, and not to be considered necessarily representative of opinions of teachers in other parts of this country. In addition, it must be recognized that the findings of this study were based upon, and stated within the limita­ tions of, the assumed validity of data obtained from the questionnaire method. Summary Junior high schools were first organized in America soon after the turn of the century, and have greatly increased in numbers since 1920. Despite the confidence shown in this new type of school organization, junior high schools have never been able to reach the same degree of self-identification as have elementary and senior high schools. This failure to become a fully distinctive institu­ tion has resulted in a lack of a clear conception on the part of educators as to the proper training that should be provided for junior-high-school teachers. This study was attempted to determine what should make up the preparation program for junior-high teachers; and to ascertain the relation between the pre-service training desirable for junior-high-school teachers and the pre-service training desirable for teachers at other grade levels. Psychologists point out that in early adolescence a youngster is confronted with many new and complex problems. A large majority of students reach this stage of development during the years they are attending junior high schools. If teachers at this grade level are going to be prepared to do their jobs properly, college departments of education will have to do their part by providing the kinds of courses that are needed. CHAPTER II REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE The basic understandings essential to a junior-highschool teacher may be considered as a means to the ends involved in his work and are obviously determined in large measure by the nature of these ends. to this study are accordingly raised: Two questions pertinent (1) What aims are to be accepted in junior-high-school teaching? (2) What kind of preparation best enables the teacher to work toward the realization of such aims? The procedure used in seeking an answer to the question concerning acceptable aims consisted of a careful review of a considerable number of recognized writings on the subject. Objectives of Junior High Schools A number of studies have been made in an attempt to identify the purposes of the junior high school. 1 early studies was made by Briggs One of the $ in 1920 and the following statement of functions resulted: 15 T. H. Briggs, The Junior High School. Houghton Mifflin Co., 192o7~35o pp. Boston: 16 1. To continue, insofar as it is possible, common integrating education. 2. To identify and reasonably to satisfy pupilsT important immediate and future needs. 3. To explore by means of materials in themselves worthwhile the interests, aptitudes, and capacities of pupils. l(.. To reveal to pupils, by materials other­ wise justifiable, the possibilities in the major fields of learning. 5. To start each pupil on the career which as a result of exploratory courses, he, the school, and his parents are convinced is most likely to be of profit to him. 16 In 1925 3 Smith made an analysis of the statements of purposes proposed by leaders of the junior-high-school movement. 1. He classified them around three main functions: To provide a suitable educational environ­ ment for children approximately 12 to 16 years of age. 2. To effect economy of time in education. 3. To democratize the school system. This idea that the junior high school should perform a time-saving function was first advocated by Charles Eliot, President of Harvard University, and one of the real educational leaders of his century. He believed strongly in the old Prussian system of education and felt that our W. A. Smith, The Junior High School. The Macmillan Company, 1925, ij-76" pp. Hew York: 17 youngsters should be entering college earlier. Thus by starting in algebra, foreign languages, and science in the seventh grade instead of the ninth, two years could be saved and our colleges would get students when they were two years younger. The commission on curriculum of the N.E.A. Department of Superintendence listed in 1927 the frequency of mention of the special purposes of the junior high school as expressed in the literature from 1920 to 1927 by 59 publicschool administrators and 20 college specialists. The eight purposes mentioned most frequently were as follows: 1. Meeting individual differences of pupils. 2. Prevocational training and exploration. 3. Counseling and guidance. i|-. Meeting the needs of the early adolescent group. 5. Bridging the gap between elementary and secondary schools. 6. Development of qualities of good citizenship. 7. Providing opportunity for profitable selfactivity. 8. Retention of pupils beyond compulsory school age. The most recent statement of functions was formulated by 17 Gruhn and Douglas after an extensive study of the literature 17 Gruhn and Douglas, The Modern Junior High School. New York: The Ronald Press, 19ip7, PP. 55-60. 18 on the subject. They submitted a tentative statement to a group of twelve specialists in secondary education for evaluation and criticism. The final statement emphasizes six functions: 1. Integration of learning experiences. 2. Exploration of pupil aptitudes, abilities, and interests. 3. G-uidance. Ij., Individualization of instruction. 5. Socialization. 6. Articulation of elementary with secondary education. 18 According to another recent study the most significant thing happening in junior high schools at present is the scheduling of pupils with a single teacher for a long block of time. Hundreds of the teachers in junior high schools are working seriously at the job of meeting pupil needs by organizing content in new ways and by using new methods. Some call their classes "common learnings," others "core curriculum," and still others refer simply to unit teaching. The important common element seems to be the breaking down of subject-matter barriers. T8 A. H. Lauchner, "Trends in Junior High School Practices." Bulletin of National Association of Secondary School Principals, Dec. 195>1. 19 L. E. Leipold asked a group of 30 persons what, in their opinion, were the most pressing problems facing the junior high schools today. He found one of the four major areas of difficulty centered about the teachers. Quotations typical of comments expressed by members of the group taking part in the study included: The most pressing problem facing the junior high school today is the problem of obtaining adequately trained teachers. Teachers are trained in college for one of two levels in teaching: the secondary level or the elementary level. This training is not adequate to provide an understand­ ing of the many problems that arise to confront the teacher of junior-high-school students. Colleges and universities, usually the last to employ and recognize new educational techniques, should establish programs of instruction that will prepare teachers specifically for a teaching assignment in the junior high school. Until this program is established, administrators will be compelled to recruit inadequately trained teachers for grades 7, 8, and 9. ' Preparation Programs Most curricular studies on teacher education do not treat the training programs for junior-high-school teachers separately. Instead, teachers of these grades are included as a part of the training of secondary school teachers. 19 M L. E. Leipold, "Junior High Schools Pace These Problems.” Clearing House 27, January 1953, pp. 263-265. 20 Aron Goff points up the problem when he says: Perhaps the most basic fault of the junior high lies in an educational system, national in scope, which has widely adopted a 6 - 3-3 plan on an administrative basis without adequate insight into the personnel problem. To the best of my knowledge, junior high teachers are either elementary school people who were impressed for the innovation or attracted by higher salaries, and happened to have the necessary degree to qualify, or just plain frustrated, would be high school teachers. . . . Teachers colleges prepare for elementary school and secondary school teaching. The middle school takes the unhappy precipitate of the latter and the more ambitious of the f o r m e r . 20 The most extensive of the fact-finding efforts in regard to secondary school teacher preparation was the National 21 Survey of the Education of Teachers. Recommendations concerning the amount and distribution of the training was presented by Evenden in the survey under the following headings: a. Professional orientation - the relation of education to society and the possibilities open in educational service. b. Educational nservice” courses - the essential concepts and techniques used frequently in other courses and in educational literature. c. An understanding of the child to be taught. Aron Goff, “Junior High School Psychosis," Clearing House, May,19^8* PP. 21 National Survey of the Education of Teachers, XJ. S. Office of Education Bulletin, 1933> Number 10, 6 volumes. 21 d. Knowledge of the essential methods of teaching for the grade, or subject to be taught. e. Knowledge of the organization and manage­ ment of class instruction in various types of schools. f. Acquisition of a "safety minimum” of teaching skill through observation, participation and practice teaching. g. A summarized and integrated "working philosophy" of education and an understanding of the individual’s relationship to education and society. A special committee of the Department of Secondary School Principals, in a report made in 193^4- on issues of secondary education, presented 10 issues, each of which offers a challenge to the classroom teacher. The following statements from the report emphasize the importance of a working knowledge of the aims, organization, and principles of secondary education. No person should be a teacher, supervisor, or administrator in the secondary field unless he has a clear vision of the place of the secondary school in the whole educational scheme, both above and below. Each teacher, supervisor, and administrator should have a clear concept of the special functions of secondary education. 22 E. E. Evenden, National Survey of the Education of Teachers. Washington: Department of Interior, Office of Education, Vol. VI, pp. 173-1?^. 22 No activities should find a place in the secondary school that do not contribute clearly to the realization of the special functions of secondary education. An adequate guidance program is necessary in the secondary school. We must get rid of the idea of one school preparing for another and foster the idea of the school continuously centering attention on the intellectual and emotional needs of the child. This is needed particularly in the high schools where emphasis on subject matter fields is prevalent. Diagnostic tests should be given periodically to determine what children know and what they should be taught.^3 The Educational Policies Commission has stated that, Hone of the major needs within its purview was the improvement of the preparation of teachers. Accordingly, plans were set in motion to prepare a statement of the problems in this 2k field.11 W. E. Peik was commissioned to present these problems and reported as follows: The prospective teacher must acquire an under­ standing of the functions and purposes of education in society and of the historical evolution, the prevailing practices and the current policies of the institution in which he is to work. It is essential that the teacher be thoroughly familiar with childhood and adolescence, with the characteristics of these periods, with the extent and nature of individual differences, and with the nature of the learning process. 23 Issues of Secondary Education, Department of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, 1 9 3 ^ pp. 2l|.7-278. 2kImprovement of Teacher Education, Educational Policies Commission, National Education Association, 1938, p. 1 23 An understanding of tlie principles of statistics and of educational and mental measurements enables the teacher to become a more intelligent consumer, and to a lesser degree, a producer of educational research. Planning units of instruction, locating refer­ ences suitable to a given stage of development and further discriminative selection of varying degrees of ability, together with a knowledge of courses of study and their construction, are essential phases of professional orientation. The organization, administration, and super­ vision of education is a general element of technical education concerning which each teacher should be well informed. He also needs accurate information about such phases of his own profession as: salary schedules, economic security, professional ethics, sabbatical leave, professional organization, tenure, health, disability, retirement, and his relation to school board, superintendent, principal and associates.^ 26 H. A. Sprague conducted a thorough study of the literature related to the preparation of secondary school teachers. In his summary of the judgments of experts in the field of teacher education he lists the following criteria: I. Prospective secondary school teachers should be equipped to gain an understanding of the pupils to be taught. 2. Prospective secondary school teachers should know the approved principles and methods of Ibid., pp. 26 H. A. Sprague, Progress in Preparation of Secondary School Teachejrs. Hew York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 191+0, p. 68. 2k teaching under various situations in junior or senior high school. 3. Prospective secondary school teachers should have an adequate understanding of the aims, organization, and community relations of a modern junior or senior high school. I4.. Prospective secondary school teachers should have an adequate understanding of the prin­ ciples and techniques of guidance. Prospective secondary school teachers should be given opportunities to apply their theories of teaching and to gain the basic skills of teaching and of managing classroom situations. This includes practice in the use of mechanical aids. 6. Prospective secondary school teachers should have an adequate understanding of educational tests and measurements and an essential statistical means of interpreting observa­ tions and tests. 7. Prospective secondary school teachers should have an understanding of and practice in making and interpreting plans and programs of instruction. T, ¥. Gosling attempted to point out some of the characteristics that should distinguish the junior-highschool teacher. He pointed out: Junior high school teachers at their best exhibit both broad human sympathies and sound scholarship and respond generously to the new social demands which a progressive educational program is making upon them. In other words, the successful junior high school teacher must combine the distinguishing qualities of the successful senior high school teacher and in addition must 25 have an unusual willingness and ability to respond to the opportunities for usefulness which only a broad social outlook and a keen sensitiveness to social obligations can g i v e . ^ 7 At a recent meeting of the Southwestern Michigan School Administrators group held at St. Mary’s Lake on November Ilf., 1955, an attempt was made to determine the type of prepara­ tion program that should be provided for junior-high-school teachers. Recommendations of the conference were summarized in the following eight points: 1. Junior-high teachers need to be prepared to teach reading. 2. Junior-high teachers need to be especially well-prepared in the field of child and adolescent psychology. Special attention should be given in these areas as to how children grow and learn. 3. Junior-high teachers need to be so prepared that they will present a child-centered approach on teaching. I4.. Junior-high teachers need to be so prepared that they will have the proper attitude toward, and pride in teaching in the junior high school. 5. Junior-high teachers should learn to under­ stand and appreciate the student,his family, and his strengths and weaknesses. 6 . Junior-high teachers should do their practice teaching in a junior high school. 27 National Society for the Study of Education, Eighteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, Public School Publishing Company, 1919. 26 7* Junior-high teachers should learn to direct student activities and to lead students in self-direction. 8. Junior-high teachers should learn to promote and guide extra-curricular and social activities for children of the junior-high age g r o u p . 28 Lloyd Elliot, in a provocative article entitled "The Junior High - A School Without Teachers," summarizes well one of the main problems facing school administrators as they attempt to improve the quality of instruction in the junior high school. Prom its initial beginnings the junior high has been staffed by the products of secondary teacher-training institutions. In too many cases this has meant using the junior division as the training for young teachers who aspire to promotion to the senior high. Salary schedules for many years, and indeed, in some districts today, encourage such a path for teachers. Thus the earmarks of the academic senior high teacher became the guides which the junior high teacher followed. The new teacher acquired "respectability" when he became identified with scholarship In a chosen subject-matter field and began to rub elbows with his higher paid, more scholarly, upper division cousins. This may be regarded as a blessing to those who view the function of the junior high school as primarily the mastery of assigned segments of text­ book subject matter which will prepare the youngsters to partake of additional segments in the senior division. It will be defended, also, by the math teacher who would make mathematicians of all seventh 2 ^ Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association. Vol. XX, No. January, 1955, p. '69. 27 graders who come within his reach. But to those who see in the new school the promise of meeting some of the broader functions of education, such a continuing course of action is alarming.^9 Summary A review of the literature reveals that there has been no lack of concern for the problems involved in the training of junior-high-school teachers. Before examining the preparation programs that best meet the needs of teachers at this level of instruction, it was essential to understand what functions the junior high school is expected to perform. Various studies have been made in an effort to identify these functions. following: Included among the goals suggested are the counseling and guidance; bridging the gap between elementary and secondary schools; integration of learning experiences; exploration of pupil aptitudes, abilities, and interests; meeting individual differences of students; providing a suitable educational environment for children approximately 12 to 16 years of age; and the development of qualities of good citizenship. While most educators have conceded that the junior high school should serve some specialized functions, most curricular studies on teacher education do not treat the ^ L l o y d K. Elliot, "The Junior High - A School Without Teachers," Education. Nov., 1924.9 , pp. 186-90. 28 training programs for teachers at this level separately. Instead, teachers of these grades are included as a part of the training of secondary school teachers. This is approved by those who regard the function of the junior high school as primarily that of imparting a mastery of assigned textbook subject matter. But to those who envision the junior high school as an instructional level with functions unique from the senior high school, this lack of emphasis upon specialized training programs is alarming. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY There are several approaches that might be made to determine the preparation program most desirable for juniorhigh-school teachers. An analysis of the tasks actually performed by the teacher and of the training program’s contribution to the performance of these tasks might be made. It might be feasible to analyze the writings of eminent psychologists, sociologists, and educators concerned with the problems, interests, and emotions normally experi­ enced by children of junior-high-school age, attempting then to develop a training program that would best give prospective teachers a real understanding of youngsters during this period in their lives. If anyone is familiar with the problems faced by a junior-high-school teacher, it should be the teacher himself. It follows, then, that his judgments concerning the type of preparation program that would best prepare others to perform the tasks required should be a valuable third source of evidence. This study was based upon the opinions of teachers and administrators who are presently engaged in educating youngsters of junior-high-school age. It is recognized that 30 the answers that they give are not the only answers to the problem at hand. They represent only the judgments of one important source of information about what the best preparation program should be. Development of the Hating Form In order to determine the opinions of teachers concerning the desirable components of a practical preparation program, it was necessary to develop a rating instrument which could be submitted to a selected group. The first step in the development of such an instrument consisted of the compilation of all the important training areas which might be helpful to prospective teachers. After these areas were determined, teachers could then be asked to rate their importance to a preparation program. After a thorough examination of the literature dealing with teacher training programs, a list of possible training fields was prepared by the investigator. This list was then submitted for review to 38 selected teachers chosen from seven different Michigan school systems. It was at first considered desirable for the training areas to be proposed by teachers without suggestions from another source. However, it was arbitrarily decided that such proposals from teachers could be obtained more efficiently if some common areas of 31 training were first suggested by the investigator. This made it unnecessary for each teacher then to duplicate several suggestions that would undoubtedly be included quite generally among the proposals from all. The seven school systems from which teachers were selected were chosen after consideration of the size, loca­ tion, and organizational structure of each. Included were St. Joseph, Belding, Grosse Pointe, Ionia, Buchanan, Lansing, and Brighton. A personal contact with an administrative official of each system was made by the investigator. At this time the project was explained, and the cooperation of local school officials was obtained. Each administrator was asked to designate six teachers in his system whom he con­ sidered to be competent and willing to give thoughtful consideration to problems in education. Only teachers working at grade four or above were chosen. Copies of the suggested list of possible training areas for teachers were then distributed to the teachers selected by the school administrator. Each teacher was asked to (a) suggest any other areas of training which should have been included, and (b) indicate any of the areas already listed which were confusing and needed to be stated more 30 clearly. 30 See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire. 32 A revised list incorporating the suggestions received from the public school teachers was then reviewed by 10 professional educators from the staff of the College of Education at Michigan State University. Each of the educa­ tors chosen had had public school experience within the past 10 years. Each was asked to (a) suggest any other areas of training that might be included, and (b) indicate any areas already listed which lacked clarity of meaning. After these suggestions were received, a second revision of the list was made. The next step involved the submission of the list of possible training areas to a test group for consideration. Directions for completion of the rating form, questions to determine the background of experience of those responding, and an open-end question concerning the best preparation program for junior-high-school teachers were added. The form was then completed by Ij-7 teachers who were enrolled in evening classes at Michigan State University. It was found that the printed directions enabled each teacher to complete the questionnaire as expected. The test showed a tendency for teachers to rate all areas high, and not as great a spread In responses was received as had been anticipated. An attempt to correct this difficulty was made through a revision of the rating key. Introduced in the revised form 33 was the factor of priority as well as usefulness. It con­ tained both a ranking of the items and a rating of the items. The original rating key contained the following degrees of usefulness. 1. Understanding of this area is extremely useful. 2. Understanding of this area is very useful. 3. Understanding of this area is moderately useful. I4.. Understanding of this area is of little usefulness. 5. Understanding of this area has practically no usefulness. After revision the rating key read as follows: 1. Top priority. Should be among those few areas included regardless of what is excluded. 2. High priority. Should be included but would yield precedence to some other areas. 3. Moderate priority. Should be included but quite a few other areas are more important. Ij.. Low priority. 5. Is not logically a part of the undergraduate training program. Should be included if time permits. After this revision was made, the form was tested with a group of l\.1 teachers who were members of an extension class taught by Michigan State University at Hillsdale, Michigan. The results of the test proved to be highly satisfactory, indicating that the form was now ready for final printing and distribution. 3^ Two forms were used as a part of the study. Both were basically the same, but one was designed especially for use 31 by teachers, the other for use by administrators. Obtaining the Ratings To insure that the panel of teachers to whom the rating form was submitted would be representative of opinions of teachers in varying sizes and kinds of schools, the school systems of Michigan with reorganized secondary schools were divided into the following four groups: a. Schools organized on a 6-3-3 plan with fewer than 150 teachers. b. Schools organized on a 6-3-3 plan with more than 150 teachers. c. Schools organized on a 6-6 plan with more than 150 teachers. d. Schools organized on a 6-6 plan with fewer than 150 teachers. Prom information contained in the Michigan Education 32 Directory the school systems fitting one of the categories above were listed appropriately and numbers assigned to each. Schools from each group were then chosen for inclusion in the 31 See Appendix B for copies of the questionnaires used. 32 Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Guide, Lansing: Michigan Education Directory, 1955, 260 pp. 35 33 study through the use of a table of random numbers. Only schools organized with a separate junior high school or a combined junior-senior high school were included, since the study primarily involved the preparation of junior-high-school teachers. In Michigan, 92 per cent of all students attending secondary schools are enrolled in schools thus organized. So that schools taking part in the study might be more easily reached, all places north of a line on a map connecting the cities of Saginaw and Muskegon were excluded from schools chosen. A contact with an administrative official of the schools selected was made, and the cooperation of the school enlisted. Each school taking part which had fewer than 25 teachers was asked to have the rating form completed by three upperelementary, three junior-high, and three senior-high-school teachers. Schools with from 25 to 100 teachers were asked to have rating forms completed by five teachers at each level; schools with 100 to 200 teachers were asked for ratings from 15 at each level; schools with more than 200 teachers supplied ratings from 25 teachers at each level. The final sample represented answers from most interested teachers as selected by the school administrator. In each school system the school administrator who had responsibilities for employment of personnel and/or supervision 33 See Appendix C for list of schools selected. 36 of teachers at all grade levels was asked to complete a rating form. A total of 393 forms were distributed, and 333 returned. An analysis of the data secured is contained in chapters four and five of this dissertation. Summary A rating instrument was developed which sought an expression of opinion concerning the importance of various components of a pre-service training program for teachers. Each respondent was asked to rate the significance of each of 15 possible training areas to the preparation program for teachers at the instructional level or levels at which he had had experience. To insure that the panel of teachers to whom the rating form was presented would be representative of judgments of teachers in varying sizes and kinds of schools, the school systems of Michigan were divided into four groups. Schools from each group were then chosen for inclusion in the study through the use of a table of random numbers. In each school system selected, rating forms were com­ pleted by upper-elementary, junior-high, and senior-high-school teachers. In addition the school administrator who had 37 responsibilities for selection of personnel and/or super­ vision of teachers at all grade levels was asked to make similar judgments. A total of 314 teachers and 19 administrators responded to the questionnaire. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OP THE STATISTICAL DATA The ratings of importance given to the 15> training areas included in the questionnaire were divided into four categories based upon the background of experience of each respondent. Tabulations of results were then made separately for those teachers who had experience at only one level of instruction, for those who had experience at two levels of instruction, (junior high school and either the senior high or elementary school), for those who had experience at all three instructional levels, and for administrators who had leadership responsibilities for all three levels. The analysis of variance was used to compare the relative importance given to each training area for the three instruc­ tional levels by teachers with various backgrounds of 33A experience. The results made it possible to identify those areas of training which were rated as differentially important for the three instructional levels. 33A It was assumed that the intervals between the five statements contained in the rating key were equal. 39 Analysis of Variance Results for Teachers Having Experience at One Instructional Level 9 The detailed summary of the ratings given by teachers whose experience had been at only one instructional level is given in Appendix D. The respondents represented 50 teachers who had taught in senior high school only, 52 who had taught only in junior high school, and 58 who had % taught only in grades four, five, or six. The method of analysis of variance % provides a test for the hypothesis that the differences in means vary significantly for the three instructional levels. The complete results of the analysis of variance are shown in Appendix E. A summary of the P ratios obtained for each of the 15 items when rated by teachers with experience at only one instructional level is shown in Table I. The general area of study covered by each item is listed, along with the number of the item, for ease in identification. The com­ plete statement of each of the items is shown in Appendix B. On the basis of the sample employed, an P ratio of 3.06 was needed for significance at the 5 per cent level of con­ fidence. The areas of general education, specialized E. P. Lindquist, Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. Hew York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 19^0, p. 91 ko subject matter, human growth and development, reading methods, core curriculum, and tests showed P ratios exceed­ ing this figure. Referring to Table I, it can, therefore, be assumed that teachers with experience at only one of the instructional levels judged these items to be significantly different in importance to the preparation program for teachers at each of these three instructional levels. Analysis of Variance Results for Teachers Having Experience at Two Instructional Levels The ratings given by teachers who had taught in the junior high school as well as either the elementary or senior high school level are shown in Appendix F. The P ratios obtained through an analysis of variance are summarized in Table II. The complete results are shown in Appendix G. The number of ratings given for the senior high school level was 83> and for the elementary school level If.2. Each of these groups rated the items in relation to preparation program for junior high school teachers, making a total of 127 responses for this level of instruction. An P ratio of 3.0lj. was needed for significance at the 5 per cent level. The following items exceeded this figure and were therefore considered to be significantly different in importance by this group of raters: specialized subject TABLE I P RATIOS RESULTING PROM RATINGS BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT ONLY ONE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL Item P Ratio 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance 2.056 8. Audio-Visual 0.21-.3 9. Sociology of Education 3.057 10. Educational History-Philosophy 0.999 11. Special Methods of Teaching 0.513 12. Human Growth and Development 7.401 13. Learning Theory 0.468 111-. Special Education 1.209 15. Reading Methods 28.079 16. Core Curriculum 6.553 17. Classroom Management 0.183 18. Human Relations 1.920 19. Tests 4.572 5.574 56.823 P ratio needed for significance at the %% level - 3.06 P ratio needed for significance at the 1% level - 4.75 ii-2 TABLE II F RATIOS RESULTING PROM RATINGS OP TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT THE JUNIOR HIGH AND ONE OTHER INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL Item P Ratio 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance 1.991 8. Audio-Visual 1.831 9. Sociology of Education k.k73' 10. Educational History-Philosophy 0.332 11 . Special Methods of Teaching 2.030 12. Human Growth and Development 9.839 - 13. Learning Theory 0.100 3JU-. Special Education 2.629 15. Reading Methods 3lj-.3lj.8-' 16. Core Curriculum 13.178 17. Classroom Management 0.953 18. Human Relations 2.959 19 • Tests 3.398 P ratio needed for significance at the 2.778 13^.107y level - 3 •Olf. P ratio needed for significance at the 1% level - I4..7I k3 matter, sociology of education, human growth and development, and reading methods. The ratings given hy teachers who had taught at all three instructional levels and by administrators who had responsibility for the employment and/or supervision of teachers at all three instructional levels are shown in Appendixes H and J respectively. The F ratios of the responses of each of these groups are summarized in Tables III and IV. Complete results are shown in Appendixes I and K respectively. trators responding. There were 27 teachers and 19 adminis­ An P ratio of 3.11 was necessary for significance at the 5 per cent level in the teacher group, and an P ratio of 3.17 was needed for significance at the same level for the administrator group. Training areas judged by the teachers to be significantly different in importance to the background of training neces­ sary for teachers at the various instructional levels include: specialized subject matter, counseling and guidance, and reading methods. Among the administrators, specialized subject matter, human growth and development, reading methods, and core curriculum were considered significantly different in importance to teachers at the three instructional levels. The purpose of the preceding calculations was to deter­ mine whether teachers and administrators with four different TABLE III F RATIOS RESULTING PROM RATINGS BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT ALL INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS Item P Ratio for Teachers 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance l|-.93l4- 8. Audio-Visual 1.538 9. Sociology of Education 3.019 10. Educational History-Philosophy 0.608 11. Special Methods of Teaching 2.130 12. Human Growth and Development 1.14-71 13. Learning Theory 0.14-50 111-. Special Education 1 .608 15. Reading Methods 22.925 16. Core Curriculum 2.992 17. Classroom Management 0.07ll 18. Human Relations 0.000 19. Tests 0.012 0.336 53.lj.01 P ratio needed for significance at the 5$ level - P ratio needed for significance at the 1% level - If..8 8 3.11 TABLE IV F RATIOS RESULTING FROM RATINGS BY ADMINISTRATORS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES AT ALL INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS Item F Ratio 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance 0.913 8. Audio-Visual 1.069 9. Sociology of Education 0.992 10. Educational History-Philosophy 0.680 11. Special Methods of Teaching 0.912 12. Human Growth and Development 3.832 13. Learning Theory 0.114 14. Special Education 2.689 15. Reading Methods 15.615 16. Core Curriculum 4.636 17. Classroom Management 0.839 18. Human Relations 0.143 19. Tests 0.112 o.56o 47.230 F ratio needed for significance at the 5$ level - 3.17 F ratio needed for significance at the 1% level - 5.01 *4.6 types of experience backgrounds judged certain training areas to be significantly different in importance to the prepara­ tion programs of senior-high, junior-high, and elementary school teachers. Some items were rated significantly differ­ ent by respondents in each of the four groups. Therefore, the assumption could be made that, regardless of their experience background, educators do consider that certain training areas vary significantly in importance to prepara­ tion programs of teachers at the three instructional levels under consideration. Comparison of the Responses of the Pour Groups The responses of teachers who had taught at one instruc­ tional level, of teachers who had taught at two instructional levels, of teachers who had taught at three instructional levels, and of administrators with responsibilities at three instructional levels have been analyzed to determine if they judge certain training areas to be of varying degrees of importance to the preparation programs of elementary, juniorhigh, and senior-high-school teachers. It was next important to know whether the ratings given by respondents in each group varied significantly from the ratings given by respondents in any of the other groups. If it could be ^7 determined that the responses from the four groups did not vary significantly, the ratings could be combined and dealt with as a single group. Since the number of teachers in each group varied, a simple comparison of the P ratios obtained for each item was not valid. It w§is necessary, therefore, to compute unbiased estimates of the variance between population means. These estimates were obtained by using the method described 35 by Kempthorne and are shown in Appendix M. To test the unbiased estimates for significant variations, 36 Wil.coxon*s sign-rank test of differences was used. In applying this test, it was necessary to analyze these four groups in all combinations of pairs. The results of the tests revealed no significant differ­ ences among the unbiased estimates. Finding this to be true, it was possible then to combine the responses given by all teachers and administrators, regardless of the background of experience of each. The combination of all responses concerned with the junior-high-school teacher preparation program was then made. ments. Oscar Kempthorne, The Design and Analysis of ExperiNew York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951* pp. 10ip-5. . P. Wilcoxon, Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. Stanford, Conn.: American Cyanamid Co., 19li9. 48 Similarly, the responses concerned with the senior-high and elementary school teacher training programs were combined and new mean scores were obtained for each item at each instruc­ tional level. An analysis of variance was then computed with the combined responses numbering 181 at the senior-high, 225 at the junior-high, and llj.6 at the upper elementary school levels. The P ratios obtained for each of the 15 items are summarized in Table V. Complete results are shown in Appendix L, An P ratio of 3»02 was needed for significance at the 5 per cent level. Only three of the 15 items failed to produce P ratios exceeding this figure. It was assumed, therefore, that for these areas of history and philosophy of education, learning theories, and classroom management, no particular differences existed in their importance to a training program, whether that training program was designed to prepare elementary, junior-high, or senior-high-school teachers. This does not mean that these areas necessarily lack importance, but only that they are no more important to the preparation programs for teachers at one instructional level than at another. Exceedingly high F ratios were found for the areas of specialized subject matter, human growth and development, reading methods, and core curriculum. This indicated that ^9 TABLE V F RATIOS RESULTING PROM COMBINED RATINGS OP ALL RESPONDENTS Item P Ratio 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance £.6£ 8. Audio-Visual £.07 9. Sociology of Education 7.£9 10. Educational History-Philosophy 1.37 11. Special Methods of Teaching £.02 12. Human Growth and Development 21.08 13. Learning Theory 1.0b- II4.. Special Education 7.02 15. Reading Methods 9ll-.li-7 16. Gore Curriculum 21.IJ.7 17. Classroom Management 0.££ 18. Human Relations I)-.03 19. Tests i|..36 F ratio needed for significance at the % 7.£8 277.7 level - 3.02 F ratio needed for significance at the 1% level - I4..66 5o the raters judged these areas to vary greatly in their importance to a preparation program depending upon whether the teacher is training for upper-elementary, junior-high or senior-high-school teaching. Comparison of the Ratings Between Junior High and Each of the Other Two Levels The analysis of variance of the combined ratings indicated that the means were not homogeneous for 12 of the items. An important factor in this investigation was to determine how the ratings given to items for junior-highschool teacher preparation compared with the ratings given to the same items for elementary or senior-high-school teacher preparation. To test where such significant differences existed, 37 Tukey's procedure for comparing individual means was used. The results are summarized in Table VI. A t value of 1.97 was necessary for significance at the 5 per cent level. Pour items were revealed as having mean ratings for both the elementary and the senior-high-school instructional levels that did not vary significantly from the mean ratings given for the junior-high-school instructional level. They were Allen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Hew York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., pp. 3 3 0 - 3 3 2 . 51 TABLE VI TEST OP SIGNIFICANCE OP DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEANS FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL AND EACH OF THE OTHER TWO LEVELS OF INSTRUCTION Item Means of Means of Combined Combined Ratings Ratings Senior Hi., Junior Hi Means of Combined Ratings Elementary t Values Jr. Hi Versus Sr. Hi t Values Jr. Hi Versus Elementary 5. 1.88 1.57 1.73 3.92-”-”- 6. 1.27 2.42 3.19 -15.54*** 7. 1.64 1.43 1.61 3 .09** 8. 2.59 2.47 2.26 1.29 9. 2.59 2.58 2.95 0.10 10. 2.99 3.10 3.16 -1.18 0.60 11. 1.35 1.52 1.59 -2 .36* 0.91 12. 2.02 1.59 1.53 5.66#* -0.73 13. 2.14 2.07 1.99 0.78 -0.83 14. 3.33 3.08 2.84 2.19* -1.97* - 15. 2.40 1.69 1.25 9.34** -5.37** ' 16. 3.43 2.72 3.07 6.57** 3.02*-* v 17. 1.99 1.90 1.88 0.96 -0.20 18. 2.46 2.29 2.14 1.68 -1.39 19. 2.22 2.32 2.52 -1.10 * Significant at $% level ** Significant at 1% level 1.88 9 •63#-* ' 2-14-7-::* -2.10* 3.56*-*- 2 .04* 52 the areas of history and philosophy of education, learning theories, classroom management, and human relations. The latter area showed significant differences of ratings when all the instructional levels were compared with each other. The differences in ratings given to the senior-high and elementary school levels were great enough to be significant, but when each of these levels were compared with the juniorhigh-school level only, the variations in ratings were not significant. The test revealed five training areas for which the ratings of importance given to the junior-high-school teacher*s preparation program varied significantly from the ratings of importance given to both the senior-high and the elementary teacher’s training program. These training areas rated as uniquely different in importance to the junior-highschool teacher were: specialized subject matter, guidance and counseling, special education, reading methods, and core curriculum. Specialized subject matter was rated much more important to the senior-high-school teacher and much less important to the elementary teacher than to the prospective junior-highschool teacher. For the areas of both guidance and counseling and core curriculum, the ratings of importance given to the training program of the junior-high-school teacher were significantly 53 higher than those given to either the senior-high or upperelementary levels of instruction. Study of reading methods and special education were rated of significantly less importance to senior-high-school teachers but of significantly greater importance to elemen­ tary teachers than to the junior-high-school teacher. There were three areas of study which were rated significantly different in importance for the prospective junior-high-school teacher when compared to the ratings given to the prospective senior-high-school teacher but of approxi­ mately the same importance to the prospective teacher in upper elementary school. They were: general education, human growth and development, and special methods of teaching. There were also three areas rated significantly different in importance when the junior-high and elementary levels of instruction were compared but of little difference when com­ pared to the senior-high-school level. They were: audio­ visual, sociology of education, and tests. Relative Rankings for the Three Levels of Instruction The tests described previously in this chapter established the relationships between ratings given to the 15 areas of study under consideration for each of the three instructional levels. It was necessary next to investigate each of the 54 instructional levels individually, to see how the respondents ranked the importance of the various possible training areas to the preparation programs of senior-high, junior-high and upper-elementary teachers respectively. The mean ratings of the items for each of the instruc­ tional levels are shown in Table VI. A listing of the various training areas in the order of priority to a training program is shown in Table VII. The five areas ranked of greatest importance to the prospective junior-high-school teachers were: guidance and counseling, special methods of teaching, general education, human growth and development, and reading methods. The same five areas were also rated to be of greatest importance to the upper-elementary teacher, although in different order. Specialized subject matter and classroom management replaced the areas of human growth and develop­ ment and reading methods in the five areas given highest priority for senior-high-school teachers. Two of the training areas rated significantly different for junior-high-school teachers were core curriculum and special education. Neither of these items are ranked highly in comparison with other possible training areas, however. They are ranked thirteenth and fourteenth respectively, and 55 TABLE VII RANKING OP IMPORTANCE OP TRAINING AREAS FOR EACH INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL Senior High Junior High Upper Elementary Specialized Sub­ ject Matter 1. Guidance and Counseling 1. Reading Methods 2. Special Methods of Teaching 2. Special Methods of Teaching 2. Human Growth and Development 3. Guidance and Counseling 3. General Education 3. Special Methods of Teaching k. General Education Ij.. Human Growth and Ij.. Development Guidance and Counseling 5. Classroom Management 5. Readings Methods 5. General Education 6. Human Growth and Development 6. Classroom Management 6. Classroom Management 7. Learning Theory 7. Learning Theory 7. Learning Theory 8. Tests 8. Human Relations 8. Human Relations 9. Reading Methods 9. Tests 9. Audio-visual Human Relations 10. Specialized Subject Matter 10. Tests 11. Audio-visual 11. Audio-visual 11. Special Education 12. Sociology of Education 12. Sociology of Education 12. Sociology of Education 13. History and Philosophy 13. Core Curriculum 13. Core Curriculum 34. Special Education Core Curriculum 34. Special Education History and Philosophy History and Philosophy Specialized Subject Matter • O H 1. 15. 15. 3415. 56 only history and philosophy of education is ranked as being less important to the preparation program of a junior-highschool teacher. It is noteworthy that the item concerned with the core or fused curriculum is ranked so low by experienced juniorhigh-school teachers. There has been a concerted effort on the part of many educators to recommend the teaching of various subjects combined, rather than individually, in the junior high school. The lack of importance attached to this area by teachers indicates that the movement toward such curriculum planning may not have received wide acceptance among teachers. Specialized subject matter was ranked first by seniorhigh teachers, tenth by junior high teachers, and last by upper-elementary teachers. Such variations are not surprising for this particular training area. General education is ranked among the first five areas for each of the three instructional levels. It should be remembered that study of these two areas involves a much greater proportionate amount of time than do most of the other areas under consideration. A sufficient understanding of most of the other areas can be acquired with much less study than is required for a good background in the subject matter fields, whether it is 57 specialized or of a more general nature. This factor must be considered when establishing the pattern of a teacher preparation program. Summary The ratings given by respondents to the questionnaire were tabulated in four groups, in accordance with the experi­ ence background of each rater. These four groups were made up of (1) teachers who had taught at only the senior-high, junior-high, or elementary school instructional level; (2) teachers who had taught at the junior-high-school and one other instructional level; (3) teachers with experience at all three instructional levels; and (if) administrators who had responsibilities for employment or supervision of teachers at all three instructional levels. An analysis of variance technique was used to determine if the ratings given by respondents within each of these four groups varied more significantly than variations that might have resulted from chance. For each group, it was found that some items were rated significantly different in importance to the preparation program of an elementary, junior-high and senior-high-school teacher. To test the differences in ratings between the four groups, unbiased estimates were computed and Wilcoxon’s 58 sign, rank test applied to all possible combinations of pairs. The results showed no significant differences in the ratings due to the experience background of the rater. This made it possible, therefore, to combine the results of the four groups and deal with the responses as a single population. An analysis of variance of the combined ratings showed that 12 of the 15 items were rated significantly different in importance to the preparation programs for teachers at the three levels of instruction. When the mean ratings for each item given to the juniorhigh-school teacher preparation program were tested for significance against the same items in relation to the senior-high and upper-elementary programs, five training areas were rated significantly different in importance. They were specialized subject matter, guidance and counseling, special education, reading methods, and core curriculum. A ranking of the items in the order of importance to each of the instructional levels resulted in the following five areas receiving highest priority ratings for the prospective junior-high-school teacher: guidance and counsel' ing, special methods of teaching, general education, human growth and development, and reading methods. The same five areas were at the top of the rankings for upper-elementary school teachers, although in a different order. Three of the 59 same five were also rated highest for senior-high-school teachers. Specialized subject matter and classroom manage­ ment replaced human growth and development and reading methods in the top five for this instructional level. CHAPTER V UNSTRUCTURED RESPONSES In the interest of* brevity the checklist response provides readily accessible data. This is particularly useful when the range of possible responses is a known quantity. The open-end question, however, provides a qualitative kind of data which often reveals the more significant dimensions of the problem. In order to allow teachers with junior-high-school experience to express their opinions concerning types of 38 preparation programs, the following question was asked: The preparation program that is now common for secondary school teachers is quite unlike the preparation program that is common for elementary school teachers. In your opinion, which training program provides the better preparation for teaching in the junior high school? Or should it be different from either one? The answers given to this question are summarized in Table VIII. _ See Appendix B for copy of questionnaire. 61 TABLE VIII OPINIONS CONCERNING BEST JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL PREPARATION PROGRAM Preferences Responses of Teachers Trained Primarily for Secon­ dary School Responses of Teachers Trained Primarily for Elemen­ tary School No. No. Per Cent Per Cent Total No. Per Cent Favor present secondary program 33 20.0 1 3.6 3k 17.6 Favor present elementary program 39 23.6 li|. £0.0 £3 27.£ Favor a dif­ ferent program 93 56.14- 13 1^6.1). 106 514-.9 l6£ 100.0 28 100.0 193 100.0 Total More than one-half (£!]-.9 per cent) of the total number of teachers who replied expressed the opinion that a different preparation program should be provided for prospective juniorhigh-school teachers. A slightly higher percentage (£6.1]. per cent compared to I4.6 .I]. per cent) of those whose own training had been primarily for secondary school expressed this view than did those who had trained primarily for work in the elementary school. 62 Of the two preparation programs currently available to teachers, the elementary program was favored over the secondary program as a better training program for juniorhigh-school teachers as well. Among those who had been trained primarily as secondary school teachers, approximately one-fourth (23.6 per cent) favored the elementary training program now being offered by most training institutions as the best for junior-high-school teachers also. Only one of the twenty-eight respondents who had been trained for elementary school teaching thought the secondary program would provide better preparation for junior-highschool teachers. Twenty per cent of those who had completed a secondary training program stated a preference for the same type of training for junior-high-school teachers. It should be noted that a large proportion of the teachers expressing an opinion on the question had been trained for secondary school work. This is indicative of the high percentage of teachers now teaching in the junior high schools who have completed a training program directed primarily toward secondary school teaching. A summary of the responses received from teachers who had taught exclusively at the junior-high-school level shows that of 49 had completed a preparation program for secondary school teaching. 63 This cannot be considered as an adequate sample, but it is indicative of the high percentage of junior-high-school teachers who completed a secondary school teacher-training program. Reasons for Choices Each teacher who had had junior-high-school teaching experience was asked to tell why he considered the secondary, elementary, or a different training program as the most desirable for prospective junior-high-school teachers. The problem of summarizing the varied responses was solved in the following manner. A master tally sheet was prepared, containing a column for each of the possible preparation programs. Responses were listed verbatim in the proper column and then studied as units, to perceive similarities. A second tally sheet was then prepared to include only broad classifications under which the responses fell. The original responses were then interpreted and re-recorded under these broader classifications. Where the response would not fit into a broad classification without changing its intent, the original responses were maintained intact. A summary follows of the main reasons given by respondents for judging one or the other of the two commonly- 61| available types of teacher preparation programs as best meeting the training needs of junior-high-school teachers. Responses Favoring the Secondary Program The reasons given by the 17.6 per cent who favored the present secondary preparation program for junior-high-school teachers were of the following two types. 1. The junior-high-school teacher needs a strong sub ject-ma11er background. Typical of the comments made by teachers favoring this point of view were: Junior high work requires strong subject matter training. In my experience as a teacher of chemistry and general sciences, I have met many junior-high teachers who regret their lack of knowledge of sciences as it relates to geography and social science. The junior-high teacher in most cases needs about as high a degree of knowledge of his subject area as the high school teacher. The big difference is the greater emphasis necessary on discipline in the junior high. 2. Senior-high trained teachers allow the student to develop maturity. These comments provide an insight into the reasoning involved. The junior high school is a weaning process. The teacher with secondary training will expect the transi­ tion and encourage it. Junior-high pupils need to do more studying on their own and a teacher whose experi­ ence and training is in the elementary field will tend to encourage continued dependence on the teacher. 65> Too many ex-elementary teachers who enter junior high school work seem to cling desperately to elementary methods. They donTt seem to under­ stand that children grow up. It is apparent from the reasons given that those favoring this type of training program view the function of the junior high school as primarily the teaching of assigned segments of textbook subject matter which will better prepare the students to learn additional segments in the senior-highschool division. Responses Favoring the Elementary Program Teachers who favored the elementary type training program for junior-high-school teachers expressed four main reasons for doing so. Some of the comments are listed below under the items mentioned most frequently by this group. 1. Elementary teachers more often use the childcentered rather than the subject-centered approach. The elementary training program gives a better understanding of the student and his environment for that age group. Most senior-high teachers are subjectcentered with less emphasis on the student. The elementary training program gives more and better preparation for the actual teaching process than high school. High school deals too much with subject matter. 66 2. The elementary training program gives better preparation for working with heterogeneous groups. If the grouping of children in junior high school is heterogeneous as it usually is now, the training of the elementary teacher is more helpful because they learn how to work with groups within the classroom and seem to have more training and interest in the individual child than just subject matter. 3. The elementary program prepares the teacher to teach the basic fundamentals of reading. writing. spelling, and arithmetic. Children in junior high school are not very different from fifth and sixth grade pupils. Many of them still do not know how to read and study. I feel that teachers need to know how to teach the fundamentals of reading, writing, spelling, and arithmetic. The grade teachers are trained along this line. Secondary teachers have not had the necessary training required to teach retarded readers. This skill is needed in junior high. ij.. The elementary training program provides for the broad subject-matter background that is essential to the junior-high-school teacher. The junior-high teacher in the small school must be a “master of all arts" and can hardly be a specialist as high school teachers are trained to be. There is entirely too much tendency for junior high teachers to specialize. They may know a lot about their specialty and very little about anything else. Their knowledge should be broad - they should be teachers of reading and spelling as well as their specialty. 67 It has been generally accepted by most educators that the teacher has a responsibility to provide for individual differences at any level of education. Teachers expressing a preference for the elementary type training program as best also for junior-high-school teachers center most of their reasons around this point. Responses Favoring a Different Program A majority of the experienced junior-high-school teachers expressed favor for a special preparation program for teachers of grades seven, eight, and nine. Their reasons for express­ ing such a need are grouped under the five items mentioned most frequently. Illustrative quotations from respondents accompany each item. 1. An understanding of the emotional, physical. and psychological problems of .junior-highschool-age youngsters is essential. It is during this stage of development that a very deep understanding of the person himself is so desperately needed. The junior-high boy or girl does not understand himself, therefore, the teacher must understand him and be able to help him understand himself. The junior-high period is a difficult time for children. I think it necessary that the teacher understand the problems the student faces of an emotional, physical, and social nature. At this age they are idealistic, warm, curious, interested 68 in each other for the first time. Junior high school should have "extra special" teachers with all the implications of that term. Students coming into the seventh and eighth grades are not mature enough to step into classes as they are arranged in the junior high. They still need the guidance, understanding, and individual help of the teacher. Special training for working with a fused curriculum is necessary. Junior high school, with its emphasis on the fused program, requires teachers who are skilled in using the program. While its aims are good, teachers presently being graduated by training institutions are not fully qualified to teach in the fused program. In view of the trend toward the fused curriculum in junior high school, less specialized and more general training is desirable. 3. Junior-high-school youngsters are a unique group requiring specialized training. The elementary children fall within known and like limits of physical and mental development. The same can be said of high-school students. Of course, there are differences in individuals at all levels, but in these two areas the limits are constant. In junior high school this is not true. Practically every possible stage of child development is present. Reconciling these various stages to each other and to a curriculum should be considered of prime importance. The only constant here is the unique presence of extreme differences. This is a constant that warrants special training. Junior high school is a transitional period in which children show great variations of physical development, social adjustment, and emotional maturity. It is a great growing period that calls for firmness and kindness. It is specialized work that calls for special preparation. 69 Prestige of .junior high school would be raised if a specialized training program existed. Our junior-high program is presently a mirror image of high school. Why! Mainly because our junior high teachers have their training as secondary teachers. It is only through specialized preparation that improved junior-high programs will evolve and teachers will be satisfied with juniorhigh teaching as a career. Teachers are not trained specifically for junior-high work. They mark time there while waiting for high-school openings, or they some­ times take it on after unhappy experiences in later elementary work. I t ’s specialized work that deserves special preparation. Specialized preparation would lend prestige to this level of instruction. Summary Teachers who had had actual teaching experience in junior high school were asked whether the elementary prepara­ tion program, the secondary preparation program, or a different training program would best prepare a prospective teacher for teaching in junior high school. A majority of the respondents favored a training program especially for junior-high-school teachers. Of the two programs presently available, the elementary was received more favorably. The reasons given by those favoring the secondary program centered around the need for a strong subject-matter background. The child-centered approach of elementary teachers 70 was given as a main reason by those who favored the elementary training for junior-high-school teachers as well. The most frequently mentioned reasons by those who urged the establishment of a training program especially for junior-high-school teachers were that: (1) an understanding of the emotional, physical, and psychological problems of junior-high-school age youngsters is essential; (2) special training to work with a fused curriculum is necessary; (3) junior-high-school youngsters are a unique group requiring specialized training; and (1|) prestige of junior high school would be raised if a specialized training program existed. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS During the first half of the twentieth century, the junior high school became an integral administrative unit of many school systems in America. Despite this rapid growth in numbers, junior high schools have seldom been able to develop the same degree of self-identification as have the elementary and senior high schools. regarded as an ”in-between” institution. It has often been Those teaching in elementary schools have regarded it as part of the secondary school program; those working in secondary schools have considered it as part of the elementary system. The failure of the junior high school to gain status in its own right has probably been due in part to the failure of teacher-training institutions to regard it as an instructional level requiring specially-trained teachers. Teacher prepara­ tion programs have been designed primarily to train either elementary or high-school teachers with little concern being shown for the training of junior-high-school teachers as such. As a result, from its early beginnings, the junior high school has been staffed largely by graduates of secondary 72 teacher-preparation institutions. This has often meant that young teachers were assigned to the junior division until they could be placed in a senior-high-school position. With such a training background, it is not surprising that many junior high schools have functioned only as little replicas of the senior high school. In this study, an attempt was made to learn from teachers who were actively engaged in teaching their judgments of what should be the desirable components of a teachertraining program. Primary emphasis was placed upon the junior-high-school teacher preparation program, but opinions were also sought in reference to the most practical program of preparation for both the upper-elementary and senior-highschool levels. This was done to discover the relationship between desirable training programs for teachers at these three instructional levels. A preliminary rating instrument was developed with the cooperation of 38 selected teachers that described the important areas of training which might be helpful to prospective teachers. A rating system was devised which combined features of both a rating and a ranking. Each teacher was asked to express his judgments, in terms of one of the five possible choices, concerning the importance of each of the areas of training listed for each of the levels of 73 instruction at which, he had had experience. In addition, teachers with junior-high experience were asked to respond to an open-end question concerning the most desirable type of training program for teachers at that instructional level. Care was taken, when choosing the sample of teachers to whom the rating form was submitted, to obtain the judgments of teachers in varying sizes and kinds of schools. The results were then tabulated according to the background of experience that each teacher possessed. A separate form was submitted to administrators who had responsibility for supervision and/or selection of teachers at all three levels of instruction. The information sought from them was the same as from teachers, except that each was asked to make judgments concerning the importance of each of the training areas to all three instructional levels regardless of whether he personally had actual teaching experience at each level. Conclusions From the analysis of the opinions expressed by teachers and administrators cooperating on this study, It seems reason­ able to conclude that: 1. Certain areas of training are uniquely important to the prospective junior-high-school teacher. Five of the V~> 7Hsuggested training areas were rated significantly different in importance to the junior-high teacher when compared with both the upper-elementary and the senior-high-school teacher. These were guidance and counseling, special education, specialized subject matter, reading methods, and core curricu­ lum. 2. Teacher’s judgments concerning suggested training areas are not essentially affected by dissimilar types of teaching experience. Differences in ratings among four groups representing varied teaching backgrounds were tested, and the results showed no significant variance due to the experience background of the rater. 3. The following five training areas are most essential to the preparation program of junior-high-school teachers: guidance and counseling, special methods of teaching, general education, human growth and development, and reading methods. The same five areas rank at the top for upper-elementaryschool teachers but in a different order. Specialized subject matter ranks as most important for senior-high-school teachers, with special methods of teaching, guidance and counseling, general education, and classroom management also ranked high. l\.. A majority of teachers who have had experience in the junior high school believe that a separate preparation 75 program for teachers at this instructional level should be offered. When asked this question directly, 55 per cent expressed this opinion. Those who favored the present secondary training program as best for teachers of grades seven, eight, and nine represented only 18 per cent of the respondents. The remaining 27 per cent judged the present elementary training program as adequate for prospective junior-high-school teachers as well. The most frequently mentioned reasons by those who favored the establishment of a training program especially for junior-high-school teachers were: (a) an understanding of the emotional, physical, and psychological problems of junior-high-school-age youngsters is essential; (b) special training for teachers to work with a fused curriculum is necessary; (c) junior-high-school youngsters are a unique group requiring specialized training; and (d) the prestige of the junior high school would be raised if a specialized train­ ing program existed. 5. Of the two common types of teacher preparation programs now available, it seems evident that the elementary training program offers the best possibilities for producing adequately-prepared junior-high-school teachers. The ranking of the items in the order of relative importance shows a 76 striking similarity between the training areas judged most essential to the training backgrounds of junior-high-school and elementary teachers. In fact, the same items were included among the top eight areas suggested for teachers at both instructional levels. The mean ratings were not significantly different in all but two of the eight areas, indicating that respondents judged an understanding of special methods of teaching, human growth and development, general education, classroom management, learning theories, and human relations as important to the elementary teacher as to the junior-high teacher. Only in the areas of guidance and counseling, and reading methods were significantly different ratings of importance given for each of these two levels of instruction. 6. A lack of homogeneity between the preparation programs judged to be best for senior-high-school teachers and for junior-high-school teachers resulted mainly from the great differences in the rating of the training area of specialized subject matter. This item was judged to be much more important to the senior-high than the junior-high teacher. It ranked first among the areas essential to senior high teachers, but only tenth for junior-high teachers. The time required to gain competency in each of the training areas varies. An adequate background in subject 77 matter would take much longer to acquire than sufficient understanding of most of the other areas. This makes it necessary, in the senior-high-school teacher preparation program, to curtail the study of many of the other areas in order to acquire the subject-matter background needed. This curtailment of other areas rated to be of greater importance to the junior-high-school teacher makes the senior-high-school preparation program impractical for teachers of grades seven, eight and nine. Rec ommendati ons Ideally, a training program should be developed especially to prepare junior-high-school teachers. Such a preparation program would offer the following two main advantages: 1. The prestige and self-identification of the junior high school would be greatly enhanced if a specialized training program existed. Such a program would aid in the development of the junior high school as an independent unit worthy of equal status with the elementary and senior high school. Although the junior high school has been in existence for nearly 50 years, most teacher-training institutions have still failed to take active cognizance of this level of public education. By ignoring responsibility, the training 78 \ schools have done little to aid in the promotion of strong junior-high-school programs. Not only are teachers being inadequately prepared to meet their responsibilities, but also training institutions are failing to provide a positive force that will influence teachers to choose the juniorhigh-school level of instruction as a career. One of the teachers taking part in the study expressed it this way. "Teachers in junior high are, for the most part, only there marking time until an opening appears in the senior high school for which they can qualify." As long as this attitude is prevalent among junior-highschool teachers, we shall remain unable to develop strong teaching staffs in grades seven, eight, and nine. Steps have been taken by school systems to eliminate largely the salary differences that once existed between the instructional levels. The time is long overdue for teacher- training institutions to encourage young men and women who possess the necessary personal and professional characteristics to prepare for and remain in the junior high school. 2* Prospective junior-high-school teachers could be better prepared to understand the emotional, physical, and psychological problems of adolescents. Specifically, the following five areas of training should be emphasized in the development of a practical preparation program for junior-high school teachers. 79 A. Courses of study which, help the teacher learn more about understanding the individual and counseling; with him about his problems. The primary purpose of this area of training would be to help the teacher develop an understand­ ing of individual differences and their relation­ ship to actual teaching situations. Aiding the youngster to understand himself and his problems would then be the desired result. Course work to develop such understandings and skills is often considered under the general title of "Counseling and Guidance.” B. Courses which give the prospective teacher a broad general background in the principal fields of organized knowledge. Study in this area is often called general or liberal education. It would include course work in such fields as physical and natural science, the humanities, social sciences, psychology, philosophy, literature, and the communication arts. This is sometimes described as training with breadth rather than training with depth in a particular subject field. It seems evident that 80 subject-matter training of this sort will enable the junior-high-school teacher to develop further, as the occasion demands, the knowledge necessary in a particular subject area. If limitations of time were not a factor, a complete and thorough study of several subjectmatter areas should be provided for each pros­ pective junior-high-school teacher. This, of course, is impossible during the normal fouryear program of pre-service teacher preparation. The alternative, then, is to study less intensively in many areas, since the teacher at this grade level is not usually called upon to teach only one subject in isolation or subject matter of such difficulty that a complete mastery of all its aspects is required. A junior-high-school teacher thus trained should be better able to help the student in the exploration of various fields of knowledge. This would be consistent with the function of exploration that has been included in most listings as one of the purposes for which the junior high school was established. Courses concerned with objectives, materials, and teaching techniques in particular subject areas. This area of study would help develop skill in the presentation of the subject matter to be learned, knowledge of available teaching materials that would be of help in the process, and an understanding of fundamental goals to be achieved. A title that is often attached to this area of training is ’’Special Methods of Teaching.” The word ”Special" in this case refers to particular subject-matter areas. Courses concerned with basic principles and techniques of reading improvement. While primary importance shodld be placed on methods of improving reading ability, this area could be broadened to include the improvement of writing, arithmetic, and spelling as well. Teachers report that many students in junior high school are not sufficiently skillful in these fundamental tool subjects upon which further learning largely depends. 82 Course work which, will provide the juniorhigh-school teacher with competence to help students improve these skills will enable him to overcome many ancillary problems that result. E. Course work to develop an understanding of the physical, psychological, and social development of the child, especially during the pre-adolescent and adolescent periods, and the relation of his environment to his development. The purpose of such training would be to provide junior-high-school teachers with an under­ standing of the needs and interests of adolescent youngsters. It is generally accepted that teachers must provide for the individual differences among the children which they teach. This area of training would provide them with an intelligent understanding of the great variations which psychologists have discovered among children of junior-high-school age. Titles often given to particular courses that would be directed toward such understandings might include: Human Growth and Development; Child Psychology; Adolescent Psychology; or Mental Hygiene. While ideally a special training program for junior-highschool teachers may be most desirable, it must be recognized 83 that certain obstacles exist that make this ideal not immediately attainable. One of the largest of these stumbling blocks is the present teacher certification codes under which most states operate. These regulations have been written recognizing only two main types of preparation programs for the classroom teacher, one to train elementary, and the other to train secondary school teachers. Training institu­ tions are, therefore, almost bound to pattern their training programs within the framework established by the state certifying agency. Another difficulty that handicaps the development of strong junior-high-school programs is the apparent lack of emphasis that many school officials are willing to give to this instructional level. Instead of being accorded a dis­ tinctive place in its own right, with specific responsibili­ ties which it alone can best perform, it is not uncommon for the junior high school to receive the cast-off facilities, improperly-prepared personnel, and a patchwork of curricular offerings. Until administrative officials accept the junior high school as a vital unit having special educational purposes affecting youngsters at a most critical period in their develop­ ment, we shall continue to see this instructional level suffering from neglect. Qk Suggestions for Further Study This exploratory study was intended as a first step in seeking a full solution of the problem of providing adequate preparation for the junior-high-school teacher. There are many other questions related to this problem that are in need of better answers: 1. What is the type of school organization that will best meet the educational needs of the youngsters of this nation? 2. schools? Should junior high schools be organized as separate If not, should they be more closely associated with the elementary or secondary program? 3. How well are the junior high schools performing the functions for which they were created? What changes are necessary in the certification codes of most states to enable junior-high-school teachers to be more adequately trained. 5. What effect does length of teaching service have upon the ratings of importance given by teachers to certain training areas? Until the answers to some of these questions have been found, the place of the junior-high-school in American education will remain a controversial subject. 85 BIBLIOGRAPHYBooks and Pamphlets Briggs, T. H. The Junior High School. Mifflin Company, 1920. Boston: Cole, Luella. Psychology of Adolescence. Rinehart and C ompany, Inc., 1924.8. Houghton- Hew York: Cruze, Wendel W. Adolescent Psychology and Development. New York: Ronald Press Company, 1953. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc’. Erickson, C. E., and Glenn E. Smith. Organization and Administration of Guidance Services. New York: McGrawHill Book Company, Inc., I9I4.7. Gruhn, William T. ”Junior High School,” Encyclopedia of Educational Research (Revised Edition) Gruhn and Douglas. The Modern Junior High School. The Ronald Press, 19^+7^ New York: Havighurst, Robert J. Human Development and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1953. Hurlock, Elizabeth B.' Adolescent Development. First Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 19^9. Kempthorne, Oscar. The Design and Analysis of Experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951. Kuhlen, R. G. The Psychology of Adolescent Development. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. Lindquist, E. F. Statistical Analysis in Educational Research. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 19^0. New York, N.Y., Board of Education. A Guide to Curriculum Improvement in the Junior High Schools of New York City. New York: The Board (Curriculum Bulletin 194.5-^^, No. 2.) 86 Noar, Gertrude* The Junior High. School Today and Tomorrow. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953* Smith, W. A. The Junior High School. Company, 1925. ' New York: Macmillan Sprague, H. A. Progress in Preparation of Secondary School Teachers. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 191+0. Wilcoxon, F. Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. Stanford, Connecticut: American Cyanamid Company, 191+9. Wisconsin Cooperative Educational Planning Program. Guides to C u r r i c u lu m Building, Junior High School Level. Madison, Wisconsin: State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 1950. (Problems Approach Bulletin No. 2, Curriculum Bulletin No. 12) (Also issued by the Illinois Secondary School Curriculum Program as Bulletin No. 8, Urbana, Illinois, State Superintendent of Public Instruction.) Woellner, Robert C., and M. Aurilla Wood. Requirements for Certification. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1955. Periodicals Alberty, H. B., ’’Developing a Curriculum That Meets the Needs of Junior High School Youth." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 31:69-81, April, 19^-7. Alberty, H. B., "Reorganizing the Junior High School Curriculum." The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 29:17-28, April, 1914-5. Barnes, Jarvis, "Future of the Junior High School." Executive. 6i+:l+3-i+5> February, 191+5. School Beals, Lester, "The Junior High School - Past and Present." The Bulletin of the National Association of SecondarySchool Principals, 36:13-21+, January, 1952. 87 Briggs, Thomas H., "Has the Junior High School Made Good?" Educational Administration and Supervision. XXIV, 1-10, January, 1938. ““ California Journal of Secondary Education, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp. 266-267, May, 19514-Cole, Thomas R., ’’What Grades Should Constitute the Junior High School?11 American School Board Journal. CXII, p. Ij.2, February, 19^1-6. Committee on Junior High School Problems. ’’Organizing the Junior High School.” California Association of SecondarySchool Administrators. The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, 35:6-157. December, 1951. Douglas, A. A., ’’Persistent Problems of the Junior High School.” California Journal of Secondary Education, 20:110-20, February, 194-5. Douglass, Harl R., ’’The Function of the Modern Junior High School.” Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals. 3^-119-127. April. 1950. Elliot, Lloyd E., ’’The Junior High - A School Without Teachers.” Education, pp. 186-190, November, 19^9. Frazier, G. W., ’’Junior High School as an Educational Problem.” California Journal of Secondary Education. 27:112-115, February, 1952. Gaumnitz, Walter, and J. Dan Hull, ’’Junior High Schools Versus the Traditional (8-^) High School Organization.” Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. Vol. 38, pp. 112-121, March, l95^i-« Goff, Aron, ’’Junior High School Psychosis.” 22:51l4-5l, May, 19^ 8 . Clearing House, Gruhn, William T., ’’The Purposes of the Junior High Schools After l±0 Years.” California Journal of Secondary Education, 27:127-132, March, 19^2. Havighurst, Robert J., ’’Poised at the Crossroads of Life: Suggestions to Parents and Teachers of Young Adolescents.” School Review, 61:329-338, September, 1953. 88 Herriott, M. E . , ’’What is a Functional Program for the Junior High School?” The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals. 33:95-108. May. 19k9. Leipold, L. E., ”Junior High Schools Face These Problems.” Clearing House 27. pp. 263-265, January, 1953. Low, Camilla M . , ’’Tasting Their Teens in the Junior High School.” Hational Education Association Journal, ij.2:3i4-7“3^9> September, 1953. Mackie, R. H., "Why the Junior High School?” LXXIII, 3 1 k - 7 7 3 February, 1953. Education, Rogers, H. J., and R. D. Brackett, "What Curriculum Changes Are Heeded in the Junior High School?” Summary of Presentations. The Bulletin of the national Association of Secondary-School Principals, 3&:I6O-I6I4., April, 195k. Shipp, Frederic T., ”Lj.—14.—3: New Plan for School Organization," School Executive, LXXI: p. 62, September, 1951. Tuttle, Harold S., "Has the Junior High School Kept Its Promise?” Clearing House, XIV: 263-66, January, I9I4-O. Young, Irvin F., "What Are the Most Significant Functions of the Six-Year School?” Bulletin of the National Associa­ tion of Secondary School Principals, XXXVI: 30lj--ll, March, 1952. Publications of the Government, Learned Societies And Other Organizations Bulletin of the Michigan Secondary School Association, Vol. XX, No. 1+, January, 1955, p. " 6 9. Evenden, E. E. National Survey of the Education of Teachers. Washington: Department of Interior, Office of Education, Vol. VI, pp. 173-171].. Gaumnitz, Walter H. Supplementary Statistics of Public Secondary Schools, 1951-52. with Special Emphasis upon Junior and Junior-Senior High Schools, Circular Number 24.23, February, 1935. Washington: u7 S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1955, P. i. 89 Improvement of Teacher Education. Educational Policies Commission, National Education Association, 1938, p. 1. Issues of Secondary Education, Department of Secondary School Principals, National Education Association, 1934 j pp. 2J4.7-278. Junior High School Facts. U. S. Department of Health, Educa­ tion, and Welfare. Washington: Office of Education, 1955. Michigan Education Directory and Buyers Guide. Michigan Education Association, 1955. Lansing: National Society for the Study of Education, Eighteenth Yearbook, Bloomington, Illinois, Public School Publish­ ing Company, 1919. National Survey of the Education of Teachers. Washington: U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 10, 6 volumes, 1933. United States Bureau of the Census. Department of Commerce, 1950. Washington: U. S. Yearbook of the New Jersey Secondary School Teachers Associa­ tion, ’'We Look at Curriculum Growth," 1952, p. 72. 90 APPENDIX A COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED TO 38 TEACHERS WHO HELPED DEVELOP FINAL RATING FORM 91 A PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS An attempt is being made to discover ways of improving the preparation pro­ gram for teachers of junior-high-school-age youngsters. The first step in this process is the identification of areas of training that might be helpful to a prospective teacher in this grade range. These areas will later be submitted to teachers to rate in importance. It is essential therefore, that all possible areas be included and that they be clearly stated. You have had an opportunity to face the problems of a junior-high-school teacher, vfould you be willing to share some of the things that you have learned by reviewing the items listed below/ Then would you do two things: (l) suggest any other basic areas of understanding that you feel are important but which have not been included and: (2) call attention to any areas already listed which are confusing to you and need to be stated more clearly. 1. Courses in the subject matter specialty of the teacher designed to give a thorough and complete background of training in a particular subject. For example, advanced English courses for the English teacher, or advanced Mathematics courses for the teacher of mathematics. 2. Courses of study designed to help the student learn more about understanding the individual and counseling with him about his problems. 3. Audio-visual materials and techniques. For example, projector operation: selection sources,and elements of effective utilization of such teaching tools as flat pictures, slides, film strips, sound picture films and field trips. 1*. Course work designed to give the prospective teacher a better understanding of the school as a social institution and the structure of school society. 5. Study of the historical background of present issues in education and an analysis of educational philosophy. 6. Practice teaching experience under the direction of an experienced teacher. 7. Courses showing objectives, methods, and materials in particular subject areas which a student is preparing to teach. 8. Physical, psychological, and social development of the child and the relation of his environment to his development. Problems of the individual's adjust­ ment to his personal and social environment. "•2«» 92 9. Courses designed to develop an understanding of the theory of learning. 10. Methods of instruction of the atypical child. Methods of facilitating growth and development of children who are crippled, hard of hearing, de­ fective in vision, mentally handicapped, etc. 11* Basic principles and techniques irt remedial reading, including causes of reading difficulties, diagnostic testing, materials,and instructional pro­ cedures . 12* Theory and practices of the core or fused curriculum. 13. Classroom management, such as techniques for classroom organization, record keeping, teacher-pupil planning, handling disciplinary problems, etc. 111. Techniques for working with parents, administrators and other teachers. 15. General education courses designed to give the prospective teacher a better understanding of the world in which he lives. 17. 18. etc. Use the back of the page for any additional comments if necessary 93 APPENDIX B A PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS 9k A PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS Teacher training institutions are constantly trying to evaluate and improve their preparation programs for prospective teachers. Many of the problems they face have no easy solutions. For example, ideally every prospective teacher should be thoroughly trained in many different fields. Practically, however, only so much can be crammed into the four years of pre-service training. It becomes doubly important, therefore, that each teacher in training receive the kind of preparation which is of most practical im­ portance for the grade level he is going to teach. You, as an experienced teacher, are a most important source of information about what a practical preparation program should be. We would appreciate having you share some of your ideas with us. First of all we need information about your experience. 1. How many years have you taught? (Circle the correct number.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2. In what size community do you now teach? j 3. j More than 50,000 How is the system in which you now teach organized with regard to Elementary, Junior High and Senior High School? 6-3-3 4. What kind of teaching experience have you had? Circle the letter of the statement below that best describes it. a. I have taught onlyat the senior high schoollevel. (Grades 10, 11, or 12)a. b. I have taught onlyat the junior high schoollevel. (Grades 7, 8, or 9)b. c. I have taught onlyat the upper elementaryschool level. (Grades 4, 5, or 6)c. d. I have taught at both the upper elementary(Grades 4, 5, the junior high (Grades 7, 8, or 9) school levels. or 6) and at d. e. I have taught at both the senior high (Grades 10, 11, or 12) and at the junior high (Grades 7, 8, or 9) school levels. e. f. I have taught at the upper elementary, junior high and senior high school f. grade levels. If you marked statements a, b, or c above, follow Directions A at the top of Page 2. If you marked statements d, e, or f, above, follow Directions B near the top of Page 2. DIRECTIONS A. of Page 1.) (Only for teachers who marked statements a, b, or c at the bottom Use the coded phrases in the box below to express your opinion regarding the rela­ tive importance of the areas of training described in statements 5-19. If your experience has been at the senior high level, record the number of your choice in the box marked Sr. Hi. If your experience has been at the junior high level, record your choice in the box marked Jr. Hi. If your experience has been at the upper elementary level, record your choice in the box marked Elem. DIRECTIONS B. of Page 1.) (Only for teachers who marked statements d, e, or f, at the bottom Use the coded phrases in the box below to express your opinion regarding the relative importance of the areas of training described in statements 5-19. Record the number that best describes its importance to junior high teachers in the box marked Jr. Hi. Make the same judgment concerning its importance to teachers at the other grade level (s) at which you have had experience and put the number in the box appropriately marked. (Sr. Hi. if your experience has been at the senior high level or Elem. if your experience has been in the elementary school.) Key: 1. Top priority. Should be among those few areas included regardless of what is excluded. 2. High priority. Should be included but would yield precedence to some other areas. 3. Moderate priority. Should be included but quite a few other areas are more important. 4. Low priority. Should be included if time permits. 5. Is not logically a part of the undergraduate training program. REMEMBER: Judge each area with regard to pre-service training for teachers of the particular grade range. Sr. Hi Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi 5. Courses which give the prospective teacher a broad general background in the principle fields of organized knowledge. For example, survey courses in science, literature, the hu­ manities, etc. 6. Courses designed to give a thorough and complete back­ ground of training in the subject matter specialty or spec­ ialties of the teacher. For example, advanced English courses for the English teacher, or advanced Mathematics courses for the teacher of Mathematics. Elem Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Elem □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Sr. Hi Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Elem Jr. Hi 10. Study of the historical background of present issues in edu­ cation and an analysis of educational theory and practice. 11. Courses showing objectives, materials, and teaching tech­ niques in particular subject areas which a student is pre­ paring to teach. 12. Physical, psychological and social development of the child and the relation of his environment to his development. 14. Training in working with children with special problems. Methods of facilitating growth and development of children who are crippled, hard of hearing, defective in vision, mental­ ly handicapped, etc. Elem 15. Basic principles and techniques of reading improvement. Causes of reading difficulties, diagnostic testing, materials and instructional procedures. □ 16. Courses designed to develop an understanding of various ways of developing the core or fused curriculum. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Course work which gives the prospective teacher a better understanding of the school as a social institution and the structure of school society. For example, cliques, social class, etc. Elem □ □ 9. 13. Courses which develop an understanding of the theories of learning as they apply to the classroom. □ Sr. Hi Audio-visual materials and techniques. For example, pro­ jector operation; selection sources and elements of effective utilization of such teaching tools as flat pictures, slides, film strips, sound picture films and field trips. Elem □ □ Sr. Hi 8. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Courses of study which help the prospective teacher learn more about understanding the individual and counseling with him about his problems. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi 7. Elem 17. Classroom management such as techniques for classroom organization, record keeping, teacher-pupil planning, hand­ ling disciplinary problems, etc. 97 I— I I— I Sr. Hi Jr. Hi □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi r- 1 *— ■ Elem □ 18. Techniques for working with parents, administrators and other teachers. 19. An understanding of the construction, selection, administra­ tion and uses of tests. Elem If you have taught in Junior High School, answer these three questions. 20. What type of teaching certificate do you hold? | | Elementary j j Secondary 21. The preparation program that is now common for secondary school teachers is quite unlike the preparation program that is common for elementary school teachers. In your opinion, which training program provides the better preparation for teaching in the junior high school? Or should it be different from either one? 22. Why? Form Two 98 A PREPARATION PROGRAM FOR TEACHERS Teacher training institutions are constantly trying to evaluate and improve their preparation programs for prospective teachers. Many of the problems they face have no easy solutions. For example, ideally every prospective teacher should be thoroughly trained in many different fields. Practically, however, only so much can be crammed into the four years of pre-service training. It becomes doubly important, therefore, that each teacher in training receive the kind o f preparation which is of most practical im­ portance for the grade level he is going to teach. You have tary, junior background these grade responsibility for the employment and/or supervision of teachers in elemen­ high and senior high schools. Are there particular aspects of the training that you feel are of varying degrees of importance to teachers at each of levels? You, as an experienced administrator, are a most important source of information about what a practical preparation program should be. We would appreciate having you share some of your ideas with us. First of all we need information about your experience. 1. How many years have you taught? (Circle the correct number.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. In what size community are you now employed ? 3. How is the system in which you are now employed organized with regard to Ele­ mentary, Junior High and Senior High School? 6-3-3 DIRECTIONS: Use the coded phrases in the box below to express your opinion regarding the relative importance of the areas of training described in statements 4-18. Record the number that best describes its importance to junior high teachers (grades 7-9) in the box marked Jr. Hi. Make the same judgment concerning the importance to the upper elementary (grades 4-6) teacher and record the number in the box marked Elem. Do the same thing for the senior high school (grades 10-12) teacher and record your choice in the box marked Sr. Hi. Key: 1. Top priority. Should be among those few areas included regardless of what is excluded. 2. High priority. Should be included but would yield precedence to some other areas. 3. Moderate priority. Should be included but quite a few other areas are more important. 4. Low priority. Should be included if time permits. 5. Is not logically a part of the undergraduate training program. REMEMBER: Judge each area with regard to pre-service training for teachers of the particular grade range. Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Sr. Hi Jr. Hi 4. Courses which give the prospective teacher a broad general background in the principle fields of organized knowledge. For example, survey courses in science, literature, the hu­ manities, etc. 5, Courses designed to give a thorough and complete back­ ground of training in the subject matter specialty or spec­ ialties of the teacher. For example, advanced English courses for the English teacher, or advanced Mathematics courses for the teacher of Mathematics. 6. Courses of study which help the prospective teacher learn more about understanding the individual and counseling with him about his problems. 7. Audio-visual materials and techniques. For example, pro­ jector operation; selection sources and elements of effective utilization of such teaching tools as flat pictures, slides, film strips, sound picture films and field trips. Elem Elem Elem | | Sr. Hi j | Jr. Hi | | Course work which gives the prospective teacher a better understanding of the school as a social institution and the structure of school society. For example, cliques, social class, etc. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi cation and an analysis of educational theory and practice. Elem Elem 0. Courses showing objectives, materials, and teaching- tech­ niques in particular subject areas which a student is pre­ paring to teach. □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Elem I j '— ■ Elem □ □ Jr. Hi □ □ □ Sr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi Jr. Hi 15. Courses designed to develop an understanding of various ways of developing the core or fused curriculum. 16. Classroom management such as techniques for classroom organization, record keeping, teacher-pupil planning, hand- 17. Techniques for working with parents, administrators and other teachers. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi 14. Basic principles and techniques of reading improvement. Causes of reading difficulties, diagnostic testing, materials Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi 3. Training in working with children with special problems. Methods of facilitating growth and development of children who are crippled, hard of hearing, defective in vision, mental­ ly handicapped, etc. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi 2. Courses which develop an understanding of the theories of learning as they apply to the classroom. Elem □ □ □ Sr. Hi 1. Physical, psychological and social development of the child and the relation of his environment to his development. 18. An understanding of the construction, selection, administra­ tion and uses of tests. Elem S i t * * * * * * * * * * * 102 APPENDIX G LIST OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL SY8T£MS COOPERATING IN THE STUDY 103 Akron Battle Creek Caro Carson City Dearborn Fenton Grand Rapids Greenville Hillsdale Lakeview Marcellus New Baltimore Niles Pinckney Portland Rochester St, Joseph Three Oaks Unionville lolf APPENDIX D DISTRIBUTION OF FREQUENCIES OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT ONLY ONE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL 10$ The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5* 1 denoting the highest priority, down to 5j the lowest priority. TWM 1 SENIOR HIGH 2 3 h $ JUNIOR HIGH ELEMENTARY 1 2 3 l t 5 l 2 3 l t 5 lit 19 lit 2 l 29 18 2 3 0 29 16 13 0 0 37 12 1 0 0 8 18 20 6 0 7. Counseling and Guidance 23 18 9 0 0 33 15 U 0 0 30 2lt 3 1 0 8. Audio-Visual 12 12 17 9 0 12 18 16 5 1 16 16 17 7 17 12 13 1 6 22 22 2 0 3 20 21 13 1 7 11 19 8 5 5 6 19 20 2 5 10 23 18 2 General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 9. Sociology of Education 10. Educational HistoryPhilosophy 1 19 2it 5 9 8 1 n. Special Methods of Teaching 36 6 0 0 30 18 3 1 0 33 20 5 0 0 12. Human Growth and Development 15 17 17 1 0 26 19 6 1 0 35 17 21 2 0 lit 22 13 2 1 17 2it 15 1 1 8 lit 16 9 15. Reading Methods 11 13 13 13 0 22 21 8 1 0 la 15 i 16. Core Curriculum 1 11 15 17 6 8 16 18 8 2 1 25 15 10 1 1 2It 19 13 1 1 5 0 13 18 19 2 0 20 13 20 3 2 15 2 1 9 29 13 0 1 13. Learning Theory lit. Special Education Ik 3 8 13 17. Classroom Management 23 17 18. Human Relations 19. Tests 8 13 15 17 8 1 2k 5 7 17 16 7 5 1 0 7 12 17 15 7 1 0 3 ll 25 15 It 8 20 20 7 3 106 APPENDIX E ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT ONE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEL 107 Item 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Hatter 7. Counseling and Guidance 8. Audio-Visual 9. Sociology of Education 10. Educational KLstory-Philosophy Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F 8.250 2 Iui25 5.57U Within groups 116.125 157 .7U0 Total 12U.375 159 Between groups 8I4.666 2 U2.333 Within groups 116.93U 157 0.715 Total 201.600 159 Between groups 1.969 2 0.985 Within groups 75.131 157 0.U79 Total 77.100 159 0.535 2 0.268 Within groups 172.965 157 1.102 Total 173.500 159 5.1U2 2 2.571 Within groups 132.102 157 0.81*1 Total 137-2UU 159 2.22k 2 1.112 Within groups 1711.720 157 1.113 Total 176.9bk 15>9 Source of Variation Between groups Between groups Between groups Between groups 56.823 2.056 0.2h3 3.057 0.999 108 11. 12. Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F Between groups 0.U80 2 0.2U0 0.513 Within groups 73.U61i 157 0.i|68 Total 73-9UU 159 Between groups 9-OU3 2 It.522 Within groups 95.932 157 0.611 lOii.975 159 0.767 2 0.38li Within groups 128.733 157 0.820 Total 129.500 159 3.305 2 1.653 Within groups 21I4.595 157 1.367 Total 117.900 159 Between groups UO.321 2 20.161 Within groups 112.65U 157 0.718 Total 152.975 159 Between groups 13.U08 2 6.70U Within groups 160.567 157 1.023 Total 173.975 159 Source of Variation Item Special Methods of Teaching Human Growth and Development Total 13. Between groups Learning Theory Hi. Special Education 15. Reading Methods * 16. Core Curriculum Between groups 7.1*01 0.U68 1.209 28.079 6.553 Item 17. 18. 19. Classroom Management Human Relations Tests Source of Variation Sum of Squares DF Mean Square F 0.319 2 0.160 0.183 Within groups 137.ii56 157 0.876 Total 137.775 159 3.526 2 1.763 Within groups 3M.07li 157 0.918 Total 1U7.600 159 8.037 2 U.019 Within groups 137.957 157 0.879 Total 1h$.99k 159 Between groups Between groups Between groups 1.920 U.572 110 APPENDIX F DISTRIBUTION OF FREQUENCIES OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT TWO INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEIS The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5s 1 denoting the highest priority, down to 5, the lowest priority. i QUESTIOM 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance 8, Audio-Visual 9. Sociology of Education 10. Educational HistoryPhilosophy 11. Special Methods of Teaching 12. Human Growth and Development 13. Learning Theory Hi. Special Education 15. Reading Methods 16. Core Curriculum SENIOR H3DH 1 2 3 h 5 JUNIOR HIGH i 2 3 a 5 m ELEMENTARY i 2 3 a 5 37 29 19 0 0 70 1*6 10 1 0 22 ia a 2 0 61* 18 3 0 0 10 58 52 7 0 0 7 22 12 1 39 35 11 0 0 77 39 11 0 0 2a ia 6 0 0 26 III 11* 0 9 hh 57 17 0 6 ia 18 a 0 8 27 37 12 1 18 28 59 18 a 3 5 21 8 5 2 17 h2 21 3 6 22 62 31 6 2 5 20 13 2 61 22 2 0 0 79 36 9 3 0 30 6 5 1 0 19 III* 19 3 0 71 1*0 12 a 0 20 17 a 1 0 21 35 2U 5 0 37 1*7 36 7 0 12 18 8 a 0 a 12 31 30 8 5 9 17 7 a 8 1 0 33 8 1 0 0 a 11 16 9 2 k 18 26 32 2 12 21 31* 16 17. 8 Classroom Management 33 21 23 18. 13 28 27 13 Human Relations 19. 16 39 21* 6 Tests 6 32 1*7 33 59 5o 16 2 16 36 33 35 9 7 0 52 1*1 28 6 0 17 ia 10 1 0 k 25 1*5 1*0 13 a 13 ia 11 a 0 0 16 56 1*2 12 i 1 19 17 a 1 112 APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT TWO INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS 113 Stun of Squares DF Mean Square 3.077 2 1.539 Within groups 139.033 251 0.551* Total 11*2.110 253 Between groups 118.011* 2 Within groups 110.361* 251 Total 228.378 253 1.851 2 0.926 Within groups 116.763 251 0.1*65 Total 118.611* 253 2.376 2 1.188 Within groups 162.825 251 0.61*9 Total 165.201 253 8.258 2 1*.129 Within groups 231.569 251 0.923 Total 239.827 253 0.503 2 0.252 Within groups 190.1*11* 251 0.759 Total 190.917 253 Item Source of Variation 5. General Education Between groups 6. 7. 8. 9. Specialized Subject Matter Counseling and Guidance Audio-Visual Sociology of Education Between groups Between groups Between groups Between groups 10. Educational History-Philosophy 2.778 59.007 131*.107 0.1*1*0 1.991 1.831 i*.l*73 0.332 1124- Item Special Methods of Teaching 11. 12. Human Growth and Development 13. Learning Theory 11*. Special Education 15. 16 . Reading Methods Core Curriculum Source of Variation Between groups Sum of Squares 1.879 DF 2 Mean Square 0.9i*0 Within groups 116.200 251 0.1*63 Total 118.079 253 Between groups 11.866 2 5.933 Within groups 151.1*29 251 0.603 Total 163.295 253 0.157 2 0.079 Within groups 198.300 251 0.790 Total 198.1*57 253 5.to 2 2.705 Within groups 258.280 25i 1.029 Total 263.689 253 1*3.1*81* 2 21.71*2 Within groups 158.831 251 0.633 Total 202.315 253 30.651 2 15.326 Within groups 291.888 251 1.163 Total 322.539 253 Between groups Between groups Between groups Between groups F 2.030 9.839 0.100 2.629 31*.31*8 13.178 ii5 Item 17. Classroom Management 18. Human Relations 19. Tests Sum of Squares DF Mean Square 1.677 2 0.839 Within groups 220.81*7 251 0.880 Total 222 .521* 253 Source of Variation Between groups 6.279 2 3.11*0 Within groups 266.213 25l 1.061 Total 272.1*92 253 U.811 2 2 1*06 Within groups 177.819 251 0.708 Total 182.630 253 Between groups Between groups . 0.953 2.959 3.398 116 APPENDIX H DISTRIBUTION OF FREQUENCIES OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT THREE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5s 1 denoting the highest priority, down to 5* the lowest priority. QUESTION 1 SENIOR HIGH 2 3 h 5 JUNIOR HIGH 1 2 3 U 5 117 ELEMENTARY 1 2 3 1( 5 t . -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General Education Ik 7 5 1 0 13 :10 a 0 0 12 7 8 0 0 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance l 0 0 5 13 6 3 0 17 8 2 0 0 22 3 2 0 0 12 7 8 0 0 6 7 11 3 0 7 12 6 2 0 11 8 6 2 0 9. Sociology of Education 10. Educational HistoryPhilosophy 5 8 9 k 1 5 6 11 3 2 3 2 11 7 a 2 6 10 8 1 1 6 12 7 1 1 11. Special Methods of Teaching 12. Human Growth and Development 13. Learning Theory 111. Special Education o i —i _=r 3 8. Audio-Visual 0 3 16 6 2 23 11 i 21 h 1 1 0 15 8 3 1 0 lU 6 5 2 0 12 6 9 0 0 15 7 5 0 0 17 6 a 0 0 10 6 11 0 0 10 8 9 0 0 13 6 8 0 0 k k 8 5 6 5 8 h 5 5 11 a 5 2 5 15. Reading Methods 6 8 11 2 0 10 15 2 0 0 2h 16. Core Curriculum 0 5 12 3 7 a 8 9 k 2 7 6 2 1 ii 7 7 l 1 11 8 7 0 1 9 10 5 2 1 9 10 5 2 1 9 11 3 3 1 6 7 5 0 7 9 7 h 0 7 9 8 3 0 17. Classroom Management 18. Human Relations 19. Tests 11 9 3 0 0 0 3 a 9 3 8 118 APPENDIX I ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY TEACHERS WITH EXPERIENCE AT THREE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS 119 Item Source of Variation 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter Sum of Squares DF Square Between groups O.U69 2 0.235 Within groups 5U-593 78 0.700 Total 55.062 80 Between groups 56.099 2 29.050 Within groups I42.J4I1I4 78 O.Stfi 100.5U3 80 Between groups U.963 2 2.U82 Within groups 39.259 78 0.503 Total ItU.222 80 Between groups 2.766 2 1.383 Within groups 70.1U8 78 0.899 Total 72.91U 80 Total 7« Counseling and Guidance 8. Audio-Visual 9. Sociology of Education Mean 3.86U Between groups 7.728 Within groups 99*852 78 107.580 80 1.062 2 0.531 Within groups 68.1U8 78 0.87U Total 69.210 80 TotaL Between groups 10. Educational Histoxy-Philosophy 0.336 53.U01 U.93U 1.538 3.019 1.280 0.608 120 Item 11, 12. 13. 111. Special Methods of Teaching Human Growth and Development Learning Theory Special Education 15. Reading Methods 16. Core Curriculum Source of Variation Sum of Squares DF Mean Square Between groups 3.186 2 Within groups 58.370 78 TotaL 61.556 80 Between groups 1.950 2 Within groups 5l»70ii 78 Total 53.65U 80 Between groups O.69I 2 Within groups 60.000 78 Total 60.691 80 6.71*1 2 Within groups 163.1*81 78 Total 170.222 80 Between groups 20.173 2 Within groups 3U.296 78 Total 5U.U69 80 8.6l8 2 U.309 Within groups 112.296 78 l.UliO Total 120.91U 80 Between groups Betwe en g roups 1.593 F 2.130 0.7U8 0.975 1*^71 0.663 0.3U6 0.U50 0.769 3.371 1.608 2.096 10.087 22.925 0.1440 2.992 121 Item 17. 18. 19. Classroom Management Human Relations Tests Source of Variation Mean Square Sum of Squares DF 0.173 2 "Within groups 91*778 78 Total 91.951 80 Between groups 0.000 2 0.000 Within groups 9U.000 78 1.205 Total 9U.000 80 Between groups 0.025 2 0.013 Within groups 86.iiUU 78 1.108 Total 86.I469 80 Between groups 0.087 0.07U 1.177 0.000 0.012 122 APPENDIX J DISTRIBUTION OF FREQUENCIES OF THE RATINGS GIVEN BY ADMINISTRATORS WITH EXPERIENCE AT THREE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVEIS 123 The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5s 1 denoting the highest priority, down to 5> the lowest priority. OTTF^TTOM SENIOR HIGH 1 2 3 h $ JUNIOR HIGH 2 3 U 5 1 ELEMENTARY 1 2 3 U 5 T . ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “ 6 2 0 0 9 8 1 0 1 0 13 5 1 0 0 2 8 1* 5 15 3 l 0 0 12 5 2 0 0 1 6 6 6 0 1 6 8 5 0 0 5 l 0 h 9 5 1 0 3 6 8 2 0 2 10 h 1 1 3 8 5 2 0 3 8 6 2 General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7 9 3 0 0 15 3 1 0 0 7. Counseling and Guidance 12 k 2 l 0 5 U 8 l 5 8 2 8. Audio-Visual 9. Sociology of Education 10. Educational HistoiyPhilosophy 11. Special Methods of Teaching 12. Human Growth and Development 11 13 h 2 0 0 11 6 1 l 0 10 ii k 1 0 8 6 5 0 0 Hi k 1 0 0 m 13 • Learning Theory 6 9 3 0 1 8 7 3 0 1 9 6 3 0 1 lU. Special Education 0 3 8 h h 1 6 5 h 3 5 5 k l 0 11 8 0 0 0 16 3 0 0 0 15- Reading Methods 3 11 h U 1 0 0 3 2 16. Core Curriculum 1 h 10 3 1 6 7 li 2 0 17. Classroom Management 6 7 5 1 0 7 7 k 1 0 10 6 2 1 0 18. Human Relations 6 7 5 0 1 8 6 Ii 0 1 7 8 3 0 1 19. Tests k 9 U 1 1 h 10 3 1 1 U 7 6 1 1 2 U 7 3 3 121}. APPENDIX K ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY ADMINISTRATORS WITH RESPONSIBILITIES AT THREE INSTRUCTIONAL LEVELS 125 Sum of Squares DF Mean Square Between groups 0.737 2 0.369 Within groups 35.579 51* 0.659 Total 36.316 56 Between groups 53.369 2 26.685 Within groups 30.526 5U 0.565 Total 83.895 56 0.982 2 0.1*91 Within groups 29.053 51* 0.538 Total 30.035 56 2.ll*l 2 1.071 1.002 Item Source of Variation 5. General Education 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance 8. Audio-Visual 9. 10. Sociology of Education Between groups Between groups Within groups 5U.105 51* Total 56 21*6 . 56 Between groups 1.508 2 0.751* Within groups 1*1.053 51* 0.760 Total 1*2.561 56 1.298 2 0.61*9 51.579 51* 0.955 52.877 56 Between groups Educational History-Philosophy Within groups Total F 0.560 1*7.230 0.913 I.O69 0.992 0.680 126 Item 11. Special Methods of Teaching 12. 13. Human Growth and Development Learning Theory II4. Special Education 15. 16. Reading Methods Core Curriculum Source of Variation Sura of Squares DF Mean Square F Between groups 1.298 2 0.61*9 0.912 Within groups 38.1*21 51* 0.712 Total 39.719 56 Between groups 3.509 2 Within groups 21**737 51* Total 28.21*6 56 0.21*5 2 Within groups 58.316 51* Total 58.561 56 Between groups Between groups 7.681* 2 Within groups 77.158 51* Total 81*.81*2 56 1.755 3.832 0.1*58 0.123 0.111* 1.080 3.81*2 2.689 1.1*29 Between groups 10.211 2 5.106 Within groups 17.681* 51* Total 27.895 56 Between groups 10.2h6 2 5.123 Within groups 59.681* 51* 1.105 Total 69.930 56 15.615 0.327 1*.636 127 Item 17. Classroom Management 18. Human Relations 19. Tests Source of Variation Mean Square Sum of Squares DF Between groups 1.368 2 O.68I4 Within groups IjiwOOO 5U 0.815 Total i£.368 56 0.316 2 0.158 Within groups 59.681* 5H 1.105 Total 60.000 56 Between groups 0.2U6 2 0.123 Within groups 59.263 514 1.097 Total 59.509 56 Between groups F 0.839 0.1U3 0.112 128 APPENDIX L ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF RATINGS GIVEN BY TOTAL SAMPLE OF TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS 129 Item Source of Variation Sum o f Squares DF Mean Square F 5. General Education Between groups 9.70 2 1*.850 7.580 Within groups 351.300 51*9 •61*0 Total 361.000 551 Between groups 311.000 2 155.500 Within groups 307.000 51*9 .560 Total 618.000 551 5.1*20 2 2.710 Within groups 265.1*50 51*9 0.1*80 Total 270.870 551 8.920 2 1*.1*60 Within groups 1*81.860 51*9 0.880 Total 1490.780 551 1U.580 2 7.290 Within groups 527.300 51*9 0.960 Total 51*1.880 55l 2.UU0 2 1.220 1*88.890 51*9 0.890 1*91.330 551 6. Specialized Subject Matter 7. Counseling and Guidance 8. Audio-Visual 9. Sociology of Education Between groups Between groups Between groups Between groups 10. Educational History-Philo sophy Within groups Total 277.700 5.650 5.070 7.590 1.370 130 Item 11. 12, 13. Special Methods of Teaching Human Growth and Development Learning Theory- lit. Special Education 15. 16. Heading Methods Core Curriculum Source of Variation Sum of Squares DF Mean Square 2.320 2 2.660 Within groups 290.530 $k9 0.530 Total 295.850 551 Between groups 25.290 2 12.650 Within groups 328.620 5U9 0.600 Total 353.910 551 1.700 2 0.850 Within groups UU9-U00 51*9 0.820 Total U 5 i.io o 55i Between groups Between groups Between groups 18.5U0 2 9.270 Within groups 725.780 9x9 1.320 Total 7lilt.320 551 Between groups 113.360 2 56.680 Within groups 328.900 $1x9 0.600 Total itU 2.260 551 Between groups 50.680 2 25.3UO Within groups 6U5.360 $1x9 1.180 Total 696.0lt0 551 5.020 21.080 . 1 01*0 7.020 9H.V70 21.U70 131 Item 17. Classroom Management 18. Human Relations 19. Tests Source of Variation Between groups Sum of Squares DF 1.000 2 Within groups 1*99.000 5U9 Total 500.000 2 Within groups 578.1*20 5U9 Total 586.870 0.550 .910 l*.230 U.030 1.050 55i 7.1*10 2 Within groups 1*68.560 5U9 Total 1*75.970 55i Between groups 0.^00 551 8.1*50 Between groups Mean Square 3.710 0.850 U.360 132 APPENDIX M UNBIASED ESTIMATES OF THE VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUP MEANS 133 Teachers With Exp. At One Instruct. Level Teachers With Exp. At Two Instruct. Levels S. General Education 0.0636 0.0127 -0.0172 -0.0153 6. Specialized Subject Matter 0.78llt 0.7552 1.0558 1.37147 0.0095 0.0059 0.0733 -0.0025 -0.0157 0.0069 0.0179 0.0036 0.0325 0.0U13 0.0957 -0.0003 Educational HistoryFhilosophy -0.0000 -0.0065 -0.0127 -0.0161 Special Methods of Teaching -0.00143 0.0062 0.0313 -0.0033 Human Growth and Development 0.0735 0.0687 0.0116 0.0683 Learning Theory -0.0082 -0.0092 -0.0157 -0.050U o.oo5U 0.0216 0.0U72 0.1270 Item 7. Counseling and Guidance 8. Audio-Visual 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Sociology of Education lit. Special Education Teachers With Eixp. At Three Instruct. Levels Adminis­ trators 15. Reading Methods 0.3653 0.2722 0.3573 0.2515 16. Core Curriculum 0.1067 0.1826 0.1063 0.2115 17. Classroom Management -0.0135 -0.0005 -O.OU0I4 -0.0069 o.oi59 0.0268 -O.OI4I46 -O.OI498 0.0590 0.0219 -O.OI4O6 -0.0513 18. Human Relations 19. Tests