4

70-15,028
FITCH, Thomas Charles, 1936ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS:
VIEWS OF INTERN TEACHERS AND INTERN CONSULTANTS
IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ELEMENTARY
INTERN PROGRAM.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1969
Education, teacher training

U niversity M icrofilms, A XEROX C o m p an y , A n n A rbor, M ichigan

ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS:

VIEWS

OF INTERN TEACHERS AND INTERN CONSULTANTS
IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ELEMENTARY INTERN PROGRAM
By
Thomas Cl Fitch

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1969

PLEASE NOTE-:
Some pages have small
and indistinct type.
Filmed as received.
University Microfilms

ABSTRACT
ROLE EXPECTATIONS FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS:
VIEWS
OF INTERN TEACHERS AND INTERN CONSULTANTS
IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ELEMENTARY INTERN PROGRAM
By
Thomas C. Fitch

This study was designed to Investigate perceptions held
by intern teachers and intern consultants for selected intern
consultant role characteristics.

Specifically, the investi­

gation focused upon interns’ and consultants' expressed
(1) preference for, and (2) perceived frequency of, selected
Intern consultant tasks.

These tasks Included classroom

management, conditions of learning, planning for learning,
evaluation of learning, analyzing teaching behavior, and
supportative behavior.

A second aspect of the study focused

upon interns' and consultants'

expressed (1) preference for,

and (2) perceived actual Intern consultant method of opera­
tion.

This aspect was designed to determine the degree of

(1) theoretical or practical,

(2) consultant or intern initia­

tive, and (3) directive or non-directive method of operation
used by the Intern consultant in actual practice.
The sample of this study Included one hundred eightyseven Intern teachers and forty intern consultants involved

Thomas C. Fitch
in the Elementary Intern Program at Michigan State University
spring term, 1969.

The Intern Consultant Inventory, an

instrument developed for this study, was administered to the
subjects at ten off-campus teacher education centers.
Responses by subjects on this instrument were analyzed by the
Analysis of Variance procedure.

Eight hypotheses were posed

and tested by the Scheffe post-hoc comparison technique.

The

results are reported below.
Conclusions of the Study
Within the limitations of this study, the following con
elusions were supported:
1.

Intern consultants expressed a higher preference for each
selected consultant task than elementary Intern teachers.

2.

Intern consultants expressed a greater frequency of
occurrence for each selected consultant task than ele­
mentary Intern teachers.

Consultants perceived interns

receiving greater assistance with greater frequency than
interns.
3.

Both interns and consultants preferred practicalness in
intern consultant method of operation.

When interns

experienced problems they desired assistance which
delineated particular procedures that had worked in the
past.

Consultants preferred to give practical alterna­

tive solutions to Interns’ teaching problems.
Consultants perceived their method of operation as
theoretically based while Interns perceived consultant

Thomas C. Fitch
assistance as practical.

Interns preferred and perceived

themselves receiving practical consultative assistance.
Consultants, however, preferred to be practical but per­
ceived themselves as heinr, theoretical

(examining under­

lying educational theory before considering specific
action).
Interns and consultants preferred a consultant method of
operation that allowed interns to initiate action toward
the solution of problems.

Both groups felt that the

intern learns best by actual involvement in the solution
of teaching problems.

Interns perceived themselves as

responsible for solving their problems while the consul­
tants' responsibility was to provide the autonomy for
them to do so.
Interns and consultants perceived consultants as encour­
aging interns to initiate action in problem situations.
Both groups preferred and perceived interns as initiating
solutions to intern teaching problems.
Interns and consultants preferred directiveness
tant prescribing,

(consul­

insisting on specific steps, telling

the intern what to do) in consultant method of operation.
Consultants preferred to^be more directive than interns
preferred consultants to be.
Both interns and consultants perceived the consultant
method of operation as actually indirectlve

(during dis­

cussion the intern identifies procedures, the consultant

Thomas C. Fitch
asks questions).

Consultants did not prescribe, insist

and tell interns what to do in actual practice, rather
they probed by questioning the origin, description, and
solution to intern's problems.
9.

Interns and consultants wanted consultants to assist
interns with planning.

Yet, interns and consultants

perceived interns receiving the least assistance with
planning than any other selected consultant task.

Interns

desired help with planning and preceived themselves as not
receiving this assistance with great frequency.
10.

The analysis of teaching task was preferred highly but
was perceived to occur with little frequency.
wanted:

Interns

(1) help in analyzing their teaching weaknesses,

(2) to be involved in analyzing demonstration lessons,
(3) consultant evaluations, and (*0 written observation
notes left by consultants.

Interns were not receiving

this kind of assistance very frequently.

Consultants

did not prefer nor did they perceive themselves extending
this assistance to interns.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to humbly express my thanks to Dr. Horton
Southworth for his initial encouragement.
friendship is appreciated.

His continuing

His commitment to teacher educa­

tion was contagious.
Gratitude is extended to Dr. W. Robert Houston.

His

wise counsel and assistance throughout my doctoral program
is deeply appreciated.

I am indebted to Dr. W. Vernon Hicks,

Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer, and Dr. Robert G. Oana for their
guidance in my graduate study.
Special thanks is extended to Dr. William Joyce for
his thoughtful and constructive criticisms of this study as
a member of the oral examination committee.
The patience, understanding, and support of my wife,
Elsie, made this all possible.

I am particularly apprecia­

tive and indebted to her for her love and her belief in me.
My children, Jeff and Jody, will now experience a real, full­
time father.

Their.sacrifice has been appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

........................................

ii

LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................

v

LIST OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S ..................................... ix
LIST OF A P P E N D I C E S ....................................... xii
Chapter
I.

THE NATURE OF THE I N V E S T I G A T I O N ..............

1

Introduction to the Study ....................
1
Purpose of the S t u d y .......................
5
Statement of the Problem
....................
7
Research Hypotheses ...........................
8
Definition of Terms ..........................
9
Summary of Procedures
.......................
12
Organization of the S t u d y ........................ 1*1
II.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH .

16

Introduction
.................................
16
Supervision of Beginning Teachers
. . . .
16
Role T h e o r y ..................................... 24
Internships in Teacher Education
. . . .
35
The Elementary Intern Program
.............
42
S u m m a r y ............................................55
III.

PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE S T U D Y ..................57
Introduction
.................................
57
The Study S a m p l e ..................................57
Intern Teachers
..............................
59
The Composite Intern Teacher ................
66
Intern Consultants
..........................
67
The Composite Intern Consultant .............
74

iii

Page
Instrumentation ..............................
Design of the S t u d y .......................
The Statistical Hypotheses of this Study
.
....................
Data Collecting Process
Initial Steps in Data Processing
. . . .
Statistical Procedures Used in this Study
.
IV.

75
85
92
96
99
100

ANALYSIS OP D A T A ............................. 104
Intern Consultant Inventory Part A
. . .
104
Hypothesis O n e ................................. 107
Hypothesis T w o ................................. 108
Further Exploration of Data from
Part A of the Intern Consultant
I n v e n t o r y .....................................109
Intern Consultant Inventory Part B
. . .
126
Hypothesis Three
..........................
129
Hypothesis F o u r ................................. 131
Hypothesis F i v e ................................. 133
Hypothesis S i x ................
135
Hypothesis Seven
..........................
137
Hypothesis Eight
..........................
139
Further Exploration of Data from
Part B of the Intern Consultant
I n v e n t o r y .................................... 141

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS .

.

.

159

S u m m a r y ........................................ 159
Limitations of the S t u d y ...................
167
Conclusions of the S t u d y ....................... 168
Implications of the S t u d y .................... 170
Implications for Further Research . . . .
171
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................

177

A P P E N D I C E S .............................................. 183

iv

LIST OP TABLES
Table
3.1
3.2

3.3.
3.4.
3.5
3.6

3.7

3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11

Page
Age Distribution* of the Intern Population,
1969 (^Corrected by 24 m o n t h s ) .............

61

Distribution of Intern Population by Grade
Point Average at Entrance to the Elemen­
tary Intern Program, 1967....................

6l

Distribution of Intern Population by
Colleges Attended
...........................

63

Distribution of Intern Population by
Annual Family Income
.......................

63

Distribution of Interns by Pre-College
Community T y p e ..............................

64

Marital Status Distribution of Students
Entering and Near Exit of the Elementary
Intern Program, 1969

65

Distribution of Children for Married Intern
Teachers Entering the Elementary Intern
Program, 1 9 6 7 ..............................

65

Age Distribution of the Intern Consultant
Population, 1 9 6 9 ...........................

68

Marital Status Distribution of Intern
Consultants, 1969

69

Distribution of College Degrees Earned by
Intern Consultants, 1969 ....................

69

Rank Order Distribution of Undergraduate
and/or Graduate Degree Awarding Institu­
tion Attended by Intern Consultants, 1969

70

v

.

Table

Page

3.12

Distribution of the Year the Master of
Arts Degree was Earned by Intern
Consultants
.............................71

3.13

Distribution of the Number of Years of
Teaching Experience for Intern
Consultants, 1969 .............................

72

3.14

Distribution of the Grade Level of
Teaching Experience for Intern
Consultants, 1 9 6 9 ............................. 7 3

3.15

Distribution of the Number of Different
School Districts in which Intern
Consultants have Obtained Teaching
Experience, 1969

74

Distribution of Years of Experience as
an Intern Consultant, 1969 ...................

75

3.16
3.17

A Listing of E.I.P. Centers with the
Number of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants Associated with Each
Center, and the Supervisoral Ratio of
Interns to Consultants, 1 9 6 9 .................... 86

3.18

A Listing of Elementary Intern Program
Off-Campus Centers Cooperating In this
Study, and Their Approximate Distances
from the Michigan State University
Campus, 1 9 6 9 ................................... 97

4.1

Analysis of Variance for Part A of the
Intern Consultant Inventory
..................

4.2

4.3

105

P Test Result from the Analysis of
Variance for Intern and Consultant
S u b j e c t s .........................................110
P Test Results from the Analysis of
Variance for Preference and Frequency

.

.

. Ill

4.4

p Test Results from the Analysis of
Variance for Selected Intern Consultant
T a s k s ............................................ 112

4.5

A Rank Order of Mean Scores of Selected
Intern Consultant Tasks Combining
Intern and Consultant Perceived Pre­
ference and F r e q u e n c y ........................ 112

vi

Page

Table
4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14
4.15

4.16

F Test Result from the Analysis of
Variance of Interns and Consultants
and Selected Intern Consultant Tasks
Collapsed Across Preference and
Frequency .................................

113

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants for Selected Intern Consul­
tant Tasks, Differences of Mean Scores,
and Post-Hoc Comparison Test Results .

114

F Test Results from the Analysis of
Variance of Preference and Frequency
for Selected Intern Consultant Tasks

117

.

Mean Scores of Preference and Frequency of
Selected Intern Consultant Tasks,
Differences of Mean Scores, and Post-Hoc
Comparison Test Results
................

118

F Test Result from the Analysis of
Variance for Interns and Consultants
and Preference and Frequency and
Selected Intern Consultant Tasks

.121

Rank Order of Interns and Consultants
Preference for and Perceived Frequency
of Selected Intern Consultant Tasks

122

Rank Order of Intern Teachers Expressed
Preference for and Perceived Frequency
of Selected Intern Consultant Tasks

124

Rank Order of Intern Consultant Expressed
Preference for and Perceived Frequency
of Selected Intern Consultant Tasks

125

Analysis of Variance for Part B of the
Intern Consultant Inventory .............

126

F Test Result from the Analysis of
Variance for Preference and Perceived
Actual Intern Consultant Method of
Operation .................................

142

F Test Results from the Analysis of
Variance for Intern Consultant Method
of Operation ..............................

144

vii

Page

Table
4. 17

4.18

Rank Order of Mean Scores for Intern
Consultant Method of Operation by
Combining Scores for Intern and
Consultant Preference and Perceived
A c t u a l .................................
P Test Results from the Analysis of
Variance of Interns and Consultants
Combined Preference and Perceived
Actual Intern Consultant Method of
Operation within Repeated Measures

144

.

.

.

145

4.19

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants for Theoretical, Initiating,
and Directness in Intern Consultant
Method of Operation, Differences of Mean
Scores, and Post-Hoc Comparison Test
R e s u l t s ......................................... 147

4.20

P Test Result from the Analysis of
Variance of Preference and Perceived
Actual Theoretical, Initiating, and
Directiveness in Intern Consultant
•Method of Operation
.......................

150

4. 21

Mean Scores of Preference for and Per­
ceived Actual Theoretical, Initiating,
and Directive Intern Consultant Method
of Operation, Differences of Mean
Scores, and Post-Hoc
Comparison Test
R e s u l t s ......................................... 152

4.22

F Test Result from the Analysis of
Variance for Interns and Consultants
Preference for and Perceived Actual
Intern Consultant Method of Operation

.

.

156

Rank Order of Interns and Consultants
Preference for and Perceived Actual
Intern Consultant Method of Operation

.

.

158

4.23

viil

ILLUSTRATIONS
Illustration

Page

2.1

A Conceptual Scheme of the Michigan
State University Elementary Intern
Program....................................... 44

3.1

The Organization and Presentation of
Preference and Frequency Scales
Under the Behavioral Description of
Consultant Task within a Category on
Part A of the Intern Consultant
I n v e n t o r y .................................... 78

3.2

A Conceptual Scheme Representing the
Data Collected on Part A of the
Intern Consultant Inventory ..............

79

A Conceptual Scheme Representing the
Data Collected on Part B of the
Intern Consultant Inventory ..............

8l

Research Paradigm for Part A of the
Intern Consultant Inventory ..............

89

Research Paradigm for Part B of the
Intern Consultant Inventory ..............

91

3.3

3.4
3.5
4.1

First Order Interaction Effects for
Intern Teachers and Intern Consul­
tants Mean Scores on Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks Collapsed Across
Preference and Frequency ................

116

4.2

First Order Interaction Effects for
Preference and Frequency Mean Scores
on Selected Intern Consultant Tasks
Collapsed Across Interns and
C o n s u l t a n t s ............................... 120

4.3

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and
Intern Consultants on the TheoreticalPractical Continuum Indicating Prefer­
ence for Orientation of Consultant
Method of O p e r a t i o n ..................... 130

Ix

Page

Illustration

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and
Intern Consultants on the TheoreticalPractical Continuum Indicating Per­
ceived Actual Theoretical Approach in
Intern Consultant Method of Operation

132

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Consultant-Intern
Initiating Continuum Indicating Prefer­
ence for Initiating Intern
Consultant
....................
Method of Operation

134

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Consultant-Intern
Initiating Continuum Indicating Per­
ceived Actual Initiating Intern Consul­
tant Method of Operation
.............

136

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Direct-Indirect Con­
tinuum Indicating Preference for Direc­
tiveness in Intern Consultant Method
of Operation
...........................

138

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Direct-Indirect
Continuum Indicating Perceived Actual
Directiveness in Intern Consultant
Method of Operation
....................

140

Mean Scores of Preference for and Per­
ceived Actual Intern Consultant
Method of Operation Collapsed over
Theoretical, Initiating, Directiveness,
and Subjects
...........................

142

First Order Interaction Effects for
Intern Teachers and Intern Consultants
Mean Scores on Repeated Measures .

148

Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and
Intern Consultants on the Initiating
Continuum Combining Preference and
Perceived Actual Intern
Consultant
Method of Operation
....................

150

First Order Interaction Effects for
Preference for and Perceived Actual
Theoretical, Initiating, and Dir­
ective Intern Consultant Method of
O p e r a t i o n .......................

x

.

.

153

Page

Illustration
4.13

4.14

Mean Scores of Preference for and
Perceived Actual Theoretical Intern
Consultant Method of Operation on
the Theoretical-Practical Continuum .
Mean Scores of Preference for and
Perceived Actual Directive Intern
Consultant Method of Operation on
the Direct-Indirect Continuum . . . .

.

154

156

LIST OP APPENDICES
Appendix
A

Page
Map of Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program Center
Locations, 1969 .............................

B

The Intern Consultant Inventory

C

Item Intercorrelational Matrix for the
Intern Consultant Inventory Part A
and Part B
.........................

D

. . . .

Frequency Count for Individual Item
Scores of Interns and Consultants of
the Intern Consultant Inventory
. .

xii

18-4
186

216

.

225

CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Introduction to the Study
Internships as a means of preparing teachers are of
vital interest in teacher education.

Teacher internship is

analogous to the medical profession internship.

An inter­

ship is predicated on the assumptions that (1) theory must
be integrated with practice,

(2) gradual Induction into the

profession over time Is desirable,

(3) internship is one

part of a series of learning experiences,

(4) learning should

be based upon actual participation and involvement in the
real professional milieu, and (5) continuing individualized
guidance and supervision by an experienced practitioner is
essential.
Concern recently has been expressed by teacher educator
regarding the quality of supervision afforded inductees Into
the teaching profession.

D. D. Darland and Roy Edelfelt

expressed the following observations:
The neophyte teacher has long been neglected.
Although experienced educators seldom forget
their beginning days, weeks, and years of
teaching, they have done little In studying the
plight of the beginners. They have done even
less In helping young professionals to get

2
started properly . . . Induction to teaching must
be dealt with as a pertinent stage in career
development.
A new teacher should not be left
to the isolation of his own classroom, to succeed
or fail depending on his ability, Ingenuity, and
resilience . . . He should be treated for what
he is --- a beginner
and given the time and
assistance he needs to develop his own teaching
style.1
Jerome S. Bruner, chairing a symposium devoted exclu­
sively to the manner in which elementary school teachers are
prepared, reported the following in a list of recommendations:
School systems should take a hard look at the
kind of supervision which they have in their
schools and the role of the supervisor should
be re-examined, especially as it relates to the
new teacher.2
Others concerned with initial supervision raise some
of the following questions:

What is presently being done to

help the beginning teacher?

How productive and effective Is

it?

What should be done that is not being done?

What help

and guidance in getting started effectively does every
beginning teacher have the right to expect?
In 1959, the College of Education at Michigan State
University initiated a program of internship for the prepara­
tion of elementary school teachers.

In 1964 the Elementary

National Commission of Teacher Education and Pro­
fessional Standards, The Real World of the Beginning Teacher
(National Education Association: Washington, D. C.7 1965)
p. vii.
2

Jerome S. Bruner, A Symposium on the Training of
Teachers for Elementary Schools, and IDEA Occasional Paper,
(Kettering Foundation, Dayton, Ohio, 1968).

3
Intern Program (E.I.P.) became a regular part of the College
of Education's elementary education curriculum.

To provide

supervision for intern teachers a position was created which
freed competent and experienced elementary classroom teachers
to work exclusively with intern teachers on a full-time
basis.

This position was called "Intern consultant."

The

intern consultant was selected jointly by the public school
districts and the university to supervise interns.
Funding from the Ford Foundation partially supported
the early development of E.I.P.

The final report to the

Ford Foundation s t ates:
The intern consultants, selected from the most
able teachers in the cooperating school districts,
have developed in-service education of new teachers
far beyond the initial expectations.
The low ratio
of interns to intern consultants (5 to 1) and the
closeness and continuity of their relationship has
made it possible for very specific help to be
offered and accepted.
Typically, the consultants
have found that at the beginning of the Internship
they are able to aid the Intern In securing teach­
ing materials, In offering support and advice on
Instructional problems, In demonstrating effective
teaching methods, and the like.
As the intern
becomes more secure, the consultant is able to
raise the intern's horizons, encourage experimenta­
tion and creative solutions of teaching problems,
and prevent routinization. Most Importantly, the
consultants have helped bridge the gap between the
college course work and the public school class­
room by helping the intern to relate 'theory' and
'practice.'3
This account of the effectiveness of the intern con­
sultant was based upon oral communication with interns and
3
Michigan State University College of Education,
"Elementary Intern Program:
Another Way of Learning to Teach,"

1966.

public school administrators and supplemented by off-campus
directors' hunches and Intuitions.

The conclusion was not

based upon carefully designed research.
With the exception
. 4
of a study by Corman and Olmsted,
no research has been
undertaken to discover, either descriptively or analytically,
how intern consultants relate with intern teachers in the
clinical elementary classrooms.
Corman and Olmsted suggested that Michigan State Univ­
ersity had created a qualitatively new and unique position
5
in the intern consultant.
They stated, on the basis of
their analysis, that the intern consultant position is the
key to exploiting the potential inherent in the internship.
No specific formal guidelines, however, were written for
those initially selected to assume the role.

As a result,

. . . there were few pressures to establish
firm bureaucratic controls on their practices
. . . adjustment to the position was compli­
cated by the fact that the initial group of
consultants were given few operational guide­
lines.
The most commonly repeated admonition
they received was that, 'until we see how things
go, we can only guess at what the problems and
answers may be, so you will have to play it by
ear . '6
4

Bernard R. Corman and Ann G. Olmsted, The Internship
in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers (Bureau
of Education Research, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1964).
5Ibid.
^Ibid., p . 65.

5
Need for the Study
In the absence of written guidelines, the intern con­
sultant role may have evolved beyond the "play it by ear"
posture during the past decade.

Clearly a need exists to

study the role expectations for intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program because:
(1)

In Internship experiences, positions are created in

order to provide guidance for interns.

Expectations for

behavior become attached to the positions involved, thus
defining roles such as methods Instructor, student teaching
supervisor, intern consultant, center director, and others.
The role expectations for the Intern consultant position have
not been explicitly described.

(2) Intern teachers hold a

set of expectations concerning supervisoral behaviors which
is helpful in improving their teaching behaviors.

An under­

standing of such expectations could cause certain supervisoral
behaviors to be emphasized while others could be modified
or eliminated.

(3) Intern consultants would be explicitly

aware of what interns expect from them.

At present they can

only surmise these expectations from subtle feedback.

This

knowledge could direct their efforts as they work with intern
teachers.

(4) A study of role relationships may ultimately

contribute to an understanding of which specific consultant
supervisoral behaviors will produce specified and desired
results in intern teaching practices.

(5) Of the lack of

6
continued empirical research related to consultant-intern
professional relationships as E.I.P. enters its second
decade.
Importance of this Study
This problem is important to study because:
1.

an exploratory study of these expectations will
contribute to the baseline information needed
to carry out further evaluative research within
the E.I.P.

In addition, further program plan­

ning could be based upon varified information,
I.e. intern consultant selection, orientation,
in-service education, evaluation, and the im­
proved assistance delivered to intern teachers.
2.

it seems reasonable to expect that some of the
problems of the first year of teaching are
shared by both interns and first-year teachers.
In too many Instances, first-year teachers are
assigned to isolation chambers.

Supervision

may be nonexistent, punitive, or solely evalua­
tive for tenure purposes.

Understanding Interns'

expectations for supervision may hold implica­
tions for the supervision of beginning teachers.
3.

the findings of this study may have implications
for teacher education in terms of the quality of
supervision of direct laboratory experiences.

Based on the above-stated need and rationale, a statement of
the purpose of the study follows.

The purpose was three

fold.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate three
basic questions:
(1)

How do incumbent intern consultants perceive
the role of the Intern Consultant position?

(2)

How do intern teachers perceive the role of
the Intern Consultant position?

(3)

How are the perceptions of incumbent intern
consultants and intern teachers for the role
of the Intern Consultant position alike, and
how are they different?

These questions were central to an initial description of
the Intern consultant’s role In the Elementary Intern Pro­
gram.

The perceptions of role incumbents, intern consul­

tants, and those most directly affected by the intern con­
sultant position, Intern teachers, were of primary Interest
In this investigation.
Statement of the Problem
Many persons come in contact with the Intern consultant
position and as a result hold beliefs relative to the role.
These persons Include interns, their principals, superin­
tendents

and central office administrative personnel,

university center director, professors and staff of the
university, children In the interns'
their parents.

classrooms and Indirectly

Each of these populations holds certain

8
beliefs concerning who the intern consultant is, what he does,
and his status.

Each vantage point casts new light on the

status of the intern consultant role.

However, the major

affected groups, and the ones most concerned with the work
of the intern consultant is the consultant himself and the
intern with whom he works.

This study was concerned with the

role of the intern consultant as perceived by these two
populations.
What are the perceptions for selected intern consultant
role characteristics upon which both consensus and diver­
gence is held by intern teachers and intern consultants in
the Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program?
The consultant’s role is multi-faceted.

This investigation

was concerned with general components of the role.

Thus,

these components led to the development of the general
hypotheses which follow.
Research Hypotheses
This study was designed to test one major proposition:
Intern teachers and intern consultants perceive
differently the role of the intern consultant
in the Michigan State University Elementary
Intern Program.
In exploring this proposition, eight hypotheses were
posed and tested.
1.

Intern teachers and intern consultants express
different preferences for selected Intern
consultant tasks.

9
2.

Intern teachers and intern consultants perceive
a different frequency of occurrence of selected
intern consultant tasks.

3.

Intern teachers and intern consultants express
different preferences for a theoretical approach
in intern consultant method of operation.

*1.

Intern teachers and intern consultants perceive
differently the actual theoretical approach in
intern consultant method of operation.

5.

Intern teachers and intern consultants express
different preferences for initiating intern
consultant method of operation.

6.

Intern teachers and intern consultants perceive
differently initiating intern consultant method
of operation.

7.

Intern teachers and Intern consultants express
different preferences for directiveness in
intern consultant method of operation.

8.

Intern teachers and intern consultants perceive
differently the actual directiveness In intern con
sultant method of operation.
Definition of Terms

The following describes the operational definition of
terms used in this study:
The Elementary Intern Program (hereafter referred
to as E.I.P.) Is a teacher education program that
prepares elementary and special education teachers,
using a full-year internship as the culminating lab­
oratory experience, and which Is offered by the
College of Education at Michigan State University.

7

7
This program is extensively described in CHAPTER II
of this report.

The intern teacher (also referred to as intern)
is contracted by and paid by a local school board,
assigned a carefully planned teaching load for a
school year, supervised by an intern consultant,
and is a student enrolled at Michigan State Univer­
sity in college courses that parallel his professional
experiences.
The intern consultant (also referred to as consul­
tant) is assigned to supervise intern teachers on a
full-time basis and regularly weekly visits the
intern in the interns' classrooms.

He offers support,

guidance, instruction, demonstration lessons, teaching
ideas and materials, and other assistance to the
employed intern teacher.

Approximately 8 5 % of the

consultants' time is spent in working with interns
on an individual basis.

Consultants are employed by

the local school district through a cooperative
agreement with Michigan State University's College of
Education.
A perception is a unique and individual sensory
construct or awareness in the mind of a human being;
i.e., "1) how an individual sees himself, 2) how he
sees the situations in which he is involved, and

Q
3) the interrelations of these two."
0
Arthur W, Combs, The Professional Education of
Teachers:
A Perceptual View of Teacher Preparation (Allyn
and Bacon, Inc., Boston, 19£>5), P • 12.

11

A position Is the location of an Individual or
class of individuals in a system of social relation­
ships .
A role expectation is an evaluative standard
applied to an occupant of a position; i.e., what
an individual is expected to do in a given situation.
A role is a set of expectations applied to an
occupant of a particular position.
Role consensus exists when similar expectations
are held for an occupant of a position.
Role conflict exists when contradictory expecta­
tions are held for an occupant of a position.
Selected Intern consultant tasks are those be­
haviors which the intern consultant exhibits while
working directly to improve the instruction afforded
the children in the Intern teachers'

classrooms.

Specifically they include Classroom Management Tech­
niques, Conditions of Learning, Planning Learning
Experiences, Evaluation of Learning Experiences,
Analyzing Teaching Behavior, and Supportative
Behavior.
Preference for is choosing or selected from alterna­
tives on the basis of an individual's unique system of
priorities.
Frequency of occurrence is the number of times an
event happens or a behavior is exhibited.

12

Theoretical orientation Is the tendency to examine
underlying educational theory before considering
specific action.
Method of operation refers to patterns of assist­
ing behaviors or habitual responses perceived integral
to the conduct of the intern consultant's role.
Initiating behavior is taking the offensive in a
situation or beginning action to solve a problem.
Directiveness is prescribing, insisting on specific
steps to take, or telling someone exactly what to do.
Summary of Procedures
Subjects
The sample of intern teachers included 187 of 191
individuals who were (1) supervised by an elementary intern
consultant,

(2) teaching during the 1968-1969 academic year

in a public school elementary classroom in Michigan, and
(3) enrolled in the Elementary Intern Program at one of ten
off-campus teacher education centers operated by Michigan
q
State Universiey.
Of all E.I.P. intern teachers who met
the above criteria during the spring of 1969, ninety-eight
percent participated as subjects in this study.
The intern consultant subjects were (1) engaged full­
time in supervising intern teachers,
g

(2) employed by their

A map of Michigan indicating specific center loca­
tions is found in APPENDIX A.

13
local cooperating school districts, and (3) affiliated with
Michigan State University by agreement with public school
districts.

Forty intern consultants,

100 percent, partici­

pated in this study.
Instrumentation
The Intern Consultant Inventory,10 was constructed for
the purpose of this study to elicit subjects' perceptions of
(1) preference for, and frequency of, selected intern con­
sultant tasks, and (2) preference for, and perceived actual,
intern consultant method of operation.
sisted of two discrete parts.

The instrument con­

Part A was designed to present

a consultant behavior followed by two continua, one for pre­
ference and one for frequency.

Subjects responded on answer

sheets indicating their perceptions of preference and fre­
quency of occurrence of that specific consultant behavior.
Four such consultant behavioral descriptions represented a
selected consultant task.

There were six consultant tasks.

Part B was constructed to present problem situations typically
encountered by first year teachers.
situations.

There were five problem

Each situation was followed by six continua.

Three continua for preference and three for perceived actual
intern consultant method of operation.

Intern teachers

responded to one form of this instrument.

The wording was

10This instrument is found in APPENDIX B.

14
changed slightly to accomodate intern consultants responses
to a similar form.

Both forms are presented in Appendix B.

Data Collection and Analysis
The subjects indicated their individual perceptions
by responding to scaled continua on the Intern Consultant
Inventory and placing their responses on answer sheets.
Interns assigned to a consultant were treated as one Indi­
vidual observation and their mean score compared with the
observation of their consultant.

The mean scores of paired

interns and their consultant were compared by post-hoc com­
parisons after the Analysis of Variance Indicated significance.
The Analysis of Variance was employed to test for over­
all significance of the Intern Consultant Inventory.

The

5 percent level for acceptance or rejection of the null
hypothesis was selected as being sufficiently rigorous for
the conditions of this study.

The statistic used to test

each of the eight hypotheses was the Scheffe post-hoc com­
parison.
Organization of the Study
Following the development of the rationale for and
purposes of the study in Chapter I, the related literature
and research are summarized In Chapter II.
Include those concerned with:
ginning teachers;

Studies examined

(1) the supervision of be­

(2) role theory;

(3) internship in teacher

education, and (4) the Elementary Intern Program.

15
The research design Is outlined In Chapter III.

The

population of the study, Instruments, and research procedures
employed, are described.

The rationale for the selection of

statistical procedures and their underlying assumptions are
discussed.
Statistical analyses utilized in testing the eight
hypotheses of the study and in evaluating data related to
the problems posed are presented in Chapter IV.

Chapter V

is the concluding chapter of the report, and includes a
summary of findings and the conclusions drawn from the study.
Implications for teacher education, for the Elementary Intern
Program, and for further research are drawn.

C H A P T E R II

REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH
Introduction
The review of the literature focused upon four areas,
they were (1) supervision of the beginning teacher,
role theory,

(2)

(3) internships in teacher education, and

(4) the Elementary Intern Program.
several purposes:

This review served

(1) it served as a conceptual and theo­

retical frame of reference for this study,

(2) it selec­

tively sampled descriptions of research findings related to
this study, and (3) it guided and substantiates the research
methods employed in this study.
Supervision of Beginning Teachers
Supervision has been defined by Good as
All efforts of designated school officials toward
providing leadership to teachers and other educa­
tional workers In the improvement of Instruction;
Involves the stimulation and professional growth
and development of teachers.1
Most writers in this field concur that supervision is a
process.

It has as its goal the modification of behavior

toward the improvement of instruction.
1Carter V. Good, (ed.), Dictionary of Education (New
York:
McGraw-Hill, 19^5), p.
16

17
Allen

2

proposes that new kinds of supervision are

needed for the beginning teacher.

He suggests that to the

classroom teacher, the term supervision,has several connota­
tions, most of them unpleasant:

(1) to some it means

"snoopervision,11 and unwarranted encroachment on teachers*
professional status,

(2) to others it is threatening, irre­

levant, and unnecessary.

The emphasis has been on critical

evaluation rather than providing direction toward the im­
provement of instruction.

His penetrating analysis touches

the root of the problem of providing assistance to beginning
teachers.

He states,

The crux of the problem is that we have isolated
the teacher in his classroom and thus closed off
the most potent avenues of direction and aid.
In
limiting the concept of supervision to evaluation,
we have vitiated Its power to bring about real
change and new insight to the teacher.3
Chaltas, et a l ., concur with Allen's assessment.
They write,
A critical look at the practice (of supervising
beginning teachers) across America reveals that
the situation is more bleak than the*profession
cares to admit publicly.
Great numbers of
200,000 new teachers each year are assigned to
convenient Isolation chambers.
A cursory bit of
observation and evaluation Is all one finds when
tenure appointments must be made.
Tragically,
supervision for tenure is too exclusively evaluation.
2

Dwight W. Allen,
"A New Face for Supervision,"
Remaking the World of the Career Teacher (Washington, D.C.:
N.C.T. e Tp .S. of the National Education Association, 1966),
pp. 121-126.
3Ibid.,

pp. 121-122.

18

It Is rarely a part of a realistic professional^
growth pattern extending through to retirement.
The transplanted supervisory model from industry with its
authoritatively established input-output emphasis upon
product, largely ignores the needs, interests, abilities,
and aspirations of the beginner.

It is mechanistic, de­

humanizing, and fails to yield long term or career returns.
15
Shaplln also agrees with this position.
He points
out that supervision, with helpful Intent, requires an
enormous amount of time.

The novice teacher is isolated

from other teachers but has Just as much responsibility as
his more experienced colleagues.

He contends that (1)

schools must accept more direct responsibility for the
training of teachers,

(2) present supervisory arrangements

in the schools are inadequate, especially for beginning
teachers, and the work tends to be done by principals,
supervisors and department heads who are themselves removed
from teaching children,

(3) the highly specialized nature

of supervision, and the skills and knowledge required, are
little understood, or disregarded, by the schools.

He

suggests that supervision of beginning or intern teachers
4
John G. Chaltas, with Jannene M. Kain and Horton C.
Southworth, "The Supervision of Intern Teachers," Intern­
ships in Teacher Education, the Forty-seventh Yearbook of
the Association for Student Teaching, ed. by Horton C.
Southworth (Washington, D . C . : National Education Associa­
tion, 1968), p. 77-78.
5

Judson T. Shaplin, "Practice In Teaching" In Teacher
Education:
A Reappraisal, ed. by Elmer R. Smith (New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962), pp. 80-124.

19
can best be done by those who remain In close contact with
teaching and that sufficient time be allocated for the
observation, analysis, and evaluation of teaching.
Bruner reported, "there is an urgent need for con­
tinuing on the job training and assistance for new teachers."^
Hermanowicz wrote, "more supervision and assistance with in7

structional problems should be given the beginning teacher."
Denemark recommended, "assigning able career teachers to
supervisory or helping teacher roles, particularly in rela­
tion to beginning teachers, which could provide immediate
o
on-the-scene help to new teachers."
Chandler, et a l . « pro­
posed that
Teacher education institutions should retain an
active interest in and concern for the professional
growth and welfare of their graduates during the
initial year of employment or longer . . . through
the use of supervisory personnel appointed jointly
by the teacher education institutions and the city
school system.9
^Bruner, o p . c i t . , p. 12.
7

Henry J. Hermanowicz, "The Pluralistic Work of the
Beginning Teacher," The Real World of the Beginning Teacher
(Washington, D.C.:
NCTEPS of the National Education Asso­
ciation, 1966), p. 20.
g
George W. Denemark, Remaking the World of the Career
Teacher (Washington, D . C . : NCTEPS of the National Education
Association, 1966), p. 92.
9

B. J. Chandler, et a l .. Research Seminar on Teacher
Education (Washington, D.C.:
United States Office of
Education, Cooperative Research Project No. G-011, 1963)*
p. 164.

20

Many writers agree that beginning teachers need assist
ance during their first year.

Bond and S m i t h ^ conducted a

study which attempted to identify and analyze methods used
in the selection, appointment, orientation, supervision, and
inservice training of beginning teachers.

Their findings

indicated that, in many instances, supervisors were not
effective in providing support and guidance to new teachers.
They concluded that the introduction of beginning elementary
school teachers to their new profession was a "haphazard
affair at b e s t . " ^
The process of supervision has a substantial body of
12
13
14
theory.
Wiles
and Harris,
Heald and Moore,
and many
others describe the principles of "good" supervisory prac­
tice.

The problem is not a lack of theory; rather it is the

application of the theory into practice in real life situa­
tions.

This process of applying supervisory theory is not

well understood.

Erickson urged research in the area of

^ G e o r g e W. Bond and George J. Smith, "First Year of
Teaching," The National Elementary Principal (September,
1967), pp. 55-59.
11I bld., p. 59.
12
Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (Engle­
wood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1967)> p^ 399.
13
Ben Harris, Supervisory Behavior in Education (Engle­
wood Cliffs, New J e r s e y : Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 557*
1*1

James E. Heald and Samuel A. Moore, II, The Teacher
and Administrative Relations in School Systems (Toronto,
Canada: The Macmillan Company, Inc., 1968), p. 304.

21

school supervisory personnel practices.

He saw the,

. . . need for descriptive studies of practices
in supervision that would include data on styles
of supervision, time allotted for supervision,
personnel involved, and subjective evaluation of
effectiveness of supervisory practices.15
A recently reported study, closely paralleling the
methodological procedures used in this investigation, was
designed to determine the extent of variation in supervisory
techniques.

A major conclusion of that study was that,

"apparently many variations exist in the procedures used by
supervisors of teachers, especially of beginning teachers.
This conclusion was drawn from a survey which was conducted
to evaluate the variability of attitudes toward supervisory
techniques among beginning mathematics teachers in public
schools in the Middle Atlantic States Region.

It was an

analytical appraisal of the various attitudes of beginning
teachers with five years or less experience.

A questionnaire

was mailed to schools in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Maryland, and Delaware and 300 responses were returned.
The techniques investigated and evaluated by the
teachers were:

orientation of new teachers, classroom

visitation, individual conference, faculty meeting, depart­
mental meeting, the workshop, small group activity and
15

John E. Erickson, "On the Development of School
Supervisory Personnel:
A Case in Point," The Journal of
Teacher Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring, 1969, p. 69.
■^Sandra N. Smith, "Supervisory Techniques with
Beginning Mathematics Teachers," Educational Leadership,
(January, 1969), p. 378.

22

teacher committees within the school, curriculum development
and implementation, demonstration teaching, inservlce edu­
cation and professional growth, instruction in the use of
audio visual aids, evaluation, and research and experimenta­
tion.

Each, of these thirteen categories, was subdivided

into scales eliciting perceptions of frequency and value by
the responding teachers.
In each state and in the composite summary, the per­
ceived value was greater than the frequency of occurrence
A

of that technique.

Smith found that evaluation and demon­

stration teaching were among the least utilized supervisory
techniques.

She did not indicate the specific statistical

procedures utilized in analyzing the data.

Ten recommenda­

tions were reported in the article.
A study reported by Gentry and Kenney

17

examined possi­

ble divergencies between the way elementary school principals
evaluated their performance in carrying out certain adminis­
trative practices and an evaluation of the principals’
performance as Judged by the teaching staff.

Randomly

selected teachers and principals in 60 elementary schools
in the state of Georgia were respondents in the study.

The

sample group responded to 200 administrative practices in­
cluded in an evaluative instrument.
17

The administrative

Harold W. Gentry and James B. Kenney, "The Perform­
ance of Elementary School Principals as Evaluated by
Principals and Teachers," The Journal of Educational Res earch,
Vol. 60, No. 2 (October, 1966), p. 64-67.

23
functions sampled included:

(1) planning,

(3) actuating, and (4) evaluating.

(2) coordinating,

The sample indicated

their perceptions using a seven category response set.
A Chi-square analysis was performed to test the differ­
ence in the response of the two groups regarding the perform­
ance of the principal in carrying out these administrative
practices.

The findings indicated that:

(1) teacher and

principal perceptions differed significantly

(.05 level of

confidence) in their evaluation of the principals' perform­
ance,

(2) they differed significantly at the (.05 level) on

six of nine items related to the planning function, on six
of twelve items related to the organizing function, on six
of seventeen items related to actuating function, and on
four of eight items relating to the evaluative function,
(3) the principals saw their performance as more satisfactory
than did their teachers on 18 of the 22 administrative prac­
tices on which the ratings of the two groups differed signi­
ficantly, and (4) the teachers gave the principals a higher
rating on the actuating function than on the functions of
planning, organizing, and evaluating.

The findings of the

Gentry and Kenney study are similar to the findings reported
in this study of intern consultant supervisory functions.
The review of the literature on the supervisory prac­
tices involved in helping beginning teachers yielded a key
link to the instrumentation developed for this study of the

24
intern consultant.

Shaplin,

18

contained in Teacher Education:

in his excellent chapter
A Reappraisal, identified

and described fundamental types of supervisory practices
that should be included in the systematic training of a
teacher.

Many of the categories found in the Intern Con­

sultant Inventory were grounded in Shapllns' theoretical
construct.

The development of categories was also influ-

enced by Smith.

19

A detailed description of the development

of this instrument is presented in Chapter III of this
report.
Role Theory
Role theory is a system of interrelated concepts which
occupies a significant position in the literature of the
social sciences.

It is an interdisciplinary theory, with

variables drawn from studies of culture, society, and
20
personality.
Sarbin
states that, "the broad conceptual
units of the theory are role, the unit of culture; position,
the unit of society; and s e l f , the unit of personality."
Because the concept is employed by writers representing
several disciplines, differences exist In the way in which
18

Shaplin and Judson, op. c i t . , pp. 88-103.

^ E l m e r R. Smith, "Specialized Knowledge" in Teacher
Education:
A Reappraisal, ed. by Elmer R. Smith (New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962), p. 6l.
20
Theodore R. Sarbin, "Role Theory" in Handbook of
Social Psychology, ed. by Gardner Llndzey (Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), p. 223*

25
It is defined.

The focus of the particular discipline and

the problems peculiar to it often determine the theoretical
construct and operational research procedures employed.
Thomas and Biddle

21

indicate that role theory owes

much to the theater; and that its perspective and language
allow for more than a metaphorical characterization of
human behavior.

They report,

The field of role consists of a body of know­
ledge, theory and characteristic research
endeavor, and a domain of study, in addition to
a particular perspective and language.
In these
respects role theory Is not unlike its sister
specializations In behavioral science, and like
any scientific endeavor role theory aspires to
understand, predict, and control the particular
phenomena included in its domain of s t u d y . 22
The common elements which characterize the concept of
role theory as used by many writers are summarized by Gross,
23
Mason, and McEachern.
They suggest that,
The three basic ideas which appear in most
conceptualizations are that individuals in
(a) social locations (b) behave with reference
to (c) expectations. There are two major points
of emphasis within these common elements. The
first is that human behavior does not occur at
random; the behavior of the individual is influ­
enced to some extent by his expectations and by
the expectations of others In the group or
society of which he is a part.
The second is
21

Edwin J. Thomas and Bruce J. Biddle, Role T h e o r y :
Concepts and Research (New York:
John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1966), pT 3~.
22Ibid., p. 17.
23
Neal Gross; Ward S. Mason; and Alexander McEachern,
Explorations in Role Analysis (New York:
John Wiley and
Sons, I nc., 195S) , p. 3-

26

that expectations are assigned to individuals
on the basis of their positions or locations
in systems of social relationships.
Thus, a role is defined by expectations of self and others
and is a dynamic of interacting within a social system.
Brookover

2k

used role theory to design a theoretical

construct applicable to the examination of role behavior and
role conflict within an education context.

His model is

based on the assumption that the concept of role is only
meaningful in a social interaction situation.,'* He suggests
that expectations which direct the dynamics of the situation
are generated by communications which produce new expecta­
tions and new understandings.

In reality the nature of the

setting in which the concept functions is not fixed nor
static, but in continual flux.
25
Corrigan and Garland
point out that the Association
for Student Teaching has attempted to help define roles and
solve role conflict problems in student teaching situations
by publishing several yearbooks and other publications.
The focus of these reports have been on primary roles oper­
ating in the student teaching situation.

They suggested that

these have not had extensive impact on role conflict problems
2k

Wilbur B. Brookover, "Research o n Teacher and
Administrative Roles," Journal of Educational Sociology»
Vol. 29 (September, 1955).
25
Dean Corrigan and Colden Garland, "Studying Role
Relationships," a pamphlet ed. by Leon F. Miller (Cedar
Falls, Iowa:
The Association for Student Teaching, 1966),
P . 5.

27

since they are of a general descriptive nature.

Another

shortcoming is that they treat only one role at a time
instead of viewing roles in their relationships to other
roles.
The importance of role theory as it applies to teacher
education can be understood when one surveys the current
educational scene.

In a relatively short period, greater

enrollments in teacher education programs accompanied by
an emphasis upon realistic direct experience has resulted
in the movement from laboratory schools into off-campus
cooperating schools.

New coalitions between schools and

colleges have been established.

Under these cooperative

arrangements new positions such as clinical associates,
clinical professors, student teaching coordinators, and
intern consultants, to mention a few, have been created.
In many instances these positions involve dual appointments
to schools and colleges.

These positions have been added

to already existing cadres of helping teachers and various
subject matter consultants and coordinators within the
public school supervisory structure.
The most striking consequence of these developments
is the greater number of people becoming involved in teacher
education.

The result is that new roles must now relate

with one another in this teacher education interaction
system.

The need for clarity of purpose and harmony within

28

these interacting roles is necessary if role conflict is to
be minimized.
Recent recognition of the need for research on the
interaction of roles in internship programs of teacher edu­
cation was noted in The Association for Student Teaching
26
Forty-Seventh Yearbook.
Various writers in this yearbook
called for investigations of programs, modes of supervision,
and the internship experience.

They emphasized the use of

role theory as a framework for the needed research.

This

study is an outgrowth of the admonitions of these writers
to researchers in teacher education.
Southworth and others suggested that those involved in
teacher internship programs must make relevant connections
between the apparently valid findings of research in role
theory and the task of the supervisor.

They also made the

point, central to this research, that,
If the behavior of any individual is influenced
to some degree both by his expectations and by the
expectations of others in his social system, then
it is not enough for the supervisor alone to per­
ceive his role.
The intern's perceptions of the
supervisor’s role must overlap with those of the
supervisor if a feeling of satisfaction with the
work achieved is to prevail.27
Recognition of the need for research criteria suggest
that one way to attack the problems of role and role conflict
26

Internships in Teacher Education, ed. by Horton C.
Southworth (Washington, D.C.:
The Association for Student
Teaching, Forty-Seventh Yearbook, 1968), p. 91.
27Ibid. , p. 89.

29
is through perceptions— through identifying what is expected
of professional personnel (intern consultants), what they
expect of themselves, and what others (intern teachers)
28
expect of them.
This study utilized procedures selected
from role theory and various studies reported in the teacher
education literature.
Review of Selected Studies
Based on Role Theory
Many investigations have been conducted for the purpose
of determining role expectations for various positions in
teacher education.

The bulk of these studies have been con­

cerned with the supervising teacher role and the student
teacher role.

No studies were reported which had investigated

role relationships in teacher internship programs, with the
29
exception of a study by Corman and Olmsted,
Consequently,
the focus of this review was upon research methods, design,
and analysis used in investigating role expectations and
perceptions.

Findings are included only where appropriate.
30
Beckwith
studied the role of the English teacher as

perceived by student teachers and supervising teachers of
English.
28

She developed an original instrument which evolved
Corrigan and Garland, o p . c l t . , p. 6.

29

This study is reported in greater detail in a later
section of this Chapter.
30

Gladys M. Beckwith, "A Study of the English Teacher
Role in the Secondary School as Perceived by Student Teachers
and Supervisory Teachers of English."
(Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State Univer­
sity, 1968).

31
from the model employed by Gross, Mason, and McEachern''
in their study of the school superintendency role.

Her

"English. Teacher Role Inventory" consisted of ninety-six
items related to six dimensions of the teacher role.
inventory contained sixteen items per category.

This

Responses

were solicited by means of a five-step scale, ranging from
a positive position of "absolutely must" to a negative
position of "absolutely must not."
divided into three parts:

This instrument was

Part I described behaviors of

the high school English teacher; Part II described beliefs
or values of the high school English teacher; and Part III
described expectations of duties, functions, and working
conditions of high school English teachers.

The question­

naire was sent to various participants in the Michigan State
University Student Teaching Program.

She used the analysis

of variance to determine the degree of difference in re­
sponses 6f supervisory teachers and students.

Her procedures

were closely akin to this study of intern consultant role
expectations.
Garland
teachers.
31
32

32

investigated role expectations for student

He used the framework of role theory developed by

Gross, Mason, and McEachern, op cit.

Colden B. Garland, "An Exploration of Role Expecta­
tions for Student Teachers:
Views of Prospective Student
Teachers, and College Supervisors" (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester,
196*0.

Parsons and Shils,

33

Mason, and McEachern.

with adaptations advanced by Gross,
3il

In accordance with this framework,

role expectations were defined in terms of behaviors ex­
pected of position incumbents rather than observed behaviors.
He developed a role expectation instrument consisting of
seventy-six items designating behaviors which could be
expected of student teachers.

Respondents Indicated their

expectations on a four-step scale:

-absolutely must, pre­

ferably should, preferably should not, absolutely must not.
Chi-square values were obtained to test for differences in
expectations among prospective student teachers, cooperating
teachers, and college supervisors.

He recommended the

framework of role theory adapted to his study be employed
in further examination of the interacting positions involved
in student teaching situations.
35
Fleming
explored the role expectations of elementary
school student teachers and supervising teachers on four
dimensions of communications and the interrelationships among
the communication dimensions.

He developed two instruments

for his study; one measured the role expectations for the
33

Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, editors, Toward
A General Theory of Action (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard
University Press, 1951)•
3li

Gross, Mason, and McEachern, op. c it .

3C

James S. Fleming, "An Investigation of Role Expecta­
tions and the Communication Process Between Elementary School
Student Teachers and their Supervising Teachers" (unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan,
1968).

32
student teacher-supervising teacher relationship and the
other measured the quantity

(frequency) of communication,

quality of communication, and concerns related to the
communication process.

Relationships among the various

scores obtained were provided in the form of Pearson productmoment correlation coefficients.

Differences between means

of student teacher and supervising teacher groups were
evaluated by analysis of variance procedures.

He found

that student teachers consistently expressed a desire for
more frequent communication.

Frequency of oral comments by

supervising teachers was found to be significantly related
(at the .01 level) in a positive direction to all qualitative
aspects of communication.

Results indicated a somewhat less

effective Job of communicating was accomplished by those
supervising teachers who were older, had taught elementary
school longer, and had previously supervised more student
teachers.
Kaplan*5

in a study of the role of the college super­

visor of student teaching at the elementary level also defined
role expectations in terms of behavior expected of position
incumbents rather than observed behaviors.

He developed a

role expectation instrument which included forty items.

The

Leonard Kaplan, "An Investigation of the Role
Expectations for College Supervisors of Student Teaching as
Viewed by Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, and
College Supervisors" (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester, 1966).

33
items designated behaviors expected of college supervisors.
He also used a four-point scale which ranged from "absolutely
must" to "absolutely should not."
was used in analyzing the data.

The Chi-square procedure
His findings Indicated that

the major factors which student teachers, supervising
teachers, and college supervisors view as contributing to
lack of agreement were different perceptions of the role of
the college supervisor in evaluation and in acting as a
resource consultant.
Doyle

37

studied role expectations for elementary

teachers as viewed by administrators, school board members,
.parents, and teachers in three school communities.

He

developed a check list of behaviors and used an oral inter­
view.

He found that teachers saw themselves in greatest

harmony with administrators than either school board members
or parents in relationship to role expectations.

He con­

cluded that teachers had a much narrower set of expectations
of their task than did administrators, board members, or
parents.
Hoffman

38

designed a study to distinguish between the

role of elementary special area teachers and consultants.
37

Louis A. Doyle, "A Study of the Expectations Which
Elementary Teachers, School Administrators, Board Members,
and Parents Have of the Elementary Teachers Role" (unpub­
lished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1956).
38

James D. Hoffman, "A Study of the Perceptions that
Administrators, Elementary Teachers, Consultants and Special
Area Teachers have of the Elementary Special Area Teacher and
Consultant Role" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, East
Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1959)*

34
He developed a questionnaire from open-ended interviews with
teachers, administrators, special area teachers, and consul­
tants.

The items were superimposed on the questionnaire

form and scale used by Gross, Mason, and McEachern from
their analysis of the school superintendency role.

After

analyzing the difference in the means of the four respondent
groups by P Tests, he concluded that teachers who had daily,
contact with both roles saw little difference between them.
Getzels and Guba

•30

examined the perception of roles and

role conflict in teaching situations.

They focused on ex­

pectations attached to the teacher role, the degree of
conflict among these expectations, and the effect of con­
flict upon the teacher.

They used extensive oral interviews

with forty-one teachers as a basis for constructing a ques­
tionnaire.

The analysis of responses from one hundred

sixty-six teachers from six school systems indicated three
different patterns of role conflict.
40
Twyman and Biddle
reported their extensive study of
role conflict of public school teachers.

Their purpose was

an attempt to determine operationally the extent of dis­
agreement among four social positions on what teachers do,
30

Jacob W. Getzels and Edwin G. Getzels, "The Structure
of Role and Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation," Journal
of Educational Sociology. Vol. 29 (September, 1955 ), pi 30-40.
40
J. Paschal Twyman and Bruce J. Biddle, "Role Con­
flict of Public School Teachers," The Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 55 (January, 1963), p. 183- 9 8 .

35
should do, and should not do.

They obtained perceptions

from teachers, parents, pupils, and school officials.

The

results indicated a number of significant disparities
exist among respondent groups concerning teacher role
cognitions.
Internships in Teacher Education
The examination of research concerning teacher intern­
ship programs with specific emphasis upon intern teacher
and intern supervisor or consultant perceptions of the role
of the Intern consultant reveals few studies paralleling
the emphasis of this particular Investigation.

Although the

literature is especially fruitful in program descriptions
and the theoretical bases of programs, it is largely devoid
of actual research findings.
Central Association of

Dyer, charged by the North

Accreditation for Schools and Colleges

with conducting a study of teacher Internship programs in
member institutions, concluded:
Reports about Internships are numerous.
Pew
studies appear, however, documenting the extent,
nature, problems, and potentialities of Intern­
ship programs.
iii

Prudence Dyer, "Teaching Internship Programs in
N.C.A. Institutions," The North Central Association Quar­
terly . Vol. 43, No. 2 (Pall, 196b) , p. 229.

36

Shaplin

iip

and Gardner

iio

reported that the history of

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

In the Brown

program graduates in teacher education were placed in the
Providence Public Schools for a full school year as a halftime, salaried teachers under the close supervision of a
professor of education and a supervising teacher.

Students

were required to complete a specified amount of course work
at the university during their internship.
In 1967 a survey of member Institutions of the American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) revealed
the existence of fifty-one internship programs.

This survey

also Indicated that nearly 3»000 undergraduate and graduate
students were involved nationwide in teaching internship
programs.
The Association for Student Teaching, in an attempt to
embrace the concept of Internship broadly enough to be inclu­
sive, yet to define its boundaries so that the term conveys
the essential components, in 1968 adopted the following
definition:
42

Judson Shaplin, "A Comparison of Internship Pro­
grams,” 1963 N.C.T.E.P.S. Columbus Conference Report
(Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, 1968),
P. 321.
43
Harrison Gardner, "The Teacher Education Internship
in Historical Perspective” in Internships in Teacher Educa­
tion . o p . c i t .» p. 1.
44
Ibid., p. 168.

37
The internship in teacher education is an integ­
ral part of the professional preparation of the
teacher candidate, teacher certification, having
been preceded by observation-participation and
student teaching experiences in a school classroom;
is planned and coordinated by the teacher educa­
tion institution in cooperation with one or more
schools during which the intern is (1) contracted
by and paid by a local school board, (2) assigned
a designated number of classes to teach for a year,
(3) enrolled in credit courses that parallel his
professional experiences and (4) supervised by
both a highly competent teacher or administrator
who is employed by the cooperating school and has
been assigned released time to devote to this
activity and a college supervisor who makes periodic
observations and works closely with the school
supervisor.45
This definition served as the framework within which this
study operated.
Bishop

conducted a study to determine the purposes of

internship as perceived by teacher education specialists and
cooperating public school personnel.

He found considerable

agreement between these groups regarding the purposes of
internship.
ments:

Agreement centered on the following common ele­

(1) independence or autonomy, (2) gradual induction,

(3) exposure to reality,
socializing agent,

(4) knowledge of the school as a

(5) the integration of theory and prac­

tice, and (6) understanding of child growth and development.
Differences were found to exist, however, where public
school personnel rated purposes related to classroom climate
45
46

Ibid., p . xi .

Clifford L. Bishop, "The Purposes of Teacher Intern­
ship," Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 34
(January, 194b), pp. 35-43.

38

and classroom management higher than college personnel.

The

implication he drew from this study applied to the super­
vision, guidance, and support of intern teachers.

He sug­

gested that the intern supervisor role is far more encompassing
than the supervising teacher role.
£17
McGlothlin
reported that to be of high quality, an
internship must meet the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

It challenges the capacity of the intern.
It does not exceed the capacity of the Intern.
It actively Involves the Intern.
It provides competent supervision.
It helps the intern to analyze and evaluate
his experience.

He described and contrasted the Internship concept as applied
to the various professions of architecture, medicine, psy­
chology, social work, and teacher education.
48
More recently, Stone
was charged with accounting for
and synthesizing the research findings of $70 million
dollars expended by the Ford Foundation over a period of
fifteen years of "Breakthrough" funding for teacher educa­
tion.

He Indicated that Michigan State University reported

in its statement of purpose that the Elementary Intern Pro­
gram was designed,
to achieve greater commitment and cooperation
from public schools in the preparation of
teachers, to integrate theory and practice In
47

William J. McGlothlin, Patterns of Professional
Education (New York:
G. P. P u tnam’s Sons, 19*30), p. 97-99 •
48
James C. Stone, "Breakthrough In Teacher Education"
(San Francisco, California:
Jossye-Bass Inc., Publishers,
1968).

39
the professional training sequence, to estab­
lish internship as a part of a teacher education
program, and to give greater and more effective
help to beginning teachers . ^
Michigan State University also cited the value of Joint
efforts of public schools and a university in preparing
teachers.

The Director of the School of Teacher Education,

Leland W. Dean, said:
Public school people have a fine contribution
to make in teacher preparation.
Extended labor­
atory experiences, the development of an intern­
ship, and more extensive help for beginning
teachers are necessary for improvement in teacher
education.
Probably our progr ams’ major contri­
bution has been its development of a new dimension
in teacher preparation, the intern consultant
position.50
Stone concluded that supervision of intern teachers
often fell short of a true professional overview.

The ideal

balance of supervising responsibilities between teacher
training institutions and school districts escaped many
programs.

He suggested that this critical element deserves

much closer attention.

And finally, he said,

The really outstanding programs— Claremont,
Cornell, Hawaii, North Carolina, Northwestern,
Michigan State, Reed, Stanford, Webster, and
Wisconsin, to mention the top ten in this
connection— stood out in part because of their
notable success in relating theory and practice.51
Bush and Allen

52

reviewed the advantages of the intern­

ship experience at Stanford University.
2<9Ibld., p. 46-47.

They cited:

5°Ibl d . , p. 47.

51Ibid., p. 168
■^Robert N. Bush and Dwight Allen, "The Winds of Free­
dom," The High School J o u r n a l , Vol. 43 (February, i9 60), pp.
168-173.

40
(1) greater time devoted to teaching and less to theoretical
course work in education,

(2) continuous realistic experience,

(3) gradual induction, i.e., teaching assistant, observer,
intern teacher,

(4) change from prescribed courses to con­

tinuing professional seminar directly related to classroom
practice, and (5) guidance and supervision Jointly undertaken
by public school and university personnel.

They also des­

cribe the application of micro-teaching, video taping, and
other educational technology to the process of supervision.
Haberman

in a comparative study of intern teachers

and regular first-year teachers found a significant differ­
ence in favor of interns.

He found that on the Ryans'

Observational Record— Pattern Y:

responsible, systematic,

businesslike vs. evading, unplanned, slipshod— interns were
superior to graduates of a regular program at the .01 level
of confidence.

He suggested that this resulted from interns

having had broader work experience, broader life experiences,
and better motivation.

He attributed some of this differ­

ence to the self-selection process of the internship program
at the University of Wisconsin— Milwaukee.
54
In another study, Haberman
reported behaviors distin­
guishing successful from unsuccessful intern teachers.
53

He

Martin Haberman, "A Comparison of Interns with Regu­
lar First-Year Teachers," Journal of Educational Research,
Vol. 59, No. 2, (October, 1965)•
54
Martin Haberman, "The Teaching Behavior of Successful
Interns," Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June,
1965), pp. 215-220.

and a colleague observed extensively In the classrooms of
28 beginning Intern teachers.

He summarized their perceptions

which indicated that (1) grade point average and other aca­
demic measures,

(2) communication skills, and (3) attitudes

towards children did not discriminate between successful and
unsuccessful interns.

The five characteristics which did

seem to discriminate between successful and unsuccessful
interns included:
pupil,

(1) a belief in the potential of each

(2) enthusiasm for subject matter,

organize,

(3) ability to

(4) ability to set appropriate standards and

expectations for various pupils, and (5) willingness to
listen to pupils.

Although this study was admittedly not a

sound piece of research, it was useful for the purpose of
hypothesis generation.
An extensive review of the literature comparing intern­
ship programs with the more traditional student teaching
program was conducted by Halliwell.

55

He analyzed the major

research findings and reports of experimental teacher educa­
tion programs based on the internship concept and concluded
that, "there is a genuine need for adequately designed,
longitudinal, experimental studies of the efficacy of ex­
perimental programs for elementary teachers."
55

This position

Joseph W. Halliwell, "A Review of the Research Com­
paring the Teaching Effectiveness of Elementary School
Teachers Compared in Intensive Teacher-Training Programs
and in Regular Undergraduate Programs," Journal of Teacher
Education. Vol. 15, No. 2 (June, 1966), pp. 184-192.

42
of needed research studies of internship programs was sup56
59
58
ported by Bruner,
Corrigan and Garland,
Chaltas, et a l .,
and Rex.

59

The Elementary

Intern Program

The Elementary Intern Program (E.I.P.) was an under­
graduate elementary teacher preparation program sponsored
by cooperating community colleges, cooperating public school
districts and Michigan State University.

Upon completion of

four years and the equivalent of three five-week summer terms
the successful teacher candidate was awarded a Michigan Ele­
mentary Provisional Teaching Certificate by the State Board
of Education and a baccalaureate degree from Michigan State
University.
The essential characteristics of the program were pre­
sented in Illustration 2.1.

The student completed the first

two years at any accredited community college or university.
The course work consisted of study in the liberal arts and
general education areas.

The student who met the entrance

requirements could transfer up to 96 term credits which
56 Bruner, o p . cit., p. 15.
57

Dean C. Corrigan and Colden B. Garland, "Role Analysis
Applied to Internship Processes," in Internships in Teacher
Education. o p . cit. , p. 97*
58
Chaltas, Kain, and Southworth, o p . cit. , p. 89.
59

Roland G. Rex, "A Theory of the Internship in Pro­
fessional Training" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, East
Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1964),
P. 117.

43
applied toward a program of study at Michigan State Univer­
sity.

The student attended a ten-week summer session at

Michigan State University following the completion of the
sophomore year.

An additional 15 term credits in the liberal

arts were earned during this period.
The third calendar year, beginning in the fall, con­
sisted of one additional term on the Michigan State Univer­
sity campus with continued study in the liberal arts.

The

student spent two terms in residence at an off-campus teacher
education center.
the ten E.I.P.

(See map in Appendix A for the location of

centers.)

He studied elementary school teach­

ing methods which were Integrated with his student teaching
experience.

The course work was taught by Michigan State

University faculty assigned to the center.

An outstanding

classroom teacher and Michigan State University resident
staff member supervised the student teaching experience.
Observation and participation experiences in elementary
classrooms occurred in the cooperating public school districts.
The student earned 48 term credits during this period.
Following the third calendar year he returned to the Michigan
State University campus for the last five-week summer term.
During this period, ten term credits were earned in the
liberal arts.

The student had generally completed one 38

term credit major and two 23 term credit minors at this point
in the program.

ILLUSTRATION 2.1.— A Conceptual Scheme of the Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program.
Year

Third Year
1st
Year

Where

Time

Area

Special
Courses

2nd
Year

Summer
School

Fall
Term

Fourth Year
Winter
Te r m

Spring
Term

Summer
School

School
Year

Off-Campus EIP
Center

EIP Center
Area
Schools

MSU
Campus

EIP Area
Classroom in
Cooperating
School District

Cooperating
Community
College
(or other)

MSU
Campus

MSU
Campus

Four
Semesters

10 week
Term

10 week
Te rm

10 week
Term

10 week
Term

5 week
Term

School Year

Academic
Areas

Maj ors
&
Minors

Maj ors
8c
Minors

Teaching
Methods
Courses

Pre-Intern
Teaching
(Student
Teaching)

Maj ors
8c
Minors

Internship
(with consultant)
assistance)

Basic
Courses
(Liberal
Arts)

Electives
(Liberal
Arts)

Electives
(Liberal
Arts)

ED 321A
ED 321B
ED 321C
Reading, Math,
Science, Lang.,
Arts, Social
Studies

ED 200
Individual
& the
School
ED 1482
Ind. Study
ED 446
Pre-Intern
Teaching

El e c ­
tives
(Liberal
Arts)

ED 450 School
& Society

Term
Credits

115
i»5
(Plus P.E.)

Cumulative
Credits

45

90

15

lh

18

16

10

105

119

137

153

163

A.B. Degree
Michigan
Certification

180 Term Credits

(Plus P.E.)

1 Major (36 T e r m Credits)
2 Minors (23 Te r m Credits each)

ED 446 Intern
Teaching

17

180 (Plus PE)

45
The fourth calendar year was devoted to Intern teaching.
Typically, the student had completed over 90 percent of his
course work and had completed his major and minor areas of
concentrated study in the liberal arts.

In addition, the

student had completed most of the required professional
education courses, including student teaching.

He had

already had six months of experience In various elementary
classrooms under the supervision of one or more highly qual­
ified teachers.

The student received a special teaching

certificate from the State Board of Education, and was under
contract with a public school district to teach in an ele­
mentary, special education (with appropriate training), or
middle school classroom.

During the 1968-69 school year

the average stipend paid an intern teacher was approximately
$4,300.
The Intern teacher was supervised by an elementary
Intern consultant, the resident university faculty member,
and the school principal during the school year.

The Intern

consultant, typically, was Involved in the interns1 class­
room at least one day per week.

The school principal and

university faculty member were involved less frequently.
The intern teacher was charged with the responsibility for
the operation of the classroom under the guidance of the
intern consultant.

The Intern attended one evening class

per week studying the sociological foundations of education.
A frequent practice in some E.I.P.

centers included one

46
meeting per month of* an informal seminar devoted to practical
teaching problems.
Research Studies Related to the
Elementary Intern Program
To date, four research studies related to E.I.P. have
been reported.

The studies are presented below in summary

fashion,
Conley^0 identified and described the composite char­
acteristics of females who chose E.I.P. and those who selected
the student teaching program at Michigan State University.
His sample included 178 females enrolled in E.I.P. and 170
females enrolled in the student teaching program.

The

Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was used to measure
attitudes; the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was used
to examine manifest needs; and the Teacher Education Inven­
tory^1 was administered to examine biographical data from
each student.

The instruments were administered during the

first two weeks of the student's professional course work.
The statistical procedures used in the study were the t-test
^ J a m e s L. Conley, "A Study of Selected Biographical
Data, Personality Characteristics and Attitudes of Elementary
Intern Program Students at Michigan State University" (unpub­
lished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michi­
gan State University, 1968), pp. 1-121.
^ T h e Teacher Education Inventory was a questionnaire
designed by the E.I.P. faculty at Michigan State University
to elicit biographical information, i.e., sex, age, type of
community residence, father's education, etc.

i»7
for examining the M.T.A.I.

and E.P.P.S. results, and the

Chi-square analysis for examining the results of the Teacher
Education Inventory.

The findings of this study indicated

that:
1.

Initial attitudes toward children and teaching
as measured by the M.T.A.I. were higher for
female student teaching program students than
for female E.I.P.

2.

students,

female E.I.P. students Indicated higher needs
than female student teaching program students
in the areas of deference, autonomy, abasement,
and endurance but lower needs of succorance
and heterosexuality as measured by E.P.P.S.

3.

on the basis of the Teacher Education Inventory,
E.I.P.

female students were different from female

student teaching program students in the follow­
ing ways :
a) E.I.P.

females were older (23.7 vs. 21.7

years of age),
b) E.I.P.

females were more likely to have been

married,
c) 70 percent of E.I.P.

females spent one year

at a two year college as opposed to 17
percent of student teaching program female
students,

d) the education level for both the mother
and father of E.I.P.

students was lower,

e) family Income was lower for E.I.P.

female

students,
f) E.I.P.

female students came from a larger

family ,
g) E.I.P.

female students indicated they

decided to become a teacher earlier than
female student teaching students,
h) E.I.P.

female students indicated they were

more likely to derive satisfaction from
teaching than student teaching students.
i) E.I.P.

female students indicated they were

less likely to doubt the "rightness" of
their decision to become a teacher,
J) E.I.P.

female students were less "risk-

taking" than female student teaching
students,
k) E.I.P.

students tended to view teaching as

a profession while student teaching students
viewed teaching as a profession but one
which is not highly specialized,
1) E.I.P.

students viewed the opportunity of

controlling their own marketing conditions
less important than female student teach­
ing students.

49
Z
Tn

Houston

reported a study of the teaching status of

graduates of the Elementary Intern Program.

A survey was

conducted In the spring of 1967 to determine the proportion
of E.I.P. graduates still involved in teaching.

The first

groups of students to complete the E.I.P. graduated in 1963*
The 196 3 and 1964 E.I.P. graduates completed a two-year
teaching internship.
one year.

All classes since 1964 Interned only

This resulted from a program change reducing the

time period of the internship experience.

In the first

seven years of E.I.P., 416 students were graduated.
were available on 403 graduates.

Data

The findings of the study

indicated that:
1.

a mean of 93 percent of E.I.P. graduates were
teaching two to six years after graduation.

2.

of the 93 percent, 80 percent were teaching
In Michigan.

3.

of the 80 percent teaching in Michigan, 57
percent were teaching In the same school dis­
trict where they had interned.

It was concluded that graduates of the E.I.P. had longer
teaching tenure than the national average teaching tenure.
(90 percent vs. 50 percent.)
by Stone

6 "3

Similar results were reported

in a six-year follow up study of the graduate

Cp

W. Robert Houston, "A Study of the Teaching Status
of Graduates of the Elementary Intern Program at Michigan
State University", (Mimeographed) East Lansing, Michigan:
College of Education, Michigan State University, May, 1967,
pp. 1-4.
'Stone, o p . c i t ., p. 158.

50
internship program of the University of California at
Berkeley.

Taken as a group, the "staying power" of the

graduates of teacher internship programs is impressive.
64
Goeldi
sought to examine (1) the multi-role perform­
ance of the intern consultant position,

(2) the strengths

and weaknesses of E.I.P., and (3) biographical data collected
on intern consultants in a study conducted in 1967*

The

subjects in the study included 24 intern consultants and 84
intern teachers.

The role performance of intern consultant

as perceived by both interns and consultants was measured
by an instrument developed for the study.

This instrument,

the Role Evaluation Check List, was an adaptation of a self65
evaluation instrument developed by Fitch
for intern con­
sultants.

The focus of the instrument was upon five basic

role common to all intern consultants and included:
1.

Personal characteristics— the consultant as
a person.

2.

Intern-Consultant Relations— the consultant as
a participant in inter-personal dynamics with
the intern teacher.

3.

Instructional and Guidance Skills— the con­
sultant as a professional teaching model.

64

John T. Goeldi, "A Study Contributing to the Pro­
fessionalization of the Role of the Intern Consultant"
(unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1967)* pp. 1-159.
65
Thomas C. Fitch, "Intern Consultant Self-Evaluation
Form" (Van Dyke, Michigan:
Macomb Teacher Education Cen­
ter, Michigan State University, 1966).
(Mimeographed.)

51
4.

General School Services— the consultant as
a public school resource person.

5.

Professional Growth— the consultant as a
practicing professional educator.

Each of the above categories was sampled by ten representa­
tive items.

Responses were analyzed by the Spearman Rank

Coefficient of Correlation.

Significant positive correla­

tions (.01 level) between interns'

and consultants' percep­

tion of consultant role performance were reported.

No

statistical differences were found between male and female
intern consultants; however, female consultants perceived
themselves higher in areas associated with human relations
while males

perceived themselves higher in instructional

skills and general school services.
In addition, Goeldi found intern teachers perceived
themselves most "responsible to" (1) public school personnel,
(2) the University center director, and (3) the intern con­
sultant, in that order.

Intern teachers perceived them­

selves most "responsible for" the elementary school children
in their classroom.

On the other hand, consultants per­

ceived themselves most "responsible to" (1) the University
center director, public school personnel, and (3) the taxpaying public, in that order.

Intern consultants perceived

themselves as most "responsible for" intern teachers.
Interns and consultants were found to be In agreement
regarding strengths of E.I.P.

They perceived, In rank

order; first, actual classroom experience; second, support

52
and guidance of intern consultants; third, blending of pro­
fessional methods of teaching courses with classroom
observation and participation; fourth, the convenience and
economy of the program due to Its location in their home
community.

Both cited the weaknesses of the E.I.P.

as;

first, lack of time for communication between Intern and
consultant; second, undefined roles of the Intern teacher
and Intern consultant positions within the public school
setting; third, a lack of communication between the teacher
education and the university campus; fourth, extreme pres­
sure produced in taking course work together with the
assignment in the actual classroom; and fifth, lack of
adequate evaluation and selection criteria for program
personnel.
Goeldi reported 81 percent of the intern teachers were
female while 19 percent were males.

He found 75 percent of

the intern consultants were female while 25 percent were
males.
The first study of the teacher internship program at
Michigan State University was undertaken by Dr. Bernard R.
Corman, an educational psychologist, and Dr. Ann G. Olmsted,
a sociologist.

They were charged with directing the eval­

uation unit included in the original program design.

Corman

and Olmsted contributed in two ways; first, they initiated
a five year longitudinal study of the socialization of the
elementary school teacher, and secondly, they provided

53
continuous feedback into the

operation of the program with

evaluations based upon systematic in-depth interviews with
students, their instructors and supervisors, and with the
project staff.
Those excerpts of their observations and conclusions
based upon interview methodology and considered pertinent
to this study are reported below:
1.

The intern consultantship differed in three
ways from the helping teacher position; first,
the consultant enjoyed University involvement
which provided additional autonomy; second,
intern consultants were assigned fewer indi­
viduals to supervise; thirdly, consultants
visits to intern's classroom were both regular
and frequent.

2.

The character of the relationship that could
be established between intern and consultant
was substantially different and the helping
teacher model failed to provide clear guide­
lines for those asked to assume the consultants hip.

3.

The original general expectations, of both
University and public school personnel, for
the intern consultant position included (1)
aid for interns in analyzing their classroom
situation, (2) fusing theory with practice by
relating previous formal study to day-to-day
teaching practices, and (3) maintenance of
high quality standards within the intern's
classroom.

M.

Consultants were not to infringe upon the
building principal's authority by assuming
any direct role in the evaluation of the
intern.

5.

Both the University and the school cast the
consultant as an "expert," but gave her only
the power of persuasion to enforce her
"expertness."

54
6.

A working relationship had to be established
with the intern and with her pupils which
would permit the consultant to be a "second
teacher in the classroom" without diminishing
the authority of the intern.

7.

The initial response of the consultants was to
back away from establishing a "supervisory"
relationship in the usual sense, and to seek
to develop a non-directive colleague relation­
ship with their interns.

8.

A period of watchful waiting appeared to be a
necessary prerequisite to the establishment of
a "successful" consultant-intern teacher rela­
tionship, if success meant a relationship where
the consultant’s suggestions were acted upon by
the intern.

9.

The more successful consultants appeared to be
those who were willing to "get their hands
dirty;" to illustrate their suggestions by
demonstration.

10.

The real test came in being able to shift from
one intern to another in both the pacing and
the substance of the guidance offered.

11.

The consultant had to be perceptive enough to
determine the kind of teacher the intern wished
to become and wise enough to assist the intern
achieve that goal even though it might conflict
with what the consultant herself valued.

12.

Consultants hoped to be sympathetic listeners
to guard against the isolation which occurs
when a beginning teacher finds herself in a
school situation where discussion of teaching
is not encouraged.

13.

Consultants hoped by their consistent avail­
ability and by encouraging dialog they could
help interns make the basis of their teaching
practice more explicit.«6

And finally, Corman and Olmsted wrote in their conclusions
and summarizing statements:
^ C o r m a n and Olmsted, o p . c i t . , pp. 62-75-

55

If our assertion is correct, then the intern­
ship, with its provision for guidance during the
students' transformation Into a teacher, Is of
critical importance.
A readily accessible, nonthreatening, and knowledgeable consultant may
importantly influence the beginners' assessment
of her first experimental tries, and her under­
standing and response to the constraints on her
practice.
Summary

In summary, the review of literature on the super­
vision of beginning teachers revealed;

(1) a discrepancy

between supervisory theory and practice,

(2) that percep­

tive observers, whatever their other differences, agreed
on the need for a supervised practice for beginning
teachers, (3) studies of supervisory practice with beginning
teachers are needed, and (4) a theoretical framework for the
instrument developed In this study.

In addition, research

studies that were similar in purpose and methodology to
this Investigation were reported.
Role theory Is a useful scientific tool for analysis
of the supervisor role in real life field settings.

The

proliferation of new supervisory positions In Teacher Edu­
cation highlights the need for role clarity.

Research

reports based on the concept of role indicate that:

(1) role

behavior of Individuals result from and are modified by
expectations, and (2) a basic assumption of role theory,
and of this study, is that these expectations and perceptions
67

Corman and Olmsted, o p . cit. , p. 93.

56

can be measured.

This review revealed that many investi­

gations of role perception used questionnaires

(which

scaled responses to items) to collected data.

Various

statistical analyses were performed on the data thus
collected.
The literature concerning internship in teacher edu­
cation revealed an abundance of descriptive accounts.
However, this literature was largely unsupported by sub­
stantive research studies.

Many writers emphasized the

need for research in this area.
Finally, four research studies related to the Elemen­
tary Intern Program have been reported to date and were
reviewed in this chapter.

Personal characteristics of

intern teachers provided the focus for two studies, intern
teaching graduates on-the-job longivity was the subject of
one investigation, and an analytic-descriptive account of
the elementary intern consultant was the focus of the last
study.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY
Introduction
This chapter has seven parts.

The primary purpose

was to describe the research design of the study.
parts Included are:

Other

a description of the Intern teacher

and Intern consultant sample, the construction of the
reactionnaire— the Intern Consultant Inventory, a descrip­
tion of the data-collection process, the statement of
specific hypotheses developed, and the statistical proced­
ures employed, including the rationale for selecting these
procedures and the level of significance used.
The Study Sample
Intern teachers and Intern consultants In E.I.P. were
selected as the subjects of this study.

Intern teachers

were selected because they (1) were directly affected by
intern consultant role through intensive professional con­
tact with the intern consultant,

(2) were believed to hold

expectations for the intern consultant role being investi­
gated, (3) had worked with their consultant for nearly a
school year, and (4) were accessible and cooperative as an

57

58
an entire population, due to the E.I.P.

faculty interest in

this study.
Intern consultants were selected as subjects because
they (1) were occupants of the role being investigated,

(2)

were believed to hold expectations concerning the conduct
of their role,

(3) had held the consultant position for a

school year or more, and (4) were accessible and cooperative
as an entire population due to the E.I.P.

faculty interest

in this study.
The intern teacher subjects represented nearly the
entire population of intern teachers involved in the Ele­
mentary Intern Program, Spring Term, 1969*

Four individual

intern teachers did not participate because they did not
wish to cooperate in this investigation.

The intern con­

sultant subjects represented the entire population of in­
tern consultants involved in the Elementary Intern Program
for 1969.

All intern consultants cooperated and participated

in this study.
The subjects of this study, while closely approximating
the specific population of interest, were treated as a sam­
ple.

It was assumed that there may exist a population in

teacher education of elementary intern teachers and elemen­
tary intern supervisors or consultants from which these
subjects could be considered to be a representative sample.
If this assumption is accepted, then (1) the results of this
study could be generalized to the specific Michigan State

59
University Elementary Intern Program population of interest,
and (2) where appropriate, the results could be generalized
to encompass other comparable programs, of which E.I.P. may
be representative, in the larger universe of teacher educa­
tion .
The additional advantage of this sample representative­
ness assumption Is that It allows the incorporation of the
most powerful parametric statistical technique in the design
and data analysis of this study.

Greater precision is

gained in testing the hypotheses of interest and more infor­
mation Is generated.

Specifically, precision is gained by

decreasing the standard error of the mean and increasing the
power of the test against whatever hypothesis Is true.

More

information is generated by the most appropriate design be
cause of the possibility of (1) looking at interactions
which may exist among variables of interest, and (2) asking
more questions of the data.
Intern Teachers
During the 1968-69 school year, 191 interns were teach­
ing In elementary school classrooms and enrolled in E.I.P.
Of this number, 187 participated In this study.

This

represented responses from more than 98 percent of the
intern population.

Of this number, 155 interns or 83 percent

were females while 32 interns or 17 percent were males.

60

Corman and Olmsted1 reported in 1964 that 23 percent of
E.I.P. Interns were male.

There appeared to be some stab­

ility over time in percentage of males selecting E.I.P.
Data were gathered at the beginning of the Pall Term,
1967 on the 1968-69 class involved in E.I.P.

These data

described selected personal characteristics of Interns at
entrance Into the program.

Of the 214 interns who responded

to the original, 1967 demographic questionnaire, 185 (or 85
percent)completed the program twenty-one months later.
Selected personal characteristics describing 185 (or 99
percent) of the 187 subjects of this study are reported below.
Two intern teachers, who participated as subjects in this
study, were not included in this description because they
entered the program after these data were collected.
Table 3.1 includes a description of the age distribu­
tion of intern subjects.

Approximately 77 percent of the

intern population fell In the twenty-one to twenty-five age
range near the completion of their Internship year.

The

average age of all interns Included in this study was twentyfour and one-half years.
In Table 3-2, the Intern sample is described by grade
point average at entrance to the program.

All of the In­

terns, Including the six in the 1.50 to 1.99 range, com­
pleted the program.

Michigan State University requires a

2.00 accumulative grade point average by a student to qualify
1Corman and Olmsted, o p . c l t . , p. 22.

TABLE

3.1. — Ag e D i s t r i b u t i o n * of th e I n t e r n P o p u l a t i o n ,
1969.
Age

21-25

26-30

31-35

Groups

36-40

41-45

46-50

Over
50

14
7.5

6
3

4
2

1

Subjects
Number
Percent

136
77

8
H

11
6

.5

*Corrected by 24 months

TABLE 3.2. — Distribution of Intern Population by Grade Point
Average at Entrance to the Elementary Intern
Program, 1967.
Grade Point Average Range— 4.0 Scale

Subjects
Number
Percent

1.501.99

2.002.49

2.50
2.99

11
6

67
39

55
32

3.003- ^9
33
19

3.504.00
6
4

62
for student teaching.

It is assumed that these six students

received very high grades for the methods of teaching courses
to raise their average to qualify for student teaching or
special arrangements were made to excuse them from this
college requirement.

The bulk of the students, 71 percent,

fell within the

2.00 to2.99 grade point average range.

average for all

interns was 2.59*

The

In Table 3*3 the distribution of interns by colleges
attended is shown.

About 48 percent of the Interns had

attended another college for one or two y e a r s .

About 26

percent attended another college for more than two years.
Together, 74 percent, of the intern subjects attended another
college for more than one year.
Annual family income distribution is shown in Table
3.4.

About 35 percent of interns in this study came from

families where incomes ranged from $10,000 to $15,000.

Most

interns or about 74 percent came from families where incomes
ranged from $5,000 to $15,000.
Table 3*5
community where

includes information on type of pre-college
interns resided.

The intern population

represented a broad range and rather evenly distributed
sample of each of the types of communities listed.

Slightly

more than half of the intern subjects came from a metropoli­
tan center with its suburb— and from a large city with its
suburb.

The largest percentage of Interns In this study,

however, came from medium-sized cities.

63

TABLE 3.3. — Distribution of Intern Population by Colleges
Attended.

Subjects

Attended
only
MSU

One Year or
less at
another
college

38
21

9
5

Number
Percent

1-2 years
at
another
college

More than
2 years at
another
college
48
26

87
48

TABLE 3-4. — Distribution of Intern Population by Annual
Family Income.
Family Income Ranges

Subjects
Number
Percent

Less
than
$5,000

$5,000
to
$7,499

$7,500
to
$9,999

20
12

35
21.5

29
17.5

$10,000
to
$15,000
60
35

More
than
$15,000
24
14

64
TABLE 3.5*— Distribution of Interns by Pre-College Community
Type .
Type of Community
Metropolitan Center (City of more than
500,000)
Suburban Community close to Metropoli­
tan Center
City (100,000-500,000)
Suburban Community adjacent to city
Medium-sized City (10,000-100,000)
Small Town (2,500-10,000)
Rural Community (2,500 or less) or on
Farm

Number

Percent

28

15

29
34
10
41
26

16
19
5
22
14

17

9

A description of the marital status of intern teachers
In this study is presented on Table 3.6.

The most dramatic

change in marital status occurred within the single to
married categories.

The highest percentage of students upon

entry and exit were in the single status.

During the course

of the program nearly 21 percent of the single subjects
married.

Presumably those married remained married, while

two of those separated at entry were divorced by exit.

Two

pairs of interns were married to each other while partici­
pating in E.I.P. while one pair reported they were married
to each other at entry.
Table

3*7 contains a distribution of the number of

children for married interns in this study.

All of the 41

married students at entry to E.I.P. reported having one or
more children.

Nearly four-fifths had three or more children.

65

TABLE 3.6.— Marital Status Distribution of Students Entering
and Near Exit of the Elementary Intern Program,
1969.
Subjects
Marital Status

Single
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed

At Entry 1967

Near Exit 1969

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

135
ill
3
2
1

74
22
2.5
1
.5

101
80
1
4
1

54
42.8
.5
2.2
.5

TABLE 3.7. — Distribution of Children for Married Intern
Teachers Entering the Elementary Intern
Program, 1967.
Number of Children
One
Two
Three
Pour
Five
Six

Married Interns Response
7
7
14
3
7
3

66
Ninety-five percent of the interns followed the regular
elementary education curriculum at Michigan State University
while 5 percent selected an area of special education.

The

regular curriculum prepares classroom teachers for grades
kindergarten through eighth.

Special education areas were

deaf and hard of hearing, blind, mentally retarded-trainable,
and mentally retarded-educable.
The Composite Intern Teacher
The composite intern teacher in the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program was likely to:
1.

be a female;

2.

be 2*4.5 years of age;

3.

carry a 2.59 all-university grade point average;

*4.

have attended a community college for a year or
m ore;

5.

come from a family with an annual Income of
approximately $10,000;

6.

have spent her pre-college years in a mediumsize city of from 10,000 to 100,000 population;

7.

have been single when she entered the program
and single at exit; and

8.

have followed the regular elementary education
curriculum (as opposed to special education).

This composite description combines and summarizes the aver­
ages computed for the 187 intern teachers who participated
in this study.

67
Intern Consultants
All of the forty intern consultants assigned to super­
vise intern teachers during the 1968-69 school year partici­
pated in this study.

Of this number, 35 consultants or 87

percent were female, while 5 or 13 percent were male.
Table 3*8 includes a description of the age distribution
of intern consultants.

Approximately 25 percent were between

thirty-four to thirty-eight years of age.

Over

half were

between thirty-four and forty-eight years old, while the mean
age for all consultants was forty-three years.
A description of the Marital Status of intern consul­
tants in this study is presented on Table 3.9.

Approximately

72 percent of the intern consultants were married, 15 percent
were single, and approximately 12 percent were divorced or
widowed.
In Table 3.10, the intern consultant sample is des­
cribed by earned college degrees.

All intern consultants

reported having an earned bachelor’s degree and nearly sixty
percent of these were Bachelor of Science degrees.

Of the

forty consultants, thirty reported having earned the master’s
degree.

This represents 75 percent of all consultants.

The

Educational Specialist Degree represented the highest level
of educational degrees earned and three intern consultants
reported having reached this plateau.

In addition, 19

intern consultants reported having taken 15 or more college
term credits beyond the master's degree and of these 19» the
average number of credits earned beyond the M.A. was 40 hours.

TABLE 3.8.— Age Distribution of the Intern Consultant Population, 1969*
Intern
Consultants
NumberPercent

28 or
less

29-33

34-38

3
7.5

10
25

•■s

0
7.5

39-43

7
17.5

44-48

49-53

54-58

59-63

64-68

6
15

3
7.5

4
10

3
7.5

1
2.5

69

TABLE 3.9*— Marital Status Distribution of Intern
Consultants, 1969.
Marital Status
Intern
Consultants
Number
Percent

Single
6
15

Married

Separated

29
72.5

Divorced

Widowed

3
7.5

---

2
5

TABLE 3.10.- -Distribution of College Degrees Earned by Intern
Consultants, 1969•

Intern
Consultants

Number
Percent

Bachelor's
Degree

M a s t e r ’s
Degree

B.A.

B.S.

M.A.

17
42.5

23
57.5

30
75

M.A.+15
19
47.5

Educational
Specialist's
Degree
Ed. S.
3
7.5

70

The distribution by rank order of undergraduate and
graduate degree awarding institution attended by intern
consultants is presented in Table 3.11.

Most intern con­

sultants , approximately 52 percent, were awarded either an
undergraduate or graduate degree from Michigan State Uni­
versity .

TAble 3.11.— Rank Order Distribution of Undergraduate and/or
Graduate Degree Awarding Institution Attended
by Intern Consultants, 1969*
i.e. Subjects
Name of Undergraduate and/or Graduate
Degree Awarding Institution
Michigan State University
University of Michigan
Western Michigan University
Wayne State University
Central Michigan University
Eastern Michigan University
Bob Jones University
Illinois State University
Marygrove College
Northern Michigan University
Others*

Number
21
12
12
7
5
2
2
2
2
12

Percent
52.5
30
30
17.5
12.5
10
5
5
5
5
30

^Others include:
Albion College, Arkansas State University,
Perris State College, Glassboro State College, Northwestern
University, Oakland University, Southern Connecticut State
College, Syracuse University, Teachers College - Columbia
University, University of Detroit, University of Kentucky,
University of Pennsylvania.

71
Table 3-12 contains a distribution of the year the
master’s degree was earned by the thirty intern consultants.
The largest number of consultants earned the ma st e r ’s degree
in the five-year period between 1961 through 1965*

Of the

thirty consultants with earned master’s degrees, 83 percent
were earned in the last 13 years, and 56 percent were earned
in the last eight years.

The three consultants who earned

the Educational Specialist Degree reported that one was
awarded in 1965 and the other two in 1967.

TABLE 3.12.— Distribution of the Year the Master of Arts
Degree was Earned by Intern Consultants.
Year Degree Awarded
I. c.
Subjects
Number
Percent

1940-50

1951-5*5

1
5

4
13

1956-60

8
27

1961-65

1966-69

10
33

7
23

The distribution of the number of years of teaching
experience for intern consultants is shown on Table 3.13.
The largest number of consultants, eleven, have taught be­
tween six to ten years, while ten reported having taught for
twenty-six or more years.

One consultant reported over 44

years of teaching, while another reported four years of

72

teaching experience.

The average, however, for all consul­

tants was 18 years of experience.

TABLE 3-13.— Distribution of the Number of Years of Teaching
Experience for Intern Consultants, 1969*
Number of Years of Teaching Experience
I. c.
Subjects
Number
Percent

5 or
less

6-10

11-15

16-20

3
7.5

11
27.5

7
17.5

5
12.5

21-25

26 or
more

4
10

10
25

Table 3.1^ contains the distribution of grade level of
teaching experience for intern consultants.

Over three-

quarters of all consultants had experience teaching at the
fourth-grade level, while firr.t, third, fourth, and fifth
grades represented the greatest concentration of consultant
teaching experience.

The range of experience ran from pre­

school through college.

This tends to suggest that intern

consultants taught at a variety of grade levels during their
teaching experiences.
In Table 3*15 the distribution of the number of differ­
ent school districts In which Intern consultants obtained
teaching experience is described.

The range of different

school districts In which consultants have taught was from

TABLE 3 - . — Distribution of the Grade Level of Teaching Experience for Intern
Consultants, 1969.
Grade Level of Teaching Experience

I. C.
Subjects

K

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Number
Percent

18
45

26
65

24
60

27
67 -5

31
78

26
65

23
58

19
48

17
43

9
23

10
6
15

11.
7
18

12
6
15

Other*
12
33

*Other includes: Nursery School, Rural K through 12, Special Education, Remedial Reading,
Music K through 12, and College Instructor.

one to nine, while 67*5 percent of all consultants taught in
either three, two, or a single school district.

The mean

for intern consultants was teaching experience in three
different school districts.

TABLE 3 - 15*— Distribution of the Number of Different School
Districts in which Intern Consultants have
Obtained Teaching Experience, 1969*
Number of Different School Districts
Subjects

1

2

Number
Percent

10
25

3
7
17.5

10
25

4

5
4
10

3
7-5

6

7

8

4
10

1
2.5

—
—

9
1
2.5

The distribution of the number of years experience as
an intern consultant is found on Table 3.16.

Most subjects

(70 percent) have had one or two years experience as an
intern consultant.

The mean for intern consultants was two

years of experience with the Elementary Intern Program.
The Composite Intern Consultant
The composite Intern consultant in the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program was likely to:
1.

be a female;

2.

be forty-three years of age;

3.

be married;

75
TABLE 3-16.— Distribution of Years Experience as an Intern
Consultant, 1969.
Years Experience as Intern Consultant
3

4

Number
Percent

13
32.5

15
37.5

3
7.5

1
2.

5

6
4
O

2

i
i

1

U1

Subjects,

4.

have earned a Bachelor of Science under­
graduate degree;

5.

have earned a Master of Arts degree, and
have taken an additional 40 hours credit
beyond this degree;

6.

have attended undergraduate or graduate
school at Michigan State University;

7-

have taught in schools for 18 years;

8.

have taught first, third, fourth, and fifth
grades;

9.

have taught in three different school
districts;

10.

have been a consultant for two years.

7

8

2
5

2
5

This composite description combines and summarizes the
average computed for the forty Intern consultants who parti­
cipated in this study.
Instrumentation
An extensive search of the literature for an appropriate
standardized instrument to measure the variables of Interest
in this study failed to yield positive results.

It was

76
concluded that no suitable measuring device was available.
As a result, an Instrument was constructed for the purpose
of this study.
This Instrument— referred to as the Intern Consultant
2
Inventory — was developed in collaboration with a colleague.
Each contributor to the construction of the instrument pre­
viously served as an intern consultant in E.I.P.
period of three years.

for a

First-hand experience as an occupant

in the role was helpful in developing items for categories
describing Intern consultant tasks and methods of operation.
This experience was also helpful in developing both items
and categories that were believable, representative, and
typical of the Intern consultant role.
The Intern Consultant Inventory was developed In two
distinct sections:

Part A and Part B.

Part A of this

instrument was designed to measure perceptions of (1) pre­
ference for selected intern consultant tasks and (2) fre­
quency of occurrence of selected intern consultant tasks.
Part B of the reactionnaire was designed to measure per­
ceptions of (1) preference for selected intern consultant
method of operation and (2) the most likely Intern consultant
method of operation.
Specifically, Part A consisted of six categories
selected on the basis of representativeness of intern
2

A copy of the Instrument U3ed in this study Is found
in Appendix B.

77

consultant supervisoral behaviors in working with intern
teacher in the intern teacher’s classroom.
selected were

The categories

(1) classroom management techniques,

ditions of learning,

(2) con­

(3) planning for learning experiences,

(4) evaluation of learning,

(5) analyzing teaching behavior,

and (6) supportive consultant behaviors.
In Illustration 3*1, below, the organization and pre­
sentation of Part A of the instrument is shown.

Each of

the six categories consisted of four behavioral descriptions
of intern consultant tasks.

Each of the four behavioral

tasks was followed by two continua.

The first continuum was

designed to measure degree of preference for that specific
intern consultant behavior.

The second continuum was

designed to measure frequency of occurrence for that same
specific intern consultant behavior.

The

sequence presented

In Illustration 3*1 was repeated four times per category and
followed across the six categories for Part A.
tration 3 .2

See Illus­

.

Part B of the Intern Consultant Inventory presented
six problem situations typically encountered by interns
during their first year of teaching.

The categories for

selected intern consultant method of operation were theore­
tical-practical, intern-intern consultant actuator, and
directive-non-directive.

Respondents estimated their pre­

ference for, and perceived likely, consultant method of
operation.

This resulted in six continua for each problem

78

ILLUSTRATION 3-1.— The Organization and Presentation of
Preference and Frequency Scales Under
the Behavioral Description of Consul­
tant Task within a Category on Part A
of the Intorn Consultant Inventory.
Category:

Classroom Management Technique

Behavioral Description:
The consultant urges the intern to
give continued attention to ventilation, lighting,
seating, and other physical conditions within the
intern's classroom
Preference Item;

B

1.

D

Definitely
not preferred
behavior
Frequency Item:

2.

A
Never
Occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

Very highly
preferred
behavior
C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

79

ILLUSTRATION 3*2.— A Conceptual Scheme Representing the Data
Collected on Part A of the Intern Consul­
tant Inventory.
Part A:

Preference and Frequency for Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks
Preference
I*
C*

Category 1 Management
Techniques

Item
Item
Item
Item

1
2
3
4

Category 2 Conditions of
Learning

Item
Item
Item
Item

1
2
3
4

Category 3 Planning
Learning
Experiences

Item
Item
Item
Item

1
2
3
4

Category 4 Evaluation
of Learning

Item
Item
Item
Item

Category 5 Analyzing
Teaching
Behavior

Item
Item
Item
Item

1
2
3
4

Category 6 Supportative
Behavior

Item
Item
Item
Item

1
2
3
4

*1 » Interns;

C ■ Consultants

Frequency
I*
c*

1
2

3
4

-

80
situation; one scale of preference for and one scale of per­
ceived actual consultant method of operation for each of the
above stated categories (See Illustration 3-3)«
For the development of this instrument, nearly one
hundred specific behavioral tasks were identified each des­
cribing intern consultant behaviors.

The categories of

interest evolved from this pool of items.
Validity
Three independent "panels of experts" were involved
in the item, category, and test construction phase of this
study.

These panels served to help establish the validity

of the Instrument.

Each individual panel member was by

past experience, as a director of an E.I.P. off-campus cen­
ter, knowledgeable about the role of the intern consultant.
They were no longer directly involved in the supervision of
subjects In this study, interns and consultants.

The

panels offered unique, relevant, and objective criticisms
which tended to strengthen both face and content validity
for the Intern Consultant Inventory.

After several trials

and refinements It was their unanimous judgment that the
sample and content within the completed Instrument was repre­
sentative of the role of the Intern consultant.
To test appropriateness, objectivity, and sensitivity,
a prototype was administered to fifteen former Intern
teachers, each a graduate of E.I.P.
sidered similar to incumbent interns.

This sample was con­

81

ILLUSTRATION 3.3*— A Conceptual Scheme Representing the
Data Collected on Part B of the Intern
Consultant Inventory.
Part B:

Preference for and Perceived Actual Intern
Consultant Method of Operation

Problem Situation

Items

1) Diagnosing learning difficulty
and planning specific Individual
lessons

a) Theoretical/
Practical
b) Active Par
ticipation
c) Directive/
Non-directive

2) Pacing lessons
during the school
day

a) Theoretical/
Practical
b) Actiive Par­
ticipation
c) Directive/
Non-Directive

3) Difficulty
teaching a
science concept

a) Theoretical/
Practical
b) Active Par­
ticipation
c) Directive/
Non-Directive

4) Difficulty with
clear and concise directions

a) Theoretical/
Practical
b") Active Par­
ticipation
c") Directive/
Non-directive

5) Child retention
and Principal
misunderstanding

a) Theoretical/
Practical
b) Active Par­
ticipation
c") Directive/
Non-Directive

Perceived
Actual

Preferred

82
Responses from this former intern pre-test group sug­
gested several changes which were Incorporated into the final
revision of the instrument.

They indicated that the direc­

tions and Items were clear.

They felt the descriptions were

typical of consultant behaviors and indicated they could
easily identify with the specific problem situations.
The instrument appeared to be sensitive enough to make
discriminations required for the research problem.

Varia­

bility of responses by the pilot sample indicated the instru­
ment’s ability to measure differences between individuals.
The printed instructions were clear and provided the nec­
essary information needed by the pilot sample to complete
the instrument.

This group offered stylistic changes which

were incorporated into the instructions for the final instru­
ment.

Their reactions indicated that the instrument was

objective because it did not introduce a pre-disposition or
bias toward responding in any particular manner.

They con­

curred with the "panel of experts" that the sample content
was representative of the intern consultant role.

Although

the pilot sample did not specifically say so, the instrument
appeared to meet the test of appropriateness as they were
able to meet the demands imposed by the instrument; i.e.,
reading vocabulary level, following written instructions,
the symbolic thinking required by reacting to the scales.
Upon completion of changes resulting from the pilot study,
the final draft was printed.

For convenience in data process­

ing, an answer sheet accompanied the final Instrument booklet.

83
Reliability of the Instrument
The purpose of the Intern Consultant Inventory was to
measure differences hypothesized to exist between the popu­
lations of interest in this study; intern teachers and
intern consultants.

It was assumed that real differences

between these subjects were measurable.

The most critical

criteria for the reliability or the constructed Instrument
was the degree to which it accurately and precisely produced
"true" measures of the dependent variables of Interest:
preference and frequency of occurrence for intern consultant
tasks and method of operation.
Kerllnger

•2

in defining reliability indicates that It

consists of several components; they are:
1) stability, dependability, or predictability.
Other researchers describe this quality as
repeatability.
This component refers to the
generation of similar results as measured
by an instrument upon several administrations
over time.
2) accuracy or precision.
This component refers
to the degree to which the measures obtained
from a measuring instrument produce "true"
measures of the property measured.
It asks
simply, are the measurements accurate?
The crucial test of the reliability of the instrument
was precision or accuracy.

As Kerlinger points out:

We can Inquire how much error of measurement there
Is in a measuring instrument.
Recall that there
are two general types of variance:
systematic and
“2

Fred N. Kerllnger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York:
Holt, Rinehart"^ and Winston, Inc. , 19^7 )» p. 4 30.

84
random.
Systematic variance leans in one direction:
scores tend to be all positive or all negative, or
all high or all low.
Error in this case is constant
or biased.
Random or error variance is self-compen­
sating:
scores tend now to lean this way, now that
way.
Errors of measurement are random errors.
They
are the sum or product of a number of caus es : the
ordinary random or chance elements present in all
measures due to unknown causes, temporary or momentary
fatigue, fortuitous conditions at a particular time
that temporarily affect the object measured or the
measuring instrument, fluctuations of memory or mood,
and other factors that are temporary and shifting.
To the extent that errors
of measurement are present
in a measuring instrument, to this extent the instru­
ment is unreliable.
In other words, reliability can
be defined as the relative absence of errors of mea­
surement in a measuring instrument.
Reliability is
associated, then, with random or chance error.4
It was assumed that If real differences existed between
Interns' and consultants' perceptions, and If the instrument
performed such that It detected differences when real differ­
ences were hypothesized to have existed, then It might be
tentatively concluded that the criteria of precision for the
Instrument was met.
The difficulty in establishing and reporting a relia­
bility coefficient for the instrument in this study was
three-fold.

First, the instrument was designed to measure

perceptions.

If a scientific approach was to be followed

in the conduct of this study, then no response was better
than any other.

There was no right or wrong response.

Second, the various split-half statistical procedures nor­
mally employed to estimate reliability were not applicable
in this case.

These methods assume a correct response.

4Ibid., p. 430.

85
This assumption could not be met because of the reason stated
above.

Third, the test— re-test procedure may not have

yielded the specific information desired from the respondents.
A measure of perceptions of the respondent groups near the
end of the school year was the objective of this study.
Data collected by the Intern Consultant Inventory were
analyzed to provide a measure of internal consistence.

The

measure of internal consistency for this multi-variate
instrument are summarized in the form of an inter-item corre­
lational matrix.

These data are presented in Appendix D.
Design of the Study

The two populations of this study were intern teachers
and intern consultants.

Each intern consultant was assigned

to work with one or more interns.

The maximum number of

interns assigned to any one consultant was seven.

The mode

average supervisoral ratio of interns to consultants at the
time of this study was approximately five to one (5.2 to 1).
The supervisoral ratio of interns to consultants by centers
are listed on Table 3*17.
The experimental unit selected for this study was the
intern consultant and the interns assigned to that intern
consultant.

Each of the forty consultants were paired with

the interns they were responsible for supervising.
the experimental unit was forty (N = 40).

Thus,

This unit of

analysis was selected because it was the smallest unit over
which the experimenter had control.

Each of these forty units

TABLE 3.17.— A Listing of E.I.P. Centers with the Number of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants Associated with Each Center, and the Supervisoral Ratio of
Interns to Consultants , 1969.

Number of
Intern
Teachers

Name of Center
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Alpena
Battle Creek
Bay City-Saginaw
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Livonia
Macomb
Pontiac
Port Huron
Total:

Number of
Intern
Consultants
Pull
Time

Supervisora]
Ratio of
Interns to
Consultants

Part*
Time

14
24
12
7
27
29
24
18
14
22

3
3
2
1
5
5
4
3
2
4

0
3
1
1
1
2
b
0
0
0

191

32

8

4.6
6
5.2
5
5.2
5.2
6
6
7
5.5
Mean:
Median:
Mode:

to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

5*6 to 1
5*4 to 1
5*2 to 1

*Several Intern Consultants were part-time, sharing responsibility for one or more
interns with another assignment in the local schools or with E.I.P.

87
met the criteria of operating independently of every other
unit.

Independence existed both between and within pairs

because of the nature of the assignment of the interns to
their consultant and assignment to teaching station.
The categories within the reactionnalre were designed,
by selected sampling of behavioral descriptions of consultant
tasks, to be (1) internally consistent, dependent,

and mutual­

ly related within each category, and (2) mutually independent
and exclusive of every other category included in the Instru­
ment .
The dependent variables for Part A of the instrument
were perceptions of preference for, and perceived frequency
of, occurrence of intern consultant tasks.

The two dependent

variables were measured by two scales following each behavioral
description.

Each scale measured the variable of Interest

on at least an ordinal basis, and approximated Internal
measurement.

The data generated from these scales were

assumed to be Interval.

If the scale possesses this property,

equal intervals, we can then utilize the assumption of normal­
ity needed for a parametric statistical test of differences
between means.

On this point Kerllnger says:

Though most psychological scales are basically ordinal,
we can with considerable assurance often assume an
equality of interval.
The argument is evidential.
If
we have, say, two or three measures of the same varia­
ble, and these measures are all substantially and
linearly related, then equal Intervals can be assumed.
This assumption is valid because the more nearly a
relation approaches linearity, the more nearly equal~
are the Intervals of the scales.
This also applies,
at least to some extent, to certain psychological

88
measures like intelligence, achievement, and
attitude tests and scales.
A related argument is that many of the methods
of analysis we use work quite well with most
psychological scales.
That is, the results we
get from using scales and assuming equal inter­
vals are quite satisfactory.^
Illustration 3*4, below, represents the research para­
digm utilized in the treatment and analysis of data on
Part A of this study.

A legend appears below the schematic,

indicating the symbols used.
Data for Part A were treated a s a 2 x 6 x 2 x 4 0
torial design for purposes of analysis, where:

fac­

and C 2

represented preference for, and frequency of, occurrence of
intern consultant behavior,

through Rg were categories

of specific Intern consultant behaviors treated as repeated
measures,

and T 2 represented interns and consultants, P^

through P jjq represented the contrast of Interns paired to
their consultant.

The arrangement of the independent varia­

bles in this manner enabled the experimenter to utilize a
Pour-Way Analysis of Variance, Mixed Effects Model, Repeated
Measures Design to test for overall significance In Part A
of the Instrument.
The second section of the written reactionnaire, Part
B, was designed to measure preferred and likely intern con­
sultant method of

operation.

5Ibi d . , pp. 426-427.

The two populations of

89

ILLUSTRATION 3.4.— Research Paradigm for Part A of the Intern
Consultant Inventory.

R1
P1

r

2

R3

R4

R5

R6

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

X

P2
P3
T.

•

•

•

P 40

P1

X

P2
p3
T,

•
•

•

P 40

Legend:

= Preference

C£ = Frequency
R^ = Management Techniques

R6 *

Intern Teachers
T1 ’
T« = Intern Consultants

R^ = Conditions of Learning
Rg * Planning for Instruction
Rjj ■ Measurement of Learning
Rj- * Analysis of Teaching

Supportative Behavior

Paired Interns to
their Consultant
40

90

Interest and experimental unit of analysis remain the same
as in Part A, interns and consultants and forty pairs,
respectively.

However, intern consultant method of operation

was represented by three categories.

They were:

theoretical-

practical orientation, intern-intern consultant active
initiative orientation, and directive-non-directive
orientation.
Illustration 3.5, portrays the research paradigm for
the treatment and analysis of data of Part B.

A legend is

presented below, indicating the symbols used to Identify the
components of the design.
Data for Part B were treated a s a 2 x 3 x 2 x 4 0
torial design, where:
perceived actual,

fac­

E.^ and Eg indicated preference for and
through

represented theoretical-

practical, intern-consultant actuating, and directive-nondirective orientation of consultant method of operation, T^
and Tg indicated Interns and consultants, and P^...P^ q
represented the contrast of Interns paired with their con­
sultant.

The arrangement of the variables in this manner

enabled the experimenter to utilize a Four-Way Analysis of
Variance, Mixed Effects Model, Repeated Measures Design to
test for overall significance in Part B of the instrument.
This design was treated as independent of Part A, although
both sections were administered at the same time.

91

ILLUSTRATION 3-5.— Research Paradigm for Part B of the Intern
Consultant Inventory.

E1
m

P1

E2
2

M

3

Mi

M2

M3

X

P2
P3
♦

•

•

P l|0

P1

-

-

X

P2
P3
T.

•
•
•

P40
Legend:

E.

Preferred Behavior

T_ * Consultants

Likely Behavior
M.

Theoretical Orientation
m 2 - Active Behavior
M, - Directiveness Consul­
tant Behavior
Interns

Paired Interns to
their Consultants
40

92
Thus, the design of this study included the various
factors built into the instrument to explore role percep­
tions for the intern consultant.

The multi-factorial

design and analysis of variance allowed the manipulation
and control of two or more variables simultaneously.
Another advantage was the study of the interactive effects
of the independent variables on dependent variables.
Finally, the multi-factorial design and analysis of vari­
ance was more precise than other combinations of research
design and statistical considerations available.
The Statistical Hypotheses of this Study
The following hypotheses were posed for testing in this
study:
1.

There is no difference of preference for
selected intern consultants' tasks between
intern teachers and intern consultants in
the Michigan State University Elementary
Intern Program as measured by the Intern
Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho.^ : p 1 = y2

Where:

: on Part A in the design of this
study
Alternate Hypothesis :
Intern teachers' mean score of preference
for selected intern consultant tasks is
different from intern consultants' mean
score.

93
Symbolically:
2.

HA1 : y-j.^2

There Is no difference of perceived fre­
quency of selected Intern consultant tasks
between Intern teachers and Intern consul­
tants In the Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program as measured by
the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:
Where:

Ho2 : u 1 = u 2

= T^C2
y2 = T 2C2
:

on Part A in the design of this
study

Alternate Hypothesis:
Intern teachers' mean score of perceived
frequency of selected Intern consultant
tasks is different from intern consultants’
mean score.
Symbolically:
3.

: b1^y2

There is no difference of preference for a
theoretical approach in intern
consultant
method of operation between Intern teachers
and Intern consultants in the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program as
measured by the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho^

: y1 = u2

Where:y ^ = t iM 1E 1

:

on Part B In the design of this
study.

Alternate Hypothesis:
Intern teachers' mean score of preference
for a theoretical approach in intern

9*i
consultant method of operation is different
from Intern consultants' mean score.
Symbolically:
M.

There is no difference of perceived actual
theoretical approach in intern consultant
method of operation between intern teachers
and intern consultants in the Michigan
State University Elementary Intern Program
as measured by the Intern Consultant In­
ventory .
Symbolically:
Where:

Ho^

: y^ = y2

y^ = t i M 2.E 2

: on Part B In the design of this
study.
Alternate Hypothesis:
Intern teachers' mean score of perceived
actual theoretical approach In intern con­
sultant method of operation is different
from intern consultants' mean score.
Symbolically:
5.

HA

: y. / y~

There is no difference of preference for
initiating intern consultant method of
operation between intern teachers and
Intern consultants in the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program as
measured by the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:
Where:

Ho,- : y^ = y2

y^ « ^i^2El

y2 = T2M2E1
:

on Part B in the design of this
study.

95
Alternate Hypothesis:
Intern Teachers’ mean score of preference
for initiating intern consultant method of
operation is different from intern consul­
tants' mean score.
Symbolically:
6.

5
There is no difference of perceived actual
initiating intern consultant method of
operation between intern teachers and in­
tern consultants in the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program as
measured by the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:
Where:

Hog

: y^ *= u^

y^ = T^M^E^

: on Part B in the design of this
s t udy.
Alternate Hypothesis :
Intern teachers’ mean score of perceived
actual initiating intern consultant method
of operation is different from intern con­
sultants’ mean score.
Symbolically:

HA

:

6
7.

There is no difference of preference for
directiveness in intern consultant method
of operation between intern teachers and
intern consultants in the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program as
measured by the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:
Where:

Ho^ : y^ = y2

y^ = T^M^E^
y 2 = T 2M 3E 1

:

on Part B in the design of this
study.

96
Alternate Hypothesis:
Intern teachers’ mean score of preference
for directiveness In the Intern consultant
method of operation is different from In­
tern consultants’ mean score.
Symbolically:
8.

There Is no difference of perceived actual
directiveness In Intern consultant method
of operation between intern teachers and
Intern consultants In the Michigan State
University Elementary Intern Program as
measured by the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:
Where:

HOg

:

= U2

u1 =

:

on Part B in the design of this
s t ud y.

Alternate Hypothesis:
Intern teachers' mean score of perceived
actual directiveness in intern consultant
method of operation is different from in­
tern consultants' mean score.
Symbolically:

HA

:

U2

8
Data Collecting Process
Data for this study were collected over a twenty-day
period of April/May, 1969.

This period of time was necessi­

tated by the geographic distribution of E.I.P. centers
scattered throughout the lower peninsula of the State of
Michigan.

(See Table 3.18 below.)

97
TABLE 3.18.— A Listing of Elementary Intern Program OffCampus Centers Cooperating in this Study,
and Their Approximate Distances from the
Michigan State University Campus, 1969.
Name of Center

1.
2.
3.
n.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
.0.

Approximate Distance
from MSU Campus

Alpena
Battle Creek
Bay City-Saginaw
Detroit
Grand Rapids
Lansing
Livonia
Macomb
Pontiac
Port Huron

Note:

230
50
80
97
65
4
93
90
84
120

miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles
miles

A State of Michigan map is provided in Appendix A.

A cover letter was sent to the above-listed centers
indicating in global terms the purpose of the research pro­
ject.

The cover letter is found in Appendix B.

Through the

cooperation of center directors, who were Michigan State
University faculty members in residence in the off-campus
communities, interns and consultants were scheduled to parti­
cipate in this study.

In every case, intern consultants were

scheduled to participate during the afternoon of their normal
working day.

In most cases, intern teachers participated

during the early evening hours, after a full working day, in
conjunction with, or in place of, their regularly scheduled
college course taught by the center director.

In several

instances, interns were scheduled after their normal teaching

98
day, before the supper hour, and expressly for the purpose
of participation in this study.

In large measure, this

accounts for the high rate of involvement of the sample of
interest.

Thus, an attempt was made to maximize the

validity of the data and minimize any inconvenience to the
respondents.
The subjects met with a team of researchers.

This

team consisted of three advanced graduate students in ele­
mentary education at Michigan State University.

The

research team members were introduced to the center direc­
tors by the cover letter.

The research team met several

times before the data-collecting process was initiated to
standardize rapport establishing, oral instructions, and
test administration procedure.
Ten off-campus centers necessitated twenty separate
administrations of the instrument:
ten to interns.

ten to consultants and

The consultants, in an individual center,

responded as a group.

While the test administration situa­

tion was natural and comfortable, it paralleled closely a
typical classroom testing situation.

The respondents com­

pleted the reactionnaire independent of each other.

The

same procedure was followed for interns with one large group
administration for each center.

The situation was more for­

mal for interns because of the connection between this
research project and their regularly scheduled college
class.

The average time period for both groups to complete

this reactionnaire was thirty minutes each.

99
Conditions for data collecting varied among centers
because of differences in geographic location and physical
conditions of the particular center facility.

With one

exception, 19 of the reactionnaire administrations took
place in a classroom within the center facility.

The ex­

ception was when the interns from one center responded to
the instrument in the living room of the center director's
home.

The practice of this center was that the i n t er ns ’

college class met informally in various homes.

They were

previously scheduled to meet ;tt the director's home coinci­
dental to the purpose of data collection for this study.
Independence of observation was assured by each intern com­
pleting the written reactionnaire independently.
Initial Steps in Data Processing
Subjects responded to the scaled continua by placing
a mark on their answer sheet.

When all the data were col­

lected for all centers, including make-ups, the answer
sheets were machine processed to obtain a frequency count
for each continuum item response.

Data were translated

directly from machine readable answer sheets which had been
marked by respondents to punched computer cards by an IBM
420.

A verification was made at this point to determine

that the computer cards corresponded with answers on the
answer sheets.

In addition, the machine produced a print­

out frequency count for Item responses for Part A and Part

100
B of the Instrument.

The frequency count data Is summarized

In Appendix D.
In the next step, the computer was instructed to
categorize specific Items imbedded in the instrument for
Part A and average the scores for Individuals within and
across categories.

A new computer card for each Individual

respondent was punched Indicating that Individual's average
score for each category.

.A validation check was made of

this process for accuracy.

The same procedure was followed

for Part B of the Instrument.
Having obtained individual mean scores for categories,
mean scores for Pair 1 through Pair HO for Interns and mean
scores for Pair 1 through Pair JJQ for consultants, both
within and across repeated measures (categories 1 through 6 )
and across the variable of preference were computed.

The

same procedure was followed for the frequency variable.

At

this point the data were in a form for an Analysis of Vari­
ance program.
Statistical Procedures Used
in this Study
The problem in this study, intern consultant role
exploration, led to the development of a multi-factorial
Instrument and design.

The design of this study required

factorial analysis of variance as the statistical method
to analyze the Independent and Interactive effects of the
independent variables upon the dependent variables, preference

101
and frequency.

Thus, analysis of variance was the most

powerful and appropriate model adaptable to this study.
Data were analyzed for over-all significance to
determine the precision for Part A of the instrument.
analysis of variance was used for this purpose.

The

Hypothesis

1 and Hypothesis 2 were tested by the Scheffe post-hoc
comparison technique after the over-all F test had shown
significance.
Data were tested for over-all significance to deter­
mine the precision for Part B of the instrument by the ana­
lysis of variance.

Hypotheses 3,

5* 6, 7, and 8 were

tested by the Scheffe post-hoc comparison technique after
the over-all F test had shown significance.
Hays has pointed out t h a t :
Considered by themselves, all that the F tests in
analysis of variance can tell you is that something
seems to have happened.
If the F is significant,
then some effects presumably exist that can be
expected to occur again under similar circumstances;
if the test is not significant, something notable
still may have happened, but if treatment effects
exist they are at least partially obscured by other
variation.
Other than this, an F test tells almost
nothing.°
Hays suggests that a powerful statistical technique for eval­
uating the significance of differences among means after the
over-all F test has shown significance is post-hoc compari­
sons.

The Scheffe post-hoc comparison technique has the

^William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, I n c ., 1 9 6 3 ) 7 P P • ^59-^60.

102
advantages of simplicity, applicability to groups of unequal
sizes, and any comparison can be made.

There is no require­

ment that post-hoc comparisons be independent.

This method

is also known to be relatively insensitive to departures
from normality and homogeneity of variance.

7

Statistical Assumptions

The mixed effects model of analysis of variance was
used to test over-all significance for the Intern Consultant
Inventory, Part A and Part B.

This model required the sat­

isfaction of the following assumptions:
1.

the distribution of the dependent variable,
preference and frequency, be normally dis­
tributed in the population sample;

2.

the homoscedasticity or variance from the
means of the rows and columns tends to be
e q ua l;

3.

that there be independence of observations
among the population sample; and

4.

the off-diagonal elements in the repeated
measures by repeated measures correlational
matrix be equal.

The Scheffe post-hoc comparisons required no further assump­
tions that those described above for the analysis of variance.
The assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity
can be violated without serious consequences because of the
q
robustness of the analysis of variance.
Independence of
70p. c i t .. p. 484.
g

Henry Scheffe, The Analysis of Variance
John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1959), p. 362.

(New York:

103
observations in this study were assumed to be met by
objectivity in the administration of the instrument.

The

fourth assumption, that the off-diagonal elements in the
repeated measures by repeated measures correlational
matrix be equal, was not essential because the conservative
Q
test suggested by Greenhouse and Geiser was used.
This
conservative test, which reduced the degrees of freedom
used in producing the F ratio, did not require that this
fourth assumption be met.
Significance Level Chosen
The .05 level for rejection of the null hypothesis
was selected as being sufficiently rigorous for the purposes
of this study.

If the probability was at or less than five

times in one hundred that observed difference, or one
greater could have occurred by chance, then the hypothesis
was rejected.

However, if the observed difference was of

such a magnitude that it or one greater might arise more
than five times in one hundred through the operation of
#

chance factors, the null hypothesis of no difference was
accepted,
o

S.
W. Greenhouse and S. Geiser, "On Methods of the
Analysis of Profile Data," Psychometrika, 24, pp. 95-112.

C H A P T E R IV

ANALYSIS OP DATA
In this chapter:

(1) results from Part A of the Intern

Consultant Inventory are summarized in an analysis of vari­
ance table;

(2) Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 are tested

by Scheffe post-hoc comparisons and results presented;

(3)

further exploration of Part A of the Intern Consultant In­
ventory are presented;

(4) results from Part B of the Instru­

ment are summarized in an analysis of variance table;

(5 )

Hypotheses 3 through 8 are tested by Scheffe post-hoc
comparisons and results presented, and finally,

(7 ) further

results of Part B of the Intern Consultant Inventory are
presented.

A detailed discussion of each hypothesis follows

in Chapter V.
Intern Consultant Inventory
Part A
The analysis of variance procedure was used to test
over-all significance for Part A of the Instrument.

The P

test results from the analysis of variance are presented
below in Table 4.1.

105
TABLE 4.1.— Analysis of' Variance for Part A of the Intern
Consultant Inventory •

Source of Variance
(Interns and
Consultants)
C.
(Preference and
Frequency)
R.
(Selected Con­
sultant tasks)
P.
(Paired Interns
and Consultant)
TC. (Interns/Con­
sultants and Pre­
ference/Frequency )
TR. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Selected
Consultant Tasks)
TP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Paired
Interns/Consultants
CR. (Preference/Fre­
quency and Selected
Consultant Tasks)
CP. (Preference/Fre­
quency and Paired
Interns/Consultants
RP. (Selected Consul­
tant Tasks and
Paired Interns/
Consultant)
TCR. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Prefer­
ence/Frequency
and Selected Con­
sultant Tasks)
TCP. (Interns/Con­
sultants and Pre­
ference/Frequency
and Paired Interns/
Consultant)
TRP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Selected
Consultant Tasks
and Paired Interns/
Consultant)

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean

F

Squares

Ratio

T.

967.01

1

967.01

5 4 .54#

3970.29

1

3970.29

623.79*

203.21

5

40.64

5 .21*

608.70

39

15.61

10.48

1

10.48

1.65

52.70

5

10.54

5.13*

691.52

39

17.73

105.89

5

21.18

248.22

39

6.36

584.15

195

3.00

19.04

5

3.81

234.55

39

6.01

400.37

195

2.05

18.70#

4.08#

106
TABLE 4.1.— Continued.

Source of Variance

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

CRP. (Preference/Fre­
quency and Selected
Consultant Tasks
and Paired Interns/
Consultant)
220.84
TCRP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Prefer­
ence/Frequency and
Selected Consultant
Tasks and Paired
Interns/Consultant) 181.87

Mean
Squares

195

1.13

195

0.93

F
Ratio

^Significant at th'e .05 level of confidence.

Results
Comparison of mean scores on the Intern Consultant
Inventory by P tests suggests that:
1.

significant difference existed between
Interns and consultants (Main Effect)

2.

significant difference existed between
preference and frequency (Main Effect)

3.

significant difference existed between
selected consultant tasks (Main Effect)

4.

no significant difference existed between
interns and consultants and preference and
frequency (First Order Interaction)

5.

significant difference existed between
interns and consultants and selected
consultant tasks (First Order Interaction)

6.

significant difference existed between
preference and frequency and selected
consultant tasks (First Order Interaction)

107
7.

significant difference existed between
interns and consultants, preference and
frequency, and selected consultant tasks
(Second Order Interaction)

Thus, the tentative conclusion was that Part A of the instru­
ment performed as planned.

It discriminated differences

between the variables of interest in this study.

In the

next portion of this report, the hypotheses tested by a
variation of the above statistical test and results for each
are presented.
Hypothesis One
There is no difference of mean scores between
intern teachers and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on preference for selected intern
consultant tasks on the Intern Consultant
Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho^ =

= T2C1

Tested by ? g
W here:

T1C1 = 15.7
T 2C1 = 17-5

W h ere:

T1C1

"

T 2C1 = y

15.7 - 17-5 =

“ 1.8

Where: 4» g = “ 1.8 ± .82*
^Significant at the .05 level of confidence
Result
On the basis of the post-hoc comparison, tested above,
Hypothesis 1 was rejected.

A difference between the mean

108
scores for Intern teachers and Intern consultants on prefer­
ence for selected Intern consultant tasks was found.

The

difference was significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Inspection of the confidence interval indicates the mean
score for intern consultants is greater than the mean score
for intern teachers on preference for selected intern consul­
tant tasks.
Hypothesis Two
There is no difference of mean scores between
intern teachers and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on perceived frequency of selected
intern consultant tasks on the Intern Consul­
tant Inventory.
Symbolically:

T2C 2 = T 2^2

Tested by ¥ g
Where:

T 1C 2 = H - *
T 2C 2 = 13.7

Where:

Where:

T 1C 2 - T 2C2 “ ’
1 1 .4 - 13.7 = ” 2.
A
H* g = "2. 3 ± .82*

^Significant at the

.05 level of confidence.

Result
Hypothesis 2, tested by the post-hoc comparison above,
was rejected.

A difference between mean scores for intern

teachers and intern consultants In perceived frequency of

109
occurrence of selected Intern consultant tasks was found.
This difference was significant at the .05 level of confid­
ence.

Inspection of the confidence interval indicates the

mean score for intern consultants was greater than the mean
score for intern teachers in perceived frequency of occur­
rence of selected intern consultant tasks.
Further Exploration of Data from Part A
of the Intern Consultant Inventory
The variables of interest in this study were (1)
interns and consultants,

(2 ) preference and frequency, and

(3) selected consultant tasks.

Examination of the F ratios

derived from the analysis of variance procedure indicated
that each of the three variables of Interest were signifi­
cant at the .05 level of confidence.

In addition, three of

the four interactions were found to be significant.

To deter­

mine what Information these significant findings portend,
the data were further explored by tables, graphs, and posthoc comparisons.

The most meaningful Information generated

by this reactionnaire were not tapped by Hypothesis 1 and
Hypothesis 2; as a result,

further probing was essential.

In Table 4.2 below, the F test result is presented
for the main effect of subjects.

A significant difference

was found between interns and consultants.

The observed

mean score for interns, collapsed over preference and across
selected consultant task, was 13-58.

The observed mean

score, also collapsed, for consultants was 15-59-

This

110
finding Indicated that consultants expressed greater prefer
4k

ence for, and perceived greater frequency of, the selected
consultant tasks than Intern teachers.

TABLE 4.2.— P Test Result from the Analysis of Variance for
Intern and Consultant Subjects.

Source of Variance
(Interns and
Consultants)
T.P. (Interns/Con­
sultants and
Paired Interns/
Consultant)

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

P
Ratio

T.

967.01

1

967.01

691.52

39

17.73

#Signifleant at the .05 level of confidence

54.54*

•

Table 4.3 Includes the F test result for the variables
of preference and frequency.

A significant difference was

found between preference and frequency.

The observed mean

score for preference, collapsed over interns and consul­
tants and across selected consultant tasks, was 16.62.

The

observed mean score, likewise collapsed, for frequency was
12.55*

This suggests that both interns and consultants

expressed greater preference for the selected intern consul­
tant tasks than their perceived frequency of occurrence for
the tasks.

Ill
TABLE 4.3.— P Test Results from the Analysis of Variance for
Preference and Frequency.

Source of Variance
(Preference and
Frequency)
C.P. (Preference/
Frequency and
Paired Interns/
Consultant)

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
. Freedom

Mean
Squares

F
Ratio
623.79*

C.

^Significant at the

3970.29

1

3970.29

248.22

39

6.36

.05 level of confidence.

The P test result for the selected intern consultant
tasks is found in Table 4.4.
found.

A significant difference was

The selected consultant tasks, when collapsed over

interns and consultants and preference and frequency, were
significantly different from one another.

A rank order of

the observed mean scores, collapsed across the other varia­
bles, is presented in Table 4.5.
The rank ordering of selected consultant tasks, found
in Table 4.5, Indicates that the conditions of learning task
was both preferred and frequenced more than another con­
sultant task.

This category was followed by classroom

management, evaluation of learning, supportative behavior,
and planning for learning.

The analyzing teaching taks was

preferred and frequenced less than any other selected con­
sultant task as perceived by both interns and consultants.

112
TABLE 4.4.— P Test Results from the Analysis of Variance for
Selected Intern Consultant Tasks.

Source of Variance
(Selected Consul­
tant Tasks)
R.P. (Selected Con­
sultant Tasks and
Paired Interns/
Consultant)

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

P
Ratio

R.

203.21

5

40.64

584.15

195

3.00

^Significant at the .05 level of confidence

13.55*

*

TABLE 4.5.— A Rank Order of Mean Scores of Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks Combining Intern and Consul­
tant Perceived Preference and Frequency.

Rank
Order
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Repeated
Measure
In the
Design
R2
*1
Rj,
*6
*3
R5

Task Category

Combined
Mean
Score

Conditions of Learning

15.46

Clas;;room Management

14.78

Evaluation of Learning

14.58

Supportive Behavior

14.34

Planning for Learning

14. 31
14.02

Analyzing Teaching

In Table 4.6 below, the P test result is presented for
the interaction effect of TR (interns and consultants and
selected intern consultant tasks, collapsed across preference
and frequency).

This- interaction effect was significant at

113
the .05 level of confidence.

To determine the precise

nature of the Interaction the observed mean scores are
presented In Table 4.7.

TABLE 4.6.— P Test Result from the Analysis of Variance of
Interns and Consultants and Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks Collapsed Across Preference
and Frequency.

Source of Variance
(Interns and Con­
sultants and
Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks)
T.R.P. (Interns and
Consultants and
Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks
and Paired In­
terns with Con­
sultant )

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

F
Ratio

T.R.

52.70

5

10.54

400.37

. 195

2.05

5.13*

•Significant at the .05 level of confidence.

Table 4.7 includes mean scores of intern teachers and
intern consultants for selected intern consultant tasks and
post-hoc comparison test results.

In every case intern

consultants1 mean scores, collapsed over preference and fre­
quency, for selected intern consultant tasks were greater
than intern teachers’ mean scores.

Significant differences,

by Scheffe post-hoc comparison tests, were found to exist
between intern teachers’ and Intern consultants* mean scores

114

TABLE 4.7*— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants for Selected Intern Consultant
Tasks, Differences of Mean Scores, and PostHoc Comparison Test Results.
Subjects

Categories of Tasks
Design).

(Repeated Measures within the

Class­
room
Manage­
ment
Tasks

Condi­
tions
of
Learn­
ing
Tasks

Plan­
ning
for
Learn­
ing
Tasks

Evalu­
ating
Learn­
ing
Tasks

Analyz­
ing
Teach­
ing
Tasks

Supportative
Be­
havior
Tasks

R1

R2

§

R4

R5

R6

Intern
Teachers
Ti

13.8

14.9

13.3

13.2

13.0

13.2

Intern
Consul­
tants
T2

15.8

16.0

15.3

15.9

15.0

15.5

- 2 .0*

- 2.7*

- 2 .0*

- 2.3*

Difference
of Mean
- 2 .0*
Scores

- 1.1

Tested by 'i'g = ± 1 .86, ^Significant at the
confidence.

.05 level of

115
of classroom management tasks, planning for learning tasks,
evaluating learning task, analyzing teaching tasks, and
supportatlve behavior tasks.

Conditions of learning tasks

were selected highest, of all the tasks, by both interns
and consultants.
In Illustration 4.1, the first order interaction
effects for intern teachers’ and intern consultants’ mean
scores collapsed across preference and frequency on selected
intern consultant tasks are

presented.

Intern consultant

mean scores were always higher than intern teachers.
Differences between means were greatest between these two
groups on the evaluation of learning tasks while differences
were smallest between conditions of learning tasks.
In Table 4.8 results of the F test from the analysis
of variance for the C.R.

(Preference and Frequency for

Selected Intern Consultant Tasks) and C.R.P.

(Preference

and Frequency for Selected Intern Consultant Tasks across
Pairs of Interns and Consultant) interaction is presented.
Differences were found between preference and frequency for
selected intern consultant tasks.

These differences were

significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Mean scores of preference and frequency for selected
intern consultant tasks, differences of mean scores, and
post-hoc comparison test results are presented in Table 4.9.
All differences between mean scores of preference and fre­
quency were significant across each category of selected

116

ILLUSTRATION 4.1

First Order Interaction Effects for
Intern Teachers and Intern Consultants
Mean Scores on Selected Intern Consul­
tant Tasks Collapsed Across Preference
and Frequency.

Combined
Mean Scores
for Preference
and Frequency

16.5 ■■
1 6 . 0 -Intern ^
Consultants
15.0

-

Intern
Teachers

R

R

R

R

R

Repeated Measures of Cate­
gories for Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks

R

117

TABLE k . 8 .— P Test Results from the Analysis of Variance of
Preference and Frequency for Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks.

Source of Variance
C.R. (Preference and
Frequency for
Selected Intern
Consultant
T asks)
C.R.P. (Preference
and Frequency
for Selected
Intern Consultant
Tasks Across Pairs
of Interns with
Consultant)

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

105.89

5

21.18

220. 8*1

195

1.13

^Significant at the .05 level of confidence

•

F
Ratio

18.70*

TABLE 4.9.— Mean Scores of Preference and Frequency for
Selected Intern Consultant Tasks, Differences
of Mean Scores, and Post-Hoc Comparison Test
Results.
Variables

Categories of Tasks
Design)
Class­
room
Manage­
ment
Tasks

(Repeated Measures within the

Condi­
tions
of
Learn­
ing
Tasks

Plan­
ning
for
Learn­
ing
Tasks

Evalu­
ating
Learn­
ing
Tasks

Analyz­
ing
Teach­
ing
Tasks

Supportative
Be­
havior
Tasks

Preference
Cl

16.2

17.6

16.8

16.6

16.1

16.5

Frequency
c2

13. 4

13.4

11.8

12.6

12.0

12.2

Difference
of Mean
Scores

2.8*

4.2*

5.0*

4.0*

4.1*

Tested by ig = ± 1 .36, *Significant at the .05 level of
confidence.

4.3*

intern consultant task.

The differences were significant at

the .05 level of confidence.

The greatest observed differ­

ence between means was on the category of planning for
learning tasks while the smallest difference between means
was observed on the category of classroom management tasks.
In Illustration 4.2 the interaction effects for prefer­
ence and frequency of selected intern consultant tasks
collapsed across interns and consultants are presented.

In

every case, preference for selected intern consultant tasks
was rated higher than the perceived frequency of occurrence.
Conditions of learning tasks was rated highest of all prefer­
ence across categories; followed by planning for learning,
evaluation of learning, supportative behaviors, classroom
management, and analyzing teaching.

Classroom management

and conditions of learning were rated highest in perceived
frequency of occurrence; followed by evaluation of learning,
supportative behaviors, analyzing teaching, and planning of
learning.

Planning for learning tasks was rated second

highest on preference yet rated lowest in perceived fre­
quency of occurrence.

Classroom management tasks, though

rated second lowest on preference, was rated highest in per­
ceived frequency of occurrence when intern and consultant
mean scores are combined.

Analyzing teaching tasks were

rated low on both preference and perceived frequency of
occurrence.

120
ILLUSTRATION 4.2.— First Order Interaction Effects for
Preference and Frequency Mean Scores
on Selected Intern Consultant Tasks
Collapsed Across Interns and Consultants.
Combined
18,
Mean
Scores
17
for In­
tern
17
Teachers
and In16
tern
Consultants 16, 0 --

Preference

15 5 -•
««

**

**

R^ :

Classroom

Management
R^:

Conditions

of Learning
R

Evaluation

of Learning
R

14 5 14 0

--

13 5 "

Planning

3*
for Learning

R4 *

15 0 --

13 0 -12 5 -12 0

- -

Frequency

Analyzing

5*
Teaching
R
Supportative
6‘
Behaviors
*ft
**
**

11 5 -■
11 0
10 5--

*
/
•A

0
R-

R,

R,

Repeated Measures of Categories
for Selected Intern Consultant
Tasks.

Table 4.10 contains the P test result from the analysis
of variance for the TCR second order interaction effect.

The

interaction effect for interns and consultants and preference
and frequency and selected consultant tasks were found to
interact significantly.

To understand this finding the mean
v

scores for interns and consultants preference and frequency
for selected intern consultant tasks are presented in rank
order.

TABLE 4.10.— F Test Result from the Analysis of Variance for
Interns and Consultants and Preference and
Frequency and Selected Intern Consultant T a s k s .
Sums
of
Squares

Source of Variance
(Interns and Con­
sultants and Pre­
ference and Fre­
quency and
Selected Consul­
tant Tasks)
TCRP. (Interns and
Consultants and
Preference and
Frequency and
Selected Consul­
tant Tasks and
Paired Interns
with Consultant)

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

F
Ratio

TCR.

^Significant at the

19.04

5

3. 81

181.87

195

0.93

4.08*

.05 level of confidence.

This information is reported in Table 4.11.

Interns

and consultants differed greatly on their ordering of pre­
ference for selected consultant tasks.

They differed very

T ABLE 4.11.— Rank Order of Interns and Consultants Preference for and Perceived Frequency of Selected Intern
Consultant Tasks.
Rank
Order

Preference

Intern Consultants

Intern Teachers
Task Category

Perceived Actual

Intern Teachers

Intern Consultants

Mean
Score

Task Category

Mean
Score

Task Category

Mean
Score

Task Category

Mean
Score

1

Conditions of
Learning (R2 )

17.2

Conditions of
L e arning (R^)

18.0

Conditions of
Learning (R^)

12.6

Classroom man­
agement (R^)

14.3

2

Planning for
Learning (R^)

16.1

Evaluating
Lea r n i n g (R^)

17.9

Cl a ssroom M a n ­
agement (R^)

12.5

Conditions of
L ea r n i n g (Rg)

14.1

3

Supportative
Behaviors (Rg)

15.4

Supportative
Behaviors (Rg)

17.6

E valuating
Learning (R^)

11.2

Evaluating
Lea r n i n g (R^)

13-9

3.5
4

Analyzing
Teaching (Rj.)

15.3

P la n n i n g for
L earning (R^)

17.6

S upportative
Behaviors (Rg)

11.0

Supportative
B ehaviors (Rg)

13.4

5

Evaluating
Learning (R^)

15.2

Classroom
Management

17.3

Analyzing
Tea c h i n g (R^)

10.7

Analyzing
Tea c h i n g (R^)

13.3

6

Classroom M a n ­
agement (R^)

15.1

16.8

P l anning for
Lea r n i n g (R^)

10.5

Pl a n n i n g for
L e a r n i n g (R^)

13.1

(R^)

Analyzing
T e a c h i n g (R^)

little on the rank ordering of frequency of occurrence.
Interns and consultants preferred conditions of learning
task higher than all other tasks.

Interns preferred plan­

ning for learning second while consultants selected planning
for learning third-fourth.

Interns preferred supportative

behavior tasks third and consultants rated them thirdfourth.

Interns preferred analyzing teaching tasks fourth

contrasted with consultants preference of sixth.

Interns

preferred the evaluating learning task fifth and consultants
rated this task second.

Interns rated preference for the

classroom management task sixth while consultants preferred
the classroom management task fifth.
The rank ordering of perceived frequency of selected
consultant tasks between interns and consultants resulted
in high agreement.

Interns rated frequency of conditions

of learning tasks first and consultants rated them second.
Interns rated classroom management tasks second while con­
sultants rated them first in order of frequency.

Complete

agreement existed between interns and consultants on the
ordering of the frequency with which the other tasks oc­
curred; evaluating learning third, supportative behavior
fourth, analyzing teaching fifth, and planning for learning
sixth.
Differences between interns' preference and their
perceived frequency of selected Intern consultant tasks were
found to exist.

These differences are presented in Table 4.12.

TABLE 4.12.— Rank Order of Intern Teachers Expressed Prefer­
ence for and Perceived Frequency of Selected
Intern Consultant T a s k s .
Expressed Preference
for
Rank
Score
1
2
3
4
5
6

Selected Task
Category
Conditions
of Learning
Planning for
Learning
. Supportative
Behaviors
Analyzing
Teaching
Evaluating
Learning
Classroom
Management

Perceived Frequency
of

Mean
Score

Rank
Order
1

17.2
2
16.1
3
15. 4
4
15.3
5
15.2
6
15-1

Selected Task
Category

Mean
Score

Conditions
of Learning
Classroom
Management
Evaluating
Learning
Supportative
Behavior
Analyzing
Teaching
Planning for
Learning

12.6
12.5
11.2
11.0
10.7
10.5

Conditions of learning tasks was preferred higher than any
other consultant task category and also perceived to be
frequenced highest by intern teachers.

Interns preferred

planning for learning consultant tasks second highest of
all categories but indicated they frequenced assistance in
this area least.

Preference for supportative behavior tasks

was preferred third, while perceived to be experienced
fourth.

Interns preferred analyzing teaching fourth but

experienced this aid from consultants fifth.

Evaluating

learning was preferred fifth and experienced third while
classroom management was preferred sixth but experienced
quite frequently by being rated second.

125
The Information in Table 4.13 indicates intern consul­
tant priorities of preference and indicates the frequency
of occurrence for selected consultant behaviors.

Conditions

of learning and evaluating learning appeared high on pre­
ference and frequency.

Planning for learning tasks appeared

3.5 on preference and last in frequency of occurrence.
Classroom management tasks appeared fifth on preference yet
first on perceived frequency by intern consultants.

Ana­

lyzing teaching tasks appeared sixth on preference and fifth
on frequency of occurrence by intern consultants.

TABLE 4.13.— Rank Order of Intern Consultants Expressed
Preference for and Perceived Frequency of
Selected Intern Consultant T a s k s .
Expressed Preference
for
Rank
Order
1
2
3.5
3.5
5
6

Perceived Frequency
of

Selected Tasks
Mean
Category
Score
Conditions
of Learning
Evaluating
Learning
Supportative
Behavior
Planning for
Learning
Classroom
Management
Analyzing
Teaching

Rank
Order
1

18.0
2
17.9
3
17.6
4
5
17.3
6
16. 8

Selected Tasks
Mean
Score
Category
Classroom
Management
Conditions
of Learning
Evaluating
Learning
Supportative
Behavior
Analyzing
Teaching
Planning for
Learning

14. 3
14.1
13.9
13.4
13.3
13.1

126

The results indicate that interns and consultants
differed greatly on their ordering of preference for selected
consultant tasks.

They differed little on the rank ordering

of frequency of occurrence.

Both groups indicated a dif­

ference between what they would prefer on their expectations
for selected intern consultant tasks and what was perceived
to occur in rank order of frequency.
Intern Consultant Inventory
Part B
The over-all significance for Part B of the instrument
was tested by the analysis of variance.
from this analysis are

The P test results

presented below in Table 4.14.

TABLE 4.14.— Analysis of Variance for Part B of the Intern
Consultant Inventory.

Source of Variance
(Interns and
Consultants)
E.
(Preferred and
Perceived Actual)
M.
(Repeated Mea­
sures of Theore­
tical, Initiating,
and Directive­
ness )
P.
(Pairs of interns
and consultants)
TE. (Interns/Consul­
tants and preferred/
Perceived Actual)
TM. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Repeated
Measures)

Sums
Degrees
of
of
Squares Freedom

Mean
Squares

F
Ratio

T.

0 .02

1

0.02

.002

18.02

1

18.02

9.99*

436.99

2

218.50

3 1 .59 *

844.20

39

21.65

0. 35

1

0.35

88.13

2

44.07

.19
7.30*

127
TABLE 4.14.— Continued

Source of Variance

Sums
Degrees
of
of
Squares Freedom

TP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Paired
Interns and
Consultant)
786.40
EM. (Preferred/Per­
ceived Actual and
Repeated Measures)
1204.53
EP. (Preferred/Per­
ceived Actual and
Paired Interns and
Consultant)
70.30
MP. (Repeated Mea­
sures and Paired
Interns and Con­
sultant )
539-50
TEM. (Interns/Con­
sultants and Pre­
ferred/and Per­
ceived Actual and
Repeated Measures)
99.60
TEP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Preferred/
Perceived Actual and
Paired Interns and
Consultant)
73.84
TMP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Repeated
Measures and Paired
Interns and Consul­
tant)
471.14
EMP. (Preferred/Per­
ceived Actual and
Repeated Measures
and Paired Interns
and Consultant)
214.63
TEMP. (Interns/Consul­
tants and Preferred/
Perceived Actual
and Repeated Mea­
sures and Paired
Interns and
Consultant)
194.80

Mean
Squares

39

20.16

2

602.27

39

1. 80

78

6.92

2

49.80

39

1. 89

78

6.04

78

2.50

78

2.50

^Significant at the .05 level of confidence.

F
Ratio

218.88*

19.94*

128

Results
Comparison of mean scores on the Intern Consultant In­
ventory by P tests suggest t h a t :
1.

no significant difference existed between
interns and consultants (Main Effect)

2.

significant difference existed between
preferred and perceived actual Intern
consultant method of operation (Main Effect)

.3.

significant difference existed between
repeated measures of theoretical orienta­
tion, Initiating, and directiveness In
consultant method of operation (Main Effects)
significant difference existed between
interns and consultants across repeated
measures (First Order Interaction)

5.

significant difference existed between
preferred and perceived actual Intern
consultant method of operation across
repeated measures (First Order Interaction)

6.

significant difference existed between
interns and consultants, preferred and
perceived actual, across repeated
measures of Intern consultant method of
operation (Second Order Interaction)

Thus, the tentative conclusion drawn, was that Part B of the
Intern

Consultant Inventory performed as planned.

Itdiscrim­

inated

differences between the variables of Interest in this

study where differences were hypothesized to have existed.
The hypotheses tested by a variation of the above statisti­
cal procedure and results for each are presented In the
next portion of this report.

129
Hypothesis Three
There is no difference of mean scores between
intern teachers and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on preference for a theoretical approach
in intern consultant method of operation on the
Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho^

: T-^M^E^ - T 2^ie i

/v

Tested by Vg
Where:

T 1M 1E 1 = 18.157
T 2M 1E 1 = l 8 *575

Where:

T^M^

- TgM^

= ¥

18.157 - 18.575 = ".418
A

Where:

¥g = ".42 ± 1.60

Result
On the basis of the post-hoc comparison, tested above,
the decision was to fail to reject the null hypothesis.

The

conclusion was that no significant difference existed be­
tween i nterns’ and consultants’ mean scores on preference for
a theoretical approach In intern consultant method of oper­
ation.

Inspection of the confidence interval indicates the

mean score for consultants was greater than the mean score
for interns on preference for a theoretical approach in
intern consultant method of operation.
The practical significance of this finding can be
best illustrated by Illustration 4.3.

In Illustration 4.3*

the theoretical-practical continuum Is presented Indicating

130

preferences for orientation of consultant method of opera­
tion.

The theoretical end of the continuum is distinguished

by low mean scores while the practical end of the continuum
is distinguished by high mean scores.

Therefore, interns

expressed a greater preference for a theoretical orientation
in consultant method of operation and consultants Indicated
a preference for practical orientation in consultant method
of operation.

But, both interns and consultants weighted

the balance toward the practical end of the continuum
Indicating greater preference for a practical intern con­
sultant method of operation.

Although differences existed

they were not significant at the .05 level of confidence.

ILLUSTRATION 4.3.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Theoretical-Practical
Continuum Indicating Preference for
Orientation of Consultant Method of
Operation.
Theoretical

.42*
Interns

5

Practical

Consultants

15

25
18.2

18.6

1 .60*
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

* .42 * observed difference in mean scores between
Interns and consultants
^
*1.60 = 95 percent confidence interval of ¥g test

131
Hypothesis Four
There Is no difference of mean scores between
Intern teachers and intern consultants In the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on perceived actual theoretical
approach in Intern consultant method of opera­
tion on the Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho^

: T-^M-^Eg = TgM-^Eg

A

Tested by ¥g
Where:

TjM-jEg = 16.3^7
T 2M 1E 2 = 1 4 ’550

Where:

T^Eg

- T 2M 1E 2 «

V

16.3^7 - 14.550 = 1.797
A

Where: Vg = 1.80 ± 1.60*
^Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Result
On the basis of the post-hoc comparison test above,
the null hypothesis is rejected.

A difference existed

between interns and consultants in perceived actual theore­
tical approach in intern consultant method of operation.
This difference was significant at the ,05 level of confi­
dence.

Inspection of the confidence interval indicates the

mean score for Intern teachers was greater than the mean
score for Intern consultants on perceived actual theoretical
intern consultant method of operation.
This finding can be shown clearly by a diagram.

Illus­

tration 4.4 contains the theoretical-practical continuum with

132
mean scores for Intern teachers and Intern consultants of
perceived actual theoretical approach In intern consultant
method of operation.

The theoretical end of the continuum

Is distinguished by low mean scores while the practical
end of the continuum is distinguished by higher mean scores.
Intern consultants perceived their method of operation as
more theoretical than practical.

Intern teachers perceived

their consultants' method of operation as more practical
than theoretical In orientation.

This difference between

perceptions was found to be significant at the .05 level of
confidence.

ILLUSTRATION 4. *4.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Theoretical-Practical
Continuum Indicating Perceived Actual
Theoretical Approach in Intern Consultant
Method of Operation.
Theoretical

1.80*
Consultants

5

Practical
Interns

15
1^.6

25
16.4

1 .60*_____
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

*1.80 = observed difference in mean scores between
interns and consultants
*1.60 * 95 percent confidence Interval of H*g test

133
Hypothesis Five
There is no difference of mean scores between
intern teachers and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on preference for initiating intern
consultant method of operation on the Intern
Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho,- : T^M^E1 = T^M^E^

A

Tested by Vg
Where:

= 18.060
T 2M 2E 1 = 19 * ^ 25

Where:

- l^M^

* ¥

18.060 - 19.425 = ” 1.365
Where: Vg = “ 1.37 ± 1-60
Result
Pail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude no
significant differences existed between intern teachers and
intern consultants in preference for initiating intern con­
sultant method of operation.

However, inspection of the

confidence interval indicates intern consultants1 mean
score, of preference for initiating intern consultant
method of operation, was greater than intern teachers’ mean
scores.

This difference is shown in Illustration 4.5.

Mean scores of intern teachers and intern consultants
on preference for initiating intern consultant method of
operation are presented on the consultant-intern initiating
continuum in Illustration 4.5.

The consultant initiating

134
end of the continuum Is distinguished by low mean scores
while the intern initiating end of the continuum is dis­
tinguished by higher mean scores.

Both interns and con­

sultants weighted the balance toward the intern initiating
end of the continuum indicating their preference for active
involvement by interns in the solution of problems.

How­

ever, consultants preferred interns to initiate action and
to be more actively involved in solutions to problems than
consultants.

Interns preferred consultants to exercise

greater initiative in consultant method of operation.
Although differences existed they were not significant at
the .05 level of confidence.

ILLUSTRATION 4.5.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Consultant-Intern
Initiating Continuum Indicating Prefer­
ence for Initiating Intern Consultant
Method of Operation.
Consultant
Initiating

5

1.40*
Intern
<------ ^ ------ ■» Initiating
Interns
Cons ultants
25

15
18.1

19.4

1 .60*
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

*1,40 = observed difference in mean scores between
interns and consultants
a
*1.60 = 95 percent confidence Interval of Yg test

135
Hypothesis Six
There Is no difference of mean scores between
Intern teachers and Intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on perceived actual initiating intern
consultant method of operation on the Intern
Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Hog

: T^M^g

= T2M 2E2

A

Tested by ¥g
Where:

t^ 1 ^ 2E 2 * 17.650

T 2M 2E 2 - 18.675
Where:

t i M 2^2

” ^2^2E2 “ ^

17.650 - 18.675 = ” 1.025
Where:

?g * 1.0 3 ± 1.60

Result
On the basis of the post-hoc comparison tested above
the decision was to fail to reject the null hypothesis.
No significant difference existed between interns1 and con­
sultants’ mean scores of perceived actual initiating intern
consultant method of operation on the Intern Consultant
Inventory.

fnspection of the confidence interval indicates

intern consultants’ mean score on perceived actual initiat­
ing intern consultant method of operation was higher than
intern teachers mean score.
In Illustration 4.6 the mean scores, of intern teachers
and intern consultants on the consultant intern initiating
continuum indicating perceived actual initiating intern

13 6
consultant method of operation, are detailed.

The consul­

tant Initiating end of the continuum Is distinguished by
low mean scores while the intern Initiating end of the
continuum is distinguished by high mean scores.

The balance

of interns’ and consultants’ mean scores were weighted toward
the intern initiating end of the continuum indicating their
perception of greater actual intern involvement in the solu­
tion of problems than consultants.

Consultants perceived

interns initiating action more frequently than consultant
initiated method of operation.

Interns perceived consultant

initiated action more frequently than intern initiated action
but the differences in perception were not significant.

ILLUSTRATION 4.6.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Consultant-Intern
Initiating Continuum Indicating Perceived
Actual Initiating Intern Consultant
Method of Operation.
Consultant
Initiating

1.03*

Interns
5

Intern
Initiating
Consultants

15

25
17.7

18.7

1 .60 *_____
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

*1.03 = observed difference in mean scores between
Interns and consultants
*1.60 * 95 percent confidence interval of ^g test

137
Hypothesis Seven
There Is no difference of mean scores between
Intern teachers and Intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on preference for directiveness in
intern consultant method of operation on the
Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Ho^ : T^^E.^ = T 2M^E1

A

Tested by H'g
Where:

T^M^

= 14.662

T 2M 3E 1 “ 13.00

Where:

14.662 -

Where:

r?2R 3E l = Hf

13.000 - 1.662

Vg = 1.66 ± 1.60*

•Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Result •
The null hypothesis, tested above by the post-hoc com­
parison, was rejected.

There was a significant difference

of mean scores on preference for directiveness in intern
consultant method of operation between interns and consul­
tants.

The difference is significant at the .05 level of

confidence.

Inspection of the confidence interval indicates

interns' mean score of preference for directiveness in con­
sultant method of operation was greater than consultants'
mean scores.
Illustration 4.7 presents the mean scores of intern
teachers and intern consultants on the direct-indirect

138
continuum indicating preference for directiveness in intern
consultant method of operation.

The directive end of the

continuum is distinguished by low scores while the indirect
end is distinguished by high mean s c o r e s .

The balance of

interns* and consultants* mean scores were weighted toward
the direct end of the continuum indicating interns and con­
sultants preferred directiveness in consultant method of
operation.
tiveness.

The difference appears to be in degree of direc­
Intern consultants expressed a greater preference

for directiveness in consultant method of operation than
intern teachers.

Intern teachers expressed their preference

for directiveness in consultant method of operation but less
directive than consultants’ preference.
significant at the

The difference was

.05 level of confidence.

ILLUSTRATION 4.7*— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Direct-Indirect Con­
tinuum Indicating Preference for Direc­
tiveness in Intern Consultant Method of
Operation.
Direct

1.66*

Indirect

„________ 'v________ _

Consultants

Interns

15

13-0

14.7
1 .60*

Confidence
Interval
KEY:

*1.66 » observed difference In mean scores between
interns and consultants
*1.60 « 95 percent confidence Interval of ¥g test

25

139
Hypothesis Eight
There is no difference of mean scores between
intern teachers and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Elementary Intern
Program on perceived actual directiveness in
intern consultant method of operation on the
Intern Consultant Inventory.
Symbolically:

Hog

: T^M^E2 = T 2M^E2

/s

Tested by Vg
Where:

= 18.207
T 2M 3E 2 = 18.775

Where:

T^MgEg

- T 2M 3E 2 = ¥

18.207 Where:

18.775 = ".568

?g = ".57 ± 1.60

Result
Pail to reject the null hypothesis on the basis of the
post-hoc comparison test stated above.

No significant

differences existed between Interns and consultants on per­
ceived actual directiveness In intern consultant method of
operation.

Inspection of the confidence Interval indicates

intern consultants' mean score of perceived actual direc­
tiveness In intern consultant method of operation was greater
than intern teachers' mean scores.
Mean scores of intern teachers and intern consultants
on a direct-indirect continuum Indicating perceived actual
directiveness in Intern consultant method of operation are
presented in Illustration 4.8.

The directive end of the

140
continuum is distinguished by low mean scores while the
indirect end of the continuum is characterized by high mean
scores.

The balance of the mean scores of interns and con­

sultants were weighted toward the indirect end of the
continuum.

This indicates that interns and consultants per­

ceive the actual intern consultant method of operation as
indirective.

Intern consultants perceived themselves as

more indirect than interns.

Interns perceived the consul­

tant as indirective but less indirect than the consultants'
perceptions.

ILLUSTRATION 4.8.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Direct-Indirect Con­
tinuum Indicating Perceived Actual Direc­
tiveness in Intern Consultant Metho.d of
Operation.
Direct

Indirect

57*
Interns

Consultants

1 .60 *
Confidence
Interval

KEY:

*.57 * observed difference in mean scores between
interns and consultants
A

*1.60 = 95 percent confidence interval of 'Fg test

141
Further Exploration of Data From
Part B of the Intern Consultant
Inventory
The analysis of data generated by responses to Part B
of the Intern Consultant Inventory were sufficient to permit
testing of the hypotheses of Interest In this study.
Important Information would be lost If the reporting
of the findings ended with the hypothesis testing.

There­

fore, additional Information generated by the analysis is
reported below.
The F test result from the analysis of variance for
preference and perceived actual Intern consultant method of
operation Is presented In Table 4.15.

The results indicated

a difference between preference for and perceived actual
Intern consultant method of operation.
significant at the

The difference was

.05 level of confidence.

The observed

mean score for preference collapsed over Interns and consul­
tants and collapsed over repeated measures of theoretical,
initiating, and directiveness was 16.98.

The observed mean

score for perceived actual intern consultant method of
operation collapsed over interns and consultants and col­
lapsed over repeated measures of theoretical, Initiating,
and directiveness was 17.36.

The value of this finding can

be understood by an Illustration.
In Illustration 4.9 the mean scores of

preference for

and perceived actual intern consultant method of operation
on a continuum collapsed over theoretical, Initiating, and

142
TABLE 4.15.— F Test Result from the Analysis of Variance for
Preference and Perceived Actual Intern Consul­
tant Method of Operation.

Source of Variance
E. (Preference and Per­
ceived Actual)
E.P. (Preference and
Perceived Actual
across Paired In­
terns with Con­
sultant )

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

18.02

1

18.02

70. 30

39

1.80

F
Ratio
1 0 .01*

^Significant at the .05 level of confidence •

ILLUSTRATION 4.9.— Mean Scores of Preference for and Per­
ceived Actual Intern Consultant Method
of Operation Collapsed over Theoretical,
Initiating, Directiveness, and Subjects.
Theoretical, Consultant
Initiating, Directiveness

Practical, Intern Initiating, Indirectiveness
Preference

5
3

25

15
16.98

KEY:

Perceived Actual

17.37*

^Difference between means significant at .05 level
of confidence.

Iks
directiveness and subjects are presented.

The theoretical,

consultant initiating, and directiveness end of the con­
tinuum is characterized by low mean scores.

The practical,

intern initiating, and indirectiveness end of the continuum
is distinguished by high mean scores.

The balance of pre­

ference for and perceived actual mean scores were weighted
toward the practical, intern initiating, and indirectiveness
end of the continuum.

The orientation in both the case of

preference for and perceived actual intern consultant method
of operation tended toward practical, intern initiating, and
indirectiveness, however the most likely consultant method
of operation tended more in this direction than that pre­
ferred by both interns and consultants.
significant at the .05
The

The difference was

level of confidence.

F test result from the analysis ofvariance

for the

main effect of consultant method of operation is found in
Table 4.16.

A significant difference at the .05 level of

confidence was found between theoretical, initiating, and
directiveness consultant method of operation.

To determine

the specific variable(s) responsible for this significance,
the observed mean scores for the three modes of consultant
operation
The

are presented in a table.
rank order of mean scores for intern consultant

method of operation combining the scores of intern and con­
sultant preference and perceived actual are displayed in
Table 4.17.

The mean score of Intern initiating is greater

144
TABLE 4.16.— P Test Results from the Analysis of Variance
for Intern Consultant Method of Operation.
Sums
of
Squares

Source of Variance
M. (Theoretical,
Initiating,
Directiveness
Method of
Operation)
MP. (Theoretical,
Initiating,
Directiveness
Method of
Operation and
Paired Interns
with Consultant)
^Significant at the

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

436.99

2

218.50

539.50

78

6.92

.05 level of confidence

P
Ratio

31.59*

•

TABLE 4.17.— Rank Order of Mean Scores for Intern Consultant
Method of Operation by Combining Scores for
Intern and Consultant Preference and Perceived
Actual.
Rank
Order
1.
2.
3.

Repeated
Measure in
the Design
"2
*1
M3

Method
of
Operation

Combined
Mean
Score

Intern Initiator

18.45

Practicalness

16.91
16.16

Indirectiveness

145
than practicalness and Indirectiveness.

The scores of prac­

ticalness and indirectiveness appear closer together than
the mean for intern initiator.

The mean score for intern

initiator is significantly greater at the .05 level than the
means for practicalness and indirectiveness.

Both interns

and consultants were in greatest agreement on the intern
consultant allowing interns to initiate action to solve
classroom problems.

This finding is pr.esented in a graph in

the T.M. first order interaction discussion to follow.
The P test result from the analysis of variance for
the T.M.

(Interns and consultants within repeated measures

of theoretical, initiating, and directiveness) and T.M.P.
(Interns and consultants within repeated measures across
pairs of interns with consultant) first order interaction
is presented in Table 4.18.

TABLE 4.18.— P Test Results from the Analysis of Variance
of Interns and Consultants Combined Prefer­
ence and Perceived Actual Intern Consultant
Method of Operation within Repeated Measures.

Source of Variation
T.M. (Interns and Con­
sultants within
Repeated Measures)
T.M.P. (Interns and
Consultants Within
Repeated Measures
across Paired
Interns with
Consultant)

Sums
of
Squares

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

88.13

2

44.06

471.14

78

6.04

^Significant at .05 level of confidence.

P
Ratio

7.30#

146
Differences were found between Interns and consultants with­
in repeated measures.

These differences were significant

at the .05 level of confidence.
Table 4.19 contains the mean scores for interns and
consultants collapsed across preference and perceived actual
within the repeated measures of theoretical, initiating, and
f

directiveness of intern consultant method of operation.
Intern teachers' mean score of combined preference and per­
ceived actual were higher on the elements of
consultants.

and

than

This indicated that interns preferred consul­

tants to be practical and indirective in their method of
operation.
The table also contains differences in means and the
post-hoc comparison test results for the observed means.
Inspection of the confidence interval for "initiating con­
sultant method of operation" indicates a sizeable differ­
ence between mean scores.

This difference is significant

at the .05 level of confidence.

The differences between

mean scores of interns and consultants on theoretical
orientation and on directiveness in consultant method of
operation were tested and no significant difference was
found between them.
In Illustration 4.10 the first order Interaction
effect for T.M.

(Interns and consultants mean scores on

repeated measures of theoretical, initiating, and direc­
tive consultant method of operation) is depicted In

147

TABLE 4.19.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants for Theoretical, Initiating, and
Directness in Intern Consultant Method of
Operation, Differences of Mean Scores, and
Post-Hoc Comparison Test Results.
Subjects

Repeated Measures of Intern Consultant Method of 1
Operation
Theoretical
Mi

Initiating
M
2

Directiveness
m3

17.3

17.9

16.4

Intern Consultants
T

16.6

19.1

15.9

Difference of Mean
Scores

.7

Intern Teachers
Ti

- 1.2*

.5

Tested by Vg = ± 1.12, ^Significant at the .05 level of
confidence.

148
ILLUSTRATION 4.10.— First Order Interaction Effects for
Intern Teachers and Intern Consultants
Mean Scores on Repeated M e a s u r e s .
19.5

19.0
Combined Mean Scores
for Preference and
Perceived Actual

18.5

18.0
17.5
17. 0
16. 5

16.0
T 2 Intern Con­
sultants

15.5

15 .0

0
m

Theore­
tical
*Signifleant at the

2#

Initia­
tive

.05 level of confidence.

m

3

Directive

149

graph form.

The differences between Interns1 and consul­

tants' mean scores are visibly pronounced.

The real meaning

of these differences are presented in the illustration be­
low.
Mean scores of intern teachers and intern consultants
on the initiating continuum combining preference and per­
ceived actual intern consultant method of operation are
presented in Illustration 4.11.

Inspection of the confidence

interval indicates the mean for consultants was higher than
the mean for intern teachers.

The mean scores for both

interns and consultants were weighted toward the intern
initiates end of the continuum.

The interval between in­

tern and consultant mean scores was large.

This indicates

that intern consultants preferred to allow intern teachers
to initiate action toward the solution of the problem situa­
tions presented on the Intern Consultant Inventory.

Intern

consultants not only preferred this but perceived interns
initiating action more frequently than consultant initia­
tion of action.

Intern teachers preferred and perceived

interns actually initiating the action toward the solution
of the problems presented but not to the degree of intern
initiating action preferred and perceived by intern consul­
tants .
Table 4.20 contains the result of the P test from the
analysis of variance for the E.M.

(Preferred and Perceived

Actual within Repeated Measures of Theoretical, Initiating,

150
ILLUSTRATION 4.11.— Mean Scores of Intern Teachers and Intern
Consultants on the Initiating Continuum
Combining Preference and Perceived Actual
Intern Consultant Method of Operation.
Consultant Initiates
or Takes Action

1.20#

Intern Initiates
or Takes Action

Interns
5

Consultants

15

25
17.9

19.1

1 .12#
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

#1.20 = observed difference in mean scores between
Interns and consultants.
#1.12 = 95 percent confidence interval of ¥g test.

TABLE 4.20.— P Test Result from the Analysis of Variance of
Preference and Perceived Actual Theoretical,
Initiating, and Directiveness in Intern Con­
sultant Method of Operation.

Source of Variation

Sums
of
Squares

E.M. (Preferred and Per­
ceived Actual within
Repeated Measures)
1204.53
E.M.P. (Preferred and
Perceived Actual
within Repeated
Measures across
Paired Interns
with Consultant)
214.63

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

2

602.27

78

2.75

•Significant at the .05 level of confidence.

P
Ratio

2 18.88#

151
and Directiveness) and E.M.P.

(Preferred and Perceived

Actual Within Repeated Measures across Paired Interns with
Consultant) first order interaction effects.

Differences

were found between preference and perceived actual consul­
tant method of operation within the repeated measures In
the design of this study.

The differences were significant

at the .05 level of confidence.
The mean scores of preference and perceived actual
intern consultant method of operation collapsed across in­
terns and consultants for repeated measures are found in
Table 4.21.

Differences between means and post-hoc compari­

son test results are also included in this table.

Inspec­

tion of the confidence Interval indicates differences between
mean scores of preference and perceived actual theoretical
orientation and directiveness of intern consultant method of
operation.

These differences were significant at the .05

level of confidence.
Illustration 4.12 presents the first order Interaction
effects for E.M.

(Preferred and Perceived Actual Intern Con­

sultant method of operation within Repeated Measures) In
graph form.

The differences between mean scores for theore­

tical and directive intern consultant method of operation
are visibly pronounced.

152

TABLE *4.21.— Mean Scores of Preference for and Perceived
Actual Theoretical, Initiating, and Directive
Intern Consultant Method of Operation, Differ­
ences of Mean Scores, and Post-Hoc Comparison
Test Results.
Repeated Measures of Intern Consultant
Method of Operation

Categories

Theoretical

Initiating

18.*4

18.7

13.8

15.**

18.2

18.5

Preference

Directiveness

Ei
Perceived
Actual
E2
Differences of
Mean Scores

3.0*

.5

- 4.7*

A

Tested by ¥g = 1.11,

^Significant at the
confidence.

.05 level of

153
ILLUSTRATION 4.12.— First Order Interaction Effects for
Preference for and Perceived Actual
Theoretical, Initiating, and Directive
Intern Consultant Method of Operation.
Combined Mean Scores
for Interns and
Consultants

20.0

••

19-5 19.0

-■

18.5 --

E 2 Per­

18.0

ceived
Actual

--

17.5 -•
17.0

■-

16.5 "
16.0

-•

15.5 15.0

■■

M^ = Theoretical
14.5 -M^ = Initiative
14.0 M^ = Directive
Pre­

13-5 -

ference

^Significant at
the .05 level
of confidence.

M

154

Mean scores of preference for and perceived actual
theoretical intern consultant method of operation are pre­
sented on the theoretical-practical continuum in Illustration
4.13.

Low mean scores on the continuum indicate a theoreti­

cal orientation while high mean scores characterize a practi­
cal approach in consultant method of operation.

Together,

interns and consultants preferred a more practical approach
in intern consultant method of operation but they reported
they actually perceived a more theoretical approach.

This

difference in mean scores was significant at the .05 level
of confidence.

Finally, both mean scores, preference for

and perceived actual, tended toward the practical end of the
continuum indicating both a preference for and a perceived
actual practicalness in intern consultant method of operation.

ILLUSTRATION 4.13.— Mean Scores of Preference for and
Perceived Actual Theoretical Intern
Consultant Method of Operation on
the Theoretical-Practical Continuum.
Theoretical

3*00#

Practical

> ----------- ^ ----------- s

Perceived
A d :ual
5

Preferred

15

25
15.4

18.4

1 .11 *
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

*3.00 ■ observed difference between mean scores of
preferred and perceived actual.
^
*1.11 * 95 percent confidence interval of ¥g test.

155
Mean scores of preference for and perceived actual
directiveness In intern consultant method of operation are
presented on the direct-indirect continuum in Illustration
4.14.

Low mean scores on the continuum indicate directive

intern consultant method of operation and high mean scores
depict indirect intern consultant method of operation.

Both

interns and consultants indicated they preferred directive­
ness in consultant method of operation.

They wanted intern

consultants to prescribe, insist on specific steps for the
intern to take, or the consultant should tell the intern
how to solve the problems presented, at least to a greater
degree than they perceived the consultants' most likely
method of operation.

Both interns and consultants perceived

the consultants’ most likely behavior as being Indirective;
that is, allowing the intern to

identify procedures while

the consultant asks questions to sharpen the focus upon
the problem and alternative solutions but the intern would
decide how to solve the problem presented.
In Table 4.22 the P test result from the analysis of
variance for the T.E.M. second order interaction effect is
presented.

Interns and consultants expressed preference

and perceived actual consultant method of operation Inter­
acted.

This interaction effect was significant at the .05

level of confidence.

A rank order of the mean scores for

these variables Is presented in table form to clarify the
meaning of this interaction effect.

156
ILLUSTRATION 4,14.— Mean Scores of Preference for and
Perceived Actual Directive Intern
Consultant Method of Operation on
the Direct-Indirect Continuum.
Direct

Indirect

4.70*
Preferred

5

Perceived Actual

15

25

13 .8

18.5

1 .11*
Confidence
Interval
KEY:

*4.70
* 1.11

observed difference in mean scores between
preferred and perceived actual.
95 percent confidence interval of Vg test.

TABLE 4.22.— P Test Result from the Analysis of Variance for
Interns and Consultants Preference for and Per­
ceived Actual Intern Consultant Method of
Operation.

Source of Variation

Sums
of
Squares

TEM. (Interns and Con­
sultants and pre­
ference and per­
ceived actual
consultant method
of operation)
99.60
TEMP. (Interns and Con­
sultants and prefer­
ence and perceived
actual consultant
method of operation
and paired interns
with consultant)
194.80
*Significant at the

Degrees
of
Freedom

Mean
Squares

2

49. 80

78

2.50

.05 level of confidence

•

P
Ratio

19.94*

157
The rank order of Interns and consultants preference
for and perceived actual intern consultant method of opera­
tion is presented in Table 4.23.

The significant (at the

.05 level of confidence) second order interaction effect may
be interpreted by the presentation of data in Table 4.23.
Interns expressed preference for consultant method of opera­
tion that was:

(1) practical, (2) allowed the intern to

initiate action toward the solution of problems, and (3)
directive.

However, interns perceived the consultant method

of operation as actually:

(1) indirective,

(2) allowing

interns to initiate action, and (3) practical in orientation.
On the other hand, intern consultants preferred to:
allow interns to initiate action to solve problems,

(1)
(2) be

practical in dealing with intern's problems, and (3) be
directive in working with interns.
themselves as being actually:

Consultants perceived

(1) indirective,

(2) allowing

for intern initiative, and (3) theoretical in orientation.

TABLE *1.23.— Rank Order of Interns and Consultants Preference for and Perceived Actual Intern Consultant
Method of Operation.
Rank
O rder

Perceived Actual

Preference
Intern Consultant

Intern Teacher
Method of
Operation

Mean
Score

Meth o d of
Operation

Mean
Score

Intern Teacher
Method of
Operation

Intern Consultant

Mean
Score

M e t h o d of
Operation

Me a n
Score

1

Practicalness
(Mj)

18.2

Intern Initia^
tive (M2 )

19. Ji

Indirective­
ness (M^)

18.2

Indi r e c t i v e ­
ness (M^)

18.8

2

Intern Intiative (Mg)

18.1

Practicalness
(Mx )

18.6

Intern I n i t i a ­
tive (m 2 )

17.7

Intern Initia­
tive (Mg)

18.7

Directiveness
(M3 >

1*1.7

Directiveness

13.0

Practicalness
(Mx )

1 6 .*4

3

Theoretical­
ness (M^)

1*1.5

<m 3 )

CH A P T E R V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS
Chapter V is organized 3n five sections.
section is a summary of the result.

The first

Limitations of the

study are presented in the second section, followed by the
conclusions.

The implications of the study are discussed

in the fourth section.

The final section contains the im­

plications for future research.
Summary
The analysis of the hypotheses in this study were
examined with the following results:
Results

Hypothesis
1.

There is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
preference for selected Intern
consultant tasks on the Intern
Consultant Inventory.

Rejected.

2.

There is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and Intern consultants in the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
perceived frequency of selected
intern consultant tasks on the
Intern Consultant Inventory.

Rejected.

159

160
There is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University Ele­
mentary Intern Program on pre­
ference for a theoretical
approach in intern consultant
method of operation on the
Intern Consultant Inventory.

Pail to reject.

There is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and intern consultants In the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
perceived actual theoretical
approach in intern consultant
method of operation on the
Intern Consultant Inventory.

Rejected.

5.

There Is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and Intern consultants in the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
preference for initiating intern
consultant method of operation
on the Intern Consultant Inventory.

Pail to reject.

6.

There is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and intern consultants in the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
perceived actual initiating
intern consultant method of
operation on the Intern Consul­
tant Inventory.

Pail to reject.

7.

There is no difference of mean
scores between intern teachers
and intern consultants In the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
preference for directiveness
in intern consultant method
of operation on the Intern
Consultant Inventory.

Rejected.

3.

161
8.

There is no difference of mean
scores between Intern teachers
and intern consultants In the
Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program on
perceived actual directiveness
in intern consultant method of
operation on the Intern Consul­
tant Inventory.

Fall to reject,

Findings Regarding Selected
Intern Consultant Tasks
Further exploration of the data generated by the Ana­
lysis of Variance
1.

procedure indicated that:

In every case intern consultants mean scores were
greater than interns preference for each
selected consultant task.

2.

Significant differences

(at the

.05 level of con­

fidence) were found on five of the six selected
consultant tasks when preference and frequency
scores were combined, with consultants indicat­
ing higher means.
management,

Those five were (1) classroom

(2) planning for learning,

ating learning,

(3) evalu­

(4) analyzing teaching, and (5)

supportative behavior.
3.

The reactions of interns and consultants were
found to be most nearly alike on the conditions
of learning task.

This category included such

items a s :
a.

The consultant helps the intern realize that
the childs* ability to learn is closely
related to the childs1 self concept.

b.

The consultant helps the intern select learning
materials specifically for a particular pupils'
n eeds.

c.

The consultant encourages the Intern to ad­
just his teaching to the interests, maturity,
and experiential background of the learner.

d.

The consultant points out examples of child
growth and development to the intern within
the interns'

classroom.

Both, interns and consultant, expressed greatest pre­
ference for the above-stated consultant behaviors.

The two

groups also indicated that these consultant behaviors
occurred with the greatest frequency.
4.

The greatest difference (significant at the .05
level of confidence) between mean scores of
interns and consultants was found on the evalu­
ation of learning task.

This category included

such items a s :
a.

The consultant helps the intern interpret
information within the childs' cumulative
records.

b.

The consultant helps the intern interpret
a childs* standardized test results.

c.

The consultant aids the intern to inventory
the intern's class to determine interests,
problems, strengths, self-concepts, and
attitudes.

163
d.

The consultant helps the Intern to diagno
Individual and class learning difficulties.

The findings reveal that consultants preferred this task
second highest of the six tasks.
this category fifth.

The interns preferred

Both, interns and consultants indi­

cated these behaviors occurred with moderate frequency.
5.

When the mean scores for interns and consultants
were combined and the variables of preference and
frequency examined, the following results were
noted:
a.

across each category of intern consultant
tasks the mean scores for preference was
always greater than the mean score for per­
ceived frequency.

All of these differences

in mean scores were significant at the

.05

level of confidence.
b.

the greatest difference between preference
and frequency occurred on the planning for
learning task.

c.

the planning for learning task included the
following i t e m s :
1.

The consultant helps the intern plan
and set behavioral goals for instruc­
tional experiences.

2.

The consultant provides the intern with
new ideas for lessons and units.

3.

The consultant helps the intern locate
and select appropriate instructional
materials.

4.

The consultant recommends specific
methods of teaching for the interns’
implementation.

the planning for learning task was preferred
second highest but was perceived with least
frequency of any consultant task,
the analyzing teaching task was preferred
least and was perceived to occur infrequently,
the analyzing teaching task included the
following i t e m s :
1.

The consultant uses questions which subtly
point out the intern's teaching weaknesses.

2.

After demonstrating a teaching technique
the consultant discusses and analyzes that
method with the intern.

3.

The consultant provides evaluations for
the intern that promote self-direction.

4.

The consultant follows the classroom
observation with a written critique of
the interns' teaching.

preference for the classroom management task
was low but this task was frequent in occur­
rence .

165
6.

When the mean scores of preference for and fre­
quency of selected consultant tasks were rank
ordered, the following results were recorded:
a.

little difference was observed between interns'
and consultants' perception of frequency of
occurrence.

b.

interns

and consultants differed greatly on

their expressions of preference.
1.

both preferred conditions of learning
higher than all other tasks.

2.

interns

preferred the analyzing teaching

task fourth, contrasted with consultants
preference of sixth.

This task was per­

ceived as occurring less frequently than
any other selected consultant task.
Findings Related to Intern
Consultant Method of
Operation
Further examination of the data generated by the
Analysis of Variance indicated the following:
1.

Interns' and consultants' mean scores of prefer­
ence for and perceived actual consultant method
of operation were weighted toward the intern ini­
tiating, practical, and Indirectiveness end of the
continuum.

However, the most likely consultant

method of operation tended more In this direction
than that preferred by both Interns and consultants.

166
This difference was significant at the .05 level
of confidence.
2.

Both, interns and consultants, were in greatest
agreement that the intern consultant should allow
interns to initiate action to solve classroom
problems.

3.

Intern teachers preferred and perceived interns
actually initiating the action toward the solu­
tion of classroom problems but not to the degree
preferred and perceived by intern consultants.
This difference in degree of actuation was signi­
ficant at the .05 level of confidence.

4.

Taken together, interns and consultants preferred
a practical approach in intern consultant method
of operation but they reported that they actually
perceived a more theoretical approach.

This

difference between preference and perceived actual
was significant at the .05 level of confidence.
5.

Interns and consultants indicated that they pre­
ferred directiveness in consultant method of
operation.

However, the most frequently perceived

actual consultant method of operation was indirec­
tive.

The difference between mean scores was

significant at the .05 level of confidence.
6.

Interns expressed preference for consultant method
of operation that was (1) practical,

(2) allowed

167
the Intern to Initiate action toward the solution
of problems, and (3) directive.
7.

Interns perceived consultant method of operation
as actually:

(1) practical in orientation,

(2)

allowing Interns to initiate action, and (3) in­
directive .
8.

Consultants, on the other hand, preferred to:
(1) allow Interns to initiate action to solve
problems,

(2) be practical in dealing with interns'

problems, and (3) be directive in working with
Interns.
9.

Consultants perceived themselves as being actually:
(1) allowing for intern Initiative,

(2) theoretical

In orientation and (3) indirective.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations must be evaluated to determine the generalizability of the findings to other population groups.

Limit­

ations of the present research are discussed relative to the
population of the study and the exploratory nature of the
study.
Limitations Related to
the Population
The research was conducted in the elementary teaching
internship program of one university and utilized ten offcampus teacher education centers.

Michigan State University

has the largest teacher education program in the United States.

168
The Elementary Intern Program Is the largest undergraduate
four-year teacher Internship program In the nation.

Approxi­

mately nine-tenths of the elementary intern teachers in E.I.P.
participated in this research study during the Spring Term,
1969.

All intern consultants participated.

that the E.I.P.

To the extent

is representative of other internship pro­

grams in the larger universe of teacher education, generaliza­
tions derived from this study are applicable.

The results

obtained may not be generalizable to other settings without
replication.
Limitations Related to the
Exploratory Nature of
the Study
A review of the literature revealed no previous research
which had focused upon perceptions of intern teachers and
their supervisors for the type of supervision provided to
Interns.

Therefore, measures constructed for this study

represented an initial attempt to assess preference for super­
visory assistance afforded beginning teachers.

The extent to

which the Instrument provided valid and reliable measures of
perceptions limit the conclusions drawn.
Conclusions of the Study
Within the limitations of this study, the following
conclusions were supported:
1.

Intern consultants expressed a higher preference
for each selected consultant task than elementary
intern teachers.

169
2.

Intern consultants expressed a greater frequency
of occurrence for each selected consultant task
than elementary intern teachers.
Consultants
perceived interns receiving greater assistance
with greater frequency than interns.

3.

Both interns and consultants prefer practical­
ness in intern consultant method of operation.
When interns experience problems they desire
assistance which suggests particular procedures
that have worked in the past.
Consultants
prefer to give practical alternative solutions
to interns' teaching problems.

M.

Consultants perceived their method of operation
as theoretically based while Interns perceived
consultant assistance as practical.
Interns
preferred and perceived themselves receiving
practical consultative assistance.
Consultants,
however, preferred to be practical but perceived
themselves as being theoretical (examining
underlying education theory before considering
specific action.)

5.

Interns and consultants prefer a consultant
method of operation that allows interns to Ini­
tiate action toward the solution of problems.
Both groups feel that the intern learns best by
actual involvement in the solution of teaching
problems.
Interns perceive themselves as
responsible for solvLng their problems while the
consultants' responsibility Is to provide the
autonomy for them to do so.

6.

Interns and consultants perceived consultants as
encouraging Interns to initiate action in problem
situations.
Both groups prefer and perceive
Interns initiating solutions to intern teaching
problems.

7.

Interns and consultants prefer directiveness
(consultant prescribing, Insisting on specific
steps, telling the intern what to do) in con­
sultant method of operation.
Consultants pre­
fer to be more directive than Interns prefer
consultants to be.

8*

Both Interns and consultants perceived the con­
sultant method of operation as actually indir­
ective (during discussion the Intern identifies
procedures, the consultant asks questions).
Consultants do not prescribe, Insist and tell

170
Interns what to do in actual practice, rather
they probe by questioning the origin, des­
cription, and solution to Interns* problems.
9.

10.

Interns and consultants want consultants to
assist Interns with planning.
Yet, interns
and consultants perceived interns receiving the
least assistance with planning than any other
selected consultant task.
Interns desire help
with planning and are not receiving this
assistance.
The analysis of teaching task was preferred
highly but was perceived to occur with little
frequency.
Interns want:
(1) help in analyzing
their teaching weaknesses, (2) to be involved
in analyzing demonstration lessons, (3) consul­
tant evaluations, and (4) written observation
notes left by consultants.
Interns are not
receiving this kind of assistance very frequent­
ly.
Consultants do not prefer nor do they
perceive themselves extending this assistance
to interns.
Implications of the Study

The Investigation of supervisory techniques preferred
and actually experienced by Intern teachers suggests several
implications.

These Implications are drawn from the conclu­

sions of the study.
Beginning or intern teachers hold a set of expectations
for supervisoral behaviors that are helpful in Improving their
teaching.

Beginning teachers need to know what services they

can reasonably expect from their supervisor or consultant.
On the other hand, the consultant or supervisor needs to be
aware of the beginner or intern expectations for supervision.
Understanding such expectations could cause certain super­
visoral behaviors to be emphasized while others could be
modified or eliminated.

171
Findings of this study indicated that intern consul­
tants expressed both a greater preference for, and perceived
greater frequency of occurrence of selected consultant tasks
than intern teachers.

These findings are similar to the

findings reported by Smith.^

This tends to imply that

supervisors have an inflated perception of the importance
and value of their role or that supervisorees have a deflated
perception of the importance and value of their supervisors1
role.

The reasons for this phenonema are not understood.
The findings of this study suggest that, for the most

part, consultants are providing interns with helpful assist­
ance desired by interns.
conclusion seem warranted.

However, two qualifications to this
First, intern consultants may not

be providing interns with adequate help in planning.

And

secondly, interns may not be receiving sufficient assistance
with analysis of teaching.

Further exploration of these two

consultant tasks could provide more definitive information.
Certainly the bi-annual in-service consultant workshops could
focus their attention upon these topics.
Implications for Further Research
This exploratory study was designed to analyze selected
aspects of the intern consultant role.

The focus was upon

the intern-intern consultant professional relationship as the
intern consultant sought to assist the intern in becoming an
^ m i t h , Sandra N . , op. cit.

172
elementary school teacher.

Further research Is needed to

clarify this relationship.

Replication of this study would

provide comparative data of expectations held by Interns and
consultants over time.
This study pointed out the need to investigate in
greater detail how a supervisor assists a beginning teacher
to plan.

Planning for Instruction is of fundamental import­

ance in effective teaching.

What techniques are

used by

intern consultants in helping interns to plan for instruc­
tion?

Why was help In planning experienced so infrequently

by interns in this study?

What skills and prerequisite

experiences are essential for a consultant to affectively
assist an intern with planning?

This area needs further

examination.
Analysis of teaching should be a primary goal of the
internship year.

Yet,

a finding of this study indicated

interns and consultants did not perceive this kind of assist­
ance as occurring with great frequency.

Further study In

this area seems warranted.
A study of the peripheral advantages to the public
«

school resulting from the services rendered by intern consul­
tants should be undertaken.

Advantages appear to include

(1) transmission and cross-fertilization of ideas on both an
inter- and intra-school and an inter-school district and
intra-school district basis,
in curriculum committees,

(2) Involvement and leadership

(3) leadership In in-service teacher

173
education and workshops,

(4) professional assistance to

other teachers In the district,

(5) identification and

recruitment of prospective teacher candidates, and (6)
articulation of public school-professional-university involve
ment in teacher education.
Descriptive studies are needed which would compare and
contrast the supervising teacher, helping teacher, and intern
consultant roles.
different?

How are these roles alike?

How are they

What expectations do role occupants and those

directly effected by the roles hold for the role?
A study of individual intern consultant style of super­
vision is needed.

Such a study would provide in-depth des­

criptive accounts of (1) the way the intern consultant
establishes the colleague relationship with interns,
how this colleague relationship is maintained,

(2)

(3) how the

consultant offers unique and individualized assistance,

(4)

how the consultants pace their supervisory practice from one
intern to the next, and (5) the consultants’ conduct of their
intern group monthly seminars.

In addition, content analysis

of the professional dialogue between Intern and consultant
in individual conferences with the Intern is needed.

Analy­

sis of the question types used by the consultant In working
with intern teachers would add to our knowledge individual
consultant style.
A study is needed of the intern "family seminar."
term "family seminar" refers to periodic meetings on an

The

informal basis between intern consultant and the five or six
interns assigned to that consultant.

The topics for discus­

sion and analysis are varied and cover the spectrum of prac­
tical, real-life classroom problems experienced by intern
teachers for the first time.

In at least one intern center,

the "family seminar" has been incorporated into the intern
teachers monthly schedule.

The interns are released from

their classroom responsibilities to attend and participate
in the "family seminar" one half day per month.

The "family

seminar" concept is a promising recent innovation in the
E.I.P. design.

The benefits appear to be (1) objective

analysis of real classroom problems,

(2) providing Interns

with a mental cartharsis of problems and frustrations attendent to teaching,

(3) sharing of practical procedures, new

ideas, and new programs,

(4) "bring" and "brag" sessions

where interns relate positive instances of their teaching,
and (5) the provision of positive feedback from the Interns'
peers.

Intern problems are discussed with openness and

candor, seldom If ever observed in Individual school faculty
meetings.

The problems analyzed include professional growth,

individual pupil learning problems, inter and intra-faculty
relationships, school policy, discipline techniques, and
scores of others.

An investigation of the topics raised and

the analytic problem solving process used could shed light
on the professionalization of the elementary school teacher.

175

Descriptive materials need to be collected concerning
problems experienced by new Intern consultants.

Center

directors could encourage new consultants to maintain a log,
journal, diary, or running account of questions they have
concerning their professional relationship with interns.
Such materials could be used to plan the selection, orienta­
tion, and in-service education procedures of intern consul­
tants .
A survey study by the E.I.P. staff could be undertaken
to Investigate the reasons why students are Identifying with
the program.

Are students' reasons for identifying with the

program related to the program's purposes?

Are students

attracted to the program by the (1) paid stipend, (2) conveni­
ence of residing in or near the home community,

(3) acceler­

ated classroom experience (actual teaching one year sooner
than a regular program),

(4) supervision provided by the

intern consultant, or (5) are there other reasons?
A longitudinal study should attempt to determine what
changes in interns occur over the first year.

There appear

to be discernible stages in growth as the intern gains in
experience and confidence.

Many interns pass through a

survival stage of day-to-day lesson plans, concern for con­
trol and maintainance of order.

Frequently this stage ends

before Christmas and is followed by an experimental stage in
which every new idea to come along is tried.

This stage may

be followed by a routine or doldrum stage during March and

17 6
April.

The names of these stages may be ficticious but

observant and analytic consultants have suggested there are
definite and observable stages in intern teaching.

These

stages necessitate different need patterns for supervision
by consultants as the year de velops.

This presents a new

and promising avenue for further research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Dwight W.
"A New Face for Supervision;" Remaking
the World of the Career Teacher. Washington, D. C.:
N.C.T.E.P.S. of the National Education Association,

1966.
Beckwith, Gladys M.
"A Study of the English Teacher Role
in the Secondary School as Perceived by Student
Teachers and Supervisory Teachers of English."
Un­
published doctoral dissertation.
East Lansing, Michi­
gan:
Michigan State University, 1 9 6 8.
Bishop, Clifford F.
"The Purposes of Teacher Internship.
Educational Administration and Supervision. Vol. 34,
January, 194# •
Bond, George W. and Smith, George J.
"First Year of Teaching."
The National Elementary Principal. September, 1967*
Brookover, Wilbur B.
"Research on Teacher and Administrative
Roles."
Journal of Educational Sociology. Vol. 29,
September, 1955*
Bruner, Jerome S.
A Symposium on the Training of Teachers for
Elementary Schools. FDEA Occasional Paper, Kettering
Foundation, Dayton, Ohio, 1 9 6 8.
Bush, Robert N. and Allen, Dwight.
"The Winds of Freedom."
The High School J ournal. Vol. 43, February, i9 60.
Chaltas, John G., with Kain, Jannene M. and Southworth,
Horton C.
"The Supervision of Intern Teachers."
Internships in Teacher Education. Forth-seventh Year­
book of the Association for Student Teaching.
Horton
C. Southworth, Ed. Washington, D. C . : National Edu­
cation Association, 1 968.
Chandler, B. J., et a l . Research Seminar on Teacher Education.
Washington, D. C . : United States Office of Education,
Cooperative Research Project No. G-011, 1963*

178

179

Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers:
A Perceptual View of Teacher Preparation. Allyn and
Bacon, Inc., Boston, 1965.
Conley, James F.
"A Study of Selected Biographical Data,
Personality Characteristics and Attitudes of Elementary
Intern Program Students at Michigan State University.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, 1968.
Corman, Bernard R. and Olmsted, Ann G. The Internship in the
Preparation of Elementary School Teachers. Bureau of
Education Research, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1964.
Corrigan, Dean and Garland, Colden.
"Studying Role Relation­
ships." A pamphlet.
Cedar Palls, Iowa:
The Associa­
tion for Student Teaching.
Leon P. Miller, Ed.
1966.
Corrigan, Dean C. and Garland, Colden B.
"Role Analysis
Applied to Internship Processes."
In Internships in
Teacher Education, op. cit.
Denemark, George W. Remaking the World of the Career Teacher.
Washington, D. C . : NCTEPS of the National Education
Association, 1966.
Doyle, Louis A. "A Study of the Expectations Which Elementary
Teachers, School Administrators, Board Members, and
Parents have of the Elementary Teachers Role." Unpub­
lished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1956.
Dyer, Prudence.
"Teacher Internship Programs in N.C.A.
Institutions." The North Central Association Quarterly.
Vol. 43, No. 2, Pall, 1968.
Erickson, John E.
"On the Development of School Supervisory
Personnel:
A Case in Point." The Journal of Teacher
Education. Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring, 1969.
Pitch, Thomas C.
"Intern Consultant Self-Evaluation Form."
Warren, Michigan:
Macomb Teacher Education Center,
Michigan State University, 1966.
(Mimeographed.)
Fleming, James S.
"An Investigation of Role Expectations and
the Communications Process between Elementary School
Student Teachers and their Supervising Teachers."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan, 1968.
Gardner, Harrison.
"The Teacher Education Internship in
Historical Perspective."
In Internships in Teacher
Education.

180
Garland, Colden B.
MAn Exploration of Role Expectations for
Student Teachers:
Views of Prospective Student Teachers,
and College Supervisors.” Unpublished doctoral disser­
tation.
Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester,
1964.
Gentry, Harold W. and Kenney, James
B.
”The Performance of
Elementary School Principals as Evaluated by Principals
and Teachers.” The Journal of Educational Re search.
Vol. 60, No. 2, October, 1966.
G etzels, Jacob W. and Guba, Edwin G.
"The Structure of Role
and Role Conflict in the Teaching Situation."
Journal
of Educational Soc io lo gy . Vol. 29, September, 1955*
Goeldi, John T.
"A Study Contributing to the Professionali­
zation of the Role of the Intern Consultant."
Unpub­
lished doctoral dissertation.
East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1967.
Good, Carter V., Ed.
Dictionary of Education.
McGraw-Hill, 1945.

New York:

Greenhouse, S. W. and Geiser, S.
"On Methods of the Analysis
of Profile Data."
Psychometrika. Vol. 24, 1966.
Gross, Neal; Mason, Ward S.; and McEachern, Alexander.
Explorations in Role A n a l y s i s . New York:
John Wiley
and S o n s , I n c ., 1958.
Haberman, Martin.
"A Comparison of Interns with Regular FirstYear Teachers."
Journal of Educational Res ea r ch . Vol.
59, No. 2 , October^ 1965.
Haberman, Martin.
"The Teaching Behavior of Successful In­
terns."
Journal of Teacher E d ucation. Vol. 16, No. 2,
June, 1965.
Halliwell, Joseph W.
"A Review of the Research Comparing the
Teaching Effectiveness of Elementary
School Teachers
Compared in Intensive Teacher-Training Programs and in
Regular Undergraduate Pro gr am s." Journal of Teacher
Education. Vol'. 15, No. 2, June, 1968.
Harris, Ben.
Supervisory Behavior in Education.
Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1963*
Hays, William L.
Statistics for Psychologist.
Holt, R i n eh ar t, and Winston, I n c . , 1963*

Inglewood

New York:

181
Heald, James E. and Moore, Samuel A., II.
The Teacher and
Administrative Relations in School S y s t e m s . Tor on to ,
C a n a d a : The Macmillan Company, Inc., 19*58.
Hermanowicz, Henry J.
"The Pluralistic World of the Beginning
Teacher."
The Real World of the Beginning T e a c h e r .
Washington, D. C . : NCTEPS of the National Education
Association, 1966.
Hoffman, James D.
"A Study of the Perceptions that Adminis­
trators, Elementary Teachers, Consultants, and Special
Area Teachers have of the Elementary Special Area
Teacher and Consultant Role."
Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State
University, 1959.
Houston, W. Robert.
"A Study of the Teaching Status of
Graduates of the Elementary Intern Program at Michigan
State University."
East Lansing, Michigan:
College of
Education, Michigan State University, May, 1967.
(Mimeographed*. )
Kaplan, Leonard.
"An Investigation of the Role Expectations
for College
Supervisors of Student Teaching as Viewed
by Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, and College
Supervisors."
Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester, 1966.
Kerlinger, Fred N.
Foundations of Behavioral Res ea rc h.
York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1 9 6 7 .

New

McGlothlin, William J.
Patterns of Professional Education.
New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, I960.
Michigan State University College of Education.
"Elementary
Intern Program:
Another Way of Learning to Teach."

1966 .

National Commission of Teacher Education and Professional
Standard.
The Real World of the Beginning T e a c h e r .
National Education:
Washington, D. C., 1965•
Parsons, Talcott and S h i l s , Edward A., Eds.
Toward a General
Theory of Acti on . Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University
Press, 1951.
Rex, Roland G.
"A Theory of the Internship In Professional
Training.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
East
Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1964.
Sarbln, Theodore R.
"Role Theory."
In Handbook of Social
Psychology. Gardner Lindzey, ed.
Cambridge, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954.

182
Scheffe, Henry.
The Analysis of V a r i a n c e .
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1959-

New York:

John

Shaplln, Judson.
"A Comparison of Internship Programs."
1963 N.C.T.E.P.S. Columbus Conference R e p o r t . Washing­
ton, D. C . : National Education Association, 1 9 6 3 .
Shaplin, Judson T.
"Practice In Teaching.
In Teacher
Education:
A R e a p p r a i s a l . Elmer R. Smith, Ed.
New
York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.
Smith, Elmer R.
"Specialized Knowledge.
In Teacher Educa­
tion:
A Re a p p r a i s a l . Elmer R. Smith, Ed.
New York:
Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.
Smith, Sandra N.
"Supervisory Techniques with Beginning
Mathematics Teachers."
Educational L e a d e r s h i p . January,
1969.
Stone, James C.
Francisco,
1968.

Breakthrough in Teacher E d u c a t i o n . San
California:
Jossye-Bass Inc., Publishers,

Thomas, Edwin J. and Biddle, Bruce J.
Role T h e o r y : Concepts
and R e s e a r c h ." New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

1966.
Twyman, Jr. Paschal, and Biddle, Bruce J.
"Role Conflict of
Public School Teachers."
The Journal of P s y c h o l o g y .
Vol. 55, January, 1 9 6 3 .
Wiles, Kimball.
Supervision for Better Schools.
Cliffs, New Jersey:
P r e n t i c e- Ha ll , 1967.

Inglewood

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
MAP OP MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ELEMENTARY
INTERN PROGRAM CENTER LOCATIONS,

184

1969

185
APPENDIX I ;

Map of Michigan Indicating Michigan State University
Elementary Intern Program Center Locations, 1969

Lansing.
9 Michigan State
Universxty Campus
Pontiac . .Macombi

APPENDIX B
A.

INTERN TEACHER REACTIONNAIRE

B.

INTERN CONSULTANT REACTIONNAIRE

C.

SAMPLE MACHINE SCORING ANSWER SHEET

186

Dear Intern - Intern Consultant:

Your cooperation is requested in our attempts to conduct
E.I.P. research*

Your participation in this program during this school year has
provided you with unique experiences.

Your responses to this instru­

ment will enable us to draw conclusions and make generalizations
about E.l.P. which ve could not do without your involvement.

We appreciate your cooperation and participation in this pro­
ject.

We will be pleased to send you a summary of the reaction

results if you desire.

The success of this inquiry is wholly

dependent upon your completing the entire questionnaire.

All

information will be held in the strictest confidence and will not
be reported either by individuals or by centers.

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Gerald Inman
Thomas Fitch
Former Intern Consultants

INTERN REACTIONNAIRE - Part I
INSTRUCTIONS:

1.

Place your name and student number on the answer sheet.

2.

On the answer sheet riiere It asks for course name, place your maiden
name If appropriate.

3.

For Item numbered 1 on the answer sheet select one of the following:
A.

Single

B.

Married

C.

Separated

D.

Divorced

E.

Widow or Widower

4.

The information obtained on this reactionnalre will be held in the
strictest confidence. It will not be reported to school or college
administrators, center coordinators, or intern consultants.

5.

On the following pages, you will find a number of descriptive statements
of intern consultant behavior.

6.

Read each statement carefully.

7.

Below each descriptive statement are two scales, please respond to each.

8.

The first response scale, under each descriptive statement, will allow
you to indicate whether or not you prefer that particular consultant
behavior.

9.

The second response scale, under each descriptive statement, will allow
you to indicate the frequency of occurrence for that specific behavior.
EXAMPLE
Descriptive statement - The consultant encourages the intern to
be consistant regarding pupils behavior and academic standards.
94)

A ____________ B___________ C___________ D__________ E
Definitely
Very highly
not preferred
preferred
behavior
behavior

95)

A____________ B___________ C__________ _D__________ E
Never
Occurs
Occurs
Occurs
Occurs
occurs
yearly
monthly
weekly
dally

After carefully reading the statement, select the letter on the first scale
that moBt closely approximates your feeling of preference. On the answer
sheet marif the letter that corresponds with your selection for each numbered
scale.
10.

Please respond to each item as it would apply to your specific intern
consultant not to intern consultants in general.

- 1 -

The consultant helps the intern Interpret information within the child's
cumulative records.
2.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

3.

A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

D

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern plan and set behavioral goals for instructional
experiences.
4.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

5.

A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant suggest various seating arrangements for alternating traffic
flow, group project work space, and distribution of materials.
6.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

7.

A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant aids the intern to organise for future events (school calendar,
holidays, parent conferences).
8.

9.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant uses questions which subtly point out the intern's teaching
weakness.
10.

11.

A ____________ B___________ C
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D___________ E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern realize that a child's ability to learn is
closely related to the child's self concept.
12.

13.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant provides the intern with new ideas for lessons and units.
14.

15.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern locate and select appropriate instructional
materials.
16.

17.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the Intern select learning materials specifically for
particular pupil's needs.
18.

19.

A_______
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B___________ C___________ D___________ E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant is available, on-call, to the intern i
after the normal
school day.
20.

21.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant urges the intern to give continued attention to ventilation,
lighting, seating, and other physical conditions within the intern's class­
room.
22.

23.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant encourages the intern to adjust his teaching to the inte^
maturity, and experiential background of the learner.
24.

25.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the' intern to interpret a child's stenderized test
results.
26.

27.

A ____________ B___________ C________
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D___________ E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant aids the intern to develop within a framework of
professional autonomy and freedom.
28.

29.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant builds up the intern's ego by emphasising the intern'8
personal and professional strengths.
30.

31.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

After demonstrating a teaching technique the consultant discusses and
analyses that method with the intern.
32.

33.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant points out examples of child growth and development to the
Intern within the Intern's classroom.
34.

35.

A ____________ B___________ C___________ D___________ E
Very highly
Definitely
not preferred
preferred
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant shares with the intern a very close and "open" relationship
where each says what they really feel.
36.

37.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant recommends specific methods of teaching for the intern's
implementation.
38.

39.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

>

o
•

•p -

Hie consultant aids the intern to inventory the intern's class to determine
interests, problems, s trengths, self-concepts, and attitudes.
B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

Definitely
not preferred
behavior
41.

A
Never
occurs

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant provides evaluations for the intern that promote self direction.
42.

43.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
OcCTirs
veekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant follows the classroom observation with a written critique of the
intern's teaching.
44.

45.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern to diagnose individual and class learning
difficulties.
46.

47.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant encourages the intern to establish and maintain a daily, weekly,
monthly, yearly schedule.
48.

49.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

INTERN REACTIONNAIRE - Part II

INSTRUCTIONS

On the following pages, you will find six different classroom problem situations to which you are asked to
respond.
Read each problem situation carefully.
Each problem situation is followed by six different reaction scales.
scales.

Please respond to each of the six

After carefully reading a problem situation, select the letter on each scale which is your best estimate
or appraisal. On the answer sheet fill in the space that corresponds with your selection for each numbered
scale.

EXAMPLE

Assume it is the beginning of the school year, you are experiencing difficulty in attending to
the needs of several reading groups simultaneously, . . . in short you lack organization.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED:
96)

97)

How would your consultant
most likely behave?
A
B
O
D
E
THEORETICAL
----------------------------------------- — ---- PRACTICAL
What consultant behavior
A
B
O
D
E
would you prefer?
Tends to examine
Tends to suggest
underlying educarional
particular procedures
theory before considerwhich have worked in
ing specific action.
the past.

For the example numbered 96 above, select a letter on the continuum and mark that letter on the answer
sheet.
Follow the same procedure for each of the five other scales under each problem situation.

SITUATION ONE

Assume as an intern you feel that you are weak in diagnosing a pupil's learning difficulty. You wish to
diagnose the pupil's difficulty in arithmetic and plan specific lessons on which will strengthen the pupil's
learning weakness.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED:

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

How would your consultant
A
most likely behave?
THEORETICAL
What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Tends to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

How would your consultant
A
most likely behave?
CONSULTANT
A
What consultant behavior
would you prefer?
Consultant takes necessary
action.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?

B
PRACTICAL
B

E
Tends to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in the
past

B

E

B

E

INTERN

Intern takes necessary
action.

B
INDIRECT

DIRECT
55.

What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Consultant prescribes;
insists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B

E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

SITUATION TWO

Assume as an intern you feel something is wrong with the pacing of your lessons during the school day.
There is a lull in the middle of the afternoon. Your intern consultant agrees with this analysis.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED:

56.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?

B

E
PRACTICAL

THEORETICAL
57.

58.

What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Tends to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?

B
Tends to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in the
past.

B
INTERN

CONSULTANT
59.

60.

61.

A
What consultant behavior
would you prefer?
Consultant takes necessary
action.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?
DIRECT
What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Consultant prescribes;
insists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B

E
Intern takes necessary
action.

B
INDIRECT
B
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

SITUATION THREE

Assume as an intern you are teaching a science unit to your class.
helping children to understand a particular concept.

You are experiencing difficulty in

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED:

62.

63.

64.

How vould your consultant
most likely behave?

A
B
C
D
E
THEORETICAL_____________________________________________________ PRACTICAL
C
E
B
D
What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Tends to suggest
Tends to examine underlying
particular procedures
educational theory before
which have worked in the
considering specific action.
past.

How vould your consultant
most likely behave?

A

B

C

D

E
TNTF.RN

nflNSTTT.T^NT . _

65.

66.

67.

What consultant behavior
A
vould you prefer?
Consultant takes necessary
action.

How vould your consultant
most likely behave?
A
DIRECT
-----------What consultant behavior
A
vould you prefer?
Consultant prescribes;
insists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B

C

D

E
Intern takes necessary
action.

B

C

D

B

C

D

E
----------- INDIRECT
E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

situation f ou r

Assume that you and your intern consultant have just watch a video-tape replay of a lesson you taught.
In this particular lesson you planned to involve pupils actively. Your directions to pupils were not as
clear and concise as you had hoped.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED:

68.

Hav would your consultant
most likely behave?

A

B

E
PRACTICAL

THEORETICAL
69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

What consultant behavior
A
vould you prefer?
Tends to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?
CONSULTANT
A
What consultant behavior
would you prefer?
Consultant takes necessary
action.

How vould your consultant
most likely behave?
DIRECT
What consultant behavior
A
vould you prefer?
Consultant prescribes;
insists on specific steps;
tells Intern.

B

E
Tends to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in the
past.

B

E
INTERN

B

E
Intern takes necessary
action.

B
INDIRECT
B

E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consul tent ssks questions..

SITUATION FIVE

Assume that within your intern teaching situation there is not a written or "set" policy related to the
rentention of students. However, only on rare occasions have pupils been retained. You believe a particular
pupil is emotionally, socially, and intellectually incapable of suceeding in the next grade and therefore
wish to retain the pupil. Your principal maintains that the pupil should not be retained. There is obvious
conflict.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED:

74.

75.

76.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?

A

THEORETICAL
What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Tends to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?

A

B

E
PRACTICAL

B
Tends to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in the
past

B
INTERN

CONSULTANT
77.

78.

79.

What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Consultant takes necessary
action.

How would your consultant
most likely behave?

A

DIRECT
What consultant behavior
A
would you prefer?
Consultant prescribes;
insists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B
Intern takes necessary
action.

B
INDIRECT
B

E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

Dear Intern - Intern Consultant:

Your cooperation is requested in our attempts to conduct
E.I.P. research.

Your participation in this program during this school year has
provided you vith unique experiences.

Your responses to this instru­

ment will enable us to draw conclusions and make generalizations
about E.I.P. which we could not do without your involvement.

We appreciate your cooperation and participation in this pro­
ject.

We will be pleased to send you a summary of the reaction

results if you desire.

The success of this inquiry is wholly

dependent upon your completing the entire questionnaire.

All

Information will be held in the strictest confidence and will not
be reported either by individuals or by centers.

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Gerald Inman
Thomas Fitch
Former Intern Consultants

INTERN CONSULTANT REACTIONNAIR - Part I
INSTRUCTIONS:

On the following pages, you will find a number of descriptive statements of
intern consultant behaviors.
Read each statement carefully.
Below each descriptive statement are two scales.
Please respond to each scale.
The first response, under each descriptive statement, will allow you to
indicate whether or not you prefer that particular consultant behavior.
The second response scale, under each descriptive statement, will allow
you to indicate the frequency of occurrance of that specific behavior.

EXAMPLE:
Descriptive statement - - The consultant encourpges the intern to be consistati
regarding pupils behavior and academic standards.
94)_____ A____________ B__________ C____________D___________ E
Definitely
Very highly
not preferred
preferred
behavior
behavior
95)

A ____________ B__________ C___________ _D__________ E
Never
Occurs
Occurs
Occurs
Occurs
occurs
yearly
monthly
weekly
daily

After carefully reading the statement, sAlect the letter on the first
scale that most closely approximates your feeling of preference. On
the answer sheet mark the letter that corresponds with your selection
for each numbered scale.
Please respond to each item as you would most likely behave.

The consultant helps the Intern Interpret information within the child's
cumulative records.
2. ______ A____________ B___________ C___________ D___________ E__________
Very highly
Definitely
preferred behavior
not preferred
behavior

3.

A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern plan and set behavioral goals for instructional
experiences.
4.

5.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

A
Never
occurs

B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant suggest various seating arrangements for alternating traffic
flow, group project work space, and distribution of materials.
6.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

7.

A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant aids the intern to organize for future events (school calendar
holidays, parent conferences).
8.

9.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred behavior
E
Occurs
daily

- 2 •
The consultant uses questions which subtly point out the intern's teaching
weakness.
10.

11.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

C

D

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern realize that a child's ability to learc is
closely related to the child's self concept.
12.

13.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant provides the intern with new ideas for lessons and units.
14.

15.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern locate and select appropriate instructional
materials.
16.

17.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very Highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the Intern select learning materials specifically for
particular pupil's needs.
18.

19.

A____________ B___________ C___________ D___________ E
Definitely
Very highly
not preferred
preferred
behavior
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant is available, on-call, to the intern after the normal
school day.
20.

21.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occur8
daily

The consultant urges the intern to give continued attention to ventilation,
lighting, seating, and other physical conditions within the intern's class­
room.
22.

23.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant encourages the intern to adjust his teaching to the inte'
maturity, and experiential background of the learner.
24.

25.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern to interpret a child's standarised test
results.
26.

27.

A____________B___________ C___________D___________ E
Very highly
Definitely
not preferred
preferred
behavior
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occur8
daily

The consultant aids the Intern to develop within a framework of
professional autonomy and freedom.
28.

29.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant builds up the intern's ego by emphasising the intern'8
personal and professional strengths.
30.

31.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

After demonstrating it teaching technique the consultant discusses and
analyses that method with the intern.
32.

33.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

- 5 -

The consultant points out examples of child growth and development to the
intern within the intern's classroom.
34.

35.

_______A _____________ B__________C_________ D___________ E________
Very highly
Definitely
preferred
not preferred
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
dally

The consultant shares with the intern a very close and "open" relationship
where each says what they really feel.
36.

37.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant recommends specific methods of teaching for the intern's
implementation.
38.

39.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
dally

The consultant aids the intern to inventory the intern's class to determine
interests, problems, strengths, self-concepts, and attitudes.
40.

41.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

C

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant provides evaluations for the Intern that promote self direction.
42.

43.

A ____________ B___________ C___________ D___________ E
Definitely
Very highly
not preferred
preferred
behavior
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

C
Occurs
monthly

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Occurs
daily

The consultant followst the classroom observation with a written critique
intern's teaching.
44.

45.

A
Definitely
not preferred
behavior
A
Never
occurs

B

B
Occurs
yearly

C

C
Occurs
monthly

D

D
Occurs
weekly

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior
E
Occurs
daily

The consultant helps the intern to diagnose individual and class learning
difficulties.
46.

E
Very highly
preferred
behavior

B
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

47.
Never
occurs

B
Occurs
yearly

Occurs
monthly

Occurs
weekly

Occurs
daily

The consultant encourages the intern to establish and maintain a daily, weekly,
monthly, yearly schedule.
48.

A___________ B____________C___________ D___________ E_______
Definitely
not preferred
behavior

49.__

Very highly
preferred
behavior

A___________ B____________C___________ D___________ E_______
Never
occurs

Occurs
yearly

Occurs
monthly

Occurs
weekly

Occurs
daily

CONSULTANT REACTIONNAIRE - Part II

INSTRUCTIONS

1. On the following pages, you will find six different problem situations similar to
those encountered by your intern teacher.
2.

Read each problem situation carefully.

3.

Each problem situation is followed by six differentreaction scales.
Please respond to each of the six scales.

4.

After carefully reading a problem situation, select the letter on each scale
vhich is your best estimate or appraisal.On the answer sheet
fill in the space
that corresponds with your selection for each numbered scale.

EXAMPLE

Assume it is the beginning of the school year, your intern is experiencing
difficulty in attending to the needs of several reading groups simultaneously,
. . . in short the intern lacks organization.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED WHAT WOULD BE YOUR:
96) Most likely behavior
THEORETICAL,
97) Preferred behavior
Tend to examine
underlying educa­
tional theory be­
fore considering
specific action.

B

E
PRACTICAL

B
During discussion,
intern identifies
procedures; sonsultant asks questions

5. For the example numbered 96 above, select a letter on the continuum and mark that
letter on the answer sheet.
6. Follow the same procedure for each of the five other scales under each problem
situation.

SITUATION TWO

Assume your intern feels that something is wrong with the pacing of the intern’s lessons during the school
day. There is a lull in the middle of the afternoon. You agree with this analysis.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED WHAT WOULD BE YOUR:

56.

B

Most likely behavior

E
PRACTICAL

THEORETICAL
57.

58.

Preferred behavior

A
Tend to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

B
Tend to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in
the past.

B

Most likely behavior

INTERN

CONSULTANT
59.

B

Preferred behavior

60.

B

Most likely behavior

INDIRECT

DIRECT
61.

Preferred behavior

E
I n t e r n ta k e s n e c e s s a ry
a c tio n .

Consultant takes necessary
action.

A
Consultant prescribes; in­
sists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

SITUATION ONE

Assume your intern feels weak in diagnosing a pupil learning difficulty. The intern wishes to diagnose
the pupil's difficulty in arithmetic and plan specific lessons which will strengthen the pupil's identified
learning weakness.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED WHAT WOULD BE YOUR:

50.

E

B

Most likely behavior

PRACTICAL

THEORETICAL
51.

Preferred behavior

52.

Most likely behavior

53.

Preferred behavior

54.

Most likely behavior

A
Tend to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

B
Tend to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in the
past.

A
B
O
D
E
CONSULTANT --------------------------------------------------- INTERN
A
B
C
D
E
Consultant takes necessary
Intern takes necessary
action.
action.

B
INDIRECT

DIRECT
55.

Preferred behavior

A
Consultant prescribes; in­
sists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B

D

E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

SITUATION THREE

.Assume your intern is teaching a science unit to the class.
helping children to understand a particular concept.

The intern is experiencing difficulty in

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED WHAT WOULD BE YOUR:

62.

B

Most likely behavior

E
PRACTICAL

THEORETICAL
63.

B

Preferred behavior

Tend to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in
the past.

Tend to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

64. Most likely behavior
65. Preferred behavior

66.

Most likely behavior

67.

Preferred behavior

A
B
C
D
E
CONSULTANT------------------------------------------------------- INTERN
A
B
C
D
E
Consultant takes necessary
Intern takes necessary
action.
action.

E

B
DIRECT
A
Consultant prescribes; in­
sists bn specific steps;
tells intern.

B

D

INDIRECT
E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

SITUATION FOUR

Assume that you and your intern have just watched a video tape replay of a lesson taught by your intern.
In this particular lesson your intern planned to actively involve the pupil's. The intern's directions to
the pupils were not as clear and concise as the intern had planned.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED WHAT WOULD BE YOUR:

68.

B

Most likely behavior

E
PRACTICAL

THEORETICAL
69.

Preferred behavior

70. Most likely behavior
71. Preferred behavior

72.

Most likely behavior

73.

Preferred behavior

A
Tend to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

B
Tend to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in
the past.

A
B
C
D
E
CONSULTANT----------------------------------------------------- INTERN
A
B
C
D
E
Consultant takes necessary
Intern takes necessary
action.
action.

A

B

DIRECT
A
Consultant prescribes; in­
sists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B

E
INDIRECT
E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions

SITUATION FIVE

Assume that within your intern's teaching situation there is not a written or "set" policy related to the
retention of students. However, only on rare occasions have pupils been retained. Your intern believes a
particular pupil is emotionally, socially and intellectually incapable of suceeding in the next grade and
therefore wishes to retain the pupil. The principal maintains that the pupil should not be retained. There
is obvious conflict.

IF THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED WHAT WOULD BE YOUR:

74.

A

Most likely behavior

B

C

D

E
PRACTICAL

T n iu n D P n n T A T

75.

Preferred behavior

76.

Most likely behavior

A
Tend to examine underlying
educational theory before
considering specific action.

A

B

C

D

B

C

D

Preferred behavior

A

B

C

D

Consultant takes
necessary action.

78.

Preferred behavior

E
Intern takes
necessary action.

B

Most likely behavior

INDIRECT

DIRECT
79.

E
INTERN

P r t X T O T T T O l A M 'T

77.

E
Tend to suggest
particular procedures
which have worked in
the past.

A
Consultant prescribes; in­
sists on specific steps;
tells intern.

B

D

E
During discussion, intern
identifies procedures;
consultant asks questions.

FIRST

COURSE

IflSE NAME.

.SEX

||

S T U D E N T NO.

DATE.

MIDDLE

M

|

usr

STUDENT

NO..
0

2

3

NUMBER

4

-J
..f ..

2_

3_

4

I

2

3

4

o

-J__

3

4

MARKS

HEAVY

ARE

AND

BLACK

o

I

2

3

4

o

I

2

3

4

||
8

9

3 :

6 :

::::: 3 :

; : ::r 3 :

::::: 5 :

3:
::::: 3 :
::::: 3 :

::::: 5 :

6 :

>====: 10 =

6

2 :::::

3 :::::

0:

===== 1 0 :

8

2 :::::

3 :::::

8 :=== =

8 := :::

0: : : : 9 : : : : : 10 :

4

2 ===== 3 :::::

0

3 :::::

8 :::==
8 = = :::

0 =====

0 =

===== 10:

10

2

3 :::::

3=====

8 =====

B:

===== 10:

12

2 :::::

3 =====

3 ==== =

8 =====

»:=:== 10 =

14

2 :::::

3 :::::

8==::=

8

=====

----- 10:::::

9 ===== 1 0 :

16

2 :::::

3 ==== =

S =====

0

=====

: : : : : 10 : : : : :

8:
8: :==

3:

::::: 3 :

6 :

8

=:= 9===== 1 0 :

18

2

3 =====

3 =====

6 ==== =

::::: 3 :

::::: 5 :

6 :

8:

===== 1 0 :

2 :::::

3 :::::

8

8 :::::

::::: 3 :

::::: 8 :

0 =

8=

===== 1 0 :

2 :::::

3 :::"

3 =====

::::: 3 :

6 :

0=

=== == 10:

2 := ;::

3

8=====

6 =====

:::::

=

= = ::: 8 :

0:
6:

::: 10 :

::::= 8 :

6 =

:== 10 :

::::: 9 :

6:

:== » :

20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66

===== 3 :

• :

===== K) :

3:

6:
6:
6=

8 :

6 :

8 :

===== 10 =

3:

::::: 9 :

::::: 3 :

::::: 3 :

::::: 3 :

:::::

::::: 3 :

8=

8=
0:

===== 10 :
===== 1 0 :
===== 1 0 :

::::: 3 :

::::: 5 :

6:

::::: 3 :

== === 3 :

6 =

8=
0=

===== 10 :

::::: 3 :

=====

5:

6 =

8 :

===== 10:

::::: 3 :

::::: 3 :

8:

8 =

===== 10 =

::::: 3 :

=== == 9 :

6 =

8 =

===== 10 :

::::: 3 :

::::: 8 :

6:

0:

===== 10 =

::::: 3 :

===== 9 :

6 :

===== 10 :

::::: 3 :

::::: 8 :

6 =

===== 10 =

-

===== 10 =

8 :

6

===== 10 =

::::: S :

8:
0=

===== 10 :

::::: 3 :

6 :

===== 10 =

===== 9 :

e :

::= 10 =

8

:

::::: 8 :

0:
0:

5 =====

2 : : “ *. 3 : : : : :

9 =====

2 :::::

3 :::::

3 === = =

2 :::::

3 :::::

9 = == = =

2 ::::: 3 ;::= :

3 === ==

2 ::::: 3 :::::

8:==::

2 ;:::: 0 =====

S =====

2 ::::: 3 :::::

5 = ====

2 ::::: 3 :::::

3 =====

2 ::::: 3 :::::

3 =====

2

3 :::::

3 =====

: : : : : 10

2 :::::

3 == ===

9 :::::

: : : : : 10==” :

2 :::::

3 :::::

3 =====

: : : : : 10 : : : : :

8=====

: : : : : 10

2 ::::: 3 :::::

: : : : : 10 ===::

10

3 =====

= : :::

2 ::::: 3 :::::

3 =====

: : : : : K> : : : : :

2 ::::: 3 ::==:

3 =====

68

2 ::::: 3 :::::

3 ::= = :

:== 10 =

70

2 ::::: 3 :::::

3 =====

=::=:10
:=:==10""=
;==::10:::::

===== 10 :

72
74
76

2

3 =====

: : : : : 10 == =::

2 ::::: 3 :::::

8=====

:::::10:::::

2 ::=:: 3 =::::

3 =====

: : : : : fO : : : : :

2 ::::: 3 :::::

3 =====

:::::10:::::

2 ::::: 3 :::::

9 :::::

: : : : : IO : : : : :

2 ::::: 3 :::::

: : : : : K> : : : : :

===== 10 =

82
84

8=====

2 ::::: 3 :::::

0 = ::::

: :: : : K> : : : : :

::= 10 =

86

t ::::: 3 :::::

3

:::::10:::::

=====10 =

= ====

3 :::::

2 ::::: 3 :::::

6 :
6 :

Zzzzzz

: : : : : 10 : : : : :

===== 8 =
:= ::: 3 :

8 := = : =

== ===

::::: 1 0 :::::

:=::= to =

8 :

8

3 =====

« :

:

3 =====

3 :::::

3 =====

:= ::= 8 :

8

3 :::::

2 :::::

2 ::::: 3 :::::

===== 3 :

=====

2 :::::

8 =====

2 ::::: 3 :::::

:== 10 :

6=
6=
6:
6=

= = ::: 9 :

0 =====

■ i i ■ i

::::: 8 =

=== 10 =

= = ===

i i

::::: 3 :

:::::10=====

I I |

=

2 :::::

I I I I I |

6 :

::::: 3 :

:::::

5=

2

l I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I |

3 :

:::::

8=:::=
8:::::
8=:===

8 = === 9 ===== 1 0 :

===== K> :
===== »0 =

=: ; : : » :

78
80

3 :::::

=====

l l l

3 :

8:
8=
6:
6:

::::: 3 =

3:

« :

CHANGED

l

:= = :: 3 :

ANSWER

l l l

3:

ANY

i i I i

:::::

COMPLETELY

i i i i i

ERASE

|

|

YOUR

I

0_

FORM.

HIE OF T E S T .

3E SURE

o

| |

.INSTRUCTOR.

:TI0N.

| | |

|

w _l__

M l

ME

M

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

APPENDIX C
PART A
1.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test A* Preference
for Selected Intern Consultant Tasks, for Intern
Teachers' Responses.

2.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test A, Preference
for Selected Intern Consultant Tasks, for Intern
Consultants' Responses.

3.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test A, Frequency of
Occurrence for Selected Intern Consultant Tasks, for
Intern T e a c h e r s ' Responses.

4.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test A, Frequency of
Occurrence for Selected Intern Consultant Tasks, for
Intern Consultant's Responses.

PART B
1.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test B, Preference
for Intern Consultant Method of Operation, for Intern
Teachers' Responses.

2.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test B, Preference
for Intern Consultant Method of Operation, for Intern
Consultants' Responses.

3.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test B, Perceived
Likely Intern Consultant Method of Operation, for
Intern Teachers * Responses.

4.

Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Test B, Perceived
Likely Intern Consultant Method of Operation, for
Intern Consultants' Responses.
'

216

ITEM INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST A,
PREFERENCE FOR SELECTED INTERN CONSULTANT TASKS,
FOR INTERN TEACHERS' RESPONSES
I
1.00

2
.22
1.00

3
.30
.13
1.00

4
.30
.15
.40
1.00

5
.21
.06
.33
.19
1.00

6
.18
.11
.23
.24
1.00

7
.30
.03
.43
.38
.43
.33
1.00

8
.10
.23
.23
.26
.26
.40
.35
1.00

9
.41
.29
.26
.32
.30
.28
.25
.36
1.00

10
.31
.17
.24
.21
.13
.43
.33
.32
.23
1.00

11
.16
.23
.18
.06
.23
.42
.21
.35
.24
.43
1.00

12
.36
.16
.27
.35
.20
.22
.34
.31
.33
.27
.16
1.00

13
.17
.35
.23
.10
.13
.09
.17
.31
.23
.16
.14
.19
1.00

14
.03
.17
.20
.14
.13
.29
.19
.24
.17
.11
.20
.17
.36
1.00

15
.23
.12
.25
.34
.26
.29
.38
.45
.24
.45
.33
.35
.31
.20
1.00

16
.23
.34
.20
.32
.21
.43
.35
.49
.31
.48
.30
.21
.38
.23
.52
1.00

17
.16
.02
.22
.16
.00
.16
.24
.16
' .09
.13
.16
.23
.04
.17
-.03
.02
1.00

13
.35
.09
.25
.34
.14
.22
.32
.30
.25
.14
.09
.37
.20
.27
.22
.21
.19
1.00

19
.16
.21
.22
.35
.19
.28
.20
.42
.34
.30
.31
.19
.26
.34
.41
.45
.16
.22
1.00

20
.25
.11
.24
.39
.11
.20
.27
.27
.42
.13
.05
.45
.24
.24
.15
.25
.16
.34
.43
1.00

21
.22
.14
.17
.12
.15
.22
.31
.19
.15
.34
-.01
.22
.22
.35
.19
.20
.20
.16
.13
.10
.24
.30
.24
.13
.12
.08
.11
.20
.13
.07
.25
.13
.25
.09
.08
.13
.29
.03
.23
.04
.15
.16
1.00
1.00

23
.14
.35
.31
.30
.27
.22
.31
.40
.25
.29
.36
.24
.32
.29
.24
.33
.20
.17
.36
.24
.25
.39
1.00

24
.18
.19
.12
.i4
.17
.44
.20
.33
.15
.32
.42
.29
15
.27
.24
.44
.13
.25
.3-3
.21
.07
.23
.30
1.00

217

r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ITEM INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST A,
PREFERENCE FOR SELECTED INTERN CONSULTANT TASKS,
FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS' RESPONSES
r
1
1 1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2
.47
1.00

3
.38
.60
1.00

A
-.25
.08
.26
1.00

5
-.21
.04
.09
-.06
1.00

6
.13
.16
.34
.03
.13
1.00

7
.22
.40
.58
.02
.24
.10
1.00

8
.17
.42
.54
.12
.27
.32
.29
1.00

9
.38
.62
.45
-.03
.22
.18
.42
.28
1.00

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

.29
.33
.25
.42
.16
.38
.24
.24
.40
1.00

.12
.41
.36
.13
.17
.43
.26
.44
.46
.27
1.00

.37
.20
.36
.32
-.01
.22
.22
.17
.03
.37
.15
1.00

.12
.24
.05
-.18
.25
-.10
.02
.01
.29
.00
.22
-.16
1.00

.37
.19
.45
-.10
-.02
.39
.27
.27
.36
.06
.37
-.03
.22
1.00

.23
.13
.27
-.12
.47
.25
.23
.32
.53
.32
.39
.25
.21
.26
1.00

.08
.32
.20
.09
.17
.27
.26
.40
.37
.25
. 61
.00
.05
.10
.20
1.00

.14
-.01
-.04
-.11
-.19
.01
-.09
.09
-.16
-.03
.20
.17
.23
-.04
-.04
.19
1.00

.27
.11
.19
-.03
.14
.08
.22
.16
.16
.19
-.06
.13
.03
.04
.14
.12
.13
1.00

.13
.12
.09
.02
.17
.27
.02
.37
.28
.20
.63
.14
.19
.31
.46
.55
.12
.08
1.00

.00
-.03
.20
.41
-.29
.09
.10
.08
-.05
.20
.04
.19
-.09
.24
-.06
-.13
.11
-.28
.03
1.00

21
22
23
24________
-.07
.23 -.19
.36
.18
.16
.01
.07
-.02
.40
.06
.26
-.07 -.01
.36
.14
.51
.33
.24 -.15
.04
.17
.23
.02
.03
.22
.15
.15
.03
.35
.14
.26
.41
.20 -.04
.11
.20
.22
.37
.31
..
.34
.01
.06
.01
.03
.25
.07
.41
oo
.58
.33 -.05
.02
.14
.21 -.03
.08
.53
.49 -.00
.20
.20 -.11
.05
.03
.00
.02 -.17
.01
.09
.54 -.01
.15
.34
.10
.14
.00
-.10 -.13
.07
.03
1.00
.39 -.13 -.09
1.00
.07
.23
1.00
.20
1.00

ITEM INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST A,
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE FOR SELECTED INTERN CONSULTANT
TASKS, FOR INTERN TEACHERS' RESPONSES
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

I
1.00

2
.41
1.00

3
.27
.31
1.00

4
.36
.35
.32
1.00

5
.34
.22
.41
.28
1.00

6
.31
.36
.29
.35
.36
1.00

7
.32
.29
.43
.33
.45
.46
1.00

8
.22
.33
.26
.37
.36
.39
.32
1.00

9
.39
.41
.31
.31
.45
.42
.33
.47
1.00

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

.44
.43
.42
.43
.41
.56
.49
.43
.47
1.00

.23
.43
.30
.41
.33
.60
.37
.41
.39
.55
1.00

.38
.32
.31
.56
.24
.31
.44
.42
.35
.41
.39
1.00

.23
.42
.39
.17
.40
.30
.26
.33
.44
.40
.28
.21
1.00

.10
.34
.33
.20
.21
.37
.34
.30
.22
.36
.42
.25
.43
1.00

.33
.30
.30
.46
.43
.49
.43
.58
.40
.45
.44
.51
.36
.23
1.00

.35
.37
.30
.39
.42
.45
.40
.56
.44
.48
.44
.44
.40
.35
.61
1.00

.36
.29
.31
.34
.26
.26
.34
.25
.32
.33
.38
.37
.24
.23
.25
.31
1.00

.32
.29
.26
.37
.32
.32
.30
.36
.41
.37
.33
.37
.28
.27
.44
.35
.31
1.00

.17
.25
.26
.31
.28
.30
.27
.35
.33
.26
.41
.38
.33
.27
.43
.52
.22
.21
1.00

.24
.18
.29
.40
.15
.30
.30
.16
.32
.32
.26
.39
.20
.19
.21
.32
.37
.24
.27
1.00

.11
.12
.26
.17
.21
.28
.34
.27
.24
.24
.31
.28
.12
.26
.27
.23
.16
.24
.15
.14
1.00

22

23
24________
.05
.14
.25
.24
.29
.25
.23
.24
.26
.09
.31
.46
.25 • .27
.29
.27
.35
.33
.28
.36
.26
.31
.45
.45
.18
.32
.30
.31
.35
.43
.36
.39
.41
.16
.35
.51
.23
.28
.27
\D
.25
.23
.21
.29
.45
.47
.33
.38
.43
.11
.17
.20
.33
.37
.37
.23
.31
.35
-.05
.22
.21
.24
.32
.29
1.00
.48
.33
1.00
.54
1.00

ITEM INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST A,
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE FOR SELECTED INTERN CONSULTANT TASKS,
FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS' RESPONSES
2
.25
I.00

3
.04
.27
1.00

4
-,19
-.24
.16
1.00

5
.14
.10
-.02
.13
1.00

6
-.18
.04
.09
.09
.25
1.00

7
.06
.29
.21
-.09
.37
.24
1.00

8
.20
.03
.11
.18
.21
.06
.05
1.00

12
9
10
11
14
15
17
19
20
22
13
16
18
21
23
24
.05
.29
.00
.25
.07
.28 -.06
.34
.22
.11
.07 -.21
.25
.05 -.06 -.07
.14
.18
-.22
.17 -.03
.16
.19 -.02
.32
.06
.18
.40 -.13
.28
.07
.09
.09
.16
.26 -.02
-.28
.39
.17
.04 -.18 -.23
.03
.09 -.02
.26
.09
.29
.16
.30 -.06
.22
.07
.26
.29
.01
.37 -.00 -.17
.25
.25 -.00 -.04
.23
.42
.33
.22
.41
.27
.05 -.05 -.09
.23
.25 -.14
.13
.23
.36
.24
.17
.04 -.05
.30
.31
.17
.05
.22
.20
.06
.11
.25
.27
.17
.21
.11
.31
.12
.50
-.11
.23 -.14
.06
.26
.21
.36
.05
.36
.39
.31
.30
.09
.07
.10
.14 -.06
.01
.06
.04
.15
.18
.25
.11 -.01
.08
.29 -.01
.25 -.19
.39
.09 -.09
.25
.04
.23
.16
.30
1.00
.17
.18 -.08 -.33 -.35 -.25 -.20
1.00
.41
.17
.01
.23
.11
.40
.06
.21
.43
.15
.27 -.03 -.03 -.01
.35
.25
.09
.23
.16
.20
.35 -.04 -.13
.13 -.07
1.00
-.12
.08
.46 -.08 -.07
-.02
.06
.18 -.22
.04 -.07 -.05 -.13 -.01
1.00
1.00
.44
.10
.21 -.06 -.26 -.02 -.06
.11
.24
.12
.03
.02
.04 -.14
.00
.08
.20
.11
.02
.15
.07
1.00
.20
.15
.30
1.00
.37
.48
.32
.23 -.01 -.02
1.00
.01
.06 -.26
.07
.02
.23
.47 -.02
1.00
-.01
.03
.03
.12 -.17
.13 -.06
.21
.29
.11 -.26 -.14
1.00
.11
.06
,16 -.05
.11 -.05
1.00
1.00
-.00 -.29 -.19 -.04
1.00
.05
.23
.32
1.00
.36
.28
1.00
.43
I.00

220

r
1
1 1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

INTERN INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST B,
PREFERENCE FOR INTERN CONSULTANT METHOD OF OPERATION,
FOR INTERN TEACHERS' RESPONSES

2
.50
1.00

3
.46
.44
1.00

4
.4t>
.50
.42
1.00

5

6
.16
.15
.13
.12
.07
1.00

7
.13
.21
.17
.10
.13
.64
1.00

8
.16
.22
.24
.15
.13
.54
.60
1.00

9
.17
.28
.21
.23
.11
.53
.61
.51
1.00

10

11

12

13

14

15

.15
.15
.03
.10
.04
.37
.35
.37
.39
1.00

.17
.13
.21
.11
.09
.31
.36
.27
.28
.27
1.00

.17
.17
.12
.15
.21
.23
.35
.33
.28
.23
.58
1.00

.18
.26
.19
.12
.02
.28
.31
.37
.36
.25
.53
.59
1.00

.12
.17
.20
.17
.08
.27
.32
.30
.45
.22
.47
.39
.51
1.00

.11
.10
.04
.05
.02
.18
.21
.17
.16
.47
.42
.28
.35
.33
1.00

221

r
1
1 1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ITEM INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST B,
PREFERENCE FOR INTERN CONSULTANT METHOD OF OPERATION,
FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS' RESPONSES

2
.57
1.00

3
.52
.68
1.00

4
.31
.36
.51
1.00

5
.42
.21
.23
.37
1,00

6

7

8

.29
.43
.24
.17
.13
1.00

.00
.13
.17
.12
.22
.46
1. 00

.02
.28
.25
.21
.13
.74
.55
1.00

11
12
14
10
13
15
-.02
.13 -.23 -.08 -.11 -.03 -.10
.20
.21
.20
.13
.19
.13
.19
.10
.10
.13
.18
.06
.23
.11
.01
.08
.18
.17
-.17
.01
.03
.21 -.10 -.23
-.14 -.04 -.09
.03
.43
.36
.16
.31
.51
.39
.14
.32
.40
.44
.33
.31
.49
.18
.49
.49
.62
.24
.32
.26
.34
.60
.26
.14
.27
.59
1.00
.38
.20
.61
1.00
.31
.13
.38
.40
.38
.44
.51
1.00
.41
.59
.34
1.00
.54
.26
1.00
1.00
.51
1.00

9

222

r
1
1 1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

ITEM INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST B,
PERCEIVED LIKELY INTERN CONSULTANT METHOD OF OPERATION,
FOR INTERN TEACHERS' RESPONSES

2
.44
1.00

3
.54
.45
1.00

4
.34
.47
.46
1.00

5
.28
.27
.30
.28
1.00

6

7

8

.16
.11
.05
.08
.01
1.00

.16
.21
.16
.21
.09
.62
1.00

.09
.17
.18
.16
.12
.48
.49
1.00

11
10
12
13
14
15
.12
.15
.08
.16 -.03
.17
.19
.14
.24
.27
.11
.25
.25
.19
.22
.15
.13
.10
.16
.23
.07
.20
.25
.29
.26
.32
.21
.29
.01
.07
.00
.07
.08
.08
.04
.50
.24
.21
.30
.30
.33
.03
.62
.27
.33
.42
.36
.11
.32
.54
.24
.32
.31
.34
.44
.07
1.00
.37
.27
.39
.40
.14
.44
.27
.29
.31
.38
.39
1.00
1.00
.62
.60
.56
.37
1.00
.54
.35
.67
1.00
.26
.55
.42
1.00
1.00

9

223

r
1
I 1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

INTERN INTERCORRELATION MATRIX FOR TEST B,
PERCEIVED LIKELY INTERN CONSULTANT METHOD OF OPERATION,
FOR INTERN CONSULTANTS' RESPONSES

2
.49
1.00

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

.37
.59
1.00

.13
.21
.23
1.00

.32
.23
.18
.06
1.00

.24
.16
.07
-.23
.05
1.00

.24
.22
-.09
.04
.16
.52
1.00

.02
.10
.26
-.02
-.14
.32
.11
1.00

.17
.18
.03
.00
-.05
.14
.47
.24
1.00

10

11
14
/12
13
15
.15
.24 -.07 -.01 -.18
.12
.21
.12
.00 -.11 -.09
.09
.10 -.13
.18
.00
.05
.19
.01 -.07 -.04 -.17 -.14 -.19
.01 -.20 -.26
-.03 -.01 -.27
.25
.01
.07
.24
.07
.33
.08 -.07
.27
.16
.28
.24
.32
.06
.09
.45
.37
.28
.03
.18
.56
.43
.34
.29
.06 -.36
.09
.08
.45
1.00
.24
.33
.35
.43
1.00
.60 -.00
1.00
.44
.18
1.00
.57
1.00
.41
1.00

\[ZZ

T
I
I 1.00
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

APPENDIX D
F R E Q U E N C Y COUNT F O R I N D I V I D U A L ITEM
SCORES OF INTERNS AND C O N S U L T A N T S
ON THE INTERN C O N S U L T A N T I N V E N T O R Y

225

A Listing of Items Within Categories for Test A Showing the Percentage
of Highest Response for Preferency & Frequency for Selected
Consultant Tasks by Interns and Consultants

Interns
Categories

Management

Conditions
of
Learning

Items

Consultants

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

6
7

Seating Arrangement &
Distribution of Materials, etc.

31-

3^56
3456

53-

4056
6256

8
9

Organization of
the Calendar

53-

3W

5-

4756

4256

3-

62%

22
23

Ventilation - light - seating
physical conditions

33-

31%
32%

53-

52%

48
49

Maintained monthly, weekly,
daily schedule

33-

29%
29%

53-

12%

12

Ability to learn & childs’

5-

36%

11%

13

self-concept important

3-

39%

53
4

18
19

Selection of specific
individualized materials

53-

51%

3435

53-

7256
6556

24
25

Adjust teaching to interests &
experience of learner

53-

3456
3856

54-

35%
55%

3^
35

Consultant points out child growth
& development in classroom

53-

31%

53-

51%

38%

5056
4056

4056

7056

Interns
Categories

Planning
for
Instruction

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

4 Consultant helps plan &
33555
57056
5 set behavioral goals
338$
458$
------------------------------------------------------------------------14 Consultant provides new ideas
565$
555$
15 for lessons/units
340$
458$
16 Consultant locates & selects
17 appropriate materials

53-

68$
39$

54-

65$
65$

38

Consultant recommends specific

5-

31$

jj

30$

39

methods of teaching

3-

38$

3-

67$

2 Consultant helps interpret
337$
563$
3 childs1 cumulative record
140$
368$
------------------------------------------------------------------------26
Consultant helps interpret
540$
560$
27 standardized test results
139$
265$
40 Consultant suggest inventory of
41 .interests, problems, attitudes,
etc.

53-

40$
30$

53-

55$
57$

46

5-

51$

5-

80$

3-

45$

4-

50$

47

Consultant helps diagnose individual and class learning
difficulties

227

Measurement
of
Learning

Items

Consultants

Interns
Categories

Analyzing
Teaching
Behavior

Items

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

10

Consultant questions to

5-

32%

353

11

subtly point out weakness

3-

35%

53
4

453

32
33

Demo lesson, then analyze
& discuss lesson

53-

4056
32%

53-

553
803

42
43

Evaluations to promote self
direction for intern

53-

433
433

53-

553
523

44
45

Follows observation with written
critique of intern’s teaching

5-

1-

313
333

53-

223
303

20
21

Consultant is available on
call after hours

55-

553
463

55-

683
383

28
29

Consultant helps intern develop
in professional autonomy &
freedom

53-

483
283

55-

683
353

30
31

Consultant emphasizes interns per­
sonal & professional strengths

54-

523
343

54-

75*
>10*

36
37

Consultant shares close and
relationship with intern

54-

683
333

54-

73*
48*

228

Supportive
Behaviors

Consultants

A listing of Items Within Categories for Test B Showing the
Percentage of Highest Response for Likely and Preferred
Consultant Method of Operation by Interns and Consultants
Interns.
Category

Problem Situation

Theoretical/
Practical

50
51

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

Diagnosing & planning an
individual math assignment

44-

42?6
4os6

55-

45%
38%

56
57

Pacing of the
school day

44-

35%
36%

53-

4056

62

Trouble teaching a difficult

4-

32%

63

concept in science

5-

35%

33
5

33%
3056

68
69

Administering clear &
concise directions

35-

30%
33%

3856
3856

74

Retention - Principal

3-

28%

75

Problem

3-

30%

331
2
1-

52
53

Diagnosing & planning an
individual math assignment

33-

30%
32%

33-

4556
4056

58

Pacing of the

3-

32%

3-

4556

33%

2856
1856

*3
J

59

school day

4-

33%

4
5

32.556

64
65

Trouble teaching a difficult
concept in science

44-

30%
32%

33-

5356
3856

229

Initiative/
Active

Consultants

Interns
Category

Direct/
Indirect

Problem Situation

Consultants

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

Scale
Number

Highest
Percent
Response

335?

455?

345?

33
4

70

Administering clear &

71

concise directions

34-

76
77

Retention - Principal
Problem

33-

4055
3555

33-

40??
435?

54
55

Diagnosing & planning an
individual math assignment

35-

27%

35-

355?
455?

60

Pacing of the

33%

school day

345?

4 '
5
5-

335?

61

34-

66

Trouble teaching a difficult

4-

28%

4li

3555

67

concept in science

4-

37%

72

Administering clear &

73

concise directions

3
4
4-

78
79

Retention - Principal
Problem

33-

32%

5

335?

405?

35%

28.9%

3-

385?

365?

5-

405?

345?

33-

385?
40$

32%