70-15,039 GREENSTEIN, Jack, 1918A COMPARISON OF GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY TEACHER INTERN PROGRAM WITH GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY REGULAR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM. ["Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, Form A", pages ISO135, not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation at Michigan State University Library]. U n iv ersity M icrofilm s. Inc., A n n A rb o r, M ichig an 70-15,039 GREENSTEIN, Jack, 1918Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1969 Education, teacher training U n iv ersity M icrofilm s, Inc., A n n A rb o r, M ich ig an ^ COMPARISON OF GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY TEACHER INTERN PROGRAM W I T H GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY REGULAR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM By Jack Greenstein 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 A COMPARISON OF GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY TEACHER INTERN PROGRAM WITH GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY REGULAR TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM By Jack Greenstein It was the purpose of this investigation to compare the behavior of first year teachers w h o are graduates of the Central Michigan University Intern Program w i t h first year teachers who are graduates of the regular teacher preparation program at Central Michigan U n i v e r s i t y , Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The two programs are almost identical in course requirements and differ basically in the length of time devoted to professional laboratory experiences. The Regular Program requires eight weeks of full time student teaching and the Intern Program provides two full semesters (thirty-two weeks) of professional laboratory experiences. It is assumed that since the Teacher Intern Program requires a longer period of preparation than the Regular Program, it is a more costly operation for the University. This reflects a need for meaningful studies to determine if increasing the length and scope of the laboratory Jack Greenstein experience will result in an improved, teacher preparation program thus justifying the continuing additional cost of the Intern Program. This investigation began with the selection of the sample to participate in the study. Thirty Central M i c h i ­ gan University graduates in their first year of teaching were involved. These teachers are employed in school systems near five Central Michigan University student teaching centers. In each center the sample consisted of three Teacher Intern Program graduates and three Regular Program g r a d u a t e s . The Regular Program graduates were selected through a random procedure. The TIP graduates were those available in the selected school districts. The Central Michigan University student teaching coordinators in each student teaching center assessed the classroom behavior of the teachers and their pupils using David G. Ryans' Classroom Observation R e c o r d . The two observers evaluated each teacher simultaneously but in­ dependently for a period of forty-five to sixty minutes. The two COR's were returned to the researcher where the scores were tabulated and became the record for the teacher. Each teacher self-administered the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and returned the answer sheet to the researcher for tabulation. The performance of teaching duties was measured by principals of the teachers, using Jack Greenstein the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation Form. Differences between the groups were examined by subjecting the data to analysis of variance. The findings of the study are discussed below. Discussion 1. Statistical significance was found at the .05 level in the differences in attitudes toward children and career as measured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y . 2. There were no significant differences in c l ass­ room behavior of pupils and teacher as measured by David G. Ryans' Classroom Observation R e c o r d . 3. There were no significant differences in p e r ­ formance of teaching duties as measured by principals using the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation F o r m . 4. No significant differences were observed in the data gathered by the three measures between elementary interns and elementary regular teachers and between secondary interns and secondary regular t e a c h e r s . 5. No significant differences were noted in the data gathered by the three measures between female interns and female regular teachers and between male interns and male regular t e a c h e r s . Jack Croons tt;in There are three possible explanations for the statis­ tical difference found in the data gathered by the use of the MTAI: 1. The small N (30) of the sample makes sampling error more probable. 2. The more experienced intern questions the assertive statements of the MTAI and chooses to adopt a neutral stand which results in a lower numerical score. 3. The longer laboratory experience of the Teacher Intern Program m i ght negatively influence the attitudes of interns toward children and career. Possible explanations for the lack of differences between the two groups as measured by R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record and the Teacher Evaluation F orm a r e : 1. The devices used to gather data are not refined enough to make discriminations between good and better t e a c h e r s . 2. The reputation of Central Michigan University as an outstanding teacher preparation institution could be instrumental in attracting students who have the ability to become good teachers rega r d ­ less of the structure of the laboratory e x peri­ ence . Jack Greenstein Conclusion The results of this investigation are reasonably consistent with the findings of Haberman at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Arends at Michigan State U n i ­ versity and indicate that increasing the length and scope of the laboratory experience does not necessarily produce a measurable difference in teacher preparation programs. Although this should not be regarded as sufficient evidence for abandoning the internship concept, it does suggest that a re-examination of the Teacher Intern Program is in order. Recommendations 1. Central Michigan University should maintain a continuing evaluation of its products with the objective of improving existing programs for preparing t e a c h e r s . 2. Central Michigan University should re-examine the objectives of the paid Teacher Intern Program. It is conceivable that neither the extended labo­ ratory experience of the TIP nor the short eight week student teaching period of the Regular Pro­ gram are adequate estimates of time necessary to prepare a good teacher. Laboratory e x p e r i ­ ences specifically tailored to the needs of the individual student could very well be the answer. 3. Central Michigan University should develop criteria on which to base evaluations of the Jack Greenstein product and thus clear the way for examination and analysis of the value of the laboratory experience. Better communication should be maintained w i t h graduates in order to obtain meaningful feedback concerning the effectiveness of the teacher preparation program. Earning activities are usually rote activities and because they contribute little to the quality preparation of teachers should be reduced or eliminated. More time then could be spent on intellectualizing work experiences. Central Michigan University should ascertain whether the Teacher Intern Program will become the major preparation program of the future or should remain as an alternative program for a minority. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to the following: To Dr. Henry Kennedy, dissertation advisor, for his valuable guidance and assistance. To Dr. David Smith, major professor. Dr. Stephen Yelen and Dr. Herbert R u d m a n , committee members, for their gu i d a n c e . To my wife, Margaret, for her faith and understand- TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................... ii LIST OF T A B L E S .......................................... V Chapter I. THE P R O B L E M ............................... Purpose 1 ................................... 1 The Regular Program ................. The Teacher Intern Program . . . . 2 6 Hypothesis tobe T e s t e d .................. The Need for This S t u d y ................... Background of the S t u d y .................. Importance of the S t u d y .................. Laboratory Experiences in the Teacher Education Curriculum ................. 10 11 12 14 14 Historical Background of Practice T e a c h i n g ........................ Internships in the Preparation of Teachers ........................ 16 19 O v e r v i e w ............................... II. 22 REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E .................... 24 Evaluating Teacher Competency . . . . I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ........................ Ryans* Classroom Observation Record The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. - .................... The Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation Form S u m m a r y ............................... 24 30 . 33 45 . 52 56 Page Chapter III. IV. D E S I G N .......................................... 58 S a m p l e ...................................... Procedures for Gathering Data . . . . 58 67 Ryans' Cl a s s r o o m Observation Record ( C O R ) ............................... The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory . The U t ica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation F orm (TEF) . 73 Statistical H y p o t h e s e s ..................... A n a l y s i s ................................... A s s u m p t i o n s ............................... Limitations of the S t u d y ................. S u m m a r y ...................................... 75 77 78 79 80 ANALYSIS OF F I N D I N G S ......................... 81 Hypothesis to be T e s t e d ................. Statistical D a t a ............................ Other F i n d i n g s ............................... S u m m a r y ...................................... V. 70 74 81 82 98 104 DISCUSSION OF F I N D I N G S ......................... 108 S u m m a r y ...................................... D i s c u s s i o n ................................... C o n c l u s i o n ................................... Recommendations ............................ 108 110 114 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 119 APPENDICES Appendix A. Cover Letters. ......................... 12 4 B. I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ................................ 13 0 C. M i s c e l l a n e o u s ................................... 147 iv LIST OF TABLES Comparison of Interns and Traditional Program Teachers (Haberman Study) ................. 39 Correlations on the MTAI Between Inventory Scores (Weighted and Simplified) and Criterion Ratings by Pupils, Principals, and Expert for an Unselected Group of 100 Teachers ............................... 48 The Nature of the Sample 60 . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores on the 19 60 and 1964 Graduate Record Examination. 63 Comparison of OPI Scale Scores of Teacher Intern P rogram Students and Traditional S t u d e n t s ...................................... 64 Comparison of S t u d e n t s ' Scores on Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y ................. 65 Analysis of Antecedent Variables for Members of the Sample ............................... 67 Comparison of ACT Scores of Interns and Regular Pro g r a m Members of the Sample 68 . Comparison of GPA on Interns and Regular P r o ­ gram Members of the S a m p l e ................. 69 Ratings of Ten Observers in a Practice O b s e r v a t i o n ................................... 72 Analysis of Variance Table FACREP Routine. 78 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the MTAI by Centers ...................................... 83 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on the Minnesota Teacher A t t i ­ tude I n v e n t o r y ............................... v Table 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Comparison of Mean Scores on Ryans' Classroom Observation Record ............................ 86 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record— Pupil B e h a v i o r ................. . 88 . An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record— Teacher Behavior ..................... 89 A Comparison of Mean Scores Obtained by the Intern Group and the Regular Group on the ..................... Teacher Evaluation Form 91 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on Teacher Evaluation F o r m — Instructional Qualities ..................... 93 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on Teacher Evaluation F o r m — Teacher-Student Relationships ............... 94 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on Teacher Evaluation F o r m — Personal Traits ............................ 95 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on Teacher Evaluation F o r m — ........................ C l a ssroom Management 96 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on Teacher Evaluation F o r m — G e n e r a l .......................................... 97 Simple Correlations Between Three Measures: R y a n s ' C l a ssroom Record f Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y , and Teacher Evaluation F o r m ............................................. 98 24. Correlation Coefficients of the ACT, GPA, M T A I , Two Categories of the Classroom Observation Record and Five Categories of the Teacher Evaluation F o r m ..................... 100 2 5'. A Comparison of Interns and Regular Teachers on Mean Scores Gained on the Three Measures According to Sex and P r o g r a m ..................... 102 vi Table Page 26. An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the T w o Groups on the MTAI with Sex and Pro g r a m as V a r i a b l e s .......................................... 103 27. An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on the COR with Sex and P r o g r a m as Variables ................................ 103 28. An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on the TEF with Sex and Program as V a r i a b l e s .................................... 103 29. A Comparison of Interns and Regular Teachers on Mean Scores Gained on the Three Measures According to Grade Level and Program . . . 105 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on the MTAI with Grade Level and Program as Variables ........................ 106 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on the C O R with Grade Level and Program as Variables ........................ 106 An Analysis of Mean Scores Obtained by the Two Groups on the TEF with Grade Level and Program as Variables ........................ 106 30. 31. 32. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Purpose It was the purpose of this investigation to compare the behavior of first year teachers w h o are graduates of the Central Michigan Teacher Intern Program w ith first year teachers who are graduates of the regular teacher preparation p rogram at Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The Teacher Intern P r o g r a m and the regular program differ only in the length of time devoted to professional laboratory experiences. The regular program is a tra­ ditional four-year plan and requires a student teaching assignment to an off-campus center for a period of eight weeks. The Teacher Intern Program provides two full semesters of laboratory experience in off-campus public schools and thus necessitates four and one-half years to complete. It is the difference in the length of time devoted to professional laboratory experiences which prompted this investigation. The two teacher preparation programs are discussed below. 1 2 The Regular Program The regular program is a four-year plan and includes an assignment: to an off-campus center for eight wee k s of student teaching. This experience gives the prospective teacher the opportunity to put into practice the theory he learned during his on-campus preparation program. "He will also try to gain a sense of security and c o nfi­ dence and the skills whi c h will facilitate his growth toward professional competence."1 The student teacher is assigned to a supervising teacher and they make plans cooperatively to provide as many meaningful experiences as possible during the eightweek period. During the first week or two, the student teacher spends his time observing the supervising teacher and learning the characteristics of the pupils he w ill teach. It is during this time that he becomes oriented to the policies of the school and becomes acquainted with the curriculum. With the help of his supervisor he is introduced to classroom responsibility by making plans and teaching a part of a lesson. Gradually his teaching activity is increased and at the appropriate time, as determined by the supervising teacher, he takes over the direction of the learning process of the pupils for a period of time. If he is fortunate, the eight-week period h a n d b o o k for Cooperating Teachers (Mount Pleasant, Michigan: School of Education, C e n t r a l M i c h i g a n U n i ­ versity, 1968), p. 1. 3 will include the end of a marking period or a semester and provide the opportunity for a formal required evaluation of his pupils. The breadth of the student t e a c h e r ’s experiences is determined in part by his readiness for teaching. If the student teacher shows by his ability to make adequate plans, by his understanding of the needs of his pupils, and by his demonstrated performance as a teacher that he is ready to take over the responsibilities of the classroom teacher early in the experience, he may have time to participate in many other activities which will better prepare him for his first year of teaching. Some of these activities include working with student groups in extracurricular programs, learning about the counseling department, working in the library, and o b ­ serving other teachers, other levels, and other d e p a r t ­ ments. If, however, the student teacher does not show readiness early in his experience, the other activities will be limited and he will spend most of his time developing only those skills necessary in order to take over the responsibility of the classroom. The traditional teacher education program is o ut­ lined in the Handbook for Cooperating Teachers as follows: FRESHMEN Begin general education in language, social sciences, and natural sciences. Approximately thirty semester hours of college w ork in subject-matter areas completed during the year. 4 SOPHOMORES Continue general education; work in major and minor fields of interest. Approximately sixty semester hours of college w ork in subject-matter areas completed in two years. JUNIORS Elementary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue w ith courses in major, minors, and general education. Take three hour course in Child Development and two hour course in Orientation to Education. Take five hour course in Methods and C u r r iculum in Elementary Education. Take five semester hours of credit in one—half day student teaching. Ninety hours of work completed by the end of year; seventy-five in subject-matter areas and fifteen in professional e du­ cation . Secondary 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Continue with courses in major, minors, and general education. Take eight semester hours in Methods of Teaching in the Secondary School, Directed Observation, and Adolescense. Directed observation involves a m inimum of twenty-four hours of classes or related activities. Take two hour elective in edu­ cation . Ninety hours of work completed by the end of the year; eightytwo in subject-matter areas and eight to ten in professional education. SENIORS Elementary 1. One semester to finish all work except professional education. 5 One-half semester in full time (five days a week) directed teaching w ith seminar conducted by the coordinator for eight semester hours of credit. One-half Semester in p r o ­ fessional education dealing with Mental Hygiene, Learning and Evaluation, and Arithmetic. Upon graduation, the student has earned a min i m u m of 12 4 semester hours of credit; ninety-four in subject-matter areas and thirty in professional education. Secondary One semester to finish all work except professional education. One-half semester in full time (five days a week) directed teaching with seminar conducted by the coordinator. One-half semester in professional education dealing with Mental Hygiene, Educational Psychology, and Foundations of American E du­ cation. Upon graduation, the student has earned a min i m u m of 12 4 semester hours of credit; ninety-eight in subject-matter areas, and twentysix in professional ed u c ation.2 In summary, the regular teacher preparation program at Central Michigan University is a typical traditional p ro­ gram. It requires a student teaching experience of eight weeks in an off-campus public school. During this period the student teacher tries to develop and demonstrate competence as a classroom teacher and the supervising teacher is required to make an accurate assessment of his capacity to teach in order to determine whether the 2I b i d ., p. 4. 6 prospective teacher should be granted a certificate to t e ach. The Teacher Intern Program The Central Michigan University Teacher Intern Program differs from the traditional pro g r a m of student teaching in the following ways: 1. 2. 3. 4. There are two full semesters of paid intern­ ships instead of the usual observation and student teaching period. It provides for alternate periods of work and study. Candidates obtain teaching experiences in two different schools and usually on two different levels. It requires more than the normal four academic years to complete: usually one or two summer sessions or an extra se m e s t e r . 3 The student*s program of courses is about the same whether he is following the Teacher Intern P r o g r a m or the regular student teaching program. The difference appears in the length of time devoted to professional laboratory experiences. The student teacher in the regular program spends an eight-week period (one-half semester) in an off-campus center developing c l a ssroom competence, but the Intern spends one full semester of his junior year and one full semester of his senior year as a full-time employee in one of the cooperating public schools. The first semester of the internship the student is known as a Teacher Assistant. 3 He is compensated at 50 per Teacher Intern Program, Cooperating Teacher Handbook (Mount Pleasant, Michigan: School of Education, Central Michigan University, 1968), p. 2. 7 cent of the salary of a certified beginning teacher in the employing district. In order to qualify as a Teacher Assistant, a student must, according to the Teacher Intern Program, Cooperating Teacher H a n d b o o k ; 1. 2. 3. Have enough credits to be classified as a junior. Have been admitted to candidacy for a degree and certificate. Have had a m i n i m u m of six semester hours of professional education if a secondary student and ten semester hours if an elementary stu­ dent. Candidates for a secondary certificate must take two courses: Methods of Teaching in Secondary Schools and Adolescence. Candidates for an elementary certificate must have the following courses: Orientation to Education, Child Development, Methods in Reading and Language Arts, and Methods in Social Studies and Science.^ The Teacher Assistant is a combination of a teacher aide and a student teacher. Approximately one-half of the semester will be spent in aide-like activities and onehalf of the semester in directed teaching activities. The directed teaching phase of the intern's experience includes observing, part-time teaching under close supervision, small-group teaching for short periods of time, and eventually full-time supervised teaching which includes planning, instructing, evaluating and having complete responsibility of the class for a period of time not less than two weeks duration. carefully defined, The duties of the intern are in writing, by the employing district and approved by the Student Teaching and Intern Office on 4 Ibid. 8 campus. The supervising teacher and the building principal in the cooperating school district, with the assistance of the University Coordinator, that each Teacher Assistant, are responsible for seeing in addition to performing the tasks as described by the district, has satisfactory experiences as a student teacher. Types of activities in which the Teacher Assistant is engaged while fulfilling the aide role include: Clerical Preparing progress sheets Typing and duplicating materials Keeping attendance records Selling lunch tickets Operating audio-visual equipment Marking report cards or other grade records Correcting homework Semi-instructional Lead discussion groups Help individuals with m a k e - u p w ork Assist study time supervision Read to class Help student with studies Answer individual questions Assist in laboratory Assist in administering tests Prepare audio-visual materials School library supervision Work with special project groups Supervisory Supervise Supervise Supervise Supervise Supervise Supervise study halls playgrounds noon hour activities students detained after school lunch rooms homerooms 9 General Assist: in coaching Referee intramural activities Chaperone school functions Prepare special display projects Professional Attend Attend Attend Attend faculty meetings PTA meetings professional association meetings in-service meetings At the end of his first semester of internship, the Teacher Assistant receives seven semester hours of credit. He has had opportunities to participate in many extra­ curricular activities and has completed student teaching activities. He w ill then return to the campus for one semester to continue his professional education and im­ prove his competencies in his major and minor fields which will better prepare him for his second internship. During his senior year, while performing his second full semester of paid internship, the student is called a Teacher Associate and earns three semester hours of credit. He is paid by the school district at 80 per cent of the salary of a certified beginning teacher and is granted a Special Certificate Department of Education. (90 day) by the State He is a full-time, responsible teacher working under the general supervision of the building principal and the University Coordinator, but under the direct supervision of an Associate Consultant. The Associate Consultant is selected jointly b y the 10 Cooperating School and the University but compensated by the school district. He is responsible for only six to eight Teacher Associates and provides help by d e m on­ strating teaching, helping the Associate locate and select necessary instructional materials, providing guidance in student evaluation, and generally providing help in any way it m i ght be needed. The Teacher Associate is well qualified to assume teaching duties because of the length and breadth of his first experience. He is assigned full responsibility for a classroom during the semester in which he is an employee of the Cooperating School. His semester's experience is much like that of a regular first year teacher and in addition receives counseling and assistance from the Associate Consultant. In summary, the Central Michigan University Teacher Intern Program is a four and one-half year undergraduate program offering the prospective teacher two full semesters of paid laboratory experiences. During these assignments to two different school systems, the Intern has opportunities to participate in many varied activi­ ties progressing from routine and semi-professional tasks to the more highly professional aspects of teaching. Hypothesis to be Tested FIRST YEAR TEACHERS W H O ARE GRADUATES OF THE CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY TEACHER INTERN PROGRAM WHEN 11 COMPARED W ITH FIRST YEAR TEACHERS W H O ARE GRADUATES OF THE REGULAR CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY TEACHER PREPAR­ ATION PROGRAM HAVE BETTER ATTITUDES TOWARD TEACHING AS A CAREER AND TOWARD CHILDREN, EXHIBIT MORE DESIRABLE TEACHER BEHAVIOR, AND PERFORM TEACHING DUTIES IN A MORE ACCEPTABLE MANNER. This hypothesis will be regarded as true if the graduates of the Teacher Intern Program, as compared to the graduates of the regular program, demonstrate better attitudes toward children and career as evidenced by a higher score on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y , exhibit more desirable teacher behavior by gaining a higher score on R y a n s 1 Classroom Observation R e c o r d , and perform their teaching duties in a more acceptable manner when rated by their principals on the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation F o r m . The Need for This Study It is assumed that since the Teacher Intern Program requires a longer period of preparation than the regular program, it is a more costly operation for the University. This reflects a need for meaningful studies to determine if increasing the length and scope of the laboratory experience will result in an improved teacher preparation program. 12 Background of the Study In 1958 Central Michigan University initiated a study on better utilization of teacher competencies. Out of this study came a proposal for a new program in Teacher Education based on the following three assu m p­ tions: 1. 2. 3. That better programs in teacher preparation require greater attention to individual differences among teachers. That public, tax-supported elementary and secondary education must assume a responsible partnership role with teacher education insti­ tutions in the recruitment and preparation of teachers• That the experiential aspects of professional preparation of teachers can be best provided in the classrooms of the schools themselves in cooperation with the teacher education i nstitutions.5 A grant from the Fund for the Advancement of Edu­ cation to Central Michigan University on July 1, 1959 marked the beginning of the Teacher Intern Program. The new program, under the direction of Dr. Curtis Nash, then Project Director and now Dean of the School of Education, was a five-year experimental plan. As described earlier in this study, the program provided for two full semesters of paid internship in selected school systems which partici­ pated as partners with the University in teacher education programs. Originally three full semesters of internship were required but at the recommendation of an evaluation 5 Rolland A. Alterman, A New Approach to Teacher Education: The Central Michigan Story (Mount P l e a s a n t , Michigan: Central Michigan University Press, 1966), p. 6. 13 team, this was reduced to two semesters. By 1964, 10 per cent of the enrollment in the School of Education (about 150 students) were involved in the Teacher Intern Program. An evaluation of the program was required under the terms of the grant. This evaluation involved an e x p e r i ­ mental group of students from the Teacher Intern Program and a control group of students from the regular teacher preparation program at the University. The findings indicated a rejection of the main hypothesis "that the Teacher Intern Program would provide a better over-all program of teacher education in the field experience area when compared with the regular teacher education p r o g r a m . " 6 In the 1964 evaluation, the design required the members of the experimental and control groups to be c om­ pared with other teachers in the school system w h o held similar assignments. teachers, and parents. Evaluators included administrators, The evaluators selected any activity in w h ich the teacher was engaged and a rating of performance was made on a five point scale. The indi­ vidual ratings were then averaged on a total five point scale ranging from poor to excellent, and comparisons were made between the experimental and the control groups. It was the above described method of evaluating teachers w h ich influenced the present investigation. ^ I b i d ., p. 117. The 14 central theme of the present study is that a meaningful evaluation of a teacher preparation p r o g ra m must be based on how the product of that prog ra m behaves in the class­ room. The assumption is that the most efficient w a y of evaluating behavior of a teacher is to observe that teacher as he teaches pupils in the classroom. Importance of the Study This section of the study will discuss the place of the professional laboratory experience in the teacher edu­ cation curriculum and review the historical background of practice teaching and internship programs. Laboratory Experiences in the Teacher Education C ur riculum : In an era of widespread criticism, it is noteworthy that there seemed to be little disagreement about the desirability of classroom practice under super­ vision. Whether such field practice should consist of student teaching or of an internship remained in doubt, with little research related to one approach versus another.7 Curtis and Andrews state, "Student teaching is generally regarded as the mo s t single important experience in a teacher education program." 8 C o n a n t ,9 Davies, 10 and 7 George W. Denemark and James B. MacDonald, "PreService and In-Service Education of Teachers," Review of Educational R e s e a r c h , XXXVII, No. 3 (June, 1967TT 238. 8 Dwight K. Curtis and Leonard O. Andrews, Guiding Your Student Teacher (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenticeH a l l , Inc . , 19 54 ) , p . 1. 9 James Bryant Conant, The Education of American Teachers (New Yorks McGraw-Hill Co., 1963V, p. 142. ^ D o n Davies, "Complex Problems and Simple Solutions" 15 Lindsey et a l .^ also agree that laboratory experiences with children are essential and play a direct role in the development of good teachers. The laboratory experience is one of the few con­ stants found by Conant in examining professional education programs. Yet, even here the diversity of requirements is astonishing. Not only are there wide differences in the structure of the practice teaching programs, but also the number of clock hours differ from institution to insti­ tution. The min im um seems to be 90 clock hours and the maximum 300 clock hours. 12 It instances where administrative is possible that there are expedience, rather than the quality of preparation, determines the length and structure of the laboratory experience. Hermanowicz refers to this kind of confusion as "discerned disjointedness in programs for educating prospective teachers." 13 in New Developments, Research and Experimentation in P r o ­ fessional Laboratory E x p e r i e n c e s , e d . by Curtis Nash and Yvonne' Lofthouse (Cedar F a l l s , Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964), p. 77. ^ M a r g a r e t Lindsey, Leslie Mauth, and Edith G r o t b e r g , Improving Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education (toew York: Teachers College, Columbia U n i ­ versity, 1959), p. 14. 12 Conant, op. c i t . , p. 12 5. 13 Herman J. Hermanowicz, "Studies of Teaching and Their Impact on Future Developments in Teacher Education" in The Study of T e a c h i n g , ed. by Dean Corrigan (Washington, D. C .: The Associa't'ion for Student Teaching, 1967) , p. 12. 16 Sharpe reports that there is an increasing aware­ ness of the importance of professional laboratory experi ences with children. Most members of the teaching profession are evincing increased interest in professional laboratory experiences. If there is any one point that is common to most of the two hundred twenty-five evaluation reports made by the two hundred twenty— five different teams who partici­ pated in the intervisitational program of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, it is the almost universal suggestion that more opportunities for professional experi­ ences be provided. . . .14 It seems then that improving teacher education through the upgrading of direct laboratory experiences is an avenue wo rth exploring. Historical Background of Practice Teaching Preparing teachers by "practicing" with groups of children in real school situations is not a recent inno­ vation. Reverend Samuel R. Hall recognized the need for good teachers in order to have good schools. He opened a private school for the preparation of teachers in 1832 and admitted a few children for the purpose of having a class to use in demonstrations and for students to practice 15 their techniques. 14 Donald M. Sharpe, "Professional Laboratory Exper i­ ences," in Teacher Education for a Free P e o p l e , ed. by Donald B. Cottrell (Oneonta, Y. : The American A s s o c i ­ ation of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1956), p. 185. 15 George 2. F. Bereday and Joseph A. L a u a y s , The Education and Training of Teachers (New York: Harcourt Brace and World, I n c . , i § 6 i ) , p. 17 8. 17 The Reverend Cyrus Peirce was the principal of the first normal school at Lexington, Massachusetts. He structured his program of instruction around a classroom of thirty children, using them for demonstration p u r ­ poses and requiring that his prospective teachers show proficiency in teaching the group. Reverend Thomas Gallaudet became a leader in the movement for the training of teachers in the early n in e­ teenth century. In his Plan of a Seminary for the Edu­ cation of the Instructors of Youth (1825) he suggested, "Let there be connected w it h the institution a school in which the theories of the professors might be reduced to practice. Let the students take their turns in the instruction of the experimental school." 17 When David Perkins Page was appointed the first principal of the State Normal School at Albany, New York, he brought with him the principles of teacher preparation instilled while a student at the normal school in Bridgewater, M a s s a c h u ­ setts. He believed that there must be actual practice teaching over a sufficient period of time and under real classroom conditions. 18 16I b i d . , p. 179. 17 Charles A. Harper, A Century of Public Teacher Education (Washington, D. cTs National Education A ssoci at io n , 19 39), p. 15. 18I b i d . , p. 44. 18 The name of Henry Barnard is synonymous with the establishment of good teacher preparation programs in the United States. While Secretary of the Connecticut State Supervisory Board of Education he pleaded with the legis­ lature for the establishment of a seminary for teachers. " . . . Such an institution, with a suitable Principal and Assistant, and especially a model school connected with it, in which theory could be carried into practice. . . ." 19 As principal of the first Normal School in Connecticut, Barnard believed explicitly in the need for extensive practice teaching. In addition to a rigorous curriculum, four terms of practice teaching were required. William Phelps, when president of the State Normal School at Whitewater, Wisconsin, for model schools where teaching theory, said, commenting on the need normalites could practice their "I do not think a normal school is complete without t h e m . " 20 As the country stretched westward, the need for good teachers was recognized. Most of the territories, even before statehood, established normal schools for the p u r ­ pose of preparing good teachers complete with model schools where the students could develop competency before seeking a position. 19 John Brubacker, e d . , Henry Barnard on Education (New York: Russel, Inc., 1965) , pi 172. 20 Harper, op. e x t . , p. 65. 19 Internships in the Preparation of Teachers r ' The theory of internships in education also is not new. Cubberly finds that apprenticing a promising scholar to a schoolmaster was not uncommon during the colonial 21 period. The first documentation of an organized paid teacher internship program is one that took place at Brown University in 1895. University graduates were paid $400.00 per year for their services in the P rovi­ dence Schools and were supervised by a public school teacher and a Professor of Education. 2 2 The model, however, for m any of the subsequent internship programs in American education was developed at the University of Cincinnati following World War I. 2 3 Toward the end of his fourth year in college the p ro ­ spective teacher was assigned to a classroom in the Cincinnati Public Schools to assist in details other than teaching. In the fifth year of college, four interns shared two classrooms and were assigned to one supervising teacher. One-half day was spent in teaching and one-half 21 Ellwood Cubberly, Readings in History of Education (New York: Houghton Mifflin C o m p a n y , 1929) , p~. 5 9 7 . 22 John Brown, The Training of Teachers The Macmillan Company^ 1911) , p. 5’4'5. (New York: 23 A. Pechstein, "The Cooperative Ideal in Teacher Training . . . The Cincinnati Plan," School and Society, XVIII, No. 54 (September, 1923), 2 7 1 - T T T Z 20 day in preparing. One semester in elementary schools and one semester in secondary schools qualified the student for both elementary and secondary certificates. The pay was 50 per cent of min im um salary (about $600.00) and the Bachelor of Arts Degree was awarded at the end of the fifth year. Many of the present on-going internship programs reflect the influence of the Cincinnati Plan. By the 1920's most of the professions had d e t e r ­ mined that experience in real situations was an important part of preparation. Medicine and law, as well as engineering, the ministry, and public administration were starting to demand a period of apprentice training follow­ ing completion of a professional curriculum as part of the requirements for a license to practice. The teaching p ro ­ fession was nudged into the concept of internships with the coming of the Depression. School districts hired few new teachers and could afford to be very selective. Teacher— training institutions could no longer guarantee jobs to their graduates. Many institutions therefore took this opportunity to assign their graduates to a year of internships in cooperating schools and designed the year "... as a transition to professional practice whe re in the neophyte applies learned theory to actual practice, adapting him- self to the demands of the employer and fellow employees." 24 Peter G. Haines and Ralph E. Mason, Cooperative Occupational Education (Danville, Illinois: The Inter­ state Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1965), pp. 87-88. 24 21 Following World W a r II, the population b o o m caused a shortage of teachers and this situation was not con­ ducive to the preparing of teachers through internships because few teachers wanted to spend an extra year in training, but the term continued to be applied to a p r o­ gram in which practical experience was taken after the baccalaureate degree. The National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards in 1962 stated, A paid internship, with salary in harmony with the schedule for beginning teachers, should be p r o ­ vided. This would not be a substitute for student teaching, but rather a follow-up study to remove weaknesses uncovered and a time to demonstrate p r o f i c i e n c y .25 In the fifties, through the support of the Ford Foundation, many teacher training institutions developed new programs of internship. Some of these were of the fifth-year variety and a few were undergraduate fiveyear programs. Shaplin claims that the decision to choose one or the other of these variations did not re­ sult from a difference in philosophy. "Rather," he says, "we suspect that the choice depended upon the structure of the college or university involved and the nature of its relationships with the cooperating public schools." 26 25 Margaret Lindsey, What You Should Know About New Horizons (Washington, D. c71 National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1962), p. 18. 26 Judson T. Shaplin and Arthur Powell, "A Comparison of Internship Programs" in the Official Report of the 22 Directors, supervisors, and coordinators associ­ ated with intern programs have praised the internship very highly. Moss solicited responses from interns in an attempt to determine advantages of internship p r o g r a m s . Most of the interns considered the internship as hard work and very demanding, but indicated that, given the opportunity, they would select the program again. The advantages expressed w e r e : 1. 2. 3. The increased experience offered by the e x ­ tended period of teaching time. The increased responsibility of the classroom. The opportunity to see children mature and grow over a longer p e r i o d . 2? Overview In Chapter II the literature which relates to this study wi l l be reviewed. The central theme of the chapter will be based on the instrumentation used to gather the data in this investigation and a rationale for the selection of these devices will be presented. The first section will contain evidence wh ich supports the validity of evaluating teacher behavior through classroom obser­ vation. The second section will describe David G. Ryans' Columbus C o n f e r e n c e , Eighteenth National T E P S , Changes in Teacher Education: An Appraisal (Washington, D. C.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1964), p. 239. 27 Robert H. Moss, "Reactions of Interns to Pro­ grams," in Internships in Teacher Education (Washington, D. C.s A ssociation for Student Teaching, National Edu­ cation Association, 1966), pp. 189-198. 23 Classroom Observation Record and review research relative to the employment of this instrument. In section three there will be a description of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and research which cites the appli­ cation of this device in contemporary research. Section four will consist of a discussion of the validity of principals* evaluation of teachers and a description of the Teacher Evaluation Form which in this investigation was completed by each principal for the member of the sample who was on his staff. The design of the study will be detailed in Chapter III. The nature of the sample will be described and the procedure for selecting members of the sample will be explained. Evidence will be presented to show that the experimental and the control groups were originally alike, and the procedure for gathering the d ata will be specified. Statistical models chosen to analyze the data in this in­ vestigation will be discussed and assumptions inherent in the study and limitations of the study will be listed. The statistical data whic h was gathered will be presented in Chapter IV and the findings analyzed. A summary of the investigation will be made in Chapter V. Conclusions prompted by the study will be drawn and the recommendations for further study will be suggested. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter reviews the literature relative to evaluating teacher behavior and offers the rationale for the choice of instruments to gather data for this investi­ gation . Evidence is presented which supports the technique of observation of teacher behavior in the classroom as a valid method of evaluating teacher competency for the purpose of introducing improvements in teacher preparation programs. The selected instruments are described and research analyzed which cites the utilization of these devices. Evaluating Teacher Competency Certainly there is no more obvious approach to research on teaching than direct observation of the behavior of teachers while they teach and pupils while they learn.1 There is an unprecedented demand for skilled teachers. More teachers than ever before are needed not only because ^"Donald M. Medley and Harold E. Mitzel, "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation," in Handbook of Research on T e a c h i n g , ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 247. 24 25 of the increasing population but also because of the need for high level education in citizenship as well as vo ­ cation. Because quality as well as quantity in education is so necessary, there are insistent demands for ed u ­ cational changes by leading figures. example, claims "Public education Lieberman, . . . for is much less effective than it can and ought to be." 2 Yet calling for needed changes and effecting them are two different and distinct matters. If education is to be improved, it is necessary to start with an examination of existing teacher preparation programs. Spaulding states the problem simply, "A program of teacher education should aim to produce high quality teachers." 3 The restriction in improving teacher education pro­ grams is caused by the confusion which exists when an attempt is made to identify the competent teacher. Al­ though research into teacher competence began at the turn of the century and has continued unabated, uncertainty still exists because the "bulk of studies in teacher 2 Myron Lieberman, The Future of Public Education (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 4. 3 Willaim B. Spaulding, "Evaluation of Proposals for Changes in Teacher Education," National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, in Changes in Teacher Education: A n Appraisal (Washington, C. : National Education Association, 1963), p. 40. 26 effectiveness to date have produced negligible re ­ sults ."^ Ryans was very frank w h e n he said: Embarrassing as it may be for professional e d u­ cators to recognize, relatively little progress has been made in rounding out this definition (of effective teaching) wi t h the details w h i ch are necessary for descri b in g effective teaching for a given educational situation or cultural activity.5 Barr's observation is much the same: There is a great need for valid, reliable and practical means of measuring and predicting teacher success. These needs have been generally recog­ nized and very much effort has been expended in developing adequate theories of human ability and suitable instrumentation. Notwithstanding this effort, while progress has been made, the efforts in this area have met with only moderate s u c c e s s . 6 The observation that past studies have been unsuccess­ ful in contributing to knowledge is valid because too little time has been spent in studying teaching as it occurs in the natural setting (classroom). assertion can be developed. The rationale for this Observations are expensive and demand a high level of experience and professional skill in the observer. Teachers and administrators often 4 Bruce J. Biddle and William J. Ellena, Contemporary Research on Teacher Effectiveness (New York: H o l t , R ine­ hart and Winston, I n c . , 19<>4), p T 3. 5 David G. Ryans, "Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness," Invitational Conference on Testing Problems (Princeton, N. J.': Educational Testing S e r v i c e , p. 56. ^A. S. Barr, "Problems Associated with the M e a su re ­ ment and Predictions of Teacher Success," Journal of Educational Research, LI (May, 1958), 695. 27 resent observers in their classrooms and schools, fearing that the evaluation might be neither valid nor reliable. Experienced researchers point out that behavior in the classroom cannot be deemed typical once a stranger has been introduced into the setting. These facts cannot be denied, but singly or in combination, they are not reason enough to omit ob ser­ vation of teacher and pupil behavior from any study which has as its purpose the improvement of teacher preparation programs. Howsam seems to agree w i th this statement when he says , In education the classroom is the laboratory. Whatever the interest of the investigator— be it students, teachers, administrators, the physi­ cal plant, the teacher-learning process, or any combination of these— what goes on in the class­ room and the results of the process constitute the most fundamental d a t a . 7 Medley and Mitzel state, "It is widely believed that a trained supervisor or expert of some type can assess the effectiveness of a teacher by watching him teach."8 7 Robert B. Howsam, New Designs for Research in Teacher Competency (San Francisco: California Teachers Associ'ation, I960), p. 10. O Medley and Mitzel, op. c i t ., p. 249. 28 Goodlad questions, "What better way to judge a teacher's effectiveness than to observe him over an extended period of time?" 9 Siiberman reviewed papers delivered by Ryans, Medley, Cogan, Flanders and Gage, all outstanding authori­ ties in the field of measuring teacher effectiveness and summarizes, "... the contributors show that teacher b e ­ havior can be reliably observed and that it has some effect on and is also modified by pupil behavior. There are some professional educators w h o prefer product measurement as a criterion for judging teacher effectiveness. The Enclyclopedia of Educational Research notes that there are three general approaches to the m e a s u r e ­ ment of teacher effectiveness. They involve the evaluation of teacher behavior in process, a product of teacher behavior, and con­ comitants of teacher behavior. Measurement of o n ­ going behavior of the teacher is the most direct approach; measurement of products and of c o n­ comitants are more indirect and more subject to the effects of confounding c o n d i t i o n s . H 9 John F. Goodlad, "An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences in the Education of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, XVI, No. 3 (September, T9<55>, 259.----------------^ H a r r y F. Siiberman, "A Symposium on Current Re­ search on Classroom Behavior of Teachers and Its Impli­ cations for Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher E d u c at io n, XIV (September, 1963) , 23"?. ^ C h e s t e r W. Harris, ed., "Teacher Effectiveness," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New Yorks The MacMillan Co., 1960), p. 1,487. 29 Some of these "confounding conditions" which affect measurement of products include pupil growth, school organization, and limitations of achievement testing programs. Pupil growth is affected by many variables. Previous experiences influence the student's skills, habits, and prejudices. He may or may not have acquired basic skills in reading, writing, or computing. The pupil's performance can be affected by the interaction with the teacher and his progress can be retarded or accelerated by how he gets along with the other twentyfive to thirty pupils in the class. The goals a teacher holds for the class may not be the same goals pupil and his parents. held by the School organization is a variable because it often requires a pupil to come in contact with up to six teachers a day. Progress, or lack of it, in any one class is affected by whether the student succeeds or fails in his other classes or subjects. Achievement tests are the major measure pupil devices gain but can adequately measure in the mastery of information and skill areas. used to gain only They cannot validly assess pupil gain in attitudes, appreci12 ations, character, and other outcomes of teaching. 12 Stayner F. Brighton, Increasing Your Accuracy in Teacher Evaluation (Englewood Cliffs, Nl J . s PrenticeH a l l , Inc., 1965), p. 31. 30 Placing undue importance on product measurement as a criterion of teaching effectiveness can force teachers to emphasize only those areas that can be measured by achievement tests. The pressure for passing the tests can force the teacher to "teach for the test" and files of tests used in previous years become the basic study guide for the course or grade. These conditions are reflected in the National Education Association Research Report 196 4—R14 which reveals that only 15.1 per cent of principals evaluate the quality of their teachers through pupil achievement tests.^ Although there exists divergence of opinion among professional educators relative to proper criteria for judging teacher effectiveness, the evidence seems to sup­ port the contention that observation of pupil and teacher behavior in the classroom is a valid and reliable method of evaluating teacher competency. Instrumentation Many systems have been developed to analyze teacher behavior in the classroom. An instrument popularly employed for this purpose is one constructed by Ned Flanders while associated with the University of Minnesota. 13 National Education Association, Evaluation of Classroom Teachers (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association Research Report 1964-R14, 1964), p. 32. 31 Flanders concerned himself with how the spontaneous be— 14 havior of a teacher effects learning in the classroom. He developed a sophisticated technique for recording and interpreting teacher-pupil interaction and concentrated on verbal behavior claiming that the verbal behavior of an individual is an adequate sample of his total behavior. There are ten categories in his instrument Appendix C ) . to pupil talk. Seven are assigned to teacher talk and two The tenth category includes confusion or periods of silence. influence (see Teacher talk is divided into indirect (categories 1, 2, 3, 4) and direct influence (categories 5, 6, 7). It appears that student talk is neglected but the major purpose of the instrument is to examine teacher influence. The observer sits in the classroom in the best posi­ tion to hear and see the participants. At the end of each three second period, he decides which category best represents the communication event just com­ pleted. He writes this category number down while simultaneously assessing communication in the next period, and continues at a rate of twenty to twentyfive observations per minute, keeping his tempo as steady as possible. His notes are merely a sequence of numbers written in a column, top to bottom, so that the original sequence of events is preserved. Occasionally marginal notes are used to explain class formation or any unusual circumstances. When there is a major change in class formation, the communication pattern, or the subject under d i s ­ cussion, a double line is drawn and the time indi­ cated. As soon as the total observation is 14 N. A. Flanders, Teacher Influence, Pupil A t t i t u d e s , and A c h i e v e m e n t , U. S. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 397 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1960). (Mimeographed.) 32 completed, he retires to a room nearby and com­ pletes a general description of each separate activity period indicated by the double lines, including the nature of the activities, the class formation, and the position of the teacher. The observer also notes any additional facts that seem pertinent to an adequate interpretation and recall of the total observation period. These original comments are used in the tabulation of the interaction data.*-5 When the data are tabulated, those referring to any episode or group of episodes are entered in a 10 x 10 matrix (see Appendix C ) . Each entry is tallied opposite the number of the one just preceding it and below its own number. For example, if a teacher accepts an idea in one three second interval (category 3) and asks a question in the next column 4. (category 4), a tally would be made in row 3, If a student then answers the question (category 8), the tally would be made in row 4, column 8. All episodes observed in a single classroom can be combined to give a picture of overall interaction in the class for that period of time. Counts of tallies in cer­ tain areas of the matrix provide "scores" of particular interest. As illustrated in the Appendix, totals in Area A measure teacher talk, Area B student talk, and Area C confusion and silence. Area D entries indicate indirect influence, Area E indicates direct influence, Area F entries show teacher reaction to student talking, Area G indicates sustained student communication and Area H describes student talk stimulated by the teacher. 15 Ibid., Appendix F, p. 2. 33 The success of any rating scale depends on the degree of training of the observer. Flanders suggests that good observers will be those who have had successful teaching experience, particularly in the elementary field. Six to ten hours of training with tapes is necessary before an o b ­ server can make the judgments to identify categories relia­ bly within the three second period. Flanders trained his observers until their coefficients of agreement were con­ sistently above .85. The use of Flanders' device in the present study was regarded unsuitable because it measures only verbal interaction. Ryans' Classroom Observation Record David G. Ryans conducted a study of teacher charac­ teristics which took six years (1948-1954) and involved more than 6,000 teachers in 1,700 schools. Many of the basic studies involved intensive c l a ss ­ room observation, by trained observers, of teachers in public schools for the purpose of discovering significant patterns of teacher behavior and of pupil behavior reflecting teacher b e h a v i or .16 The major objectives of the Ryans study were as follows: 1. 2. The identification and analysis of some of the patterns of classroom behavior, attitudes, v i e w ­ points, and intellectual and emotional qualities which may characterize t e a c h e r s . The development of paper-and-pencil instruments suitable for the estimation of certain patterns of classroom behavior and personal qualities of teachers. David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, p. 6. 1960), 34 3. The comparison of characteristics of various groups of tea c he rs .17 The Classroom Observation Record and Glossary (see Appendix B) was the most important instrument for the measurement of patterns of teacher behavior to emerge from the study. The content of the Record was determined after considerable empirical investigation and revision. The first form contained forty dimensions of teacher be­ havior and six dimensions of pupil behavior. found to be unwieldy. This was Many of the dimensions were o ver­ lapping and it was found that some of the behaviors were extremely difficult to assess. The final form of the Record incorporates eighteen teacher behavior dimensions and four pupil behavior dimensions and requires assess­ ments to be made on a seven point polar scale. An eighth option is identified by N and is interpreted as "No opportunity for observation." The extreme intervals of 1 and 7 indicate extreme behaviors and the intermediate ratings show less marked occurrence. Originally the scale was limited to five points but it was found that the increased spread improved the reliability of the assessments. At one stage an effort was made to assess the behavior of the teacher or the pupil by tabulating the frequency with which the behaviors occurred during the observation. Ryans deemed this approach too 17I b i d . , pp. 9-10. 35 cumbersome and less reliable and it was abandoned in short order. At first separate elementary and secondary forms of the Record were used but it was determined that . . . while teacher behaviors at the elementary and secondary levels differ in setting, they do not differ greatly in kind; and that it was not only feasible but also desirable to employ a single assessment for both groups. Ryans claimed that it was impossible to independently 19 determine the validity of the assessment data. There­ fore he treated the problem of validity and reliability of observers' assessments as one and the same. A high priority was given to the task of training observers in order to minimize the ambiguity of the data and to gain a high degree of agreement. The first stage of training consists primarily of study and discussion of the operational definitions of the behaviors under consideration. Practice in observing (involving observation, assessment, com­ parison, and discussion) is directed at the dev el op ­ ment of the ability to perceive and to record p er ­ ceptions accurately in a specific situation and has as its goal consistency of assessment. In the training process, observations first were made of the same teacher simultaneously (al­ though independently) by two or more observersin-training, with subsequent comparison and dis­ cussion of various aspects of the observing and assessment processes and w ith particular attention being given to discrepancies in assessments made by different observers. In later phases of train­ ing, observations of the same teacher were made at different times by different o b s er ve rs -i n- t ra in in g, 18 Ibid. ., 19I b i d . , p. 115 36 the observations again being followed by compari­ son of assessing data and discussion of observer v a r i a n c e .20 The standard procedure called for two one-class period observations of each teacher made at different times by different observers and these evaluations became the complete record for the teacher. During the process of training, correlations b e ­ tween trainees and senior observers often reached .8, however, over an extended period of regular observations correlations usually ranged between .4 and .7. Biddle and Ellena find the Ryans study "Perhaps the most sophisticated of all such traditional studies." 21 Getzels and Jackson state, "The Teacher Char ac ­ teristics Study directed by Ryans is the most extensive study of teachers to date." 22 Haberman used R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record to compare a selected group of interns with a group of regular first year teachers who had been prepared in the traditional manner. His objective was to evaluate the 20I b i d . , p. 73. 21 22 Biddle and Ellena, op. c i t ., p. 12. J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson, "The Teacher's Personality and Characteristics," in Handbook of Research on T e a c h i n g , ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and C o . , 1963), p. 566. 37 1962-63 Intern Teaching Program at the University of 23 Wisconsin— Milwaukee • The sample included eleven interns and seventeen regular first year teachers. The interns ranged in age from twenty-three to fifty— three. Members of the control group were all in their early twenties and were selected from the top half of the elementary education majors in the School of Education. All members of the sample were first year teachers in grades 1-6 in the Milwaukee Public Schools. In the Haberman study a team of three observers were given opportunities to practice using Ryans' Classroom Observation R e c o r d . All had classroom teaching experience and none were involved with either the intern teaching program or the regular undergraduate curriculum. In the spring of 1963 the team made one visit to the classroom of the interns and the regular teachers. The usual period of observation was forty-five minutes and arrangements were made in advance so the teachers could choose the subjects or activities they wanted to teach. were told to assess only teacher behavior The observers (items 5-22) and not student behavior because of the unlike student popu­ lation. 23 Martin Haberman, "A Comparison of Interns with Regular First Year Teachers," The Journal of Educational Research, LIX, No. 2 (October, 1 9 6 ^ , 92-94. 38 Ryans correlated and assigned the teacher behavior characteristics to three patterns: Pattern X — Kindly, friendly, understanding versus aloof, egocentric, restricted. (Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 20.) Pattern Y — Responsible, systematic, businesslike versus evading, unplanned, (Items 14, slipshod. 15, 16, 18.) Pattern Z— Stimulating, versus dull, imaginative, routine. surgent, (Items 10, 11.) H a b e rm an ’s observers first rated the teacher on each of Ryans' behavior. eighteen characteristics related to teacher Then the ratings of those characteristics whi ch indicate one of the three patterns cited above were aver­ aged, yielding an average score for each subject on Patterns X, Y, and Z. The twenty-nine subjects were ranked and a comparison was made wi t h the proportion of interns and regular teachers whose scores fell above and below the median of the rankings. Chi squares were used to determine whether these proportions might be due to chance or whether there were real differences between the groups. Pattern X and Z showed a higher proportion of interns with scores above the median but statistical tests showed that this may have been due to chance. There was a real difference, however, between the groups in Pattern Y. Haberman suggests that since Pattern Y 39 TABLE 1.— Comparison of interns and traditional program teachers (Haberman S t u d y ) . Pattern X Pattern Y Pattern Z I* T I T I T Scores above median 7 7 8 6 6 8 Scores below median 4 10 3 11 5 9 11 17 11 17 11 17 *1 = Interns; T = Teachers. (responsible, systematic, businesslike versus evading, unplanned, slipshod) is so closely related to planning, that probably it is more reflective of the teacher pre­ paration background than Patterns X and Z . There are some apparent weaknesses in the selection of the sample. The groups were very unlike, being matched only academically. All seventeen of the regular group were in their early twenties; the eleven interns ranged in age from twenty-three to fifty-three. Sixteen of the regular teachers were wom en and three of them were married. Nine of the interns were women and five of them were married. Only one of the regular teachers was a male and he was single. The two male members of the intern group were both married. Many of the interns had experienced responsible positions before deciding to turn to teaching. It must be assumed that because of maturity, the interns were more responsible and felt a greater need to succeed. 40 It is also difficult to believe that valid comparisons of two teacher preparation programs can be made solely on the basis of one measure of teacher behavior. In another study McGee hypothesized that verbal responses of teachers to statements on an opinion-attitude scale for measuring authoritarianism are positively cor24 related with teachers' overt behavior. McGee used the F—Scale, Form 30 (see Appendix C ) , as his measure of authoritarianism and a revised R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record as the measure of teacher behavior. The 18 4 subjects were teachers with three years or less of experience in the Oakland Public Schools, Oakland, California. The teachers self-administered the F— Scale. They were given six choices of response for each item and indi­ cated the degree of their agreement by marking +1, +2, or +3, and disagreement by -1, -2, or -3. The responses were converted into scores by a uniform scoring system. -3 = 1point +1 = 5 points -2 = 2points +2 = 6 points -1 = 3points +3 = 7 points (4points were assigned when response to an item was omitted.) 24 Henry Morrison McGee, "Measurement of Aut ho ri ­ tarianism and Its Relation to Teachers' Classroom B e ­ havior," Genetic Psychology M o n o g r a p h s , LII (1955), 89-146. 41 A subject's score was simply on the items. The score of thirty the sum of his scores points denoted strong opposition to au thoritarianism and 210 points indicated strong authoritarianism. McGee revised R y a n s ' Cl assroom Observation Record and used only items w hich had a connection with authori­ tarianism. and It included four categories of pupil behavior thirteen categories of teacher behavior. Three observers were trained in the use of the Record and its accompanying Glossary. Two observed in the classrooms of the total sample and the third observer served as a check on reliability by observing in fifteen classrooms. A n overall reliability of .74 was attained and in terms of reliability it was concluded that the Record was an adequate instrument of measurement. McGee's attempt to validate the F-Scale using teachers' classroom behavior— as measured by Ryans' Cl ass­ room Observation Record— as the external criterion seemed to be successful with an overall correlation of .58 b e ­ tween F-Scale and behavior scores. Lucio and Wenger conducted an extensive investigation at the University of California, Los Angeles, hypothesizing that "measures of individual differences in the functions of the autonomic nervous system afford a means of pre­ dicting those potential teachers w ho w ill be most likely 42 to withstand the stresses involved in teaching." 25 Com­ bining these measures w i t h the results of observations of teaching performance and personality indices w o uld improve the ability to predict teacher performance, the authors claimed. The sample in Lucio and Wenger's investigation in­ cluded 217 subjects who were female students enrolled in Elementary Teacher Education at the University of Califnormia, Los Angeles. The overall design of the research involved physiological and psychological testing of stu­ dents enrolled in teacher education and subsequent evalu­ ation of the teaching performance of the subjects during the latter part of their sixteen-week student teaching. The physiological test included salivary output, sublingual temperature, (eye) diameter, standing Palmer conductance, pupil first finger temperature, diastolic blood pressure, pulse beat, systolic and respiration period, face temperature, period of stomach contractions, others. and The psychological measure was the Guilford— Zimmerman Temperament Survey. Instruments employed in evaluation of teaching behavior were the University of California Rating Scale for Student Teaching and Ryans' Classroom Observation R e c o r d . 25 William H. Lucio and M. A. Wenger, Prediction of Teacher Performance and Emotional Stability (Washington, D . C .: U. S. Department of Health, E d u c a t i o n , and W e l ­ fare, 1961), p. 1. 43 The observers were trained in the use of both observational instruments. Four independent ratings on the Classroom Observation Record and one rating on the University of California Rating Scale became the teaching behavior record for each student teacher subject. The investigation drew the following conclusions: 1. Scale are Scores on the Guilford-Zimmerman positively related to teaching performance. 2. Characteristic level of muscular tension is negatively related to teaching performance. 3. Finger temperature is positively teaching performance; related to other physiological measurements may also be related. An inference can be m a d e , according to the results of this study, that student teachers with a high finger temperature will become good teachers. This criterion may not be accepted by all professional educators. John R. Beery investigated the hypothesis that fully certified teachers were more effective than teachers w ho were not fully certified. 26 The members of his sample were all teaching in three counties in Southeastern Florida. Beery matched seventy-six first year teachers who had not completed the student teaching requirement with a like number of teachers w h o were fully certified. 26 John R. Beery, "Does Professional Preparation Make a Difference?" Journal of Teacher E d u c a t i o n , XIII, No. 4 (December, 1962) , 386-395. 44 Ryans' Classroom Observation Record was adapted to serve the purpose of gathering data on teacher competency of the m e m ­ bers of his sample by revising the rating scale as follows: 1— Really superior; already as effective as some of the best more experienced teachers. 2,3— Intermediate values. 4— A b out average for first year teacher. 5,6— Intermediate values. 7— Really inferior; should not remain in teaching. Beery selected observers who would be qualified to make judgments on teaching evaluation by their training, experience, and positions. Discussion of the Record and its accompanying Glossary and several practice observations took place prior to the actual rating. Each teacher was observed five times for periods ranging from thirty to forty-five minutes. Significant differences (statistics not cited) were found as the fully certified teachers were consistently rated more effective. The differences were associated with professional preparation and verified by some principals' ratings which were available. In addition to R y a n s ' COR and F l a n d e r s ' Interaction A n a l y s i s , there have been many other instruments developed to measure teacher behavior in the classroom. A list may include Medley and Mitzel's O S CAR I I , C o s g r o v e ’s Diagnostic Rating of Teacher P e r f o r m a n c e , and Snedeker and R e m m e r s ' Purdue Instructor Performance I n d i c a t o r . R y a n s ' COR was selected to gather data on pupil and teacher behavior b e ­ cause it is well-suited for use in the present investiga­ tion and numerous studies have proven it valid and reliable. 45 The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (see A p p e n ­ dix B) is "by far the most popular instrument for the 27 measurement of teacher attitudes." It was developed at the University of Minnesota and the manual published in 1951 states: Investigations carried on by the authors over the past ten years indicate that the attitudes of teachers toward children and school work can be measured with high reliability, and that they are significantly correlated w ith the teacher-pupil relations found in the teachers* classrooms. The MTAI has emerged from those researches. It is designed to measure those attitudes of a teacher which will predict how well he will get along with pupils in interpersonal relationships, and indirectly how well satisfied he will be with teaching as a v o c a t i o n . 2 8 The validity of the experimental forms and the final edition, Form A, 1. Pupils* is based on three assumptions: attitudes toward the teacher and the school are influenced by the attitude of the teacher towards them. posi­ tive relationship, There should be a then, between the attitudes of teachers and those of their pupils. 2. A competent and experienced principal can discriminate between teachers who have good 27 Getzels and Jackson, op. c i t . , p. 28 508. W. W. Cook, C. H. Leeds, and R. C a l l i s , The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New York: Psycho­ logical Corporation, 19 51), p^ 3. 46 rapport w ith pupils and those who have poor rapport. 3. Using objective measures, an expert in teacherpupil relations can visit a classroom and reliably assess the climate. Originally 756 items were w ritten and placed in two tryout forms of 37 8 each. Principals of seventy schools were asked to designate one or two teachers who seemed to be effective and were liked by pupils. They were also asked to name one or two teachers w h o rated low in this respect. Criterion groups of 100 superior teachers and 100 inferior teachers in grades 1-12 were then created. Each teacher completed Tryout Forms A and B and using Chi-Square it was found that 115 of the 7 56 items discriminated at the .05 level and 188 items at the .10 level. From these items, 164 of the most discriminating items became the first experimental form and was adminis­ tered to a random selection of 100 teachers in grades 4-6. Their scores were correlated with three outside criteria of teacher— pupil rapport: 1. The Pupil-Teacher Rating Scale was administered to at least twenty-five pupils of each of the 100 teachers. 2. The Principal-Teacher Rating Scale was completed by the principals of the 100 teachers. 47 3. Baxter*s Rating Scale of the T e a c h e r 's Personal Effectiveness was completed for each teacher by an expert in teacher— p u p i 1 relationships. Table 2 shows the correlations obtained. are significant at the .01 level. All correlations W e ighted rating used a formula which weights each of the five possible re­ sponses on a nine point scale from plus 4 to minus 4. The simplified scoring procedure assigned a plus one weight to each positive response. All zero or negative responses were disregarded. The M T A I , Form A, is the form in current use and subsequent studies approximate the correlations obtained in previous findings. There is evidence that the MTAI is only slightly susceptible to "faking good." Three testing sequences were arranged by the a u t h o r s . Group I took the same test twice and sufficient insight was gained to increase the average score 4.2 points. Group 2 took the test twice and were told on the second try to get as high a score as possible. The gain was 9.6 points, a little less than one-half a standard deviation. Group 3 took the test twice but were told from the beginning to try to get as high a score as possible. The average raise in score for this group was 1.8 points. The results of these three testing sequences seem to support the a u t h o r s ' 48 contention that the instrument is only slightly sus­ ceptible to "faking good." TABLE 2.— Correlations on the MTAI between inventory scores (weighted and simplified) and criterion ratings by pupils, principals, and expert for an unselected group of 100 teachers. Simplified .45 .46 .43 .45 Inventory vs. Expert's Ratings .49 .49 Inventory vs. Three Criteria (Equal Weights) .59 .60 Inventory vs. Three Criteria (Multiple Weights) .60 --- Inventory vs. Combination of Pupils' and Expert's Ratings .58 • ui 00 Weighted Inventory vs. Combination of P u p i l s ' and P r i n c i p a l s ' Ratings .53 .54 Inventory vs. C ombination of Expert's and Principals' Ratings .54 .54 Inventory vs. Pupils' Ratings Inventory vs. Principals' Expert's vs. Pupils' Ratings Ratings Principals' vs. Pupils* Ratings 00 • Expert's vs. Principals' Ratings --- .33 --- .39 --- Source: W. W. Cook, C. H. Leeds, and R. C a l l i s , The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New Y o r k : Psychological Corporation, 19 51), p . 11. 49 The MTAI was one of the instruments selected by Gittler to study the differences between teachers who had completed the regular teacher preparation program and those w h o were graduates of the Intensive Teacher Training Program (ITTP) at State University College, Buffalo, New York. 29 The regular program is a tradi­ tional one which requires four years to complete. The ITTP was an attempt to alleviate the teacher shortage. In this program college graduates in Liberal Arts were recruited and courses scheduled w h ich would enable them to meet the requirements to teach and also qualify for the Master of Arts in Teaching after a full year of con­ centration in professional education. Gittler's sample consisted of fifty-nine teachers from each of the two programs, all of w h o m were teaching in the Niagara Falls, New York area. The regular group had an average of seven years of teaching and few had completed the requirements for the Master of Arts while the ITTP group had taught an average of four years and almost all had the M.A.T. at the time of the study. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was self­ administered by all members of the sample. gathered showed a mean of 31.1 on the MTAI The data for the ITTP 29 Steven Gittler, "Professional Characteristics of Elementary School Teachers: Undergraduate Program versus Intensive Teacher Training Program," Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (December, 1963) , 399-401. 50 group and a mean of 26.5 for the members of the regular group. A "t" test supported the hypothesis of no differ­ ence between the group. Gittler also requested the principals of the teachers in the sample to complete the Professional Characteristics Check List. The regular group produced a mean of 1.99 8 and the ITTP group scored 1.988. These data also indi­ cated no differences between groups. The fact that both instruments which were used to gather data in the investi­ gation showed no difference between groups seems to support the findings of the authors of the MTAI: that there is strong agreement between the Inventory and p r i n c i p a l s ' rating (see Table 2). A weakness in the structure of the Gittler study is the fact that members of both groups had been teaching for some time before the investigation was initiated. The present study seeks to avoid the confounding condi­ tions which are created by including teaching w i t h extended years of service. Internal validity is strengthened when only teachers in their first year of service make up the sample. In another study, Munro at the University of British Columbia investigated whether the Minnesota Teacher Att i ­ tude Inventory could be utilized in the screening of stu­ dents for the teacher preparation p r o g r a m . 30 30 Barry S. Munro, "The MTAI as a Predictor of T e ach­ ing Success," The Journal of Educational R e s e a r c h , LVIII, No. 3 (November, 1^64') , 138. 51 The MTAI was administered to 15 2 graduates of the University of British Columbia w h o were in their first year of teaching. Their scores on the MTAI were corre­ lated with their student teaching grades and a coefficient of .29 was obtained w h ich was significant at the .01 level. Munro concluded that "in view of the significant correlation, the MTAI scores if used in conjunction with other measures would provide a reasonable basis for pre31 dieting teacher s u c c e s s ." Popham and Baker surveyed instruments used to m ea­ sure teacher attitude and announced, "Other than the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y , there are few care­ fully studied attitudinal measures which have explicit relevance to teaching." 32 All of these considerations lend support for the selection of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory as a proper instrument for gathering data concerning teacher attitudes toward children and career. 31I b i d . , p. 139. 32 W. James Popham and Eva L>. Baker, "Measuring Teachers* Attitudes Toward Behavioral Objectives," The Journal of Educational Research, LX, No. 10 (J u l y - A u q u s t , 17(57), 4S3.-------------------- 52 The Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation Form The Teacher Evaluation F orm was developed by the administrators in the Utica Community Schools over a five year period. The instrument is one of the measures utilized by principals to determine whether a probation­ ary teacher qualifies for tenure, whether a teacher*s contract should be renewed, and to assist teachers in achieving success. Originally the five following levels were used as rating intervals: 1. Unsatisfactory performance 2. Requires help and direction 3. Does an adequate job 4. Considerably better than the average teacher 5. Superior For the purposes of this investigation, the rating was increased to seven intervals using numbers 1— 7 rather than descriptive terms. An extreme score of seven indi­ cates desirable qualities, relationships and traits, and a score of one indicates qualities, relationships and traits which are completely unacceptable. The TEF requires principals to rate teachers in five areas: instructional qualities teacher-student relationships traits general (nine items), (five items), personal (eight i t e m s ) , classroom management (three i t e m s ) . (five i t e m s ) , Generally a principal visits a 53 classroom several times during the school year taking notes if necessary and then completes the TEF using information not only based on the visitations but also information gained through other perceptions of the teachers1 attitudes and c o m p e t e n c i e s . P r i n c i p a l s ' evaluations of teachers have always been a controversial subject. H o w e v e r , Fattu finds, "Available studies show that in general teachers can be reliably rated by administrators and supervisory personnel with a correlation of .70 or above." 33 Brighton c o m m e n t s , As 'head teacher' in the school, the principal is usually in the best position to conduct teacher evaluations for (a) he holds the administrative authority, and (b) he is often the best qualified member of the entire system by reason of training and experience.34 One of the tenets of public school administration and supervision is that the principal is the person chiefly responsible for developing and maintaining the teaching staff in his school. This means that the principal should be the official w h o is primarily responsible for the evaluation in most schools. In the larger schools the staff is too numerous for one person to assume sole responsibility and in instances of principals w h o are 33 N. A. Fattu, "Can Principals Evaluate Teachers?" The^National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIII, No. 2 (November, 34 Brighton, op. c i t .# p. 20. 54 part-time teachers, evaluation. the central staff often helps with The NEA found evidence in the 1964 research of teacher evaluation procedures cited previously that 6 5 per cent of the teachers were evaluated by principals. 35 The task of evaluation of staff is probably the most difficult project that a principal faces in the course of his duties. However, it is vital that teachers on a staff are aware of their competency and of the areas in their work which require attention if they are to reach a level of performance acceptable to the school district. Not only is evaluation the principal's responsibility, Brighton c o m m e n t s , but he makes the evaluation more meaningful: If the principal is selected as the person to con­ duct the evaluations, the p rogram will probably have more impact on the faculty than it will if the evaluations are performed by another individual or g r o u p .36 There are some weaknesses in principal evaluations. Redifer cites the following: 1. 2. The principal knows best those teachers who agree w ith his educational viewpoint and he knows least those teachers who disagree with his position. Evaluation procedures often start w i t h the principal's conception of the teacher. 3 5National Education Association, 36 Brighton, op. c i t ., p. 20. op. c i t ., p. 35. 55 3. The p r i n c i p a l ’s evaluations are influenced by his administrative and educational v a l u e s . 37 However, if the evaluation procedure is meaningful and focuses itself on improving teaching rather than finding fault, m o s t teachers w ill accept and even w e l ­ come the experience. One method of d etermining strengths and weaknesses of teachers is through the use of an instrument which contains evaluative criteria that can be administered with objectivity and respect for the professional integrity of the entire staff. The Teacher Evaluation Form as developed by the U t ica Community Schools is this kind of instrument and is typical of the devices employed by principals to aid in the evaluation of teachers. thirty items The in the form seem to be adequate dimensions of a teacher's behavior and are not too ambiguous or difficult to interpret. The form does not make e x ces­ sive demands on the principal's time and yet seems to provide the assistance needed to do an adequate job of evaluation. These and other considerations influenced the selection of the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation F o r m as the instrument to measure teacher performance in the present study. 37 Frederick L. Redifer, "Unfinished Studies and Unanswered Questions," The National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIII, No. 2 (November, 1963) , 63'.' 56 Quality as well as quantity in education is a national necessity and one way to raise the quality in education is to improve teacher preparation p r o g r a m s • Much effort has been expended into research on teacher preparation since 1900 but w ith negligible results b e ­ cause there has been a tendency to avoid evaluating teacher effectiveness in terms of how the teacher b e ­ haves in the classroom. The evidence supports classroom observation as a w a y of assessing teacher behavior b e ­ cause it is a direct method. (pupil) Measurement of the product is more indirect and creates too many opportunities for confounding conditions. Instruments selected to gather data for the present study are as follows: 1. Ryans' Classroom Observation Record (COR)— teacher b e h a v i o r . 2. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (MTAI)— teacher attitudes toward children and career. 3. Utica (Michigan) Evaluation Form Community Schools Teacher (TEF)— teacher performance. The COR was developed by David G. Ryans as a result of his study of teacher characteristics. The instrument assesses eighteen dimensions of teacher behavious and four dimensions of pupil behavior on a seven point polar scale. it has been utilized in many recent studies whose 57 objectives ranged from predicting teacher effectiveness to comparing teacher preparation programs. The MTAI has been cited as one of the outstanding instruments for determining teacher attitudes toward children and career. It has been used as a predictive device and also as an instrument for gathering data in comparing teacher preparation programs. The instrument has a low susceptibility for "faking good" and high correlations have been obtained between the MTAI and criterion ratings by pupils, principals, and experts in the area of evaluating t e a c h e r s . The TEF is typical of the instruments used by principals to evaluate teachers. rating teachers in five areas: This instrument requires instructional qualities, teacher-student relationships, personal traits, classroom management, and general. Although there is not complete agreement on the reliability of principal evaluation, there is evidence w h ich supports the belief that princi­ pals are best suited to assess the performance of the staff and that meaningful evaluation is w elcomed by teachers wh e n they are assured that the outcome will be improved teaching. CHAPTER III DESIGN This section of the report discusses the design of the investigation. The population from which the sample was drawn is described and the nature of the sample is specified. Procedures for gathering the data are detailed. Both research and statistical hypotheses are stated and the models chosen to test them are described. This section also enumerates the assumptions implicit in the study and lists limitations. Sample The groups for this study were drawn from the 1968 graduates of Central Michigan University teacher prepar­ ation programs w h o are first year teachers and employed full time in schools located within reasonable driving distance of established student teaching centers. Off- campus student teaching centers were established in public schools in the lower peninsula of Michigan by Central Michigan University in order to provide student teachers with classroom experiences which are more realistic than those found in the laboratory school. There are eleven of these centers located throughout the lower peninsula 58 59 as shown on the map in Appendix C. Selection of the centers for this study was determined by the availability of first year teachers who graduated from the Teacher Intern Program. Only five of the eleven centers con­ tained enough interns to match with the graduates of the regular program. These centers Were: 1. Bay City 2. Saginaw 3. Midland 4. Grand Rapids 5. Southeastern Michigan (Detroit suburbs) The sample was selected to provide thirty graduates in their first year of teaching who are employed in the five student teaching centers. In each center the sample consisted of three Teacher Intern Program graduates and three traditional graduates. of TIP graduates, Because of the limited number availability determined their selection. In 1964 students choosing the Teacher Intern Program numbered 10 per cent of all graduates who earned teachers* certificates. By 1968 that number had decreased to a low of 3 per cent, making it necessary to select interns for the study where they were available rather than through a random procedure. The three traditional program members of the sample in each center were randomly selected. All members of the sample were between twenty-two and twenty-six years of age and none had previous TABLE 3.— The nature of the sample. Sex Center Intern Teaching Level Traditional Intern Traditional Totals M F M F El. Sec. El. Sec. Detroit (suburbs) 2 1 0 3 2 1 1 2 6 Grand Rapids 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 6 Bay City 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 6 Saginaw 3 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 6 Midland 3 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 11 4 5 10 7 8 7 8 30 Totals 61 experience in the classroom other than provided by the training program. Eleven of the TIP graduates were male and four were female, five the regular program graduates were male and ten w ere female. Generally there are twice as many females as males receiving teaching certificates each year at Central Michigan University. Therefore the sex ratio of the regular group is typical, however, the ratio of males to females in the intern group is d i s ­ proportionate. A p plying Chi-square and using the Yates correction, was found that the difference in the intern it ratio of eleven males to four females was significant (X 2 = 10.65). This disproportion must be considered a limitation of the study because not enough interns were available to approximate the typical ratio. As for grade level assignment, seven of each group were teaching in elementary schools and eight of each group in secondary schools. Because the experimental group could not be selected randomly, it was necessary to determine that there were originally no significant differences between students who chose the TIP program and those w h o entered the traditional program. To determine that the graduates of the TIP and the graduates of the regular program were originally alike, the findings of the 1964 evaluation of the Central Michigan University Teacher Intern Program were analyzed. 62 This evaluation, as discussed in Chapter I (see p. 13), was made after the program had been in existence for five years and was required under the terms of the grant made by the Fund for the Advancement of Education. The testing program was initiated with all first semester freshmen enrolled at Central Michigan University in the fall of 1960. Students from this class w h o entered the Teacher Intern Program constituted the experimental group and those who selected the traditional program were the control group. All students were again tested in 1964 and thus opportunities were developed to make comparisons. Instruments used and results are discussed below: 1. The Graduate Record Examination was administered to the entire freshman class in 1960 and to the senior class in 1964. The scores were reported as a three-digit figure w h i c h was a total score for the three areas: Social Science, Humanities, and Natural Science. Although the Teacher Intern group showed higher mean scores in 19 60 and in 1964, a comparison of the per cent gain revealed no significant differences between the two groups. 2. The Omibus Personality Inventory Test was adminis­ tered to the freshman group in 19 60 and to the seniors in 1964. This device was developed at the Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California. It was determined by 63 TABLE 4.— Comparison of mean scores on the 1960 and 1964 Graduate Record E x a m i n a t i o n .a Total Mean Scores 1960 1964 % Gain Teacher Intern Program 410.87 453.23 9.67 Traditional Program 406.86 445.63 9.85 aRolland A. Alterman, Central Michigan University Four Year Testing Program; The Final Report CMount Pleasant, M i c h i g a n : Central Michigan University Press, 1964), from Table IV. Central Michigan University that "these scales were appropriate for describing high aptitude students and the essential stability of traits associated with important or central aspects of b e h a v i o r ."^ Evidence of the reliability of the OP1 as a total instrument was indicated with intercorrelations of .60 and over. There was an overall tendency to increase the raw scores by both the TIP students and the traditional program students. This indicated that the stu­ dents as seniors were better adjusted than they were as freshman. Rolland A Four Year Testing Pleasant, Michigan 1964), p. 7. Both groups showed a nearly identical pattern. There was no difference statistically in either the m ean scores or the degree of change. TABLE 5.— Comparison of OPI scale scores of Teacher Intern Program students and traditional students.3 Per Cent Gain or Loss Personality Scale TIP Traditional 11.50 9 .85 -13.11 -10.48 Social Maturity 19.86 18.50 Social Introversion -5.39 -1.70 Complexity 10.46 12.61 Originality 17 .14 19.04 Estheticism 15.32 13.05 Theoretical Orientation 13 .10 13.54 Non-Authoritarianism 18 .32 18.79 Impulse Expression -0.29 -0.31 Religious Liberalism 25. 87 22.84 Liberalism 16 .52 16 .20 Developmental Status 20 .69 19.53 Thinking Introversion Schizoid Functioning aRolland A. Alterman, Central Michigan University Four Year Testing Program: The Final Report (Mount Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University Press, 1964), from Tables IX and X, pp. 11-12. 65 3. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was administered in 1960 and 1964 but was not in­ tended to be used as a predictive instrument. Findings revealed that students in the tradi­ tional program showed a higher increase on the 1964 MTAI test than did students in the Teacher Intern Program. Table 6 shows a difference of 2.39 in mean gains which is not statistically different. TABLE 6.— Comparison of students' Teacher Attitude Inventory.3 Year Teacher Intern Program scores on Minnesota Traditional Program 1960 3.85 4.96 1964 32.49 35.99 Gain 28.64 31.03 aRolland A. Alterman, Central Michigan University Four Year Testing Program: The Final' Report (Mount Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University Press, 1964), from Table XIV, pp. 16-17. 4. As a group the TIP students achieved an all­ college mean grade point average of 2.65 com­ pared to a mean of 2.50 for the traditional group. The difference of .15 was not statis­ tically significant. data not cited.) (Precise statistical 66 These findings show that originally there existed no significant differences between the 1964 graduates of Central Michigan University w h o selected the traditional program and those who chose the Teacher Intern Program. 2 The results also show that the admission standards of Central Michigan University tend to attract a homogeneous group of students. It is assumed that the findings can be generalized to subsequent groups of graduates because the admission policy of the University has not changed nor has the procedure for enlisting and selecting students for the alternative teacher preparation programs been altered. To further establish that the experimental and c on­ trol groups in the present study were basically alike, the antecedent variables of all-college grade point averages (G.P.A.) and American College Testing scores were analyzed. The G.P.A. (ACT) is the grade point average attained at the time of graduation from Central Michigan University. The ACT score is a test required since 1964 by Central Michigan University of all appli­ cants seeking admission to the university. The test reports scores in several academic areas but the composite (average) score was used as the basis for comparison. Table 7 shows the mean scores by centers. 2 Rolland A. Alterman, A New Approach to Teacher Education: The Central Michigan Story (Mount P l e a s a n t , Michigan: Central' Michigan University Press, 1966), p. 123. 67 TABLE 7.— Analysis of antecedent variables for members of the sample. Center College G.P.A. ■ Intern Traditional ACT ■..... .... .- ■■■ ■■■■■■ . > Intern Traditional Detroit (suburbs) 2.19 2.69 20.3 21.3 Grand Rapids 2.71 2.76 22.0 21.7 Bay City 2.76 2.70 22 .0 21.7 Saginaw 2.54 2.79 23.3 23.3 Midland 2.95 2. 92 23.7 22.0 Mean Average 2.63 2.77 22.3 22.0 The analysis of variance tables reported in Tables 8 and 9 show no statistical difference between groups in college G.P.A. and ACT scores and these data support the assumption that originally the experimental and control groups in the present study were alike. Procedures for Gathering Data The first step in the experimental study was to structure the sample. Knowledge of the location of graduates of the Intern Program and graduates of the regular program was obtained through the files of the Central Michigan University Placement Office. There was a decrease in the number of students participating in the Teacher Intern Program, therefore availability determined their selection. However, the graduates of TABLE 8.— Comparison of ACT scores of interns and regular program members of the sample. Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. 0.5333 1 0.5333 0.0655 0.801 22.8000 4 5.7000 0.7008 0.600 5.4666 4 1.3666 0.1680 0.952 162.6666 20 8.1333 191.46666 29 Source of Variance Sum of Squares A (Program) B (Center) AB (Interaction) Remaining Error Total TABLE 9.— Comparison of GPA on interns and regular program members of the sample. Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Statistic A (Program) 0.1484 1 0.1484 0.9249 0.348 B (Center) 0.7417 4 0.1854 1.1557 0.360 AB (Interaction) 0.3264 4 0.0816 0.5087 0.730 Remaining Error 3.2087 20 0.1604 4.4254 29 Total 70 the regular program were in sufficient quantities to enable random selection using a table of random numbers. Requests to participate in the study and a c c ompany­ ing reply post cards (see Appendix A) were mailed to twenty graduates of the Intern Program and thirty g r a du­ ates of the regular program all in their first year of teaching in the five selected student teaching centers. Resignations from teaching positions and reluctance to participate in the study took an expected toll and the final sample was structured to include three graduates of the Intern Pro g r a m and three graduates of the regular program from each of the five student teaching centers or a total of fifteen first year teachers in the experimental group and fifteen first year teachers in the control group. The principals of made aware of the study the members of the sample were and permission was requested for the teacher to participate in this study (see letter in Appendix A ) . Ryans1 Classroom Observation Record (<2QR) Observers enlisted to gather the necessary data through observation in the classroom were experienced coordinators on the staff of Central Michigan University. There were ten observers selected, two from each of five student teaching centers; Midland, Bay City, Saginaw, 71 Grand R a p i d s , and southeastern Michigan urbs) • (Detroit sub­ The ten coordinators spent much time in dis­ cussing the mechanics of the COR, analyzing the role of the observer, and becoming acquainted with the Glossary which described the dimensions of teacher and pupil be ­ havior in the instrument. Most of the coordinators took the opportunity to practice using the COR with student teachers in their centers prior to the scheduled practice observation. When the coordinators agreed that they were ready, a practice observation was arranged. All ten coordinators simultaneously observed a first year third grade teacher in the Mount Pleasant Public Schools and independently completed the COR. The teacher was aware of the arrange­ ments and attempted to present a normal classroom situ­ ation. Although the situation could not be considered completely normal because ten visitors were sitting in the rear of the room, the coordinators, having extensive experience in observing classroom behavior, were able to gain acceptable agreement with coefficients ranging from .20 to .70 (see Table 10). Ryans, with complete control of the selection and training of his observers, was able to achieve correlations of .80 during training, however, during regular observations he considered a range of from .40 to .70 as adequate. 72 TABLE 10.— Ratings of ten observers in a practice obser­ vation . Observers Characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 2 6 6 5 6 7 7 5 7 6 6 3 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 4 7 6 5 6 7 7 5 6 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 7 7 5 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 5 6 7 5 6 5 6 8 5 5 6 5 7 7 6 6 5 6 9 6 6 5 6 6 7 5 6 5 6 10 7 4 7 4 6 6 5 5 5 5 11 7 6 5 6 6 5 5 5 6 5 12 6 5 5 6 6 5 5 6 5 5 13 7 6 6 6 5 7 6 7 6 6 14 6 6 5 5 7 6 5 6 6 5 15 6 6 6 5 6 7 6 7 6 6 16 5 6 6 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 17 6 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 18 6 5 5 6 6 5 5 7 6 6 19 7 5 6 6 7 7 5 7 5 6 20 6 5 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 5 21 6 6 6 5 6 7 6 7 6 5 22 5 5 7 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 73 All observers followed an agreed-upon pattern in gathering data with the COR. Permission was requested from the principal to observe in the classroom of the member of the sample. The observers worked in pairs and evaluated only the six members of the sample w h o were employed in their assigned student teaching center. The teacher selected the time for the visitation and the two observers evaluated the teacher simultaneously but inde­ pendently for a period of forty-five to sixty minutes. The completed CORs were returned independently to the researcher and the scores were tabulated to form one sub­ total for pupil behavior for teacher behavior (dimensions 1-4) (dimensions 5-2 2). and one sub-total The two o b ser­ vations became the record for the member of the sample. The total data received from the ten observers were key punched and submitted to analysis of variance. The findings are analyzed in Chapter IV. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory' When the sample was completely structured, all members were mailed a copy of the M T A I , Form A, with the appropriate answer sheet. The Manual for the MTAI states: The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory is practi­ cal ly^lieTT^aHinlrnistelFIngT The subject reads the directions on the front page of the booklet and then proceeds to answer each of the 150 items. There is no time limit but the subject is e n ­ couraged to work rapidly and indicate his first impressions rather than deliberate over any one 74 item very long. It usually takes from twenty to thirty minutes to complete the i n v e n t o r y . 3 The subjects were asked to self-administer the instrument according to the instructors. A stamped, addressed envelope was provided and the subjects were required to return the completed test within two weeks (see letter in Appendix A ) . Upon return the answer sheets were scored and one total score was obtained following the instructions given in the Manual, and as discussed in Chapter II in the section on Instrumentation, using the scoring key provided for that purpose. The data were key-punched and submitted to analysis of variance. The findings are analyzed in Chapter IV. The Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation Form (TEFj The TEF was mailed to each principal of the subjects in the sample with instructions to complete and return the form within two weeks (see letter in Appendix A ) . Principals are charged with the responsibility to evaluate the members of their staffs with regularity. Since the evaluation form used does not differ signifi­ cantly from most teacher evaluation forms used in the state by administrators, no problems were anticipated and none materialized. The results of the ratings were tabulated by the researcher by adding the scores in each of the five areas and thus creating five sub-totals for 3Cook, Leeds and Callis, op. c i t ., p. 5. 75 each member of the sample. The data were submitted to analysis of variance and the findings are discussed in Chapter IV. Statistical Hypotheses Presented in broad research form, to be tested is as f o l l o w s : the hypothesis First year teachers w h o are graduates of the Central Michigan University Teacher Intern Program when compared w i t h first year teachers w h o are graduates of the regular Central Michigan University teacher preparation program have better attitudes toward teaching as a career and toward children, exhibit more desirable teacher behavior, and perform in a more accept­ able manner. To test the hypothesis, its negation is formulated as a statistical hypothesis. Null hypothesis: No difference will be found in attitudes, behavior, or performance between the graduates of the Teacher Intern Program and the graduates of the traditional program. Symbolically: Legend: Ho : M & = M^ M a = Intern means of all measures M^ = Regular program means of all measures In order to test this main hypothesis, secondary hypotheses were developed. cally they are as follows: a set of Stated statisti­ 76 Sub— hypothesis A: No difference will be found in attitudes toward career and toward children as measured by mean scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y . Symbolically: Legend: Ho^ : M c = M e a n score of the MTAI for members of the intern group M, d = Mean score on the MTAI for members of the regular group Sub-hypothesis B: No difference will be found in behavior as measured by R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record Symbolically: Legend: H0 2 (COR). : M q = M^ M fi = Mean score on the C O R for members of the intern group M^ = M e a n score on the C O R for members of the regular group Sub-hypothesis C: No difference will be found in behavior as measured by the Teacher Evaluation Form Symbolically: Legend: M g Ho3 (TEF). : Mg = = M ean score on the TEF for members of the intern group M. = Mean score on the TEF for members h of the regular group. 77 Analysis Stanley and Campbell accept the necessity of relying on quasi-experimental designs designs are not feasible." 4 "where better The design of the present study must be classified as quasi-experimental because the researcher did not have full control over the random assignment of subjects to groups. Unfortunately, educators cannot ethically assign prospective teachers to training programs in order to test their (programs) efficiency. sary to form the experimental group Therefore it was neces­ (interns) on an availability basis but at the same time it was possible to select the control group randomly. The experimental design, then, takes the following form: The dotted line indicates the absence of randomness. 0^ is the pre-test which for the purposes of this study is the teacher preparation program exclusive of laboratory experience and is alike for both groups. is the ex­ tended laboratory experience for the interns and the shorter student teaching experience for the tradi­ tional group. O 2 is the post— test consisting of the ^Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, "Experi­ mental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching," in Handbook of Research on T e a c h i n g , ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), p. 204. 78 three independent measures applied during the first year of experience. The design is a 2 x 5 factorial: and five centers. two programs The model used to test the hypotheses is analysis of variance w ith the FACREP REPlicates) (FACtorial with routine for two-way plus replicate design. This routine analyzes a factorial design of up to seven categories— not including a replicate category variable — in which each cell is replicated. TABLE 11.— Analysis of variance table FACREP routine. SS DF MS F msa fa msb fb SIG of f a SIG Of f b msab fab SIG of f a b A SSA »A -i B SSB Nb -1 AB SSAB (Na - D m s r e N—1 SIG Assumptions Below are listed assumptions which are inherent in this investigation. 1. All observers assigned to collect data w ith the Classroom Observation Record are unbiased in respect to program. The observers were all full-time coordinators on the staff of Central 79 Michigan University whose training and experi­ ence presumed them qualified for the role and in most cases were unaware of the background of the subjects. 2. The two groups, control and experimental, were originally alike. The results of the 1964 evaluation of the Central Michigan Teacher Intern Program indicate this and these results can be generalized to subsequent groups. 3. The instruments used are valid and in fact do measure what they are designed to measure. Limitations of the Study 1. Interns were not available in quantity and limited the size of the sample. thus This group normally numbers 10 per cent of the total number of teachers graduated. In 1968 the figure fell to a low of 3 per cent. 2. An experimental program is often attractive to the adventuresome. It is possible that indi­ viduals w i t h potential to become good teachers were attracted to the intern program because of its innovative character. 3. The Intern Program requires one-half year more than the regular program. It is possible that maturation could affect performance of the Interns• 80 The sample of fifteen interns and fifteen tradi­ tional first year teachers were chosen from the 1968 graduates of Central Michigan University. The two groups were assumed originally alike with the exception of sex ratio as a result of generalizations made from a 1964 study and an analysis of the antecedent variables of grade point average and ACT scores. Instruments selected to measure both groups were Ryans' Classroom Observation R e c o r d , Minnesota Teacher Attitude In v e n t o r y / and Utica Teacher Evaluation F o r m . (Michigan) Community Schools These devices are deemed valid and reliable and will measure what they are purported to measure. The major null hypothesis states: will be found in attitudes, behavior, no difference or performance b e ­ tween the graduates of the Teacher Intern Program and graduates of the regular program. experiment is a 2 x 5 factorial: The design of this two programs and five centers, and the model used to test the hypothesis is analysis of variance with the FACREP routine. CHA P T E R IV ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS The findings of the study are presented in this chapter. The presentation begins w i t h a restatement of the hypothesis to be tested. analyzed separately, Null hypotheses are stated, and will be rejected if the F-scores show significance at the .05 level or lower. The selection of this significance level was influenced by the small sample size and by the desire to determine if there are differences between the intern and regular teacher groups without placing narrow r e s t r i c t i o n s . Data are presented comparing mean scores of the Intern Group w i t h the Regular Group by Centers and an analysis of variance table for each variable is presented. Other findings presented include the correlation of independent and dependent variables and an analysis of findings according to the variables of program and sex and program and grade level. Hypothesis to be Tested The major hypothesis of this study was that first year teachers w h o are graduates of the Central Michigan University Teacher Intern P rogram when compared w i t h first 81 82 year teachers w h o are graduates of the regular Central Michigan University Teacher Preparation Program have better attitudes toward teaching as a career and toward children, exhibit more desirable teacher behavior, and perform their duties in a more acceptable manner. In order to test this hypothesis, a set of three null hypotheses was developed. In the next section the statistical d ata for each sub-hypothesis is treated separately. Statistical Data Sub-hypothesis A: No difference will be found in the attitudes toward career and toward children as measured by scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y . Symbolically: Ho^ : Legend: M c = mean score on the MTAI for members of the Intern Group. M^ = m e a n score on the MTAI for members of the Regular Group. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was used to gather data on teacher attitudes. sisting of The instrument, c o n ­ 150 items, was self-administered by each member of the sample. There are no "right" or "wrong” answers but rather levels of agreement or disagreement with the statements. Agreements have a value of plus one and 83 disagreements a value of minus one. Therefore the possible range of scores is from plus 150 to minus 150. TABLE 12.— A comparison of mean scores on the MTAI by centers. Program center Intern Group Regular Group A 32 23 B - 4 14 C -16 43 D 23 40 E - 8 42 5.4 Mean of Means 32 .3 Only in Center A did the Intern Group have a mean score higher than the Regular Group, 32 to 23. In the other four c e n t e r s , the Regular Groups attained higher scores than the Intern Groups. The data indicate that graduates of the Regular Program obtained a higher mean score than the graduates of the Intern Program on the MTAI (32.3 to 5.4). Analysis of Variance (Table 13) shows this difference between the two programs to be significant at the .05 level and therefore the null hypothesis of no difference between the means is rejected. Sub-hypothesis Bs No difference will be found in b e ­ havior as measured by R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record. TABLE 13.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom A (Program) 5225.2000 B (Center) Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. Mean Square F Statistic 1 5225.2000 5.7410 0.026 2480.8666 4 620.2166 0.6811 0.613 AB (Interaction) 4659.7999 4 1164.9499 1.2794 0.311 Remaining Error 18209.9999 20 910.4999 30577.8666 29 Total 85 Symbolically: H0 2 : Legend: M @ = m ean score on -the C O R for members of the Intern Group. M f = m e a n score on the COR for members of the Regular Group. Ryans' instrument contains four dimensions of pupil behavior and eighteen dimensions of teacher behavior. In this study pupil behavior and teacher behavior were treated as two separate category variables. The two independent observations of the observers became the record for each teacher. Each dimension has a range of 1 to 7 points, thus the max i m u m raw score obtainable for each teacher on the four dimensions of pupil behavior as rated by two observers is 56 points and on the eighteen dimensions of teacher behavior as rated b y the two observers is 252 points. Table 14 compares the m ean scores attained by both groups on the two separate category variables and on total mean scores. No firm pattern was evident. A group which scored higher on the dimension of pupil behavior did not n e c e s ­ sarily score higher on teacher behavior. On the dimension of pupil behavior, the Regular Group in three centers attained higher means than the Intern Group and thus developed a higher total m e a n (40.5 to 39.9). dimensions of teacher behavior, however, On the interns in four TABLE 14.— Comparison of mean scores on Ryans' Classroom Observation Record. Pupil Behavior Center Teacher Behavior - ........ Regular Interns Totals .....— > — Interns Regula: Interns Regular A 37.7 37.3 200.3 194.6 238.0 231.9 B 37.0 39.0 199.7 187.0 236.7 226.0 C 50.0 42.0 231.3 211.3 281.3 253.3 D 31.7 40.9 192.3 189.0 224.0 229.9 E 39.7 44.0 202.7 226.3 242.4 270.3 39.9 40.5 205.3 201.7 244.5 242.3 Mean of Means 87 of the five centers scored higher means than the Regular Group and consequently effected a higher total m ean to 201.7). (205.3 Combining the two variables results in a grand mean of 244.5 for the Intern Group and 242.3 for the R e g u ­ lar Group, a difference of 2.2 points out of a possible 252 points. The data in the Analysis of Variance Tables 15 and 16 indicate that this difference in means is not significant and therefore the hypothesis of no difference in behavior between the two groups is not rejected. Sub-hypothesis C: No difference will be found in performance as m e asured by the Teacher Evaluation F o r m . Symbolically: Legend Ho3 : = mean score on the TEF for members of the Intern Group = mean score on the TEF for members of the Regular Group. Data on teacher performance as evaluated by the principals were gathered with the Teacher Evaluation F orm which is an instrument to assess teacher performance and was developed by the administration in the Utica Community Schools District. (Michigan) The instrument consists of five areas with a total of thirty i t e m s . The principal was required to rate the teacher on all thirty items using a range of 1 to 7 p o i n t s . TABLE 15.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Ryans' Classroom Observation Record— pupil behavior. Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. A (Program) 3.3333 1 3.3333 0.0520 0.822 B (Center) 329.1333 4 82.2833 1.2850 0.309 AB (Interaction) 169.6666 4 42.4166 0.6624 0.625 1280.6666 20 64.0333 Error Total 1782.7999 TABLE 16.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Ryans' Classroom Observation Record— teacher behavior. Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. A (Program) 97.2000 1 97.2000 0.1231 0.729 B (Center) 4458.4666 4 1114.6166 1.4118 0.266 AB (Interaction) 1648.4666 4 412.1166 0.5220 0.721 Remaining Error 15789.3333 20 789.4666 21993.4666 29 Total 90 Category Variables Items M a x i m u m Score Instructional qualities 9 63 Teacher-student relationships 5 35 Personal traits 8 56 Classroom management 5 35 General 3 21 30 210 The five areas were considered as five separate category variables in order to gain as many areas of parison as possible. A high score indicated desirable performance and a low score indicated unsatisfactory p e r ­ formance . The pattern which is discernible in Table 17 indi­ cates that the teachers in the Regular Group had slightly higher mean scores than the teachers in the Intern Group. Not only did they score higher on the grand total mean (166.9 to 162.0) but also on mean scores in three of the five centers and on four of the five variables. twenty-five areas of comparison On the (five centers and five variables), the Regular Group scored higher in sixteen and the Intern Group scored higher in eight. In one area both groups scored the s a m e . In the category of Instructional Qualities, the Interns scored higher than the Regular Groups in two c e n ters, and the Regular Groups scored higher than the Interns in two other centers. In one center, both groups 7A3LE 17.— A comparison of mean scores obtained by the intern group and the regular group on the Teacher Evaluation Form. „ wcnCciT Instructional Qualities Int. Reg. Teacher-Student Relationships Int. Reg. Personal Traits Int. Reg. Classroom. Management Int. P.8CT . . i Int. Reg. Int. Reg. vo H A 42.7 47.7 22.0 30.0 43.3 48.3 24.3 29.: 13.7 19.3 146.0 174.3 3 49.0 41.3 29.3 24.0 48.3 42.0 28.: 2S.7 18.3 16.7 172.9 152.7 47.3 47.3 31.3 23.7 46.0 49.7 £* . 29.7 16.7 17.3 166.0 167.7 D 48.0 45.0 31.0 27.7 47.7 49.0 29.3 2c .7 17.3 18.7 173.3 167.1 E 42.3 50.3 25.3 28.0 42,7 51.3 25.0 16.7 17.0 152.0 172.6 45.9 46.3 27.8 26.7 46.9 48.1 26.3 16.5 17.8 162.0 166.9 in of ms 27.9 92 scored the same. This resulted in a higher total mean for the Regular Group of 46.3 to 45.9 for the Intern Group. In the category of Student-Teacher Relationships, the Interns scored higher than the Regular Group in three centers resulting in a higher total mean of 27.8 for the Interns to 26.7 for the Regular Group. In the category of Personal Traits, the Regular Group scored higher than the Intern Group in four of the five centers resulting in a total mean of 27.9 for the Regular Group to 26.3 for the interns. In the General category, the Regular Group scored higher than the Intern Group in four of the five centers resulting in a total mean of 17.8 for the Regular Group to 16.5 for the Intern G r o u p . Totaling the means of the five category variables in the five centers results in a grand mean of 166.9 for the Regular Group to 166.2 for the Intern Group, a difference of 4.9 points. variance These data were subjected to analysis of (Tables 18-22). No significant differences b e ­ tween the two programs on any of the five category v a r i ­ ables were revealed. However, in the area of Personal Traits, the interaction of program and center shows significance at the .017 level. Because differences b e ­ tween centers were not of primary importance in this study and the main effect d ata show no differences between groups, the null hypothesis was not rejected. TABLE 18.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Teacher Evaluation Form— instructional qualities. Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat, A (Program) 1.6333 1 1.6333 0.0660 0.800 20.8666 4 5.2166 0.2109 0.929 AB (Interaction) 233.5333 4 58.3833 2.3605 0.088 Error 494.6666 20 24.7333 B (Center) Total 750.7000 TABLE 19.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Teacher Evaluation Form— teacher-student relationships. Source of Variance Sum of Squares Degrees of Freedom Mean Square A (Program) 45.6333 1 45,6333 0.9546 0.340 B (Center) 177.2000 4 44.3000 0.9267 0.468 AB (Interaction) 341.8666 4 85.4666 1.7880 0.171 Error 956.0000 20 47.8000 1520.7000 29 Total F Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. TABLE 20.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Teacher Evaluation Form— personal traits. Source of Variance Sum of Squares A (Program) Degrees of Freedom Mean Square 9.6333 1 9.6333 0.5722 0.458 B (Center) 155.6666 4 38.9166 2.3118 0.095 AB (Interaction) 263.5333 4 65.8833 3.9138 0.017 Error 336.6666 20 16.8333 765.5000 29 Total F Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. TABLE 21.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Teacher Evaluation Form— classroom management. Mean Square Statistic Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. 1 20.8377 1.0557 0.316 33.8666 4 8.4666 0.4290 0.786 61.3333 4 15.3333 0.7770 0,553 394.6666 20 510.6999 29 Source of Variance Sum of Squares A (Program) 20.8333 B (Center) AB (Interaction) Error Total Degrees of Freedom 19.7333 TABLE 22.— An analysis of mean scores obtained by the two groups on Teacher Evaluation Form— general. Source of Variance Sum of Squares A (Program) 12.0333 B (Center) AB (Interaction) Error Total Degrees of Freedom Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. Mean Square Statistic 1 12.0333 2.3141 0.144 8.3333 4 2.0833 0.4006 0.806 43.8000 4 10.9500 2.1057 0.118 104.0000 20 5.2000 168.1666 29 98 Other Findings The data obtained for this study were examined to determine if other significant patterns exist. The validity of data gathering instruments is often based on the kind of relationships they show w ith other measuring devices. The authors of the MTAI, for example, claim a high positive correlation for their instrument with other criteria (see Table 2, Chapter I I ) . Table 23 shows the correlation coefficients derived for the three measures. A strong relationship (.35) is indicated between the ratings of the coordinators using Ryans1 instrument and the evaluations made by the principals applying the Teacher Evaluation F o r m . Coefficients for the relationships between other measures are not as high. TABLE 23.— Simple correlations between three measures: Ryans' Classroom R e c o r d , M i n nesota Teacher Attitude Inven­ tory , and Teacher Evaluation F o r m . COR COR TEF TEF 1.00 H O • 1 MTAI MTAI ---- .35 .09 ---- Ryans * device contained two category variables and the Teacher Evaluation F orm contained five category v a r i ­ ables. Correlating these categories w ith each other and 99 the independent variables of ACT and GPA s c o r e s , and the one obtained score on the MTAI reveals some interesting data in Table 24. Prospective students are required to submit ACT scores for admission to Central Michigan University page 66). (see The data reveal that these scores submitted by members of the sample showed a high positive relationship to their final all-college Grade Point Average w ith a correlation coefficient of .70. The two categories of R y a n s ' Classroom Observation Record, pupil behavior and teacher behavior, produced a high positive correlation w ith each other of .80. like pattern, In a the five variables of the Teacher Evaluation Form related positively with each other in a range of .46 to .63. Correlations between all variables, however, did not show the same magnitude. The ACT scores and the GPA scores correlated highly and positively with each other, but their relationships to other variables did not reveal the same patterns. Comparing the ACT with the remaining eight variables resulted in correlations which ranged from -.19 to .16. The GPA compared to the remaining eight variables resulted in correlations which ranged from -.20 to .20. The MTAI correlated with the other nine variables in a range of -.20 to .17. The intern members of the sample were selected from those available in the five student teaching centers and TABLE 24.— Correlation coefficients of the ACT, GPA, MTAI, two categories of the Class­ room Observation Record and five categories of the Teacher Evaluation Form. Variables * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1.00 2 .70 --- 3 .07 .09 --- 4 .06 .12 .80 5 .06 .20 -.08 .01 --- 6 .08 .05 .29 .34 .03 --- 7 .16 .08 .18 .24 .07 .62 --- 8 .13 .09 -.02 .10 .17 .59 .59 --- 9 .19 -.15 .18 .16 .10 .61 .49 .46 --- 10 .16 .20 .10 .08 .03 .53 .54 .61 .63 10 --- 100 *1 = ACT scores of the total sample; 2 = GPA (all-college) scores of the sample; 3 - Ryans— Pupil Behavior; 4 = Ryans— Teacher Behavior; 5 = MTAI; 6 = TEF— Instructional Qualities; 7 = TEF— Teacher-Student Relationships; 8 = TEF— Personal Traits; 9 = TEF— Classroom Management; 10 = TEF— General. 101 a disproportion of the sex ratio of eleven males and four females resulted. to be significant A Chi Square found this disproportion (see page 61) and therefore it was determined to analyze the mean scores in terms of d i f f e r ­ ences between sex and programs. Table 25 compares the scores by sex, program and center. The data indicate that the males in the Regular Program scored higher than the males in the Intern Program on R y a n s ' device and the M T A I , but both groups scored the same on the T E F . The females in the Regular Group out- scored the females in the Intern Group on the TEF and the MTAI but not on the Classroom Observation R e c o r d . An Analysis of Variance, using the Least Squares Routine because of the unequal frequencies in the cells, revealed no significant differences in the means of the groups according to the variables of program and sex as measured by the MTAI, the COR, and the TEF (see Tables 26, 27, 28). The data were also analyzed to determine if d i f f e r ­ ences exist between intern and regular teachers according to program and grade level. Table 27 indicates that the regular elementary teachers scored higher than the intern elementary teachers according to ratings by their principals and on the M T A I , but the interns scored higher on R y a n s ' instrument. The same pattern was evident on the secondary level with the regular teachers scoring higher on the TABLE 25.— A comparison of interns and regular teachers on mean scores gained on the three measures according to sex and program. Ryans Center Male MTAI Female TEF Male Female Male Female Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg A 237 --- 240 232 +28 — +40 +34 147 --- 145 174 B 261 268 225 205 +26 +11 -15 +16 175 174 172 142 C 279 225 287 260 -11 +36 -26 +57 172 160 155 184 D 227 233 --- 228 +23 +59 ------- +30 173 158 ------- 172 E 242 285 — — _ 263 -08 +08 _ +59 152 163 — wi- 177 Mean of Means 249 253 251 238 +12 +22 - .2 +39 164 164 144 170 _ 103 TA BLE 2 6 . — A n a n a l y s i s o f m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d b y t h e t w o g r o u p s o n t h e M T A I w i t h sex a n d p r o g r a m as v a r i a b l e s . S o u r c e of Variance Program Sex Interaction Approximate Significance Probability o f F Stat. S um of Squares D e g r e e s of Freedom Mean Square F Statistic 5238.93 157.74 1 5.49 .027 1 5238.93 157.74 0 .16 .687 443.24 1 443.24 0.47 .501 TA B L E 2 7 . — A n a n a l y s i s o f m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d b y t h e t w o g r o u p s o n t h e C O R w i t h sex an d p r o g r a m as v a r i a b l e s . Source of Variance S u m of Squares D egr e e s of Freedom Mean Square Program . Sex 8.65 1 902.13 1 8. 65 902.13 Interaction 685.11 1 685.11 F Statistic Approximate Significance Probability o f F S tat . .007 .934 .729 .554 .401 .463 TA B L E 2 8 . — A n a n a l y s i s o f m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d b y t h e t w o g r o u p s o n t h e T E F w i t h sex a n d p r o g r a m as v a r i a b l e s . S o u r c e of Variance Program S ex Interaction S u m of Squares D e g r e e s of Freedom Mean Square F Statistic Approximate Significance Probability o f F Sta t. 103.52 1 103.52 .036 .554 32.24 1 32.24 .112 .740 86.71 1 86.71 .301 .558 104 Teacher Evaluation Form and the MTAI and the interns scor­ ing slightly higher on R y a n s ' Classroom Observation R e c o r d . An Analysis of Variance, using the Least Squares Routine, revealed no significant differences in the means of the groups according to grade level and p r o g r a m as measured by the MTAI, the COR-, or the TEF (see Tables 30, 31, 32) . Although the findings obtained in this study seem to be inconsi s t e n t , it is evident that significant d i f f e r ­ ences appear between the two programs only in their a t t i ­ tudes toward children and career as measured by the M T A I . There were no significant differences in classroom behavior found when analyzing the data provided by e x p e r i ­ enced coordinators using Ryans' Classroom Observation Record. There were no significant differences in teacher performance indicated when analyzing the data provided by principals using the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation F o r m . No significant differences between the groups were found when examining the data according to the variables of sex and program. No significant differences between the groups were found in respect to the variables of grade level and program. A strong degree of relationship was found only b e ­ tween the following variables: TABLE 29.— A comparison of interns and regular teachers on mean scores gained on the three measures according to grade level and program. Ryans Center Elem. MTAI Sec. TEF Elem. Sec, Elem. Sec, Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg. Int. Reg A 235 204 245 246 +38 +17 +20 +43 146 175 146 174 B 225 205 261 268 -15 +16 +26 +11 172 142 175 174 C 287 202 279 279 -26 +13 -11 +58 155 172 172 166 D 205 263 236 163 +00 +36 +35 +48 187 179 167 143 E 273 255 227 278 -11 +59 -07 +33 163 170 147 174 245 226 249 247 -05 +29 +13 +39 165 168 161 165 Mean of Means 106 TABLE 3 0 . - - A n a n a l y s i s o f m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d b y the two g r o u p s on t he M T A I w i t h grade le vel and p r o g r a m as v a r i a b l e s . So urce o f Variance S u m of Squares D e g r e e s of Freedom Mean Square Progr am Grade L eve l Intera ctio n 5078.71 1337.50 1 71.65 1 1 1 5078.71 13 3 7 . 5 0 1 71.6 5 F Statistic 5.539 1.458 . 187 Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. .026 .238 .669 TABLE 3 1 . — A n a n a l y s i s o f m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by the two g r o u p s on the C O K w i t h grade level a n d p r o g r a m as v a r i a b l e s . So u r c e of Variance S u m of Squares D e g r e e s of Freedom Mean Square P r og ram Grade L e v e 1 In t e r a c t i o n 92 . 8 7 2345.37 591.67 1 1 1 92.87 2345.37 5 91.6 7 F Statistic .078 1.972 .498 Approximate Significance Probability of F Stat. .782 .172 .487 TA B L E 3 2 . — A n a n a l y s i s o f m e a n s c o r e s o b t a i n e d b y the t w o g r o u p s on t h e T E F w i t h grade level a n d p r o g r a m as v a r i a b l e s . So u r c e of Variance S u m of Squares Program Grade L e v e l Interaction 1 5 7.88 0.57 30.67 D e g r e e s of Freedom 1 1 Mean Square 157.88 0.57 30 .67 F Statistic .542 .002 .105 Approximate Significancc Probability of F Stat. .468 .965 .748 107 ACT scores and GPA scores COR: .70 Pupil behavior and Teacher behavior The five category variables COR and TEF of the TEF .80 .46 to .35 .63 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS This final chapter begins with a summary of the study. The results of the investigation will then be discussed and recommendations for the future will be made. Summary It was the purpose of this investigation to compare the behavior of first year teachers w h o are graduates of the Central Michigan University Intern Program with first year teachers who are graduates of the regular teacher preparation program at Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan. The two programs are almost identical in course requirements and differ basically in the length of time devoted to professional laboratory experiences. The regular program requires eight weeks of full time stu­ dent teaching and the intern program provides two full semesters (thirty-two weeks) of professional laboratory experience s . It is assumed that since the Teacher Intern Program requires a longer period of preparation than the regular program, it is a more costly operation for the University. 108 109 This reflects a need for meaningful studies to determine if increasing the length and scope of the laboratory experience will result in an improved teacher preparation program and thus justify the additional cost of continuing the Intern Program. An obstacle in the way of improving teacher p r e p a r ­ ation programs is the lack of agreement in respect to valid and reliable methods for examining these programs. One way to assess teacher preparation programs is to evaluate the product. Evidence supports the contention that an unbiased, experienced observer with an objective instrument can assess the variables, both overt and covert, found in the class­ room. This investigation began with the selection of the sample to participate in the study. Thirty Central Michigan University graduates in their first year of teaching were involved. These teachers are employed in school systems near five Central Michigan University student teaching centers. In each center the sample consisted of three Teacher Intern Program graduates and three Regular Program graduates. The Regular Program graduates were selected through a random procedure. The TIP graduates were those available in the selected school districts. Two Central Michigan University student teaching coordinators in each student teaching center assessed the classroom behavior of the teachers and their pupils using David G . Ryans * Cl a s s r oo m Observation R e c o r d . The two 110 observers evaluated each teacher simultaneously but inde­ pendently for a period of forty-five to sixty minutes. The two COR's were returned to the researcher where the scores were tabulated and became the record for the teacher. Each teacher self-administered the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and returned the answer sheet to the researcher for tabulation. The performance of teaching duties was measured by principals of the t e a c h e r s , using the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation Form. Differences between the groups were examined by subjecting the data to analysis of variance. The findings of the study are discussed below. Discussion Analysis of variance revealed the following infor­ mation : 1. Statistical significance was found at the .05 level in the differences in attitudes toward children and career as measured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y . 2. There were no significant differences in class­ room behavior of pupils and teacher as measured by David G. Ryans' Classroom Observation R e c o r d . 3. There were no significant differences in p er­ formance of teaching duties as measured by Ill principals using the Utica (Michigan) Community Schools Teacher Evaluation F o r m . 4. No significant differences were observed in the data gathered by the three measures between elementary interns and elementary regular teachers and between secondary interns and secondary reg u ­ lar t e a c h e r s . 5. No significant differences were noted in the data gathered by the three measures between female interns and female regular teachers and between male interns and male regular teachers. Only data gathered with the MTAI revealed significant differences between the Intern Group and the Regular Group. An examination of the data in Table 12 (page 83) indicates the Regular Group scored a higher total mean than the In­ tern Group, 32.3 to 5.4, which is significant at the level. .05 The inference is that graduates of the Regular Program will have better attitudes toward children and career than graduates of the Intern Program. One explanation for this difference in means might be found in the structure of the M T A I . The instrument requires agreement or disagreement with the specific a tti­ tude statements. It is possible that the more experienced intern questions the assertive statements of the MTAI and chooses to adopt a neutral stand which results in a lower score. In other words, the experienced intern takes a more flexible approach in his attitudes toward children. 112 Another explanation m a y be found in the small N of the sample w h i c h makes sampling error more probable. A point of interest arises w h e n examining the data in Table 12 (page 83). In four of the five centers, the Regular Group scored higher than the Intern Group on the M T A I . In Center A the interns not only outscored the regular teach­ ers but also showed the highest mean score on the MTAI of all five Intern Groups. There is no firm evidence in the remainder of the data gathered for this study which can explain this phenomenon. Tables 14 An examination of the data in (page 86) and 18 (page 93) indicates that on the COR and the TEF the groups in Center A do not deviate from the patterns set by the remainder of the g r o u p s . The weight of evidence points to the probability that sampling error is responsible for this deviation in the data gathered by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y . Analysis of the data gathered by the Teacher E v a l u ­ ation Form and Ryans* C l a ssroom Observation Record indi­ cates no differences between the groups in teaching behavior or the performance of teaching d u t i e s . It is difficult to accept the results of this study as final. In the judgment of faculty and administration from cooperating public schools in response to inquiries during the 1964 evaluation: The full semester intern experiences account for the prime difference. Course experiences are essentially the same, except that the experienced interns c o n t r i ­ bute more and probably take more away. Employing 113 officials say that they can distinguish past interns from past student teachers because of their more extensive information and maturity.! A n explanation for the lack of differences between groups could be that the devices used to gather data in the study are not refined enough to make discriminations between good and better teachers. It will be recalled that in reviewing the literature several authorities voiced dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in respect to the development of subjective instruments to measure teacher competence. Only in the results of the MTAI were there large deviations from m ean s c o r e s , however in the tabulating of the C O R and the TEF scores no member of the sample r e ­ ceived a low rating. The scores indicate that all members of the sample were above average, probably making it d i ffi­ cult for the rater using the selected instruments to dis c r i m i n a t e . It is possible that the reputation of Central Michigan University as an outstanding teacher preparation institution is instrumental in attracting students who have the ability to become good teachers regardless of the structure of the laboratory experience. These likelihoods should be examined in future investigations. ^Alterman, A New Approach to Teacher E d u c a t i o n ; The Central Michigan S t o r y , p. 131. ‘ 114 Conclusion The results of this investigation are reasonably consistent with the findings of Haberman at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Arends at Michigan State U n i ­ versity and indicate that increasing the length and scope of the laboratory experience does not necessarily produce a measurable difference in teacher preparation programs. Although this should not be considered as sufficient e v i ­ dence for abandoning the internship concept, it does suggest that a re-examination of the Teacher Intern Program is in order. Recommendations The following recommendations are based on the results of this investigation: 1. Central Michigan University should maintain a continuing evaluation of its products with the objective of improving existing programs for preparing teachers. For example, all of those students w h o choose to participate in the Teacher Intern Program could be designated as the experimental group and matched with a c on­ trol group composed of an identical number of student t e a c h e r s . The members of both groups could be observed in a longitudinal study and it is conceivable that much valuable i n for­ mation could be obtained. Such information 115 w o uld include G.P.A., student or intern teaching e v a l u a t i o n s , p r i n c i p a l 's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , number of years on probationary status, absentee records of teachers as well as pupils, number of dropouts from both p r o g r a m s , involvement in e x t r a ­ curricular activities and community projects and other d i m e n s i o n s . 2. Criteria should be developed on which to base evaluations of the product. Development of these criteria will clear the way for examination and analysis of the value of the laboratory experi­ ence in the teacher preparation program. 3. Central Michigan University should maintain better communication w ith its graduates through placement offices or alumni organizations. Continued contact makes it possible to receive meaningful feedback and thus determine which aspects of the teacher preparation programs need strengthening and which are adequate. It is only after the neophyte teacher is faced with the total responsibility of the classroom for an extended period of time that weaknesses in preparation become e v i d e n t . 4. Central Michigan University should re-examine the objectives of the Teacher Intern Program. One of the original objectives of the program was to provide paid laboratory experiences which 116 would help the future teacher finance the remainder of his education. Despite the r e duc­ tion in time needed to complete the program from five years to four and one-half years, there has been a decline in enrollment in the TIP. This seems to indicate that many college students are affluent enough so that financial need does not dictate the choice of p r o g r a m s . P e r h a p s , then in light of the results of this study, the p r o ­ gram should be restructured to reduce or eliminate payment to the intern and consequently minimize the time spent in earning activities. The functions of the earning activities are twofold: to provide learning through doing experiences for the Intern Assistant and to p r o ­ vide justification to the school district for the salary paid to the intern. Perhaps it is time to examine the "learning by doing" myth. Many of the Intern Assistants* assignments are rote activities and after being experienced a few times do not contribute to further learning. Examples of these activities include correcting papers, operating the d u p l i ­ cating machine, supervising lunchrooms, m o n i t o r ­ ing study halls, and collecting lunch money. Extended involvement in these activities do not necessarily result in increased competency and the 117 rate of salary paid to an Intern Assistant is usually more than the rate paid a teacher's aid. In other w o r d s , the earning activities contribute very little to the preparation of the future teacher and most of these activities could be handled by a teacher's aid at reduced cost to the school system. The reduction or elimination of the earning activities would allow more time for the intern to engage in intellectualizing w ork e x p e r i e n c e s . 5. Central Michigan University should give careful consideration to the place of the internship in the overall program of teacher preparation. Should the College of Education v iew the Teacher Intern Program as possibly the ideal teacher preparation program of the future or should the internship exist only as an alternative for the minority of teacher candidates? Even though the decline in enrollment in the TIP indicates that the paid experience is not a major attraction, it is assumed there are capable students who would find it difficult to finance a college education without the benefit of two paid semesters of intern e x p e r i e n c e s . In either c a s e , continuing the Teacher Intern P r o g r a m requires answering these q u e s t i o n s : 118 a. What kinds of experiences and how m uch should precede the internship? b. How can theoretical studies be related to the internship? c. What kinds of relationships should exist between the teacher preparation institutions and public schools in order to promote successful internships? 6. A perceived strength of the Teacher Intern P r o ­ gram was the extended period of time the pr o ­ spective teacher spent in the classroom. It was assumed that this added experience would better prepare the teacher to assume the responsibilities of a first year teacher. It is conceivable that neither the extended laboratory experience of the TIP nor the short eight week student teaching period of the regular program are adequate e s t i ­ mates of time necessary to prepare a good teacher. Central Michigan University should attempt to structure the teacher preparation p r o g r a m to provide laboratory experiences specifically tailored to the needs of the individual student. Consequently, one student may develop the skills necessary to assume responsibility in the class­ room in eight weeks while another student might need sixteen w e e k s . BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Alter m a n , Rolland A. Central Michigan University Four Year Testing Program, Final R e p o r t . Mt. Pleasant, M i c h i g a n : Central Michigan University Presl, 1964. ________. A N e w Approach to Teacher E d u c a t i o n : Michigan S t o r y . M t . Pleasant, Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1964. The Central Central Barr, A. S. "Problems Associated with the Measurement and Predictions of Teacher Success." Journal of Educational R e s e a r c h , LI (May, 1958), 695. Beery, John R. "Does Professional Preparation Make a Difference?" Journal of Teacher Education, XIII, No. 4 (December, 1962), 386-395. Bereday, George Z. F. and L a u w a y s , Joseph A. The Education and T r a i n ing of T e a c h e r s . New Y o r k : Harcourt Brace and W o r l d , I n c . , 1963. Biddle, Bruce J. and Ellena, William J. Contemporary Research on Teacher E f f e c t i v e n e s s . New Y o r k : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I n c ., 1964. Brighton, Stayner F . Increasing Your Accuracy in Teacher E v a l u a t i o n . Englewood Cliffs, N"I J . : Prentice-Hall I n c . , 1965. Brown, John. The Training of T e a c h e r s . MacMillan Company, 1911. New York: Brubacker, John, ed. Henry Barnard on E d u c a t i o n . Russell and R u s s e l l , I n c ., 1965. The N e w York: Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. "Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching." Handbook of Research on T e a c h i n g . Edited by N. L. GageT C h i c a g o : Rand McNally and C o . , 196 3. Conant, James Bryant. The Education of American Teachers. New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Co., 1963. 119 120 Cook, W. W. ; Leeds, C. H.; and Callis, R. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude I n v e n t o r y . New York! Psychological C o r p . , 1951. Cubberly, Ellwood. Readings in History of E d u c a t i o n . New Y o r k : Houghton Mifflin Company, 1920. Curtis, Dwight K. and Andrews, Leonard O. Guiding Your Student Teacher. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenticeHalT, Inb.T IS54. Davies, Don. "Complex Problems and Simple Solutions." New Developments, Research and Experimentation in P r o f e s s i o n a l L a b o r a t o r y E x p e r i e n c e s . Edited by Curtis Nash and Yvonne L o f t h o u s e . Cedar Falls, Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 1964. Denemark, George W. and MacDonald, James B. "Pre-Service and In-Service Education of T e a c h e r s ." Review of Educational R e s e a r c h , XXXVII, No. 3 {June! 1967) , 238. Fattu, N. A. "Can Principals Evaluate Teachers?" The National Elementary P r i n c i p a l , XLIII, No. 2 (November, 1963) , 19. Flanders, Ned A. Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes, and A c h i e v e m e n t . M i n n e a p o l i s : University'of Minnesota, i960. (Mimeographed.) Getzels, J. W. and Jackson, P. W. "The Teacher's P e rson­ ality and Characteristics." Handbook of Research on T e a c h i n g . Edited by N. L. G a g e . C h i c a g o : Rand McNally and C o . , 1963. Gittler, Steven. "Professional Characteristics of Elemen­ tary School T e a c h e r s : Undergraduate Program Versus Intensive Teacher Training Program." Journal of Teacher E d u c a t i o n , XIV (December, 19637"^ 399-401. Goodlad, John F. "An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences in the Education of T e a c h e r s ." Journal of Teacher E d u c a t i o n , XVI, No. 3 (September, 1965) , 269 . Haberman, Martin. "A Comparison of Interns with Regular First Year T e a c h e r s ." The Journal of Educational R e s e a r c h , LIX, No. 2 (October, 1965). Haines, Peter G. and Mason, Ralph E. Cooperative O c c u ­ pational E d u c a t i o n . Danville, I l l i n o i s : The Inter­ state Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1965. 121 Handbook for Cooperating T e a c h e r s . Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: School of E d u c a t i o n , Central Michigan University Press, 1968. Harper, Charles A. A Century of Public Teacher E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D . C .: National Educational Association, 1939. Harris, Chester W . , ed. "Teacher Effectiveness." Encyclo­ pedia of Educational R e s e a r c h . New Y o r k : The MacMillan C o . , 1960 . Hermanowicz, Herman J. "Studies of Teaching and Their Impact on Future Developments in Teacher Education." The Study of T e a c h i n g . Edited by Dean Corrigan. W a s h i n g t o n , EK C .: The Association for Student Teaching, 1967. Howsam, Robert B. New Designs for Research in Teacher C o m p e t e n c y . San Francisco: California Teachers Association, 1960. Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public E d u c a t i o n . The University of Chicago Press, 1962. Chicago: Lindsey, Margaret. What You Should Know A b o u t New H o r i z o n s . Washington, D . C .: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National E d u ­ cation Association, 1962. _________; M a u t h , Leslie; and Grotberg, Edith. Improving Laboratory Experiences in Teacher E d u c a t i o n . New York: Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 19 59. Lucio, William H. and Wenger, M. A. Prediction of Teacher Performance and Emotional S t a bility^ W a s h i n g t o n , D"I C. : U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1961. McGee, Henry Morrison. "Measurement of Authoritarianism and its Relation to Teachers' C l a ssroom Behavior." Genetic Psychology M o n o g r a p h s , LII (1955) , 89-146 . Medley, Donald M. and Mitzel, Harold E. "Measuring C l a s s ­ room Behavior by Systematic Observation." Handbook of Research on T e a c h i n g . Edited by N. L. Gage. C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y a n d Co., 1963. Moss, Robert II. "Reactions of Interns to Programs." Internships in Teacher E d u c a t i o n . Washington, D. C.: Association for Student Teaching, National Education Association, 1966. 122 Munro, Barry S. "The MTAI as a Predictor of Teaching Success." The Journal of Educational R e s e a r c h , L V I I I , No. 3 (November, 1964), 138. National Education Association. Evaluation of C l a ssroom T e a c h e r s . Washington, D. c71 National Education Association Research Report 1964-R14, 1964. Pechstein, L. A. "The Cooperative Ideal in Teacher T r a i n ­ ing . . . The Cincinnati Plan." School and Society, XVIII, No. 54 (September, 1923), 271-277. Popham, W. James. "The Performance Test: A New Approach to the Assessment of Teaching Proficiency." The Journal of Teacher Education, XIX, No. 2 (Summer, 1968) .---------------------_________, and Baker, Eva L . "Measuring Teachers' A t t i ­ tudes Toward Behavioral Objectives." The Journal of Educational Research, LX, No. 10 (July-August, nRrTr, TsT.------------- Redifer, Frederick L. "Unfinished Studies and Unanswered Questions." The National Elementary Principal, XLIII, No. 2 (November, 1963), 63. Ryans, David G. Characteristics of T e a c h e r s . Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1960. ________ . "Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effect T v e n e s s ." Invitational Conference on Testing P r o b l e m s . Princeton, N. J .: Educational Testing S e r v i c e , 1959. Shaplin, Judson T. and Powell, Arthur. "A Comparison of Internship Programs." Official Report of the Columbus Conference, Eighteenth National T E P S . Changes in Teacher Education: An A p p r a i s a l . W a s h i n g t o n , Dl C . : National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National E d u ­ cation Association, 1964. Sharpe, Donald M. "Professional Laboratory Experiences." Teacher Education for a Free P e o p l e . Edited by Donald B. C o t t r e l l . O n e o n t a , N. Y . : The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1956. Silberman, Harry F. "A Symposium on Current Research on Classroom Behavior of Teachers and Its Implications for Teacher Education." Journal of Teacher E d u c a t i o n , XIV (September, 1963), 2371 Spaulding, W i l l i a m B. "Evaluation of Proposals for Changes in Teacher Education." National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards. Changes in Teacher E d u c a t i o n : An A p p r a i s a l . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .: National Education Association, 1963. Teacher Intern Program, Cooperating Teacher H a n d b o o k . M t . Pleasant, Michigan: School of Education, Central Michigan University Press, 1968. APPENDICES APPENDIX A COVER LETTERS 124 Letter to Member of Sample Group Dear Your assistance is required in a study w h ich will p r o­ mote the improvement of teacher preparation programs at Central Michigan University. You are in a group of fifty recent graduates of CMU wh o have been randomly selected to take part in this study. It includes graduates of the TIP program as well as the traditional four-year program. Each member of the sample will be observed independently by two student teaching coordinators for a period of approximately forty-five minutes. Each member will also be asked to self-administer the Minnesota Teacher A t t i ­ tude Inventory, and the principal will be requested to complete an evaluation form. Your time and effort will be minimal and individual information will not be released. Please fill in the information on the enclosed card and return at your very earliest convenience. You are urged to participate in this very important study. Findings will be made available to you at the conclusion of the study. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours. Jack Greenstein, Student Teaching Coordinator 125 Return Card Accepting Participation in the Study Teacher_________________________________________ School ___________________ Date entered C . M . U . Date graduated from C.M.U.__________________ I will not participate in the study to improve teacher preparation. I will be happy to participate in the study. Signature_______________________ 126 Your agreement: to take part in our study to improve - teacher education at Central Michigan University is greatly appreciated. The observers listed below will contact you soon to make the necessary arrangements. I have enclosed the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and an answer sheet. The instructions are explicit and clear. The entire process should take between twenty and thirty minutes. You may self-administer this instrument at your leisure, but the inventory and the answer sheet must be returned to me by May 15 in the envelope provided for that purpose. Thank you once again for your cooperation and your pro­ fessional attitude. Sincerely yours, Jack Greenstein, Student Teaching Coordinator 127 Letter to Principal of Member of Sample Group Dear A study with the purpose of promoting the improvement of teacher preparation programs at Central Michigan University has been initiated. The following teacher(s) on your staff have agreed to participate in this investigation: The procedure is as follows: 1. Each member of the sample will be observed twice by CMU Student Teaching Coordinators and will be rated on R y a n s 1 Classroom Observation R e c o r d . 2. Each member of the sample will self-administer the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. 3. You, as the principal, will complete a c o n f i­ dential teacher evaluation form for each member of the sample. We sincerely hope you will grant permission to include the above named staff member(s) in the study and cooperate by completing the teacher evaluation form. A summary of the findings will be made available to you at the conclusion of the study. Please return the enclosed card at your very earliest convenience. Thank you for your vital cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, Jack Greenstein Student Teaching Coordinator Return Card F r o m Principal Accepting Participation in the Study Principal School I will be happy to cooperate in the study to improve teacher preparation. I will not participate in the study to improve teacher preparation. 129 Dear Principal: Thank you very much for your decision to participate in our study. Enclosed please find a Teacher Evaluation Form which has been used by a large Class A school system for five years and revised slightly for the purposes of this study. Please use this form to evaluate the performance of , a member of your staff. The instructions are explicit and uncomplicated. Please com­ plete this form at your convenience and return in the stamped, addressed envelope provided for that purpose within two weeks. If more information is necessary, do not hesitate to write. Thank you for your cooperation and professional attitude. Sincerely yours. Jack Greenstein Student Teaching Coordinator APPENDIX B INSTRUMENTATION PLEASE NOTEj HMinnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, FoAm A H , ( c ) 7 9 5 7 T h e P<5ychotogteat Cofvponatton, pageA 130-135, not micJiofittmed at k eque&t o if authon.. A vattabte consuttatton at Michigan State Untv e/u tty Ltbtiany. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. 136 C LASSROOM OBSERVATION RECORD* Teacher Characteristic Study Class of N o,___ Sex___ Subject____ Date Teacher Behavior Apathetic Obstructive Uncertain Dependent 'eacher Behavior 5. Partial 6. Autocratic 7. Aloof 8. Restricted 9. Harsh 10. Dull Stereotyped 11. 12. Apathetic 13. Unimpressive 14. Evading 15. Erratic 16. Excitable 17. Uncertain 18. Disorganized 19. Inflexible 20. Pessimistic 21. Immature 22. Narrow 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 Alert Responsible Confident Initiating zzzz Pupil 1. 2. 3. 4. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Fair Democratic Responsive Understanding Kindly Stimulating Original Alert Attractive Responsible Steady Poised Confident Systematic Adaptable Optimistic Integrated Broad zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz City________________School___________ Time_____ Observer *The Classroom Observation Record is one of the paper and pencil tests developed as a result of the Charac teristics of Teachers study directed by David G. Ryans. Permission to reproduce the Record was granted by the American Council on Education, publisher of the study. 137 GLOSSARY (To Be Used with Classroom Observation Record) PUPIL BEHAVIORS 1. Apathetic-Alert Pupil Behavior Apathetic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Listless. Bored-acting. Entered into activities half-heartedly. Restless• Attention wandered. Slow in getting under way. 2. Alert 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Obstructive-Responsible Pupil Behavior Responsible Obstructive 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Appeared anxious to recite and participate. Watched teacher atten­ tively . Worked c o n c e n t r a t e d l y . Seemed to respond eagerly. Prompt and ready to take part in activities when they begin. Rude to one another and/ or to t e a c h e r . Interrupting; demanding attention; disturbing. Obstinate; sullen. Refusal to participate. Quarrelsome; irritable. Engaged in name-calling and/or tattling. Unprepared. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Courteous, cooperative, friendly w i t h each other and with teacher. Completed assignments without complaining or unhappiness. Controlled voices. Received help and c r iti­ cism attentively. Asked for help when needed. Orderly without specific directions from teacher. Prepared. 138 3. Uncertain-Confident Pupil Behavior Uncertain . 2. 1 3. 4. 5. 6 . Confident Seemed afraid to try; unsure. Hesitant; restrained. Appeared embarrassed. Frequent display of nervous habits; nail-biting, etc. Appeared shy and t i m i d . Hesitant and/or stammering speech. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Seemed anxious to try new problems or activities Undisturbed by mistakes. Volunteered to recite. Entered freely into activities. Appeared relaxed. Spoke w i t h assurance. Dependent-Initiating Pupil Behavior Initiating Dependent 1. 2. 3. 4. Relied on teacher for explicit directions. Showed little ability to work things out for selves. Unable to proceed when initiative called for. Appeared reluctant to take lead or to accept responsibility. 1. 2. 3. 4. Volunteered ideas and suggestions. Showed resourcefulness Took lead willingly. Assumed r e s p o n s i bili­ ties without evasion. TEACHER BEHAVIORS 5. Partial-Fair Teacher Behavior Fair Partial 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Repeatedly slighted a pupil. Corrected or criticized certain pupils repeatedly. Repeatedly gave a pupil special a d v a n t a g e s . Gave most attention to one or a few pupils. Showed prejudice (favor­ able or unfavorable) toward some s o c i a l , racial, or religious groups• Expressed suspicion of motives of a pupil. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Treated all pupils approximately equally. In case of controversy pupil allowed to ex ­ plain his side. Distributed attention to many pupils. Rotated leadership impartially. Based criticism or praise on factual evidence, not hearsay. 6. Autocratic-Democratic Teacher Behavior Autocratic Told pupils each step to t a k e . Intolerant of pupils' ideas. Mandatory in giving directions; orders to be obeyed at once. Interrupted pupils al­ though their discussion was r e l e v a n t . Always directed rather than participated. 7. Democratic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Aloof-Responsive Teacher Behavior Restricted Stiff and formal in re­ lations w ith pupils. Apart; removed from class activity. Condescending to pupils. Routine and subject matter only concern; pupils as persons ignored. Referred to pupil as "this child" or "that child." 8. Guided pupils without being mandatory. Exchanged ideas with pupils. Encouraged (asked for) pupil opinion. Encouraged pupils to make own decisions. Entered into activities w i t h o u t domination. U nders t a n d i n g 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A p proachable to all pupils. Participated in class activity. Responded to reasonable requests and/or que s ­ tions . Spoke to pupils as equals. Commended effort. Gave e n c o u r a g e m e n t . . Recognized individual differences. Restricted-Understanding Teacher Behavior Restricted Recognized only academic accomplishments of pupils; no concern for personal problems. Completely unsympathetic wit h a pupil's failure at a task. Called attention to only very good or very poor work• Understanding 1. 2. 3. 4. Showed awareness of a pupil's personal emo­ tional problems and needs• Was tolerant of error on part of pupil. Patient w ith a pupil beyond ordinary limits of patience. Showed w hat appeared to be sincere sympathy w i t h a pupil's viewpoint, 9. Harsh-Kindly Teacher Behavior Harsh Kindly Hypercritical; fault­ finding . Cross; curt. Depreciated pupil's efforts; was sarcastic. Scolded a great deal. Lost t e m p e r . Used threats. Permitted pupils to laugh at mistakes of others. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 10. Went out of way to be pleasant and/or to help pupils; friendly. Gave a pupil a deserved compliment. Found good things in pupils to call a t ten­ tion to. Seemed to show sincere concern for pupil's personal problem. Showed affection w i t h ­ out being demonstrative. Disengaged self from a pupil without bluntness. Dull-Stimulating Teacher Behavior Stereotyped Uninteresting, monotonous explanations. Assignments provided little or no motivation. Failed to provide challenge• Lacked animation. Failed to capitalize on pupil's interests. Pedantic, boring. Lacked enthusiasm; boredacting. Original 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Highly interesting presentation; got and held attention without being flashy. Clever and witty, though not smart-alecky or wisecracking. Enthusiastic; animated. Assignments challenging. Took advantage of pupil interests. Brought lesson success­ fully to a climax. Seemed to provoke thinking. 141 12. A p a thetic—Alert Teacher Behavior Alert Apathetic 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . Seemed listless; languid; lacked enthusiasm. Seemed bored by pupils. Passive in response to pupils. Seemed preoccupied. Attention seemed to wander. Sat in chair most of time; took no active part in class activities. 13. 1. 2. 3. 4. Unimpr e s s i v e —Attractive Teacher Behavior Attractive Unimpressive 1. 2 3. 4. . 5. 6. Untidy or sloppily dressed. Inappropriately dressed. Drab, colorless. Posture and bearing unattractive. Possessed distracting personal habits. Mumbled; inaudible speech; limited expression; d i s ­ agreeable voice tone; poor inflection. 14. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. . 2. 3. 4. 5. Clean and neat. Well-groomed; dress showed good taste. Posture and bearing attractive. Free from distracting personal habits. Plainly audible speech; good expression; agree­ able voice tone; good inflection. Evading-Responsible Teacher Behavior Evading 1 Appeared buoyant; w i d e ­ awake; enthusiastic about activity of the moment. Kept constructively busy Gave attention to, and seemed interested in, what was going on in class. Prompt to "pick up" class w h e n pupils* atten­ tion showed signs of lagging. Avoided responsibility; disinclined to make de­ cisions. "Passed the buck" to class, to other teachers, etc. Left learning to pupil, failing to give adequate help. Let a difficult situation get out of control. Assignments and directions indefinite. (Continued) Responsible 1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Assumed responsibility; made decisions as re­ quired . Conscientious. Punctual. Painstaking; careful. Suggested aids to learning. Controlled a difficult situation. Gave definite directions Called attention to standards of quality. (Continued) 142 No insistence on either individual or group standards. Inattentive with pupils. Cursory. 7 8 15. 9. 10. Erratic-Steady Teacher Behavior Erratic 1 , 2 , Steady Impulsive; uncontrolled; temperamental; unsteady. Course of action easily swayed by circumstances of the m o m e n t . Inconsistent. 16. 1. 2. 3. 2 . 3. Easily disturbed and upset; flustered by classroom situation. Hurried in class activi­ ties; spoke rapidly using many words and g e s t u r e s . Was "jumpy"; nervous. Poised 1. 2. 3. 4. 17. . 2 . 3. 4. Seemed at ease at all times. Unruffled by situation that developed in class­ room; dignified without being stiff or formal. Unhurried in class activities; spoke quietly and slowly. Successfully diverted attention from a stress situation in classroom. Uncertain-Confident Teacher Behavior Uncertain 1 Calm; controlled. Maintained progress to ­ ward objective. Stable, consistent, predictable. Excitable-Poised Teacher Behavior Excitable 1. Attentive to class Thorough. Seemed unsure of self; faltering, hesitant. Appeared timid and shy. Appeared artificial. Disturbed and embarrassed by mistakes and/or criti­ cism. Confident Seemed sure of self; selfconfident in relations with pupils. Undisturbed and u nem­ barrassed by mistakes and/or criticism. 143 18. Disorganized-Systematic Teacher Behavior Disorganized 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6 . No plan for classwork. Unprepared. Objectives not apparent; undecided as to next step. Wasted time. Explanations not to the point. Easily distracted from matters at hand. 19. Systematic 1 2 3 4 5 6 Inflexible-Adaptable Teacher Behavior Inflexible 1. 2 . 3. 4. Rigid in conforming to routine. Made no attempt to adapt materials to individual pupils. Appeared incapable of modifying explanation or activities to meet particular classroom situations. Impatient w i t h inter­ ruptions and digressions. 20. Adaptable 1. 2. 3. 4. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6 . Flexible in adapting explanations. Individualized m a t e r ­ ials for pupils as re­ quired; adapted activi­ ties to pupils. Took advantage of p u p i l s ' questions to further clarify ideas. Met an unusual classroom situation competently. Pessimistic-Optimistic Teacher Behavior Pessimistic 1. Evidence of a planned though flexible pr o ­ cedure . Well prepared. Careful in planning with pupils. Systematic about p ro­ cedure of class. Had anticipated needs. Provided reasonable explanations. Held discussion to­ gether; objectives apparent. Depressed; unhappy. Skeptical. Called attention to potential "bad." Expressed hopelessness of "education today," the school system, or fellow educators. Noted mistakes; ignored good points. Frowned a great deal; had unpleasant facial expres­ sion. Optimistic 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cheerful; good-natured. Genial. Joked with pupils on occasion. Emphasized potential " g ood." Looked on bright side; spoke optimistically of the future. Called attention to good points; emphasized the positive. 144 21. Immature-Integrated Teacher Behavior Immature . 2. 1 3. Integrated Appeared naive in approach to classroom situations. Self-pitying; complaining; demanding. Boastful; conceited. 22. Narrow-Broad Teacher Behavior Narrow 2 3 4. 5. 6 . Maintained class as center of activity; kept self out of spotlight; referred to class's activities, not own. Emotionally well con­ trolled . Presentation strongly sug­ gested limited background in subject or material; lack of scholarship. Did not depart from text. Failed to enrich dis c u s ­ sions w ith illustrations from related areas. Showed little evidence of breadth of cultural b a c k ­ ground in such areas as science, arts, literature, and history. Answers to pupils' ques­ tions incomplete or in­ accurate . Noncritical approach to subject. Broad Presentation suggested good background in sub­ ject; good scholarship suggested. Drew examples and ex ­ planations from various sources and related fields. Showed evidence of broad cultural background in science, art, literature, history, etc. Gave satisfying, complete, and accurate answers to questions. Was constructively criti­ cal in approach to subject matter. 145 TEACHER EVALUATION FORM N axne Schoo 1 Grade Taught Subject Taught S y s t em_ (Secondary) Principal____________________________ pate______________ Encircle the number which reflects the teacher's position on the scale. 1 = low, 4 = average, 7 = high. INSTRUCTIONAL Q U A L I T I E S : 1. Formulates realistic goals and motivates children towards these goals. 12 3 4 5 67 2. Displays careful, and quality planning. 12 3 4 5 67 3. Provides for individual differences. 12 3 4 5 67 4. Utilizes a variety of instructional materials. 12 3 4 5 67 5. Provides a natural, interesting, and pleasant atmosphere in the classroom. 12 3 4 5 67 6. Varies instructional m e t h o d s . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Knows subject matter. 12 3 4 5 67 8. Uses systematic evaluation skills. 12 3 4 5 67 9. Explanations and assignments are clear and a d e q u a t e . 12 3 4 5 67 12 3 4 5 67 TEACHER-STUDENT RELATIONSHIP 1. Sympathetic, patient, understanding and friendly in pupil relationship. 2. Consistent in school and class procedure. 3. Maintains consistent and wholesome control of pupils. 12 3 4 5 67 4. Avoids ridicule and sarcasm. 12 3 4 5 6 7 5. Has active cooperation and respect of pupils. 12 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 146 PERSONAL TRAITS 1. Well groomed, neat and clean. 12 3 4 5 67 2. Gives evidence of good general health. 12 3 4 5 67 3. Shows initiative. 12 3 4 5 67 12 3 4 5 67 4. Is able to deal rationally w ith personal and professional problems. 5. Makes use of a sense of humor. 12 3 4 5 67 6. Shows dependability. 12 3 4 5 67 7. Attendance and/or punctuality. 12 3 4 5 67 12 3 4 5 67 12 3 4 5 67 8. Maintains high standards in use of English. CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT 1. Records and reports completely and accurately kept and reported— handed in when due. 2. R oom attractive and orderly. 12 3 4 5 67 3. Class r o o m is purposeful and relaxed. 12 3 4 5 6 7 4. Well organized and efficient in routines• 12 3 4 5 67 5. Aware of physical care of room and equipment. 12 3 4 5 6 7 GENERAL 1. Is loyal, cooperative, and construetively helpful in promoting building and school policies. 12 3 4 5 6 7 2. Willingly assumes a fair share of school d u t i e s . 12 3 4 5 6 7 3. Contacts and establishes good rapport w ith parents. 12 3 4 5 6 7 APPENDIX C MISCELLANEOUS 147 Items of the F-Scale: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. F o r m 30 Human nature being w h a t it is, there will always be war and conflict. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back if we have enough will-power. Science has its place, but there are many important things that can never possibly be understood by the human mind. Every person should have complete faith in some super­ natural power whose decisions he obeys without question. When a person has a problem or worry, it is best for him not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. A person w h o has bad manners, habits, and breeding can hardly expect to get along w i t h decent people. What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will to fight for family and country. Some people are born w ith the urge to jump from high places. Nowadays w hen so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to p r o ­ tect himself especially carefully against catching an infection or disease from them. An insult to our honor should be punished. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down. What this country needs most, more than laws and political programs, is a few courageous, tireless devoted leaders in w h o m the people can put their trust. Sex crimes, such as rape and attacks on children, deserve more than mere imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse. People can be divided into two distinct classes; the weak and the strong. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel a great love, gratitude and respect for his parents. Someday it will probably be shown that astrology can explain a lot of things. Nowadays more and more people are prying into matters that should remain personal and private. Wars and social troubles may someday be ended by an earthquake or flood that will destroy the whole world. 148 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Most of our social problems would be solved if w e could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked and feebleminded people. The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame compared with the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it. If people would talk less and work more everybody would be better off. Most people don't realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places. Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished. No sane, normal, decent person could ever think of hurting a close friend or relative. Familiarity breeds contempt. It is only natural and right for each person to think that his family is better than any other. America may not be perfect, but the American Way has brought us about as close as human beings can get to a perfect society. I can hardly imagine myself marrying a person whose religion is different from mine. Now that a new world organization is set up, America must be sure that she loses none of her independence and complete power as a sovereign nation. 149 FLANDERS' CATEGORIES FOR INTERACTION ANALYSIS i.* ACCEPTS FEELING t accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. 2 .* PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES; praises or encourages student action or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another individual; nodding head, or saying "urn hm?" or "go on" are included. 3.* ACCEPTS OR OSES IDEAS OF STUDENTSt clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. U CJ 2 M S *4 asking a question about content or procedure ASKS QUESTIONSt with th',e intent that a student answer. OS 8 I 5.* LECTURINGt giving facts or opinions about content or proceduresi expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. 6.* GIVING DIRECTIONSt directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. 7.* CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY; statements intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher iB doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference. 8 .* STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE i talk by students in response to teacher, Teacner initiates the contact or solicits student statement. 9.* STUDENT TALK— INITIATION t talk by students which they initiate. If "calling on" student is only to indicate who may talk next, observer must decide whether student wanted to talk. If he did, use this category. Vi 10.* SILENCE OR CONFUSIONt pauses, short periods of silence and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be under­ stood by the observer. *There is NO scale implied by these numbers. Each number is classificatory; it designates a particular kind of communication event. To write these numbers down during observation is to enumerate, not to judge a position on a scale. 150 TALLY SHEET FLANDERS' MATRIX 1 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 // / // 3 / 3 /// 9 / .W 6 mi // 10 m / /// 9 / 8 5 2 19 12 11 8 /// L0 Totals 2 6 5 //// 8 5 /// 5 7 Totals 1 / 2 4 5 (SAMPLE) 6 0 0 1 5 59 FLANDERS' MATRIX Totals Category D. Indirect Influence Pairs Teacher Stimulates Student Talk E. Direct Influence Pairs Totals A. Teacher Talk 3. Sustained Student Com­ munication B. Student Talk 151 Teacher Reactions to Student Talking 152 a. Centers Represented in t h i s S t u d y AlpenaO O Ludington Midland Mt. P l e a s a n t O MICHIGAN City SaginawA Thumb Area A Grand Rapids S.E. Mich. Farmington O Dearborn O Locations of Central Michigan University Off-Campus Student Teaching Centers 4