71-11,908
MARCUS, Clifford M . , 1918CONTRIBUTIONS OF STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS TO
MICHIGAN COOPERATING SCHOOLS AS PERCEIVED BY
STUDENT TEACHERS, SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND
ADMINISTRATORS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, teacher training

U niversity Microfilms, A

XEROX C om pany , A nn A rbor, M ichigan

C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F S T U D E N T T E A C H I N G P R O G R A M S TO
MICHIGAN COOPERATING SCHOOLS AS PERCEIVED
BY S T U D E N T T E A C H E R S , S U P E R V I S I N G
TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
By

C l i f f o r d M.

Marcus

A THESIS

S u b m i t t e d to
Michigan State University
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s
for the d e g r e e of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
C o l l e g e of E d u c a t i o n
1970

ABSTRACT
C O N T R I B U T I O N S O F S T U D E N T T E A C H I N G P R O G R A M S TO
M I C H I G A N C O O P E R A T I N G S C H O O L S AS P E R C E I V E D
BY S T U D E N T T E A C H E R S , S U P E R V I S I N G
TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
By
C l i f f o r d M.

Marcus

Purpose
Th e p u r p o s e

of the s t u d y

specific contributions
operating

is:

to e d u c a t i o n a l

schools which may

student teaching programs;

extent

to w h i c h t h e s e c o n t r i b u t i o n s

as r e s u l t i n g

(2)

study

and

(3) t o u t i l i z e

relevant

an d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f o f f - c a m p u s

the

are p e r c e i v e d by
and administrators
in M i c h i g a n

information o b ­

in f o r m u l a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e

and recommendations

in c o ­

to d e s c r i b e

from student teaching programs

t a i n e d in the

grams

programs

supervising teachers

cooperating schools;

si o n s

to i d e n t i f y

r e s u l t as a c o n s e q u e n c e of

having

student teachers,

(1)

conclu­

to the o r g a n i z a t i o n

student teaching p r o ­

in M i c h i g a n p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e c o o p e r a t i n g s cho ols .
Procedure
The

teaching was

l i t e r a t u r e as it is r e l a t e d to s t u d e n t
r e v i e w e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g a reas:

C l i f f o r d M.
(1)

q en e r a l

cooperating

b e n e f i t s of s t u d e n t
schools;

e r a t i n g schools;

(3)

te ach er programs;
and s tu d e n t

(2)

t eac h i n g pr ogr a m s

the s tud e n t

to

tea che r and c o o p ­

s u p e r v i s i n g tea chers and st udent

(4) c o o p e r a t i n g school

teaching;

M a rc u s

administrators

(5) c o o p e r a t i n g sc hool pupils

and s t u d e n t teaching.
Data

for the st udy are d r a w n

of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n , "
student teaching programs
vate c o o p e r a t i n g schools.

from the

"Study

a r e a c t i v e s u r v e y of

in M i c h i g a n p u b l i c and p r i ­
This

s t a t e - w i d e s u r v e y was

done u n d e r the d i r e c t i o n of d e a n s of t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n
i n s t i t u t i o n s in M i c h i g a n .

Respondents

of 4,397 s u p e r v i s i n g teachers,

c o m p r i s e d a total

4,483 s t u d e n t te ach ers

and 1,001 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
tionnaires were

Ques­

s u b m i t t e d by c o l l e g e c o o r d i n a t o r s of

s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g to the three c a t e g o r i e s of r e s p o n d e n t s
d u r i n g the fall t e r m

(or semester)

of the 1969-70 a c a ­

d e m i c year.
Findings
A sin gl e b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s stated:

student

t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s are p e r c e i v e d as f a v o r a b l e
c o o p e r a t i n g schools.

to M i c h i g a n

S ix s u b - h y p o t h e s e s s p e c i f i e d p e r ­

c e i v e d e f f e c t s of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g in c o o p e r a t i n g sc h o o l s
upon:
class

(1)

instructional activities;

a c t i v iti es ;

(2) o u t s i d e of

(3) r e l i e f a f f o r d e d r e g u l a r staff

C l i f f o r d M. M a r c u s
members;
morale;
dent

(4)
and

supervising teacher performance;
(6)

a t t i t u d e of

staff

towards

stu­

te ach ing .
Thirty discrete

six sub-hypotheses
merical
ages,

sc h o o l p e r s o n n e l

(5)

survey

and u s e d

item s w e r e

to t e s t

t a b u l a t i o n s of r e s p o n s e s ,

revealed more positive

of r e s p o n d e n t s
criteria.

related

to the

their validity.

converted

Nu­

to p e r c e n t ­

than negative perceptions

for e a c h o f the t h i r t y s p e c i f i e d d e c i s i o n

It a p p e a r s

that each

sub-hypothesis

is s u p ­

p o r t e d by

the d a t a a n d t h e y in t u r n are a s s u m e d to s u b ­

stantiate

the

programs

central question,

are p e r c e i v e d as

t hat

favorable

student teaching
to M i c h i g a n c o o p ­

e r a t i n g schools.
Conclusions
1.

The m a j ority of all three categories
spondents perceive

2.

student

of r e ­

teaching p r o g r a m s ,

as t hey are p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d ,

to be

beneficial

s cho o l s .

to M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

A m o n g the h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e s o f p o s i t i v e
response

in the

study were

to the e f f e c t of s t u d e n t
structional
are:

activities

materials,"

for p u p i l s .

a n d s u g g e s t i o n of

in­

Examples

to p u p i l s , "

"new or different

o f a i d or i d e a s . "

relating

teaching upon

"individual attention

troduction of

items

in­

instructional

"other kinds

C l i f f o r d M. M a rc u s
Although

" dis cip lin e" wa s p e r c e i v e d as b e i n g

p o s i t i v e l y a f f e c t e d by st u d e n t
grams,

this

teaching p r o ­

fa c t o r h ad one of the h i g h e s t

p e r c e n t a g e s of n e g a t i v e r e s p o n s e s

from all

three groups.
S t u d e n t te ach ers a p p a r e n t l y do not have as
m u c h c o n t a c t w i t h p a r e n t s or i n v o l v e m e n t in
c o m m u n i t y a c t i v i t i e s as may be de sir abl e.
S t u d e n t te ac h e r s are p e r c e i v e d to be m a k i n g
a c o n t r i b u t i o n to o u t s i d e of cl ass a c t i v i t i e s
in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s .
R e g u l a r s taf f m e m b e r s

in c o o p e r a t i n g sc hoo ls

are a f f o r d e d the o p p o r t u n i t y

to p a r t i c i p a t e

in a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h the p r e s e n c e
of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s in t h e i r bui ldi ngs .
Student teaching programs

c o m p l e m e n t ot her

in-service education activities

for p r o ­

fe ssi o n a l s t a f f in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s by
e n h a n c i n g the p e r f o r m a n c e of s u p e r v i s i n g
teachers.
S t a f f m o r a l e is p e r c e i v e d to be p o s i t i v e l y
a f f e c t e d b y s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s by a d ­
m i n i s t r a t o r s of c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
Supervising

and s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

in M i c h i g a n

c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s a s s e r t th at sc h o o l p e r ­
s o n n e l sh o u l d a c t i v e l y seek to h a v e s t u d e n t
teachers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge

the a s s i s t a n c e

and c o o p ­

e r a t i o n g i v e n m e b y e a c h m e m b e r of m y g u i d a n c e c o m m i t t e e
in c o m p l e t i n g this d i s s e r t a t i o n .
A.

Blackman,

and Dr.

Dr. F r e d J. V e s c o l a n i , Dr.

E v e r e t t M.

Blackman,

T h e y are Dr.

Rogers.

Charles

G e o r g e R. M yer s

I e s p e c i a l l y thank Dr.

c o m m i t t e e chairman,

for h is h elp and g u i d a n c e

t h r o u g h o u t m y p r o g r a m of g r a d u a t e s t u d i e s .
A p p r e c i a t i o n is a l s o e x t e n d e d
K e n n e d y and Dr.

to Dr.

W.

Hen ry

L e l a n d W. D e a n for t h e i r c o n s t r u c t i v e

s u g g e s t i o n s an d a p p r o v a l

for me to use d a t a

from the

S t u d y of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i gan .
This

thesis

is d e d i c a t e d to my wife,

he r a b i d i n g love and support;
Pat,

Sharon,

Rob,

Diane,

Esther,

a nd to our children,

Kevin,

Brian,

Stan,

D o n n a and Karen,

w h o a l s o h a v e the c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n syndrome.

ii

for

T A B L E OF C O N T E N T S
Chapter
I.

Page
INTRODUCTION

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

Need
.............................
P u r p o s e .....................................
D e f i n i t i o n of T e r m s ............... ...
.
H y p o t h e s e s .................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f the S t u d y ...............
O v e r v i e w .................................
II.

REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

.

.

.

.

Introduction
..............................
General Benefits of Student Teaching
P r o g r a m s to C o o p e r a t i n g S c h o o l s . . .
The Student Teacher and Cooperating
Schools
Supervising Teachers and Student
T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s ......................
Cooperating School Administrators
an d S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
...................
Cooperating School Pupils and
Student Teaching
Summary
......................
III.

IV.

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

I
1
8
9
11
13
14
16
16
18
22
26
31
34
38

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

40

Introduction
..............................
P r o c e d u r e s and R a t i o n a l e
...............
V a l i d i t y o f the S t u d y
. . . . . .
H y p o t h e s e s .................................
S u m m a r y .....................................

40
42
44
45
49

A N A L Y S I S O F R E S U L T S ..........................

51

Introduction
..............................
F i n d i n g s .................................
S u m m a r y ..........................

51
52
97

iii

Chapter
V.

Page
S UM M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S ......................
.............................
Introduction
R e f l e c t i o n s on S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
. .
.
Su m m a r y of F i n d i n g s ......................
C o n c l u s i o n s and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
. .
.
S u g g e s t i o n s for F u r t h e r Res ear ch
. .
.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

100
100
101
104
105
109
113

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.
B.

I n s t i t u t i o n s P a r t i c i p a t i n g in the St u d y
of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n
. . .

.

S tudy of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e For ms
.........................

iv

119
120

LIS T OF T A B L E S
Table

Page

1.

Change

in A m o u n t of S m a l l G r o u p

2.

Effect

on P r o v i s i o n

3.

F o l l o w - u p o f E x a m s ..............................

57

4.

I n d i v i d u a l A t t e n t i o n to, or T u t o r i n g of
P u p i l s ............................................

59

5.

D i s c i p l i n e .........................................

60

6.

M o t i v a t i o n o f P u p i l s ..........................

62

7.

Bri ng, D e v e l o p , P r o v i d e o r S u g g e s t N e w o r
Different Instructional Materials
. . .

64

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

Instruction

for M a k e - u p W o r k

.

. . .

.

54
56

S u g g e s t o r P r o v i d e any O t h e r K i n d s of A i d
o r I d e a s .........................................

65

Effect Upon Supervising Teachers' Tine Demand
F o r T e a c h i n g .....................................

67

Effect Upon Supervising Teachers' Time Demand
F o r L e s s o n P l a n n i n g ..............................

68

Effect Upon Supervising Teachers' Time Demand
Fo r G r a d i n g P a p e r s ..............................

69

Student Teacher Contribution--Supervise Youth
G r o u p s in M e e t i n g s , P r o g r a m s , T r i p s , Etc.
.

71

Student Teacher C o n t r i b u t i o n — Give Talks To
Parents Groups
..................................

72

Stud e n t T e a c h e r C o n t r i b u t i o n - - S u p e r v i s i o n of
Study Periods
..............................

73

S t u d e n t T e a c h e r C o n t r i b u t i o n — S u p e r v i s i o n of
P l a y g r o u n d s , h a l l w a y s , e t c ......................

75

v

Pag e

Table
16.

Student Teachers Relieving Regular Staff
T o P a r t i c i p a t e in T e a c h i n g .......................... 77

17.

F r e q u e n c y of S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s R e l i e v i n g R e g ­
ul ar Staff, P e r m i t t i n g T h e m to V i s i t O t h e r
C l a s s r o o m s or S c h o o l s
..........................

78

18.

S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s R e l i e v i n g R e g u l a r Staff,
P e r m i t t i n g T h e m T o P a r t i c i p a t e In C o m m i t t e e
W o r k In The S c h o o l .................................. 80

19.

Affording Regular Staff Time For Research

20.

Student Teachers Relieving Regular Staff
M e m b e r s P r o v i d i n g T i m e Fo r P r o f e s s i o n a l
R e a d i n g O r W r i t i n g .................................. 82

21.

Extent Student Teaching Provides Supervising
T eac h e r Time To Visit O t h e r Classrooms Or
S c h o o l s .................................................83

22.

Extent Student Teaching Affords Supervising
T e a c h e r s A d d e d T i m e F o r C o m m i t t e e W o r k In The
School With Pupils and/or Staff
...............

.

.

81

85

23.

E f f e c t On S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r s ' T i m e F o r
R e s e a r c h .................................................86

24.

Time Afforded Supervising T e acher For P r o ­
f e s s i o n a l R e a d i n g O r W r i t i n g as R e s u l t Of
Student Teaching Program
......................

87

25.

Additional Time Student Teaching Programs
Afford Supervising Teachers To Work With
S t a f f M e m b e r s ......................................... 88

26.

Add e d Time Supervising T e acher Can As s i s t
P r i n c i p a l O r O t h e r T e a c h e r s B e c a u s e Of
Student Teaching Program
......................

90

Effect Of Working With Student Teachers Upon
Supervising Teacher Performance
...............

91

Effect On T e a c h i n g Performance Of All Staff
As A R e s u l t of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s - Administrator Perceptions
......................

92

27.

28.

vi

Page

Table
29 .

30 .

31.

E f f e c t Of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s U p o n
S t a f f M o r a l e , As P e r c e i v e d By C o o p e r a t i n g
S c h o o l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s ..........................

93

A t t i t u d e Of A d m i n i s t r a t o r s A n d T e a c h e r s
T o w a r d s S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g R e c o m m e n d e d By
Supervising And Student Teachers
.

95

A P a r a d i g m Fo r A n a l y s i s Of T h e S t u d y D a t a

96

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Need
In the w o r l d of the

*70's,

sound and e f f e c t i v e

e d u c a t i o n is u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as a m o s t u rg e n t
n e e d of society.

T e c h n o l o g y ha s p r o v i d e d the m e a n s

for

i n f o r m a t i o n r e t r i e v a l a nd d i s s e m i n a t i o n b e y o n d the w i l d ­
est st re t c h of the i m a g i n a t i o n of e d u c a t o r s of e a r l i e r
g e ner ati ons .
n e v e r before.

The tools

for l e a r n i n g are a v a i l a b l e

The key e l e m e n t

as

in the e f f i c i e n t a p p l i ­

c a t i o n of these w o n d e r s of i n v e n t i o n and t e c h n o l o g y is
still

the h u m a n factor.

are in d e m a n d

Skilled,

p r o f e s s i o n a l te ac h e r s

in i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s

as e d u c a t i o n has

come to be r e g a r d e d as the r igh t and n e c e s s i t y

for

e v e r y i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r of the d e m o c r a t i c society.
T h e r e has

long b e e n a d e b a t e in A m e r i c a n a c a ­

d e m i c cir c l e s b e t w e e n the a d h e r e n t s of the d i s c i p l i n e
o r i e n t e d s p e c i a l i s t s v e r s u s the p r o p o n e n t s of the n e e d
for p r o f e s s i o n a l
(to o ve rs i m p l i f y )

teacher education.
that all one n e e d s

The

former argue

is t h o r o u g h k n o w ­

ledge and sk ill in his c o n t e n t a r e a and he c a n te ach it

1

2
to oth ers .
art and
in w h i c h

The

latter

science with

in s i s t

for one or

is a d i s t i n c t

its o w n b o d y of t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e

the s u c c e s s f u l

ie nta t i o n .

th at t e a c h i n g

It is n o t

teacher must have a thorough o r ­

the p u r p o s e

here

to p u r s u e a d e f e n s e

the o t h e r of t h e s e d i v e r g e n t e x t r e m e s .

it is n o t e d

that

which

appears

there

the o n e

f ace t of

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n on

to be a g r e e m e n t

for d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e

is in the n e c e s s i t y

interacting with children

in a l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n .

R ather,

and y o u t h

Conant observes:

F e w if any t h o u g h t f u l p e o p l e h a v e d e n i e d that
the art of t e a c h i n g c a n be d e v e l o p e d b y p r a c t i c e #
under suitable conditions.
Thus, the m e m b e r s of the
M a s s a c h u s e t t s B o a r d of E d u c a t i o n , b e f o r e t h e y e s t a b ­
l i s h e d the f i r s t n o r m a l s c h o o l in the U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
s u b s c r i b e d to the s t a t e m e n t t h a t "No on e can e n t e r ­
t a i n a d o u b t th at t h e r e is a m a s t e r y in t e a c h i n g as
in e v e r y o t h e r art.
N o r is it less o b v i o u s tha t
w i t h i n r e a s o n a b l e l imi ts this s k i l l a n d this m a s t e r y
m a y t h e m s e l v e s b e m a d e the s u b j e c t of i n s t r u c t i o n
and be c o m m u n i c a t e d to o t h e r s . "
These words were
w r i t t e n in 1838.
T h e q u e s t i o n th en was:
W h a t is
this s k i l l a nd h o w c a n o n e c o m m u n i c a t e it to o t h e r s ?
T h i s q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s the h a r d core o f the i s s u e d
Teachers
that student
role
344

in A m e r i c a n c l a s s r o o m s

frequently assert

teaching played a profoundly

in t h e i r p r e - s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n .

influential

In a s u r v e y of

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n g r a d u a t e s of M c N e e s e

for the y e a r s

1957-1961,

P i ttman concluded,

State College
"The s t u d e n t

* James Bryant Conant, The Education of American
T e a c h e r s (New York:
M c G r a w - H i l l B ook C o m p a n y , 1963} ,

p.

113.

3
t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s e e m e d to p r e p a r e

the t eac her b e t t e r

than o t h e r areas of the t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n program.
M c C u l l o u g h s e c u r e d data

from a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e

s ample of 154 b e g i n n i n g high school b u s i n e s s

te ac h e r s

Ca l i f o r n i a .

The p u r p o s e of his study was to d e t e r m i n e

the o p i n i o n s

held by b e g i n n i n g te ach ers

co l l e g e p r e p a r a t i o n

for teaching.

w h o l e c o l l e g e e x p e r ie nce ,

in

r e g a r d i n g their

The study c o v e r e d the

i n c l u d i n g g e n e r a l edu cat i o n ,

s p e c i a l i z e d e d u c a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l educat ion .
McCullough

found that:

The r e s p o n d e n t s e x p r e s s e d s t r o n g views on p r o ­
f e ssi ona l e d u c a t i o n - - i n p a r t i c u l a r , s t u d e n t teaching.
M o r e than two t hirds of t h e m t h o u g h t that:
(1) s t u ­
d e n t t e a c h i n g was a very v a l u a b l e aspect of th eir
preparation; . . .
(3) S t u d e n t t e a c h i n g and m e t h o d s c o u r s e s p r o v i d e
some of the m ost v a l u a b l e p r e p a r a t i o n for teaching.
Fraser summarized questionnaires
f i r s t - y e a r teachers.
was

f rom 130 I ndi ana

She r e p o r t e d that st u d e n t

teaching

s e l e c t e d as by far the m o s t h e l p f u l c o u r s e and that

90 p e r c e n t of the r e s p o n d e n t s

indicated

that the e x p e r i ­

e n ce h a d s t r e n g t h e n e d t h e i r d e s i r e to tea c h . ^

K a t h l e e n H i g d o n Pit tman, "An E v a l u a t i o n of a
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m b y the G r a d u a t e s of a S t a t e
C o l l e g e " (unpublished Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y
of M i s s i s s i p p i , 1964).

2

E d i t h L e n o r e M c C u l l o u g h , "Op ini ons of B e g i n n i n g
H i g h S c h o o l B usi n e s s T e a c h e r s R e g a r d i n g T h e i r C o l l e g e P r e p ­
a r a t i o n F o r T eac h i n g " (unpubl ish ed Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , 1966), p. 117.
3
M a r i e Fraser, "A C h a l l e n g e Fo r All C o l l e g e s , "
The I n d i a n a Teache r, CII (May, 1958), 416-18.

4
The
student

t e s t i m o n i a l by t e a c h e r s

t e a c h i n g s t a n d s o u t as a m o s t

of t h e i r u n d e r g r a d u a t e w o r k
on

teacher education

ization.
student

literature

"It m a y w e l l

be

that

important experience

in t e r m s of i n f l u e n c i n g the c l a s s ­

r o o m b e h a v i o r of f u t u r e

teachers.After

teacher education

Conant concluded,

essential element

important aspect

to the e x t e n t o f b e c o m i n g a g e n e r a l ­

t e a c h i n g is the s i n g l e m o s t

twenty-seven

field tha t

is r e p e a t e d in the

H u n t e r and A m i d o n note,

in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n

st a t e s ,

in the

",

surveying

institutions

. . the o ne

in s i x t e e n

indisputably

in p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a t i o n

is p r a c t i c e

te ach ing .
In r e c e n t y e a r s
the use of c o l l e g e

campus

an d p r i v a t e o f f - c a m p u s
experience.
the

laboratory

schools

A r m s t r o n g no tes ,

available

l i t e r a t u r e t hat

during

the p a s t

campus

training school

for s t u d e n t

t h e r e h as b e e n a m o v e m e n t

thirty years

teaching."^

schools

to p u b l i c

for the s t u d e n t

teaching

"It c a n be c o n c l u d e d
t h e r e has b e e n

from

from

a shift

f r o m use of the c o l l e g e

to use of p u b l i c s c h o o l

facilities

The emergence of off-campus

^ E l i z a b e t h H u n t e r a nd E d m u n d A m i d o n , " D i r e c t E x ­
p e r i e n c e in T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n :
I n n o v a t i o n and E x p e r i m e n ­
t a t i o n , " T h e J o u r n a l o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , X V I I (Fall,
1966) , 282:
2
C o n a n t , E d u c a t i o n of A m e r i c a n T e a c h e r s , p. 142.
^ R o b e r t J o s e p h A r m s t r o n g , Jr., "The O r g a n i z a t i o n
an d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f E l e m e n t a r y O f f - C a m p u s S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s in M a s s a c h u s e t t s :
Current Practices
a n d P r o p o s e d P a t t e r n s " ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n .
U n i v e r s i t y o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s , 1967), p. 60.

sch o o l s

as

practical
The

facilities

for p r o s p e c t i v e

e x p e r i e n c e w a s m o t i v a t e d by v a r i o u s

increased enrollments

World War

II

than c a m p u s
suddenly

schools

thrust

Administrators

1969,

Springs,

the

for the L a b o r a t o r y Sc h o o l
the s t a t u s of l a b ­

in M i c h i g a n w h i c h was m a d e

found that Andrews

in B e r r i e n

teacher education institution o p e r ­

to c o n t i n u e

laboratory

in the

future.

Eastern Michigan

are p r e s e n t l y o p e r a t i n g

all be c l o s e d by A u g u s t ,

have nursery

school p r o ­

foreseeable

Central Michigan,

an d the U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n ,
schools which will

in D e c e m b e r ,

University,

a t i n g an e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y

Three universities,

stations

Public schools were

Association concerning

gr a m with plans

following

teacher education business.

to a s u r v e y

is the o n l y

institutions

teaching

could provide.

into

schools

it w a s

student

to gain
factors.

in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n

required more

According

oratory

teachers

1970.

F ive

s c h o o l or k i n d e r g a r t e n o n l y

laboratory projects.1
In 1967,
eligible

Andrews University had

f or i n i t i a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n .

less t h a n

Michigan

This

8 - t e n t h s o f 1 p e r c e n t o f the

teacher graduates eligible
in 1967.

2

for i n i t i a l

it is o b v i o u s

90 g r a d u a t e s

that

represents

11,301

total

c e r t i f i c a t i o n in
the v a s t m a j o r i t y

^T e a c h e r *s V o i c e ( P u b l i s h e d b y the M i c h i g a n
Education Association, East Lansing, Michigan:
March
1970).

2

2,

T e a c h e r P r o d u c t i v i t y - - 1 9 6 7 ( P u b li she d by Th e
A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o l l e g e s for T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n ,
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . , 1968), p. 38.

6
df M i c h i g a n
experience

teachers

are rec ei v i n g

in o f f - c a m p u s

their s tu d e n t

c o o p e r a t i n g schools.

If the e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y
indeed b e c o m e the locale

in w h i c h

s cho ols have

in iti ate s

te ac h i n g p r o f e s s i o n r e c e i v e their p r a c t i c u m ,
ma y w e l l be raised as to why
sc ho o l s
dent

answer

is that

interest
w i l l be

A c c o r d i n g to Bennie,
".

into the
the q u e s t i o n

the p u b l i c and p r i v a t e

s h o u l d p r o v i d e the f a c i l i t i e s

teaching.

tea ching

and staff

for s t u ­

the m o s t o bv i o u s

. . the p u b l i c sc hoo ls ha ve a v e s t e d

in the q u a l i t y and p r e p a r a t i o n of t eac her s w h o
filling t hei r c l a s s r o o m s

in the

future."1

W a r d and Ste a r n s p o i n t out that there a r e :
. . . c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c a d v a n t a g e s w h i c h a l e r t sc h o o l
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are q u i c k to recognize.
P u b l i c sc hoo ls
are fin d i n g it in t hei r o w n b e s t i n t e r e s t s to b e c o m e
v i t a l l y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t eac h e r e d u c a t i o n ins t i t u t i o n s .
S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s and b o a r d s of e d u c a t i o n r e a l i z e the
a d v a n t a g e s in terms o f a m o r e a mpl e s u p p l y of n e w
teachers, i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n and r e c o g n i t i o n by
the p r o f e s s o r s a nd p l a c e m e n t p e r s o n n e l w h o af f e c t
the d e c i s i o n s of g r a d u a t e s s e e k i n g p o s i t i o n s , and
the m o r e a d v a n c e d d e g r e e o f p r e p a r a t i o n w h i c h is
p o s s i b l e th rou gh l o c a l i z e d p h a s e s of the t e a c h e r
education p r o g r a m . 2
A f t e r s a m p l i n g the o p i n i o n s of par e n t s ,
f a c u l t y an d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of the Mt.

P l e a sa nt,

p upils,
Michigan,

W i l l i a m A. Bennie, C o o p e r a t i o n for B e t t e r S t u ­
d e n t T e a c h i n g (Minneapolis, M i n n . : B u r g e s s P u b l i s h i n g
Company , l 9 £ e ) , p. 20.
2
T e d W a r d a nd T r o y Ste arns, "An E x p a n d i n g Role,"
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n and the P u b l i c S c h o o l s , F o r t i e t h Ye a r bo ok o f T he A s s o c i a t i o n for S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g (Cedar Falls,
Iowa:
T h e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1961) , p. 103.

7
P u b l i c Sch o o l s

c o n c e r n i n g their a c c e p t a n c e of the s e c o n ­

dary s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g program,

Barberi

suggests:

The stu dy sh o u l d be r e p l i c a t e d on a re gi o n a l or
state basis.
Sin ce the study was d o n e in one school
s y s t e m there w o u l d be a d v a n t a g e in f ur t h e r study of
a lar ger p o p u l a t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t s to d e t e r m i n e w h e ­
th er these f ind i n g s w o u l d g e n e r a l l y h o l d true.
Too,
there w o u l d be m e r i t in h a v i n g s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s from
m a ny c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s s t u d i e d as to their
a c c e p t a n c e by pupils, parents, etc.*
W h i l e the p r e s e n t study is n ot a p r e c i s e
c a t i o n of the Mt.
c o m p a r a b l e da ta

Pleasant investigation,

f r o m a l arge r po p u l a t i o n .

repli­

it w i l l y i e l d
It w i l l be

i n t e r e s t i n g to see if the two s urv eys p r o d u c e

consistent

findings.
Th e n e e d for this st udy

is b a s e d o n the a s s u m p ­

tion t h a t s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g is a r e c o g n i z e d e s s e n t i a l
e l e m e n t in the p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n of teachers.
O f f - c a m p u s s c h o o l s are p r o v i d i n g s taf f a n d f a c i l i t i e s
for s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g in e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g numbers.

It

m u s t be e s t a b l i s h e d to the s a t i s f a c t i o n of g o v e r n i n g
b o a r d s o f c o o p e r a t i n g schools,
teachers
en ergy,

p are n t s ,

administrators,

and o t h e r s that the e x p e n d i t u r e of time,
talent, m o n e y an d any o t h e r v a r i a b l e s

involved

in m a i n t a i n i n g s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s r e s u l t in
definable positive effects

for the p a r t i c i p a t i n g schools.

C a r l o C. B arberi, "A S t u d y of the A c c e p t a n c e of
the S e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m as P e r c e i v e d by
Fa culty, A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , P a r e n t s and P u p i l s in the M t .
P l e a s a n t P u b l i c Schoo ls, Mt. P l e a s a n t , M i c h i g a n " (un­
p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1969), p. 78.

8

It is not s u f f i c i e n t m e r e l y

to say

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the p r o f e s s i o n .
know whether

that

it is their

Parents

d ese rve

to

th eir c h i l d r e n are b e i n g wel l s e r v e d or

e x p l o i t e d w h e n they are b e i n g

taught by stu den t teachers.

It is h o p e d that the d a t a o b t a i n e d in the study will
y i e l d some a nsw ers

to th ese and o t h e r q uestions.

Purpose
The p u r p o s e of this s t u d y is th ree-fold:
1.

To i d e n t i f y s p e c i f i c c o n t r i b u t i o n s
cational programs

to e d u ­

in c o o p e r a t i n g schools

w h i c h m ay r e s u l t as a c o n s e q u e n c e of h a v i n g
s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g pro grams.
2.

To d e s c r i b e the e x t e n t to w h i c h th ese c o n ­
tributions

are p e r c e i v e d by s t u d e n t te achers,

supervising teachers

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

as

resulting from student teaching programs

in

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
3.

To utilize

i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d in the study

in f o r m u l a t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e c o n c l u s i o n s
recommendations

and

r e l e v a n t to the o r g a n i z a t i o n

and administration of off-campus
teaching programs

student

in M i c h i g a n p u b l i c and

p r i v a t e c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
Th e p u r p o s e of this s t u d y is n o t to "prove"
student
schools.

t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s are b e n e f i c i a l
The p u r p o s e

that

to c o o p e r a t i n g

is to c o l l e c t d a t a f r o m three

9
groups of r e s p o n d e n t s

and to a nal y z e

The m a j o r i t y of r e s p o n s e s

their p er c e p t i o n s .

from stu d e n t

vising t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

teachers,

in n e a r l y

super­

1,000 p a r ­

ti c i p a t i n g e l e m e n t a r y an d s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s s h o u l d r e ­
veal a d e f i n i t e t r e n d f a v o r a b l y o r u n f a v o r a b l y d i s p o s e d
t o war ds

stu d e n t

teaching.

As the n u m b e r s of o f f - c a m p u s
programs have

increased,

s tud e n t

the q u e s t i o n

teaching

is p o s e d m o r e

fre­

q u e n t l y c o n c e r n i n g the p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s upon
c o o p e r a t i n g school systems.

S c h o o l b o a r d m emb e r s ,

and p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s ,
for l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i e n c e s

parents

w h i l e r e c o g n i z i n g the ne ed

for p r o s p e c t i v e

teachers,

s o m e t i m e s q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r this n e e d is b e i n g m e t

at the

e x p e n s e of o r to the b e n e f i t of c o o p e r a t i n g systems.
This

st udy w i l l a t t e m p t

to v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s

to s u p p l y i n f o r m a t i o n

leading

r e g a r d i n g this qu est ion .
D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms

The

following definitions,

consistent with most

of the l i t e r a t u r e on s t u d e n t t eac hing,

are s t a t e d her e

to s p e c i f y p r e c i s e l y h o w the terms are u s e d

in this

dissertation.
College
sity").— The

(used h e r e s y n o n y m o u s l y w i t h

"univer­

i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a p p r o v e d by

the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n to r e c o m m e n d c a n d i ­
dates

for t e a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n .

10
College coordinator

(synonymous with

s u p e r v i s o r " ).- -The d e s i g n a t e d

faculty m e m b e r o f the

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n w h o assumes
bility

"college

the r e s p o n s i ­

for s u p e r v i s i n g a n u m b e r of s tudent teachers.

The co l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r p r o v i d e s

consultative

assistance

to b o t h st u d e n t tea c h e r s and c o o p e r a t i n g teachers.

school"

C o o p e r a t i n g school

(synonymous w i t h

an d

school").--A public or private

"participating

"off-ca mpu s

e l e m e n t a r y or s e c o n d a r y s chool w i t h w h i c h a tea c h e r e d u ­
c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n en t e r s
facilities

into an a g r e e m e n t to p r o v i d e

and sta ff for c a r r y i n g out a s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

p r o g r a m for st ude n t s

see k i n g to fulfill t e a c h e r c e r t i f i ­

c a t i o n re qu i r e m e n t s .
Student teaching
te ach i n g "
teaching
assumes

and

(synonymous w i t h

"practice

"d irected t e a c h i n g " ) . — The p e r i o d of gu i d e d

in w h i c h the c a n d i d a t e

for t e a c h e r c e r t i f i c a t i o n

increasing responsibility

for the l e a r n i n g e x p e r ­

ie nce s of a gr oup of e l e m e n t a r y o r s e c o n d a r y school p u ­
pi ls o v e r a p e r i o d o f c o n s e c u t i v e weeks.
the total p r o g r a m o f p r o f e s s i o n a l

It is p a r t of

laboratory experiences

w h i c h h a v e b e e n d e f i n e d as all th ose c o n t a c t s w i t h c h i l ­
d r e n and y o u t h
teaching)

(through o b s e r v a t i o n , p a r t i c i p a t i o n and

w h i c h m a k e a d i r e c t c o n t r i b u t i o n to an u n d e r ­

s t a n d i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e i r g u i d a n c e in the
t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g process.

11

Supervising teacher
ing teacher,"

(synonymous w ith

" s p o ns ori ng t eacher"

or

"cooperat­

"critic t e a c h e r " ) —

The c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r in a c o o p e r a t i n g s chool w h o w o r k s
d i r e c t l y w i t h one or m o r e s t u d e n t teachers.
t e ach er s observe,

participate

Student

and do s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

in the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r ' s cl ass or classes.
Hypotheses
The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n in this study is w h e t h e r
s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g is p e r c e i v e d to p r o v i d e an o v e r - a l l
c o n t r i b u t i o n to the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m in the c o o p e r a t ­
ing school.

The three g r o u p s of r e s p o n d e n t s w h o s e p e r ­

c e p t i o n s w i l l be analyzed,
teachers

s t u d e n t teachers,

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

are e a c h v i t a l l y

w i t h s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g an d e a c h has
p o i n t fro m w h i c h

to a s s e s s

supervising
concerned

a particular vantage

the e f f e c t s

upon e l e m e n t a r y

and s e c o n d a r y sc h o o l activi tie s.
This stu dy is d e s c r i p t i v e .
p r o b l e m - r e s e a r c h na ture,

Hypotheses

d e s i g n e d to o r g a n i z e

p r e t a t i o n of d a t a a r o u n d a c e n t r a l

theme.

are of a
the i n t e r ­

T h e y are not

d e s i g n e d for the a p p l i c a t i o n of tes ts of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g ­
ni fic anc e.
The b a s i c r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s i s is stated:

Stu-

)

d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s are p e r c e i v e d as f a v o r a b l e

to

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
S u b o r d i n a t e to the b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s
di cti ons .

are s i x p r e ­

B a s e d u pon the p e r c e p t i o n s o f s t u d e n t

teachers,

12
supervising

t eac h e r s ,

public and private
grams,

the
1.

a nd a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

schools having

in M i c h i g a n

student teaching p r o ­

f o l l o w i n g p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l be tested:
The presence of student teachers
c e i v e d to h a v e

is p e r ­

a positive effect upon spe­

cific instructional

activities

for p u p i l s

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sc hoo ls.
2.

Student

teachers

are p e r c e i v e d to m a k e p o s ­

it i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n s

to s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s

a d d i t i o n to c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n ,

in

in M i c h i g a n

c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
3.

The availability of student

teachers

in c o o p ­

erating schools provides opportunity

for r e g ­

ular staff members,
te a c h e r s ,

other than supervising

to p a r t i c i p a t e

sonal and professional
4.

in a d d i t i o n a l p e r ­

activities.

Working with student teachers
enhance

is p e r c e i v e d to

the e f f e c t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e o f s u p e r ­

vising teachers

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

schools.
5.

Administrators
perceive

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

student teaching programs

schools

as h a v i n g

a positive effect upon staff morale.
6.

Supervising teachers

and student teachers

Michigan cooperating schools
administrators

a nd t e a c h e r s

s h o u l d s e e k to h a v e s t u d e n t

assert

in

that

in t h e s e s c h o o l s
teachers.

13
L i m i t a t i o n s O f The Stu dy
1.

The study w i l l d e s c r i b e p e r c e p t i o n s of s t u ­

dent t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s h e l d by M i c h i g a n s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,
s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s and c o o p e r a t i n g school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
In fer e n c e s w i l l

not be d r a w n

for o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s

than

the one studied.
2.

Th e d a t a

for the stud y are ta ken f r o m "The

Study of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n , " d e s i g n e d b y r e p ­
resentatives

from the t h i r t y - o n e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i ­

tu tio ns in M i c h i g a n .
p o s t facto"

stu dy is

"ex

in the sen se t hat he d i d n ot hav e c o n t r o l

of q u e s t i o n n a i r e

c o n s t r u c t i o n an d r e l a t e d pr o c e d u r e s .

Fortuitously,
we ll

Th e p r e s e n t w r i t e r ' s

the i n s t r u m e n t s

lend t h e m s e l v e s

to the p r o v i s i o n of p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n for the

particular

focus of this

investigation.

A w e a l t h of

d a t a w i l l be m a d e a v a i l a b l e by the s t a t e - w i d e survey.
O n l y s e l e c t e d r e s p o n s e items w i l l b e u s e d in a n a l y z i n g
the e f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s o n M i c h i g a n
schools,

in this dis s e r t a t i o n .
3.

Questionnaires were disseminated and collected

by c o l l e g e c o o r d i n a t o r s o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g in the s c h o o l s
an d a m o n g the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s an d s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s
w i t h w h o m t h e y work.

A l t h o u g h all r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e

t o l d t hat t h e i r a n o n y m i t y w a s ass u r e d ,

som e m a y h a v e

been wary of expressing negative reactions
them,

f e a r i n g some k i n d o f r epr isa l.

if they

felt

S i n c e this p o s s ­

ibility was anticipated and anonymity of respondents

14

was s t r e s s e d in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ,
it is a s s u m e d that res ult s are not b i a s e d
4.

Th e d i v e r s i t y of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s

w i t h i n the st ate
dent

teaching,

c o n t a c t s w ith

in terms of time a l l o c a t i o n s

cou r s e credit,

v a r i a b l e s m ay

college coordinators,

s i g n i f i c a n t l y alt er

variations

the k i n d s o f p e r c e p t i o n s

d i s s e r v i c e to c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
howeve r,

in role

and r e l a t e d

r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e c o n c e r n i n g the

u l a t i o n in the survey,

for s t u ­

f r e q u e n c y a n d k i n d s of

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s u p e r v i s i n g te ac h e r s

different

for this reason.

s erv ice or

W i t h the size o f p o p ­

the c e n t r a l

tendencies

s h o u l d be c l e a r l y evident.

Overview
In C h a p t e r II the
teaching programs
is reviewed.

literature concerning student

as they r e l a t e

to o f f - c a m p u s

sch o o l s

In C h a p t e r III the d e s i g n o f the p r o j e c t

will be d i s c u s s e d .

The o r i g i n of the s t a t e - w i d e

from w h i c h the d a t a are t a k e n w i l l be e x p l a i n e d ,
as the p r o c e d u r e s u s e d in d e v e l o p i n g s u r v e y
a d m i n i s t e r i n g the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

study
as w e l l

in st r u m e n t s ,

and a n a l y z i n g the r e ­

sp o n s e s .
In C h a p t e r IV an a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s of the
s t u d y w i l l be

found.

W h i l e the stu dy does n ot deal w i t h

s t a t e m e n t s o r p r o b a b i l i t y c o n c e r n i n g the r e j e c t i o n of
null hypotheses,

an a rr ay of s p e c i f i c s w i l l

be e x a m i n e d

15
under each p r e d i c t i o n or s u b - h y p o t h e s i s
tions

c o n c e r n i n g one c e n t r a l

and g e n e r a l i z a ­

t endency e m e r g i n g

from the

p r e p o n d e r a n c e of r e s p o n s e s w i l l be drawn.
C h a p t e r V w ill
conclus ion s.
by the total

s u m m a r i z e the study and state

B e c a u s e of the w e a l t h of data p r o v i d e d
su rve y there wil l be

imp l i c a t i o n s

fu rther re se a r c h and these w i l l be discus sed .
mendations

for
Recom­

concerning teacher education institution

lations w i t h

c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s w i l l be stated,

re­

as

they r e s u l t from e v i d e n c e a c q u i r e d in the investig ati on.
C o n t a i n e d in the a p p e n d i c e s w i l l be r e f e r e n c e
ma ter i a l ,

s u c h as q u e s t i o n n a i r e

form of the s u r v e y

ins tru ment s,

items u sed

fro m ea ch

a list of te ach er e d u ­

c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t i n g and r e l a t e d i nformation.

C H A P T E R II
REVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE

Introduction
As one
teaching,

he

ce r n e d w i t h

reviews p u b l i s h e d r e s e a r c h on s tud ent

soon d i s c o v e r s

that m o s t s tud ies

the p e r f o r m a n c e ,

of the s t u d e n t teacher,
co lle ge c o o r d i nat or.

are c o n ­

a t t i t u d e s and r e a c t i o n s

the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r or the

The roles o f eac h of the i n d i v i d ­

uals in this tri ad have b e e n studied,
r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h e a c h other.

as have a lso their

P a t t e r n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n

and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s have
also b e e n c o p i o u s l y doc ume nte d.

If the e f f e c t s of s t u ­

dent t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s upon c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s are r e ­
ported,

t h e y are u s u a l l y i n c i d e n t a l

r a t h e r t h a n as the c ent r a l

to a n o t h e r study

focus of the research.

R e p o r t e d s tu d i e s o n s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g are t y p ­
ic a l l y n o r m a t i v e
naires.

res ult s of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s or o p i n i o n -

U s u a l l y these do n ot lend t h e m s e l v e s

formulation of broad generalizations.

to the

The uniqueness

of e a c h p r o g r a m .limits c o n c l u s i o n s to the p a r t i c u l a r
p o p u l a t i o n studied.

M i c h a e l i s c o m m e n t s r e g a r d i n g the

d i f f i c u l t i e s a f f e c t i n g s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g research:
16

17
V a r i a t i o n s in factors such as s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g s i t ­
uations, s u p e r vis ion , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a rra n g e m e n t s ,
a d m i s s i o n and selection, a nd p r e p a r a t o r y pr ogr a m s ,
c o u p l e d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s amo ng s t u d e n t
teachers, pose m a j o r d i f f i c u l t i e s .
Available p u b ­
lished l i t e r a t u r e is m a d e up lar gel y of ar tic l e s
b a s e d on opi nion, d e s c r i p t i o n s o f pra ct i c e , r e c o m ­
m e n d a t i o n s o f c o m m i t t e e s and com m i s s i o n s , s urveys
a n d r e l a t e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , a nd a few c r i t i c a l
s t u d i e s .1
Pe r h a p s
reviewed

the m o s t

is that s t u d e n t

the m o s t important,
of teachers.
Fraser,

c o n s i s t e n t fin din g in the st udies
t e a c h i n g is an important, if not

p h a s e of the p r e - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n

Th e c o n c l u s i o n s of Pitt man ,

H unter,

Amidon,

McCullough,

C o n a n t and A r m s t r o n g

in s u p p o r t

of this a s s e r t i o n h a v e a l r e a d y b e e n c i t e d in C h a p t e r I
(pages 2-3).
B e c a u s e this s tud y d eal s w i t h the p o s s i b l e
fits o f

student teaching

to c o o p e r a t i n g sc h o o l s

c e i v e d by s t u d e n t teachers,

supervising teachers

bene­
as p e r ­
and a d ­

ministrators,

the r e v i e w of l i t e r a t u r e w i l l c o n c e n t r a t e

upon research

r e l a t i n g to t hes e three groups o f r e s p o n ­

d e nts and t h e i r i n v o l v e m e n t w i t h and e v a l u a t i o n o f s t u ­
dent

teaching p r o g r a m s .
Th e c h a p t e r is d i v i d e d into:
—

General Benefits of Student Teaching Programs
to C o o p e r a t i n g Schools.

-- The S t u d e n t T e a c h e r and C o o p e r a t i n g Schools.
J o h n V. Mi c h a e l i s , " T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n - - S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g and I n t e r n s h i p , " E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l
Re sea rch , (3rd ed.; N e w Y o r k : The M a c M i l l a n C ompany,

iw :

—

18

-- S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r s
Programs.

and S tu d e n t T e a c h i n g

-- C o o p e r a t i n g S chool A d m i n i s t r a t o r s
d e n t Teaching.

and S t u ­

-- C o o p e r a t i n g School Pu p i l s and St u d e n t
Teaching.
-- Summary.
Ge n e r a l Ben e f i t s of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
P r o g r a m s to C o o p e r a t i n g Sch ool s
Bo th the c o n s i d e r e d o p i n i o n s of p r o f e s s i o n a l s
q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d o c u m e n t e d s tud ies
advantages

sug g e s t that t her e are

to c o o p e r a t i n g school p r o g r a m s

r e s u l t i n g fro m

joining with teacher education institutions
t e a c h i n g programs.

Some r e s e a r c h

and

in s t u d e n t

reveals that t her e is

still too g r e a t a d i s p a r i t y b e t w e e n the ideal an d the
actual p rac tice.

This p o i n t s up the n e e d for i m p r o v e m e n t

of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s a nd b e t t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s
b e t w e e n the v a r i o u s role p a r t i c i p a n t s

in the sch o o l s

and

c o l l e g e s , no t n e c e s s a r i l y a b a n d o n m e n t of the p rog rams.
De an and K e n n e d y assert:
Th e s chool p r o g r a m can be e n h a n c e d and e n r i c h e d
b y m a n y a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h the s t u d e n t s can w e l l d i r e c t
as they g a i n e x p e r i e n c e w i t h p u p i l s an d pro gra ms. . . .
The p r e s e n c e o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s in a s cho ol can
h a v e a h e a l t h y p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t on e x p e r i e n c e d
teachers.
S t u d e n t s o f t e n b r i n g w i t h t h e m n e w ideas,
a n d the ver y fact t h a t th ey are a r o u n d can i n s p i r e
r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s to be m o r e e f f e c t i v e than they
n o r m a l l y are. . . .

19

One o t h e r b e n e f i t to the school s y s t e m has long
been r e c o g n i z e d - - t h e o p p o r t u n i t y for the school d i s t r i c t to e m p l o y e x c e l l e n t b e g i n n i n g teachers.
Based u p o n
schools

two s epa r a t e

su rve ys made in p u b l i c

in d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h s t u d e n t t eachers

out the states of N e w York and P e n n s y l v a n i a ,
and H i l l s o n

found r e s p o nde nts

reporting

through­

Del P o p o l o

three d i s t i n c t

c a t e g o r i e s of a d v a n t a g e s a c c r u i n g to their p u b l i c
s c hoo l e d u c a t i o n a l e f f o r t s as a result of w o r k i n g w i t h
co lle ges

in s t u d e n t teaching.

First,

they d i s c o v e r e d

the i n v o l v e m e n t s e r v e d as a f o r m of i n - s e r v i c e e duc ati on.
The s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r ha d m o r e t ime to sp end in p l a n ­
ning, m a d e an a t t e m p t to be a m o d e l teacher,
c o u r a g e d to read p r o f e s s i o n a l bo o k s

was e n ­

and to seek c r i t i ­

cal e v a l u a t i o n o f his o w n teaching.
The s e c o n d o b s e r v e d e f f e c t was
u p o n e l e m e n t a r y a nd s e c o n d a r y pup ils ,

a definite impact
as n e w m e t h o d s

in­

t r o d u c e d by s t u d e n t tea c h e r s w e r e a d o p t e d in classr oom s.
M o r e t e a c h i n g time w a s a v a i l a b l e
te ac h e r s

for pupils.

Student

c o n t r i b u t e d to the p e r s o n a l w e l f a r e of p u p i l s

and n e w p o i n t s o f v i e w w e r e d e v e l o p e d abo ut some c h i l ­
d r e n as s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s b r o u g h t in n e w insights.

Lee D e a n a nd H e n r y W. Ken ned y, "A P o s i t i o n
Paper on Student Teaching P r o g r a m s , ” Teacher Education
In T r a n s i t i o n , Vol. I, Chap. IV (Baltimore, M d . : M u l t i St a t e ^Teacher E d u c a t i o n Project , May, 1969), p. 176.

20

The

third cat eqo ry of

i m p r o v e m e n t r ela ted

p a r t i c i p a t i o n of s t u d e n t
gations.

te achers

to the helpful

in n o n - t e a c h i n g obli-

1

Th e e x p e r i e n c e of the i n s t i t u t i o n w h i c h r e c o m ­
me n d s m o r e g r a d u a t e s

for ini tia l

teacher certification

than any o t h e r in the U n i t e d St a t e s
W a r d and Stearns:

is s u m m a r i z e d by

"At M i c h i g a n S tat e U n i v e r s i t y

. . . ,

w h e r e c o o p e r a t i v e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n c o n t r a c t s are m a i n ­
tained with

35 s e p a r a t e sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s

. . . n e v e r has

a c o o p e r a t i n g sc hoo l d i s t r i c t a s k e d to s e v e r the r e l a ­
tionship. "2
D u r i n g the 1 964 -65 s ch o o l year,
colleagues

Gr e e n e and three

c o n d u c t e d a stu dy o f r e c e n t g r a d u a t e s of

Northern Illinois University who had completed student
t e a c h i n g at t h a t ins tit uti on.

Nearly

500 e l e m e n t a r y

and s e c o n d a r y t e a c h e r s r e s p o n d e d to f r e e - r e s p o n s e q u e s ­
tionnaires

asking what benefits

they s aw in s t u d e n t teaching.
into thr ee ca t e g o r i e s :

for c o o p e r a t i n g sc h o o l s
T h e i r replies w e r e d i v i d e d

benefits

to p upils,

to the c o o p ­

e r a t i n g t e a c h e r and to the s c h o o l and community.

The

^J o s e p h A. Del P o p o l o and M a u r i e Hil lso n, " S t u ­
d e n t T e a c h i n g a n d the Role o f the P u b l i c S c h o o l s , "
N e w Yo rk St ate E d u c a t i o n , LI (March, 1964), p. 16.

2

W a r d and St earns, "An E x p a n d i n g Role," p. 103.
Dr. He n r y Ken n e d y , D i r e c t o r of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g at
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , r e p o r t s th at a g r e e m e n t s are
no w in e f f e c t w i t h 140 s c h o o l d ist ric ts.

21
investigators
st ude nt

conclude d,

"The study

te a c h e r has the p o t e n t i a l

c o o p e r a t i n g teachers,

in dic ate s

to b e n e f i t pupils,

sch ool s and c o m m u n i t i e s . " ^

Rich did an a s s e s s m e n t of the
p r o g r a m at W e s t e r n

that the

st udent t e a c h i n g

Ill inois U n i v e r s i t y

s e t t i n g i n c l u d e d the o f f - c a m p u s

in 1967.

The

cooperating schools

lo­

ca ted in the g e o g r a p h i c a l a r e a w h i c h

i n c l u d e d the cities

of D a v e n p o r t

and Rock

and B e t t e n d o r f

in Iowa,

M o l i n e and E a s t M o l i n e in Illinois.
sistent with

the o t h e r stu d i e s

His

Island,

findings,

con­

cited, were:

The p u b l i c sc h o o l p a r t i c i p a n t s r e p o r t e d m a n y
benefits received from participation.
Reported
m o s t o f t e n w e r e s t a t e m e n t s that the p u p i l s r e c e i v e d
m o r e a s s i s tan ce, the t eac h e r s b e c a m e b e t t e r tea chers,
and c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n h a d improved.
W h i l e few
p r o b l e m s w e r e reported, tho se m e n t i o n e d m o s t o f t e n
w e r e that the t e a c h i n g p a c e w a s s l o w e r w h e n the s t u ­
d e n t t e a c h e r wa s in charge, and o t h e r t e a c h e r s did
no t al w a y s u n d e r s t a n d the role of the s u p e r v i s i n g
t e a c h e r s .*
Ba r b e r i

found in the Mt.

Pleasant Public Schools

s t u d y that:
S t u d e n t t e a c h e r s g e n e r a l l y h a v e a fresh a p p r o a c h
to tea chi ng, have n e w ideas, are in nov ati ve, . . .
W i t h two p e o p l e in the c l a s s r o o m the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r
wa s able to give i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n to pu p i l s ,
and a l s o to re l i e v e the c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r o f m a n y
V i c t o r J. Rich, "The E v o l v i n g S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
P r o g r a m at W e s t e r n I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y and an A s s e s s m e n t
of the Q u a d - C i t i e s R e s i d e n t S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g Ce n t e r "
(unpubl ish ed Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r ­
sity, 1967), p. 147.

2

G w y n n Gre ene, " S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g :
D o Th e P a r ­
t i c i p a t i n g S c h o o l s B e n e f i t ? , " I l l i n o i s E d u c a t i o n , LV
(November, 1966), p. 108.

22
routine tasks so that the c o o p e r a t i n g t ea c h e r
c o u l d spend more time in actual t eac h i n g w h i c h
would benefit pupils.^
Barberi

concluded

fr om his

i n v e s t i g a t i o n that:

Parents, pupils, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , and t e a c h e r s
s e e m to share the o p i n i o n of those p e r s o n s w h o ha ve
instituted off-campus student teaching programs
that such a c o o p e r a t i v e a r r a n g e m e n t is a d e s i r a b l e
p r a c t i c e .2
A d m i t t i n g to redund anc y,
opinion

yet another professional's

is cited:

W h e n a local sch ool s y s t e m c o o p e r a t e s w i t h a
t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u t i o n bot h t a n g i b l e a nd i n ­
t a n g i b l e b e n e f i t s result.
P u p i l s can b e n e f i t from
an i n c r e a s e d a m o u n t of e n t h u s i a s m and skill w i t h
w h i c h a s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t t e a c h e r o f t e n
a p p r o a c h t h e i r work.
O t h e r t e a c h e r s a n d the p r i n ­
cipal b e n e f i t f r o m the h e l p that can b e r e c e i v e d
f r o m the c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r and o t h e r c o l l e g e p e r ­
s o nne l w h o spe nd time and e f f o r t in the sc h o o l w o r k ­
ing w i t h the s t u d e n t teacher, s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r
an d others.
P a r e n t s f r e q u e n t l y take p r i d e in the
fact that th eir sc h o o l is r e c o g n i z e d as one w h i c h
the c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y s ele cts as a c o o p e r a t i n g
s c h o o l .^
The S t u d e n t T e a c h e r and C o o p e r a t i n g S c h o o l s
An examination of various

col l e g e

textbooks

w r i t t e n to p r o v i d e an o r i e n t a t i o n for s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g
^Barberi,
2I b i d . , p.

"Study of T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m , " p.

75.

78.

3E d g a r M. T a n r u t h e r , " F a c i l i t a t i n g I n s e r v i c e
E d u c a t i o n ," P r o f e s s i o n a l G r o w t h I n s e r v i c e of the S u p e r ­
v i s i n g T e a c h e r , F o r t y - F i f t h Y e a r b o o k o f the A s s o c i a t i o n
for S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g (Cedar Falls, Iowa:
The A s s o c i a ­
tion, 1966), p. 74.

23
reveals
that

that

they

almost

the p r o s p e c t i v e

as m a n y

sc hoo l

invariably contain

t e a c h e r seek

and c o m m u n i t y

not as s u b s t a n t i v e e v i d e n c e
occur,

but certainly

to b e c o m e

functions

ing the p r a c t i c u m e x p e r i e n c e .

suggestions
involved

as p o s s i b l e

Two examples

that

in

dur­

are q u o t e d ,

th ese a c t i v i t i e s

as r e v e a l i n g tha t s t u d e n t

are e n j o i n e d to c o n s i d e r t h e m as s i g n i f i c a n t

always

teachers

to t h e i r

internship.
Adams

and D i c k e y c o u n s e l

the

fledgling

teacher:

The a l e r t s t u d e n t o f t e a c h i n g s e i z e s e v e r y
o p p o r t u n i t y to b e c o m e p r o f i c i e n t in the a r e a o f
pupil activities.
He t a k e s a d v a n t a g e o f o p p o r t u n ­
i t i e s to a c q u i r e p r a c t i c a l k n o w l e d g e t h r o u g h p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n in the a c t i v i t y p r o g r a m s o f s c h o o l s ,
college and community organizations.
He o b s e r v e s
m a n y a c t i v i t i e s in o p e r a t i o n a n d p e r h a p s a r r a n g e s
to s e r v e as an a s s i s t a n t s p o n s o r in at l e a s t o n e
a c t i v i t y d u r i n g th e p e r i o d of h is p r o f e s s i o n a l
training.1
Myers

and W a l s h ,

in a n o t h e r

t e x t b o o k on s t u d e n t

teaching note

t h a t s t u d i e s of c o m m u n i t y

dent

reveal

teachers

frequently

professional,
2
and civic.

ty p e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n s :

welfare

an d c h a r i t y ,

In a s u r v e y o f all a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,
teachers,

college

re­

recreational,

cooperating

supervisors and elementary

H a r o l d P. A d a m s a n d F r a n k G.
c i p l e s o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g (New York:
C o m p a n y , 1956), p. 2 31.
2

by s t u ­

t h a t the y t e n d to p a r t i c i p a t e m o s t

in five b r o a d

li gio us,

contacts

and secondary

Dickey, Basic P r i n ­
A m e r i c a n Book

G e o r g e R. M y e r s and W i l l i a m J. W a l s h , S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g an d I n t e r n s h i p in T o d a y ' s S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s
(Columbus, O hio :
C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l , I n c . , 1464) , p . 101.

24
student

teachers who participated

p r o g r a m s of
education
the
were

the

five p u b l i c and t hre e p r i v a t e

institutions

1 96 6 - 6 7

in the s t u d e n t

s c h o o l year,

all of t h e s e

72.3 p e r c e n t o f

other things,
made greater

it w a s

2,611

f o u n d th at

role p a r t i c i p a n t s

than were

There was

individuals.
" . . .

u s a g e of a u d i o a n d v i s u a l

their cooperating teachers
experiment

teacher

in the s t a t e of M o n t a n a d u r i n g

sent comprehensive questionnaires.

return of

teaching

Among

student
devices

a

teachers
tha n d i d

a n d w e r e m o r e w i l l i n g to

the t e a c h e r s w i t h w h o m t h e y w o r k e d . " 1

In a n a l y z i n g d a t a f r o m 393 s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,
cooperating teachers

and eleven college

t i c i p a t i n g in the K a n s a s

par­

State Teachers College off-campus

student teaching program,
e x t e n t to w h i c h s t u d e n t

supervisors

517

M o u s e r s o u g h t to d e t e r m i n e

the

t e a c h e r s w e r e p e r c e i v e d to a t t a i n

specified objectives during their student teaching e x ­
perience.

The essential elements

of o b j e c t i v e s w e r e

senior high

in t h e

list

"to p r o v i d e e x p e r i e n c e " w h i c h w o u l d :

l e a d to a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g
tional , social

included

. . .

o f the m e n t a l ,

a n d p h y s i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t of

s c h o o l yo u t h ;

emo­

junior and

. . . develop skill

in

. . .

selection,

o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d p r e s e n t a t i o n of t e a c h i n g

materials;

opportunity

to p e r f o r m as a t e a c h e r in b o t h

curricular and co-curricular activities;
^ G e o r g e F.
( u n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D.
1968).

recognize

and

Sta ff, " P r o b l e m s of S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s "
dissertation, Montana State University,

25
accept r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

tow ard the student,

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and the communit y;

foster a b e t t e r u n d e r ­

s t a n d i n g of the total school program;
qualities necessary
continuous

o t h e r teachers,

strengthen personal

for e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g and e n c o u r a g e

p r o f e s s i o n a l and a c a d e m i c grow th on the p a r t

of the s t u d e n t teacher.

A m o n g o t h e r findings,

concluded:

s t u d e n t teachers

"In general,

have m o r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s

Mouser

s e e m e d to

in the c o o p e r a t i n g sch ools

for

experiences

r e l a t e d to the c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n an d less

opportunity

for e x p e r i e n c e s r e l e v a n t to the total school

and c o m m u n i t y ."*
The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of s cho ols at Be dfo rd,
wrote

Mic hig an,

in 1961:

The s t u d e n t t e a c h e r can b e a vit al s t i m u l a n t to
any class.
He s h o u l d b e r e g a r d e d as a v a l u a b l e r e ­
s o u r c e person, as a cam pus r e p r e s e n t a t i v e w i t h i n the
c lassroom.
W i t h his p e r s o n a l a s s i s t a n c e and close
class contact, the c o l l e g e w i t h its uni q u e v o c a b u l a r y
can be
less a lie n to the school, and the h o r i z o n s
o f the
c l a s s r o o m can b e e x t e n d e d by the s t u d e n t ' s
ow n unique e x p e r i e n c e s .^
W a r d and S tea r n s d i s c u s s the va lue of s t u d e n t
teachers'

e x p e r i e n c e s in b r i n g i n g i n t e r e s t i n g n e w ideas

to e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y sch ool

children.

T h e y give

M a r c e l l a Mou ser , "An E v a l u a t i o n of the S e c o n d a r y
S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m at K a n s a s Sta te T e a c h e r s College,
E m poria, Kan sas " (unpubli shed Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , The
U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r ask a, 1969).

2

Da vid L. Elliott , "A Role P e r c e p t i o n :
The S u p e r ­
v i s i n g T e a c h e r , " T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n and the P u b l i c S c h o o l s ,
F o r t i e t h Y e a r b o o k of the A s s o c i a t i o n for S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
(Cedar Falls, Iowa:
The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1961), p. 44.

*

26
an e x a m p l e
at L a k e
de nts

of

the E u r o p e a n

Erie C o l l e g e d u r i n g

gai n a b e t t e r

c u l t u r e of o t h e r s
1

ng.

tr ave l
their

and this

for s t u d e n t s

j u n i o r year.

a p p r e c i a t i o n of

the

is r e f l e c t e d

The

traditions
in t h e i r

stu­
and

te a c h -

1

Supervising Teachers
Educators
of r e g u l a r

and S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s

in g e n e r a l

classroom teachers

work with student teachers.
give

provision

testimonial

feel

is i m p r o v e d w h e n t h e y
Supervising

t h a t th ey t h e m s e l v e s

skills

are

occurs

as th ey are c o n f r o n t e d w i t h

student

specific qualities

They

feel

that their

in w h i c h

that

the e v a l u a t i o n of

suddenly become

conscious

of

their own professional

could stand improvement.
As a d e v i c e by w h i c h

provide

teachers often

r e f i n e d as a r e s u l t o f i n t r o s p e c t i o n

t e a c h ers .

practices

t h a t the p e r f o r m a n c e

student

teaching

serves

to

i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n of s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s ,

Smith observes:
So me o f the c o o p e r a t i v e p r o j e c t s (be tween c o l l ­
e g e s a nd c o o p e r a t i n g sc hools) h a v e s h o w n t h a t i m p r o v e ­
m e n t o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g i n s t r u c t i o n is the h a n d ­
m a i d e n to i m p r o v i n g c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n .
Teachers
and school principals seem able to talk more freely
a b o u t w h a t to d o for a s t u d e n t t e a c h e r o r an i n t e r n
t h a n a b o u t w h a t to do for t h e m s e l v e s .
While talking
a b o u t p r o g r a m s for the n o v i c e , t h e y i n e v i t a b l y b e g i n
to t a l k a b o u t w h a t t h e y c a n d o in t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s
to d e m o n s t r a t e a g o o d p r o g r a m .
Assessment of class­
r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n c o m e s in the b a c k d o o r w i t h o u t the
^Ward and Stearns,

"An E x p a n d i n g

Rol e,"

p.

10 5.

27

u s u a l t r a u m a of s t a n d - o f f d e b a t e s in f a c u l t y m e e t i n g s
w h e r e t e a c h e r s h a v e to d e f e n d o r p r o t e c t t h e m s e l v e s
an d t h e i r te ach ing .
Much

in the sam e vein,

Lamb says:

T h e s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e b e n e f i t s the
c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r in t h a t it c a u s e s h i m to e x a m i n e
c a n d i d l y an d o b j e c t i v e l y his p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s .
S t u d e n t t e a c h e r s , fre sh f r o m e x p o s u r e to r ese arc h,
l i t e r a t u r e , a n d c l a s s r o o m d i s c u s s i o n s of g o o d p e d a ­
gogy, ask some v e r y s e a r c h i n g and p e r c e p t i v e q u e s ­
tions.
V e r y few c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r s leave the s t u ­
dent teaching experience unchanged.
Some a d m i n i s t r a ­
tors, in fact, r e q u e s t s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s and ask tha t
t h ey be p l a c e d n o t in the b e s t s i t u a t i o n s b u t in s i t ­
u a t i o n s m o s t in n e e d o f c hang e.
In v i e w of the p l e a
for a t y p i c a l t e a c h e r s , c r e a t i v e t e a c h e r s a n d r i c h
student teaching situations, this practice can hardly
be s u p p o r t e d ; b u t it d o e s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e a d m i n ­
i s t r a t o r s are a w a r e of the g r o w t h w h i c h c an a c c r u e
to the c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r d u r i n g s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g .
In the s t u d y by G r e e n e o f
University
efits

student

teachers,

teachers were

available

summarized.

respondents.

u t i l i z e d b y the
45.7 per

attained

to s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s ,

c e n t of the

cent;

This

supervising

Illinois

recurring expressions

to s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s

student

former Northern

through having

More

free t i m e w a s

a c c o r d i n g to 80.9 p e r

"more

free time" w a s

t e a c h e r s by:

observing students,

of b e n ­

planning

22.6 p e r cent;

i p a t i n g in p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

les son s,
partic­

18 p e r cent;

E. B r o o k s Sm ith , e d . , P a r t n e r s h i p in T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n { Was hin gto n, D . C . : T h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n
o Y C o l l e g e s for T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 1967), r>. 19.

2

P o s e Lamb, T h e S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o c e s s In
E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l s ( C o l u m b u s : C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l B r o o k s ,

Inc., 1 9 « ) ,

p. 24.

28

completing

school

search,

per

14

records,

cent;

15.3

per

and

conducting

study

to w h i c h

cent;
parent

pursuing

re­

conferences,

8 p e r c e n t .^
In a n o t h e r
been made
written

in a n o t h e r c o n t e x t ,

comments of elementary

in r e s p o n s e

r e f e r e n c e has a l r e a d y

Ric h c a t e g o r i z e d
and s e c o n d a r y

to o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s .

frequently repeated answers
to c o o p e r a t i n g

schools

" .

profit

pupils

the

teachers

So me of the m o s t

to the q u e s t i o n of a d v a n t a g e s

f r o m s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g were:
from individual

can study other techniques

. . .

ideas;

. . . h e l p s me

teach better through self-evaluation;

. . . g i v e s us

youthful

stimulation;

university;
more help
cl ude s:

. . . closer contact with

. . . b e t t e r i n s t r u c t i o n res ult s;

is g i v e n the c h i l d r e n . "
"The s u p e r v i s i n g

better teachers

helping others
The

The

through

I

the

and

. . .

investigator con­

t e a c h e r s p r o f i t e d by b e c o m i n g

from learning new ideas

through self-evaluation,

offers

and

attention;

and g e n e r a l l y

and methods,

and

felt g o o d a b o u t

this p r o f e s s i o n a l s e r v i c e . "

i ssu e o f w h e t h e r

sufficient rewards

student teaching

supervision

to c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r s

to

warrant

the e x p e n d i t u r e o f t h e i r t i m e a n d e n e r g y p r o b a b l y

depends

upon

the i n d i v i d u a l

r e a c t i o n and the p a r t i c u l a r

^Greene, "Student Teaching:
p a t i n g S c h o o l s B e n e f i t ? , " p. 108.

2
gram,"

p.

Rich,
82.

Do T he P a r t i c i ­

"The E v o l v i n g S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g

Pro­

29

sc hoo l

situation

Reports of
positive,

in w h i c h

supervising
but

there

ti o n e d a n d som e
supervising

the p r o g r a m

teacher

reactions

are o c c a s i o n a l

teachers

regard

is a d m i n i s t e r e d .
tend

to be

dissatisfactions m e n ­

the task of b e i n g a

t e a c h e r as a d o w n r i g h t bu rden.

Tanruther a s k s :
Why, in v i e w of the a d d i t i o n a l w o r k a n d r e ­
s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n v o l v e d , d oes a c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r
a g r e e to w o r k w i t h a s t u d e n t t e a c h e r ?
T h e r e is n o
s i n g l e answer.
S o m e feel a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to p u p i l s
a n d the t e a c h i n g p r o f e s s i o n for h e l p i n g to p r o v i d e
a c o n t i n u o u s s u p p l y of c a p a b l e t e a c h e r s .
Th us, th ey
m a k e a p r o f e s s i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t to h e l p fut u r e
teachers.
O t h e r s are a w a r e t h a t g u i d i n g a y o u n g
t e a c h e r c o m p e l s t h e m to k e e p a l e r t to n e w a n d i m ­
p r o v e d m e thods of teaching.
M a n y s i m p l y like to
w o r k w i t h y o u n g , a m b i t i o u s an d e n e r g e t i c i n d i v i d u a l s
w h o s h o w p r o m i s e of s u c c e s s ; t h e y e n j o y the s a t i s ­
f a c t i o n t h a t r e s u l t s w h e n t h e i r p r o t e g e s succee d.
C e r t a i n t e a c h e r s r e c o g n i z e t h a t it is g o o d for
t h e i r p u p i l s to h a v e c o n t a c t w i t h c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s
w h o a re l e a r n i n g to teach.
Still others attest that
th ey b e n e f i t p e r s o n a l l y f r o m the h e l p th ey r e c e i v e
f r o m c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r s to i m p r o v e t h e i r o w n
c l a s s r o o m tea ch i n g .
It is p r o b a b l y true, also,
t h a t s ome t e a c h e r s c o n s e n t to w o r k w i t h a s t u d e n t
t e a c h e r b e c a u s e o f p r e s s u r e f r o m the s c h o o l a d m i n i s ­
tr ation.
P e r h a p s a few do so b e c a u s e o f the s m a l l
m o n e t a r y p a y m e n t s m a d e by the p r e p a r i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s .
W h a t e v e r th e r e a s o n an i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r ha s
for a c c e p t i n g a s t u d e n t t e a c h e r , p u p i l s b e n e f i t
f r o m b e i n g in c l a s s e s in w h i c h s t u d e n t s are l e a r n i n g
to teach.
T h e y r e c e i v e m o r e help.
The p r o g r a m p r o ­
v i d e d is r i c h e r a n d m o r e u n i f o r m l y higher.
Although direct

financial

remuneration

for

supervising teachers

is u s u a l l y n e g l i g i b l e o r l a c k i n g

altogether.

found that

Browning

’’i n s u f f i c i e n t p a y ”

E d g a r M. T a n r u t h e r , C l i n i c a l E x p e r i e n c e s In
T e a c h i n g for the S t u d e n t T e a c h e r o r I n t e r n (New Y o r k :
Dodd, M e a d & C o m p a n y , 1967), p. Tf.

30
was

mentioned as

202

respondents

the

most

a dissatisfaction
to

the q u e s t i o n

unhappiness

in s e r v i n g

A comprehensive
taining
ma y be

to s u p e r v i s i n g
fo und

in the

Data pertaining
f r o m 216
fessional

changing

of s t u d i e s

Although

erature,
stated

a cooperating
the

teacher?"*

literature p e r ­

c o m p l e t e d p r i o r to
at

teachers were
and

1962

Indiana University.
collected

211 a r t i c l e s

in p r o ­
from

s e e m t h a t in a r a p i d l y

consistent with more

thoroughness
the

ca u s e y o u

factors

f i n d i n g s w o u l d be o b s o l e t e b y now,

t h e y are s u r p r i s i n g l y

gree with which

ou t o f

two

w r i t t e n d u r i n g the p e r i o d
it m i g h t

s o c i e t y his

B e c a u s e of the

as

s t u d y of H a r v e n ,

literature,

19 42- 1 9 6 2 .

teachers

only

"What

review of

to s u p e r v i s i n g

abstracts

by

findings

it s e e m s w o r t h w h i l e

of this

r e v i e w a n d the d e ­

coincide with
to q u o t e

in the a b s t r a c t o f H a r v e n * s

r e c e n t s tudies.

current

lit­

the o b s e r v a t i o n s

study:

A p p a r e n t l y , the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r d i r e c t s the
"d ram a" o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g .
H o w e v e r , in g e n e r a l ,
t e a c h e r e d u c a t o r s h a v e n o t m a d e a t t e m p t s to i d e n t i f y
the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r w i t h the t ota l t e a c h e r e d u ­
cation program.
T h e f o l l o w i n g a re d e c i s i o n s w h i c h
teacher educators have made which no longer present
p r o b l e m s to them:
(a) o f f - c a m p u s s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g
o f f e r s a r e a l i s t i c t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ; (b) the
s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e is c o n s i d e r e d t o be the
m o s t i m p o r t a n t f a c e t o f the t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p r o ­
gr am; (c) the a l l - c o l l e g e a p p r o a c h to s t u d e n t t e a c h ­
ing g i v e s u n a n i m i t y to the p r o g r a m ; an d (d) the
d e c i s i o n to p e r m i t a s t u d e n t to e n r o l l in s t u d e n t
t e a c h i n g is the r e s u l t o f c o o p e r a t i v e e n d e a v o r s .
R o y W. B r o w n i n g , "A S t u d y of J o b S a t i s f a c t i o n s
an d D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s o f C o o p e r a t i n g T e a c h e r s " ( u n p u b l i s h e d
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f K a n s a s , 1968), p. 131.

31

T h e u n s o l v e d p r o b l e m s in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n are as
follows:
(a) c o m p e t e n c i e s r e q u i r e d of s u p e r v i s i n g
te ach ers ; (b) r e m u n e r a t i o n of s u p e r v i s i n g tea che rs;
(c) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f the t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i t u ­
tion to s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s ; (d) s p e c i a l m e t h o d s
v e r s u s g e n e r a l m e t h o d s and s p e c i a l s u p e r v i s o r s v er s u s
g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r s ; a n d (e) an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g s tation.
O b s e r v a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g to the r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s
are (a) w i d e use w a s m a d e of the r e s e a r c h survey;
(b) t h e r e w a s a d e a r t h of r e s e a r c h p e r t a i n i n g to
s u p e r v i s i n g - t e a c h e r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ; and (c) non e of
the r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s i n c l u d e d s t u d e n t t e a c h e r fol l o w up by s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s . 1
Cooperating School Administrators
Student Teaching Programs
Saxe observes

t h a t m o s t of the

b o o k s on s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g m a k e
the p r i n c i p a l

And

standard

text­

s c a n t o r n o m e n t i o n of

in d i s c u s s i o n of the v a r i o u s p e r s o n n e l

associated with student
on a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
the p r i n c i p a l s '

he

te aching.

Checking

into books

f o u n d t h a t t hey a l s o d o n o t d i s c u s s

responsibilities vis-a-vis

student

teaching.
D u r i n g the 1 9 6 5 - 6 6
data

school year,

from sixty student teachers

l a t i n g to the

frequency and kinds of contacts

sixty reported a total of

student

T h e g r o u p of

117 c o n f e r e n c e s w i t h p r i n c i ­

Th e m o s t r e p o r t e d b y an i n d i v i d u a l w a s

ferences,

collected

in the C h i c a g o a r e a r e ­

teachers had with building principals.

pals.

S axe

by two s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s .

five c o n ­

Th i r t e e n had no

personal contacts with principals whatever.
J e r a l i n e D o r r i s H a r v e n , "The S u p e r v i s i n g
Teacher:
A S y n t h e s i s of R e s e a r c h F i n d i n g s a n d T h o u g h t "
( u n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i v e r s i t y , 1964),
Abstract.

32
Tho m o s t
three

student

met with
The

teachers.

Mor e

stating

d e l e g a t i o n of

visit,

tha n h a l f of

the p r i n c i p a l no m o r e

investigator makes

sults by

than

c o m m o n e n t r y was one

t h a n once,

som e e x p l a n a t i o n

that C h i c a g o

responsibility

if at all.

for these r e ­

for s t u d e n t
la rge

the s c h o o l m a y be.
Sa xe c o n c l u d e s

th at p r i n c i p a l s

do n o t f u l l y e x p l o i t

inherent

student teaching situation

improvement and selective
The surveys

the o p p o r t u n i t i e s
for i n s t r u c ­

recruitment of staff.^

in N e w Y o r k a n d P e n n s y l v a n i a by

Del P o p o l o a n d H i l l m a n i n c l u d e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
to a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
fits

asking open-end questions

and shortcomings

teaching programs.
administrators

any

teaching other

B a s e d o n this p a r t i c u l a r s amp le,

tional

the g r o u p thus

s c h o o l s do n o t h a v e

the p r i n c i p a l no m a t t e r h o w

in the

by t w e n t y -

addressed

on the b e n e ­

as it c o n c e r n e d t h e i r s t u d e n t

They report

regarded student

to the c o o p e r a t i n g sch ools.
comments made by respondents.

that,

in g e n e r a l ,

teaching

as b e n e f i c i a l

They quote examples
One

the

of

supervising principal

stated:
He feel t h a t the m e r e p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t
t e a c h e r s a n d c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r s in o u r b u i l d i n g
is a f o r m o f i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n .
In h e l p i n g
p r o s p e c t i v e t e a c h e r s , m a n y of o u r r e g u l a r t e a c h e r s
a c t u a l l y i m p r o v e t h e i r o w n t r a i n i n g an d skills.
O u r t e a c h e r s t ake p r i d e in the fact t h a t t h e y are
fulfilling a professional obligation.
R i c h a r d W. Saxe, " S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g :
W h a t Is
T h e R o l e O f T h e P r i n c i p a l ? , " I l l i n o i s E d u c a t i o n , LV
(November, 1966), pp. 104-06.

33
Th e

investigators quote

a superintendent

as

saying:
We feel t h a t t hes e y o u n g p e o p l e c o n t r i b u t e
m a n y n e w ideas and s u g g e s t i o n s to ou r sch ools.
T h e y h e l p us k e e p in t o u c h w i t h t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g
an d its p r o b l e m s .
The s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s e n a b l e
us to c a r r y on m a n y t h i n g s that we w o u l d o t h e r w i s e
no t do.
In a d d i t i o n , we are h a p p y to be a p a r t of
the p r o g r a m of t e a c h e r tra in i n g .
It is s o m e t h i n g
we can d o for the p r o f e s s i o n . 1
Following
ha d b e e n p l a c e d
S c hoo l,
made

the

f irst y e a r tha t

in M o u n t a i n G r o v e

the p r i n c i p a l ,

ular teachers
thusiastic.

(Missouri)

Ronald Compton,

an a p p r a i s a l o f the r e s u l t s .

that the p r e s e n c e

student

of s t u d e n t

High

an d his s t a f f

They were

teachers

teachers

convinced

had stimulated r e g ­

to be m o r e p r o f e s s i o n a l ,

dynamic

and e n ­

C o m p t o n said:

The s c h o o l i t s e l f b e n e f i t e d f r o m the s t u d e n t
te ach ers ' p r e s e n c e .
A n y b o o k o r j o u r n a l on the
s t a t e o f e d u c a t i o n t o d a y d e c r i e s the too l itt le
contact b e tween college and school--between theory
and practice.
If t h e r e is an a n s w e r to this
2
p r o b l e m , the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r c e r t a i n l y p r o v i d e s it.
R i c h c a t e g o r i z e d the
concerning their perceptions

responses
of s t u d e n t

l i s t e d r e c u r r i n g c o m m e n t s , s u c h as
improves

as t e a c h e r s

tions

and have

a higher professional

in t e a c h e r p l a c e m e n t s ;

t e a c h i n g and

" . . . the w h o l e

staff

us

of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

b e c o m e m o r e o p e n to s u g g e s ­
sp iri t;

. . . patrons

. . . helps

r e c o g n i z e us as

Del Popolo and Hillson, "Student Teaching
the R o l e o f the P u b l i c S c h o o l s , " p. 15.

2

and

R o n a l d C o m p t o n , "On T h e S c e n e T e a c h i n g For
S t u d e n t s , " S c h o o l a n d C o m m u n i t y . L (May, 1964), p. 6.

34
a good school;

. . .

it hel ps us in e m e r g e n c y situat io n s;

. . . the c h i l d r e n re c ei v e mo r e help.
Rich

. . . 'rl

found that:

The a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a l s o b e l i e v e d the s u p e r ­
v is i ng te a c h e r s b ec a me b e t t e r t e achers as a result
of this experie n ce .
The teachers' w o r k w a s mu c h
b e t t e r p l a n n e d and o r g a n i z e d , and in ge n er a l pe rformed t he i r d uties in a m o r e p r o f e s s i o n a l manner.
C o o p e r a t i n g S c h o o l P up i l s An d S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
The p r i m a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of teache r s
mentary

and s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l s

in e l e ­

is to serve the b e s t

i n t e r e s t s of the c h i l d r e n and y o u t h

in th e ir charge.

i m p o r t a n t as

are

laboratory experiences

tion of teachers,
activities

As

for the p r e p a r a ­

t h ey c a n n o t be j u s t i f i e d if e d u c a t i o n a l

for c o o p e r a t i n g s chool p u p i l s

are n e g a t i v e l y

i n f l u e n c e d by the p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t teachers.
R u t h e r f o r d c o n d u c t e d an e x p e r i m e n t a l s tudy
d e t e r m i n e the effect,

if any,

to

that s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g ha d

up o n p u p i l a c h i e v e m e n t in s e l e c t e d fourth gr a de classes.
O t h e r v a r i a b l e s w h i c h m i g h t h a v e h a d an e f f e c t u p o n p u p i l
a c h i e v e m e n t w e r e c a r e f u l l y c o n t r o l l e d e i t h e r in the d e ­
si gn of the s t u d y or in the s t a t i s t i c a l
were

analysis.

There

185 p u p i l s in the e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p and 199 in the

c o n t r o l group.

Rutherford's

f i nd i n g s

i n d i c a t e d tha t

s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g h ad n o s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t upon p u pi l
*Rich,
p.

"The E v o l v i n g S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m , "

82.
2
I b i d . , p . 83.

35
achievement.
student
did

He c o n c l u d e d

t hat

it a p p e a r e d

t e a c h i n g d i d n o t a d d to p u p i l

it take aw ay

achievement,

He f o u n d t h e r e w a s
the a c h i e v e m e n t

learning neither

f r o m it.^

In a n o t h e r a t t e m p t
affected pupil

to find if s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g
Fulp studied

no s i g n i f i c a n t

508 p up i l s .

difference between

level o f n i n e e x p e r i m e n t a l g r o u p s

student

t eac her s)

student

teachers).

between

the m e a n a c h i e v e m e n t o f all p u p i l s

perimental

group

tr ol group.

and their control groups
There was

(with

(without

a significant difference

a n d the m e a n o f all p u p i l s

He c o n c l u d e d t h a t

dent teachers

that a l t h o u g h

" . . .

in the e x ­
in the c o n ­

the use o f s t u ­

in P u l a s k i H i g h S c h o o l d i d not h a v e

d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t o n the a c h i e v e m e n t of p u p i l s
2
their influence. . . . "

a

under

In the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of r e s p o n s e s w h i c h
G r e e n e m a d e o f the

476 e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y

w h o h a d c o m p l e t e d s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g at N o r t h e r n
University,

o n e of the c a t e g o r i e s

of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g t o p u p i l s

teachers
Illinois

dealt with benefits

in c o o p e r a t i n g sch o o l s .

-

J o h n A l b y R u t h e r f o r d , "The E f f e c t of S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g U p o n P u p i l A c h i e v e m e n t In S e l e c t e d F o u r t h
G r a d e C l a s s r o o m s " ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i ­
v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a , 1967) .

2

K e n n e t h E. Fulp, "What is the E f f e c t o f S t u ­
d e n t T e a c h i n g o n the A c h i e v e m e n t o f P u p i l s ? " B u l l e t i n
No. 22 of the A s s o c i a t i o n F o r S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g (Cedar
Fa l l s , Iowa:
Th e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1964), p. 63.

36
G re e ne

stated,

t ea c h e r has
teachers,

"The study

in di cates

that

the s tu d en t

the p o t e n t i a l to b e n e f i t puuils,

cooperating

sc h o ol s and c o m m u n i t i e s ."1
Also,

Rich observes:

The many r esp o n s e s i n d i c a t e d the s u p e r v i s i n g
teachers b e l i e v e d t heir p upils, by r e c e i v i n g m o r e
i n d i v i d u a l attention, have e s p e c i a l l y p r o f i t e d by
h a v i n g s t u d e n t te achers in the room.^
Gr e e n e r e p o r t e d that
s p ond e n t s

72.7 p e r cent of his

i n d i c a t e d that pu p i l s

re­

in c l a s s r o o m s wi th

stu­

d e n t te achers h a d more o p p o r t u n i t y for i n d i v i d u a l help.
S t u d e n t te ach ers

introduced new materials,

procedures,

m e t h o d s an d v i e w p o i n t s a c c o r d i n g to 76 p e r cent of the
r e p l i e s and 21 p e r cent felt that the n ov e l t y of h a v i n g
a s t u d e n t t e a c h e r c re a t e d an i n s p i r a t i o n a l e f f e c t up on
p u p i•!
l s .3
Pupils'
was

the

a tti t u d e s

focus of a s u r v e y of

23 school

sy stems

se arc h e r s ,

D r a k e and Kraft,

Un i v e r s i t y .

365 s e c o n d a r y stu d e n t s

in 9 c oun t i e s of Illinois.

63 s cho ol d i s t r i c t s

Sc h o o l s

to war ds h a v i n g s t u d e n t t eac her s

d r e w a r a n d o m sample

cooperating with Southern

re­
from

I lli noi s

T h e y found that the j uni or and s e n i o r h igh

1Greene, "St u d e n t T eac hin g:
B e n e f i t ? , " p. 108.

2

T he

in

Rich,

Do The P a r t i c i p a t i n g

"The E v o l v i n g S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m , "

p . 82.
3

Greene, "St ude nt T eac h i n g :
p a t i n g Sc hoo ls B e n e f i t ? , ” p. 10 8.

Do The P a r t i c i ­

17

students
on

generally

favorably

by stu den t teachers.

choices,
look

in s t r u c t i o n c a r r i e d

" a g r e e — disag ree "

On

91 p e r ce nt said

reg ard ed

"agree"

r esp o n s e

to the stateme nt,

"I

forward to h a v i n g a s t u d e n t tea c h e r in my c l a s s e s ."

An equal p r o p o r t i o n confirmed,
teachers'

"Generally,

i n s t r u c t i o n is good."

student

"S tudent tea c h e r s

are

fair in d i s c i p l i n a r y m att e r s " was a g r e e d upon by 89 p e r
cent of the students,

a nd 88 p e r c e n t a t t e s t e d to the

c o r r e c t n e s s of the se ntence,
material well."
teaching,

"St udent teachers e x p l a i n

A l s o r e f l e c t i n g f a v o r a b l y upon s t u d e n t

8 3 p e r cent r e s p o n d e d

"agree"

to the ex p r e s s i o n ,

"Having s t u d e n t tea ch e r s has b e e n b e n e f i c i a l to m e . " 1
A n o t h e r s tud y of pupils'
Sharpe,

r e a c t i o n s was d one by

of Ind i a n a Sta te T e a c h e r s College.

d a t a f r o m 400 r e s p o n den ts,

Collecting

he f o u n d the o p i n i o n s of m o s t

pu p i l s w h o h a v e h a d s t u d e n t tea c h e r s

to y i e l d the f o l l o w ­

ing c o n c l u s i o n s :
1.

P u p i l s e n j o y h a v i n g s t u d e n t te achers in t h e i r
classes.
T h e y do not w a n t the m in e v e r y class
n o r d o they w a n t t h e m t h r o u g h o u t the w h o l e year.
P r o b a b l y the m o s t i m p o r t a n t re a s o n for l i k i n g
s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s is the fact that h a v i n g t h e m
c o n s t i t u t e s a n o v e l and, theref ore , an i n t e r ­
e s t i n g e xpe rie nce .
O t h e r rea son s in clu de the
r e c o g n i t i o n that two tea c h e r s are able to p r o ­
v i d e m o r e h e l p than one t e a c h e r alone, and the
r e c o g n i t i o n that the p r o g r a m p r o v i d e s v a l u a b l e
e x p e r i e n c e to f uture teachers.

1T h e l b e r t L. Dra ke and L e o n a r d E. Kraft, "How Do
S t u d e n t s Feel A b o u t S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s ? , " I lli noi s E duc ati on,
L V (November, 1966), pp. 106-07.

38
2.

Pupils feel that the ir le ar n i n g does not s uff er
w h e n s t u d e n t te ac h e r s are a s s i g n e d to a class.
Mo st of them feel that the total le ar n i n g s i t ­
ua t i o n is improved.
The fact that they feel
as they do is a h igh c o m p l i m e n t to the c o o p e r ­
at ing tea c h e r w h o p lay s the cru cia l role.

3.

Pupils r e c o g n i z e that m a t t e r s of g r o u p co ntr ol
and d i s c i p l i n e p r e s e n t m o r e d i f f i c u l t p r o b l e m s
to the stu d e n t t e a c h e r than to the r e g u l a r
teacher.
However, they do not feel that they
have s u f f e r e d b e c a u s e of the st ude nt t e a c h e r ' s
inexperience.

4.

P upils see m to sha re the o p i n i o n of those p e r s o n s
w h o have i n s t i t u t e d o f f - c a m p u s s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g
p r o g r a m s that such a c o o p e r a t i v e a r r a n g e m e n t is
a desirable practice.1
S u mma ry
The

l i t e r atu re r e v i e w e d and c o n s i d e r e d r e l e v a n t

to this st udy w as o r g a n i z e d u n d e r h e a d i n g s r e l a t i n g to
g e n e r a l b e n e f i t s of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s to c o ­
o p e r a t i n g sc hoo ls and such b e n e f i t s
dent tea che rs,
s chool pupils.

as p e r c e i v e d by s t u ­

s u p e r v i s i n g teachers,

administrators

and

E x a m p l e s of s t u d i e s w e r e c i t e d w h i c h

d e a l t w i t h the e f f e c t s of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g u pon s c h o o l s ,
as p e r c e i v e d b y e a c h o f the se role incumbents.
Th e central,
w h i c h m a y be d r a w n

e m p i r i c a l l y based,

generalization

f r o m the r e v i e w of e x i s t i n g r e s e a r c h

and p r o v i d i n g a frame o f r e f e r e n c e

for the p r e s e n t study

is that s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g is g e n e r a l l y r e g a r d e d as the
most significant experience

in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s

D o n a l d M. Sharpe, "The P u p i l s Look A t The P r o b ­
lem," O f f - C a m p u s S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g , T h i r t i e t h Y e a r b o o k
of t h e - AslTocTatTorr^for- 5 t u 3 e n t -^ e a c h i n g (Lock Haven,
Pennsylvania:
The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1951), p. 79.

39
as

they

dent

are p r e s e n t l y

teaching

is a p p r o p r i a t e l y

desirable outcomes
teacher.

The

programs
li t t l e

constituted.

stu­

s u b j e c t of the e f f e c t s

for the s t u d e n t
of student

teaching

upo n c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s h a s b e e n g i v e n v e r y

attention

reviewed

to date.
of c o n c l u s i o n s

suggest that student

positive effects
sc hoo ls.

If p u p i l

R u t h e r f o r d a nd F u l p

in the s t u d i e s

teaching programs

u p o n the e d u c a t i o n a l

effort

achievement were

t e r i o n in this d e t e r m i n a t i o n ,

Th e

r e s e a r c h on

concerned with maximizing

of the e x p e r i e n c e

The preponderance

ating

Most

(pages

however,

32-33)

in c o o p e r ­

the s o l e

cri­

the s t u d i e s by

would

len d f a i n t s u p p o r t .

l e a s t t h a t c o u l d be s a i d is t h a t p u p i l

was not adversely

do have

achievement

affected.

If it m a y be a s s u m e d t h a t a p h e n o m e n o n h a s w o r t h
when people

feel g o o d a b o u t

o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d by e a c h
indicate

it;

then,

the p r e v a i l i n g

c a t e g o r y of r o l e p a r t i c i p a n t s

that student teaching programs have value

cooperating

sch ool s.

fundamental

go al o f the s c h o o l s a n d it w o u l d be d e s i r e d

that experimental
results.

Obviously,

pupil

studies would show more

F o r the p r e s e n t ,

it c a n b e

ought

administrators

teaching programs.

convincing

supervising

a n d s c h o o l p u p i l s — all w h o

to k n o w - - a r e o p t i m i s t i c

e r a t i o n of c o l l e g e s

is a

a r g u e d t h a t the p e r ­

c e p t i o n s e x p r e s s e d by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,
teachers,

achievement

for

for c o n t i n u i n g

and off-campus

schools

the c o o p ­

in s t u d e n t

C H A P T E R III
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
Introduction
Early
idents

in 1969,

the C o u n c i l of S tate C o l l e g e P r e s ­

requested Michigan teacher education institutions

to c o n d u c t a st udy for the p u r p o s e of a n a l y z i n g the e f f e c t
of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s o n the sc hoo ls of Mic hi g a n .
All of the t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

in the state a g r e e d to c o o p e r a t e in the study,
came to be k n o w n i n f o r m a l l y as the
as the

"Deans'

and Directors'

which

"Impact S tudy"

Study.”

a nd

It w as a g r e e d th at

a s t a t e w i d e su r v e y w o u l d be m a d e of all s t u d e n t t eac her s,
s u p e r v i s i n g tea ch e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

in c o o p e r a t i n g

sc h o o l s d u r i n g the fall t e r m o r s e m e s t e r of the

1969-70

a c a d e m i c year.
Survey instruments were developed with guidance
fr om the r e s e a r c h d e p a r t m e n t s o f th r e e M i c h i g a n i n s t i t u ­
tions and w e r e

reviewed by Michigan Education Association

o f f i c i a l s a nd the S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g C o m m i t t e e of the
D e t r o i t F e d e r a t i o n of Tea che rs.
tributions

Both gr o u p s m a d e

to the items in the s u r v e y

ha ve e x p r e s s e d i n t e r e s t in the
40

instruments

findings.

con­
and

41
D u r i n g December,
ti o n n a i r e s w e r e

1969,

su bmi t t e d

and January,

1970,

ques­

to the total p o p u l a t i o n of

term or f i r s t - s e m e s t e r s t u d e n t teachers,

corresponding

s u p e r v i s i n g tea che rs and b u i l d i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

in all

M i c h i g a n p u b l i c and p r i v a t e c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
total n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s w a s
supervising

4,483 students,

t eac her s and 1,001 a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ,

total of 9,8 81

individuals.

vising teachers

fall

The
4,397

for a

T h e g r e a t e r n u m b e r of s u p e r ­

than s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

is a c c o u n t e d

by i n s t a n c e s of some s t u d e n t s d o i n g t h e i r s t u d e n t

for
teaching

u n d e r the s u p e r v i s i o n of m o r e t h a n one r e g u l a r teacher.
Of th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r r e s p o n d e n t s ,

90.8 p e r c e n t w e r e

b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s , w h i l e the rest w e r e b u i l d i n g or
system-wide individuals charged with specific r e s p o n s i ­
bility

for c o o r d i n a t i n g the s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g pr ogram.
It h as n o t b e e n p o s s i b l e to a s c e r t a i n p r e c i s e l y

the p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t s to a c t u a l n u m b e r s of s u p e r ­
vising

teach ers ,

student teachers

w h o m i g h t hav e replied.
by those

A conservative estimate given

in ch a r g e o f the su rve y

response.

Th is

and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

is a 65 p e r c e n t o v e r a l l

is b a s e d u p o n c o m p a r i n g the q u a n t i t i e s

of s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s r e q u e s t e d by the c o l l e g e c o o r d i n a ­
tors o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

from e a c h o f the p a r t i c i p a t i n g

i n s t i t u t i o n s w i t h the n u m b e r of actual returns.
The h u m a n t e n d e n c y is to r e q u e s t m o r e c o p i e s of
duplicated
cl ude

forms

than w i l l a c t u a l l y be required,

a shortage of materials.

Also,

to p r e ­

requests were

42
fi l l e d

in r o u n d n u m b e r s ;

437 cop ies ,

if a c o o r d i n a t o r a s k e d

he was p r o v i d e d w i t h

cumstances would
tial

e.g.

inflate

Both o f

th ese

cir­

the n u m b e r of a p p a r e n t l y p o t e n ­

respondents with which

to e s t i m a t e

450.

for

the r e t u r n s w e r e

rate of response.

This

is w h y

compared

65 p e r c e n t

is

termed a conservative estimate.
The

"S tud y o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g

provided considerable
spondents.

data

in M i c h i g a n "

has

f r o m the t h r e e g r o u p s of

re­

This particular study will

use o n l y

it ems o f r e s p o n s e w i t h i n the s u r v e y w h i c h
to the d e f i n e d topic;

namely,

are

those

relevant

perceived benefits

to

c o o p e r a t i n g sc hoo ls.
This

c h a p t e r is d i v i d e d into:

--Procedures

and Rationale

— V a l i d i t y o f the S t u d y
— Hypotheses
— Summary

Procedures
As s t a t e d e a r l i e r
th is
grams

study

and Rationale

(p.

10),

the c e n t r a l

is to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r s t u d e n t

as t h e y are p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d

p e r c e i v e d to p r o v i d e
ucational

an over-all

program of cooperating

search hypothesis was
are p e r c e i v e d as

stated:

favorable

in M i c h i g a n

s cho o l s .

in

teaching p r o ­

contribution

Student

focus

are

to the e d ­

A basic

re­

teaching programs

to M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

sch ool s.

43
The procedure
data

for t e s t i n g

sub-hypotheses,

to be

this h y p o t h e s i s
e a c h of w h i c h

of the c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n .
th ese s

is

each of

these statements

basic hypothesis

it w i l l be

response

f r o m this

f o r m of

the s u r v e y

specific questions

These will

item which

sample

Since

six s u b ­
asked

be o b v i o u s

on e o r a n o t h e r o u t c o m e

inferences

teachers,

and secondary school

are not
sta­

The study

supervising

teachers

administrators

p e r c e i v e the e f f e c t s o f s t u d e n t

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s
The

to

for the p r o b a b i l i t y of

are n o t a p p l i c a b l e .

will describe how student

marily principals)

is p e r t i n e n t

to o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s ,

tistical tests of signi f i c a n c e

in time.

the

a n d p e r c e n t a g e s w i l l be d i s p l a y e d

a particular sub-hypothesis.

point

concluded that

respondents were

asked others.

counts

for e a c h

ing p r o g r a m s

sub-hypo­

and related discussion.

Frequency

an d e l e m e n t a r y

for the

facet

w h i l e o n l y o n e o r two of the c a t e g o r i e s

of r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e

being drawn

a specific

to o n e o r a n o t h e r o f the

t h r e e g r o u p s of

certain questions,

in t a b l e s

six

f o u n d to s u p p o r t or r e j e c t

included one or more

All

f r o m th e t a b l e s

rationale

80 it ems on e a c h

relate directly

hypotheses.

is to f o r m u l a t e

the

is o r is n o t a v a l i d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n .

A m o n g the

which

in a n a l y z i n g

deals with

The

tha t as d a t a are

i n s t r u m e n t are

followed

total number of

(pri­
teach­

at a g i v e n

r e s p o n s e s w i l l be

a s s u m e d to be s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e o f w h e t h e r the c o m ­
bined perceptions

are p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e .

44
V a l i d i t y of
In May,

1969,

Student Teaching

a pilot

were

participants

to p o i n t o u t
tionnaires

drawn

in s t u d e n t

analyzed and obvious

were eliminated.

survey of

"The S t u d y of

in M i c h i g a n " w a s d o n e w i t h

t a tiv e s a m p l e of r e s p o n d e n t s
mester)

the S t u d y

fl aws

and t h e y w e r e

from spring

t eac hin g.

The

in the s u r v e y

Respondents were

ambiguities

a represen­

contacted

term

(se­

returns
instruments

a nd a s k e d

an d i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s

in the q u e s ­

revised accordingly.

Th e

final

forms of the

survey instruments were

the p r o d u c t of c a r e ­

ful s c r u t i n y

and c r i t i c i s m from each type of respondent,

professional

teacher educators,

and staff personnel

the M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C o l l e g e

of

of E d u c a t i o n O f f i c e

of Research Consultation.
The
quiring

inclusion of student

teachers

in a s t u d y

in­

into hypothesized benefits of student teaching

programs

to c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s m a y b e q u e s t i o n e d .

This

group of respondents

obviously do not have

a f r a m e of

reference

judgements

improvement

for m a k i n g

or impairment of conditions
f r o m th e p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t
is m a d e
th ese

in s c h o o l

that supervising teachers

schools have bases

analysis

of r e s p o n d e n t s .

systems

teachers.

resulting

The assumption

and administrators

in

for m a k i n g s u c h c o m p a r i s o n s .

The student teacher responses,
in the

concerning

accordingly,

as a c o m p a r i s o n w i t h

are r e t a i n e d

the o t h e r t w o g r o u p s

45
Hypotheses
The

a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o n of the c e n t r a l

search hypothesis

that s t u d e n t

teaching programs

c e i v e d as m a k i n g a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the p r o g r a m s

re­

are p e r ­
of

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s w i l l be d e t e r m i n e d by the
central

tendency of combined responses

the m a j o r i t y
fute

of r e s p o n s e s

the a s s e r t i o n .

The

as to w h e t h e r

substantially

s u p p o r t or r e ­

f o l l o w i n g si x s u b - h y p o t h e s e s

w i l l be e x a m i n e d as d a t a r e l a t e d to t h e m are t a b u l a t e d
an d a n a l y z e d .
Sub-hypotheses

1;

The presence of
to h a v e

student teachers

is p e r c e i v e d

a positive effect upon specific instructional

activities

for p u p i l s

i n M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sch o o l s .

T h e d a t a for e v a l u a t i n g the v a l i d i t y o f this
s t a t e m e n t are d e r i v e d f r o m r e s p o n s e s
items

to q u e s t i o n n a i r e

s p e c i f i c a l l y r e l a t i n g to:
1.

Amount of small group

2.

Provision

3.

F o l l o w - u p of e x a m s .

4.

Individual

instruction.

for m a k e - u p work.

attention

to,

o r t u t o r i n g of

pupils.
5.

Discipline.

6.

M o t i v a t i o n of p u p i l s .

7.

Extent

to w h i c h

n e w or d i f f e r e n t

student

teachers

introduce

instructional materials.

46

8.

Student

teachers'

of aid o r
9.

Extent

ideas.

to w h i c h

for t e a c h i n g
student
10.

time o f s u p e r v i s i n g

is a f f e c t e d by

teacher

the p r e s e n c e

of

t eac hers.

The e f f e c t o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s u p o n s u p e r ­
v i s i n g tea ch e r s '

11.

s u g g e s t i o n of o t h e r k i n d s

time

for

The e f f e c t of s t u d e n t
v i s i n g t e a c h e r time

lesson planning.

teachers

required

upon sup er­

for g r a d i n g

papers.
Sub-hypothesis

2;

Student teachers
contributions

to s c h o o l

room instruction,

are p e r c e i v e d to m a k e p o s i t i v e
activities

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

The survey response
prediction measure

in a d d i t i o n to c l a s s ­

items which

sch ools.

relate

the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,

as p e r c e i v e d b y a l l t h r e e g r o u p s o f r e s p o n d e n t s
following activities outside
1.

programs,

trips,

to th e

the c l a s s r o o m :

Supervision of youth groups
tou rs,

in m e e t i n g s ,

etc.

2.

Giving talks

3.

Supervision of study periods.

4.

Supervision of playgrounds,

Sub-hypothesis

to this

to p a r e n t groups.

hallways,

etc.

3;

T h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of s t u d e n t
ing schools provides

opportunity

teachers

in c o o p e r a t ­

for r e g u l a r s t a f f m e m b e r s .

47
other

than s u p e r v i s i n g teachers,

to p a r t i c i p a t e

in a d d i ­

tional p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l activities.
Questionnaire

items w h i c h relate to the third

s u b - h y p o t h e s i s are c o n c e r n e d w i t h

the e x t e n t to w h i c h

the p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t te ach ers p r o v i d e s

r e g u l a r staff

members

with oppo r­

tu n i t y

(other than s u p e r v i s i n g teachers)

for a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in each of the

f o l l o w i n g activities:

1.

Teaching.

2.

V i s i t a t i o n in o t h e r c l a s s r o o m s or schools.

3.

C o m m i t t e e w o r k in the school.

4.

Research.

5.

Professional

Sub-hypothesis

r e a d i n g o r wri ting.

4:

W o r k i n g w i t h s t u d e n t tea c h e r s is p e r c e i v e d to
enhance

the e f f e c t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e o f s u p e r v i s i n g te ach e r s

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e items r e l a t i n g to this s t a t e m e n t
deal w i t h the e x t e n t to w h i c h h a v i n g a st ud e n t t e a c h e r
ma y p r o v i d e time for the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r to e n g a g e
in the

f o l l o w i n g a ct i v i t i e s :
1.

V i s i t a t i o n in o t h e r c l a s s r o o m s o r schools.

2.

Committee work

in the sch ool w i t h p u p i l s

a n d / o r staff.
3.

Research.

4.

Professional

reading or writing.

48
5.

Work w i t h

staff me m b e r s

of school

or d e ­

partment .
6.

A s s i s t the p r i n c i p a l

One questi on,
and s tud e n t

d i r e c t e d to s u p e r v i s i n g t eachers

teachers,

of Sub-hypothesis
7.

or o t h e r teachers.

summarizes

the inquiry

4 asking:

"What e f f e c t has w o r k i n g w ith

student

teachers

h a d o n the p e r f o r m a n c e of the s u p e r v i s i n g
teacher"?

("your own p e r f o rma nce "?)

A n o t h e r o v e r - a l l q u e s t i o n r e l a t i n g to S u b - h y p o ­
thesis
8.

4 is a d d r e s s e d to a d m i n i s t r a t o r r e s p o n den ts:

"What e f f e c t do y o u feel w o r k i n g w i t h s t u ­
d e n t tea c h e r s has h a d o n the t e a c h i n g p e r f o r ­
m a n c e of y o u r t e a c h e r s " ?

Sub-hypothesis

5:

Administrators

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools

p e r c e i v e s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s as h a v i n g a p o s i t i v e
e f f e c t u p o n s t a f f morale.
This S u b - h y p o t h e s i s w i l l be e x a m i n e d in light of
the p r o p o r t i o n s o f n e g a t i v e a n d p o s i t i v e
the

1,001 a d m i n i s t r a t o r r e s p o n d e n t s

Sub-hypothesis

responses

in the study.

6:

S u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t tea c h e r s
M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g s cho ols
and t e a c h e r s
teachers.

from

in

a s s e r t that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

in these s c h o o l s s h o u l d seek

to hav e

student

49

Th e v a l i d i t y o f this
by o b s e r v i n g
responses

s t a t e m e n t w i l l be

student teacher

to the q u e s t i o n :

the a t t i t u d e o f

and s u p e r v i s i n g

teacher

" W h a t do y o u t h i n k

the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

cooperating schools

tested

s h o u l d be

and t e a c h e r s

about working with

student

in the
teachers"?

Summary
The
sponses of

study

supervising teachers,

student teachers
specific

is d e s c r i p t i v e .

It r e p o r t s

the

administrators

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s

inquiries

concerning student

re­

and
to

teaching programs

as th ey are p r e s e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d .
The
tion:

investigation

w h e t h e r s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g is p e r c e i v e d to m a k e

c o n t r i b u t i o n to the
sc hoo ls.

instructional

programs

T h e a n s w e r to this q u e s t i o n

seeking a normative
ou t o f

focuses upon one central q u e s ­

responses

trend,

of c o o p e r a t i n g

is s o u g h t b y

either negative

to a t ota l o f

a

31 s p e c i f i c

or p o s i t i v e ,
factors

re­

l a t i n g to s i x s u b - h y p o t h e s e s .
The

six s u b - h y p o t h e s e s

the p r e s e n c e o f s t u d e n t

deal with

teachers

the e f f e c t of

in c o o p e r a t i n g

schools

upon:
--instructional

activities

for p u p i l s

--student teacher contributions
outside

to a c t i v i t i e s

the c l a s s r o o m

- - o p p o r t u n i t y for s t a f f m e m b e r s
in c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s

to p a r t i c i p a t e

50
--supervisinq
--staff

teacher

performance

morale

- - a t t i t u d e of c o o p e r a t i n g
towards

student teacher programs.

I n h e r e n t in this
the s p e c i f i c
negatively,

are

work

that

if p e r c e i v e d p o s i t i v e l y or

to the e l e m e n t a r y or s e c o n d a r y

f o u n d to p e r c e i v e

school's

if a m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s

that student teaching affords

teachers additional

in the s c h o o l w i t h p u p i l s

dition

is the a s s u m p t i o n

do indeed make or not make a comparable

In o t h e r w o r d s ,

supervising

rationale

items e x a m i n e d ,

"contribution"
program.

school personnel

t ime

. . for c o m m i t t e e

a n d / o r s taf f"

is a s s u m e d to be o f b e n e f i t

the c o o p e r a t i n g school.

".

thi s c o n ­

to the c l i e n t e l e o f

C H A P T E R IV

A N A L Y S I S OF R E S U L T S
Introduction
A total of t h i r t y - o n e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n i n s t i ­
tu tions p a r t i c i p a t e d in the
in M i c h i g a n , "
are d r a w n . ^

from which

"Study of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g

the d a t a u s e d in this thesis

T h e r e are m a n y v a r i a b l e s w i t h r e s p e c t to

the k i n d of e x p e r i e n c e a f f o r d e d i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t t e a c h ­
ers.

T he d i m e n s i o n s o f b o t h c o o p e r a t i n g school an d c o l l e g e

or u n i v e r s i t y in terms of size,
education,
qu al i t y ,

p h y s i c a l plant,

location,

p h i l o s o p h y of

c o m m u n i t y support,

educational

s o c i o - e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of sc h o o l c l i e n ­

tele a nd a h o s t of o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s exist.
s t u d i e s m a y be m a d e

Additional

f r o m the a v a i l a b l e data, p r o b i n g

depth into individual

in-

and c o m b i n a t i o n s o f s p e c i f i c v a r ­

i ables .
T o reite rat e,
a t ive

responses

this s t u d y is c o n c e r n e d w i t h n o r m ­

to the g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n of o v e r a l l b e n e ­

fit to c o o p e r a t i n g s cho o l s

f r o m s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g pro gra ms.

T h e s c o p e o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n

is a s s u m e d to be a d e q u a t e

^Names of the p a r t i c i p a t i n g c o l l e g e s
ities are listed in A p p e n d i x A.
51

and u n i v e r s ­

52

to

a definite

reveal

negatively
as

central

p e r c e i v e d towards

tendency,

p o s i t i v e l y or

s t u d e n t t eac h i n g p r o g r a m s

they p r e s e n t l y exist.
The ana ly s i s of d a t a is m a d e on the a s s u m p t i o n

that the

9,881 total r e s p o n d e n t s

is s u f f i c i e n t l y

repre­

s e n t a t i v e of the total p o t e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n to w h o m q u e s ­
t i o n n a i r e s w e r e d i r e c t e d that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s m a y be
d r a w n from t h e m to d e s c r i b e m a j o r i t y pe r c e p t i o n s .
fu r t h e r as s u m e d
as m u c h

that the n u m b e r of n o n - r e s p o n d e n t s oc c u r s

fro m c o o r d i n a t o r s not d i s s e m i n a t i n g o r c o l l e c t i n g

all sur vey
respond

It is

i n s t r u m e n t s as f r o m s u b j e c t s c h o o s i n g n o t to

for p e r s o n a l

reasons.

re s u l t in the r e s p o n s e s

T h i s is m o r e

l ike ly to

in p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e

categories

be i n g in the same p r o p o r t i o n s a m o n g r e s p o n d e n t s as am ong
th ose

from w h o m r e t u r n s w e r e n ot obtained.
Findings
Questionnaire

items w e r e s e l e c t e d from the

"Study

of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n " o n the b asi s of their
obvious

r e l e v a n c e to e a c h s u b - h y p o t h e s i s .

these d a t a are t a b u l a t e d an d d iscu s s e d .

Accordingly,
S ome i tem s in

the s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w h i c h are r e l a t e d w e r e o m i t t e d
to a v o i d r e d u n d a n c y a n d e x c e s s detail.

A cop y o f e ach

c o m p l e t e i n s t r u m e n t is i n c l u d e d in the a p p e n d i c e s
inspection.

for

53
Sub-hypothesis

1:

The presence
to h a v e

teachers

a positive effect upon specific

activities

for p u p i l s

Table

1 sho ws

de n t s p e r c e i v e d
small g r o u p
This

of s t u d e n t

is p e r c e i v e d
instructional

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g
t hat

student

sch ool s.

15.6 p e r c e n t of all

respon­

t e a c h i n g as p r o v i d i n g m u c h m o r e

instruction and

35.5 p e r cent,

is a to ta l o f 51. 1 p e r c e n t i n d i c a t i n g

of i m p r o v e m e n t w h e n s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

s o m e w h a t more.
so me d e g r e e

are i n v o l v e d in c o ­

o p e r a t i n g s chools.
"No c h a n g e "

is th e p e r c e p t i o n of

of the c o m b i n e d r e s p o n d e n t s .
"no c h a n g e "
is w h a t
tions

responses

While

favorable

the p r o p o r t i o n o f

is o f i n t e r e s t ,

the d a t a r e v e a l c o n c e r n i n g
to s t u d e n t

41.2 p e r c e n t

the p r i m a r y q u e s t i o n

the r a t i o of p e r c e p ­

teaching

to t h o s e u n f a v o r a b l e

to s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g .
A total of

2.8 p e r c e n t of c o m b i n e d r e s p o n d e n t s

a s s e r t t h a t t h e r e is s o m e w h a t
group

instruction with student

than w i t h o u t
may

them.

The

less o r m u c h
teachers

favorable

thus be e x p r e s s e d n u m e r i c a l l y
The next

less s m a l l

in c l a s s r o o m s

to u n f a v o r a b l e
as:

s t e p in tljjs. a n a l y s i s

ratio

51.1%/2.8%.
is to d e t e r m i n e

the r a t i o of the p e r c e n t o f f a v o r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s
the s u m o f p e r c e n t a g e s o f f a v o r a b l e p l u s
s p on s e s .
this

T h i s m a y be e x p r e s s e d as:

instance,

unfavorable

+ %/+ a n d -%.

the d a t a yi e l d :
5 1 . l % / 5 4 .9% = 94.5%

to

In

re­

TABLE 1.— Change in amount of small group instruction.

Response
Choices

Much more

Supervising
Administrator
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 20
Item 27
Item 20
-------------------------------------------------------------------No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%

678

15.4

259

25.9

602

13.4

1,539

15.6

Somewhat more

1,696

38.6

523

52.2

1,289

28.8

3,508

35.5

No change

1,768

40.2

200

20.0

2,101

46.9

4,069

41.2

176

4.0

9

.9

57

1.3

242

2.4

21

.5

1

.1

23

.5

45

.4

341

7.6

341

.7

9

.2

9

.1

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

58

1.3

9

.9

61

1.4

128

4.1

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.0

9,881

100.0

55

The p r o p o r t i o n of

fav or a b l e

res pon ses

cent of the total p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e s
d i r e c t i o n a l i t y of p e r c e pti on.

is 94.5 per

indicating

The e f f e c t of s t u d e n t

te ach i n g upo n the p r o v i s i o n of small g rou p i n s t r u c t i o n
is p e r c e i v e d

f a v o ra bly by 94.5 pe r cent of r e s p o n d e n t s

in d i c a t i n g o t h e r than
Ta ble

"no cha nge. "

2 in dic a t e s

that a total of

39.4 pe r cent

of c o m b i n e d r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e p u p i l s h a v i n g m u c h
g r e a t e r or s o m e w h a t g r e a t e r p r o v i s i o n for m a k e - u p w o r k
w i t h s t u d e n t te ac h e r s
out them.

in c o o p e r a t i n g schools,

than w i t h ­

A total of 2.2 p e r c e n t of c o m b i n e d r e s p o n ­

dents p e r c e i v e s o m e w h a t less o r m u c h

less p r o v i s i o n

for

make-up w o r k .
A g a i n e x p r e s s i n g the f a v o r a b l e / u n f a v o r a b l e
ration,

it is 39.4%/2.2%.

T he p e r cent of f a v o r a b l e r e ­

spo nse s

in p r o p o r t i o n to the s u m o f the p e r c e n t a g e of

f a v o r a b l e p l u s the p e r c e n t a g e of u n f a v o r a b l e is
41.6%.

3 9.4 %/

The p r o p o r t i o n o f f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e s is 94.7 per

ce nt of the t o t a l p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n s e s

indicating d i ­

r e c t i o n a l i t y , w i t h r e s p e c t to the i t e m c o n c e r n i n g p r o ­
v i s i o n for m a k e - u p work.
In T a b l e 3 the f a v o r a b l e / u n f a v o r a b l e t ota ls
are

32.5/2.7.

be fore,

A p p l y i n g the same c o m p u t a t i o n a l

the r a t i o o f the f a v o r a b l e

pe r cent of r e s p o n s e s

terms,

as

(to s t u d e n t teaching)

to the sum of the p e r c e n t a g e s of

f a v o r a b l e an d u n f a v o r a b l e ca n be d e t e r m ine d.
titative

steps

th ese are:

32.5%/35.2%.

In q u a n ­

This r a t i o

TABLE 2.— Effect on Provision for Make-up Work.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Administrator
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Item 21
Item 28
Item 21
___________________________________________
«
%
No.
No.
%
No.

Total

%

No.

446

10.1

141

14.1

255

5.7

842

8.5

Somewhat greater

1,481

33.7

557

55.6

1,017

22.7

3,055

30.9

No change

2,249

51.1

286

28.6

2,625

58.6

5,160

52.2

107

2.4

3

.3

59

1.3

169

1.7

20

.5

1

.1

25

.6

46

.5

420

9.4

420

4.3

4

.1

7

.1

Much greater

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

3

.1

91

2.1

13

1.3

78

1.7

182

1.8

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.1

9,881

100.0

TABLE 3.— Follow-up of Exams.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Administrator
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 22
Item 29
Item 22
____________________________________________________________
%
No.
No.
%
%
No.
%
No.

375

8.5

116

11.6

209

4.7

700

7.1

Somewhat better

1,170

26.6

502

50.1

833

18.6

2,505

25.4

No change

2,481

56.4

363

36.3

2,510

56.0

5,354

54.2

155

3.5

3

.3

66

1.5

224

2.3

12

.3

1

.1

25

.6

38

.4

718

16.0

718

7.3

10

.2

13

.1

Much better

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

3

.1

201

4.6

16

1.6

112

2.5

329

3.3

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.1

9,881

100.1

58
shows

92.3 per cent of the r e s p o n d e n t s wh o

c eptions

in dic ate p e r ­

that are d i r e c t i o n a l e i t h e r way p e r c e i v e b e t t e r

f o l l o w - u p of e x a m s w h e n s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s are p a r t i c i p a t i n g
in schools.
E d u c a t o r s c o n s i s t e n t l y st res s
i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u cti on.

the i m p o r t a n c e of

T he d a t a

in T a b l e

the f r e q u e n c y and p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s p o n s e s

4 display

r e l a t i n g to

the e f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s u p o n the a m o u n t
of i n d i v i d u a l a t t e n t i o n to, or t u t o r i n g of p u p i l s

in

c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
It is s e e n that a total of 67.2 pe r c e n t of c o m ­
bined respondents perceive much more or somewhat more in­
dividual

attention.

r e s p o n s e s are in the

A tot al of 2.7 p e r c e n t of c o m b i n e d
" s o m e w h a t less" or

"much less"

cate­

P r o c e e d i n g w i t h the f a v o r a b l e / u n f a v o r a b l e

ratio

go r i e s .

co m p u t a t i o n ,

it r e s u l t s

that:

67.2%/2.7% * 67.2/69.9 =

96.1%.
The

r ati o of the p e r c e n t a g e of f a v o r a b l e

p e r c e n t a g e of u n f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e s
In this instance,
"no c h a n g e a s

to the

is 96.1 per cent.

25.5 p er c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e d

c o n t r a s t e d w i t h 41.2 to 54.2 per c e n t in

this c a t e g o r y in the p r e v i o u s

response

items.

Th e a spe ct of b e g i n n i n g t e a c h i n g g e n e r a l l y r e ­
g a r d e d as m o s t c h a l l e n g i n g
table p u p i l d i s c i p l i n e .

is that of m a i n t a i n i n g a c c e p ­

In T a b l e

5,

the p r o p o r t i o n s of

TABLE 4.— Individual attention to, or tutoring of pupils.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Administrator
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 23
Item 30
Item 23
____________________________________________________________
%
%
No.
%
%
No.
No.
No.

813

18.5

197

19.7

838

18.7

1,848

18.7

Somewhat more

2,306

52.4

641

64.0

1,850

41.3

4,797

48.5

No change

1,027

23.4

146

14.6

1,345

30.0

2,518

25.5

154

3.5

5

.5

64

1.4

223

2.3

20

.5

1

.1

21

.5

42

.4

299

6.7

299

3.0

4

.1

6

.0

Much more

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

2

.0

75

1.7

11

1.1

62

1.4

148

1.5

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.1

9,881

99.9

TABLE 5. Discipline.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Administrator
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Item 27
Item 34
Item 27
________________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%

Total

No.

%

85

1.9

25

2.5

128

2.9

238

2.4

352

8.0

179

17.9

572

12.8

1,103

11.2

No change

1,992

45.3

584

58.3

2,147

47.9

4,723

47.8

Somewhat poorer

1,719

39.1

199

19.9

1,067

23.8

2,985

30.2

185

4.2

1

.1

85

1.9

271

2.7

397

8.9

397

4.0

Much better
Somewhat better

Much poorer
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

3

.1

2

.2

9

.2

14

.1

61

1.4

11

1.1

78

1.7

150

1.5

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.1

9,881

99.9

61
responses

in the

favorable / unfavorable

13.6/32.9 = 13.6/46.5
In this i n s t a n c e ,
favorable

the r a t i o of the p e r c e n t a g e of

student

teaching

able as

far as p u p i l d i s c i p l i n e

cerning

6 displays

motivation of pupils

of total
and

the

and

"much p o o r e r "

is

to be u n f a v o r ­

tabulation of responses

in c o o p e r a t i n g

while

respon­

is c o n c e r n e d .

"somewhat better"

responses;

is

see the e f f e c t of

up on c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s

the p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t of s t u d e n t

"much b e t t e r "

responses

T h e m a j o r i t y o f the c o m b i n e d

indicating directional perception

Table

are:

= 29.2%

to the p e r c e n t a g e of u n f a v o r a b l e

less t h a n o n e - h a l f .
d e nts

categories

teaching upon

sch ool s.
shows

the s u m o f

con­

Combining

39.1 p e r c e n t

"somewhat poorer"

13.2 p e r cent.

Comparing favorable

to u n f a v o r a b l e

responses

yields:
3 9 . 1 % / 1 3 .2% = 3 9 . 1 / 5 2 . 3 = 74. 8%
T h e r a t i o o f the p e r c e n t a g e of f a v o r a b l e
favorable

responses

respondents
item are

is 74.8 p e r cent.

to u n ­

T h e m a j o r i t y of

i n d i c a t i n g d i r e c t i o n a l p e r c e p t i o n o n this

favorable

towards

Observers have
of s c h o o l p e o p l e

frequently noted

to cha nge.

lag b e t w e e n r e s e a r c h
the n e c e s s i t y

student teaching.

findings

Many

the r e s i s t a n c e

studies have

shown

the

and their application,

and

for e a r l i e r a d o p t i o n of n e w c o n t e n t a n d

TABLE 6.— Motivation of pupils.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Administrator
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 28
Item 35
Item 28
____________________________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
s

232

5.3

61

6.1

309

6.9

602

6.1

Somewhat better

1,279

29.1

493

49.3

1,486

33.1

3,258

33.0

No change

1,842

41.9

360

36.0

1,602

35.7

3,804

38.5

877

19.9

69

6.9

256

5.7

1,202

12,2

77

1.8

2

.2

19

.4

98

1.0

Don't know

2

.0

718

16.0

720

7.3

Errors

1

.0

2

.1

6

.1

9

.1

87

2.0

14

1.4

87

2.0

188

1.9

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

99.9

9,881

100.1

Much better

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

Omissions
Total

63
m e t h o d o l o g y in the schools.
suggest that one sti m u l u s

Table

7 re cor ds da ta w h i c h

for ch a n g e comes

t hrough

ha v i n g s t u d e n t teachers.
Ta ble

7 shows a total of

s aying that s tud ent t eac her s
very

79.1 p e r cent of re p l i e s

introduce anywhere from a

few to a gre at m a n y n e w or d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l

materials.
Ta ble

8 shows

81.3 per ce nt of r e s p o n d e n t s p e r ­

c e i v i n g that s t u d e n t t each ers d o s u g g e s t o r p r o v i d e o t h e r
kinds of aid or ideas to some extent.
Tables

7 and 8 d i f f e r f r o m p r e v i o u s

tables

in

that the item r e s p o n s e s do no t lead to a f a v o r a b l e / u n ­
fa vor abl e r ati o in the w a y that the e a r l i e r ones do.

The

data r e v e a l w h e t h e r the p r e s e n c e of stu d e n t t e a c h e r s m a k e s
a c o n t r i b u t i o n and to w h a t extent.

Perceived negative or

h a r m f u l e f f e c t s are n ot indicated.

T he

i n f e r e n c e is that

w i t h o u t s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s the g i v e n p o s i t i v e e f f e c t for
the s ch o o l s w o u l d h a v e b e e n lost.

Any degree of perceived

c o n t r i b u t i o n is i n t e r p r e t e d as f a v o r a b l e to the c o o p e r ­
at ing s c h o o l s .
Tables

9,

10 and 11 are c o n c e r n e d w i t h the e f f e c t

of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g u p o n the time d e m a n d o f c e r t a i n a c ­
ti vit ies

u p o n s u p e r v i s i n g teachers.

is t hat if the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r

Th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
is r e q u i r e d to sp e n d

less time in a p a r t i c u l a r f u n c t i o n w h e n a s t u d e n t
is p r o v i d i n g a s s i s ta nce ,
more

time and e n e r g y

teacher

then the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r has

for o t h e r things.

TABLE 7,— Bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or different instructional
materials.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 32
%

No.

A great many

547

2,788

12.4

63.4

A very few
No (or none)

1,006

Item 22
No.

Quite a few
Some

Administrator

22.9

37

3.7

181

18.1

538

53.7

195

19.5

30

3.0

Omissions
Total

Total

%

No.

«

I am not sure
Errors

Student
Teacher
Item 32

527

3,010

%

No.

11.8

67.1

1,111

11.2

181

1.8

6,336

64.1

195

2.0

417

9.3

1,453

14.7

464

10.4

464

4.7

0

.0

4

.0

4

.1

52

1.2

20

2.0

65

1.4

137

1.4

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.0

9,881

99.9

TABLE 8.— Suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas.

Response

Supervising
Teacher
Item 33
No.

A great many
(or often)
Some (sometimes)

%

Item 23

Omissions
Total

Total

%

%

No.

429

9.8

82

8.2

443

9.9

954

9.7

2,941

66.9

643

64.2

3,253

72.6

6,837

69.2

235

23.5

235

2.4

23

2.3

961

21.9

I am not sure
Errors

Student
Teacher
Item 33
No.

%

No.

Seldom
No (never)

Administrator

312

7.0

1,296

13.1

412

9.2

412

4.2

6

.1

1

.1

1

.0

8

.1

60

1.4

17

1.7

62

1.4

139

1.4

4,397

100.1

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.1

9,881

100.1

66
One of the p r i m a r y goals of
is to involve
pupils

the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r

in d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h

in a t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n for a s i g n i f i c a n t

p r o p o r t i o n of the time.
of the

laboratory e x p e r i e n c e

Table

9 shows

that 79.8 p er cent

s u p e r v i s i n g and stu d e n t t eac h e r s p e r c e i v e

s u p e r v i s i n g te ach e r ' s

time i n v o l v e m e n t

that the

in t e a c h i n g classes

is r e d u c e d to some e x t e n t or a g rea t deal by h a v i n g a
student

teacher.
Ta ble

10 s hows that the time of the s u p e r v i s i n g

te a c h e r r e q u i r e d

for le s s o n p l a n n i n g is p e r c e i v e d to be

r e d u c e d to some e x t e n t by

31.5 p e r cent and r e d u c e d a

gr eat deal by 19.8 p e r cent of respond ent s.

A total of

17.2 p e r cent of r e s p o n s e s s h o w an in cre ase of so me e x ­
tent or a g r e a t deal.
Table

11 shows that a total of 70.4 p e r cen t of

all r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e that s t u d e n t tea c h e r s red uce
the time r e q u i r e d of s u p e r v i s i n g tea c h e r s

to gra de p ap e r s

by some e x t e n t or a g r e a t d e a l .
Sub-hypothesis

2i

S t u d e n t t e a c h e r s are p e r c e i v e d to m a k e p o s i t i v e
contributions

to s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s in a d d i t i o n to c l a s s ­

r o o m i ns t r u c t i o n ,
Tables

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools.

12 t h r o u g h 15 e x h i b i t d a t a c o n c e r n e d w i t h

a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e the c l a s s r o o m in w h i c h s t u d e n t

te ac h e r s

ma y p r o v i d e some k i n d of b e n e f i t to c o o p e r a t i n g s cho ols
by t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

TABLE 9.— Effect upon supervising teacher time demand for teaching.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 57
Item 57
____________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%

64

1.5

29

.6

93

1.0

Increased to some extent

350

8.0

92

2.1

442

5.0

Remained about the same

686

15.6

296

6.6

982

11.1

Reduced to some extent

2,216

50.4

1,551

34.6

3,767

42.4

Reduced a great deal

1,020

23.2

2,298

51.3

3,318

37.4

146

3.3

146

1.6

Increased a great deal

Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

2

.0

9

.2

11

.1

59

1.3

62

1.4

121

1.4

4,397

100.0

4,483

100.1

8,880

100.0

TABLE 10.— Effect upon supervising teachers'

Response
Choices

time demand for lesson planning.

Supervising
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 58
Item 58
____________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.

228

5.2

69

1.5

297

3.3

Increased to some extent

1,022

23.2

210

4.7

1,232

13.9

Remained about the same

1,437

32.7

924

20.6

2,361

26.6

Reduced to some extent

1,287

29.3

1,512

33.7

2,799

31.5

355

8.1

1,406

31.4

1,761

19.8

272

6.1

272

3.1

Increased a great deal

Reduced a great deal
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

2

.0

13

.3

15

.2

66

1.5

77

1.7

143

1.6

4,397

100.0

4,483

100.0

8,880

100.0

TABLE 11.— Effect upon supervising teachers' time demand for grading papers

Response
Choices

Supervising
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 59
Item 59
____________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%

Increased a great deal

101

2.3

55

1.2

156

1.8

Increased to some extent

209

4.8

112

2.5

321

3.6

Remained about the same

1,058

24.1

617

13.8

1,675

18.9

Reduced to some extent

2,058

46.8

1,483

33.1

3,541

39.9

19

1,872

41.8

2,708

30.5

258

5.8

258

2.9

Reduced a great deal

836

Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

7

.2

5

.1

12

.1

128

2.9

81

1.8

209

2.4

4,397

100.1

4,483

100.1

8,880

100.1

70

The

"something

a p p l i e s here,
cate

since

is b e t t e r

the c h o i c e s

than n o t h i n g "

of r e s p o n s e d o n o t

a negative or undesirable effect

s c h o o l s by h a v i n g

student

principle

teachers.

indi­

for c o o p e r a t i n g
Differences

in r e ­

s p o n s e r e f l e c t v a r y i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f the d e g r e e o r a m o u n t
of c o n t r i b u t i o n or

lack of

r e l e v a n c e of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

to the a c t i v i t y .
Table
9,881
with

12 s h o w s

a t o t a l of

respondents perceive

39.7 p e r c e n t o f the

that student

supervision of youth groups

teachers

in m e e t i n g s ,

assist

programs

and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s .
Reference
13.2

to T a b l e

13 r e v e a l s

p e r c e n t of all r e s p o n d e n t s

teachers have
talks.

report

83.2 p e r c e n t o f s t u d e n t

indicated that they do not give

groups during

the term of their student

ience.

the

ceived

While

that student

f o r m a l c o n t a c t w i t h p a r e n t g r o u p s by g i v i n g

It is a l s o s e e n t h a t

teachers

that a total of

to e n g a g e

thing favorable

"contribution"
in thi s

of

activity

talks

to p a r e n t

teaching exper­

13.2 p e r c e n t p e r ­

is i n t e r p r e t e d as s o m e ­

to c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s ,

it is a c k n o w l e d g e d

t h a t the i m p o r t a n c e o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e f f e c t is m i n i m a l .
Applying the

"favorable / unfavorable"

the d a t a c h a r a c t e r i z e t h i s

i t e m as f a v o r a b l e

dichotomy,

to s t u d e n t

te ach ing .
Table
of s t u d y h a l l s
responses

are

14 s h o w s

t h a t in s i t u a t i o n s w h e r e

is a p p l i c a b l e ,
favorable

supervision

30.1 p e r c e n t o f the c o m b i n e d

to s t u d e n t

teaching.

A t o t a l of

TABLE 12.— Student teacher contribution— supervise youth groups in meeting programs,
trips, tours, etc.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 29
%

No.

Administrator
Item 15
%

No.

Student
Teacher
Item 29

Total

%

No.

%

No.

216

4.9

102

10.2

286

6.4

604

6.1

Sometimes

1,351

30.7

646

64.5

1,321

29.5

3,318

33.6

No

2,614

59.4

193

19.3

2,817

62.8

5,624

56.9

40

4.0

40

.4

150

1.5

Often

Does not apply
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

142

3.2

8

.8

3

.1

1

.1

2

.0

6

.1

71

1.6

11

1.1

57

1.3

139

1.4

4,397

99.9

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.0

9,881

100.0

TABLE 13.— Student teacher contributions— talks to parent groups.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 30
%

No.

Often
Sometimes
No

Errors
Omissions
Total

Item 16
No.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 30

Total

%

No.

No.

%

28

.6

12

1.2

36

.8

76

.8

438

10.0

136

13.6

652

14.5

1,226

12.4

3,747

85.2

749

74.8

3,729

83.2

8,225

83.2

71

7.1

71

.7

21

2.1

121

1.2

Does not apply
Don't know

Administrator

100

2.3

2

.0

82

1.9

12

4,397

100.0

1,001

5

.1

7

.1

1.2

61

1.4

155

1.6

100.0

4,483

100.0

9,881

100.0

TABLE 14.— Student teacher contribution— supervision of study periods.

Response

Supervising
Teacher
Item 24
No.

%

Administrator
Item 31
No.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 24
No.

1,961

19.8

1,486

33.1

3,476

35.2

1.0

145

3.2

357

3.6

.2

24

.5

61

.6

161

16.1

371

Somewhat better

863

19.6

347

34.7

751

1,536

34.9

454

45.4

202

4.6

10

35

.8

2

1,122

25.5

Does not apply
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

%

16.8

11.0

Much poorer

No.

10.3

482

Somewhat poorer

%

1,014

Much better

No change

Total

8.31

1,228

27.4

2,350

23.8

355

7.9

355

3.6

26

.6

2

.2

41

.9

69

.7

131

3.0

25

2.5

82

1.8

238

2.4

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.1

4,483

9,881

100.0

99.9

74
4.2

p e r c e n t of

respondents perceive

poorer study hall
While

supervision with

35.2 pe r c e n t

favorable

indicate

to u n f a v o r a b l e

s o m e w h a t or m u c h

student

"no c h a n g e , "

tea chers.
the

r a t i o of

is f o u n d to be:

3 0 . 1 / 4 . 2 = 3 0 . 1 / 3 4 . 3 = 87.7%
A strong majority

(87.7 p e r cent)

of

respondents

e x p r e s s i n g d i r e c t i o n a l i t y d o so in the d i r e c t i o n
to s t u d e n t

tea ching.

In T a b l e

15 it is o b s e r v e d

pe r c e n t of c o m b i n e d r e s p o n s e s

presence of student teachers

The

cen t of r e s p o n d e n t s

favorable / unfavorable

t h a t a t o t a l of

22.1

show much or somewhat

b e t t e r s u p e r v i s i o n of p l a y g r o u n d s

2.7 p e r

favorable

and hallways with

the

in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s ,
perceive
ratio,

while

a n e g a t i v e effect.

accordingly,

is d e ­

termined :

2 2 . 1 / 2 . 7 = 2 2 . 1 / 2 4 . 8 = 89. 1%

The perceived effect of student
playground
per cent

and hallway supervision

favorable

Sub-hypothesis
The

3;

a v a i l a b i l i t y of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

other than supervising

additional

is a r a t i o of 89.1

to student teaching.

ing s c h o o l s p r o v i d e s o p p o r t u n i t y
bers,

teaching upon

personal

for r e g u l a r

teachers,

and professional

in c o o p e r a t ­
staff m e m ­

to p a r t i c i p a t e

activities.

in

TABLE 15.— Student teacher contribution— supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 25
No.

%

Administrator
Item 32
%

No.

Student
Teacher
Item 25
No.

Total

%

No.

%

Much better

348

7.9

62

6.2

202

4.5

612

6.2

Somewhat better

700

15.9

260

26.0

607

13.5

1,567

15.9

1,731

39.4

651

65.0

1,901

42.4

4,283

43.3

142

3.2

9

.9

55

1.2

206

2.1

34

.8

0

.0

24

.5

58

.6

1,332

30.3

1,289

28.8

2,621

26.5

307

6.8

307

3.1

Mo change
Somewhat poorer
Much poorer
Does not apply
Don't know
Errors
Omissions
Total

6

.1

0

.0

20

.4

26

.3

104

2.4

19

1.9

78

1.7

201

100.0

4,397

100.0

1,001

100.0

99.8

9,881

100.0

76
Tables
in w h i c h

16 t h r o u g h

s c h o o l s has

afforded

carrying out

teachers

2,

because

in the c o o p e r a t i n g

t h e m a m e a s u r e of a s s i s t a n c e

their various

sub-hypothesis

dent

certain activities

regular staff members may participate

the p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t

stances

20 s p e c i f y

in

responsibilities.

As w i t h

any p e r c e i v e d c o n t r i b u t i o n

in t h e s e

is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a r e s p o n s e

favorable

in­

to s t u ­

teaching programs.
Table

16 s how s

vising teachers

that

and student

p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t

t e a c h i n g at l e a s t once,

spondents

17 s h o w s

a f e w times

T h is o p p o r t u n i t y
sc ho o l s ,
improve

inasmuch

in a d d i t i o n a l

or many

times.

are abl e

to v i s i t

to some e x t e n t o r m a n y

of student

as t e a c h e r s

times

t e a c h e r s m a k i n g t his p o s s i b l e .

is r e g a r d e d as a b e n e f i t

to c o o p e r a t i n g

are generally assumed

their skills by observing what others

in t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s .

Any

to

are d o i n g

increase

quency of visits provided by student teachers'
in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s

regular

a t ota l o f 19.4 p e r c e n t o f r e ­

feel t h a t a r e g u l a r s t a f f

assistance

t h a t the

in s c h o o l s p e r m i t s

to p a r t i c i p a t e

other classrooms or schools
b y the

teachers perceive

teachers

staff members opportunity

Table

31.2 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r ­

in the

fre­

presence

is i n t e r p r e t e d as an o u t c o m e

f a v o r a b l e to s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g in this a n a l y s i s .
Regular staff members
school committee work

a re a b l e to p a r t i c i p a t e

to s o m e e x t e n t o r m a n y

in

times with

TABLE 16.— Student teachers enabling regular staff to participate in teaching.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 45
No.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 45
No.

Total

%

No.

%

164

3.7

190

4.2

354

3.0

Once, or a few times

1,108

25.2

1,304

29.1

2,412

27.2

Not at all

2,944

67.0

2,928

65.3

5,872

66.1

Don't know

114

2.6

114

1.3

2

.0

6

.1

8

.1

65

1.5

55

1.2

120

1.4

4,397

100.0

4,483

99.9

8,880

100.1

Many times

Errors
Omissions
Total

TABLE 17.— Frequency of student teachers enabling regular staff
to visit other classrooms or schools.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 50
%

No.

Student
Teacher
Item 50
No.

Total
No.

«

%

82

1.9

69

1.5

151

1.7

To some extent

1,035

23.5

540

12.0

1,575

17.7

Not at all

2,254

51.3

2.359

52.6

4,613

51.9

Don't know

941

21.4

1,441

32.1

2,382

26.8

3

.0

2

.0

5

.1

82

1.9

72

1.6

154

1.7

4,397

100.0

4,483

99.8

8,880

99.9

Many times

Errors
Omissions
Total

79

the p r e s e n c e of s tud ent te ac h e r s

in schools,

to 18.4 p e r cent of the r e s p o n d e n t s w h o s e
c o r d e d in T a b l e
Table

according

re plies are

18.

19 shows that a c o m b i n e d total of

cent of r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d s t u d e n t te ac h e r s
r e g u l a r st a f f m e m b e r s a d d e d time
Table

20 re cor ds

15.8 per

affording

for research.

15.9 p e r cen t of p e r c e p t i o n s

that the p r e s e n c e o f s t u d e n t t eac h e r s p r o v i d e s
staff m e m b e r s

re­

regular

a d d e d time for r e a d i n g o r w r i t i n g

to some

e x t e n t or a g r e a t deal.
Sub-hypothesis

4:

W o r k i n g w i t h s t u d e n t t eac her s

is p e r c e i v e d to

e n h a n c e the e f f e c t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e of s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s
in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
Tables
re late

21 t h r o u g h

28 d e a l w i t h s urv ey

items

that

to the e f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g u p o n the time

and e n e r g y d e m a n d s on s u p e r v i s i n g teac her s and,

in turn,

the e f f e c t u p o n t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e as teachers.
Table

21 sh ows the e x t e n t to w h i c h s t u d e n t t e a c h ­

ing is p e r c e i v e d to p r o v i d e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s m o r e
time to v i s i t o t h e r c l a s s r o o m s or b u i l d i n g s

than they

are able to do w h e n they do n o t h a v e s t u d e n t teachers.
Less

than one p e r c e n t of a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

r epl y that

s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s are less able to do t hes e things
with student teachers
A t o t a l of

in t h e i r c h a r g e

than w i t h o u t

89 p e r c e n t of all r e s p o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e s

them.
that

TABLE 18.— Student teachers relieving regular staff, permitting them
to participate in committee work in the school.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 51
%

No.

Student
Teacher
Item 51
No.

Total

%

No.

%

67

1.5

57

1.3

124

1.4

To some extent

1,024

23.3

487

10.9

1,511

17.0

Not at all

2,297

52.2

2,196

49.0

4,493

50.6

Don’t know

922

21.0

1,678

37.4

2,600

29.3

3

.1

2

.0

5

.1

84

1.9

63

1.4

147

1.7

4,397

100.0

4,483

100.0

8,880

100.1

Many times

Errors
Omissions
Total

TABLE 19.— Affording regular staff time for research.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 52
Item 52
____________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.
\

86

2.0

47

1.0

133

1.5

900

20.5

368

8.2

1,268

14.3

Not at all

2,154

49.0

2,182

48.7

4,336

48.8

Don’t know

1,167

26.5

1,810

40.4

2,977

33.5

4

.1

5

.1

9

.1

86

2.0

71

1.6

157

1.8

4,397

100.1

4,483

100.0

8,880

100.0

Many times
To some extent

Errors
Omissions
Total

TABLE 20.— Student teachers relieving regular staff members,
providing time for professional reading or
writing.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 53
No.

Student
Teacher
Item 53
%

No.

«

Total
No.

%

95

2.2

37

.8

132

1.5

948

21.6

331

7.4

1,279

14.4

Not at all

2,003

45.6

2,144

47.8

4,147

46.7

Don't know

1,257

28.6

1,897

42.3

3,154

35.5

2

.0

3

.1

5

.1

92

2.1

71

1.6

163

1.8

4,397

100.1

4,483

100.0

8,880

100.0

A great deal
To some extent

Errors
Omissions
Total

TABLE 21.— Extent student teaching provides supervising teacher time to visit other
classrooms or schools.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 37
No.

A great deal

%

Administrator
Item 51
No.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 37
No.

Total

%

%

No.

142

3.2

72

7.2

174

3.9

388

3.9

To some extent

1,784

40.6

369

36.9

1,276

28.5

3,429

34.7

No change
(not at all)

2,409

54.8

537

53.6

1,990

44.4

4,936

50.4

Less than usual

7

.7

7

.1

Much less than usual

1

.1

1

.0

979

21.8

983

9.9

.2

6

.1

9

.1

13

1.3

58

1.3

128

.13

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.0

9,881

99.9

Don't know

4

.1

Errors

1

.0

2

57

1.3

4,397

100.0

Omissions
Total

84

supervising

teachers have

the same o p p o r t u n i t y
same

time

they h a v e

Table
de n t s p e r c e i v e

a g r e a t deal,

some e x t e n t or

to v i s i t o t h e r c l a s s r o o m s

at the

s t u d e n t tea ch e r s .

22 s h o w s

t h a t 53.7 p e r c e n t of all r e s p o n ­

tha t s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s

at ing s c h o o l s m a k e

it p o s s i b l e

to h a v e

for c o m m i t t e e w o r k w i t h p u p i l s

added time

fo r s u p e r v i s i n g

in c o o p e r ­

s t aff to s o m e e x t e n t o r a g r e a t deal.

A total of

per c e n t o f s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s m a k e

this

having student teachers makes

it p o s s i b l e

teachers

less

In T a b l e

23,

find more

it is o b s e r v e d

time

for s u p e r v i s i n g

t h a t a t o t a l of

5 3.7

that supervising

the p r e s e n c e of

24,

it is n o t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h

ce nt of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s a n s w e r the i t e m w i t h

ce i v e

feel t h a t

stu­

in t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s .

In T a b l e

know,"

Less

for doi n g pro f e s s i o n a l research

to s o m e e x t e n t o r a g r e a t d e a l w i t h
dent teachers

57.6

t h a n usual.

p e r c e n t of a l l r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e
teachers

an d / o r

response.

than o n e p e r c e n t of th e s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

to d o c o m m i t t e e w o r k

teachers

a t o t a l of 5 6 . 1 p e r c e n t o f all

38.1 p e r
"don't

respondents

that supervising teachers have more

time

per-

for p r o ­

f e s s i o n a l r e a d i n g o r w r i t i n g as a r e s u l t of h a v i n g

stu­

dent t e a c h e r s .
Table
teachers

25 s h o w s

to work with

ing s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

that added time
staff members

as a r e s u l t of h a v ­

is p e r c e i v e d b y to s o m e e x t e n t b y

50.1 p e r c e n t of al l r e s p o n d e n t s
14.9 p e r cent.

for supe r v i s i n g

an d a g r e a t d e a l m o r e by

TABLE 22.— Extent student teaching affords supervising teachers added time for
committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 38
No.

Administrator
Item 52

No.

No.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 38

Total

No.

%

401

9.1

52

5.2

603

13.5

1,056

10.7

To some extent

2,133

48.5

460

46.0

1,657

37.0

4,250

43.0

No change
(not at all)

1,801

41.0

463

46.3

1,113

24.8

3,377

34.2

9

.9

9

.1

A great deal

Less than uaual

.0

Much less than usual
Don't know

2

.0

Errors

0

.0

60

1.4

4,397

100.0

Omissions
Total

1,046

23.3

1,048

10.6

.2

3

.1

5

.1

15

1.5

61

1.4

136

1.4

1,001

100.1

4,483

100.1

9,881

100.1

TABLE 23.— Effect on supervising teachers' time for research.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 39
No.

A great deal
(much more than usual)

Administrator
Item 53
No.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 39
No.

Total

No.

«

523

11.9

15

1.5

356

7.9

894

9.0

To some extent
(more than usual)

2,534

57.6

296

29.6

1,585

35.4

4,415

44.7

No change (not at all)

1,275

29.0

669

66.8

990

22.1

2,934

29.7

Less than usual

.5

Much less than usual

.0

Don't know

3

.1

Errors

2

.0

60

1.4

4,397

100.0

Omissions
Total

.1

1,491

33.3

1,494

15.1

.2

4

.1

8

.1

14

1.4

57

1.3

131

100.0

1,001

100.0

4,483

100.1

9,881

100.0

TABLE 24.— Time afforded supervising teacher for professional reading or writing
as result of student teaching program.

Response
Choices

Supervising
Teacher
Item 40
No.

A great deal
(much more than usual)

Administrator
Item 54
Wo.

%

Student
Teacher
Item 40
No.

Total

No.

%

556

12.6

26

2.6

343

7.7

925

9.4

To some extent
(more than usual)

2,760

62.8

457

45.7

1,402

31.3

4,619

46.7

No change (not at all)

1,014

23.1

488

48.8

962

21.5

2,464

24.9

10

1.0

10

.1

.1

2

.0

Less them usual
Much less than usual
Don't know

2

.0

Errors

1

.0

64

1.5

18

4,397

100.0

1,001

Omissions
Total

1,708

38.1

1,710

17.3

.0

4

.1

5

.1

1.8

64

1.4

146

1.5

4,483

100.0

9,881

100.0

100.1

TABLE 25.— Additional time student teaching programs afford supervising teachers
to work with staff members.

Supervising
Teacher
Item 41

Response
Choices

No.

A great deal
(much more than usual)
To some extent
(more than usual)
No change (not at

all)

Administrator

Item 55
No.

%

No.

No.

«

14.6

73

7.3

754

16.8

1,471

14.9

2 f530

57.5

493

49.3

1,923

42.9

4,946

50.1

1,153

26.2

415

41.5

671

15.0

2,239

22.7

1

.1

.0

.3

.0

Much less than usual
Don't know

3

.1

Errors

2

.0

65

1.5

4,397

99.9

Total

Total

644

Less than usual

Omissions

Student
Teacher
Item 41

1,063

23.7
.

1

1,066
5

10.8

.0

3

16

1.6

69

1.5

150

1.5

1,001

100.1

4,483

100.0

9,881

100.1

.1

89
Ta ble
all

26 records

that a total of 55.6 p e r cent of

r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e that s t u d e n t tea c h e r s m a k e

possible

to some e x t e n t or a g r e a t de al

it

for s u p e r v i s i n g

t e achers to as s i s t th eir p r i n c i p a l s or o t h e r teachers.
The res po n s e s of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s
vi s i n g t e a c h e r s

to the q u e s t i o n ,

feel w o r k i n g w i t h

and s u p e r ­

"What e f f e c t do y o u

s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s has had o n y o u r own

teaching performance

(or

supervising teacher)"?

. . . the p e r f o r m a n c e of y o u r
are d i s p l a y e d

in T a b l e

27.

It

is o b s e r v e d that 43 s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s o u t of 4,397
(1.0 per cent)

feel th at the e x p e r i e n c e m a d e t h e m less

e f f e c t i v e as teachers.

T h o s e w h o p e r c e i v e d no c h a n g e in

th eir o wn e f f e c t i v e n e s s

c o n s t i t u t e d 19.1 p e r cent of the

s u p e r v i s i n g teachers.
teachers

A tot al of 7 8.2 pe r cent of the

feel th at t h e i r o w n p e r f o r m a n c e w as m a d e m o r e

or m u c h mo re e f f e c t i v e by v r i t u e of w o r k i n g w i t h s t u d e n t
teachers.

T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n is g i v e n by 5 7 p e r cent of

b o t h gr oup s of r e s p o n d e n t s together.
that

It s h o u l d be no ted

37.2 p e r cent of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

for this

i t e m that they are u n a b l e to

in the st udy r epo rt
judge.

A n i t e m r e l a t e d to the i m m e d i a t e l y

foregoing,

s t a t e d m o r e b r o a d l y to i n c l u d e an o b s e r v a t i o n of the
e f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g o n all s t a f f p e r f o r m a n c e ,
a s k e d of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
reads,

in the survey.

was

The q u e s t i o n

"What e f f e c t do y o u feel w o r k i n g w i t h st u d e n t

t e ac h e r s has h a d on the t e a c h i n g p e r f o r m a n c e of y o u r
teachers"?

Administrator reactions

are sho wn in T a b l e

-!8

TABLE 26.— Added time supervising teacher can assist principal or other teachers
because of student teaching program.

Supervising
Teacher
Item 43

Response
Choices

No.

A great deal more
(much more than usual)
To some extent
(more than usual)
No change (not at

all)

Administrator
Item 56
No.

%

No.

%

7.7

55

5.5

448

10.0

841

8.5

2,423

55.1

480

48.0

1,748

39.0

4,651

47.1

1,563

35.5

440

44.0

969

21.6

2,972

30.0

7

.7

.1

.1

.0

Much less than usual
Don't know

6

.1

Errors

2

.0

65

1.5

4,397

99.9

Total

No.

%

Total

338

Less than usual

Omissions

Student
Teacher
Item 43

1,251

27.9

1,257

12.7

.0

3

.1

5

.1

18

1.8

64

1.4

147

1.5

1,001

100.1

4,483

100.0

9,881

100.0

TABLE 27.— Effect of working with student teachers upon supervising
teacher performance.

Response
Choices

Has made him a much
more effective teacher
Has made him a more
effective teacher
Has had no effect on
his teaching
Has made him a less
effective teacher
Has made him a much
less effective teacher

Supervising
Teacher
Item 73

Omissions
Total

Total

No.

%

479

10.9

201

4.5

680

7.7

2,957

67.3

1,419

31.7

4,376

49. 3

838

19.1

1,060

23.6

1,898

21.4

43

1.0

35

.8

78

.9

2

.0

15

.3

17

.2

1,668

37.2

1,668

18.8

No.

I am unable to judge
Errors

Student
Teacher
Item 73
%

No.

%

3

.1

15

.3

18

.2

75

1.7

70

1.6

145

1.6

4,397

100.1

4,483

100.0

8,880

100.1

92
where

it is

recorded that

87.4 p e r c e n t of

them assert

that t e a c h e r s w e r e m a d e m o r e o r m u c h m o r e e f f e c t i v e .
Only

s e v e n o u t of

"less e f f e c t i v e "

1,001 i n d i v i d u a l
and n o n e

responses

indicated

"much

checked

less e f f e c t i v e . "

T a b l e 2 8 . - - E f f e c t o n t e a c h i n g p e r f o r m a n c e of all s t a f f as
a r e s u l t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s - - a d m i n i s t r a t o r p e r ­
ceptions
Administrator
I t e m 76

Response
Choices

No.

%

Has m a d e

them much more effective

144

14 .4

Has m a d e

them more effective

731

73.0

100

10.0

Has h a d no e f f e c t
Has m a d e

t h e m less e f f e c t i v e

7

.7

Has m a d e

them much

0

.0

1

.1

18

1. 8

1,001

100.0

less e f f e c t i v e

Errors
Omissions
Total

Sub-hypothesis

5;

Administrators
perceive
effect

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s

student teaching programs

as h a v i n g a p o s i t i v e

upon staff morale.
Table

question,

29 s h o w s a d m i n i s t r a t o r

"How ha s

your building

responses

the p r e s e n c e o f s t u d e n t

affected staff morale"?

to the

teachers

in

A t ota l of 66. 5

93
per cent of the
" s o m e w h a t ” or

"very p o s i t i v e l y . "

(1.3 per cent)
staff m o r a l e
it

1,001 school a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

p e r c e i v e d st ud e n t

r eplied w i t h

Thirteen administrators
t e a c h i n g as aff ect ing

"so me w h a t n e g a t i v e l y , " w h i l e none re ga r d e d

"very n e g a t i v e l y . "

Table 2 9 . - - E f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s upon s taff
morale, as p e r c e i v e d b y c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l ad m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Administrator
Response
Choices

Item 5 7
%

NO.

Very positively

189

18.9

Somewhat positively

476

47.6

Neutral

308

30. 8

13

1.3

0 0

.0

0

.0

15

1.5

1,001

1,00.1

Somewhat negatively
Ve ry n e g a t i v e l y
Er r o r s
Omissions
Total

S u b - h y p o t h e s i s 6:
S u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s an d s t u d e n t te ac h e r s

in

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s as s e r t that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
and t e a c h e r s
teachers.

in the se s cho ols

s h o u l d seek

to h a v e s t u d e n t

94
Again,

the e v i d e n c e

in the r e s p o n s e s

for this a s s e r t i o n

to a single q u e s t i o n .

student t e a c h e r s w e r e

asked,

cooperating

dent teachers.

and t e a c h e r s s h o u l d assume
The t a b u l a t i o n rev e a l s

of the r e s p o n d e n t s
"a g g r e s s i v e l y seek"

<0.4 p er cent)
"resist" o r

in the
te ach e r s " ?

attitude

towards

that

feel that s c h o o l s

sh o u l d

to h a v e s t u d e n t

tea ch e r s

36.2 per c e n t b e l i e v e they s h o u l d

d e n t teachers.

s h o u l d be

30 d i s p l a y s the r e s p o n s e s of s u p e r v i s i n g

t e a c h e r s to the q u e s t i o n of w h a t

administrators

itional

and t e a c h e r s

s cho ols a b o u t w o r k i n g w i t h s t u d e n t

Table
and s t u d e n t

S u p e r v i s i n g and

"What do y o u think

the a t t i t u d e of the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

is sought

stu­

55.8 p e r cent
"seek" or
and an a d d ­

"accept"

stu­

T w e n t y of the 4,397 s u p e r v i s i n g tea che rs
i n d i c a t e tha t t hey feel s c h o o l s s h o u l d

"refuse" h a v i n g s t u d e n t teachers.

In this c h a p t e r the d a t a r e l a t e d

to t h i r t y d i s ­

c r e e t i t e m r e s p o n s e s h a v e b e e n t a b u l a t e d and discussed.
In T a b l e

31, a s u m m a r y ha s b e e n p r e p a r e d for vis u a l

s c a n n i n g in a si n g l e format.
Each response
o r phrase.

A plus

i t e m is c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y a k ey w o r d

(+) o r m i n u s

(-)

sign i n d i c a t e s w h e ­

t h e r the d a t a h a v e s h o w n p e r c e i v e d r e s p o n s e s

to be

fav­

o r a b l e o r u n f a v o r a b l e to s t u d e n t teaching.
It is o b s e r v e d that the e f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g
upon student discipline
ce i v e d to be u n f a v o r a b l e
p r o p o r t i o n of

in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s
to s t u d e n t

is p e r ­

t e a c h i n g by a g r e a t e r

r e s p o n d e n t s t han the p r o p o r t i o n p e r c e i v i n g

TABLE 30. — Attitude of administrators and teachers towards student teaching

recommended by supervising and student teachers.

Response
Choices

Should aggressively seek
student teachers

Supervising
Student
Teacher
Teacher
Total
Item 74
Item 74
____________________________________________
No.
%
No.
%
No.
!

622

14.1

715

15.9

1,337

15.1

Should seek student teachers

1,583

36.0

2,021

45.1

3,604

40.7

Should accept student teachers

2,097

47.7

1,130

25.2

3,227

36.2

18

.4

54

1.2

72

.8

2

.0

26

.6

28

.3

465

10.4

465

5.2

5

.1

5

.1

Should resist having student
teachers in the school
Should refuse to have student
teachers in the school
Unable to judge
Errors
Omissions
Total

75

1.7

67

1.5

142

1.6

4,397

99.9

4,483

100.0

8,880

100.0

TABLE 31.— A paradiqp for analysis of the study data.

Instructional activities

Activities outside class

Table

Itea

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Sea11 group instruction +
Make-up work
+
Exae follow-up
+
Individual attention
+
Discipline
Motivation
+
Mew, different instruc­
tional Materials
Other kinds of aid or
ideas
+

8

Table

12
13
14
15

*

Itee

Supervise groups
Talk to parents
Study supervision
Hall and playground
supervision

Regular staff relief
Table

+
+
+

Iten

16
17
18
19

Teaching
Visit classes
Committee work
Research

20

Professional Reading
and writing
+

+

Effect upon tiee of
supervising teacher
required for:
9
10
11

Teaching
Lesson planning
Paper grading

Supervising teacher
performance effect

Table

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2h

Item

Visit classes
Coenittee work
Research
Professional reading
and writing
Work with staff
Assist principal and
others
Effect on performance
of supervising teacher
Effect on all teacher
performance

VO

+
+

+
Effect on staff morale

Table

29

Item

Effect on staff
morale

Attitude of school
personnel re' student
teaching program
Table

30

Item

Recommended attitude
of schools r e ’ stu­
dent teaching

97
this

ite m to be

data reveal

favorable.

In all o th e r

a greater positive

in stances,

the

than n e g a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n

of responses.
Summary
The v a l i d i t y of six s u b - h y p o t h e s e s has b e e n e x ­
a m i n e d by o b s e r v i n g the p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s p o n s e to e ach
of thirty discrete
tions.

survey questions

The c r i t e r i o n o f a c c e p t a n c e

r e l a t e d to the a s s e r ­
for an i n d i v i d u a l

i t e m is s im p l y if a m a j o r i t y of r e s p o n d e n t s d o n ot p e r ­
ce ive the p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

to be

limiting,

n e g a t i v e o r h a r m f u l to the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m of c o o p ­
e r a t i n g schools.
tively,

Th is d e c i• s i o n rule,

s t a t e d aff i r m a -

is that an i t e m is r e g a r d e d as f a v o r a b l e to s t u ­

d e n t t e a c h i n g w h e n the p e r c e n t a g e of p e r c e i v e d r e s p o n s e s
r e f l e c t some d e g r e e of i mp r o v e m e n t ,
for c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
change"

In some

benefit or advantage

i nst a n c e s w h e r e a "no

r e s p o n s e was i n c l u d e d a f a v o r a b l e / u n f a v o r a b l e

r a t i o wa s c o m p u t e d f r o m the d a t a s h o w i n g d i r e c t i o n a l i t y
of r esp ons e.
E a c h of the t h i r t y s u r v e y
c i s i o n r u l e wa s a p p l i e d w a s
s t u d e n t t ea ching,
cipline.

items

fou nd to be

to w h i c h the d e ­
f a v o r a b l e to

e x c e p t in the i n s t a n c e of p u p i l d i s ­

A s s u m i n g that the t e s t q u e s t i o n s

ate to the s u b - h y p o t h e s e s w i t h w h i c h

are a p p r o p r i ­

they are l i n k e d

this p r o p o r t i o n of f a v o r a b l e r e s p o n s e s

suggests

n o n e of the s u b - h y p o t h e s e s n e e d b e rejected.

that

W i t h the

98
further a s s u m p t i o n that the a f f i r m a t i o n of the six s u b ­
hypotheses

is s u f f i c i e n t to s u p p o r t the b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s ,

this a s s e r t i o n a l s o ap pe a r s

to b e credible.

Six s u b - h y p o t h e s e s ,

with

re l a t e d s u r v e y

items,

w e r e a d d r e s s e d to the e f f e c t of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s
in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s upon:
— instructional activities

for p u p i l s

— sc h o o l a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e
--assistance

the c l a s s r o o m

to r e g u l a r s t a f f in c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s

--supervising teacher performance
— staff morale
- - a t t i t u d e of t e a c h e r s

a nd a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t ow a r d s

student teaching
Th e m a j o r i t y o f p a r t i c i p a n t s

in the s u r v e y h a v i n g

m a d e a f f i r m a t i v e r e s p o n s e to items r e l a t e d to the six
sub-hypotheses,

it w o u l d a p p e a r t hat the b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s

is s u b s t a n t i a t e d .

Th e c e n t r a l h y p o t h e s i s is stated:

S t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s are p e r c e i v e d as f a v ­
o r a b l e to M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g schools.
T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n is d e s c r i p t i v e o f f i n d i n g s r e ­
s u l t i n g f r o m the
conducted

"S tud y of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n "

in the fall t e r m

(semester)

d a t a d e r i v e f r o m r esp o n d e n t s '
teaching programs

of 1969-70.

Th e

p e r c e p t i o n s of s t u d e n t

as th ey w e r e t h e n c o n s t i t u t e d .

The

in­

v e s t i g a t i o n d i d not ask r e s p o n d e n t s to s u g g e s t cha nge s;

99
only to react to the e x i s t i n g p a t t e r n of s t u d e n t tea c h i n g
in the p a r t i c u l a r s cho ol an d c o l l e g e wi th w h i c h

they

ha d the exp e r i e n c e .
F u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n o f the f ind i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s
w i l l be m a d e

in C h a p t e r V.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The p u r p o s e of the s t u d y w a s

to d e s c r i b e h o w

supervising t e a c h e r s , student teachers
perceive

and administrators

the e f f e c t s of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sc hoo ls.

upon

A basic hypothesis was

formulated:
Student teaching programs
favorable

to M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

Six sub-hypotheses were
1.

are p e r c e i v e d
school s.

sta ted ,

T h e p r e s e n c e of s t u d e n t

which

teachers

c e i v e d to h a v e a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t
specific instructional

as

are:
is p e r ­
upon

activities

for p u p i l s

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sch ool s.
2.

Student teachers

are p e r c e i v e d

itive contributions

to m a k e p o s ­

to s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s

a d d i t i o n to c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n ,

in

in

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sch o o l s .
3.

The availability of student

teachers

in c o ­

operating schools provides opportunity
regular

staff members,

100

for

other than supervising

101
teachers,

to p a r t i c i p a t e

sonal and p r o f e s s i o n a l
4.

in a d d i t i o n a l p e r ­

activities.

W o r k i n g w i t h s t u d e n t t eac h e r s

is p e r c e i v e d

to e n h a n c e the e f f e c t i v e p e r f o r m a n c e of
s u p e r v i s i n g t eac h e r s

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

schools.
5.

Administrators

in M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sch o o l s

perceive student teaching programs

as h a v i n g

a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t u p o n st aff morale.
6.

S u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s a nd s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

in

M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g sch ool s a s s e r t that
administrators

and t e a c h e r s in th ese s chools

s h o u l d se ek to h ave s t u d e n t teachers.
Reflections On Student Teaching
A s tud y of this k i n d c a u s e s one to r ef l e c t u pon
a n u m b e r of issues w h i c h w e r e not n e c e s s a r i l y w i t h i n the
direct

focus of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,

to the data.

C o m b i n e d w i t h the p e r c e p t i o n s d e r i v e d from

prior experience

as a teacher,

curriculum director,
thesize.

b u t y e t are r e l a t e d

principal,

and s y s t e m - w i d e

the se r e f l e c t i o n s e m e r g e a nd s y n ­

The w r i t e r w i s h e s to sh are s e v e r a l

g e ne rat ed.

ideas thus

Th e s t a t e m e n t s w h i c h f o l l o w are a d m i t t e d l y

personal o p i n i o n s :
1.

Th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s u p e r v i s i n g and

s t u d e n t te ac h e r s o f t e n p l a c e s
the latter.

too m a n y

T h i s s i t u a t i o n has

i n h i b i t i o n s up on

i m p r o v e d sin ce

the days

102
when

the s u p e r v i s i n g

intern w a s

teacher was

t y r a n n i z e d by

the

called

"cr iti c"

t h r e a t of a C or D grade.

Th e n o v i c e s t i l l s h o u l d h a v e m o r e

assurance

l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i e n c e n e e d n o t be o n e o f

as t h e r e
is

teacher's

2.

evidence

t hat

learning experiences

Supervising

teachers

ever-increasing numbers
cient numbers of college

Student teachers
vising

teachers

teacher

are t o o o f t e n

carefully

an d i n s u f f i ­

school personnel

a g a i n s t this

r e l u c t a n t to h a v e

long

T h e p r e s s u r e s of

teachers

and off-campus

their needs militate

the s t u d e n t

s h o u l d be m o r e

of student

as

for c h i l d r e n .

selected and given better orientation.

to s e r v e

to the

idiosyncratic preferences,

is d e m o n s t r a b l e

facilitating

t h a t his

forced e m u l a ­

ti on of t e a c h i n g s t y l e o r s t r i c t c o n f o r m i t y
supervising

a nd the

ideal.

assigned

t h e m or,

to s u p e r ­

worse,

whose

p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t is in e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the o p p o r t u n i t y
to d e l e g a t e

tasks.

Even

if he

is w e l l

intentioned,

supervising teacher needs special orientation

for his

r o l e a n d t h e s t i m u l a t i o n of c o n t i n u i n g i n - s e r v i c e
inars

the

sem­

to do t he job well.
3.

Off-campus

school

teachers

should regard their involvement

in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n as

a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a n d an o p p o r t u n i t y ,
as a s e r v i c e

to the c o l l e g e .

and administrators

rather than simply

The very

cational

system depends

skilled,

creative young professionals.

life o f o u r e d u ­

upon a continuing

i n f l u x of

103
4.

Prospective

te achers n e e d d i r e c t c o n t a c t

w i t h c h i l d r e n e a r l i e r than the c o n v e n t i o n a l se n i o r y e a r
s t ude nt

t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie nce .

a c h i e v i n g this,
uate d e g r e e

in

i n v o l v e d w i t h the d e m a n d s of u n d e r g r a d ­

r e q u ir eme nts ,

career decisions

T h e r e are d i f f i c u l t i e s

time,

money,

transportation,

and r e l a t e d f a c t o r s - - b u t , these are n o t

u n s u r m o u n t a b l e ba rriers.
step in this d ire ct i o n ,

T he v o l u n t e e r p r o g r a m s are a
by a f f o r d i n g col l e g e

st ud e n t s

e a r l y c o n t a c t s w i t h c h i l d r e n in a s oc i a l s e r v i c e role.
5.

Cooperating school

s t u d e n t te ac h e r s
concepts

f acu lti es

should welcome

for the s t i m u l a t i o n of n e w ideas and

that they b r i n g

fr om

the

r e c e n c y o f the ir

e x p e r i enc e.

The a c c e l e r a t i o n of n e w k n o w l e d g e and

niques makes

it i n c r e a s i n g l y d i f f i c u l t

college

tech­

for the p r a c t i t i o n e r

to k e e p a b r e a s t of change.
O n e w a y to n a r r o w the

g ap

betweenresearch

and

a p p l i c a t i o n is to a c c e p t the c o l l e g e s e n i o r as a so u r c e
of i n n o v a t i v e i n s i g h t s w h i c h h a v e b e e n a c q u i r e d f r o m the
la tes t f i n d i n g s in the b e h a v i o r a l and p h y s i c a l sc iences.
This

is a r e v e r s a l o f the t r a d i t i o n a l

a t t i t u d e of the

r e g u l a r st aff m e m b e r p a t r o n i z i n g l y i n i t i a t i n g the s t u d e n t
t e a c h e r i n t o the same o l d p a t t e r n of i n s t r u c t i o n in a
s e l f - p e r p e t u a t i n g manner.

Th is n o t i o n a l s o rests o n the

a s s u m p t i o n that the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r r e a l l y has
some n e w a p p r o a c h e s
college.

learned

and n e w c o n t e n t in u n d e r g r a d u a t e

104
6.
have

Those

responsible

for te a c h e r e d u c a t i o n w ill

to give m o r e a t t e n t i o n to d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g

roles.

The

task of e d u c a t i o n has b e c o m e

any one e d u c a t o r to h a n d l e alone.

too c o m p l e x for

The p r o v i s i o n of

t e a c h e r aides w i t h an array of s p e c i a l t i e s
has

tremendous

and f u n c t i o n s

im p a c t u pon the c o n t e n t and s k i l l s w i t h

which pre-professionals
preparation.

teaching

This

s h o u l d be p r e o c c u p i e d in th eir

is a no t h e r a r e a of n e c e s s a r y c o o p e r ­

at i o n b e t w e e n c o l l e g e s

and o f f - c a m p u s

schools.

S u m m a r y of F i n d i n g s
D a t a for the i n v e s t i g a t i o n w e r e t a k e n f r o m "The
S t u d y of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n . "

T his w a s a s u r ­

vey c o n d u c t e d b y the d e a n s of t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n a nd d i ­
r e c t o r s of s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n c o l l e g e s
versities.
tu t i o n s

T h e r e are t h i r t y - o n e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n

for i ni t i a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n as e l e ­

and s e c o n d a r y teachers.

sponden ts.
were

insti­

a p p r o v e d b y the M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n

to r e c o m m e n d g r a d u a t e s
mentary

and u n i ­

O f these,

There were

4,483 w e r e s t u d e n t

supervising teachers

9,8 81 r e ­

teachers,

3,397

and 1,001 w e r e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s

of e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y sc ho o l s
Th e r a t i o n a l e for t e s t i n g the v a l i d i t y of the
c e n t r a l h y p o t h e s i s w a s a d e d u c t i v e p r o c e s s of o b s e r v i n g
the r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e
the s i x s u b - h y p o t h e s e s .

items r e l a t e d to e a c h of

105
Percentages of response which were more positive
than n e g a t i v e w e r e
survey

items

noted

tha t w e r e

for e a c h o f t h i r t y d i s c r e t e

l i n k e d to the s i x s u b - h y p o t h e s e s .

Th e e s s e n c e o f the s u b - h y p o t h e s e s
the p e r c e i v e d e f f e c t s o f s t u d e n t
ti ona l a c t i v i t i e s ,

staff morale

towards

student
Since

supervising

follows

of

instruc­
relief

teacher perfor­

and attitude of school personnel

t eac hin g.

the

thirty test items with one exception

revealed positive perceptions
tion

upon:

outside of class participation,

for r e g u l a r s t a f f m e m b e r s ,
ma nce ,

teaching

consists

of r e s p o n d e n t s ,

t h a t the s i x s u b - h y p o t h e s e s

O n the a s s u m p t i o n

are credible.

t h a t the s i x s u b - h y p o t h e s e s

r e l a t e to the b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s ,

the d e d u c ­

logically

the r e a s o n i n g c o n c l u d e s

t h a t the b a s i c h y p o t h e s i s h a s b e e n s u b s t a n t i a t e d b y

the

data.
Frequency
were exhibited

counts

a nd p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s p o n s e

in C h a p t e r IV, w i t h r e l a t e d d i s c u s s i o n .

A p a r a d i g m p r o v i d i n g an o v e r a l l p r o f i l e o f the r e l a t i o n ­
ship between test items and sub-hypotheses was
Table

shown

in

31.

Conclusions

and Recommendations

It h a s b e e n e m p h a s i z e d t h a t t h i s
scriptive.

Responses

to specific questions

c a t e g o r i e s of s t u d y p a r t i c i p a n t s
analyzed

study

in te r m s o f f r e q u e n c y

is d e ­

by t h r e e

have bee n tabulated and

and proportion.

From these

106
data the one c e n t r a l c o n c l u s i o n has a p p e a r e d to e merge;
namely,
sently

that s t u d e n t

teaching programs

c o n s t i t u t e d are p e r c e i v e d

cooperating

as

favorable

is to w e i g h t

the v a r i o u s

that m i g h t h a v e

survey

as c r i t e r i a a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r r e l a t i v e

i tem s u s e d

importance

the e d u c a t i o n a l e f f o r t o f the c o o p e r a t i n g
example,

the e f f e c t of h a v i n g

a m o u n t of s m a l l g r o u p

i m p l y i n g t hat

th ey are o f the s ame

w e i g h t i n g w o u l d h a v e b e e n of l i t t l e

or n e g a t i n g the s u b - h y p o t h e s e s ,
u p o n p r o g r a m of the v a r i o u s

importance.

As

the

consequence.

important

Had

i n e q u i t i e s of

there

the

supporting
impact

i t e m s w o u l d h a v e b e e n of

it stan ds,

Since

resulted positively,

con­

is the r e c o g n i ­

ti on t h a t s o m e o f the d e c i s i o n c r i t e r i a are
much more

u p o n the

for m a k e - u p w o r k ,

decision been a close one between evidence

concern.

For

instruction afforded to pupils

all b u t o ne of the c r i t e r i a e x a m i n e d

siderable

to

sc hoo ls.

student teachers

w a s e q u a t e d to the e f f e c t u p o n p r o v i s i o n
thus

to M i c h i g a n

schools.

Something which was not done
been done

as they are p r e ­

relatively

to e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n

t h a n are o th e r s .
If it is c o n c e d e d t h a t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s u p o n
structional

activities"

"in­

have more direct impact upon

pu pil s'

w e l l b e i n g in c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l s

than whe t h e r

student

teachers

to r e g u l a r

staff members

are p r o v i d i n g a s s i s t a n c e

enabling

and p r o f e s s i o n a l

t h e m to f i n d m o r e

activities,

time

it is g r a t i f y i n g

for p e r s o n a l
to n o t e

107
that such items as
i n t r o d u c t i o n of

" ind ivi dual

attention

to p upils,"

"new or d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s , "

and s u g g e s t i o n of

"other k i n d s of aid or ideas"

the h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e s of p o s i t i v e
Not sur p r i s i n g l y ,
respondents perceive

re spo n s e

one of the e l e m e n t s

are among

in the study.
in w h i c h

low c o n t r i b u t i o n to c o o p e r a t i n g

school p r o g r a m s by s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g is the f a c t o r of
"discip lin e."

Thi s p o i n t s c l e a r l y to the n e c e s s i t y for

s u p e r v i s i n g tea c h e r s and c o l l e g e c o o r d i n a t o r s
no v i c e p r a c t i t i o n e r s to l ear n all p o s s i b l e

to he lp

t e c h n i q u e s of

c l a s s r o o m m a n a g e m e n t and w a y s of e s t a b l i s h i n g w h o l e s o m e
r a p p o r t w i t h s t u d e n t s for the m o s t e f f e c t i v e t e a c h i n g le arn i n g interac tio ns.
implies,

S t u d e n t teaching,

as the name

is a time for l e a r n i n g h o w to teach,

no t for

m e r e l y d e m o n s t r a t i n g h o w w e l l one can a l r e a d y do so.
S t u d e n t t e a c h i n g m a n u a l s and r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e
stress
in vo l v e

the i m p o r t a n c e of

laboratory experiences which

the s t u d e n t o u t s i d e

the formal classro om.

Stu­

d e n t t e a c h e r s are i n v o k e d to learn a b o u t c o m m u n i t y r e ­
s o u r c e s and m a k e c o n t a c t s w i t h p a r e n t s .

S o m e of the d ata

r e s u l t i n g f ro m this s t u d y w o u l d s u g g e s t that th ese g oals
are n o t b e i n g a c h i e v e d in p r a c t i c e .
groups

in m e e t i n g s ,

programs,

ing talks to p a r e n t g r o u p s "
tages of p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e
p a t i n g in the survey.

"Supervising youth

tr ips o r tours"

are a m o n g the

a nd

"gi v­

lower p e r c e n ­

from s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s p a r t i c i ­

Perhaps more opportunity

for

108

these k i n d s of c o n t a c t s
oratory experiences

s h o u l d be d e s i g n e d

for e n t r a n t s

i nto the

int o

the

lab­

teaching p r o ­

fe ss i o n .
Curriculum
schools

lea der s

should note with

the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s
working with
effective

interest

in the s t u d y p e r c e i v e

staff members

that

themselves more

and reappraisal
approaches

as w e l l

it m a y b e

to a c c e p t s t u d e n t

and defeats

the s e a s o n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l w i t h

te ach ers .

of the n o v i c e p r o v i d e s

a m e a n s of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n

as o f f e r i n g s t i m u l i

for n e w

to i n s t r u c t i o n .

With

the s h i f t o f s t u d e n t

laboratory schools
those responsible
th at n e a r l y

to o f f - c a m p u s

teaching

locales

from

cooperating schools,

for t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be p l e a s e d

9 8 p e r c e n t of the s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r r e ­

in the s t u d y feel t h a t the p u b l i c

th ey

te ach e r s .

78 p e r c e n t of

of i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n ,

S h a r i n g in the t r i u m p h s

schools

and s e c o n d a r y

t eac h e r s .

to e n c o u r a g e

spondents

th at

s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s has m a d e

As a m e a n s
well

in e l e m e n t a r y

and n o n - p u b l i c

represent should accept or seek student

Complaints

are h e a r d r e g a r d i n g the

lack of

remuneration for supervising teachers

and/or inadequate

p r o v i s i o n of t i m e a n d o t h e r r e s o u r c e s

to p e r f o r m well,

but

the d a t a o b t a i n e d in the s t u d y i n d i c a t e

apparent

acceptance of responsibility

or the c o n c l u s i o n

th at the

advantages

there

is an

to the p r o f e s s i o n
accruing

to

109
i n dividuals and

i ns t i t u t i o n s o u t w e i g h the d i s a d v a n t a g e s

involved in f a c i l i t a t i n g

laboratory experiences

for

fl edgling teachers.
The p r o p o s i t i o n was s t a t e d that s tu d e n t
programs

are p e r c e i v e d as f a v o r a b l e

schools.

to M i c h i g a n c o o p e r a t i n g

The d a t a w e r e a n a l y z e d a g a i n s t this

reference.

tea chi ng

frame of

It w o u l d a p p e a r from the 96.7 p e r cen t of

p o s i t i v e r e s p o n s e s to the items i n v e s t i g a t e d that the
hypothesis

is a r e a s o n a b l e deduct ion .
Suggestions

T h i s study,
s t u d e n t teaching,

for F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h

t y p i c a l of m u c h of the r e s e a r c h on

is d es c r i p t i v e .

It r e p o r t s the c o l l e c ­

tive j u d g m e n t of s u p e r v i s i n g and s t u d e n t
administrators concerning various

te ach ers

and

facets of s t u d e n t

t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s as t h e y are b e i n g a d m i n i s t e r e d p r e s e n t l y
in M i c h i g a n o f f - c a m p u s schools.
1.

E x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s are n e e d e d
T o c o m p l e m e n t this an d o t h e r d e s c r i p t i v e s urveys

there s h o u l d be m o r e e x p e r i m e n t a l s tud ies
achievement,

in w h i c h p u p i l

teacher effectiveness and other variables

are s t u d i e d in r e l a t i o n to s t u d e n t teaching.

It can be

s a i d fr om the p r e s e n t s t u d y t h a t the thr ee c a t e g o r i e s of
respondents perceive existing programs
not harmfu l,

to c o o p e r a t i n g schools.

to be b e n e f i c i a l ,
It c an not be d i s ­

c e r n e d f r o m the a v a i l a b l e d a t a w h e t h e r p r e s e n t

110
e x p e r i e n c e s p r o v i d e d for s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s are m o r e e f f e c ­
tive than a l t e r n a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s
2.

F u r t h e r s t u d i e s can be m a d e
The

that m i g h t be tried.
f r o m the a v a i l a b l e data

"Study of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in M i c h i g a n "

p r o d u c e d a w e a l t h of d a t a f r o m a large p o p u l a t i o n of
v a r i e d r e s p o n d e n t s w h i c h can c o n t i n u e
additional

insights.

to be a n a l y z e d for

Th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

items

demographic information about respondents

i nc l u d e

from w h i c h an

a b u n d a n c e of c o r r e l a t i o n s c an be m a d e w i t h o t h e r v a r i a b l e s
and i n f e r e n c e s drawn.
It w o u l d be i n t e r e s t i n g a n d u s e f u l to compare:
size of c o l l e g e and c o o p e r a t i n g sc h o o l w i t h r esp ond ent s'
p e r c e p t i o n s o f v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of s t u d e n t teaching;
s u p e r v i s i n g teachers'

y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e t e a c h i n g w i t h

t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f s t u d e n t teachers'
structional activities;
of e x p e r i e n c e

e f f e c t u pon

s u p e r v i s i n g te achers'

in­

longevity

as s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s w i t h the q u a l i t y

of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n w h i c h the y p e r c e i v e ;

the

size o f c o m m u n i t y w i t h s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s a t i s f a c t i o n or
dissatisfaction;

full time o r h a l f - d a y s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

with perceptions of instructional effectiveness;

subject

a r e a an d t e a c h i n g f i e l d s p e c i a l t i e s w i t h p e r c e p t i o n s of
s t u d e n t t e a c h e r c o m p e te ncy ;

and s i n g l e

teacher,

team

t e a c h i n g or c l u s t e r a r r a n g e m e n t s w i t h p e r c e i v e d q u a l i t y
of s t u d e n t t e a c h e r p e r f o r m a n c e .
responses

T he s t u d e n t t e a c h e r

c o n c e r n i n g the l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i e n c e c o u l d be

Ill
compared with

the s i n g l e

arrangements.
variables

tea cher ,

t e a m t e a c h i n g or c l u s t e r

A s t u d y c o u l d be m a d e a n a l y z i n g

in r e l a t i o n

specific

to r e g i o n a l o r i n s t i t u t i o n a l

ident­

ification .
Imagination
e x t e n d the

and r e s o u r c e f u l n e s s w i l l g r e a t l y

list o f a n a l y s e s w h i c h can yet be m a d e

the d a t a w h i c h

from

this s t a t e - w i d e s u r v e y has y iel d e d .

3.
A f o l l o w - u p s t u d y c o u l d use
o p e n - e n d e d r e s p o n s e s to a d v a n t a g e
In r e t r o s p e c t ,

it is f e l t t h a t a d d i t i o n a l

useful

d a t a c o u l d h a v e b e e n o b t a i n e d b y the i n c l u s i o n o f a
number of open- e n d e d response
responses
tion

items.

The

impose definite restrictions

fed b a c k

reasons why

to the i n v e s t i g a t o r .

this w a s not done,

cessing manipulation.
can b e o v e r c o m e ,

It s eems

forced choice

u p o n the

There were

informa­
"practical"

some involving data p r o ­
that these difficulties

e v e n if it m e a n s c a t e g o r i z i n g

an d a n a l y z ­

ing o n l y a r a n d o m s a m p l e of the o p e n - e n d e d r e p l i e s .
questions mig h t have elicited insights
weaknesses

Such

into strengths

of e x i s t i n g student teaching pro g r a m s

and

that

w e r e q u i t e u n a n t i c i p a t e d b y the f r a m e r s o f the f o r c e d
choice questionnaire

items.

A f o l l o w - u p s t u d y c an s t i l l be d o n e by the
institutional
the

findings

participants
thus

far.

and the

results

same

compared with

112
4.
The e f f e c t of s t u d e n t te achers upon
i n n o v a t i o n s In c o o p e r a t i n g sc hools
should be s t u d i e d
Ta b l e s

7 and 8 d i s p l a y d a t a c o n c e r n i n g n e w i n ­

s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s or ideas p r o v i d e d by st ud e n t teachers.
The p a r t that s t u d e n t t eac h e r s p l a y in i n t r o d u c i n g change
into c o o p e r a t i n g sch ool s s h o u l d be i n v e s t i g a t e d more
thoroughly.
In a rap idl y c h a n g i n g society,

it w o u l d be an

i n t e r e s t i n g and use ful s tud y to i d e n t i f y the q u a n t i t y
and q u a l i t y o f i n n o v a t i o n s

in content,

t e a c h i n g str ate g i e s

and t e c h n o l o g y a p p l i c a t i o n s g e n e r a t e d by s t u d e n t teachers.
The d i f f u s i o n of i n n o v a t i o n re l i e s u p o n ch a n g e agents
and the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r m a y be s e r v i n g in this role
a g r e a t e r e x t e n t th an w e g e n e r a l l y recogn ize .

to

W i t h an

i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r o d u c i n g m o r e i n s i g h t int o the e f f e c t of
student teaching upon innovation diffusion,

this as p e c t

of the l a b o r a t o r y e x p e r i e n c e s m i g h t be d e l i b e r a t e l y
m a n i p u l a t e d by c o n s c i o u s l y p r e p a r i n g t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n
candidates

for the ir rol es as c h a n g e agents.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ad ams ,

H a r o l d P. a n d D ickey, F r a n k G.
Basic Principles
of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g . N e w YorJw N . Y . : A m e r i c a n
B o o k , 1956.

Anderson,

Andrews,

L y l e E r l i n g , Jr.
"A S t u d y of the F l o r i d a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r s In R e l a t i o n s h i p
To Recommended Selection Criteria."
Unpublished
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , T h e F l o r i d a St ate U n i v e r s i t y ,
1967.
L e o n a r d O.
S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g . N e w York:
The
C e n t e r F o r A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h in E d u c a t i o n , 1964.

Armstrong,

Bain,

R o b e r t J o s e p h , Jr.
"The O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d A d ­
m i n istration of Elementary Off-Campus Student
T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s in M a s s a c h u s e t t s : C u r r e n t
Practices and Proposed Patterns."
Unpublished
Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of M a s s a c h u s e t t s ,
1967.

S t e l l a Mae.
"The O r g a n i z a t i o n a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n
o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g in the P r e p a r a t i o n of
E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r s in the A c c r e d i t e d T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n I n s t i t u t i o n s of the S t a t e of I n d i a n a . "
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i ­
v e r s i t y , 1966.

Barber,

Do n a l d Russell.
"A C o m p r e h e n s i v e S u r v e y C o n c e r n ­
i n g 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 in
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n in K a n s a s . "
Unpublished
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of K a n s a s , 1967.

B a r b e r i , C a r l o C.
"A S t u d y o f the A c c e p t a n c e of the
S e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m as P e r ­
ceived by Faculty, Administrators, Parents
a n d P u p i l s in the Mt. P l e a s a n t P u b l i c S c h o o l s ,
Mt. P l e a s a n t , M i c h i g a n . "
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.
Be n n i e ,

W i l l i a m A.
C o o p e r a t i o n fo r B e t t e r S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g ,
M i n n e a p o 1i s , M i n n e s o t a : Burgess Publishing
C o m p a n y , 1966.
113

114

Bennie,

W i l l i a m A.
" T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n and the S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m . " T h e A m e r i c a n S c h o o l Board
J o u r n a l , 144 (April, 1^62), 18.

Bernstein,

Blair,

Ber nard.
"Training of Student Teachers:
H i g h S c h o o l P o i n t of V i e w . "
H i s p a n i a , 49
(May, 1966), 272.

A

Lois C. a nd E r i c k s o n , Paul.
"The S t u d e n t T e a c h e r ' s
E x p e r i e n c e s in the C o m m u n i t y . "
Th e A s s o c i a t i o n
Fo r S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g B u l l e t i n No. 2 1 . C e d a r
F a l l s , I o w a : T h e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1964.

B o sley,

B rown,

H o w a r d E.
An E x p e r i m e n t in C h a n g e , Vol. I:
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n in T r a n s i t i o n . B a l t i m o r e ,
Maryl a n d : Multi-State T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Pro­
ject, 1969.
W i l l i a m B.
"Los A n g e l e s C i t y S c h o o l s — P a r t n e r s
Teacher Education."
T h e J o u r n a l of T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n , 12 (March, 1961}, 60-65.

B u rnham,

Co mbs ,

M y r t l e C.
"Off-Campus Student Teaching."
T h i r t i e t h Y e a r b o o k of th e A s s o c i a t i o n for S t u ­
dent Teaching.
L o c k H av e n , P e n n s y l v a n i a :
The
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1951.

A r t h u r W.
B oston:

Compton,

T h e P r o f e s s i o n a l E d u c a t i o n of T e a c h e r s .
A l l y n an d Ba con , I n c . , 19<>5.

Ron ald .
"On T h e S c e n e T e a c h i n g F o r S t u d e n t s . "
S c h o o l a n d C o m m u n i t y , 50 (May, 1964), 6.

Conant,

J a m e s B.
"The C e r t i f i c a t i o n of T e a c h e r s :
The
Restricted State Ap proved Program Approach."
F i f t h C h a r l e s W. H u n t L ect u r e .
Freedom With
R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Seventeenth Yearbook.
W a s h i n g t o n , D T C . : A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of
C o l l e g e s for T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 196 4.

Conant,

J a m e s B.
The E d u c a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n T e a c h e r s .
N e w York!
M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o m p a n y , 1963.

Coon,

in

G e o r g e E.
"An E v a l u a t i o n of the S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
Programs At Wayne State University."
Unpub­
l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , W a y n e S t a t e U n i ­
v e r s i t y , D e t r o i t , M i c h i g a n , 196 3.

Co r n e t t ,

Joe DeLayne.
"A S u r v e y of R e s e a r c h R e l a t i v e to
S u p e r v i s i o n of S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s at the S e c o n d a r y
Level."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i ­
v e r s i t y o f A r k a n s a s , 1966.

115
Co spe r,

Cecil.
S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g T h e o r y and P r a c t i c e s .
N e w York:
Greenwich Book Publishers, I n c . ,
1965.

Cox, D o n a l d Vin cent.
"An A n a l y s i s of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
Patterns
in S o u t h D a k o t a for the 196 3-64 A c a d e m i c
Year."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i ­
v e r s i t y of S o u t h D a k o t a , 1966.
Curtis,

Dean,

D w i g h t K . , ed.
Achieving Quality Off-Campus Pro­
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 . C e d a r Fa lls ,
I o w a : T h e A s s o c i a t i o n F o r S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g , 195 7

Lee a nd K e n n e d y , W. Henry.
"A P o s i t i o n P a p e r o n
Student Teaching Programs."
Teacher Education
In T r a n s i t i o n . E d i t e d b y H o w a r d E . B o s l e y .
Baltimore, Maryland:
Multi-State Teacher
E d u c a t i o n P r o j e c t , 1969.

Del P o p o l o , J o s e p h
A. a n d H i l l s o n , M a u r i e .
"Student
Teaching
a nd the R o l e o f the P u b l i c S c h o o l s . "
N e w Y o r k S t a t e E d u c a t i o n , 51 (March, 1964), 14-16,
Drake,

Elam,

T.

L. a n d Kr aft , L. E.
" H o w Do S t u d e n t s F e e l A b o u t
Student Teachers?"
I l l i n o i s E d u c a t i o n , 55
(November, 1966), 106-09.

S t a n l e y , ed.
I m p r o v i n g T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n in the
U n i t e d S t a t e s . B l o o m i n g t o n , I n d i a n a : Phi
D e l t a K a p p a , I n c . , 1967.

Elliott,

Ev j e n ,

D a v i d L.
"A R o l e P e r c e p t i o n :
The Supervising
Teacher."
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n a n d the P u b l i c
S c h o o l s . F o r t i e t h Y e a r b o o k o f the A s s o c i a t i o n
for S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g .
C e d a r F alls, Iowa:
The
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1961.

Myrtle.
"R ole o f t h e C o o p e r a t i n g S c h o o l . "
Journal
of T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , X V I I I (Winter, 1967),
m - i « : --------------------

F ras er,
Fulp,

M ar i e .
"A C h a l l e n g e f o r A l l C o l l e g e s . "
The
I n d i a n a T e a c h e r , CI I (May, 1958), 416-llH

K e n n e t h E.
" W h a t Is T h e E f f e c t Of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
On The Achievement Of Pupils?"
Association For
S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g B u l l e t i n No. 22~
C e d a r Fal ls,
I o w a : T h e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1$<S4.

Greene,

G wyn n.
"Student Teaching:
Do T h e P a r t i c i p a t i n g
Schools Benefit?"
I l l i n o i s E d u c a t i o n , 55
(November, 1966), 107-0$.

116

r.ruhn, W i l l i a m T.
School.

S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g In The S e c o n d a r y
N e w York:
Ron ald Press, 1954.

Harven,

J e r a l i n e Dorris.
"The S u p e r v i s i n g Te acher:
A
S y n t h e s i s of R e s e a r c h F i n d i n g s and T h o u g h t . "
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , I n d i a n a U n i ­
versity, 1964.

Hunter,

E l i z a b e t h a n d Amidon, Edmund.
"Direct E x p e r i e n c e
In T e a c h e r Edu cat ion :
I n n o v a t i o n and E x p e r i m e n ­
ta tion."
T he J o u r n a l Of T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 17
(Fall, 1966), 282-90.

Jo hn s o n ,

Ja mes Allen.
A National Survey Of Student
T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m ? . B alt imo re, M a r y l a n d :
S t at e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Pr oject, 196 8.

Johnson ,

Lamb,

Multi-

J. A.
" Stu den t T e a c h i n g T r e n d s In M i s s o u r i A n d
The Nation."
S c h o o l and C o m m u n i t y , 55 (May,
1969), 44-46.

Pose.
T he S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o c e s s In E l e m e n t a r y
S c h o o l s . C o l u m b u s : C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l B r o o k s ,
I n d .', T 9 6 5 .

Li ttr ell ,

J. J.
"Are S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s E x p l o i t e d ? "
S c h o o l S h o p , 24 (March, 1965), 40-42.

Me rch a n t ,

A l b e r t Ray.
"A Stu dy O f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o ­
g r a m s In V i r g i n i a . "
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r ­
tation, U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a , 1967.

Mi c h a e l i s ,

John. U.
"T ea c h e r E d u c a t i o n - - S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
and I n t e r n s h i p . "
E n c y c l o p e d i a of E d u c a t i o n a l
Research.
3rd. ed~
N e w Y o r k : T h e " M a c M i 1 1 an
C o mpany, 1960.

Mo use r, M a r c e l l a .
"An E v a l u a t i o n Of The S e c o n d a r y S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m A t Ka nsa s S tat e T e a c h e r s
C o llege, Emporia, K a n s a s . "
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f N e b r a s k a , 1969.
Myers,

Neal,

G e o r g e R. and Walsh, W i l l i a m J.
Student Teaching
and I n t e r n s h i p in T o d a y ' s S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s .
C o l u m b u s , Ohio:
C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l l , I n c . , 1964.
C h a r l e s D.
"Reaso ns For C o l l e g e S u p e r v i s i o n of the
S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m . " J o u r n a l of T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n , 18 (Spring, 1967), 24-27.

Ne lso n,

L e s l i e and M c D o n a l d , Blanche.
G u i d e to S t u d e n t
T e a c h i n g . Dubuque, Iowa:
Wm. C. B r o w n Co., 19 52.

117
Perrodin,

A l e x F.
"The P r i n c i p a l and the S t u d e n t T e a c h e r . "
E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n an d S u p e r v i s i o n , 42

(MovemBerT 1955), 149-52.--------- ---------Pittman,

Ramey,

Rich,

K a t h l e e n Higdon.
"An E v a l u a t i o n of a T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m by the G r a d u a t e s of a State
C o l l e g e . ” U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . The
U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s i s s i p p i , 1964.

E t h e l a u r a Hare.
"A Su r v e y of the P r e s e n t S e c o n d a r y
S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r a c t i c e s in S e l e c t e d Tex as
Colleges."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of Houston, Houston, Texas, 1964.
V i c t o r J.
"The E v o l v i n g S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m at
W e s t e r n Il li n o i s U n i v e r s i t y and an A s s e s s m e n t
of the Q u a d - C i t i e s R e s i d e n t S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
Center."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
M i c h i g a n S tat e U n i v e r s i t y , 1967.

Ru the rfo rd, J o h n Alby.
"The E f f e c t of S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
U p o n P u p i l A c h i e v e m e n t In S e l e c t e d F o u r t h G r a d e
Classrooms."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
U n i v e r s i t y of V irg i n i a , 1967.
Saxe,

R i c h a r d W.
"St u d e n t Te ach i n g :
W h a t Is T h e Role Of
The P r i n c i p a l ? "
I lli n o i s Ed u c a t i o n , 55 (Novem­
ber, 1966), 104-07:

Sc hor l i n g ,

Shaplin,

R a l e i g h a nd B a c c h el der , H o w a r d T.
Student
T e a c h i n g In S e c o n d a r y Schools.
New Y o r k :
McGraw-Hill,1956.

Judson.
"Pr actice in T e a c h i n g . "
Harvard Educa­
t i o n a l R e v i e w , XXXI (Winter, 19617": 33-57.

Sharpe,

D o n a l d M.
"The P u p i l s L o o k A t The P r o b l e m . "
T h i r t i e t h Y e a r b o o k of the A s s o c i a t i o n for
S t u d e n t Te aching.
L ock Haven, P e n n s y l v a n i a :
The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1951.

Sharpe,

D o n a l d M.
" T h r e s h o l d To Th e P r o f e s s i o n . ”
N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n Jo urn al, 54
(April, M * 5 J Y " 3 T - 3 5 . ---------------------

Smith,

E.

B.
"Needed:
A N e w O r d e r In S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
T h a t Br i n g s J o i n t A c c o u n t a b i l i t y for P r o ­
fessional Development."
J o u r n a l of T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n , 20 (Spring, 1969), 27-36.

Smith,

E.

B . , ed.
P a r t n e r s h i p In T e a c h i n g E d u c a t i o n .
Washington^ D . C . : The American ARsociation
of C o l l e g e s for T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 1967.

118
Smith,

E lmer, e d . T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n :
A Reappraisal.
N e w York:
H a r p e r and Row, 1963.

Stagg,

G e o r g e F.
"Problems of Student Teachers."
Un­
p u b l i s h e d Ed.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , M o n t a n a S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , 1968.

St eev e s ,

F r a n k L.
I s s u e s In S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g . N e w
York:
T h e O d y s s e y P r e s s , I n c . , 196 3.

Sw en s o n ,

E s t h e r J.
"Off-Campus Laboratory Experiences:
T h e i r G r o w t h , I m p o r t a n c e and P r e s e n t R o l e in
Teacher Education."
T h i r t i e t h Y e a r b o o k o f the
A s s o c i a t i o n for S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g .
L o c k Haven,
Pennsylvania:
T h e A s s o c i a t i o n , 1951.

Tanruther,

E d g a r M.
C l i n i c a l E x p e r i e n c e s In T e a c h i n g
F o r the S t u d e n t T e a c h e r o r I n t e r n . N e w Y o r k :
Dodck, M e a d a n d C o m p a n y , 1967.

Tanruther,

E d g a r M.
"Facilitating In-service Education."
F o r t y - f i f t h Y e a r b o o k o f the A s s o c i a t i o n f or
Student Teaching.
C e d a r F a l l s , Iowa:
The
A s s o c i a t i o n , 1966.

Teacher's V o i c e . East Lansing, Michigan:
E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , M a r c h 2,
Ward,

The M i c h i g a n
1970.

T e d a n d S t e a r n s , Troy.
"An E x p a n d i n g R o l e . "
Fortieth Y e a rbook of the A s s o c i a t i o n for S t u ­
dent Teaching.
D u b u q u e , Iowa:
W i l l i a m C.
B r o w n Co., 1961.

Woodruff,

Asahel.
Student Teaching T o d a y . Washington,
D.C.:
T h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o l l e g e s for
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , 1960.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING

IN T H E

S T U D Y OF S T U D E N T T E A C H I N G
IN M I C H I G A N

APPENDIX A
INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING

IN T H E

S T U D Y OF S T U D E N T T E A C H I N G
IN M I C H I G A N

Central Michigan University
Eastern Michigan University
Ferris State College
Grand Valley State College
Michigan State University
Michigan Technological University
Northern Michigan University
Oakland University
The University of Michigan
Th e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n — D e a r b o r n
Th e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i c h i g a n — F l i n t
Saginaw Valley College
Wayne State University
Western Michigan University
Adrian College
Albion College
Alma College
Andrews University
Aquinas College
Calvin College
Hillsdale College
Ho pe C o l l e g e
Kalamazoo College
Madonna College
Marygrove College
Mercy College of Detroit
Nazareth College
Olivet College
Siena Heights College
Spring Arbor College
University of Detroit

119

APPENDIX B
S T U D Y OF S T U D E N T T E A C H I N G IN M I C H I G A N
QUESTIONNAIRE FORMS

STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
Administrator Questionnaire

lh»s M u d y

•s lu’in>; conducted at the request of the Council of State College

I'li ■, i.tenl s tor the purpose ot analyzing the effect of student teaching pro­
grams on the schools of Michigan.
The study is being conducted by all the
t e a c h er preparation institutions in Michigan and will involve all student
t e a c h e r s , supervising teachers, and building principals working with student
t e a c h e r s during the fall quarter or semester of 1969.

instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of
three Michigan institutions, and have been reviewed by Michigan Education Asso­
ciation officials and the Student Teaching Committee of the Detroit Federation
of Teachers.
Both groups have made contributions to the items in the instrument
and have expressed interest in the findings.

T he

It is expected that the results of this study will be given wide distribution
ind no doubt will provide a basis for the Improvement of student teaching and
teacher education programs in Michigan over the next decade.

DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS
L. Use the IBM answer sheet provided.
Do not write anything in the name or
student number spaces at the top of the sheet. Thus, there will be no way for
your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The responses
will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment.
Since your responses will be combined with those from other Institutions it
is essential that all respondents use the same procedure.
Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to Indicate your answer
Lo each item.
Blacken the space completely.
Be careful not to put any other
marks on the answer sheet.
1.

1.
Note that the .answer spaces alternate to the left and right columns of the
answer sheet.
4.

Mark no more than one answer for each item.

Please answer every item.

5. In the instrument "University" means either "college" or "university" as
appropriate.
"Supervising teacher" also means "cooperating teacher," " sponsorin
teacher," or "critic teacher." Student teacher also means "associate teacher."

STUDENT

T E A C H IN G

IN

M IC * . w

N

Administrator Questionnaire
.Vlin-li ol llw following are you now?

v

ingle student teacher
married student teacher
supervising (cooperating, sponsoring) teacher
supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment
in addition to teaching
A single school administrator
A married school administrator

What is your sox;
I.

Ma 1e

2.

F c m n 1e

Wh.it is your present administrative assignment?

1.

Building Principal

1.
A.
c>.
b.

Building Principal
Building Principal
Building Principal
Other

2m Building Principal

elementary school
middle school
junior high school
combined Junior-senior high school
senior high school

Which statement below best describes the community in which your school
is located?
1. Large central city (e.g., Detroit, Grand Rapids)
2. Large suburban coimunlty (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen)
). Small suburban comnunlty (e.g., Okemos, Essexville)
A . Medium sized city (e.g., Battle Creek, Kalamazoo)
r>. Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles,
Ithaca)
For how many years have you been a school administrator?
1.
2.
3.
A.
5.

Two or less
Three to five
Six to nine
Ten to twelve
More than twelve

For how many years have you been an administrator in your present building?
1.
2.
J.
A.

5.

Two or less
Three to five
Six to nine
Ten to twelve
More than twelve

||o w

in .m y

1.
1

0

pupils

,ir r

assigned

to

your

building?

- mo
mi - ->oo

6

1101

-

7.

1301

-

1500

M U

-

1501

-

1700

701

- 900

8.
9.

1701

-

1900

'»*

**0|

-

10.

1901

or more

How

many

<

.

700
1100
teachers

are

assigned

in

.

your

bui

1100

Id i n g ?

1O

nr

less

6.

51

11

to

20

21

to

10

7.
8.

4.

11

to

40

9.

5.

4 1

to

50

10.

61 to 70
71 to 80
81 to 90
9 1 to more

1.

i.

to

60

For how many years have student teachers been assigned in the building in
which you are presently the administrator?
1.
2.
1.

Three or less
Four to six
Seven to nine

4. Ten to twelve
5. Thirteen to fifteen
6. More than fifteen

How many student teachers are assigned to your building at the present time?
1.
>_
I.
4.
r>.

One
Two
Three
Four
F Lve

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten or more

What is tin optimum number of student teachers you can accomodate in your
building each year?
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.

None
One to three
Four to six
Seven to nine
Ten to twelve

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Thirteen to fifteen
Sixteen to eighteen
Nineteen to twenty-one
Twenty-two to twenty-five
More than twenty-five

How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the
student teachers assigned to your building in the last two years?
1.
2.
J.

One
Two
Three

4.
5.

Four to six
More than six

I
\

i.

iu*t.' w. II

do

t i n 1 si iuli‘iil

ptepaii-d

I.

will p r e p a r e d

Ia I ii'imlv
Very

I,
I i.

iiil

vt»n

I'll i 1.1 I II)'. wi'ic

I\ m

enter

teacher(s)
student

presently

assigned

h>

your

leaching?

■*.

we I I p r e pared

Adequately
-11.11

lo

*> -

Minimallyprepared
Inadequately

prepared

prepared

pi o|ioi I inil ill

l In.' i r

L lint

iri1 tin

m a jo r l L v

oi

the

s Ludeiit

11

■ '>■r n

i.iii-iu'tl lo your hull ding scheduled by their institution to student tr. idling?
I.

I’ii I I d a y s

’.

Ha I I d a y s

l.

I.i's.i

than

hall

days

through 2b deal with the contributions student teachers may h a v e m a d e
to llio school program in your building.
Use the following code for question 13
lh r o u g h 2 I :

(Jih'j;l i o n

lb

1. Often
?. Sometimes
l. No
. Does not apply
. Don't know
Have student teachers made any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or
ti iclurs, such as:
lb.

Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.?

!().

Hive talks to parents group?

17.

l’erlortn recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground or hall duty?

18.

Chaperone social activities for pupils?

1*).

Supervise study halls?

20.

Coach or assist in interscholastic or extracurricular activities?

21.

Assist in handling discipline problems?
vV

?2.

★

*

*

*

Mow many new or different instructional materials have student teachers brought
developed, provided, or suggested to the school teachers?
I.
.

A

gr<

tMl

11 i

it

t.

Some

>.

\ verv
Nom

a

many
few
It'w

* t.

to wliii
ol -i tils 01

I.
.

I,
•).
.*).

have s tud o n I teachers .suggested or provided

any

other

kinds

ido.is 7

O l t on
S o m o t iinos
Solti o m

Never

What use have your teachers been able to make of the contributions ( 2 2
of student teachers?
I.

They
They

sometimes

I.

They

do

r>.

always
not

use

&

23)

them

use

use

them

them

They discourage student teachers from contributing too freely
Student teachers really do not have much to offer

m a n y h o u r s per week on the average do student teachers in your building
teach their supervising teachers assigned classes?

Mow

1.
2.
3.
4.
*>.
f>.
20.

Less than an hour a week
One to five hours per week
Six to ten hours per week
Eleven to fifteen hours per week
Sixteen to twenty hours per week
More than twenty hours per week

Mow many hours per week on the average areyour teachers able
to be away
Irom their classroom while student teachers teachtheir assigned
classes?
1.
2.
}.

Ia 'r s than one
One to five
six to ten

4. Eleven to fifteen
5. Sixteen to twenty
6. More than twenty

Questions 27 through 39 - To what extent are any of the following Instructional
activities for pupils changed because of the presence of the student teachers in
your bu i td ing?
27.

Amount ol small group instruction.
I.
2.
3.

28.

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

4. Somewhat less
5. Much less

Provision for make-up work.
1.
2.
I.

Much greater
Somewhat greater
No change

4.
5.

Somewhat less
Much less

.’ 4 .

U l.

II.

f'o I l i ' W - l i p

(.

M m li lu'l li r
Sttnn-wU.it

t.

Nv» c h a n g e

lniMviiln.il

.*.

Somewhat more
No change

less

4.
5.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

change
ol

playgrounds,

Much

Somewhat hotter
No change

hallways,

hotter

etc.

4.
5.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

4.
5.

Somewhat less
Much less

4.
5.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

4.
5.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

4.
5.

Somewhat less
Much less

4,
5.

Somewhat less frequent
Much less frequent

Amount ol rotoaching necessary.
Much more
Somewhat more
change

|tjsc ip |ine .
I.

Much

I.

Somewhat hotter
No c h a n g e

hi t t e r

Mot iv.it ion of pupils.
I.
2.

J.
.

les:.

periods.

better

1.

No

h>

study

2.

t.
2.

I1).

Much

Uett>r

Supervision

1.

pupils.
Somewh.lt

of

Somewli.it
No

ol

more

Supervision

I.

Mt.

counseling

Much

Much

Somcwh.it poorer
Much poorer

better

I.

.

M.

rx.lllis .

2,

I.

h ’.

ill

Muclt better
Somewhat better
No change
audio visual materials

Use

ol

I.

Much

*.

Soiik-wli.it m o r e

I.

No

change

Usi

of

field

1.

Much

'.

Somewhat more
No change

more

more

trips.
frequent
frequent

I)

l,S.

Inilivitlu.il

i n s t r i u l ion or

-

t u t o r i n g of pupils.

1. Mooli more
.

Somewhat

't. Somewhat loss
S. Much less

more

I. N*» change
ivi.

dvi i .1 I I q u a l i t y

ti i

i ns t r u e t i o n .

I. Much hotter
*. Soinowh.it hotter
I. No change

■'■*. Somewhat poorer
5. Much poorer

(,nio:.t ions 40 through SO - How do you feel tht» availability of the following
univoisity services has influenced the attitude of your staff concerning working
1til S t u d e n t teachers?
th.e the following code for questions 40 through 50:
I.
*.
I.
4.
r>.
•i.
7.
8.
4.

fie; had a very positive effect
lias had a positive effect
Has had no effect
Has had a negative effect
lias had a verv negative effect
This service has not been available and would have had no effect
il available
This service has not been available but would have had a positive
effect if available
This service has not been avciilable but would have had a very positive
el feet if available
I do not know whether or not this service is available

ni. Tuit ion free university credit courses.
1

1.

o’.

University library privileges,
faculty identification cards.

’ii. Recognition certificate from the University.
»i.

Consultant services from che University.

*r). Instructional materials
i

ft

Tickets

from the University.

to university events - athletics, cultural events, etc.

7.

Hospi(a 1 i nation services.

K.

Cash stipends to the supervising teacher.
Seminars, workshops or meetings in your school or school area.

<». Seminars, workshops or meetings on the University

campus.

- 7

-

Question 51 through 5b - To what cxtL*iit does the presence of a student teacher
c h a n g e t h e supervising ti .iclier's part iclp.it Ion In the following activities:
Use

the Iollowing code for questions 51 through 56;
1.
7.
t.
•*.
5.

Much more than usual
More than usual
No change
Less than usual
Much less than usual

51.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools.

57.

Coranittee work in the school with pupils and/or staff.

53.

Research.

S'*.

r te Iess iona I reading and/or writing.

55.

Work or meet with staff members of school or department.

5b.

Assistance to the principal or to other teachers,
*

*

*

*

Use the following code for questions 57 through 60:
1.
2.
3.
A.
5.

Very positively
Somewhat positively
Neutral
Somewhat negatively
Very negatively

57.

How has the presence of student teachers in your building affected
staff morale?

58.

Generally, how do parents of your pupils react to having student teachers
in the building?

59.

Generally, how do the custodial, cafeteria and clerical staff react to
having student teachers in the building?

60.

Generally, how do the pupils react to having student teachers in the
bu iId ing?
*

iV

*

*

*

H -

dm ■,( i*>ii i*l t h r o u g h 7 1 *It.1 1 with any ch.mges in your own work load because of
l<tv i■»>'. •indent teachers in your building.
i>I

In wlii l txitiii ti.is hiving student ti.icliers In your building a f fee tod the
ivi'i age number ot hours per woek you work?
I.
1*.
I
'♦.
'*.
u.
7.

mote thin *=ix hours per woek
Added two Lo iivr hours per week
Added one hour or less per week
Made no change
Reduced by one hour or less per week
Reduced by two to five hours per week
Reduced by six or more hours per week
Added

ijui'si ion <i_? through 73 - What has been the cause of any change In your own
work Load brought about by student teachers?
Use

the

I
’.
l.
't.

lollowing

code

for

questions

Increased your work
Made no change
Decreased your work
Does not apply

62

through

7 3:

load
load

b2.

Additional reports regarding student teaching or student teachers.

M.

finding housing ami transportation for student teachers.

6'».

Counseling student teachers.

hr
).

Selection of supervising teachers.

Mi.

Orientation of student teachers.

f’7.

Finding instructional materials.

68.

Counseling supervising teachers.

69.

Coiwnunication with parents about activities related to student teachers.

70.

Student teacher's assistance in counseling students.

71.

Student teacher's assistance with routine clerical tasks

in the school.

72.

Time of supervising teachers being made available by the
teaching of classes.

student

73.

lime of other teachers being made available by student teachers'
some of their assigned responsibilities.

*

*

★

teachers'

handling

*

-

1U.

To

what

i•x i r 111 h a s

teaching

been

tin

available

9 -

university
to

you

coordinator

and

your

staff

or

supervisor

during

the

of

student

student

teacher

contact?

7 5.

1.

Has

always

2.

Has

usually
been

available on

Has

been

generally unavailable

r>.

Has

never

To

what

extent

to

have

a

4.

A

been
do

variety

great

call

when

needed

available
your
of

supervising

experiences

teachers

outside

the

encourage
assigned

student

teachers

classroom?

deal

To some extent
To a limited degree
Not

at

all

What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the
teaching performance of your teachers?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Has made them much
Has made them m o r e
Has had no effect
Has made them less
Has made them much

more effective
clfective
effective
less effective

What is the maximum number of student teachers a supervising teacher
should have in one year7
1.
2.
3.
4.

70.

available

Has

1.

77.

available

boon

4 .

2.
3.

76.

been

One
Two
Three
Four or more

Which of the following do you consider to be the most important contribu­
tion of supervising teachers to student teachers?
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

Providing cognitive information In the psychology and sociology of
teaching and learning.
Sharing the classroom and pupils to provide teaching experiences for
the student teachers.
Providing instruction and experience in lesson planning and methods
of teaching.
Providing a climate for developing a wholesome professional attitude.
Providing informal counseling and advice In one-to-one conference sesaloi

- 10 79.

Wh.it

Is

basis

to

your
get

supervising

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
80.

reaction

to

experience

assigning
in

the

s t udiM it

total

school

teachers
program

on

a

very

rather

llixibh

than

with

Very positive
Somewhat positive

Neutral
Somewhat negative
Very negative

Mow representative of the teachers in your building are those who
as supervising teachers?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

one

teacher?

serve

They are among my moat outstanding teachers
They are above average for my staff
They are about average
They are below average for my staff
They are among my least effective teachers

Question 81 to 86.
Important:
Please go to the reverse side of your answer
sheet and provide the information requested.

STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
This study *s being conducted at the request of the Council of State College Presidents for the purpose of
analyzing the effect of student teaching programs on the schools of Michigan. The study is being conducted
by all the teacher preparation institutions in Michigan and will involve all student teachers, supervising
teachers, and building principals working with student teachers during the fall quarter or semester of 1969.
The instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of three Michigan
institutions, and have been reviewed by Michigan Education Association officials, and the Student Teaching
Committee of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. Both groups have made contributions to the items in the
instrument and have expressed interest in the findings.
It is expected that the results of this study will be given wide distribution and no doubt will provide a basis
for the improvement of student teaching and teacher education programs in Michigan over the next decade.

D IR E C T IO N S T O RESPONDENTS
1. Use the IBM answer sheet provided. T he pre-coding in the upper right block in the answer sheet
identifies the teacher education institution and the instrument number for purposes of statistical
analysis. There will be no w a y for your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The
responses will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment. Since your
responses will be combined with those from other institutions it is essential that all respondents use the
same procedure.
2.

Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to indicate your answer to each item. Blacken the
space completely. Be careful not to put any other marks on the answer sheet.

3.

Mark no more than one answer for each item. Please answer every item unless instructed otherwise on
the instrument.

4.

In the instrument "University" means either "college" or "university" as appropriate. "Supervising
teacher" also means "cooperating teacher,” "sponsoring teacher," or "critic teacher." Student teacher
also means "associate teacher.”

T > ic h « O uasltannaira

DADS-HK-MSU 11-69

S T U D E N T TE A C H IN G IN M IC H IG A N

Teacher Questionnaire

1.

Which of the following are you n o w ?
1.
2
3.
4
5.

2.

Three or less years
Four to seven years

3.
4.

Eight totwelve years
More than twelve years

Only one
Two
Three

4.
5.

Four to six
M o r e than six

One
Two
Three
Four

5.
6.
7.

F ive
Six to ten
More than ten

H o w well d o you feel your present student teacher was prepared to enter student teaching?
1.
2.
3.

8.

Large central city (e.g., Detroit, Grand Rapids)
Large suburban c o m munity (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen)
Small suburban co m m u n i t y (e.g., Okemos, Essexville)
M e d i u m sized city (e.g.. Battle Creek, Kalamazoo)
Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles,Ithaca)

With h o w m a n y student teachers have you worked in the last 5 years?
(Include your current student teacher)
1.
2.
3.
4.

7.

Female

H o w m a n y different colleges or universities have been represented by the student teachers with w h o m y ou
have worked?
1.
2.
3.

6.

2.

H o w m a n y years of teaching have you completed including this year?
1.
2.

5.

Male

Which statement below best describes the c o m munity in which you teach?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

4.

single student teacher
married student teacher
supervising (cooperating, sponsoring) teacher
supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment in addition to teaching
school administrator

What is your sex?
1

3.

A
A
A
A
A

Extremely well prepared
Well prepared
Adequately prepared

4.
5.

Minimally prepared
Inadequately prepared

In this assignment (contact), h o w was your student teacher scheduled in student teaching?
1.
2.

Full-time
Full-time except he was also enrolled
in a non-student teaching credit course

3.
4.

1

Halfdays
Less than half-days

In this assignment (contact) h o w was your student teacher placed?
1
■>
3.
4
b.
0.

With you as the single supervising teacher.
In a team teaching situation (two or more team members).
With two or three different teachers (but not team teaching).
In a flexible cluster arrangement.
In a campus laboratory school.
In a special program or project different from any of the above.

H o w m a n y weeks is your student teacher scheduled in this assignment (contact)?
1
2.
3.

5 weeks or less
6 or 7 weeks
8 or 9 weeks

4.
5.
6.

10 or 11 weeks
12 to 14 weeks
More than 14 weeks

5.
6.
7.
8.

Middle School
Junior Hic^t School
Senior High School
All grades K - 12

What is your o w n current teaching assignment?
1.
2.
3.
4.
12.

Grades K, 1, 2
Grades 3, 4
Grades 5, 6
AII elementary grades

T o what subject area or teaching field are you primarily assigned? (Check one answer only from item
12 and 13.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

All elementary subjects K-5 or K-6
Art
Business Education
English
Elementary departmental or
block program

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Elementary ungraded program
Foreign Language
H o m e Economics
Mathematics
Music

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Physical Education (Elementary)
Physical Education (Secondary)
Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics)
Science (General, Natural, Earth)
Social Studies (including History)

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Social Science — English combination
Special Education
Speech
Vocational or Industrial Arts Education
Other

Q U E S T I O N S 14 T H R O U G H 18 deal with any changes in individualized instruction for the pupils which m a y have
resulted from your student teacher's presence.
14.

T o what extent did your student teacher work with (instruct, counsel, tutor) individual pupils?
1.
2.

15.

3.
4.

A little bit
Not at all

T o what extent did you work with individual pupils as compared to w h e n you d o not have a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.

16.

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

M u c h more than usual
S o m e w h a t more than usual
About the same as usual

4.
5.

S o m e w h a t less than usual
M u c h less than usual

T o what extent was individual help or counseling provided your pupils during non-class hours as compared to
what would have been possible if you had not had a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.

M u c h more than usual
S o m e w h a t m o r e than usual
About the same as usual

4.
5.

2

S o m e w h a t lets than usual
M u c h less than usual

I/

To vvh.it extent did con Iin im g with your student teiicher take your time so you had less time lor individual
woik with pupils?
1
2

18

3.
4.

Seldom
Never

to what extenl did planning with your student teacher take your time so that you had less time for individual
work with pupils?
1
2.

19.

I rcquently
Sometimes

Frequently
Sometimes

3.
4.

Seldom
Never

To what extent was re teaching necessary after the student teacher taught?
1.
2.

Frequently
Sometimes

3.
4.

Seldom
Never

Q U E S T I O N 2D T H R O U G H 28
T o what extent were any of the following instructional activities for your pupils changed because of your student
teacher's presence?
20.

A m o u n t of small group instruction.
1.
2.
3.

21.

3.

4.
5.

Some w h a t less
M u c h less

N o change

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

4.

S o m e w h a t poorer

5.

M u c h poorer

M u c h more
S o m e w h a t more
N o change

4.
5.

S o m e w h a t less
M u c h less

Supervision of study periods
1.
2.
3.

25.

M u c h greater
S o m e w h a t greater

Individual attention to, or tutoring of, pupils
1.
2.
3.

24.

Some w h a t less
M u c h less

Follow-up of exams
1.
2.
3.

23.

4.
5.

Provision for make-up work
1.
2.

22.

M u c h more
S o m e w h a t more
N o change

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

4.
5.
6.

Somew h a t poorer
M u c h poorer
Does not apply

4.
5.
6.

Some w h a t poorer
M u c h poorer
Does not apply

Supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc.
1.
2.
3.

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

3

A m o u n t o f n u ite iu il c o v e re d

1.
2.
3.
27.

4.
5.

S o m e w h a t less
M u c h less

4
r,

S ome w h a t poorer
M u c h poorer

4.
5.

S o m e w h a t poorer
M u c h poorer

Discipline
1.
2.
3

38

M u c h more
S o m e w h a t more
N o chairge

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

Motivation of pupils
1.
2.
3.

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

Q U E S T I O N S 29 T H R O U G H 31 deal with the contributions your student teacher m a y have m a d e to the school
program. Did your student teacher m a k e any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as
29.

Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.?

1.
2.
30.

1.

1.

Often
Sometimes

3.
4.

No
Don't k n o w

A tp'eat m a n y

2.

Some

3.

No

A great m a n y

2.

Some

3.

No

I used t h e m .
I did not use them.

3.
4.

I had to discourage him from contributing too free
M y student teacher really did not have m u c h to ofl

H o w m a n y hours per week o n the average did your student teacher teach your assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

36.

No
Don't k n o w

W h a t use were you able to m a k e of the contributions (32 & 33) of your student teacher?
1.
2.

35.

3.
4.

Did your student teacher suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas?
1.

34.

Often
Sometimes

Did your student teacher bring, develop, provide, or suggest any n e w or different instructional materials?
1.

33.

No
Don't k n o w

Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground or hall duty?

2.
32.

3.
4.

Give talk to parent's group?

2.
31.

Often
Sometimes

Less than an hour a week.
O n e to five hours per week.
Six to ten hours per week.

4.
5.
6.

Eleven to fifteen hours per week.
Sixteen to twenty hours per week.
More than twenty hours per week.

H o w m a n y hours per week on the average were you able to be away from the classroom while your student
teacher was teaching your assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than one
1-5
6-10

4.
5.
6.

4

11-15
16-20
More than 20

Io wh.it extent did you eng.ige in .my of the following .idditional activdu;s during the time your student teacher
i\.is leaching’
3/

V

im

1
38

A great deal

2.

T o some extent

3.

Not at all

A cfeat deal

2.

T o some ex tent

3.

Not at all

A great deal

2.

T o some extent

3

Not at all

A yeat deal

2.

T o some extent

3

Not at all

A great deal

2.

T o some extent

3.

Not at al

2.

T o some extent

3.

Not at all

2.

T o some extent

3.

Not at all

Assisting the principal or other teachers
1.

44.

Not at all

Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching.
1.

43.

3.

Work with staff of school or department
1

42.

fo some extent

Professional reading or writing
1

41

'J

Research.

1.
40.

A ‘treat deal

Committee wor k m the school with pupils and/or staff.
1

38

I. t u r n m o t h e r c l a s s r o o m s <>i s c h o o l s

A great deal

Social or recreational activities
1.

A great deal

Q U E S T I O N 45 T H R O U G H 49
To what extent did your student teacher relieve other regular staff members w h o did not have student teachers of
the following activities7

45.

Teaching
1.
2.

46.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

M a n y times
O n c e or a few times

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Supervision of lunch duty
f.
2.

48.

3.
4.

Chaperoning
1.
2.

47

M a n y times
Once or a few times

M a n y times
Once or a few times

Supervision of study hall
1.
2.

M a n y times
Once or a few times

5

40.

Supervision ot pkiygi ouiut
1
2.

M a n y times
O n c e oi a tew tunes

3,
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Q U E S T I O N 50 T H R O U G H 53
To what extent were other staff members able to engage in any of the following activities because of the presence
of student teachers in the building?
50.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools
1.
2.

51.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

A geat deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4.

Not at all
D o n ’t k n o w

Less than
10 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25

10

5.
6.
7.
8.

26 to 30
31 to 35
36 to 40
More than 40

H o w did the presence of a student teacher affect the average number of hours per week y ou spent at school a
compared to w h e n you d o not have a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

56.

3.
4.

H o w m a n y hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the physical presence (close enough t
see or talk with)of your student teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.

55.

A great deal
T o some extent

Professional reading or writing
1.
2.

54.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Research
1.
2.

53.

3.
4.

Committee work in the school
1
2.

52.

M a n y times
T o some extent

A d d e d more than six hours per week
A d d e d three to six hours per week
A d d e d one to three hours per week
A d d e d up to one extra hour per week
Had no effect

6.
7.
8.
9.

Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced

by u p to one hour per week
by one to three hours per week
by three to six hours per week
more than six hours per week

H o w did your student teacher's presence affect the average number of hours per week you worked o n jobrelated activities a w a y from school?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5

A d d e d more than six hours per week
A d d e d three to six hours per week
A d d e d one to three hours per week
Ad d e d up to one hour per week
Had no effect

6.
7.
8.
9.

6

Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced

by up to one hour per week
by one to three hours per week
by three to six hours per week
more than six hours per week

Q U E S T I O N 57 T H R O U G H 60
In what fxti'nt was tin? time you spent on .my of the following activities changed because of your student teacher's
pi I'St'IH'l*1
5/

leaching
1
'2
3.

58

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a yeat deal

Increased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

4.
6.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a yeat deal

4.
5.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal

4.
5.

Reduced to s o m e extent
Reduced a yeat deal

Paper Grading
1
2.
3.

60.

4.
5.

Lesson Planning
1.
2.
3

59.

Itui eased ,i yeat deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

Increased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

Help to individual students
1.
2.
3.

Increased a great deal
Increased to s o m e extent
Remained about the same

Q U E S T I O N 61 T H R O U G H 6 Q
T o what extent did you engage in the following activities because of the presence of the student teacher?
61.

Planning with or for your student teacher
1.
2.

62.

3.

N o extra

hours

S o m e extra hours

A yeat m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

3.

N o extra

hours

A great m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

3.

N o extra

hours

3.

N o extra

hours

3.

N o extra

hours

Finding housing for your student teacher.
1.
2.

66.

A great m a n y extra hours

Fulfilling the social obligations resulting from your student teacher's presence.
1.
2.

65.

N o extra hours

Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really a part of student teaching.
1.
2.

64.

3.

Evaluating your student teacher's progress or activities
1.
2.

63.

A yeat m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

A great m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

Preparing additional reports.
1.
2.

A yeat m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

7

67

Making additional preparation for teaching.
1.
2.

68.

Less than one
O n e to three
Four to six

4.
5.

Seven to nine
T en or more

None
Less than one
O n e to three

4.
5.
6.

Four to seven
Eight to ten
More than ten

None
O n e or less
T w o to four

4.
S.
6.

Five to seven
Eight to ten
More than ten

N o n e at all
O n e to five hours
Six to fifteen hours

4.
5.

Sixteen to thirty hours
M o r e than thirty hours

Wliat effect d o you feel working with student teachers has had on your o w n teaching performance?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

74.

N o extra hours

H o w m a n y hours do you estimate vour student teacher spent doing volunteer w o r k in the co m m u n i t y where
he was assigned for student teaching (youth groups, h o m e service, church work and the like) during his stud*
teaching period?
1.
2.
3.

73.

3.

During student teaching h o w m a n y days did your student teacher handle classes for any teacher other than
yourself while that teacher was away from his class?
1.
2.
3.

72.

A great m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

H o w m a n y days during student teaching did your student teacher handle classes for y ou while yo u were awa^
for reasons other than student teaching business (professional work, request of principal or other people,
personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute would have had to be hired if the student
teacher had not been there?
1.
2.
3.

71.

N o extra hours

H o w m a n y times per week on the average did you have contact with your student teacher outside of regular
working hours at school? (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc.)
1.
2
3.

70.

3.

Holding telephone conversations or other conferences with your student teacher.
1.
2.

G9.

A great m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

Has
Has
Has
Has
Has

m a d e m e a m u c h more effective teacher
m a d e m e a m o r e effective teacher
had n o effect on m y teaching
m a d e m e a less effective teacher
m a d e m e a m u c h less effective teacher

What d o y o u think should be the attitude of the administrators and teachers in your school about working wi
student teachers?
1.
2.
3.

Should aggressively seek student teachers
Should seek student teachers
Should accept student teachers

4.
5.

8

Should resist having student teachers in the school
Should refuse to have student teachers in the school

7b.

I* you were starting over, would you accept another student teacher with similar credentials from the same
institution under the same general circumstances?
1
2.
3.

7t>

Iwould accept with enthusiasm
Iwould accept
Ifeel neutral about it

4.
5

I would prohahly decline
I would refuse

H o w m a n y times has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during
this student teaching contact?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5

Not at all
O n e to two times
Three to four times
F ive to six times
Seven to eight times

6
7
8.
9.

Nine to ten times
Eleven to twelve times
Thirteen to fifteen times
Sixteen or more times

H o w m u c h help has the university coordinator (supervisor) provided you?
1.
2.
3.
78.

Little of the help 1 felt was i
N o help at alt

H e has gone out of his w a y to be helpful
He has helped w h e n asked

3.
4.

H e has not helped
N o such help was needed

Would you want your student to teach in your building or system next year?
1.
2.
3.

80.

4.
5.

Has the university coordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly concerned with student
teaching?
1.
2.

79.

All the help 1 felt was necessary
Most of the help 1 felt was needed
S o m e of the help I felt 1 needed

Yes
No, but would recommend him in a different system or building
No

W h y was this student teacher assigned to you?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I volunteered since I feel a professional obligation to help prepare future teachers.
I volunteered but only because I felt pressure from an administrator to d o so.
I volunteered because I thought a student teacher would be helpful to m e in performing m y
school duties.
I did not volunteer but was requested by an administrator to take the student teacher.
I was forced to work with the student teacher against m y will.

9

S T U D Y O F S T U D E N T T E A C H I N G IN M I C H I G A N
This study is being conducted at the request of the Council of State College Presidents for the purpose of
analyzing the effect of student teaching programs on the schools of Michigan. The study is being conducted
by all the teacher preparation institutions in Michigan and will involve all student teachers, supervising
teachers, and building principals working with student teachers during the fall quarter or semester of 1969.
The instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of three Michigan
institutions, and have been reviewed by Michigan Education Association officials, and the Student Teaching
Committee of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. Both groups have made contributions to the items in the
instrument and have expressed interest in the findings.
It is expected that the results of this study will be given wide distribution and no doubt will provide a basis
for the improvement of student teaching and teacher education programs in Michigan over the next decade.

D IR E C T IO N S TO RESPONDENTS
1. Use the I B M answer sheet provided. T he pre-coding in the upper right block in the answer sheet
identifies the teacher education institution and the instrument number for purposes of statistical
analysis. There will be no w a y for your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The
responses will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment. Since your
responses will be combined with those from other institutions it is essential that all respondents use the
same procedure.
2.

Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to indicate your answer to each item. Blacken the
space completely. Be careful not to put any other marks o n the answer sheet.

3.

Mark no more than one answer for each item. Please answer every item unless instructed otherwise on
the instrument.

4. In the instrument "University" means either "college" or "university" as appropriate. "Supervising
teacher" also means "cooperating teacher," "sponsoring teacher," or "critic teacher." Student teacher
also means "associate teacher."

S tu d o it Teacher Q uestionnaire
D A D S -H K -M S U

11-00

STUDENT TEACHING IN M IC HIG A N
Student Teacher Questionnaire

1

2.

Which of the following are you now?
1
2
3

A single student teacher
A married student teacher
A supervising (cooperating, sponsoring! teacher

4.
5

A supervising teacher but with a part time administrative assignment in addition to teaching
A school administrator

What isyour sex 7
1.

3.

7.

Had junior standing
Had senior standing
Had the B A or BS degree

Below 2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5 - 3.0

4.
5.

3. 0 - 3 . 5
Ab o v e 3.5

H o w old were you at the beginning of this student teaching assignment (contact)?
1.
2.

21 years or under
21 to 21 Va years

3.

21 Vi to 22 years

4.
5.

22 to 23 years
Over 23 years

H o w m a n y times have you student taught including the current assignment (contact)?
1.

8.

Large central city (e.g., Detroit,Grand Rapids)
Large suburban community (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen)
Small suburban community (e.g., Okemos, Essexville)
M e d i u m sized city (e.g.. Battle Creek, Kalamazoo)
Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles, Ithaca)

What is your all-college grade point average?
(Scale: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0)
1.
2.
3.

6.

Female

What was your status as a student in your college or university w h e n you began this student teaching
assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.

5.

2.

Which statement below bestdescribes thecommunity in which you are doing student teaching?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

4.

Male

One

2.

Two

3.

Three

In this assignment (contact), h o w m u c h time were y ou scheduled in student teaching?
1.
2.

Full-time
Full-time except was also enrolled in a non-student teachingcredit

3.
4.

Half-days
Less than half-days

1

course

11

To wh.it extent *tu1 conferring with you tiike timeol the teacher so he hail less time for individual work witl
pupils?
1.
2.
3.

18.

4,
5.

Never
Don't k n o w

T o what extent did planning with you take the time of the teacher so he had less time for individual work w
pupils?
1.
2.
3.

19.

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

4.
5.

Never
Don't k n o w

T o what extent was re-teaching necessary after you taught?
1.
2.
3.

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

4.
5.

Never
D o n ’tk n o w

Q U E S T IO N S 2 0 T H R O U G H 28
T o what extent were any of the following instructional activities for the pupils in your supervising teachers assigne
classes changed because of your presence?
20.

A m o u n t of smalt group instruction.
1.
2.
3.

21.

22.

23.

4.
5.
6.

S o m e w h a t less
M u c h less
Don't k n o w

4.

S o m e w h a t less

5.
6.

M u c h less
Don't k n o w

Provision for make-up work.
1.
2.

M u c h greater
S o m e w h a t greater

3.

N o change

Follow-up of exams.
1.

M u c h better

2.
3.

S o m e w h a t better
N o change

4.
5.
6.

S o m e w h a t poorer
M u c h poorer
Don't k n o w

4.

S o m e w h a t less

5.
6.

M u c h less
Don't k n o w

5.
6.
7.

M u c h poorer
Does not apply
Don't k n o w

Individual attention to, or tutoring of, pupils.
1.
2.
3.

24.

M u c h more
S o m e w h a t more
N o change

M u c h more
S o m e w h a t more
N o change

Supervision of study periods.
1.
2.
3.
4.

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change
S o m e w h a t poorer

2

9

In this assignment (contact), h o w were you placed?
1.
2.
3.
4
b
0.

(0,

With a single supervising teacher
In a team teaching situation (two or more team members)
With two or three different teachers (but not team teaching)
In a flexible cluster arrangement
In a campus laboratory school
In a special program or project different from any of the above

H o w m a n y weeks long is your current assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.

5 weeks or less
6 or 7 weeks
8 or 9 weeks

4.
5.
6.

10 or 11 weeks
12 to 14 weeks
More than 14 weeks

What is your primary current student teaching assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Grades K, 1, 2
Grades 3, 4
Grades 5, 6
All elementary grades

5.
6.
7.
8.

Middle School
Junior High School
Senior High School
All grades K - 12

T o what subject area or teaching field were you primarily assigned for student teaching
(check one answer only from item 12 and 13)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

All elementary subjects (K-5 or K-6)
Art
Business Education
English
Elementary departmental or
block program

1.
2.
3.

Physical Education (Elementary)
Physical Education (Secondary)
Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics)

4.
5.

Science (General, Natural, Earth)
Social Studies (including History)

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Elementary ungraded program
Foreign language
H o m e Economics
Mathematics
Music

Social Science — English combination
Special Education
Speech
Vocational or Industrial Arts Education
Other

Q U F S T I O N S 14 T H R O U G H 18 deal with any changes in individualized instruction provided for the pupils which
m a y have resulted from your presence.
14.

T o what extent did you work with (e.g., instruct, counsel, tutor) individual pupils?
1.
2.

15.

A great deal
T o some extent

3.
4.

A little bit
N ot -t c.li

T o what extent did your supervising teacher work with individual pupils as compared to w h e n he does not have
a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.

16.

M u c h m o r e than usual
S o m e w h a t more than usual
A b o u t the same as usual

4.
5.
6.

S o m e w h a t less than usual
M u c h less than usual
Oon't k n o w

T o what extent was individual help or counseling provided the pupils during non-class hours as compared
to what would have been possible if you had not been present?
1.
2.
3.

M u c h more than usual
S o m e w h a t more then usual
Ab o u t the same as usual

4.
5.
6.

3

S o m e w h a t less than usual
M u c h less than usual
Don't k n o w

?b.

Supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc.
1
2.
3.
4.

26.

M u c h poorer
Does not apply
Don't k n o w

M u c h more
S o m e w h a t more
N o change

4.
5.
6.

S o m e w h a t less
M u c h less
Don't k n o w

4.
5.
6.

Some w h a t poorer
M u c h poorer
D o n ’t k n o w

4.
5.
C.

S o m e w h a t poorer
M u c h poorer
Don't k n o w

Discipline.
1.
2.
3.

28.

5.
6.
7.

A m o u n t of material covered.
1.
2.
3.

27.

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change
S o m e w h a t poorer

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

Motivation of pupils.
1.
2.
3.

M u c h better
S o m e w h a t better
N o change

Q U E S T I O N S 29 T H R O U G H 33 deal with the contributions you m a y have m a d e to the school program. Did you
m a k e any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as:
29.

Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.7
1.

30.

Often

2.

Sometimes

3.

No

Often

3.

No

2.

Sometimes

A great many
Some

3.
4.

No
1 am not sure

A great many
Some

3.
4.

No
1 am not sure

How do you feel your contributions (3 2 and 33) were received?
1.
2.

35.

No

Did you suggest or provide any other kinds o f aid or ideas?
1.
2.

34.

3.

Did you bring, develop, provide, or suggest any n e w or different instructional materials?

1.
2.
33.

Sometimes

Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground, or hall duty?
1.

32.

2.

Give talks to parent's group?
1.

31.

Often

They were used
They were not used

3.
4.

1 was discouraged from making such contributions
1 really did not have much to offer

How many hours per week on the average did you teech your supervising teacher's assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than an hour a week
One to five hours per week
Six to ten hours per week

4.
5.
6.

4

Eleven to fifteen hours per week
Sixteen to tw enty hours per week
More than tw enty hours per week

36.

H o w m a n y hours per week on the average was your supervising teacher able to be away from the classroom
while you were teaching his assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than 1
1
5
6
10

4.
5.
6.

11 - 15
16
20
More than 20

Q U E S T I O N 37 T H R O U G H 44
T o what extent did your supervising teacher engage in any of the following additional activities during the time you
were teaching his assigned classes?
37.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1.
2.

38.

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

A (feat deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4,

Not at alt
Don't k n o w

A yeat deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Assisting the principal or other teachers.
1.
2.

44.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching.
1.
2.

43.

3.
4.

W o r k with staff of school or department.
1.
2.

42.

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

Professional reading or writing.
1.
2.

41.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Research.
1.
2.

40.

3.
4.

Committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff.
1.
2.

39.

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

A yeat deal
T o s o m e extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

3.
4.

N ot at all
Don't k n o w

Social or recreational activities.
1.
2.

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

Q U E S T I O N 46 T H R O U G H 4 9
T o what extent did \ j relieve other regular staff m e m b e r s w h o did not have student teachers of the following
activities?
45.

Teaching.
1.

M a n y times

2.

O n c e or a few times

5

3.

Not at all

4l>

Chaperoning.
1.

47.

O n c e or a few times

3.

Not at all

M a n y times

2.

O n c e or a few times

3.

Not at all

2.

O n c e or a few times

3.

Not at all

2.

O n c e or a few times

3.

Not at alt

Supervision of study hall.
1.

49.

2.

Supervision of lunch duty.
1.

48.

M a n y times

M a n y times

Supervision of playground.
1.

M a n y times

Q U E S T IO N SO T H R O U G H S3
T o what extent were other staff m e m bers able to engage in any of the following activities because of your presence
in the building?
50.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1.
2.

51.

54.

A ^ e a t deal
To some extent

3.

N ot at all

4.

Don't k n o w

A great deal
T o s o m e extent

3.

4.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

3.
4.

N ot at alt
Don’t know

Professional reading or writing.

1.

A y e a t deal

2.

T o s o m e extent

How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the physical presence (close enough t
or talk w ith l of your supervising teacher?

1.
2.
3.

4.
55.

Not at all
Don't k n o w

Research.
1.
2.

53.

3.
4.

Com m ittee work in the school.
1.
2.

52.

M a n y times
T o some extent

Less than 10
10 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25

5.
6.
7.
8.

26 to
31 to
36 to
More

30
35
40
than 40

How did your presence as a student teacher affect the average number o f hours per week your supervising
teacher spent at school as compared to when he does not have a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Added more than six hours per w e e k .
Added three to six hours per week.
Added one to three hours per week.
Added up to one hour per week.
Had no effect.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

6

Reduced by
Reduced by
Reduced by
Reduced by
I am unable

up to one hour per week.
one to three hours per week.
three to six hours per week.
more than six hours per week.
to judge.

bt>

H o w diit yoid presence affect the average number of hours per week your suftervising teacher worked on job
ielated activities away from school?
1
2
3
4.
b

Aitiled riKrte than six hours per week
Addeit three to six hours per week.
A d d e d one to three hours per week
A d d e d up to one hour per week,
Had no effect.

G.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Reduced by
Reduced by
Reduced by
Reduced by
I a m unable

up to one hour per week.
one to three hours per week.
three to six hours per week.
more than six hours per week.
to judge.

Q U E S T I O N 57 T H R O U G H 6 0
To what extent was the time your supervising teacher spent on the following activities changed because of your
presence?
57

Teaching

1.
2.
3.
58.

1.
3.

Reduced to s o m e extent
Reduced a yeat deal
Don't k n o w

Increased a great deal
Increased to s o m e extent
Remained about the same

4.
5.
6.

Reduced to s o m e extent
Reduced a great deal
Don't k n o w

4.
5.
6.

Reduced to s o m e extent
Reduced a yeat deal
Don't k n o w

Paper grading
1.
2.
3.

60.

4.
5.
6.

Lesson Planning

2.

59.

Increased a great deal
Increased to s o m e extent
Remained about the same

Increased a yeat deal
Increased to some extent

Remained about the same

Help to individual students
1.
2.
3.

I ncreased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

4.
5.
6.

Reduced to s o m e extent
Reduced a great deal
Don't k n o w

Q U E S T I O N 61 T H R O U G H 6 8

To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in the following activities because o f your presence?
61.

Planning w ith you
1.

2.
62.

1.

No extra hours

A y e a t many extra hours
Some ex tra hours

3.

No extra hours

Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really a part o f student teaching.
1.

2.
64.

3.

Evaluating your progress and activities
2.

63.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.

No extra hours

Fulfilling social obligations resulting from your presence
1.

A y e a t man> extra hours

2.

Some extra hours

3.
4.

7

No extra hours
D on't know

65.

Finding housing for you
1.
2.

66.

72.

A yeat m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

3.
4.

N o extra hours
Don't k n o w

A great m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

3.
4.

N o extra hours
Don't k n o w

Less than one
O n e to three
Four to six

4.
5.

Seven to nine
T e n or more

None
Less than one
O n e to three

4.
5.
6.

Four to seven
Eight to ten
M o r e than ten

During student teaching h o w m a n y days did you handle classes for any teacher(s) other than your supervisini
teacher, while that teacher «v«s a w a y from class?
1.

None

4.

Five to seven

2.
3.

One or less
Tw o to four

S.
6.

Eight to ten
M ore than ten

How many hours do you estimate you spent doing volunteer work in the com m unity where you were assign*
for student teaching (youth groups, home service, church w ork and the like) during your student teaching
period?
1.
2.
3.

73.

N o extra hours
D o n ’t k n o w

H o w m a n y days during student teaching did you handle classes for your supervising teacher while he was a w
for reasons other than student teaching business (professional work, request of principal or other people,
personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute teacher would have had to be hired if you
had not been there?
1.
2.
3.

71.

3.
4.

H o w m a n y times per week on the average did you have contact with your supervising teacher outside of regu
working hours at school? (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc.)
1.
2.
3.

70.

A great m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

Holding telephone conversations or other conferences with you
1.
2.

69.

N o extra hours
Don't k n o w

Making additional preparations for teaching
1.
2.

68.

3.
4.

Preparing additional reports
1.
2.

67.

A tyeat m a n y extra hours
S o m e extra hours

None at all
One to five hours
Six to fifteen hours

4.
S.

Sixteen to th irty hours
M ore than th irty hours

What effect do you feel working w ith student teachers has had on the performance o f your supervising teach
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

Has made him a much more effective teacher
Has made him a more effective teacher
Has had no effect on his teaching
Has made him a less effective teacher
Has made him a much less effective teacher
I am unable to judge
8

74

75

What iK> you think should he the attitude ot the administration and teachers in the school to which you were
assumed atioul working with student teachers?
1
2.
3
4.
5.

Should
Should
Should
Should
Should

6.

I a m unable to judge

What recommendation would you give your friends about accepting a student teaching assignment in the same
school with the same supervising teacher(or in the same project!7
1.
2.
3.

76.

Accept with enthusiasm
Accept
Be neutral

Not at all
1 to 2 times
3 to 4 times
5 to 6 times
7 to 8 times

1.

9 to 10 times
11 to 12 times
13 to 15 times
16 times or more

4.
5.

Little o f the help I felt was needed
N o help at all

T o what extent have your supervising teacher and/or other school personnel been helpful to you on matters
not directly concerned w ith student teaching?
They have gone out of their w ay to be helpful
They have helped when asked
They have n o t helped
No such help was needed

2.
3.
4.

Would you accept a teaching position if offered for next year in the building or system in which you did your
student teaching?
1.
2.

Yes
N o,
N o,
No,
No,
No,

3.

4.
5.

6.
80

6.
7.
8.
9.

All the help I felt was necessary
Most o f the help I felt was needed
Some of the help I felt I needed

1.

79.

Try for a different assignment
Reject theassignment

How much help has the university coordinator (supervisor) provided you?

2.
3.

78.

4.
5.

H o w m a n y times has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during
your student teaching contact?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

77.

aggressively seek studentteachers
seek student teachers
accept student teachers if asked
resist having student teachers in the school
refuse to have student teachers in the school

because I intend to go to graduate school
because I plan to live in another geographic area
for personal reasons
for professional reasons
because I have decided not to teach

Why were you assigned to this particular student teaching station?
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

I
I
I
I

requested this school or area.
requested this kind o f program or project.
had no particular preference and was placedin this assignment by m y college or university.
really preferred a different assignment but was placed in this one by m y
college or
university.
I was required to accept this assignment even though I expressed a strong preference for
a different one.

9