69-20,814

ARENDS, Robert L ew is, 1934A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE GRADUATES
OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ELEMENTARY INTERN PROGRAM AND THE
REGULAR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM.
Michigan State U niversity, P h.D ., 1969
Education, teach er training
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF IKE GRADUATES OF THE MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY ELEMENTARY INTERN PROGRAM AND THE
REGULAR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
By
Robert Lewis Arends

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1969

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OP THE GRADUATES OP THE MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY ELEMENTARY INTERN PROGRAM AND THE
REGULAR TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM
By
Robert Lewis Arends

Since 1959 3 the College of Education, Michigan State University,
has offered an elementaiy intern program adjunctive to its conventional
teacher education program.
The internship program was adopted as a service to the various
junior colleges of the state, and because of its potential as an effec­
tive means of developing desired teacher competencies.

It was assumed

tfiat the internship program would provide the following advantages:
1. It would

provide an opportunity for more students Prcm lower

income situations to enter the education progression.
2. It would

provide for a smoother and more effective transition

into the teaching profession.
3.

It would provide an increased opportunity to bring theory and
practice into a closer relationship.

T. It would

provide, through the longer and more enriched clinical

preparation, a more substantial background for teaching, and
thus, result in more effective teachers.

Robert Lewis Arends

This study was undertaken for the following purposes:
1.

To determine if there were significant differences in the situa­
tional deployment of the two groups using such criteria as type of
school in which teachers served, their teaching positions in re­
lationship to where they received their clinical preparation, and
the number remaining in their 1967-68 positions.

2.

To determine if there were a significant difference in demonstrated
teaching competency between the two groups accoi’ding to principals'
evaluations and/or pupil change as determined by standardized achieve­
ment tests.

3.

To determine if there were significant differences between married
and single teachers according to principals' evaluations.

4.

To analyze the feedback from the graduates concerning their self­
judged evaluations and the sources from which these competencies
were derived.
The population studied was comprised of teachers in the field,

who had graduated in 1965-66.

These teachers had at least two years

in the field, and thus, should have had ample time to be evaluated by
their principals.
The principal's evaluative questionnaire contained eighteen items
of teacher competence.

The questionnaire was based upon those intru-

ments commonly used in the public schools of Michigan.

Robert Lewis Arends

Pupil change was determined by standardized achievement tests.
Provisions were made to keep such variables as SES, racial composition,
and ability constant.
An opinionnaire was constructed for the graduates to assess their
skill on the eighteen teaching competencies. The instrument also sought
to ascertain which competencies the respondents considered to be the
most important and from what sources their strengths were perceived to
come.
Statistical differences were analyzed using an analysis of vari­
ance, and rank-orders were compared using the Spearman Rank-Order
Correlation Coefficient.
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were
reached:
1.

A statistically significant greater percentage of Intern graduates
were teaching in the system and building in which they had received
their clinical preparation.

2.

A surprisingly low number of graduates were teaching in schools
which were predominantly attended by minority groups and low SES
students.

3.

There was no significant difference between the two groups concerning
any of the other situational employment items.

A.

There was no significant difference between the Intern graduates and
the regular program graduates on any of the eighteen items as
determined by principal evaluation.

5.

There was no significant difference between married and single
teachers as determined by principal evaluation.

Robert Lewis Arends

6.

There was no significant difference between Intern and regular
graduates as determined by pupil change.

7.

There was a significant difference on several of the eighteen items
between the graduates of two of the intern centers.

8.

There was a significant rank-order correlation between the two groups
concerning their self-judged competencies.

9.

There was a significant correlation on the rank-order between self­
judged competencies and those perceived as being most important by
the graduates in both groups.

10.

There was no significant correlation between the rank-order of
self-judged competencies and the competencies as adjudged by the
principals.

11.

The main source of strength for both groups was identified as
being intrinsic.

12.

The second greatest source of strength was derived from field
experience and not from the University.

13.

A significantly higher percentage of Intern graduates expressed
satisfaction with their training than did the regular graduates.

14.

While all graduates were markedly critical of their methods courses
and expressed a need for more courses in (a) the teaching of reading,
(b) Negro history and culture, and (c) techniques of teaching in
the ghetto, the regular graduates did place methods courses fairly
high on the list of sources of strength.

Robert Lewis Arends

The results of this study and the conclusion reached warranted
the following recommendations:
1.

The Intern Program should be carefully evaluated from several
aspects to determine if it should be continued in its present mode.

2.

The present study could well be replicated with certain modifi­
cations .

3.

A regular, systematic follow up of teacher education.graduates
should be established.

4.

The methods courses as now offered should be closely scrutinized
to ascertain if they are meeting the needs of the graduates.

5. A careful study of each of the

Intern Centers should be made to

allow for the sharing of ideas which might be of benefit to all
of the centers.
6. A careful re-evaluation of therole of clinical preparation in
the total program of teacher education should be undertaken.
7.

A study to ascertain the feasibility of placing all first year
teachers in an apprenticeship situation for smoother transition
into the profession should be undertaken.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation for
the constant help and guidance of Dr. David Smith, chairman
of the doctorial committee, and for the assistance of
Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. Wilbur Brookover, and Dr. Clyde Campbell
who served on the committee.
The writer wishes to thank the Mott Foundation for the
year of internship that allowed this writer to complete many
of the requirements for the degree.
Deepest appreciation is owed to rpy wife Barbara, for her
continuous support and encouragement; to our children Vicki,
Betsy, and Robert, Jr., for their acceptance and understanding
of my months of preoccupation with the requirements for the
degree; and to my parents who have provided a lifetime of
inspiration.

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES............................................

v

Chapter
I.

THE PROBLEM, DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED,
AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY.....................

1

Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Descriptions of Terms Used
Limitations of the Study
Organization of the Study
II.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.....................

10

General Clinical Preparation
The Intern Experience
The Michigan State University Intern Program
Assessment of Teacher Competence
Rating Teacher Effectiveness
Principal Evaluation
Pupil Change as Measured by Achievement
Use of Rating Instruments
III.

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES............................
Introduction
Population and Sample for Principal’s
Evaluative Questionnaire
The Elementary Intern Program Graduates
The Regular Teacher Education Program
Graduates
Development of the Principal’s Evaluative
Questionnaire
Effectiveness as Determined by Pupil Change
The Graduate’s Opinion Survey
Hypotheses and Related Questions
Processing, Analysis, and Reporting of
the Data

iii

H2

TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Chapter
IV

RESULTS OP THE STUDY

54

Introduction
Analysis of General Data
Rating of the Graduates by Their Principals
The Comparison of EIP and RTEP Graduates
The Comparison of Married and Single
Teachers
Differences Among EIP Centers
Comparison of EIP and RTEP Graduates
as Evidenced by Pupil Change
Feedback from EIP and RTEP Graduates
Graduates’ Self-Judged Strengths
A Ccmparison of Self-Judged Strengths
with Principals’ Evaluations
Graduates’ Self-Judged Strengths Compared
with Those Ccmpetencies Judged to be Most
Important
Graduates' Identification of Sources Which
Provided Them Strength
The Feelings of the Graduates about Michigan
State University
Open-Ended Ccmments
Summary
V.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................

98

Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 8

APPENDIX(ES)
A.

Cover Letters.................................

113

B.

Principal’s Evaluation Questionnaire............

115

C.

Graduate’s Opinionnaire........................

118

iv

LIST OP TABLES

Table
I

Page
Distribution of the 1965-66 Female EIP
Population Not in the Study....................

45

Distribution of the 1965-66 Regular
Teacher Education Program Sample
Not Included in the Study......................

46

Racial Composition of Schools in
Which Graduates Served.........................

56

SES Composition of Schools in
Which Graduates Served.........................

57

V

Grouping Procedures (Homogeneous).................

58

VI

Situational Deployment of Graduates...............

59

VII

Graduates Leaving Their 1967-68
Positions, and Reasons........................

60

Principals’ Ratings of EIP Graduates on
Each of Eighteen Teacher Competencies..........

62

Principals' Ratings of RTEP Graduates on
Each of Eighteen Teacher Competencies..........

64

Differences in Average Ratings and RankOrders Assigned EIP and RTEP Graduates
in Each of Eighteen Teacher Competencies
Adjudged......................................

67

Statistical Analysis of Principals' Ratings
of EIP and RTEP Graduates on Each of
Eighteen Teacher Competencies..................

69

Data Concerning Single and Married Teachers
as Reflected by Principal Evaluation...........

72

XIII

Comparison of the Five EIP Centers................

74

XIV

Comparison of Centers B and D on Eighteen
Competencies..................................

75

II

III

IV

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

v

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table
XT

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XIX

XX

XXI

XXII

Page
Comparison of the EIP and RTEP Graduates
as Evidence by Pupil Change....................

78

Graduates' Self-Judged Strengths in Eighteen
Teacher Competencies..........................

80

Ccmparison of Rank-Order of Principals'
Evaluations and Self-Judgment on
Eighteen Competencies.........................

8*1

Ccmparison of Teacher Competencies
Adjudged to Be Most Important by
the Graduates.................................

87

Rank-Order Correlation of Self-Judged
Strengths of Graduates and Those
Competencies Adjudged to Be Most
Important.....................................

89

Comparison of EIP and RTEP Graduates'
Sources of Strength...........................

91

Sources Responsible for the Teaching
Competencies Self-Judged by Graduates
to Be Their Greatest Strength..................

93

Feelings of the Graduates Concerning
Their Training at Michigan State
University....................................

9*1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM, DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED,
AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

Introduction

Ever since the advent of formalized instructional institutions,
educators have been seeking new and more effective ways to prepare
teachers.

From the beginning of recorded history, education has been a

part of every civilization, and pedagogy has evolved continuously.

As

civilization has advanced from the simple to the complex, so also has
education.

Teaching no longer consists merely of passing on the
simple skills, customs, rituals, and art forms of the
family tribe; it has developed into the interrelated,
sequential, and complex pattern that confronts the
highly specilized professionals of the present time.1

Clinical experience has long been part of the preparation of teachers.
It can be traced back as far as the Greeks, to Socrates, Aristotle, and
Plato.

This type of teaching, and training has continued throughout

history as evidenced by the guild system of the Middle Ages and the
apprentice system of m o d e m trade unions.

There are several professions

that require clinical preparation for full certification; among these are
medical doctors, accountants, and teachers.

"Valter Beggs, Hie Education of Teachers (New York:
Applied Research in Education, 1965), p.l.

The Center for

2
During the long period of pedagogical evolution, there has been
little doubt among most educators about the value of some type of clinical
experience.

Whatever their other differences, most of those advo­
cating reform in the preparation of teachers agree on the
worth of a period of supervised practice. For Conant,
practice teaching is the one ’indisputable essential
element'; for Shaplin, any denial of the worth of practice
teaching represents a serious underestimation of the com­
plexity of the teaching process; for an NEA task force on
teacher education, direct experience is essential if ideas
are to be made meaningful, and if 'doing' as well as
'knowing' is to result.

Colleges of education have, over the years, developed many different
types of programs to meet the needs of their students in the area of
clinical preparation.

Laboratory schools, multi-experience programs,

single-experience programs, and programs which vary the length of
service are a few of these practices.

Yet none of these devices has sufficed to insure a smooth
induction of the beginner into teaching, and, thus in the
most recent period many colleges of education have experi­
mented with some form of internship.2

The concept of an internship is not new, having been first introduced
by Brown University in 1895.

It has had a long and varied history of de­

velopment, paralleling for a number of years the economic development of
this country. That is, during periods of high employment when teachers
were scarce, the programs met with little success; while during periods

Bernard Corman, THE IWTEHNSHIP in the Preparation of Elementary
School Teachers (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964), p. 1.
2Ibid. p. 2.

3
of depression, when there was an over supply of teachers, the intern­
ships flourished.
At the present time, there are two primary forms of internships.
One is a relatively new program in which a graduate of a liberal arts
college is given a short course in educational pedagogy, usually in a
summer session, and then is placed in a regular teaching situation, with
close supervision by a college coordinator.

This type of internship is

a crash program designed to place teachers in the classroom to relieve the
present shortage of teachers.

Another type, which has recently been re­

established by such institutions as Central Michigan University, Michigan
State University, and others, is one in which a student is given education
courses at the undergraduate level, is then placed in a regular student
teaching situation, and then finally placed in the field in an internship
capacity, under the close supervision of an intern consultant.

This

latter type of program was not designed primarily for the purpose of
emergency staffing of the classroom, but rather, to give the kind of
training and closely supervised clinical preparation which may be of
the ingredients of a successful teacher training program.

The propose

of this study was to explore such a training program at Michigan State
University.

Statement of the Problem

If one believes that the clinical situation contributes to the effec­
tiveness of teachers, as such eminent educators as Conant, Shaplin, and
Goodlad do, then, theoretically, a clinical situation which extends over
a long period of time, involves a greater number of outside educational
experiences, and provides for a process of teaching under close supervision

should result In better trained, and thus, more effective teachers.
This is not to say that the extension of time alone will make more effec­
tive teachers, but the time extension plus the other benefits of an
intern program should tend to produce better teachers.

The purpose of

this study was to ascertain if teachers trained in the above described
situation were indeed more effective.
It was recognized that the term effective is consistent, somewhat
elusive, and has severe limitations. Rather than abandon evaluation of
this type of clinical preparation program because of the lack of consensus
on teacher effectiveness, two areas were chosen.

The first of these

criteria was teacher effectiveness as evaluated by the principal.

While

the author was well aware of the lack of consensus among many educators
regarding the validity of this type of evaluation, it was felt that the
main concern in this study was "what is real."
teachers.

Principals do evaluate

In fact, one of the most important duties of supervisors and

principals is the evaluation of the staff.

Supervision of teachers is one of the prime responsibilities
of the school administrator. A cursory review of the litera­
ture reveals that most authorities recommend that twenty-five
to fifty percent of the elementary principal’s work day be
devoted to supervision in some form or other.

Arthur Combs in commenting on professional judgment, states:

The fact that good teaching cannot be tied down to specific,
objective criteria does not remove the necessity of making
judgments concerning the quality of teaching. The evaluation
of performance is a responsibility no profession can escape,

1Wayne Herman, "Teacher Observation", National Elementary Principal,
XLIII, (April 1964), p. 63.

5
particularly one that Is dependent upon public funds, and
charged with so vital a function as the guidance of youth
The making of professional judgments will never be perfect.
But, the search for objective criteria is a blind alley,
and psychologists are a long way from providing devices
for measuring good teaching from a perceptual orientation.
We have no alternative. Professional judgment is the best
device we have. To reject the best we can do because it
is not perfect is only 'to throw out the baby with the bath
water.

Until such time as we have a reliable objective means for teacher
evaluation, we must rely upon subjective judgments.

One such judgment

which is often used is the judgment of the principal.

While there are valid criticisms of administrative ratings,
they are still the most frequently obtained evaluation of
teacher success, and often the only one available. In spite
of the subjective way in which these ratings are made, they
sometimes correlate highly with variables in a teacher's
undergraduate career, as is noted in several of the previous­
ly mentioned studies. Also, it is generally the administrator
in the public school system who makes the hiring and firing
decisions; it is he who is satisfied or dis-satisfied with a
teacher; it is he who does or does not return to the same
institution of higher education to obtain future staff
members. In this respect his ratings valued or not are at
least an operationally useful and practical definition of
success in the first years of teaching.2

Therefore, in spite of the lack of consensus among many educators
about the validity and value of evaluations by principals, they were used
as one measurement of effectiveness.
The second was pupil change as determined by standardized achieve­
ment tests. Few educators would argue that pupil change is the final

■’•Arthur Ccmbs, "Objective Measurement Is Impossible," National Edu­
cation Association Journal. LIII, (January 1964), p. 732

R. B. Simun, "The Relationship of Variables in Undergraduate School,
and School Administrators' Ratings of First Year Teachers," Journal of
Teacher Education XV, (September 1964), p. 297-

6
criterion for judgment of any educational program.

There is, however,

little agreement about which aspect of growth is more Important; that
is, the cognitive domain or the effective domain.

Many would advocate

that attitudes are the most critical targets of educational endeavors.
Although tests have been devised which purport to measure what an in­
dividual will actually do in any given situation, they are merely selfreporting devices, and do not necessarily relate to the "real" world.
Even in the cognitive domain, it is doubtful if many educators would
agree that the standardized achievement test is designed to measure all
the important areas of academic progress.

The inability of achievement

tests to measure such things as attitude toward learning, motivation,
and the ability to think critically and draw independent conclusions are
some of the drawbacks of using achievement tests as a measure of pupil
change.

In spite of these drawbacks, there are certain axiomatic skills

which are measured by these standardized achievement tests that are im­
portant to the academic success of students.

Therefore, the standard­

ized achievement test was used to measure pupil change as one device for
ascertaining teacher effectiveness.
The objectives within the limitations of this study were:
A.

To gather and compare certain basic data relating to
the situational employment of the two groups in such
areas as type of socioeconomic and racial situation in
which they were employed, marriage rate, geographic
relationship between present employment and area of
clinical preparation, and number who stayed following
the 1967-68 academic year.

B.

To compare the graduates of the Elementary Intern
Program at Michigan State University with a randomly
selected group of graduates of the Regular Teacher
Education Program at Michigan State University, to see
if there were significant differences in their effect­
iveness as measured by principal evaluation and as
measured by pupil change.

7
C.

To compare the effectiveness of married teachers
with single teachers as determined by principal
evaluation.

D.

To ascertain if there is any difference between
Intern training centers as determined by principal
evaluation.

E.

To evaluate the feelings of the graduates themselves
with respect to their self-judged competencies, the
sources of these competencies, and their general
overall satisfaction with their preparation by
Michigan State University.

Descriptions of Terms Used

In order to avoid semantic confusion or ambiguity in the interpre­
tation of this study, the following descriptions of terms were used:
Clinical Preparation includes all types of on-the-j ob-training for
teachers under the supervision of certified personnel.
Elementary Internship explored in this study consisted of only the
type which is an extension of the basic teacher preparation program, and
not the type which is used as a crash program to fill the classroom.

In

the case of Michigan State University, it includes one year of teaching
under the direction of special personnel following the regular student
teaching program.

It also includes the following two main deviations

from the regular teacher preparation program:

Methods classes are taught

in a block in the off-campus centers and in conjunction with some ob­
servation on the part of the student; and the Elementary Intern spends
two summers on campus so that his fourth year is the intern year.

The

Elementary Intern Program is referred to in this study as EIP.
Principal Evaluation was the type of evaluation made by principals
for the establishment of tenure as described in the Michigan Tenure Law.
The evaluation was done using a questionnaire which is similar to the

8
type of Instrument used by a majority of the principals in doing evalua­
tions for their district.

This instrument will be found in the Appendix.

Pupil Change reflected the growth of a class as measured by stand­
ardized achievement tests which had been administered by the district.
In order to eliminate other factors connected with pupil achievement,
only those classrooms which used heterogeneous ability grouping were
included.
Regular Teacher Education Program refers to the regular teacher
education program at Michigan State University which consists of the
same academic preparation as the Elementary Intern Program.

The differ­

ence is that methods courses are spread over a three-year period and are
received on campus.

The student teaching experience which is between

ten and fifteen weeks in length, depending on the term, is the only
clinical experience which the student receives. The Regular Teacher
Education Program is referred to in this study as RTEP.
Teacher Effectiveness included both evaluation by the principal
and pupil change as described above.

Limitations of the Study

This study was limited by the following factors:
A.

The lack of accurate, current address and jobplacement information regarding the recent
Michigan State University teacher education
graduates.

B.

The scope of the study which did not permit
examination of the influences of such forces as
selection processes, extraneous experiences, or
intellectual, social, or psychological differences
on the demonstrated competencies of the graduates.

9
C.

The lack of a standardized objective evaluation
instrument for measuring teacher effectiveness.

D.

The lack of consistency between school systems
regarding the administration of achievement
tests.

Organization of the Study

Chapter II presents a review of selected research including evalua­
tion of teacher effectiveness, principal evaluation, pupil change,
clinical preparation, the intern program in general, and the Elementary
Intern Program at Michigan State University.
Chapter III contains the design of the study, including a descrip­
tion of the two types of instruments used, type of statistical analysis,
and the preliminary treatment of data.
Chapter IV consists of the results of the statistical analysis
which tested the hypothesis of the study and spoke to the questions
raised regarding the graduates of the two types of teacher preparation
programs.
Chapter V constitutes a summary of the entire study in which the
findings, and in addition, the conclusions are presented.
chapter also includes the recommendations of the writer.

The final

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

Two educational components in this study were of major significance
and were subjected to special review and scrutiny.
One of these components was the many-sided, often examined problem
of assessing teacher competence.

Since it provided one of the means

through which this comparative study was conducted, its relevancy was
self-evident.

The clinical phases of the intern and conventional teacher

education programs constituted the other element which demanded particu­
lar attention.

General Clinical Preparation

Clinical preparation in teacher education goes far back in history.
It, like many other educational devices, has had an up and down career.
At this point, it should suffice to say that it is fairly well accepted
by most educators as an integral part of teacher education.
Lindley Stiles had this to say about the clinical phase of teacher
education.
Student teaching is generally regarded as an indispen­
sable aspect of programs of preservice teacher education. It
was among the first type of professional laboratory experi­
ence to be incorporated in the professional preparation for
teaching, and holds high priority as one of the basic elements
in present day programs. In selecting members for their
teaching staffs, school superintendents attach considerable
importance to the nature and quality of the beginning teacher's

10

11
record in student teaching. Teachers are practically
unanimous in the opinion that student teaching was the
most valuable experience in their preservice education
program.1

Shaplin lists five benefits of clinical preparation:
1.

Teaching is behavior, and as behavior is subject to
analysis, change, and improvement.

2.

Much of the habitual behavior which individuals have
developed in other contexts is inappropriate for the
teaching situation.

3.

Under present conditions, much teaching is conducted
under conditions of stress.

4.

Teachers, through practice, can learn to analyze,
criticize, and control their own teaching behavior.

5.

Practice has the dual purpose of training, and elimina­
tion of the unfit.2

Edward Johnson revealed from a survey conducted in the public school
that elementary teachers felt "More time should be allowed for professional laboratory experiences in teacher preparation programs."

The

finalist for the 1964 "Teacher of the Year Award" when interviewed
by The Phi Delta Kappan made the following comments:
1.

The new teacher should spend a full year under the
tutelage of a master teacher.

2.

Practice teaching should come on a paid basis over
a longer period of time.

Bindley Stiles, Teacher Education in the United States (New York:
The Ronald Press Canpany, I960), p. 260.
Judson Shaplin, "Practice in Teaching," Harvard Educational Review,
XXXI (Winter, 1961), p.1B^
3Edward Johnson, "Teachers Indicate Need of Fifth Year," Michigan
Education Journal, XLV (November 1967), p. 40.

12
3.

Prospective teachers should spend a full semester
as a teaching Intern.1

Miller,

2

in studying the graduates of the University of Nebraska

Teachers College for the year 1961, found that this group of beginning
teachers would go into teaching if they had to make the choice again,
rated students teaching as the most valuable part of their professional
preparation, and believed overlapping in education courses was the greatest
weakness in their professional preparation.
The number of studies which indicates that both the recipients and
the professional educator believe in the necessity of the clinical program
is infinite.

However, when one looks at the research which attempts to

measure behavioral change using such devices as the MTAI, the PAM, and
other paper and pencil tests, the results are nebulous; that is, there are
no clear indications that student teaching does change behavior or atti3

tude.

Corrigan,

found a significant positive change in attitude of sixty-

three students as a result of the student teaching experience.

Nagle,

4

in comparing two types of programs for prospective elementary teachers,
observed that in every case the change resulting from student teaching

1The Phi Delta Kappan, XLV, (June 1965), p. 44A.
^van Miller, "Comprehensive and Analytical Study of All the Gradu­
ates of the University of Nebraska Teachers College of the Year 196l,"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1963)
3

Dean Corrigan, "Attitude Changes of Student Teachers" Journal
of Education Research, LVII (October 1963), pp. 93-95.
4.

Marshall Nagle, "Seme Effects of Student Teaching Patterns upon
Professional Attitudes," Journal of Educational Research, LII (May 1959),
pp. 355-357.

13
was toward a better or more desirable attitude.

Sandgren1 and Troisi,2

also found significant changes in attitude as a result of student teaching.
On the other hand, Cross3 found no significant change in attitude to­
ward pupil-teacher relations.

Price4 noted no significant difference

between the student's initial and retest MTAI scores.

Day,5 Dutton,6

and Osman7 all noted negative results from student teaching.

White

sumarized as follows:

-'-Duane Sandgren, "Does Practice Teaching Change Attitudes Toward
Teaching?" Journal of Educational Research, XLIX (May 1956), pp. 673-680.
2Nicholas Troisi, "The Effect of Student Teaching upon Student
Teacher's Objectives and Their Relationship to Achievement and Attitudes
Toward Children," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University, 1959).
3Arthur Cross, "A Comparative Analysis of the Expressed Attitudes
of Elementary Education Students, Their University Instruction, and
Their Supervising Teachers toward Pupil-Teacher Relations as Measured
by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," (unpublished Ph.D. disser­
tation, Indiana University, 1959).
4Robert Price, "Relations between Cooperating Teachers and Student
Teachers' Attitudes and Performance," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Texas, I960).
5Harry Day, "Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers after Initial
Teaching Experience," Journal of Teacher Education, X (September 1959)3
pp. 326-328.
6Wilbur Dutton, "Attitude Change of Elementary School Student
Teachers, and Anxiety," Journal of Educational Research, LV (May 1962),
pp. 380-382.
7Robert Osman, "Associative Factors in Change of Student Teacher's
Attitudes during Student Teaching," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Indiana University, 1959).

14
There is no consensus in the direction of expressed
attitudinal changes of student teachers as measured by
various pre-test and post-test attitude instruments during
the student teaching experience.

The Intern Experience

The Internship as used in this study constitutes an extension of
the regular teacher education program, either at the undergraduate
level or at the graduate level.

Shaplin

2

noted that the history of

the internship in the United States dates back to 1895 at Brown
University.

This was a five-year program, and the internship was

considered as part of the graduate training.

The students were placed

half-time at a reduced salary in the Providence, Rhode Island, schools.
They received supervisory help from both school and university personnel,
and continued course work at Brown while teaching.

Other early intern­

ship programs were established at Fitchburg Normal School in 1904 and
at the University of Cincinnati in 1919.

As was previously mentioned,

the intern concept followed very closely the economic conditions of the
country, increasing during periods of depression and decreasing during
periods of affluence.

Following World War II, there was a tremendous

increase in so-called intern programs, but many of these were, according

"ho Arm White, "Changes during Student Teaching as Measured by
Pre-Tests, and Post-Tests," Research on Student Teaching, Bulletin
No. 5, (Dubuque Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co., Inc., 1965), pp. 19-20.
Hudson Shaplin, "A Comparison of Internship Programs,"
1963 NCTEPS Columbus Conference Report, (Washington, D.C.: NEA, 1963),
p. 321.

15
to Rucker, "...nothing more than an increase in the number of under­
graduate programs which so labeled themselves."1 The "typical"
internship of today was described by Shaplin at the 1963 NCTEPS
Columbus conference:

...the contemporary internship is sponsored
by the university in cooperation with the schools,
not by the schools alone. It is shorter, more
analogous to real teaching, and more remunerative
than its predecessor. The intern today spends less
time on the job because he engages in a heavier
load of course work. While on the job, however,
he is much more a regular teacher, with greater
responsibilities than his counterpart in the
thirties, though paradoxically he has had less
professional preparation for the job.

There have been very few studies comparing the graduates of
intern programs with the graduates of a regular program.

Harberman,3

in studying the interns of the type without benefit of the regular
training, found, on the Ryans' observation record pattern Y0—
responsible, systematic, businesslike, vs. evading, unplanned,
slipshod— that the interns were significantly superior at the .01
level.

He explains this as being the result of their having had

Winifred Rucker, "A Critical Analysis of Current Trends
in Student Teaching," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard
University, 1952).
2

Judson Shaplin, op. cit., p. 321.

3M. Haberman, "A Comparison of Interns with Regular First Year
Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, LEX (October 1965),
PP. 92-94.

16
broader work experiences, broader life experiences, and better
motivation.

Kershner,1 in investigating the results of the intern

program at the University of Oregon, which is similar in composition
to the one at Michigan State, found no statistically significant
difference between the graduates of the intern program and graduates
of the regular program.

He did find, however, that on every point of

his twelve-point evaluation instrument, the interns were ratal equal
or above the teachers from the regular program.

The Michigan State University Intern Program

Michigan State University’s College of Education
organized an internship program for the preparation of
elementary school teachers in the fall of 1959. Called
the Student-Teacher Education Project (STEP), the
program was conceived as a five-year plan which would
include a one-year pre-internship and student teaching
experience followed by a two-year internship.2

The initiation of this program was in response to a request from
'one of Michigan's larger two-year community colleges.

The community

college wanted a program which would benefit their graduates by
allowing them to earn a degree and certification while spending as
much time as possible near hone.

With a grant in excess of one-half

million dollars, the program was launched.

■^Hoger Kershner, "A Comparative Study of the Teaching Competence
of University of Oregon Interns," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
The University of Oregon, 1968).
2
Bernard Conrian, op. cit., p. v.

17
Each of the centers was to encompass a single
cormunity college, and one or more school systems.
Students would typically, though not necessarily,
attend a community college for their first two years
of study. Applicants who had attended Michigan
State, or any other accredited school, would also
be admitted but, in any case those wishing to be
admitted would be expected to meet all regular
requirements for transfer into the College of
Education with junior class standing.

STEP was a five-year program with the following format. After
completing two years at a community college, or any accredited in­
stitution, the selected student would spend the summer on campus.
There he would take courses in the area of liberal arts. In the
fall, the student would return to the home center to begin a preintemship year.

During the fall, the student would receive methods courses

and engage in related activities in the public schools.

The winter

term would be composed of a regular term of student teaching experience
in a school near the home center.

In the final term of the academic year,

the student would return to the campus for some additional work in
the area of liberal arts. The fourth and fifth years would be spent
as an intern in the public school.

The internship would be done under

the direction of an intern consultant.
In 1964 the intern program was revised and the name was changed
frcm STEP to EIP (Elementary Intern Program). In the revised
program, the student moves to campus following the first two years

Bernard Corman, op. cit., p. 7.

18
of higher education, for further courses in the liberal arts.

The

following three terms are devoted to one term in the resident center
for the methods block, one term for student teaching, and one term
back to campus for liberal arts.

This is followed by a second term

on campus in the summer, where the student takes his final classes in
liberal arts.

The fourth year is then spent as an intern under the

direction of an intern consultant, with one consultant for each five
interns.

Formal course requirements are identical for
students in the internship and regular programs. But
the internship students take their methods of teaching
courses in the centers, and the course 'School and
Society’ after, rather than before, they complete
student teaching. 1

In doing a study of this type, one must ascertain the ways in
which the students are alike, and the ways in which they are different.
Corman reported the following conclusions in 1964:

Item 1

Socioeconomic Background

The overall conclusion is that, compared
to the campus students, the STEP student
was less favored economically.
Item 2

Achievement and Aptitude

Despite differences in socioeconomic
background, STEP and campus students
performed about the same academically.

■^Bernard Corman, op. cit., p. 89.

19
Item 3

Personality and Interest

The results obtained for the Edwards
Personal Preference Schedule, which
purports to measure the press of
fifteen ’needs', were representative.

The only test which showed significant differences between the
two groups was the MTAI, with regular students ranking higher.

How­

ever, when the EIP students were retested at the end of their experi­
ence, the scores of the interns were comparable with the on-campus
students.

James Conley

o

in a later study found results similar to

those of Corman.

Assessment of Teacher Competence

Man has, through the ages, been remarkably adaptive to his
environment.

One of the crucial elements of this ability to adapt

has been the capacity to learn, and to communicate this learning to
his fellow human beings.
tion.

Every society has had seme form of educa­

During the thousands of years of man's existence, educational

institutions have developed from early man's simple teaching of hunting
and planting skills to modem man’s teaching of the highly complex
subjects of the electronic age.

While a great deal of pedagogy has

evolved during these many years, the basic premise of the simple

1Barnard Corman, op. cit., p. 95-97.
2

James Conley, "Personal Characteristics of Female Elementary
Intern Program and Conventional Program Students," (unpublished
paper, Michigan State University, 1968).

20
transfer of knowledge is still paramount.

It must be noted, however,

that the amount of knowledge and the complexity of knowledge have
Increased immeasurably during the last few decades and will continue to
increase at a fantastic rate.

There are also other important aspects

connected with education, among which are physical development; the
ability to use knowledge, if not for the betterment of mankind, then,
at least, not to his detriment; and finally the discovery of new
knowledge.

Each of these aspects is an important part of education.

When one is assessing the capabilities of a producer, one looks
at the product.

This is a relatively simple task if the producer is

the only one who is connected with the end product. Such trades as
carpentry, metal work, masonry, and other specific tasks which have
a measurable and finite product are examples. In education, how­
ever, we are not dealing in products, but rather, in services.
Services, because of their very nature, are extremely hard to judge.
One cannot condemn a surgeon if the patient dies from an unrelated
complication, nor can one condemn a farmer who loses his crop
because of the ravages of nature.

One could, however, blame both

of the above mentioned efforts if every precaution was not taken
to insure success. The same thing is true in the assessment of
teachers, except even more so, because in education there is not
even complete agreement upon what the end product should be.

This

is especially true in the United States where there is local control
of curriculum, and each school system can set its own philosophical
objectives and goals.

21
In the early days of this country, the assessment of teachers
was generally made by lay people, either by a committee in the case
of the public school or by the head of the household in the case of
the tutor.

As the society has become more technical and specialized,

so, too, has the educational process.

Hawkins and Stoops noted

this when they observed:

Within the past century, dramatic changes in the
organization and management of the public schools
have resulted in the replacement of laymen who directly
supervised and evaluated teachers. These responsi­
bilities are now charged to a cadra of school adminis­
trators who have come from the ranks of teaching and
bring to the evaluation process lists of teaching
objectives, written evaluation policies and instru­
ments designed to reduce subjectivity.1

As the management of public schools has become a special
technical undertaking, and as more and more evaluative devices have
been developed, the teacher and the job that he does have been
subjected to an ever increasing spectrum of assessment.

The public

has always been interested in having quality teaching in the schools,
but, with the recent increase in salaries and the accompaning need
for more financial support, this cry is ever louder.
however, has not made the job any simpler.

This need,

As Biddle observed:

The problem is not an idle one. The domestic
scene and world outlook both clearly demon­
strate the urgent need for more and better
education for all men. Of all societies,

Hawkins and Stoops, "Objective and Subjective Identification
of Outstanding Elementary Teachers," Journal of Educational
Research, LEX (April 1966), p. 3^.

22
the free one depends most heavily on quality
education for the fulfillment of its destiny.
Thus, the teacher and the quality of his
teaching are of paramount importance.1

Smith observed, in a book reappraising teacher education in
the United States, that:

There are compelling reasons for a re­
appraisal of teacher education in America at
this time. Along with public clamor for better
quality in education, despite the fact that many
who ask for quality seem uncertain as to what it
is or how it is to be achieved, there is a co­
incident concern within the profession for the
better preparation of teachers. The necessity
for more competent teaching grows, in part, out
of the nation’s efforts to realize more fully
its democratic aim of free universal education,
and the problans of the school in bringing
performance into harmony with social and
humanitarian as well as intellectual goals.2

Ryans, in his study Characteristics of Teachers, provided yet another
facet to the question of assessing teacher performance.

He observed:

Both the lay public and professional
educators generally agree that the 'Goodness’
of an education program is determined to a
large extent by the teaching. The identifi­
cation of qualified and able teaching

■^Bruce J. Biddle and William J. Ellean, Contempory Research
on Teacher Effectiveness (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,
inc., 1964), p. v.
^Imer Smith, Ed., Teacher Education:
(New York: Harper and Row, 19&2), p. 1.

A Reappraisal

23
personnel, therefore, constitutes one of the most
important of all educational concerns. Obtaining
capable teachers is an intrinsic interest and
obligation of education. If competent teachers
can be obtained, the likelihood of attaining x
desirable educational outcomes is substantial.

There are two important reasons for assessing teacher competence.
First, the public school needs to assess teachers for such purposes
as staff promotions, the granting of tenure, and salary advancement.
This process is closely related to what is "real" in the world of the
teacher, and is the basis for one of the criteria of this study.
Second, is the area of teacher education.

Without reasonably accurate

means of assessing the quality and character of their graduates,
teacher training institutions can do little more than probe for
answers to the perplexing problems which are rampant in today’s educa­
tional field.

Rating Teacher Effectiveness

The assessment of teaching effectiveness is one of the most
crucial and perplexing educational problems facing educators today.
During the last fifty years, there have been over 2,000 studies in
the area of assessing teacher effectiveness, and out of these
studies have come only confusion and lack of consensus. For every
study that shows the worth of a particular method of assessment,
there is a corresponding study to show that the method is questionable.

1David Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washington, D.C.:
American Council on Education, I960), p.l.

24
One of the most comprehensive studies in the area of teacher
effectiveness was done by Barr1 who concluded that up to this point
there has not been developed any criteria of measurement of effec­
tiveness which correlate positively to any degree with any other
criteria.

Lins employed three criteria in a study report in 1946.

The three criteria were:
evaluation, and (3)

(1)

supervisory ratings, (2)

residual pupil gain.

pupil

One of his findings was

the low correlations among these three criteria:

Lins Intercorrelation Findings

XI

Composite M-Blank
Ratings

Xl

ll

X3

1.000

.279

.193

X2

Pupil Evaluation

.279

1.000

.055

x3

Residual Pupil Gain

.193

.055

1.000

One will note that even though the correlations are low, the Composite
M-Blank rating (Supervisors) is more closely related to the other
criteria than either of the other two. Linsf overall results were
consistent with most studies which try to correlate separate factors

1Arvil Barr, Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction
of Teacher Effectiveness, (Madison: Dembar Publications, Inc., 1967).
2Leo Lins, "The Predicition of Teaching Efficiency," Journal of
Experimental Education, XV (September 1946), pp. 2-60.

25
of teacher evaluation.

Brookover1 found that teachers with a

high degree of interpersonal interaction with their students tended
to be rated high by these pupils.

However, these ratings correlated

near zero with ratings by administrators.

Jayne,

o

from two parallel

studies of the relationships between specific teaching procedures and
pupil gain, found no single procedure to be significantly correlated
with pupil gain.

Torrence

found no statistically significant correla­

tion between teacher effectiveness in agriculture and the following
criteria:

knowledge of agriculture, mainpulative skills, knowledge

of professional education, or any combination of these.

Anderson4

employed eight criteria of teaching success among which no statistically
significant correlations were found.

Lawler, in an article entitled

"Differing Rates of Progress of Classes under the Same and Different
Teachers," stated:

Hi/ilbur Brookover, "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching
Ability," Journal of Experimental Education, XIII (June 19^5)s
pp. 191-205.
2

D. Jayne, "A Study of the Relations between Teaching Procedures
and Educational Outcome," Journal of Experimental Education, XIV
(December 19^6), pp. lOl-Tp”
3

Andrew Torrence, "A Study of the Relationships of Certain
Competencies to Success in Teaching Vocational Agriculture,"
Journal of Experimental Education, XXV (September 1956), pp. 1-31.
4Harold Anderson, "A Study of Certain Criteria of Teaching
Effectiveness," Journal of Experimental Education, XXIII
(September 195^0, pp. 41-77.

26
The progress of pupils as measured by achieve­
ment tests used in this study seems to have no in­
fluence on the ratings of teachers by their principals.1

Gotham

2

found a lack of agreement among the criteria of pupil change

and tests of qualities commonly associated with teaching success,
among pupil change and composite personality measures, and among
personality measures and tests of qualities commonly associated with
teaching efficiency.

Stoelting

3

found for University of Wisconsin

graduates that if the minimum grade-point average were raised from
the 1.3 now employed to the 1.5 formerly employed, the higher
minimum would screen out thirteen of twenty-four who were judged
to be less than average in teaching ability,

butat

the same time,

would eliminate thirty-one who were average, seven who rated above
average, and one who rated superior.

In a study by

Barr and otn^^i

the following results were reported.

Five criteria were employed: (1) Gain in pupil
achievement as measured by the Stanford Achievement
Test, (2) A composite of scores on seven rating scales,
(3) A composite of nine measures of qualities commonly
associated with teaching success, (4) A composite of
six tests of teaching ability chosen from composite

Eugene Lawler, "Differing Rates of Progress of Classes under
the Same and Different Teachers," Journal of Educational Research,
LVII (October 1964), pp. 84-86.
2

R. E. Gotham, "Personality and Teaching Efficiency," Journal
of Experimental Education, XTV (December 1945), pp. 157-165.
3

Gustave Stoelting, "The Selection of Candidates for Teacher
Education at the University of Wisconsin," Journal of Experimental
Education, XXIV (December 1955), pp. 115-140.

27
three, and (5) A composite of all nineteen variables
combined variously. The major conclusions were:
(1) The coefficients of correlation obtained between
ten selected measures of teaching ability and pupil
achievement were uniformly low. (2) The coefficients
of correlation between the nineteen variables employed
in the investigation and the Jive composite criteria
provide conflicting evidence.

Prom a longitudinal study done in Georgia by Shim, the following
results were reported:

Pour Categories of Teachers
la
lb
2a
2b
3a
3b
4a
4b

GPA of 2.50 or above
GPA of less than 2.50
Degree
Non-degree
Certified
Non-certified
Experienced
Non-experienced

Results with Whole Group
Area
Increase in I.Q.
Arithmetic Achievement
Language Achievement
Reading Achievement

Category Sign, at .05
3b
3b
lb, 3b, 4a
3b

Results with Above Average I.Q.
No difference

A. S. Barr, and others, "The Validity of Certain Instruments
Employed in the Measurement of Teaching Ability," The Measurement of
Teaching Efficiency; edited by Helen M. Walter, (New York: Macmillan Co.,
1935).

28
Results with Below Average I.Q.
Increase in I.Q.
lb
Arithmetic Achievement
lb
Language Achievement
lb, Ha.
Reading Achievement__________ 3b

The results would seem to indicate that, in general, non-certified teach­
ers and graduates with a GPA below 2.50 are the most effective teachers.
Pattu, writing in the Elementary Principal’s Journal, summed up teacher
characteristics and their relationships to effectiveness.

His summary

follows:

Intellegence and Success
In general, there appears
to be only a slight relationship between intelligence
and rated success of an instructor.
Knowledge of Subject Matter and Success
Except for
occasional studies in mathematics, chemistry, and
physics, research findings report little relationship.
Professional Knowledge and Success. It appears that
a teacher’s rated effectiveness at first increases
rather rapidly with experience, and then levels off
at five years or beyond....
Cultural Background and Success. There is no sub­
stantial evidence that cultural background is signifi­
cantly related to teaching effectiveness....
Socioeconomic Status and Success. The relationship
of socioeconomic status (as measured by such devices
as the Sims Socioeconomic Scales) to criteria of
instructor effectiveness is low....
Sex and Success. No particular differences have been
shown when the relative effectiveness of men and women
teachers have been Compared.

C. P. Shim, "A Study of the Cumulative Effect of Four Teacher
Characteristics on Achievement of Elementary School Pupils," Journal
of Educational Research, LIX (September 1965), pp. 33-3^.

29
Marital Status and Success. Despite some prejudice
to the contrary, there appears to be no evidence
that married teachers are in any way inferior to
single teachers.
Teaching Aptitude and Success. Results obtained
from measures designed to predict teaching ability
show great disparity....
Teaching Attitude and Success. Attitude toward
teachers and teaching as indicated by the Yeager
Scale, which was devised for its measurement,
seems to bear a small but positive relationship
to teacher success measured in terms of pupil
gains.
Job Interest and Success.... Correlations result­
ing frcm the use of several standard interest
tests either cluster around zero, or are so in­
consistent as to render such tests of doubtful
value as predictors of teaching success....
Special Abilities and Success. Such instructor
factors as empathy, professional maturity,
general knowledge, mental ability, and social
adjustment have been identified through factor
analysis by various investigators. The statistical
analyses so far reported, however, sufferfrom
inadequacies of criteria, testing instruments, or
number of cases.1

The picture of teacher evaluation looks gloomy indeed judging
from the preceding material.
positive results follow.

All is not negative, however.

Seme

Rostker2 found statistically significant

coefficients of correlation among twelve tests of intelligence,
knowledge of content, mental health and adjustment, and various

Nicholas Fattu, "Research on Teacher Evaluation," The National
Elementary Principal, XLIII (November 1963), pp. 21-221.
2L. E. Rostker, "The Measurement of Teaching Ability, Study No. 1,"
Journal of Experimental Education, XIV (September 19^5), pp. 6-51.

attitudes, with a pupil gain criterion.

Jones1 found from the

use of the discriminate function a significant difference between
the group of good teachers and of average teachers in tems of the
profile of the group means, with the greater differences found in
(1) grade-point averages in professional courses, (2) grade-point
averages in courses related to the major, (3) flexibility in numeri­
cal ability, (4) dispositional rigidity as measured by an alphabet
ry

text, and (5) a general activity personality variable.

Knox

found ■

a low positive relationship between efficiency ratings and various
situational factors.

The most satisfied received the highest

ratings, with the most dissatisfied receiving the least satisfactory rating.

Gowan,

in assessing the correlation of (1) train­

ing ratings, (2) tests, and (3) principals’ ratings, found a signifi­
cant correlation between training ratings and field ratings, and
between class evaluation and field evaluation.

McCullough4 found

a significant difference in attitude between those rated good and
those rated poor.

Daniel Solomon found these results in working with

evening college courses in introductory American Government:

1Margaret Jones, "Analysis of Certain Aspects of Teaching Ability,
Journal of Experimental Education, XXV (December 1956), pp. 103-180.
William Knox, "A Study of the Relationships of Certain Environ­
mental Factors to Teaching Success," Journal of Experimental Education,
XXV (December 1956), pp. 95-151*
J. C. Gowan, "A Follow-up Study of Teaching Candidates," Journal
of Educational Research, LIV (May 1961), pp. 353-355.
4James McCullough, "A Study of Teacher Attitude and Teacher Rating
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1968).

31
Classroom behavior of twenty-four teachers of
evening college courses in introductory American
Government was measured with tape recordings and
with observors’ ratings of two class sessions,
student descriptive questionnaires, and teachers’
questionnaires. Factor analysis of these measures
produced eight factors, which were then related to
student’s learning (measured by pre- and Post-tests)
and to student evaluations. Learning of facts was
significantly related to teacher ’clarity,’ expres­
siveness,' and to ’lecturing.' Gains in comprehension
related significantly to teacher 'energy,' 'flamboyance,'
and a moderate position on a permissives vs. control
continuum. Students’ evaluations related significantly
to 'clarity,' ’expressiveness,' and 'warmth.'

Hall,

in his article "Professional Preparation and Teacher Efficiency,"

found that the number of hours a teacher had taken in professional
education was significantly related to pupil achievement in reading
and spelling, and that the average pupil gain was higher for certified
personnel than for non-certified personnel.

Lupone,

in a study which

used principal evaluations in comparing provisionally certified and
permanently certified elementary teachers in selected school districts
in New York, found that the permanently certified teachers were rated
significantly higher in the following areas:

(1) preparation, planning,

and management, (2) subject matter, (3) instructional techniques, and

Daniel Solomon, "Teacher Behavior and Student Learning," Journal
of Educational Psychology, LV (February 1964), pp. 23-30.
2

H. 0. Hall, "Professional Preparation and Teacher Efficiency,"
Journal of Teacher Education, XV (April 1964), pp. 72-76.
30rlando Lupone, "A Comparison of Provisionally Certified and
Permanently Certified Elementary School Teachers in Selected School
Districts in New York State," Journal of Educational Research, LV
(October 1961), pp. 53-63.

32
(4) pupil-teacher relationships.

Cooper,1 in comparing two plans

of teacher education— one of concentrated methods courses, the other,
of spreading the methods courses out over the four years— found,
using principals' evaluations, that the spreading of the methods
courses produced better teachers as far as the following qualities
were concerned:

(1) human relations, (2) personal characteristics,

and (3) planning the teaching of elementary subjects.

Ackerman2

did a review of many studies concerning teacher competence and
pupil change.

A summary of his study follows:

Types of Criteria

Author

Significance

Age of Teacher

Rolfe
Brookover

No
Yes up to 38

Attitude of the Teacher
to Teachers and Teaching

Rostker
La Duke
Rolfe
Brookover
Gotham
Hellfritzsch

Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes

Experience of the
Teacher

Rolfe
Davis
Betts

No
Yes
Yes

Intelligence of the
Teacher

Rostker
La Duke
Rolfe
Gotham

Yes
Yes
No
No

Personality of the
Teacher

Rostker
Gotham
Rolfe

Yes
No
No

Barnes Cooper, "A Comparison of Two Plans of Teacher Education,"
Journal of Educational Research, LI (May 1958), pp. 643—658.
2
Walter Ackerman, "Teacher Competence and Pupil Change," Teachers
College Record, XXIV (1954), pp. 273-289.

Types of Criteria

Author

Significance

Social Attitudes of
the Teacher

Rostker
Gotham
Rolfe

Yes
No
Yes

Teacher-Pupil
Relationships

La Duke
Brookover

Yes Neg.
Yes Neg.

As one can readily observe from the preceding summary, there are
studies which find correlation of the several criteria with pupil
growth, and there are those which do not.

Ryans’ study involved

about 1,700 schools in ^50 school systems, and about 6,000 teachers.
He developed three patterns of teacher behavior.

Ryans 1 Patterns of Teacher Behavior1
Pattern XQ

Warm, understanding, friendly vs.
aloof, egocentric, restricted
teacher behavior.

Pattern Yq

Responsible, businesslike, systematic
vs. evading, unplanned, slipshod
teacher behavior.

Pattern ZQ

Stimulating, imaginative, surgent
vs. dull, routine, teaching behavior.

He found that among elementaiy school teachers, XG , Y0, and Z0 patterns
were positively correlated, and each seemed to be correlated with
pupil behavior.
One can readily observe that there is no consensus of research
about the validity of any rating device in the area of teacher effec­
tiveness.

This author chose two, which are quite different— principal

evaluation and pupil growth.

1David Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers, (Washington, D.C.
American Council on Education, i960), 460 pages.

Principal Evaluation

One of the early and classic studies done in this area was by
Wilbur Brookover

1

who found no correlation between principal evaluao

tions and pupil achievement.

Lines

o

and Lawler,

whose studies were

previously mentioned, concurred with these results.

Howsam

writing

in The National Elementary Principal, made the following observation

Ratings by supervisors are most common in
practice and have been the subject of much reported
research. The findings lend little support to the
practice, however....Further, ratings tend to have
a low correlation with student gains. Frequently
it has been suggested that administrative personnel
base their evaluation on factors which have but
little relation to instructional competence.4

On the other hand, Hawkins found:

School-associated groups, i.e., principals,
district administrators, peer teachers, non­
teaching staff members, and informed teachers,
generally agree on which elementary teachers are
outstanding. There is substantial agreement in
the identification of outstanding teachers by
formal evaluation processes, the informal evalua­
tion process, and current salary determination
practices.

Wilbur Brookover, op.cit.
2

Leo Lins, op. cit.

"^Eugene Lawler, op. cit.
4Robert Howsam, "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folklore,"
The National Elementary Principal, XLIII (November 1963), p. 17.
5

Edward Hawkins, "Objective and Subjective Identification of
Outstanding Elementary Teachers," Journal of Educational Research,
pp. 3^-346.

35
Rostker,

1

2

Knox,

and Gowan,

3

whose studies were previously re­

viewed, did find significant correlations between principals' ratings
and other criteria of effectiveness, including pupil change.

Ellinger,

4

in a study of the procedures of evaluation used in Maryland, found
that the most significant criteria in order were; professional
growth, pupil-teacher report, knowledge of subject matter, planning,
and variety of teaching methods. His recommendation was: "The
evaluation of teaching should be the responsibility of a single
person, preferably the building principal."

Hall5 found that the

evaluation of teachers is the responsibility of the administration.
Pattu made the following observation about assessing teacher behavior:

Overall administrative opinion constitutes the
most widely used single measure of teacher competence.
Available studies have shown in general that teachers
can be reliably rated by administrative and super­
visory personnel (usually with correlations of .70 or
above).

1L. E. Rostker, op. cit.
William Knox, op. cit.
3J. C. Gowan, op. cit.
William Ellinger, "A Study of the Procedures Used to Evaluate
Professional School Personnel in the Public Schools of the State of
Maryland," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University,
1958).
5

James Hall, "Selected Aspects of Teacher Evaluation in the Public
School Systems in the State of Montana as Compared with Public School
Systems throughout the United States," (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Montana, 1967).
0
N. A. Fattu, op. cit., p. 24.

36
Arthur Ccmhs writes;

What makes a professional worker is a person
whose judgment can be relied upon. It is this
quality of judgment that separates professional
work fran mechanical. If it does not exist, there
is no profession. Only the profession can judge
its effectiveness.
Can we judge ourselves? Of course we can.
We make such judgments constantly. Almost all of
us can and do make judgments about our colleagues,
often with a high degree of accuracy. We know who
the good teachers are. Insisting that we cannot
judge serves only to frighten the public. Who
wants to send his child to a school where the
teachers don't know what good teaching is?
Are professional judgments fair? That depends
upon how professional are the professional workers
who make them. This much is certain. They are more
likely to be fair than the objective criteria some
have sought as substitutes. Human beings are fallible
to be sure. While professional judgment lacks the
precision we might like, it is still far more accurate
than objective measures of the wrong things! The
objective criteria many researchers have been seeking
are mere samples of the process and cannot substitute
for it.
...A profession depends upon judgment. Without
judgment it has no reason for existing. Surrender­
ing the judgment of good teaching to an accumulation
of objective criteria denies the very basis of pro­
fessional work and dehumanizes the profession.
Human judgment is fallible to be sure, but less so
than the false security of numbers that measure things
which don't matter.

Therefore, because it has been found to be significant upon oc­
casion, because it is professional, and because it is "real,"
principal evaluation was used as one criterion in this study.

■''Arthur Combs, op. cit.

Pupil Change as Measured by Achievement

Robert Howsam, writing about teacher evaluation, notes:

There is only one fully defensible criterion for
judging teacher effectiveness; the ultimate criterion is
result. Assessing teacher competence on the basis of
result involves almost insurmountable difficulties,
however.

One criterion of results with pupils is the standardized
achievement test.
ment.

There are many who advocate this type of measure­

There are also many who point out the danger of this type of

measurement.
tion:

Rudman points out that there are three levels of educa­

(1) educational programs; ie., the textbook approach,

(2) education services; ie., enrichment, and (3) values.

He further

states:

Furthermore, only one-third of the curriculum
at this point can be measured, and that one-third
consists of those subjects which are the educational
program.

In the same vein, Elizabeth Drews relates:

Unfortunately, most achievement tests available
today measure only a small part of what we hope to
reach in school. Furthermore, the grade level test is
not adequate for all children in a given grade. Too
frequently the test can tell us If certain basic facts

"'■Robert Howsam, op. cit., p. 15.
2

Herbert Rudman, "How Good are Standardized Achievement Tests?"
National Elementary Principal, XLIV (November 1964), pp. 32-38.

38
were learned, but does not help us discover if
the child can do the higher level tests, integra­
tive, critical, and creative thinking.1

Weiner2 did a study which brought into question the validity of
difference scores as measures of individual pupil growth.

He

suggests that such scores have only some slight validity, not
enough to be used alone as the basis for important judgments about
individual pupils. In spite of the problems suggested with this
type of evaluation, it was used in this study as a measure of
pupil growth.

Use of Rating Instruments

Review of the literature revealed a great number of studies which
utilized rating instruments in the evaluation of teacher effectiveness.
Biddle found that, "The vast majority of studies reported on competency
have made use of rating forms for one purpose or another."3

^Elizabeth Drews, Instructor, LXXV (April 1966), p. 20.
2M. Weiner, "Difficulties in the Use of Achievement Test
Gains as Measures of Growth," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
XLIII (April 1964), pp. 781-7863
■feruce Biddle, op. cit., p. 26.

39
Representative of the studies which utilized rating instruments were
of Almy and Sorenson,1 Reavis,2 Hoover,3 Ryans,4 and Haberman.5
Reavis

studied the rating devices used by over one hundred city

school systems in determining merit based on demonstrated competency.
The major outcome of that study was the production of a classifica­
tion system of mutually exclusive tests of rating methods. These
included five types of rating methods which were designated as
(1) check scales, (2) characterization reports, (3) guided-comment
reports, (4) descriptive reports, and (5) ranking reports.

Reavis6

reported the following distribution in the use of these various rating
methods by the school districts surveyed:

Rating Method
Check Scales
Guided Comments
Characterization Reports
Descriptive Reports
Ranking Reports

Precent Using
75
31
24
6
1

%. V. Almy and Herbert Sorenson, "A Teacher-Rating Scale of
Determined Reliability and Validity," Educational Administration and
Supervision, XVI (1930), pp. 179-186.
2W. C. Reavis, "Evaluation of Teacher Merit in City School Systems,"
Supplementary Educational Monographs No. 59, (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1945), 65 pages.
3K. H. Hoover, "A Survey of Student Teacher Effectiveness," The
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals,
XLV (October 1961), pp. 166-169.
4David Ryans, op. cit.
% . Haberman, "A Comparison of Interns with Regular First Year
Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, LIX (October 1965), pp. 92-94.
6W. C. Reavis, op. cit.

40
Reavis also recorded the number of scale values used in various check
scales studies, and found that a five-point scale was a median of
sorts, representing as it did forty-two percent of the check scales
analyzed.

This was substantiated by a report of the NEA,1 which was

released in 1964, in which it was found that the multiple factor check
scale was the type of instrument most often used by principals in the
evaluation of their teachers (80.4 percent), and that the majority
used a five-point scale (48.1 percent), with the next closest being a
four-point scale (19.2 percent).

It was also reported that many of the

check scales had the following general areas:

(1) Personal Character­

istics, (2) Instructional Skills, (3) Teacher-Staff Relationships,
(4) Professional Attitudes, and (5) Community Relationships.

These

areas were deemed important to principals’ evaluations.
In his comprehensive study '’Characteristics of Teachers," completed
in I960, Ryans

developed and utilized a rating instrument which he

labeled the "Classroom Observation Record."

In its initial form, it

listed forty specific dimensions of teacher behavior and six dimensions
of pupil behavior.

The form of the "Record" employed during the major

portion of Ryans' research utilized a seven-interval scale and incorpora­
ted a revised list of eighteen teacher and four pupil behavior dimensions.
Haberman

utilized Ryans' "Classroom Observation Record" in his study

1The National Education Association, Evaluation of Classroom
Teacher, The American Research Association Research Report 1964-B14,
(Research Division, NEA: Washington, D.C., December 1964).
9

David Ryans, op. cit.

3M. Haberman, op. cit.

which was completed in 1965•

The research involved an evaluation

of the intern teaching program at the University of Wisconsin—
Milwaukee, and focused on teaching behavior of interns and regular
first-year teachers.

Procedures employed included the use of a team

of three trained observers who used Ryans' "Record" and rated the
teachers on each of eighteen characteristics related to teaching
behavior.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

This chapter has seven purposes.
the design of the study.

The primary purpose was to describe

Other purposes included: a description of the

samples selected, the construction of the questionnaires, the nature of
the data collected, the statement of the specific hypotheses that were
developed, and the statement of other questions which were raised but
not developed into hypotheses.

It was also the purpose of this chapter

to describe the preliminary treatment of the data in preparation of the
testing of the hypotheses.
The problem was to compare the graduates of two different teacher
training programs offered by Michigan State University, namely, the
Elementary Intern Program and the Regular Teacher Education Program.
These two programs were compared using two distinct criteria for measur­
ing effectiveness.
The first of these criteria was effectiveness as determined by
principals' ratings.

This criterion was also used to attempt to measure

the difference in effectiveness between married and single teachers and
to compare the five EIP training centers.
The second criterion was effectiveness as determined by pupil
academic progress as measured by standardized achievement tests.
Two other important areas were covered by this study.

They

included: the analysis of certain situational data concerning the
Michigan State graduates in such areas as employment in relationship

42

to where they received their clinical preparation, type of school
in which they were teaching, as reflected by racial and SES com­
position, type of grouping procedures used, and number who remained
in the same school following the 1967-68 academic year.

The last

area of concern was an analysis of a survey instrument which had been
submitted to the graduates in the study asking for their opinion of
their own competencies and where they felt these strengths had
originated.

Population and Sample for the
Principal's Evaluative Questionnaire

The graduates of the academic year 1965-66 were chosen as the
population for this phase of the study.

The year 1965-66 was chosen

because it was felt that in the area of principal evaluation for
effectiveness, it was necessary for the graduates to have been on the
job for a period of time which would have allowed them sane time to
demonstrate their teaching ability.

Furthermore, because of the tenure

requirements in Michigan, the first two years may be the ones which
are most likely to command the closest scrutiny by the building
principals who must make recommendations concerning tenure to the
central office.

The Elementary Intern Program Graduates

The directors of each of the five Intern Centers operating in
1965-66 were approached.
that year.

They supplied a list of their graduates of

This information was followed up by the use of the Michigan

State University Placement Bureau, the Michigan State University Alumni

44
Office, and the Michigan Department of Education Certification Office
in an effort to trace as many of the graduates to their 1967-68 teach­
ing positions as possible.

In spite of these efforts, a fairly large

percentage of the graduates were unable to be located.

(See Table I.)

The total population of graduates from the Elementary Intern
Program Centers in existence in 1965-66, which included: Battle Creek,
Bay City, Grand Rapids, Macomb, and Port Huron, numbered 107.

The

107 included fifteen males and ninety-two females. The males were not
not included in the study because of their small number, which was not
large enough to be significant in itself, but was too large not to have
some effect upon the total outcome.

Included in the study was every

female graduate of the 1965-66 Elementary Intern Program that could be
identified who was still teaching in a regular K-6 program in a Michigan
public school during the 1967-68 academic year.
fifty.

This number totaled

For the EIP graduates not included in the study, see Table I.

The Regular Teacher Education Program Graduates

A sample of the 1965-66 regular program graduates was selected
frcm the rolls of the student teaching office.

The total population

on these rolls included 1,964, of which 431 were regular elementary
candidates. This 431 included 386 females and forty-five males. Again,
the males were eliminated Prom the study.

It was reasoned that because

many of the graduates from the regular program would have their
permanent residence located in a state other than Michigan, and that
in any case it would be much more difficult to find these graduates,
a random selection of 125 would be made frcm the student teaching rolls

45
TABLE I
DISTRIBUTION OP THE 1965-66 FEMALE EIP
POPULATION NOT IN THE STUDY

Number

Percent of
Population

10

10.9

14.1

Teaching in non­
public schools

0

••••

•••«

Teaching in junior
high schools

2

2.2

2.8

Teaching in Special
Education

3

3-3

4.2

Not teaching

6

6.5

8.5

Unable to locate*

21

23.1

....

Total

42

46.0

29.6

Reason

Teaching out of
state

Percent
Located

*This does not indicate that these graduates were not teaching
in public schools in Michigan, but merely that it was not
possible to trace them.

for the initial sample.

Again, the facilities of the Michigan State

Placement Bureau, the Michigan State Alumni Office, and the Michigan
Department of Education Certification Office were used.

In this

instance, an even higher percentage of graduates was unable to be
reached.

(See Table II.)

Included In the study was every female

graduate of the 1965-66 Regular Teacher Education Program who had been
included in the ramdom sample that could be identified, who was still

46
teaching in a regular K-6 program in a Michigan public school during
the 1967-68 academic year.

This number totaled sixty-two.

For RTEP

graduates not included in the study, see Table II.

TABLE II
DISTRIBUTION OF THE 1965-66 REGULAR TEACHER
EDUCATION PROGRAM SAMPLE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STUDY

Number

Percent of
Sample

Percent
Located

11

8.6

12.9

Teaching in non­
public schools

2

1.6

2.4

Teaching in junior
high schools

7

5.6

CM•
CO

Teaching in Special
Education

3

2.4

3.5

Not teaching

6

4.8

7.1

Unable to locate*

40

32.0

••••

Total

69

55.0

34.1

Reason

Teaching out of
state

*This does not indicate that these graduates were not teaching
in public schools in Michigan, but merely that it was not
possible to trace them.

47
Development of the Principal’s
Evaluative Questionnaire

An important phase of this study was the development of an
instrument adequate to secure that information identified as essential.
An attempt was made to construct instruments which were easily and
clearly understood, simple and convenient to answer, organized for
quick and accurate evaluation, and in the case of the principal’s
evaluative questionnaire, as near as possible to that which is most
commonly used in everyday practice.
Following a review of the literature concerning principal evalua­
tion, it was determined that the majority (75 per cent) used a check
scale, and that the most common type of check scale was based upon
1
five points.
After reviewing many such instruments used in Michigan,
the instrument which was used in the study was constructed.

This

instrument was then submitted to several principals, in order to
establish its range and validity, and to solicit their comments.
Each principal was asked to use the instrument to evaluate several-of
his teachers from several grade levels without identifying the teachers.
Upon return of the questionnaire from the several principals it was
determined from their evaluations that the range was sufficient, and
that, in their opinion, the instrument was valid.

Several minor changes

in wording were made at their suggestions.
The evaluative questionnaire contained eighteen teacher competencies
grouped within five major categories.

1
W. C. Reavis, op. cit.

They are as follows:

-48

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
1.

Health and Vitality

2.

Personal Appearance

3.

Friendliness

4.

Flexibility

5.

Sincerity

6.

Enthusiasm

INSTRUCTIONAL SKILLS
7.

Constructive Control of Pupils

8.

Provisions for Individual Differences

9.

Evidence of Pupil Achievement

10.

Knowledge of Subject Matter

TEACHER-STAFF RELATIONSHIPS
11.

Rapport with Co-workers

12.

Willingness to Seek and Accept Advice

13.

Relationship with the Administration

PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE
14.

Ethical Attitudes

15.

Evidence of Leadership

16.

Evidence of Professional Growth

COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS
17.

Willingness to Participate in Activities
within the Ccmmunity Outside of School Hours

18.

Ability to Meet and Work with Parents

49
In addition to the evaluative section of the questionnaire, there
were two sections which supplied information.

The first of these

sections was concerned with personal information relative to the
teacher.

This information included marital status, number of years in

the building, whether the teacher had remained in the building follow­
ing the 1967-68 academic year, and if not, the reason why, and whether
the teacher had procured her clinical experience In the system and in
the evaluating principal's building.

The second part was concerned

with the school system, and included questions regarding the racial and
economic composition of the school, the type of instructional grouping
used, and the frequency with which achievement tests were administered.

Effectiveness as Determined
by Pupil Change

Pupil change in this study was determined by the use of standard­
ized achievement tests.

It was felt that the achievement data, like

the principals' survey data, should be collected from the natural
school setting.

This procedure called for using the scores that could

be obtained frcm the tests which were regularly administered by the
school system.
In order to eliminate cultural differences between school systems and
among individual schools within a given system, the teachers were compared
on an intraschool basis.

That is, the best scores of their students were

compared to the test scores of the students of the other teachers teach­
ing the same grade in the same building.

In order to eliminate the

50
problem of the students' so-called natural ability, only those buildings
which used heterogeneous (randomized ability) grouping were included in
the study.

These comparative scores were then converted by statistical

means to Standard T scores.1 The resultant Standard T scores were then
used for the comparison of the groups.

The Graduates' Opinion Survey

The graduates’ opinion questionnaire included four areas of concern
for the RTEP graduates, and the same four plus a question concerned with
the internship were included for the EIP graduates. The first of these
areas were concerned with having the graduates choose from the same list
of eighteen teacher competencies which were on the principal's evaluative
list those three in which they felt that they had the greatest strength.
They were then asked to list in order the three scores of competency
which they felt contributed to this strength.

The sources of self-

ifentified competency for the RTEP graduates were as follows:

A.

Professional Education Courses

B.

Subject Courses

C.

Supervising Teacher (Student Teaching)

D.

College Coordinator (Student Teaching)

E.

Teaching Associates

F.

Principal or Building Supervisor

G.

Yourself

H.

Other (Specify)

% . M. Downie, Basic Statistical Methods, (New York: Harper and Row,
1965), pp. 65-66.

51
The sources of self-identified competency for the EIP graduates
were the same as for the RTEP graduates with the exception of the
addition of Intern Consultant (Internship) as item I.
The graduates were then asked to rank in order the three com­
petencies which they felt were most important to success in teaching.
They were then asked the following question:

"Do you feel

that the training which you received at Michigan State University
adequately prepared you for your career in teaching?"

They were also

asked to comment on their feelings in relation to the above question.
An added item for the EIP graduates only asked the following
question:

"If you had to start your program over, would you have

participated in the Intern Program or the Regular Teacher Education
Program?"

They were also asked to comment on their feelings in rela­

tion to the above question.

Hypotheses and Related Questions

The following null hypotheses were developed.

Hypothesis I:

There are no significant differences between the

graduates of the Elementary Intern Program and the graduates of the
Regular Teacher Education Program, according to each individual item
of the principal’s evaluative questionnaire.

Hypothesis II:

There are no significant differences between

married teachers and single teachers, according to each individual
item of the principal's evaluative questionnaire.

52
Hypothesis III:

There are no significant differences in effec­

tiveness between the graduates of the Elementary Intern Program and
the graduates, of the Regular Teacher Education Program, according to
pupil change as, measured by standardized achievement tests.

Several timely questions were raised, which were not developed
into hypotheses.

They are as follows:

1.

Are there significant differences between the groups concerning
the type of school in which they are teaching, according to race
or SES?

2.

Are there significant differences between the groups concerning
their employment in relationship to where they received their
clinical preparation?

3.

Are there significant differences between the groups concerning
their remaining in their 1967-68 positions?

4.

Are there significant differences between the groups concerning
their attitudes toward the type and success of training which
they received from Michigan State University?

Processing, Analyzing, and Reporting of Data

The next step in this study was the processing, analyzing, and
reporting of information collected.
All questionnaires were first manually tabulated, categorized,
and marked appropriately.

In this process they were also scanned for

completeness, comments, and divergence.
After rejecting those questionnaires which could not be used, data
on those retained were tabulated.

53
All data were subjected to a statistical treatment using Analysis
of Variance as the technique to establish significance.

Rank-order

correlations were determined by use of the Spearman Rank-Order Correla­
tion Coefficient.1

1N. M. Downie, op. cit., p. 206.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OP THE STUDY

Introduction

This study was conducted to gather data relating to Michigan State
University elementary teacher graduates and their activities in the field;
to compare the demonstrated teaching competencies of the graduates of the
EIP and the RTEP as reported by their building principals and as ascer­
tained by the achievement of their pupils; and, to attempt to identify
the sources responsible for the relative strengths of the graduates of
the two programs.
The results of the study were divided into four main topics.

First,

the data collected concerning type of school in which teachers served,
situational location in relationship to where teachers received their
clinical preparation, number of teachers still in teaching following the
1967-68 academic year, and reasons for leaving their position.

Second,

analysis of the data collected frcm the principals’ evaluations, in the
following areas:

a ccmparison of the difference in reported competency

between EIP graduates and RTEP graduates, a comparison between married
and single graduates, and a comparison of the five Intern Centers. Third,
a comparison of the EIP graduates and the RTEP graduates using the cri­
terion of pupil gain.

Finally, an analysis of the feedback from all the

Michigan State University graduates concerning their insights regarding
their teaching competencies and their preparation for a teaching career.

54

55
The principal's evaluative questionnaire was submitted to the
principals of all of the graduates in the study.

Hie number sent in­

cluded fifty for the EIP graduates and sixty-two for the RTEP graduates.
After three weeks, a reminder letter was sent to those who had not re­
turned the questionnaires. Forty-eight questionnaires were returned by
the principals of the EIP graduates, which represented a 96 per cent
return.

Forty-four questionnaires were returned by the principals of

the RTEP graduates, which represented an 87 per cent return.
The teacher self-evaluative questionnaire was sent to seventy-four
graduates who were still teaching in the same schools as in 1967-68.
This number included thirty-seven EIP graduates and thirty-seven RTEP
graduates. After two weeks, a follow-up letter was sent to all of the
graduates.

The returns from the EIP graduates numbered twenty-eight,

which was 76 per cent.

The returns frcm the RIEP graduates numbered

twenty-three, which was 62 per cent.

Analysis of General Data

Several categories of a general nature were explored during the
course of the study.

The first of these was the type of school in which

the teacher served, according to racial composition, SES composition, and
grouping procedures.

While it might be hypothesized that due to the loca­

tion of the EIP training centers, a larger proportion of these graduates
might be teaching in the inner-city, such was not the case.

Of the 102

Michigan State University graduates in the study, ninety-one were teaching
in all-white schools; six were teaching in mixed schools; and five were
teaching in all-Negro schools. All-white schools were defined as those

56
with a less than 5 per cent non-white population.

All-Negro schools

were those with less than a 5 per cent white population, and mixed
schools were those in between.

There was very little difference between

EIP graduates and RTEP graduates in regard to teaching in any of the
three racial catagories.
In regard to the SES factor, five teachers were in upper-class
schools, fifty-five in middle-class schools, and eleven in lower-class
schools.

The remaining twenty-seven were in mixed^schools. Again,

there was very little difference between the EIP graduates and the RTEP
graduates in any of the various SES catagories. From these data, one
might conclude that the graduates of Michigan State University are not
gravitating to the inner-city.

Perhaps the recent press for inner-city

teachers and the programs designed to promote the idea of inner-city
teaching have not yet taken effect.

TABLE III
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF SCHOOLS
IN WHICH GRADUATES SERVED

RTEP

TOTAL

Racial
Composition*

No.

%

No.

%

No,

%

White

42

87.5

49

90.7

91

89.2

Negro

2

4.2

3

5-6

5

4.9

Mixed

4

8.3

2

2.7

6

5.9

EIP

*White Schools, less than 5I Negro
Negro Schools, less than 5% White
Mixed Schools, greater than 5% of each race

57
TABLE IV
SES COMPOSITION OP SCHOOLS
IN WHICH GRADUATES SERVED

SES
Composition*

Upper
Middle
Lower

RTEP

EIP

TOTAL

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1

2.0

4

7.4

5

4.9

27

56.3

32

59.2

59

57.8

5

10.2

6

11.1

11

10.8

• •••

3

5-6

3

2.9

....

2

2.0

Mixed
Upper-Middle
Upper-Lower
Middle-Lower
All Three

2

4.2

10

20.8

8

14.8

18

17.7

3

6.3

1

1.9

4

3.9

*Approximations as reported by the principals

In the area of grouping procedures, it was reported that nineteen of
the 102 graduates were teaching in schools which used homogeneous group­
ing.

This number represented 18.6 per cent.

However, when this number

was examined by race and SES, it was found that homogeneous grouping was
used in a disproportionately large percentage of Negro and lower SES
schools.

(See Table V.)

This percentage must be approached with cau­

tion, however, because of the small number of Negro schools in the study.
Of the mixed schools, 33 per cent reported homogeneous grouping; of the
lower class schools, 45 per cent reported homogeneous grouping.

It was

also noted that a disproportionately large percentage of EIP graduates
taught in homogeneous schools.

58
TABLE V
GROUPING PROCEDURES
(Homogeneous)

School
Composition*

EIP
No.

RTEP
%

No.

TOTAL
%

No.

%

Racial
White

9

21.4

6

11.1

Negro

1

50.0

1

33.3

2

40.0

Mixed

2

50.0

• • • •

2

33.0

Middle-Class

6

22.2

5

15.6

11

18.6

Lower-Class

4

80.0

1

16.7

5

45-5

Middle-Lower-Class

2

20.0

1

12.5

3

16.7

12

25.0

7

13-0

19

18.6

• •

16.3

SES

All Schools

*SES with no homogeneous grouping were left out.

The second category of general data was concerned with the situation­
al deployment following graduation.

(See Table VI.)

In this area there

was a significant difference between the EIP and RTEP graduates. This
difference was not unexpected because of the nature of the EIP program
which offers the clinical preparation in the home area of the graduates.
Of the forty-two EIP graduates, twenty-seven were employed in the same
system in which they had done their clinical preparation, with seventeen
of these being anployed in the same school in which they received their
clinical preparation.

These numbers represent 56.3 and 35.4 per cent,

59
TABLE VI
SITUATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OP GRADUATES

Employment in
Relation to Clini­
cal Preparation

No.

Same System

27

56.3

11

20 .3

16

36.2 2

Same School

17

35.4

4

7..4

13

28.0 2

EIP

RTEP

%

No.

Difference
No.
%

%

dll differences favor Intern graduates.
differences In per cent significant at the
.01 level.

respectively.

The graduates of RTEP were much lower in this area, with

only eleven of the fifty-two graduates teaching in the same system in
which they had .received their clinical preparation, while only four were
in the same school in which they received their clinical preparation.
This represents 20.3 and 7.4 per cent, respectively.

The difference in

percentage was significant at the .01 level in both cases.

This sig­

nificant difference would indicate that those school systems which par­
ticipate in the EIP are reaping the benefits of this participation in
terms of personnel recruitment for their systems.
The third category of general concern was in the area of retention
within the same school.

Of the 102 graduates, seventy-four remained in

the same school following the 1967-68 academic year.

These seventy-four

were equally divided between EIP and RTEP graduates, with each group
having thirty-seven.
.05 level.

None of the differences were significant at the

Of those who left their 1967-68 teaching positions, all did

60
TABLE VII
GRADUATES LEAVING THEIR
1967-68 POSITIONS AND REASONS

Reasons for
Leaving

EIP
No.
%

RTEP
No,, %

Difference
No.
%

Signifi­
cant

Moved

5

10.4

13

24.1

8

13.7

No

Family

A

8.3

2

3.7

2

4.6

No

••••

1

1.9

1

1.9

No

1

1.9

1

1.9

No

••••

1

2.1

No

31.5

8

12.8

No

Transfer within
system

• •

Didn't like
teaching

••

Deceased

1

2.1

Total

9

18.7

17

so at their own volition, and all of the graduates in the study who were
eligible were granted tenure.

Of those who left their former positions,

only one of the 102 left because she did not like teaching.

The rest

left for a variety of reasons, the greatest number leaving because
they moved from the district (the majority of these because of the trans­
fer of their husbands).

Rating of the Graduates by Their Principals

Principals judged the graduates in each of eighteen teacher compe­
tencies designated.

The rating system used was a five-point check scale

which ranged from "Excellent" (one point) to "Poor" (five points).

The

61
resultant ratings were used in three areas of the study— to compare the
EIP and RTEP graduates, to compare the married teachers v s. the single
teachers, and to compare the five EIP centers.

The Comparison of EIP and RTEP Graduates

The overall mean of the eighteen competencies for the EIP graduates
was 1.91, while the RTEP graduates’ corresponding score was 1.93*
of these scores were slightly better than "Good."

Both

The EIP graduates’

mean scores on each of the categories ranged from 1.42 on the category
of sincerity to 2.37 on the category of leadership which, even though it
was the lowest on the scale, was well above average.

The RTEP graduates’

mean scores on each of the categories ranged from I .63 on the category
of friendliness to 2.12 on the category of evidence of pupil growth.
It will be noticed that the range of scores for RTEP is much narrower
than the range for the EIP graduates.

The lowest score of 2.12 for the

RTEP graduates was just slightly below "Good."

One might conclude that

from the principals’ point of view, both groups of the Michigan State
University graduates are doing very well in the field.

(See Tables VIII

and IX.)
The principals rated interns higher than the regular graduates on
eight of the eighteen categories.
.27.

These differences ranged from .03 to

The RTEP graduates were rated higher in nine of the eighteen

categories, with the differences ranging from .04 to 31*
category showed no difference in comparative rating.

The remaining

(See Table X.)

TABLE VIII
PRINCIPALS1 RATINGS OP EIP GRADUATES
ON EACH OF EIGHTEEN TEACHER COMPETENCIES

Teacher
Competencies

Rating
3

T

5

Weighted
Total

Mean

Rank-<

19

10

1

1

9T

1.96

10

IT

23

7

T

0

97

2.02

IT

Friendliness

22

17

8

0

1

85

1.77

5

Flexibility

16

18

13

2

0

96

2.00

12

Sincerity

31

IT

3

0

0

68

1 .T2

1

Enthusiasm

27

IT

5

2

0

78

1.63

2

Constructive Control of
Pupils

18

25

3

2

0

85

1.77

5

Provisions for Individual
Differences

IT

21

12

1

0

96

2.00

12

Evidence of Pupil Growth

13

21

13

1

0

98

2 .0T

16

Knowledge of Subject Matter

17

2T

6

1

0

87

1.81

7

Rapport with Co-workers

19

19

8

1

1

90

1.87

8

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

18

22

5

2

1

90

1.87

8

1

2

Health and Vitality

17

Personal Appearance

TABLE VIII (Continued)

Teacher
Competencies

1

2

Rating
3

5

Weighted
Total

Mean

Rank-Order

I
0 ,

1

78

1.65

3

4

Relationship with the
Adminis trat ion

23

19

4

Ethical Attitude

23

15

9

1

0

84

1.77

5

8

20

15

4

1

114

2.37

18

Professional Growth

16

18

12

1

1

97

2.02

14.5

Willingness to Participate in
Activities within the
Community Outside of School
Hours

11

19

12

4

1

105

2.26

17

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

16

16

12

2

0

92

2.00

12

323

345

156

29

8

1634

1.91

38

41

19

3

1

Leadership

Totals

Precentage

TABLE IX
PRINCIPALS’ RATINGS OP KEEP GRADUATES
ON EACH OF EIGHTEEN TEACHER COMPETENCIES

Teacher
Competencies

4

5

Weighted
Total

8

1

0

96

1.77

7

18

8

1

1

95

1.76

6

29

17

4

1

1

88

1.63

1

Flexibility

22

20

10

2

0

100

1.85

9

Sincerity

30

14

8

1

1

91

1.69

3

Enthusiasm

25

21

6

2

0

93

1.71

4

Constructive Control of
Pupils

16

22

13

3

0

111

2.06

15

Provisions for Individual
Differences

15

24

10

4

1

114

2.10

17

Evidence of Pupil Growth

13

23

15

1

1

113

2.12

18

Knowledge of Subject Matter

18

24

10

1

0

100

1.89

10

Rapport with Co-workers

26

16

8

3

1

99

1.83

8

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

21

21

9

1

2

104

1.93

11

1

2

Health and Vitality

22

23

Personal Appearance

26

Friendliness

Rating
3

Mean

Rank-(

TABLE IX (Continued)

Teacher
Competencies

1

2

Rating
3

4

Relationship with the
Administration

30

17

4

Ethical Attitude

28

16

Leadership

16

Professional Growth

5

Weighted
Total

Mean

Rank-Order

2

1

89

1.65

2

7

2

1

94

1.73

5

22

12

4

0

108

2.00

12

15

24

12

2

0

107

2.02

13

Willingness to Participate in
Activities within the
Community Outside of School
Hours

14

19

18

1

0

110

2.09

16

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

17

22

9

5

0

108

2.03

14

383

365

171

37

10

1824

1.93

40

38

18

4

1

Totals

Precentage

66
Statistical comparisons using an analysis of variance revealed no
statistically significant difference in the principals’ rating of the
two groups; therefore, the null hypothesis of no difference between the
EIP and RTEP graduates according to principal evaluation was accepted
for all eighteen of the listed competencies.

(See Table XI.)

The

above data were also subjected to further statistical analysis in
the form of the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient to ascertain
if there was a significant correlation between the rank-orders. The
above analysis generated a correlation of .73 which was significant at
the .001 level.

This high correlation points to the overall similarity

of the two groups.

(See Table X.)

The Comparison of Married and Single Teachers

There has been much written about the efficiency of married teachers
as opposed to single teachers. Seme of -this research was reviewed in
Chapter II.

No significant difference was found in the percentage of

EIP and RTEP graduates who were married, the precentages being 70.8 for
EIP and 7*1.1 for RTEP.
The principals rated single teachers higher in twelve of the eighteen
categories, with these differences ranging from .01 to .26.

The married

teacher’s were given comparatively higher ratings in five of the cate­
gories, with the remaining category showing no difference.

TABLE X
DIFEERENCES IN AVERAGE RATINGS AND RANK-ORDERS ASSIGNED EIP AND RTEP GRADUATES
IN EACH OF EIGHTEEN TEACHER COMPETENCIES ADJUDGED

Teacher
Competencies

EIP

MEAN
RTEP

Differ­
ence

RANK-ORDER
EIP '
K1EP

Health and Vitality

1.96

1.77

.19*

10

Personal Apperance

2.02

1.76

.26*

Friendliness

1.77

1.63

Flexibility

2.00

1.85

Sincerity

1.42

Enthusiasm

Differ­
ence

7

3

14.5

6

8.5

72.25

*
^r
1
—i

■

Differ­
ence

5

1

4

16

.15*

12

9

3

9

1.69

.27

1

2

1

1

1.63

1.71

.08

2

3.5

1.5

2.25

Constructive Control of
Pupils

1.77

2.06

.29

5

14.5

9.5

90.25

Provisions for Individual
Differences

2.00

2.10

.10

12

17

5

25

Evidence of Pupil Growth

2.04

2.12

.08

16

18

2

4

Knowledge of Subject Matter

1.81

1.89

.08

7

10

3

9

Rapport with Co-workers

1.87

1.83

.04*

8.5

8

.5

.25

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

1.87

1.93

.06

8.5

11

2.5

6.25

9

TABLE X (Continued)

Teacher
Competencies

RANK--ORDER
EIP
RTEP

Differ­
ence

Differ­
ence

MEAN
RTEP

Differ­
ence

1.65
1

1.71

.06

3

3.5

Ethical Attitude

1.77

1.73

.04*

5

5

Leadership

2.37

2.06

.31*

18

14.5

Professional Growth

2.02

2.02

•• • •

14

12

2

4

Willingness to Particiapte
in Activities within the
Ccmmunity Outside of
School Hours

2.26

2.09

.17*

17

16

1

1

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

2.00

2.03

.03

12

13

1

1

Relationship with the
Administration

EIP

TOTALS

.25

.5

....

3.5

12.25

262.75 Rho.73
^Differences which favor the RTEP graduates

TABLE XI
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PRINCIPALS ’ RATINGS OF EIP AND RTEP GRADUATES
ON EACH OF EIGHTEEN TEACHER COMPETENCIES

Teacher
Canpetencies______________________ DF

F needed at .05

F derived______ Significant

Health and Vitality

1/100

3-9^

1.41

No

Personal Appearence

1/100

3.94

2.33

No

Friendliness

1/100

3.94

1.33

No

Flexibility

1/100

3.94

....

No

Sincerity

1/100

3.94

1.82

No

Enthusiasm

1/100

3.94

Constructive Control of Pupils

1/100

3.94

Provisions for Individual
Differences

1/100

3.94

No

Evidence of Pupil Growth

1/100

3.94

No

Knowledge of Subject Matter

1/100

3.94

No

Rapport with Co-workers

1/100

3.94

....

No

3.94

....

No

Ability to Seek and Accept Advice

1/100

No
2.99

No

TABLE XI (Continued)

Teacher
Canpetencies

DF

Relationship with the Adm­
inistration

1/100

3-94

Ethical Attitude

1/100

3-94

....

No

Leadership

1/100

3-94

2.33

No

Professional Growth

1/100

3.94

••• •

No

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Ccranunity Outside of School
Hours

1/100

3.94

1.11

No

Ability to Meet and Work with
Parents

1/100

3-94

••••

No

F needed at .05

F derived

Significant

No

TOTALS

Indicates that the MS within and the MS between were too
similar to compute.

71
When the preceding differences were analyzed using an analysis
of variance, no significant differences were found in any of the eighteen
categories.

Thus, the null hypothesis of no significant difference be­

tween married and single teachers as determined by principal evaluation
was accepted.
The data comparing single and married teachers were also subjected
to the Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient to ascertain if there
was a significant correlation between the rank-orders. The analysis
generated a correlation of .86 which was significant at the .001 level.
This high rank-order correlation would indicate that there was a great
deal of similarity between the reported competencies of married and
single teahcers.

Differences among EIP Centers

The final analysis of the data derived Tran the principal's evalua­
tive questionnaire concerned a comparison of the five Intern Centers
which were in existence in 1965-66.
The mean for all EIP graduates was 1.91.
from a low of 1.64 to a high of 2.26.
analyzed using an analysis of variance.

The various centers ranged

The data from the five centers were
This test generated an F score

of 4.95 which was significant at the .01 level.

TABLE XII

DATA CONCERNING SINGLE AND MARRIED TEACHERS
AS REELECTED BY PRINCIPALS' EVALUATIONS

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

M

Mean Rating
S
Diff

Health and Vitality

1.83

1.93

.10*

Personal Appearance

1.88

1.87

Friendliness

1.71

1.67

Flexibility

1.83

1.83

Sincerity

1.63

1.47

Enthusiasm

1.90

Constructive Control of Pupils

Signifi
cant

M

Rank-Order
S
Diff

Diffsc

No

5.5

12

6.5

42.25

.01

No

9

10.5

1.5

2.25

.04

No

3

3

No

5.5

8

2.5

6.25

.16

No

1

1

1.73

.17

No

10

4.5

5.5

30.25

1.94

1.87

.07

No

12

10.5

1.5

2.25

Provisions for Individual Differences

2.04

2.10

.06*

No

15

17

2

4

Evidence of Pupil Growth

2.13

2.00

.13

No

16

13.5

2.5

6.25

Knowledge of Subject Matter

1.86

1.83

.03

No

8

8

Fapport with Cc-workers

1.87

1.80

.07

No

7

6

1

1

Ability to Seek and Accept Advice

1.93

1.83

.10

No

11

8

3

9

• • •

TABLE XII (Continued)

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

M

Mean Rating
S
Diff

Relationship with the Administration

1.65

1.63

Ethical Attitude

1.75

Leadership

Rank-Qrder
S
Diff

Signifi­
cant

M

.02

No

2

2

1.73

.02

No

4

4.5

2.18

2.30

.12*

No

17

18

1

1

Professional Growth

2.01

2.03

.02*

No

14

15

1

1

Willingness to Participate in
Activities within the Ccmmunity
Outside of School Hours

2.26

2.00

.26

No

18

13.5

4.5

Ability to Meet and Work with Parents

2.00

2.07

.07*

No

13

16

3

TOTALS

Diffsq

.25

.5

20.25
9

135
Rho .86
^Differences which favor the married graduates

74
TABLE XIII
COMPARISON OF THE FIVE, EIP CENTERS

EIP Center

Center Mean

Variation
from EIP
Mean

Outside of
Confidence

A

1.81

O
i—1

No

B

1.64

.27

Yes

C

1.73

CO
1—1

No

D

2.26

.35

Yes

E

2.14

.23

No

•‘EIP mean 1.91
2

4"

Confidence interval mean - .26

A confidence interval test related that two centers were outside of the
confidence interval, Center B at 1.64 and Center D at 2.26.

The centers

were not placed in alphabetical order for this analysis, and it is not
the purpose of this study to identify these centers by name.
An analysis of variance was then computed comparing Centers B and
D.

While Center D was judged better on competency one, it was not

statistically significant.

Center B was judged better on the other

seventeen ccmpetencies, and the difference was found to be significant
at the .05 level on ten of the seventeen items.

(See Table XEV.)

A Spearman Rank-Order Correlation Coefficient was then computed to
ascertain if there were significant differences between ranks. The
computed Rho of .35 indicates that there was a significant difference
in the rank-orders of the two centers, further indicating a difference
between the two centers.

TABLE XIV
COMPARISON OF CENTERS B AND D ON EIGHTEEN COMPETENCIES

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

Mean Rating
Diff
.05

Signifi­
cant
(B)

(B)

(D)

Health and Vitality

2.22

2.13

.09*

4.49

• • • •

No

17

5

Personal Appearance

2.33

2.38

.05

4.49

• • • •

No

18

11.5

6.5

42.25

Friendliness

1.33

2.38

1.05

4.49

20.0

36

Flexibility

1.89

2.00

.11 ■ 4.49

Sincerity

1.11

1.63

.52

4.49

Enthusiasm

1.11

2.25

1.24

Constructive Control
of Pupils

1.22

1.88

Provisions for Individual
Differences

1.56

Evidence of Pupil Growth

F

Rank--Order
Diff
(D)

Diff

144

12

Yes

5.5

11.5

6

No

14.5

4

10.5

110.25

5.26

Yes

1.5

1

.5

.25

4.49

12.00

Yes

1.5

7-5

6

36

.66

4.49

3-25

No

3.5

2.5

1

1

2.25

.69

4.49

6.82

Yes

10

7.5

2.5

6.25

1.56

2.50

.94

4.49

8.00

Yes

10

Knowledge of Subject Matter

1.22

2.25

1.03

4.49

11.36

Yes

Rapport with Co-workers

1.67

2.25

.58

4.49

2.08

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

1.33

2.50

1.17

4.49

15.79

• • • •

15

5

25

3.5

7.5

4

16

No

12.5

7.5

5

25

Yes

5.5

9.5

90.25

15

TABLE XIV (Continued)

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

(B)

(D)

Relationship with the
Administration

1.33

1.88

.55

4.49

3.22

No

5-5

2.5

3

9

Ethical Attitude

1.33

2.38

1.05

4.49

10.52.

Yes

5-5

11.5

6

36

Leadership

2.11

2.61

.50

4.49

2.63

No

16

17

1

1

Professional Growth

1.56

2.50

.94

4.49

6.35

Yes

10

15

5

25

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Ccrnmunity Outside of
School Hours

1.89

2.62

.73

4.49

4.55

Yes

14.5

18

3.5

12.25

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

1.67

2.38

.7

4.49

4.00

No

12.5

11.5

1

TOTALS

Mean Rating
Diff
.05

Signifi­
cant
(B)

F

Rank--Order
Diff
(D)

Diff

1

616.50
Rho .35
^Difference which favors center (D). All other favor center (B).

77
It would be presumptuous of the author to make any specific assump­
tions regarding the differences between the two centers.

There are,

however, several possibilities which might partially explain the findings.
Among these are: a difference in the quality of the training programs,
a difference in the quality of the product from the junior college which
services these centers, or a difference in the quality of the candidates
who were enrolled that particular year.

Ccmparison of EIP and KEEP Graduates
as Evidenced by Pupil Change

The second area of measurement concerned the use of the achievement
scores of the students who were in the classes of the EIP and the RTEP
graduates.

Following the procedure which was outlined in Chapter III,

a ccmparison was made using the Standard T scores which were computed
frcm the raw data.

The scores which reflected the growth of the students

under an EIP graduate ranged from 46.1 to 53.0, with a mean of 50.7.

It

will be noticed that the mean of 50.7 reflects a position very near the
Standard T mean, indicating near average achievement.
The scores which reflected the growth of the students under a RTEP
graduate ranged from 45.3 to 58.3, with a mean of 51.3.

Again, one can

see that this is very near the Standard T mean of 50, indicating near
average achievement.
Subjecting the Standard T scores to an analysis of variance, the
difference was not significant.

Therefore, hypothesis III of no signifi­

cant difference between the EIP and RTEP graduates according to pupil
achievement was accepted.

These results agree with the earlier findings

derived frcm the principals' evaluations.

78
TABLE XV

CCMPARISON OP THE EIP AND RTEP GRADUATES
AS EVIDENCED BY PUPIL CHANGE

Range on Standard T
EIP
RTEP

46.1-53.9

45.3-58.3

Mean
EIP
RTEP

50.7

Differ­
ence

51.3

.6

Signifi­
cant

No

The results of no difference in achievement are not surprising in
light of the recent research of Pettigrew,1 Coleman,2 and McDill3 who
found strong evidence that when variables such as the following were
held constant, neighborhood SES, school SES, and school climate, there
will be little difference in achievement.

Feedback frcm EIP and RTEP Graduates

The final data which were collected for this study were concerned
with the opinions of the graduates of the two programs under study.

The

graduates were provided a list of eighteen teacher competencies from
which they designated those which they felt provided them the greatest
teaching strength.

They were then asked to give their opinion on which

ccmpetencies they felt were the most important.

They were then asked to

1Thomas Pettigrew, Racial Isolation in the Public Schools, U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office,
19672

James Coleman, et al., Equality of Educational Opportunity, Office
of Education Survey, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1966.
3

Edward McDill, et. al., "Institutional Effects on the Academic
Behavior of High School Youth," Sociology of Education, XL (Sumner 1967),
pp. 181-199.

79
identify those sources which they felt had contributed to their self­
judged strengths.

Finally, they were asked for their opinion concern­

ing the adequacy of the training afforded them by Michigan State
University.

The Intern graduates were also asked if they would choose

the Intern program again if they had to start over in their professional
preparation program.

Graduates1 Self-Judged Strengths

The graduates designated their first, second, and third greatest
strengths frcm among the eighteen competencies listed.

Table XVI provides

a summary of their response on the basis of first choice-3 points, second
choice-2 points, and third choice-1 point.

Total values of tallies in

each competency were then computed and the competencies were rank-ordered.
The Intern graduates designated the five following competencies as
their greatest strengths:
1.

Flexibility

2.

Enthusiasm

3.

Provisions for Individual Differences

4.

Knowledge of Subject Matter

5.

Constructive Control of Pupils
The regular graduates designated the same five in a slightly different

order.

The RTEP strengths were as follows:

1.

Flexibility

2.

Constructive Control of Pupils

3.

Enthusiasm
Provisions for Individual Differences

5.

Knowledge of Subject Matter

TABLE XVI
GRADUATESr SELF-JUDGED STRENGTHS IN EIGHTEEN TEACHER COMPETENCIES

Entries
Teacher
Competencies

1st

EIP
2nd

3rd

Total

1st

RTEP
2nd

3rd

Health and Vitality

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Personal Appearance

0

0

0

0

0

0

Friendliness

1

1

2

4

0

Flexibility

7

6

4

37

Sincerity

4

1

1

Enthusiasm

6

1

Constructive Control of
Pupils

1

Provisions for Individual
Differences

EIP

Rank--Order
RTEP
Diff

0

17

16.5

.5

.25

0

0

17

16.5

•5

.25

1

1

3

11

11.5

.5

.25

5

2

3

22

1

1

....

15

0

4

2

10

6

7

1

1

2

22

3

2

3

16

2

3

1

1

5

3

16

5

1

0

17

5

2

3

9

4

3

3

21

3

2

2

15

3

4

1

1

Evidence of Pupil Growth

2

1

0

7

2

1

0

7

Knowledge of Subject
Matter

4

2

2

3

0

2

11

4

5

1

1

Rapport with Co-workers

1

1

2

7

0

2

6

10

9-5

7

2.5

6.25

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

1

4

3

14

1

3

1

10

7

7

••»•

18 '

Total

9-5

10

Diff!

••••

•5

.25

TABLE XVI (Continued)

Entries
Teacher
Ccmpetencies

EIP

Rank--Order
Diff
Rl'EP

Diffsq

3

14.5

11.5

3

9

0

0

14.5

16.5

2

4

0

0

0

17

16.5

0

1

0

2

12

13

1

1

2

0

0

1

1

13

14

1

1

9

0

2

4

8

8

9

1

1

Ki'EP
2nd

1st

EIP
2nd

3rd

Total

1st

Relationship with the
Administration

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

Ethical Attitude

0

0

1

1

0

0

Leadership

0

0

0

0

0

Professional Growth

0

1

1

3

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Community Outside of
School Hours

0

1

0

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

0

1

7

3rd

Total

TOTALS

.25

•5

36.75

Rio 79E
Each entry was multiplied by its weighted value to
arrive at the total values lst-3, 2nd-2, 3rd-l.

82
Rank-order correlation coefficients (Rho) were then determined comparing
the EIP and RTEP graduates' responses. This process resulted in a highly
significant rank-order correlation of .94, which indicates a significant
similarity in the self-judged strengths of the two groups.

A Comparison of Self-Judged Strengths
with Principals1 Evaluations

The comparison of self-judged strengths with principals' evaluations
must be approached in this study with some degree of caution because of
the fact that the principals were asked to judge, on a Likert scale, each
of the competencies listed, while the graduates were asked to rank-order
their own perceptions of their top three strengths.
in mind, a comparison of the rank-orders was made.

With this distinction
This comparison re­

sulted in a correlation between EIP graduates and principals' evaluations
of .24, which is not significant and would indicate that there is a
difference in the opinions of these groups concerning the EIP graduates'
greatest teaching strengths.
A ccmparison of the RTEP graduates and the principals’ evaluations
on a rank-order correlation resulted in a computed Rho of -.14.

This

would indicate that there is an even greater difference in the adjudged
strengths of RTEP graduates as ascertained by the graduates themselves
and their principals.
One can only speculate whether the differences found between prin­
cipals' evaluation and graduates' self-judged strengths are as real as
they appear to be or whether the difference in technique and instruments
used accounts for the computed difference.

83
Of the five top self-judged EIP strengths, three were in the
category of Instructional Skills and two were in the category of
Personal Characteristics; while the principals' evaluations found the
top five with only one in the category of Instructional Skills, three in
the category Personal Characteristics, and one in the category TeacherStaff Relationships.
Of the five top self-judged RTEP strengths, which were the same for
RTEP as EIP, the principals judged two in the category of Instructional
Skills and one each in the categories of Personal Characteristics, Pro­
fessional Attitude, and Community Relationships.
The apparent difference in assessment of competence between the
principals' evaluations and the self-judged evaluations might possibly
indicate a feeling on the part of the graduates that their strengths
should reside in the five chosen rather than where they actually reside,
or it might indicate a difference in perception.

Graduates' Self-Judged Strengths Compared with Those
Competencies Judged to Be Most Important

The graduates designated the three teacher ccmpetencies they
considered most important.
responses.

Table XVTII provides a summary of their

Those data were then rank-ordered from one— that competency

considered most important— to eighteen— that competency considered least
important.
tion of .79.

The rank-order correlation of those data produced a correla­
It is suggested on the basis of these facts that Interns

and regular program graduates possess similar values in reference to the
relative importance of the several teacher competencies listed.

TABLE XVII
CCMPARISON OF RANK-ORDER OF PRINCIPAL ’ EVALUATIONS AND SELF-JUDGMENT
ON EIGHTEEN COMPETENCIES

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

Principal

EIP
Self

Diff

DiffSq

Principal

RTEP
Self

Diff

7

16.5

9-5

90.25

6

16.5

10.5

110.25
110.25

DiffSq

Health and Vitality

10

17

7

Personal Appearance

14.5

17

2.5

5

11

6

36

1

11.5

10.5

12

1

11

121

9

1

8

64

Sincerity

1

6

5

25

2

7

5

25

Enthusiasm

2

2

• • •

• • • •

3.5

3

•5

•25

Constructive Control of
Pupils

5

5

• • •

• • • •

14.5

2

12.5

156.25

Provisions for Individual
Differences

12

3

9

81

17

4

13

169

Evidence of Pupil Growth

16

9.5

6.5

42.25

18

10

8

64

Friendliness
Flexibility

49
6.25

Knowledge of Subject
Matter

7

4

3

9

10

5

5

25

Rapport with Co-workers

8.5

9.5

1

1

8

7

1

1

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

8.5

7

1.5

2.25

11

7

4

16

TABLE XVII (Continued)

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

Principal

EIP
Self

Diff

DiffSq

Relationship with the
Administration

3

14.5

11.5

132.25

Ethical Attitude

5

14.5

9-5

90.25

Hi'EP
Self

Diff

DiffSq

3.5

11.5

8

64

5

16.5

11.5

132.25

Principal

Leadership

18

17

1

1

14.5

16.5

2

4

Professional Growth

14

12

2

4

12

13

1

1

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Ccmmunity Outside of
School Hours

17

13

4

16

16

14

2

4

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

12

8

4

16

13

9

4

16

TOTALS

632.25

1052.50

Rho .24

Rho .14

86

Rank-order correlation coefficients were then determined comparing
the rank-orders of the competencies adjudged to be most important with
those adjudged to be the greatest strengths of the two groups of
graduates.

The results of those comparisons are shown in Table XIX.

Correlation coefficients obtained in comparing these two sets of rank­
ings were both significant at the .01 level (.83 for EIP graduates and
.77 for RTEP graduates).

The high correlations which were found would

indicate that the graduates at least felt that they were fairly com­
petent in those areas which they Judged to be important to teaching
success.

Graduates* Indentification of Sources Which
Provided Them Strength

The graduates were provided a list of eight sources of teacher
competency (nine for EIP including the addition of Intern Consultant)
from which they designated those which they felt provided them the
greatest strength.
As with most of the other data relating to the two groups, the
identification of sources of strength were very similar.
mentioned the category Yourself (intrinsic) most often.

Both groups
The EIP

graduates followed this with Intern Consultant, Teaching Associates,
Supervising Teacher, Professional Education Courses, the Principal,
Others, and a tie for last between Subject Courses and College Coordi­
nator.

The RTEP graduates followed Yourself with Professional Education

Courses, Teaching Associates, Supervising Teacher, the Principal, Sub­
ject Courses, Others, and the College Coordinator.

TABLE XVIII

COMPARISON OP TEACHER COMPETENCIES ADJUDGED TO BE MOST
IMPORTANT BY THE GRADUATES

Entries
Teacher
Ccmpetencies

1st

EIP
2nd

3rd

Total

1st

RTEP
2nd

3rd

Total

EIP

Rank-Order
RTEP
Diff

Health and Vitality

0

1

1

3

0

0

0

0

9.5

15-5

6

36

Personal Appearance

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14.5

15.5

1

1

Friendliness

0

2

3

7

0

0

1

1

7

12

5

25

Flexibility

2

4

1

15

2

1

2

10

2.5

4.5

2

4

Sincerity

4b

0

1

13

3

3

3

18

5

1

4

16

Enthusiasm

3

0

4

13

2

1

2

10

5

4.5

•5

.25

Constructive Control of
Pupils

1

3

3

15

1

4

3

14

2.5

3

.5

.25

Provisions for Individual
Differences

3

5

4

29

3

3

1

16

1

2

1

1

Evidence of Pupil Growth

1

0

0

3

2

0

0

6

9.5

8

1.5

2.25

Knowledge of Subject
Matter

3

2

0

13

2

0

1

7

5

7

2

4

Rapport with Co-workers

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

5

14.5

9.5

5

25

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

1

1

1

6

0

0

2

3

9

2

8

11

Diffsq

TABLE XVIII (Continued)

Entries
1st

KTEP
2nd

3rd

Total

EIP

0

0

0

0

0

14.5

15.5

0

0

1

2

1

8

14.5

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14.5

15.5

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14.5

15.5

1

1

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Community Outside of
School Hours

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

14.5

15.5

1

1

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

0

0

3

3

0

1

3

5

11

1.5

2.25

1st

EIP
2nd

3rd

Total

Relationship with the
Administration

0

0

0

Ethical Attitude

0

0

Leadership

0

Professional Growth

Teacher
Ccmpetencies

TOTALS

Rank--Order
RTEP
Diff

9.5

1
8.5

Diffsq

1
72.25

202.25
Rho .79
Each tally was multiplied by its weighted value to
arrive at the total values lst-3, 2nd-2, 3rd-l.

TABLE XIX

RANK-ORDER CORRELATION OF THE SELF-JUDGED STRENGTHS OF GRADUATES
AND THOSE COMPETENCIES ADJUDGED TO BE MOST IMPORTANT

Teacher
Competencies

EIP
Self-Judged Adjudged
Strengths
Important

Diff

DiffSq

RTEP
Self-Judged Adjudged
Strengths
Inportant

Diff

DiffSq

Health and Vitality

17

9-5

7.5

56.25

16.5

15.5

1

1

Personal Appearance

17

14.5

2.5

6.25

16.5

15.5

1

1

Friendliness

11

7

4

11.5

12.0

.5

.25

Flexibility

1

2.5

1.5

2.25

1

4.5

3.5

12.25

Sincerity

6

5

1

1

7

1

6

36

Enthusiasm

2

5

3

9

3

4.5

1.5

2.25

Constructive Control of
Pupils

5

2.5

2.5

6.25

2

3

1

1

Provisions for Individual
Differences

3

1

2

4

4

2

2

4

Evidence of Pupil Growth

9.5

9.5

0

0

10

8

2

4

Knowledge of Subject
Matter

4

5

1

1

5

7

2

4

Rapport with Co-workers

9.5

14.5

5

25

7

9.5

2.5

6.25

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

7

8

1

1

7

16

11

4

16

TABLE XIX (Continued)

Teacher
Conpetencies

EIP
Self-Judged Adjudged
Important
Strengths

Diff

DiffSq

RTEP
Self-Judged Adjudged
Important
Strengths

Diff

Diff*q

16

Relationship with the
Administration

14.5

14.5

0

0

11.55

15.5

4

Ethical Attitude

14.5

14.5

0

0

16.5

6

10.5

110.25

Leadership

17

14.5

2.5

6.25

16.5

15.5

1

1

Professional Growth

12

14.5

2.5

6.25

13

15.5

2.5

6.25

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Community Outside of
School Hours

13

14.5

1.5

2.25

14

15.5

1.5

2.25

11

3

9

9

9.5

.5

.25

Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

TOTALS

8

111.75
EIP Rho

.83

224.00
KIEP Rho

.77

91
TABLE XX

COMPARISON OP EIP AND RTEP GRADUATES'
SOURCES OP STRENGTH

Source of
Strength

Rank--Order
EIP
RTEP

Diff

Diff

Professional Education
Courses

4

2

2

4

Subject Courses

7.5

6

1.5

2.25

Supervising Teacher

3

4

1

1

College Coordinator

7.5

8

1.5

2.25

Teaching Associates

2

3

1

1

Principal

5

5

0

0

Yourself (intrinsic)

1

1

0

0

Others (specify)

6

7

1

1

Total

11.25
Rho

Note:

.87

The category Intern Consultant which was
placed second by EIP graduates was removed
for comparative purposes.

When the item Intern Consultant was removed frcm the EIP group for
comparative purposes, one can see that there was very little difference
between the two groups.

A correlation coefficient revealed that the

correlation was .87 which was significant at the .001 level.

The

category Others included such things as family, the church, parents, and
various experiences. The category College Coordinator was mentioned

92
only twice by EIP graduates, and not at all by RTEP graduates. The
low rating of the College Coordinator was not unexpected as there is
very little contact between the student teacher and the coordinator.
When the data were analyzed by teaching competency, it was found,
as one would expect, that different competencies were supported by
different sources.

(See Table XXI.)

In summary concerning this data, it can be concluded that as far
as the graduates themselves are concerned, the most important single
source of strength is from Yourself (intrinsic).

Persons in the field,

i.e., Intern Consultants, Supervising Teachers, and Teaching Associates,
played a very important role in developing teaching competencies, in
the opinions of the graduates.

The RTEP graduates placed the category

of Professional Education Courses high on the list of sources of
strength.

Feelings of the Graduates about
Michigan State University

Of the twenty-eight returns from the EIP graduates, twenty-three
Indicated satisfaction with their program at Michigan State University;
four indicated that they did not feel that they had received adequate
training; and one questionnaire was not complete.
satisfaction recorded was 85 per cent.

The percentage of

Of the twenty-three returns

frcm the RTEP graduates, ten were positive; eleven were negative; and
two did not answer.
of 48 per cent.
.05 level.

These returns generated a satisfaction percentage

The difference in percentage was significant at the

TABLE XXI

SOURCES RESPONSIBLE FOR IRE TEACHING COMPETENCIES
SEIE-JUDGED BY GRADUATES TO BE THEIR GREATEST STRENGTHS

Teacher
Competencies

Source of Strengths
EIP

Flexibility

You (intrinsic)
Intern Consultant
Teaching Associates

Enthusiasm

Intern Consultant
You (intrinsic)

RTEP
You (intrinsic)
'Professional Education Courses
Supervising Teacher’s
You (intrinsic)
Teaching Associates
Supervising Teachers

Provisions for Individual
Differences

Intern Consultant
Supervising Teacher
^Professional Education Courses
^Teaching Associates

You (intrinsic)
Teaching Associates
Professional Education Courses

Knowledge of Subject
Matter

^Professional Education Courses
^Subject Courses
^Teaching Associates

You (intrinsic)
Subject Courses
Professional Education Courses

Constructive Control
of Pupils

Supervising Teachers
^Professional Education Courses
*Intern Consultant
^Teaching Associates
*You (intrinsic)

^Indicates equal source of strength.

^Teaching Associates
*You (intrinsic)
Supervising Teachers

94
TABLE XXII

FEELINGS OF THE GRADUATES CONCERNING
THEIR TRAINING AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Professional
Program

Responses

Positive Reaction
No.
%

EIP

27

23

85

RTEP

21

10

48

6

13

37*

Difference

^Difference in per cent significant at .05.

Of the twenty-eight EIP graduates, twenty-seven indicated that they
would take the intern training if they had to start over.

The one who

would not indicated that she felt she had missed a great deal by not
having spent more time on campus.

Open-Ended Comments

Both groups were asked to make open-ended comments about their
training.

Below are some of the more frequently listed positive coiments

about their training at Michigan State University:
EIP
"Without the year of internship, I might not have followed
through with being a teacher. The help I received that
year from my Intern Consultant was invaluable."
"The most practical help I received was the intern year.
I feel that every first year teacher needs someone really
in her comer to lend support and constructive criticism."

95
"If it were not for the Intern Program, I would not
have finished four years of college."
"I feel my training was adequate, but I also know I
was one of the lucky ones. I had capable instructors
for my methods courses, a chance as an EIP student to
see a classroom in action while I was taking methods,
and an excellent student teaching supervisor and intern
consultant."
"The Intern Program shouldn't be just a choice for a
new teacher, but a requirement."
"I feel that professional courses were very good except
in presenting the true rather than the theoretical con­
cepts of the classroom. However, many worthwhile materials
were added to my repertoire of teaching aids."

The praises of the Intern Program and the Intern Consultants go
on and on.

These graduates seemed really to feel that the EIP launched

them on a successful teaching career.

RTEP
"I gained more from my student teaching contact and
from actual classroom contact. I feel a prospective
should have as much student contact as possible before
becoming a teacher."
"I particularly enjoyed the
mixture of graduate as well
As I look back, I sincerely
prepared me for my teaching

classes where there was a
as undergraduate students.
believe that MSU adequately
career."

A positive comment by the RTEP graduates usually meant a grudging
admission that they might have picked up a few things from the methods
courses, and a general approval of the student teaching program.
Following are some of the negative comments.
for both EIP and RTEP graduates were similar.
the professional courses were not realistic.

The negative comments

In general, they felt that
They felt that many of the

instructors had not been in the classroom for so long that they had
forgotten what it was really like.

The lack of courses in the teaching

of reading was mentioned by several graduates.

In general, the RTEP

graduates were much more negative than the EIP graduates. They were
especially critical of the lack of more opportunity to be in the class­
room.

Many suggested a longer clinical experience, and several suggested

that a -clinical experience should include more than one school.
The lack of exposure to Negro culture and the lack of training to
work in the ghetto were also mentioned several times.
It is interesting to note that the suggestion of the graduates
about longer clinical experiences are met by the Intern Program, but
there was no difference in the outcome according to the data gathered
for this study.

Summary

It was established that there were no significant differences
between EIP and RTEP graduates’ effectiveness as far as either principal
evaluation or pupil change was concerned.

There were no significant

differences between married and single teachers' effectiveness as
determined by the principals’ evaluations.
There was a significant difference in situational deployment in
relationship to area of clinical preparation, with the EIP graduates
staying in the same system or school.

There was no significant

difference in type of schools in which teachers served, with regard to
racial or SES composition. There was no significant difference in
the percentage of graduates who stayed in the same school following
the 1967-68 academic year.

97
There was an unexplained difference between two of the EIP training
centers as determined by the principal evaluations.
Both groups of graduates felt that the greatest help came Tran the
clinical situation and their teaching associates.
There wasa significant difference percentage-wise in the feelings
of the graduates toward their training, and toward the help provided by
the university, with the EIP graduates being very positive and the RTEP
graduates being about half positive and half negative.

Almost all of

the RTEP graduates felt that more clinical preparation was needed.
While theRTEP graduates
which they had

were very critical of the methods courses

received, they did place Professional Education Courses

high on the list of sources of strength.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

Based upon the results of this study, the following conclusions
were reached:

1.

The vast majority of Michigan State University graduates from
both the EIP and the RTEP were performing adequately in the field.
This conclusion was supported by the judgment of the building
principals, in that the average rating for both groups was "Good."
Of all the graduates in the study, none was dismissed from her
job nor was any denied tenure.

The data from the achievement gains

showed that the pupils of these graduates were doing as well if not
better than the pupils of their peers in the field.
2.

The Michigan State University Intern graduates were not signifi­
cantly different in performance in the field from the Regular
Program graduates.
Although there were seme differences in individual compe­
tencies as judged by the building principals, none of these
differences were statistically significant.

The rank-order correla­

tion coefficient between the two groups was significant, which
further indicates the similarity in principals’ ratings of the two
groups. These findings were in accord with the results of the
data regarding achievement gains of the pupils of these teachers
and with the results of the self-judged competencies of the
graduates themselves.
98

3.

There was an unexplained, significant difference between two of
the EIP training centers.
When these two centers were compared, there was a significant
difference on ten of the eighteen items of the principals’ question­
naire.

The computed significant difference would suggest that the

quality of the graduates of these two centers differs as judged by
the building principals. Whether this difference was a result of
the programs of the two centers or the result of the particular
individuals in the two centers during the year that the sample popu­
lation was selected is not known.
4. The graduates of the EIP were more likely to teach in the system
which provided the clinical preparation than were the RTEP graduates.
This conclusion was supported by the data which revealed that
a significantly higher percentage of the EIP graduates than the RTEP
graduates were teaching in the system which had provided the clinical
preparation.

This finding was not surprising in light of the fact

that most EIP students chose that particular type of training be­
cause they were not able to leave their heme area for a prolonged
period, because of either family or financial reasons.
5. There were no differences between the EIP and RTEP graduates in
regard to other items connected with situational deployment.
This finding was supported by the data which revealed that
approximately the same numbers were teaching in schools of minority
group makeup, in lower SES schools, and in mixed schools in spite
of the fact that all of the EIP training centers were located with­
in or fairly near a large metropolitan area which had significant

100
minority populations.

There was also no significant difference be­

tween the groups concerning the numbers who were engaged in the
teaching profession and in the numbers who remained in the same
school following the 1967-68 academic year.
6. There were no differences in marriage rate of the two groups, nor
were there any differences in the competency of married compared
with single teachers, according to the principals' evaluations.
7.

There was a low percentage of schools in the study which reported
using ability' grouping in the form of homogeneous classrooms.
It was found that less than 20 per cent of the schools in the
study used ability grouping.

However, there was a disproportion­

ately large percentage of such grouping in schools identified as
minority group schools, mixed schools, and lower SES schools.

How­

ever, caution should be applied to this conclusion because of the
small number of such schools in the study.
8. There was a significant difference in the rank-order correlation
coefficient between the reported competencies of the graduates
according to the principals' and the self-judged competencies
of the graduates themselves.
This finding must be approached with caution as the types of
instrument used In each evaluation differed.

However, the teachers

ranked themselves much higher on those competencies related to
instructional skills than did the principals. This finding might
indicate that the teachers felt these skills were more important,
and thus reported their competencies in these areas. The princi­
pals, however, did rate the teachers as better than average in
these skills.

101
9.

There was a significant difference in the attitude of the groups
relative to the training which they received from Michigan State
University.
The date revealed that almost all of the EIP graduates were
satisfied with the training received, while only half of the RTEP
graduates were satisfied with their training.

Both groups revealed

a distaste for the methods courses which they received.

They were

particularly critical because of what they regarded as the lack of
relationship between the topics discussed in methods classes with
what they found in the classroom.

They were also critical because

of the lack of exposure to such areas as the "Teaching of reading,”
"Negro culture," and "Problems of the ghetto."
It was suggested by the RIEP graduates that more clinical
preparation is needed, and that a variety of situations would be
helpful.

The EIP graduates had a great deal of praise for the

Intern Consultants who worked with them during their year of
internship.
10. The main source of strength for a career in teaching, according to
the graduates of both programs, was intrinsic.
The data revealed that as far as the graduates themselves were
concerned, their main strength was from themselves, and not from
something learned either at the university or in the field.

This is

not to say that good teachers are born this way, but rather that
behavioral patterns and personality patterns which are developed
over a long period of time are of significant importance in the
teaching profession.

102
11.

The main secondary sources of strength necessary for success in
teaching are provided for the most part in the field, including
the clinical phase, rather than in the university classroom.
The data revealed that sources which were identified as being
most helpful included Intern Consultants, Supervising Teachers, and
Teaching Associates.

However, in spite of the negative feelings

toward the professional education courses expressed by the graduates
of both programs, these courses were rated high on the list of
sources of strength.

The lack of consistency in these data might

be the result of the almost legendary disdain that teachers are
supposed to have for methods courses.

Reccmmendat ions

Based upon the results and conclusions reached from this study, the
following recommendations are made:
1.

The College of Education should determine the goals of the EIP.

If

the goals are the training of superior teachers, then the program
needs to be restructured, as the results of the study indicate that
there are no differences in the EIP graduates and graduates in the
RTEP as determined by the criteria of this study.
To expand upon this theme, one needs to look at the program
itself.

While one of the main objectives of the EIP is a close

working relationship with the local system, the only real connec­
tion is in the clinical phase of the program.

Perhaps more use

103
should be made of the expertise of the local school system.

The

fact that the methods courses are taught at the local center rather
than on campus means very little if it is coupled observations rather
than actual practice in the classroom.

One of the findings from the

graduates' feedback seems to be the irrelevance of methods courses,
although there was inconsistency in these findings. This perceived
irrelevance might be the result of the scheduling of methods courses
before student teaching, rather than the content of the methods
courses.

The student in the methods courses has little to relate to

in trying to assimilate the theory which is presented.

If the methods

courses could be offered in conjunction with the clinical phase of
the work, they might be more meaningful.

There is credibility gap

between the so-called theory and practice in education; and moving
the methods courses from the campus does not seem to eliminate this
gap.

The instructors are, for the most part, the same people who

teach these classes on campus.
If the goals of the program are to train teachers who otherwise
would not be able to go to college, and to train teachers to service
a particular area of the state, then the program could be called a
success.

However, it should be explored to ascertain if the present

program is the most effective method to reach these goals, or if
the same goals could not be reached more expediently by another
method.
It should be noted that the graduates of the EIP are much more
satisfied with their training than the graduates of the RTEP.

This

satisfaction seems to be the result of the Internship, or the longer

clinical preparation, rather than the difference in methods courses.
The role of the Intern Consultant seems to be significant in this
satisfaction.

Perhaps all teachers should have a year of apprentice­

ship at a reduced salary.

The savings on the salaries could be used

to pay for a consultant to work with these people to give them the
needed support which seems to play such an important part in their
first year on the job.
The present study might well be replicated with the following modifi­
cations :
a.

A longitudinal study should be made of each of the Intern centers
to ascertain if there is a difference in the quality of the
programs from center to center.

This procedure should be done

not to find fault and place blame, but for the establishment of
good uniform practices which could be shared by all.
b.

A comparison should be made between EIP graduates and RTEP
graduates using other criteria of teacher effectiveness, such
criteria as pupil feedback, independent observation, and
interaction analysis.

c.

An attempt should be made to ascertain why EIP students choose
the Intern method of training.

If it is chosen because the

the student thinks that it is designed to give him the best
possible training, the educational outcomes might be different
than if the student chooses it only because it is convenient.
d.

Focus of further investigation should be on those areas of
conpetency which were identified in the present study as being
among the greatest strengths and weaknesses of the two groups.

105
The intention of this recommendation is the remediation of
critical weaknesses or the proliferation of notable strengths.
3. The College of Education should establish and provide for a regular,
systematic follow up of teacher education graduates.

This process

should begin before the student leaves the campus, by the establish­
ment of an individual file which would include:
a.

Basic biographical data

b.

Related academic and qualification data

c. Place-of-residence information
d.

Job-placement facts
This follow up would necessitate a program of close cooperation

with the placement bureau, or the establishment of a special place­
ment bureau for the College of Education.

As the largest college

within the university and one which is engaged in a special type
of education, the latter might be well worth while.

The suggested

follow-up records would be useful in:
a.

Determining desirable changes in the teacher education
curricula.

b.

Projecting enrollments in post-graduate programs.

c.

Compiling essential reports and statistics relating
to teacher education functions.

d.
4.

Assessing and evaluating current programs.

More courses should perhaps be offered at the under graduate level
in such areas as reading, working with disadvantaged children, and
educational sociology.

The first two are needed to strengthen

certain teaching skills, while the latter is necessary to prepare

teachers for leadership in the field of education.

As more and

more research is pointing to the fact that the environment of the
heme and the school are the critical factors in achievement growth
and attitudes, then it is imperative that prospective teachers be
aware of this research.
Clinical preparation has been well accepted over the years as an
integral part of teacher education.

The graduates of both the EIP

and RTEP concurred with this practice.

In view of the results of

this study, it might be concluded that the length of the preparation
is not the critical factor.

The importance of the clinical phase

may actually be in the timing rather than in the length.
Clinical preparation in actual practice has two distinct
functions, and these functions are not always in harmony with each
other.

The two functions are on-the-job training and a period of

proving one's capability in handling the classroom situation.

The

problem with having all the clinical phase at the end of the academic
training is that if the student finds that he is unable to work
effectively with people, he is already so far along on the program
that it is difficult to choose an alternate goal.
While academic knowledge is of importance in the teaching
profession, the ability to relate to people in a meaningful way is
of crucial importance.

It is recommended that a period of clinical

training be arranged at the beginning of the professional sequence
to screen out through observation, counseling, and evaluation those
people who cannot effectively relate to others. The present program
of observation is not sufficient to do the job.

107
In conclusion, it should be noted that the concept of the intern­
ship, like most other concepts, is neither good nor bad in itself.

It

allows an opportunity for longer clinical preparation, but the quality
of this clinical preparation is left up to the individual intern center
and to the Intern Consultant in that center.

Length in itself is not

sufficient to provide the necessary ingredients for a successful teach­
ing career, unless this length is enriched by those experiences which
are meaningful.
be exposed.

It is time that the myth of quantity equaling quality

All programs should be continually evaluated to ascertain

if the programs are attaining those goals which are important.
While the question of what makes an effective teacher is still
unanswered, there is a strong indication that being a good teacher is
not "what one knows," but "what one is"; and if the quality of the
teaching profession is to improve, there must be a continual search
for those attributes which are important in teaching, and a success­
ful effort to design and develop programs which will either provide
an opportunity for teachers to acquire those qualities or which will
eliminate from the teaching profession those people who do not possess
those qualities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Walter. "Teacher Competence and Pupil Change."
Educational Review, XXIV (1954), 273-289.

Harvard

Almy, H. V., and Sorenson, Herbert. "A Teacher-Rating Scale of
Determined Reliability and Validity." Educational Administra­
tion and Supervision, XVI (1930), 179-1^53
Anderson, Harold. "A Study of Certain Criteria of Teaching Effec­
tiveness." Journal of Experimental Education, XXIII,
(September 1954), 41-47.
Barr, Arvil. Wisconsin Studies of the Measurement and Prediction
of Teacher Effectiveness. Madison: Dembar Publications, Inc.,

Beggs, Walter. The Education of Teachers. New York:
Applied Research in Education, 1965.

The Center for

Biddle, Bruce and Ellena, William. Contempory Research on Teacher
Effectiveness.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.,
I
Brookover, Wilbur. "The Relation of Social Factors to Teaching
Ability." Journal of Experimental Education, XIII (June 1945)>
191-205.
Coleman, James, et al. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Office
of Education Survey, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1966.
Ccmbs, Arthur. "Objective Measurement Is Impossible." National
Education Association Journal, LIII (January 1964), 34-36.
Conley, James. "Personal Characteristics of Female Elementary Intern
Program and Conventional Program Students." (Unpublished paper,
Michigan State University).
Cooper, James. "A Comparison of Two Plans of Teacher Education."
Journal of Educational Research, LI (May 1958), 643-658.
Corman, Bernard. THE INTERNSHIP in the Preparation of Elementary
School Teachers. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964.
108

109
Corrigan, Dean. "Attitude Changes of Student Teachers." Journal
of Educational Research, LVII (October 1963), 93-95.
Cross, Arthur. "A Comparative Analysis of the Expressed Attitudes
of Elementary Education Students, Their University Instructors,
and Their Supervising Teachers Toward Pupil-Teacher Relations
as Measured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory."
(Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1959.)
Day, Harry. "Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers After Initial
Teaching Experience." Journal of Teacher Education, X
(September 1959), 326-32^
Dcwnie, N. M. and Heath, R. W.
Drews Elizabeth.

Basic Statistical Methods.

Instructor, LXXV (April 1966), 20+.

Dutton, Wilbur. "Attitude -Change of Elementary School Student
Teachers, and Anxiety." Journal of Educational Research, LV
(May 1962), 380-382.
Ellinger, William. "A Study of the Procedures Used to Evaluate
Professional School Personnel in the Public School of the State
of Maryland." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington
Univers ity, 1968.)
Fattu, Nicholas. "Research on Teacher Evaluation." The Nations!
Elementary Principal, XLIII (November 1963), 21-22.
Gotham, R. E. "Personality and Teaching Efficiency." Journal of
Experimental Education, XIV (December 1945), 157-165.
Gowan, J . C . "A Follow-up Study of Teaching Candidates." Journal
of Educational Research, LIV (May 1961), 353-355.
Haberman, M. "A Comparison of Interns with Regular First Year Teachers."
Journal of Educational Research, LIX (October 1965), 92-94.
Hall, James. "Selected Aspect of Teacher Evaluation in the Public
School Systems in the State of Montana as Compared with Public
School Systems Throughout the United States." (Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Montana, 1967.)
Hall, H. 0. "Professional Preparation and Teacher Efficiency."
Journal of Teacher Education, XV (April 1964), 72-76.
Hawkins, Edward and Stoops, George. "Objective and Subjective Identifi­
cation of Outstanding Elementary Teachers." Journal of Educational
Research, LIX (April 1966), 344-346.

110
Herman, Wayne. "Teacher Observation."
XLIII, (April 1964), 63-64.

National Elementary Principal,

Hoover, K. H. "A Survey of Student Teacher Effectiveness." The
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals,
XLV (October 1961), 166-169.
Howsam, Robert. "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folklore."
National Elementary Principal, (November 1963), 6-18.

The

Jayne, Clarence. "A Study of the Relations in Between Teaching Pro­
cedures and Educational Outcomes." Journal of Experimental
Education, XTV (December 1946), 101-134.
Johnson, Edward. "Teachers Indicate Need of Fifth Year."
Education Journal, XLV (November 1967) 40.

Michigan

Jones, Margaret. "Analysis of Certain Aspects of Teaching Ability."
Journal of Experimental Education, XXV (December 1956), 103-180.
Kershner, Roger. "A Comparative Study of the Teaching Competence of
University of Oregon Interns." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
The University of Oregon, 1968.)
Knox, William. "A Study of the Relationships of Certain Environmental
Factors to Teaching Success." Journal of Experimental Education,
XXV (December 1956), 95-151.
Lawler, Eugene. "Differing Rates of Progress of Classes Under the
Same and Different Teachers." Journal of Educational Research,
LVIII (October 1964), 84-86.
Lins, Leo. "The Prediction of Teaching Efficiency." Journal of
Experimental Education, XV (September 1946), 2-60.
Lupone, Orlando. "A Comparison of Provisionally Certified and Per­
manently Certified Elementary School Teachers In Selected
School Districts in New York State." Journal of Educational
Research, LV (October 1961), 53-63.
McCullough, James. "A Study of Teacher Attitude and Teacher Rating."
(Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1968.)
McDill, Edward, Meyers, Edmund, and Rigsby, Leo. "Institutional
Effects on Academic Behavior of High School Students."
Sociology of Education, XL (Sumner 1967), 181-199.
Nagle, Marshall. "Some Effects of Student Teaching Patterns Upon
Professional Attitudes." Journal of Educational Research,
LII (May 1959), 355-377.
National Education Association. Evaluation of Classroom Teachers,
The American Research Association Report 1964-B14, Washington,
D.C.: Research Division, National Education Association, 1964.

Ill
Osman, Robert. "Associative Factors in Change of Student Teachers'
Attitudes During Student Teaching." (Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, Indiana University, 1959.)
Pettigrew, Thomas, et. al., Racial Isolation in the Public Schools.
U.S. Conmission on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing
Office, 1967.
Phi Delta Kappan, XLV (June 1965), 444.
Price, Robert. "Relations Between Cooperating Teachers and Student
Teachers' Attitudes and Performance." (Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Texas, i960.)
Reavis, William. "Evaluation of Teacher Merit in City School Systems."
Supplementary Educational Monographs, No.59, Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1945.
Rostker, Leon. "The Measurement of Teaching Ability, Study No. 1."
Journal of Experimental Education, XXV (September 1945), 6-51.
Rucker, Winifred. "A Critical Analysis of Current Trends in Student
Teaching." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University,
1952.)
Rudman, Herbert. "How Good Are Standardized Achievement Tests?"
The National Elementary Principal, XLXV (November 1964), 32-38.
Ryans, David. Characteristics of Teachers, Washington, D.C.: American
Council on Education, I960.
Sandgren, Duane. "Does Practice Teaching Change Attitudes Toward
Teaching?" Journal of Educational Research, XLIX (May 1956),
673- 680.
Shaplin, Judson. "A Comparison of Internship Programs." 1963 NCTEPS
Columbus Conference Report. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association, 1963.
Shaplin, Judson. "Practice in Teaching."
XXXI (Winter, 1961), 33-57.

Harvard Educational Review,

Shim, C. P. "A Study of the Cumulative Effect of Four Teacher
Characteristics on Achievement of Elementary School Pupils."
■ Journal of Educational Research, LIX (September 1965), 33-34.
Simun, R. B. "The Relationship of Variables in Undergraduate School,
and School Administrators' Ratings of First Year Teachers."
Journal of Teacher Education, XV (September 1964), 293-302.
Smith, Elmer., Ed., Teacher Education: A Reappraisal. New York:
and Row, 1963.
Solomon, Daniel. "Teacher Behavior and Student Learning."
Educational Psychology, LV (February 1964), 23-30.

Harper

Journal of

112
Stiles, Lindley. Teacher Education In the United States. New York:
The Ronald Press Company, i960.
Stoelting, Gustave. "The Selection of Candidates for Teacher Education
at the Univeristy of Wisconsin." Journal of Experimental Education,
XXIV (December 1955), 115-140.
Torrence, Andrew. "A Study of the Relationships of Certain Competencies
to Success in Teaching Vocational Agriculture." Journal of Experi­
mental Education, XXV (September 1956), 1-31.
Troisi, Nicholas. "The Effect of Student Teaching upon Student Teacher’s
Objectives and Their Relationship to Achievement, and Attitudes
Toward Children." (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania
State University 1959.)
Weiner, M. "Difficulties in the Use of Achievement Test Gains as
Measures of Growth." Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIII
(April 1964), 781-786.
White, Jo Ann. "Changes During Student Teaching as Measured by PreTests and Post-Tests." Research on Student Teaching, Bulletin
No. 5, Dubuque, Iowa: 1965.

APPENDIX A

COVER LETTERS

113
TO:

FROM:

Robert L. Arends, Director
Michigan State University Student Training Center, Flint
31'4 Avon Street
Flint, Michigan 48503

We are attempting a follow-up evaluation of the teacher education programs
at Michigan State University. We are asking your help because we feel
that you are in a position to give us an accurate evaluation of the
Michigan State Graduates. ,
_____________________________ , who according to our information was
on your staff during the school year 1967-68, has been selected to be
included in this study.
Enclosed is an evaluation form which is a composite of many such forms
used in Michigan. Will you please fill out the form based upon the
above teacher’s performance through June of 1968?
We are interested in how often you give achievement tests, as we would
like to do a follow-up based upon achievement of the students.
The information which you submit will be kept in the strictest con­
fidence, and no individual in the study will be mentioned by name,
school system, or by any other identifying criteria. The teacher will
only be included as a statistic in the over-all study.
While we know that you are very busy, we would appreciate your coopera­
tion in this study.
Please return by December 8th if possible.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,

Robert L. Arends
RLArmw
11 29-68
-

114
TO:

FROM:

Robert L. Arends, Director
MSU Student Teaching Center, Flint
31'4 Avon Street
Flint, Michigan 48503

Dear Michigan State Graduate:
We are attempting a follow-up study of the Teacher Education Programs at
Michigan State University. As a recent graduate, who has had a couple
of years in the field, your opinion will be of great value.
The information which you submit will be kept in the strictest confi­
dence and no individual in the study will be mentioned by name, school
system, or by any other identifying criteria.
Will you please fill out the attached form, and return as soon as possible?
INSTRUCTIONS
Step I

From the TEACHER COMPETENCIES listed on the attached page,
select those THREE in which you adjudge yourself STRONGEST.
Write the number of each in first (the strongest), second
and third order on the lines so designated under STRENGTHS.

Step

II From the SOURCES OF COMPETENCY listed on the attached page,
select those which provide you strengths in the areas noted.
Write the letter of each pertinent source on the lies so
designated.

Step

III Consider the TEACHER COMPETENCIES listed on the attached
page. Adjudge the three you consider the most important.
Mark ”1" on the line preceding the most important, "2" on
the line preceding the second most important, and "3" on
the line preceding the third most Important.

Step IV Complete the final portion of the questionnaire. Please
make the appropriate comments on the back of the form.
While we know that as a teacher you are very busy, we would appreciate
you completing this questionnaire and sending it back as soon as possible.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,

Robert L. Arends, Director
MSU Teacher Education Center - Flint
RLA:cb

APPENDIX B

PRINCIPAL'S EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

115
PRINCIPAL’S EVALUATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE

I . Personal Information

(name-teacher)

(system)

Is this teacher married?

(school)

(grade)

Yes______ No_____

Years teaching in your building:

Please circle:

Is this teacher still in your building?

Yes

1966-67

1967-68

No

If above is no, why ____________________________________________
Did she do her student teaching in your system?
Building Yes
No____
II.

Yes

No____

Information relating to the school
A.

External conditions
1. Socio-economic conditions
Please estimate the percentage for each
Upper class _____
Middle class ____
Lower class _____
2.

B.

Racial mixture
Please estimate the percentage for each
White _____
Non-white _____

Internal conditions
1.

Type of grouping used: - Homogeneous

Heterogeneous

If Homogeneous, what type of class did the above teacher
have?
Upper ____
Middle ____
Lower
2.
III.

How often are achievement tests given in your school?

Evaluation
KEY TO RATING:

1.
5.

Excellent
Poor

2.

Good

3.

Average

4.

Fair

116
(Please circle the appropriate response)
PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Health and Vitality---------------------- 1

2

3

4

5

Personal Appearance---------------------- 1

2

3

4

5

Friendliness----------------------------- 1

2

3

4

5

Flexibility------------------------------1

2

3

4

5

Sincerity--------------------------------1

2

3

4

5

Enthusiasm-------------------------------1

2

3

4

5

Constructive Control of Pupils------- ---- 1

2

3

4

5

Provisions for Individual Differences- ---- 1

2

3

4

5

Evidence of Pupil Achievement-------- -

1

2

3

4

5

Knowledge of Subject Matter---------- ---- 1

2

3

4

5

INSTRUCTIONAL SKILLS

TEACHER-SI FF RELATIONSHIPS
Rapport with Co-workers

1

2

3

4

5

Willingness to Seek and Accept Advice

1

2

3

4

5

Relationship with the Administration

1

2

3

4

5

Ethical Attitudes

1

2

3

4

5

Evidence of Leadership

1

2

3

4

5

Evidence of Professional Growth

1

2

3

4

5

Willingness to Participate in Activities
within the Ccrnmunity Outside of School
Hours------- .

1

2

3

4

5

Ability to Meet and Work with Parents

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

PROFESSIONAL ATTITUDE

COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS

CONCLUSION
Give an Overall Assessment of this
Teacher’s Effectiveness

117

TENURE
Was this teacher eligible for tenure in June of 1968?
If above is yes, was she placed on tenure?
If above is no, was she placed on a third year probation?

11-27-68:RLA:cb

APPENDIX C

GRADUATE'S OPINIONNAIHE

118
RTEP
QUESTIONNAIRE

STRENGTHS
First

Sources:

Second

Sources:

Third

Sources:
TEACHER COMPETENCIES

1.

Health and Vitality

_____ 10.

Knowledge of Subject Matter

_2.

Personal Appearance

_____ 11.

Rapport with Co-workers

3.

Friendliness

12.

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

4.

Flexibility

13-

Relationship with the
Administration

5.

Sincerity

14.

Ethical Attitude

6.

Enthusiasm

15.

Leadership

Constructive Control
of Pupils

16 .

Professional Growth

Provisions for
Individual
Differences

17-

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Community Outside of
School Hours

Evidence of Pupil
Growth

18. Ability to Meet and Work
with Parents

_7.

8.

SOURCES OF COMPETENCY
A.

Professional Education Courses

E. Teaching Associates

B.

Subject Courses

F.

Principal or Building
Supervisor

C.

Supervising Teacher
(Student Teaching)

G.

Yourself

D.

College Coordinator
(Student Teaching)

H.

Others (Specify)

Do you feel that the training which you received at Michigan State
University adequately prepared you for your career in teaching?
Yes ______

No

(Please comment)

120
EIP
QUESTIONNAIRE

STRENGTHS
First

Sources:

Second

Sources:

Third

Sources:
TEACHER COMPETENCIES
1.

Health and Vitality

10.

Knowledge of Subject Matter

2.

Personal Appearance

11.

Rapport with Co-workers

3.

Friendliness

12.

Ability to Seek and Accept
Advice

4.

Flexibility

13.

Relationship with the
Administration

5.

Sincerity

14.

Ethical Attitude

6.

Enthusiasm

15.

Leadership

7.

Constructive Control
of Pupils

16.

Professional Growth

8.

Provisions for
Individual
Differences

17.

Willingness to Participate
in Activities within the
Community Outside of
School Hours

Evidence of Pupil
Growth

18.

Ability to Meet and Work
Parents

SOURCES OF COMPETENCY
A.

Professional Education Courses

F.

Teaching Associates

B.

Subject Courses

G.

Principal or Building
Supervisor

C.

Supervising Teacher
(Student Teaching)

H.

Yourself

D.

College Coordinator
(Student Teaching)

I.

Others (Specific)

E.

Intern Consultant (Internship)

121
Do you feel that the training which you received at Michigan State
University adequately prepared you for your career in teaching?
Yes _____

No

(Please comment)

If you had to start your program over, would you have participated in
the Intern Program, or the Regular Teacher Education Program?
Intern _____

Regular

(Pleasecomment)