t

71-31»152
ANDRESEN, Glenora Irwin, 1928THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TENTATIVE MODEL FOR
SELECTED INSERVICE EXPERIENCES FOR
SUPERVISING TEACHERS OF STUDENT TEACHERS
AT FLINT COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971
Education, teacher training

University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TENTATIVE MODEL FOR
SELECTED INSERVICE EXPERIENCES FOR
SUPERVISING TEACHERS OF STUDENT
TEACHERS AT FLINT COLLEGE,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
By
Glenora Irwin Andresen

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1971

PLEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have indistinct
print. Filmed as received.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS

ABSTRACT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A TENTATIVE MODEL FOR
SELECTED INSERVICE EXPERIENCES FOR
SUPERVISING TEACHERS OF STUDENT
TEACHERS AT FLINT COLLEGE,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
By
Glenora Irwin Andresen

The objective of the study was to determine if
providing inservice training for supervising teachers
produces measurable results when compared with supervis­
ing teachers who were not specifically given inservice
training.

It was predicted that the supervising teachers

who have had inservice training will be more effective
in guiding the professional growth of the student teacher
than supervising teachers who have not had inservice
training.

Also, it was expected that student teachers

whose supervising teachers have had inservice training
will demonstrate more competence and achieve a higher
degree of performance in the classroom than student
teachers whose supervising teachers have not had inservice
training.
The following procedures were used:
1.

At the beginning of the Fall Semester, 1970,

a randomly selected sample of twenty supervising teachers

Glenora Irwin Andresen
were invited to participate in a series of three inservice
sessions for supervising teachers.

The content of each

inservice session was determined by specific behavioral
objectives related to Flanders Interaction Analysis,
conference techniques, and the evaluation of the student
teacher.
2.

During the final two weeks of the student

teaching assignment, the student teachers were rated by
university coordinators and supervising teachers.

In

addition, the student teachers were asked to complete
the Student Teacher Questionnaire.

The supervising

teachers also completed a Supervising Teacher Question­
naire at this time.
As the result of this investigation, these
conclusions were ascertained:
1.

Supervising teachers who participated in

selected inservice experiences are more effective in
using students, participating in student teaching centered
activities, and on evaluational techniques than teachers
who did not participate in selected inservice experiences.
2.

In the treatment group, supervising teachers

have underestimated their use of student teachers and
activities participated in, but have overestimated the
evaluational dimension.

Glenora Irwin Andresen
3.

Supervising teachers, in the control group,

have, also, overestimated their ability to use students
and to evaluate.

However, they have underestimated their

perception of activity participation.

This, again, is

common with the treatment group.
4.

There is no meaningful difference between

the ratings of both the university coordinator and the
supervising teacher in evaluating the performance of
the student teacher.
In developing a tentative model for selected
inservice experiences for supervising teachers at Flint
College, University of Michigan, the following recomendations are made:
1.

Improvement and utilization of both the

Supervising Teacher and Student Teacher Questionnaire
should be continued.
2.

It is important to encourage meetings between

"representatives of local school districts and university
personnel in an effort to provide meaningful inservice
experiences for supervising teachers of student teachers.
3.

Advice and participation of supervising

teachers should be solicited in providing information
concerning their needs as supervising teachers in the
Teacher Education Program at Flint College, University
of Michigan.

Glenora Irwin Andresen
4.

Systematic evaluation by the student teacher

of the student teaching experience is imperative to keep
teacher educators informed and cognizant of our responsi­
bilities .
5.

Systematic assessment of the inservice program

for supervising teachers should be provided.

Supervising

teachers should be given the opportunity to evaluate
selected inservice experiences.
6.

In the future, supervising teachers should be

provided tuition free, graduate credit in supervisory
techniques.
7.

Attention should be given to the construction

or modification of another evaluation instrument to assess
the performance of the student teacher.
8.

As conference group leaders, university

coordinators need to possess the necessary leadership
characteristics to achieve an atmosphere conducive to
the accomplishment of the aims of the Teacher Education
Program at Flint College, University of Michigan.
9.

Selected inservice experiences for super­

vising teachers can not be a pre-determined list of
specific activities.

Instead, a program design can only

be implemented on the basis of a collection of statistical
data.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. George
Myers and Dr. Walter Scott for their confidence and faith
in me before and during this study.

I wish, also, to

express my appreciation to Dr. John Phillips and Dr.
Howard Teitelbaum for their guidance and assistance.
Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Harold Stahly,
Chairman, Department of Education, Flint College, University
of Michigan, and to other staff members of the Education
Department for their assistance and encouragement.
Most of all, I want to thank my parents, Mr. and
Mrs. Alex Irwin; my husband, Stanford Andresen; and my
daughter, Ann Jensine, for their moral support and
concern during these many years of study.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S .....................................
LIST OF TABLES

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

LIST OF A P P E N D I C E S .................................

ii
v
vi

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

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

1

Basic Premises
....................
Hypotheses
.................................
Definition of Terms
.......................
The Need and Value of the Study
. . . .
The Objectives of the S t u d y .............

3
5
5
7
7

INTRODUCTION

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ....................

9

The Supervising Teacher ....................
A s s u m p t i o n s .................................
Inservice Training for the Supervising
T e a c h e r .................................

11
13

INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURE AND RESEARCH DESIGN

37

P r o c e d u r e .................................
Population to be S a m p l e d .................
T e c h n i q u e s .................................
Flanders Interaction Analysis
. . . .
Conference Techniques ....................
Evaluation of the Student Teacher
. .
I n s t r u m e n t s .................................
IV.

ANALYSIS OF R E S U L T S ...........................
Analysis of the R e s p o n s e s .................
Supervising and Student Teacher Question­
naire
.................................
Master Student Teacher Evaluation Form . .

27

39
39
43
43
44
44
45
48
49
49
58

Chapter
V.

Page
CONCLUSIONS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S .............
Summary of R e s u l t s ........................
C o n c l u s i o n s ..................................
L i m i t a t i o n s ..................................
Recommendations
...........................
Implication for Further Study .............

BIBLIOGRAPHY

64
64
65
66
68
74

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

78

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

86

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Correlation between dependent variables .

2.

Cell means by group and variable

3.

Interaction between group and role.

4.
5.

6.

7.
8.

.

. . . .
. . .

Summary of findings..........................

49
50
51
57

Test for differences between college co­
ordinator and supervising teachers on
performance of student teachers.
. . .

59

Performance ratings of student teachers
whose supervising teachers participated
in the treatment group v s . student
teachers whose supervising teachers did
not participate in selected inservice
e x p e r i e n c e s .............................

60

Group means on student teacher performance
ratings...................................

61

Revised performance measures of student
teachers by g r o u p ......................

61

V

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

B.

Page

Letters of Invitation to Supervising
Teachers and Principals Concerning
Inservice Meetings Sponsored by Flint
College, University of Michigan .............
Behavioral Criteria for Supervising Teachers
as Recommended by Student Teachers . . .

87

.90

C.

Post Card Reminder for Third Inservice
S e s s i o n ..........................................97

D.

Post-Test Questionnaires for Supervising
Teachers and Student Teachers
.............

99

The University of Michigan, Flint College
Student Teaching Evaluation
................

117

E.
F.

Assessment of Supervising Teacher Inservice
S e m i n a r s ..................................... 122

G.

Master Student Teacher Evaluation Form

.

.

.124

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Are present inservice teacher education programs
designed to prepare teachers to work successfully with the
student teachers in their classrooms?

Can short-term

inservice education programs do the job of training
experienced or inexperienced supervising teachers to plan
and work effectively with the student teacher in a student
teaching assignment?

What are the inservice experiences

that can prepare a supervising teacher to work successfully
as a cooperative member of a university staff responsible
for teacher education?
As educators responsible for teacher education,
questions like these are among the crucial concerns of
university and school personnel, alike.

Some emphasis has

been given to the issue of preparing supervising teachers
to understand better the role of the supervising teacher.
There have been many descriptions of successful inservice
programs.

However, we still fincl in our local school dis­

tricts, supervising teachers who are responsible for a wholly
inadequate job of supervision.

It has become apparent,

that, as a profession, we have a responsibility to make
inservice training available to supervising teachers for the

2
complex task of student teacher supervision.
recognize that,

in many instances,

When we

the m o s t important

influence in the professional preparation of the student
teacher is the supervising teacher,

it behooves us to m ove

forward in developing an inservice program for supervising
teachers.
How can the university begin to identify, recruit,
and prepare a corps of competent supervising teachers?

What

kinds of inservice experiences are appropriate to those in
the local school district responsible for the supervision
of student teachers?

Unfortunately,

too few supervising

teachers have prepared themselves for the additional
responsibility cf teacher education.

Indeed, it is i m pera­

tive for the university to initiate inservice training
which will enhance and improve the performance of s u p ervis­
ing teachers in guiding the student teaching experience.
An increasing awareness and acceptance by both
public school administrators and teachers of their p r o ­
fessional responsibility to teacher education has been
evident in recent years.

Creating the kind of professional

climate that motivates public school personnel to work
effectively with university coordinators and student
teachers is a challenge to all educators involved in s t u ­
dent teaching.

Universities and public schools have

cooperated in recent years in developing inservice programs
for supervising teachers.

The necessity of involving

3
supervising teachers in the planning of inservice programs
has augmented and improved the quality of student teaching
supervision.
Realizing the task of inservice training for super­
vising teachers is the joint responsibility of the local
school district and the university, cooperative efforts with
the local school districts have necessitated increasing
responsibility and leadership from the university.

In many

instances, the inservice program for supervising teachers
has included graduate courses, group and individual con­
ferences, workshops, and seminars sponsored by the teacher
education institutions.

In recent years, the inservice

training for supervising teachers has been approached in a
variety of w a y s .
Basic Premises
These basic premises underlie the approach presented
h ere:
1.

Our ability to identify our responsibility to

supervising teachers will determine the appropriate kinds of
activities for the inservice training of supervising teachers
at Flint College, university of Michigan.
2.

Important to the university is the involvement

of supervising teachers in the administration and reorgani­
zation of the teacher education program.

Not only facili­

tating a good relationship between local schools and the
university, the participation of supervising teachers in a

4
teacher education program can prove to be another valuable
inservice experience for supervising teachers.
3.

The task of inservice training for supervising

teachers is the joint responsibility of the local school
district and the university.

Cooperative efforts with the

local schools will necessitate increasing responsibility
and leadership from the university.
4.

The application of certain basic principles that

apply in any teaching situation will result in the initiation
and establishment of a more effective program for the inservice
preparation of supervising teachers.

Therefore, because of

the nature of the placements of University of Michigah student
teachers in Flint, it is not necessary to prescribe separate
inservice programs for the supervision of student teachers
for use in various local school districts.
5.

Since individual differences exist in adults

as well as in students, supervising teachers come to an
inservice program with varying levels of skill mastery and
with differences in perceptions, attitudes, and values.
Consequently, although programs need not be aimed at
special training for different types of student teaching
situations, they should be aimed at coping with the dif­
ferences in perceptions, attitudes, and values of teachers.
Thus, inservice programs must be flexible and individual­
ized, employing variable approaches.

5
Hypotheses
In the development and design of a tentative model
for the selected inservice experiences for supervising
teachers of student teachers at Flint College, University
of Michigan, the following hypotheses were determined:
1.

Supervising teachers who have had inservice
training will be more effective in guiding
the professional growth of the student teacher
than supervising teachers who have not had
inservice training.

2.

Student teachers whose supervising teachers
have had inservice training will demonstrate
more competence and achieve a higher degree
of performance in the classroom than student
teachers whose supervising teachers have not
had inservice training.
Definition of Terms

The definitions of terms to be used in the research
study will be as follows:
Student Teaching:

A period of guided teaching

when a college student assumes increasing responsibility
for directing the learning of a group or groups of learners
over a period of between nine to twelve consecutive w e e k s .
Student Teacher:

A college student who is engaged

in an assigned student teaching experience, but the term is
often used to refer to any college student preparing to
teach.

Recently, the term associate teacher is being sug­

gested as a more useful designation for a student who takes
over the full responsibility for directing the learning of
groups of p u p i l s .

Supervising Teacher or Cooperating T e a c h e r :

A

-teacher of school pupils who also directs the work of a
student teacher with these same pupils.
College Superv i s o r ;

A regular college staff member

who has as a part or all of his assigned work load the
supervision of the activities of student teachers and the
relationships and conditions under which these students
carry on their work.
Cooperating School and Cooperating School D i s t r i c t ;
A school or school system which provides facilities for
professional laboratory experiences for college students,
but which is neither controlled nor supported by the college.
Ideally, the school district has a written agreement with
the college, setting forth the conditions under which these
activities are to be conducted together with the benefits
and privileges extended in both directions.
Model;

1

A tentative ideational structure used as a

testing device.
Inservice T r a i n i n g ;

Experiences initiated and

directed by the university or the local school district
which are designed to improve the effectiveness of the
supervising teacher in the student teaching relationship.
^■Jim Johnson and Floyd Perry, Readings in Student
Teaching (Dubugue, Iowa: W illiam C. Brown book Company,
I 7 5 7 7 T P P . 14-16.

7

The Need and Value of the Study
Among the many significant contributions to teacher
education in recent years are the unified efforts of the
universities and local school districts to improve and
supplement the inservice training of the supervising
teacher.

However, when inservice programs are carefully

examined, it is surprising to observe how inadequate and
haphazard are the opportunities initiated and conducted
by universities for the inservice training of supervising
teachers.

In order to enhance and improve the quality of

the supervision of student teachers, it is imperative that
we periodically examine and initiate appropriate activities
for the inservice training for supervising teachers.
The Objectives of the Study
It will be an objective of this study to help
university personnel and local school administrators become
more aware of the importance of inservice training for
supervising teachers.

It is believed that improving the

quality of supervision of student teaching requires the
cooperation and unified effort of the university and the
local school district.

Through our efforts in formulating

a tentative model for the selected inservice experiences
for supervising teachers, those responsible for teacher
education may be more able to discern organizational pat­
terns of inservice training which can be adapted to their

8
own individual situation.

By becoming aware of the impor­

tance of inservice training, university personnel will be
better able to respond professionally to the needs of the
student teacher and to assist in the professional growth
of the supervising teacher.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the Review of the Literature, previous investi­
gations will be analyzed for method as well as content.
Selected references will be utilized in presenting infor­
mation to the reader concerning inservice training for
supervising teachers.

The review of the literature will

be from the point of view of the problem being studied,
and will not constitute a general summary of inservice
training for supervising teachers.
The reason for this review of the literature is to
develop the rationale for the concepts and quantification
of the variables used in this study.
research are directly relevant:

These areas of

(1) supervising teacher

effectiveness as measured by student teacher performance;
and

(2) the effects of inservice training for supervising

teachers in conference techniques, evaluation of the student
teacher, and Flanders, Interaction Analysis upon the p er­
formance of the supervising t e a c h e r s .
For those of us who are involved in teacher educa­
tion,

it is apparent that many changes have taken place in

student teaching and in the role of the supervising
teacher.

Not so long ago, those who worked with student

-teachers viewed the job of the supervising teacher as that
of helping the prospective teacher make lesson plans, of
watching him teach, and of criticizing his teaching.
was a critic teacher.

He

Today, the university coordinator

and the supervising teacher consider their responsibilities
in a much broader sense.

It is important that the student

teacher, also, has a broader view of the total educational
scene.

When one considers the tremendous increase in the

number of elementary and secondary teachers working with
student teachers in recent years, and the inevitable
increase in the years ahead, it is difficult to comprehend
the magnitude of the contribution supervising teachers
have made and will make to teacher education.
Jeraline Harvin1 reported that university personnel
and teacher educators have not been conscientious in their
attempts to identify the supervising teacher with the total
teacher education program.

It is apparent that some of the

unsolved problems in teacher education include an under­
standing and agreement of the competencies to be required
of supervising teachers and the responsibility of teacher
education institutions to supervising teachers.

Jeraline Oarris Harvin, "Supervising Teacher:
A
Synthesis of Research Findings and Thought" (unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1966).

11
The Supervising Teacher
One of the chief concerns of university personnel
in teacher education is to obtain well-qualified super­
vising teachers and to provide inservice education for
supervising teachers i

It is imperative for those respon­

sible for teacher e d u cation to determine devices and p r o ­
cedures for the effective inservice training for super­
vising teachers.
Certainly,

today,

it is more important than ever

before that we attempt to identify those characteristics
of classroom teachers w h i c h will assure effective super­
vision of the student teaching experience.
must admit, unfortunately,

However, we

that identifiable cha r acter­

istics do not always result in anticipated performance.
Our experience indicates that these characteristics must
be viewed periodically and interpreted by perceptive, p r o ­
fessional judgment.
If universities and cooperating schools are going
to work together to improve upon the selection and effec­
tiveness of supervising teachers,

then it is important that

there be some attempt made to identify the desired compe­
tencies of supervising teachers.

Such a task is not easy,

since the needs of each student teacher are different.
However, we, in general, m a y m a k e these assumptions c o n ­
cerning the competencies of supervising teachers.

Assumptions relating to the tasks of identifying
2
competencies of supervising teachers:
1.

Many writers in the field of teacher education

have referred to competencies needed by supervising
teachers.

These references should serve as valuable

sources in identifying competencies desired in supervising
teachers and those which might be developed through inservice programs.
2.

People directly involved in the interrelation­

ships between student teachers and supervising teachers
should be given the opportunity to contribute ideas con­
cerning the competencies of the supervising teacher.

This

group of people should include college administrators,
college supervisors of student teaching, school administra­
tors, supervising teachers, and student teachers.
Nevertheless, The Commission on Standards for
Supervising Teachers and College Supervisors recommends
certain criteria for the selection of supervising teachers.
If utilized in conjunction with projected educational
objectives, these criteria can serve as guides to the
establishment of a worthwhile student teaching experience.
Certain assumptions give meaning to selective criteria.

2
Association for Student Teaching, The Supervising
Teacher, Standards for Selection and Function CDubuque,
iowa:
William c. krown dompany, 1966}.

13

Assumptions
1.

That the student teaching experience represents

a part of a professional preparation program organized and
administered by an institution of higher education.
2.

That since the basic responsibility for the

administration of this program rests with institutions of
higher education, the selection of supervising teachers
represents one of the primary factors relating to the
quality of the teacher education program.
3.

That guiding the growth of prospective teachers

requires special competencies.
4.

That competencies for guiding the growth of

prospective teachers are identifiable.
5.

That supervising teachers must be selected

since all certificated teachers do not possess competencies
necessary for guiding the growth of prospective teachers.
6.

That certain of these competencies can be

acquired by education and experience.
7.

That concern for the quality of the teacher

education experience by the teaching profession requires
the establishment of minimum standards for the selection
of supervising teachers.
Karl D. Edwards solicited the opinions of
student teachers either engaged in student teaching or
those who had recently completed it concerning the

14
competencies of supervising teachers.*^

In the processes

which were used in identifying the competencies, no attempt
was made to group them into categories or to classify them
in any way.

However, it seemed that it might be helpful,

from the standpoint of explanation and interpretation, if
they were grouped into several broad categories.

However,

the competencies were grouped with the idea of placing
each in the category which seemed most fitting and which
might facilitate thinking about its significance.
categories and the competencies within them are:
I.

4

Competencies related primarily to classroom procedures
and techniques*
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

II.

The five

Gives suggestions in matters of discipline.
Acquaints the student teacher with "routine"
matters.
Displays accuracy in keeping records.
Creates a democratic setting for learning— one
in which pupils share in some decisionmaking experiences.
Assists student teacher in setting reasonable
standards of performance for his classes.
Encourages creative thinking and planning by
pupils and by the student teacher.

Competencies related primarily to the working
relationship between the supervising teacher and
the student teacher.
1.
2.
3•

Is available for consulatation and moral support
when needed.
Analyzes with the student teacher the value of
experiences; helps the student teacher to
discover which ones are most worthwhile.
Helps the student teacher set his goals and
formulate his educational philosophy.

Association for Student Teaching, Professional
Growth Inservice of the Supervising Teacher (Dubuque,
Iowa: William c. Brown company, T 3 CTT:---4Ibid., pp. 19-20.

15
4.
5.

6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
III.

Competencies related primarily to the transition from
the relatively inactive status of the student teacher
at the beginning of student teaching to his active
status later in the assignment.
1.
2.
3.
4.

IV.

Shares in planning with the student teacher.
Plans and teaches through another adult;
originates and suggests new ideas without
communicating the student teacher's
thoughts and actions.
Establishes a feeling of security on the part
of the student teacher by clarifying his
responsibilities throughout the student
teaching period.
Recognizes and helps relieve tension in pupils
and in the student teacher.
Offers criticism— continuous, specific, and
constructive— in a sympathetic manner.
Helps the student teacher to develop under­
standing of his own strengths and weaknesses,
and to build a healthy self-concept.
Invites the student teacher to participate in
the professional and social activities of the
staff.
Shows willingness to consider new and different
techniques in an open-minded manner.

Gradually lets student teacher accept increasing
responsibility until full teaching responsi­
bility is assumed.
Helps student teacher to understand his job in
relation to the entire school program.
Helps student teacher build teaching skills
through observation of his (cooperating
teacher's) teaching.
Assists student teacher in recognizing theories
in practice— child development, psychological
principles and so forth.

Competencies related primarily to personal character­
istics or traits of the supervising teacher that
might be emulated by the student teacher.
1.
2.
3.

Sets a good example for the student teacher in
personal appearance, grooming, speech, and
appropriate mannerisms.
Makes rational judgments, takes appropriate
action, and accepts responsibility for the
consequences.
Knows his own strengths and weaknesses and
accepts himself as he is.

16

4.
5.
6.
V.

Reflects a positive professional attitude and
a real liking and respect for teaching.
Exhibits interest in continuous selfimprovement and educational advancement.
Reflects a mature personality with enthusiasm
and broad interests.

Competencies related primarily to developing broad
professional and school responsibilities.
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

Is an active participant in local and state
teachers1 organizations and is familiar with
the purposes and work of the NEA.
Perceives the opportunity to work with future
teachers as a professional responsibility.
Places primary emphasis upon his service to
society rather than upon his personal gain.
Actively participates with his colleagues in
developing and enforcing standards fundamental
to continuous improvement of his profession,
and abides by those standards in his own
practice.
Exhibits willingness to accept out-of-class
responsibilities.
Participates effectively in faculty meetings
and the work of professional committees.
Is acquainted with sources of current thinking—
journals, conferences, yearbooks, workshops.
Exhibits a cooperative attitude in relations
with other members of the staff.
Certainly, we cannot anticipate that all supervising

teachers will possess all of the competencies described
here.

However, it is to assist such teachers in improving

their competencies and in becoming more effective guides
for student teachers that programs for the inservice educa­
tion of the teacher have been developed.
Jeraline Darris Harvin (1966)

c

reported that

although college supervisors are responsible for periodic
supervision of student teachers, much needed day-to-day
5Harvin, loc. cit.

17
supervision is left to the supervising teacher.

The

research revealed that the strongest area of supervising
teacher's work is in preparing for and making the student
teacher "feel at home in the new teaching situation."

Most

of the criticism of supervising teacher's work was focused
on lack of guidance given to student teachers in planning
for the learning activities of pupils.
The efforts of the supervising teacher have
been limited to the student teaching phase of professional
education.

All too often, universities have failed to

involve classroom teachers in the professional preparation
of the potential candidate for teaching.

The environmental

factors affecting the supervising teacher are important,
also.

The effectiveness of the supervising teacher is often

lessened by the lack of communication with the school
administrator and by the failure of the school community to
understand the merits of the student teaching program.
Most concern has been expressed about the profes­
sional philosophy of the supervising teacher.
Butcher

(1965)

James Alvin

reported that supervising teachers, them­

selves, ranked these personal characteristics as the
criteria for the selection of the supervising teacher;
positive professional attitude, interest in young people,
and enthusiasm for teaching above academic preparation and
experience.

It is important that the student teacher work

in an environment in which it is apparent that the

18
profession of teaching is held in high regard.

The attitude

of a supervising teacher who reflects positive profession­
alism and a real liking

and respect for teaching is quite

likely to influence the student teacher.

g

The supervising teacher is usually one who has been
approved by his principal or supervisor and by the college.
Most colleges require a valid certificate, and about onefifth require a master's degree or equivalent experience.

7

Forty states report no certification requirements for the
supervising teacher; eight have specific requirements for
supervising teachers and/or state-controlled criteria for
0

approval.

The state of Georgia reports a program of

internships for supervising teachers as a means of apprais­
ing their grasp of materials and techniques considered in a
g
college course in supervision.
®James Alvin Butcher, "An Analytical Study of the
Selection and Preparation of Off-Campus Supervising
Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, 1965).
7
Asahel D. Woodruff, Student Teaching Today, AACTE,
I960.
---------------- -----8
Vernon C. Lingren, "The Certification of Cooper­
ating Teachers in Student Teaching Programs," Journal of
Teacher Education, 8:403-4 (1957).
9
Helen A. Whiting, "Internship of Supervising
Teachers and Its Appraisal," Educational Administration
Supervision, 43i23-32 (1957),

19
In view of the assumption that supervision requires
many special skills beyond that of good teaching, there is
a need for special training for supervising t e a c h e r s . ^
Many school districts and colleges are offering courses in
supervision for their cooperating t e a c h e r s . A t

the

present time, there are two state wide inservice education
programs for supervising teachers.

With the use of federal

funds, the University of Florida, Department of Education,
developed a series of twenty video tapes to be used in the
form of a graduate-level course which combined television
with seminars and individual study assignments.

In addi­

tion, Georgia has a state-wide program of compensating
supervising teachers working with student teachers from all
colleges engaged in teacher education.

This system was

developed through cooperative planning and agreed upon by
institutions and public schools.

The training program for

supervising teachers includes three types of experiences:
a beginning workshop, an internship, and a follow-up work­
shop seminar.

Agreement by both university and school

personnel on criteria for the experiences and content of

^*°Judson T. Shaplin and Arthur G. Powell, "A
Comparison of Internship Programs," Journal of Teacher
Education, 15:175-83 (1964).
^ A . W. Scrivner, "Action Programs of Inservice
Education," in Professional Growth Inservice of the
Supervising Teacher, 45th Yearbook (Association for Student
Teaching, 1966}, pp. 75-100.

20
this training program for supervising teachers was important
to the success of the program.
The supervising teacher who himself is well grounded
in the principles of effective supervision stresses teacher
growth and participation in the study and improvement of
the total teaching-learning situation.

He is not content

to recommend specific methods and devices, but rather tries
to aid the student teacher in developing basic understand­
ings of the total education program.

Basic to this idea

are several principles which seem to have meaning for those
teachers who are engaged in cooperative program of teacher
education:12
1.

The aim of student teaching supervision is to

enable the prospective teacher to become skilled in the
improvement of the teaching-learning process and the total
setting for learning.
2.

The present program of supervised teaching

focuses on the teaching-learning situation rather than on
the individual.

The supervising teacher and student teacher

are co-workers aiming at the improvement of the learning
situation.
3.

The modern supervisor of student teaching directs

the beginning teacher's attention toward the fundamentals of
education and orients the student teacher to the nature of
learning and its improvement within the general aim of educa­
tion.
12
pp. 25-26.

Association for Student Teaching, op. cit.,
-------

21
4.

Current: emphasis is on the student teacher

assuming his rightful place as a cooperating member of the
school which is concerned with the improvement of teaching
through greater knowledge of the teaching-learning p r o c e s s .
In the light of the principles underlying modern
supervision# the work of the supervising teacher is broadened
to include responsibility for the total professional growth
of the student teacher during the period of student teach­
ing.

in addition, there can be no doubt that teachers who

accept the responsibility for guiding young students must
be skilled not only in techniques and procedures of teach­
ing, but in guidance as well.

Barr's opinion that "super­

vising student teaching is an expert,

technical service

. . ." indicates the need for the best possible training
13
for the supervising teacher.
In attempting to predict the influence of the super­
vising teacher to the performance of the student teacher,
14
Oniel Decoteass
found that the following factors most
significantly affect the student's success in student
teaching:

interest in teaching, knowledge of subject,

initiative, resourcefulness,

enthusiasm, and intellectual

13 A. S. Barr, William H. Burton and Leo L.
Brueckner, Supervision (New York:
A p pleton C e n t u r y - C r o f t s ,
Inc., 1 9 4 7 ) , p. 11.---14 Oniel G. Decoteass, "Analysis of the Perceptions
of Supervising Teachers Regarding the Duties They Perform
in Connection with the Student Teaching Program in Select
Colleges and Universities in Louisiana" (unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, University of Mississippi, 1965).

22
capacity.

Therefore, in an effort to improve the student

teacher's performance, the supervisor should strive to
develop the student teacher's unique characteristics and
competencies.
Follow up studies of student teachers reveal that
supervising teachers do influence their student teachers'
15
behavior.
This influence is greater if the relationship
of the supervising teacher with his student has been a
continuously assigned one.

Student teaching experiences

influence the student teachers more than methods courses do.

16

In addition, the necessity for good human relations
is imperative in the student teaching situation.

The

importance of this was reported by Dickson in a study made
at Stanford University.

After interviewing a number of

student teachers, cooperating teachers, and college super­
visors, he reported several conclusions concerning human
17
relations. Among them w ere:
1.

Human relations difficulties were a major
characteristic of the student teaching program.
. . . Two out of three interview responses of
those participating in this study referred to
instances of dissatisfaction in their relation­
ship to others.

15

Robert D. Price, "The Influence of Supervising
Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, 12:471-5 (1961).
*6J. D. McAulay, "How Much Influence Has a Cooperat­
ing Teacher?" Journal of Teacher Education, 11:79-83 (1960).
17
George E. Dickson, "The Crux of an Effective Off
Campus Student Teaching Program," Educational Administration
and Supervision (March, 1953), 141-143.

Problems of individual adjustment, program or
work dissatisfaction, and communication were
the three general problem areas revealed in
the comments of student teachers, supervising
teachers, and supervisors . . .
The distinct principal problems which appear
in the human relations of student-teachers,
supervising teachers, and supervisors with
others are not similar, generally, in every
relationship.
A.

B.

C.

Student teachers— (1) Want specific help
with problems and sympathetic understanding
from supervisors.
(2) Desire to please
supervising teachers and wish to establish
pleasant relations with them.
Supervising teachers— (1) Are interested
mainly in the preparation and achievement
of student teachers in practice-teaching.
(2) Are insecure in their relations with
supervisors.
(3) Want supervisors to ease
their insecurity by offering suggestions
and solving problems.
Supervisors--(1) Desire to see student
teachers achieve successful teaching
methods.
(2) Are mainly concerned over
the insecurity of supervising teachers and
express hostility and disagreement in
discussing them.

Some student teachers experience difficulty
because they do not realistically face the
fact that they are beginners in teaching and
feel that they are expected to emulate or teach
as expertly as the supervising teacher . . .
On the contrary, other student teachers have
the tendency to adopt attitudes of superiority
in comparing their work with that of super­
vising teachers. No other single attitude
will as quickly develop hostility, disagreement,
and conflict in the student teaching situation.
Student teachers do not adapt readily to the
differences in educational philosophy and
methodology which are found in the public
school classrooms.
Consequently, they experi­
ence hostility, disagreement, and conflict in
the student teaching situation.

<L4

It was evident in this study that all parties
desired for the student teacher to succeed but felt insecure
in their respective relationships in promoting that success.
It was also obvious that the need for improved understand­
ing and communication contributed to this insecurity.
It is difficult to measure the amount of assistance
and help which the cooperating teacher actually provides
to the student teacher.

In one study, based on the judg­

ments of 171 student teachers, the following areas were
identified in which the cooperating teachers provided
assistance.

These are listed in rank order with the areas
18
of most help listed first:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

Adjusting to the teaching role.
Selection of content to be taught.
Understanding boys and g i r l s .
Selecting teaching materials.
Evaluating my own teaching.
Selecting teaching procedures (methods).
Motivating pupil interest and response.
Determining the objectives of lessons.
Making daily lesson plans.
Determining pupil grades.
Planning long range instruction.
Understanding the purposes of education.
Constructing tests and examinations.

This same study indicated that the college super­
visor provided more help in some of these areas which were
concerned with broader aspects of the teaching role such
as understanding the purposes of education, planning long

18

William A. Bennie, "An Analysis of Student Teach­
ing and Supervision at the University of Texas" (unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas, 1964), pp. 31-32.

25
range instruction, and determining the objectives of
19
lessons.
20
Perhaps, Florence Stratemeyer
has made a very
important observation when she describes the challenge
facing the cooperating teacher in guiding the student
teaching experience.

Demands upon today's teacher to meet

the many new and different situations with which he is
constantly confronted in guiding learning require con­
sciously educative student teaching experiences:
1. Experience characterized by a high degree of
purposefulness.
Student teachers should be encouraged
and helped to identify and make known their purposes.
This can be achieved by the use of conference and
continuous evaluation.
In addition, supervising teachers
and student teachers need to plan cooperatively.
Plan­
ning together is one important way to provide for a
clear definition of purposes and for the supervising
teacher to know what situations mean for the student
and what his purposes are.
Too, sound human relations,
situations in which the student feels wanted and secure
are basic to a satisfactory student teaching experience.
2. Experience characterized by thoughful involve­
ment of the student in the range of a teacher's
activities. The belief that learning about or pas­
sively observing desirable action will automatically
result in commitment to such action is denied in
education literature and by the experience of teachers.
To know the student's new understanding and whether he
can and does act upon ideas requires that he have an
opportunity to use them in a variety of situations.
This suggests that the student should be actively
involved from the first day through cooperative teach­
ing.
Involvement in new areas of experience calls for
participation as an integral part of observation rather

19Ibid.
20
Leonard E. Kraft and John P. Casey, Roles in OffCampus Student Teaching (Champaign, 111.: Stipes Publishing
Company, 1967), pp. 187-191.

26
than the all-too-coiranon practice of a period of obser­
vation prior to participation.
Very important to a
successful student teaching experience is the realiza­
tion of the supervising teacher that experiences in
student teaching should be differentiated according to
the abilities and needs of the student.
3. Experience characterized by opportunity to
reflect and generalize.
It is very important that the
student teacher have an opportunity to analyze his
experiences, to see relationships among the various
elements in the situation, and to identify basic
principles that were or were not functioning effec­
tively.
The opportunity to reflect, to generalize,
and to apply principles in new situations requires
careful guidance and direction by the supervising
teacher in the student teaching experience.
4. Experience characterized by "leading on"
qualities.
A high quality experience is one which
leads to increased ability to soundly direct subsequent
activities relating to the work of the teacher; it is
experience which leads to action-behavior based on
principles.
To attempt to achieve this in the student
teaching experience, it would seem necessary that the
student teacher must be given the opportunity to learn
to act consistently with the principles which he
professes.
He also should remain in a given student
teaching assignment long enough to test generaliza­
tions in new circumstances.
In addition, advantageous
to all student teachers would be laboratory experi­
ences after the student teaching experience.
Assisting the student teacher to experience an
exemplary student teaching assignment is the challenge and
the responsibility of the supervising teacher, today.

The

supervising teacher needs to employ the same skills he uses
as he works with any learner.

He must know how to make the

student teacher independent; he must know how to listen to
his student and act on the clues he gets from what he hears
and carefully interprets; he must always be alert to the
time when a student is ready for a new experience.

Only

the supervising teacher who operates within a framework

27
of the soundest principles of learning in all his efforts
can be the person with w h o m the student teacher should
work.
Inservice Training for the
Supervising Teacher
In order to enhance and improve the quality of the
supervision of student teachers, it is imperative that we
systematically examine and initiate appropriate activites
for the inservice training for supervising teachers.
There are many avenues for the inservice training
of supervising teachers.

In order to provide a more effec­

tive inservice program for supervising teachers, Curtis
Nash and Yvonne Lofthouse

21

have suggested:

1. Arrange the load of the university coordinator
so that he is given more time to make more frequent
visits to the cooperating school to plan and evaluate
w it h the supervising teacher the activities of the
student teacher.
2. Create the kind of professional climate that
motivates the public school teachers to work effec­
tively with the college supervisors and student t e a c h e r s .
3. Schedule group conferences on a systematic
basis, affording the supervising teachers and public
school administrators the opportunity to share in
planning the programs.
Problems of the supervising
teachers should be included among those to be appraised
at these conferences.
4. Consult with the supervising teachers and
college graduates in planning the college curriculum
and specific college courses.
The supervising teacher
21

Curtis Nash and Yvonne
Research, and Experimentation in
Ex p e r ien c e s , Cedar F a l l s , I o w a :
Teaching Bulletin, No. 22, 1964,

Lofthouse, New Developments,
Professional Laboratory
4he Association for Student
pp. 109-114.

28
should play a more significant role in the planning of
teacher education programs.
One of the greatest
opportunities for the professional growth of a super­
vising teacher is continued activity in teacher educa­
tion.
5. Organize a program that will inform the super­
vising teacher about the total teacher education
program. Supervising teachers should be included on
the mailing list for teacher education journals and
materials related to teaching that are published by
the colleges.
6. Involve the instructors from the disciplines,
the subject matter specialists, along with members
of the education department whenever conferences,
seminars, and workshops are conducted for the super­
vising teachers.
7. Budget sufficient funds to cover the cost of
maintaining an effective inservice program.
8. Recommend supervising teachers to committees
assigned the work of revising state certification
programs.
9. Invite supervising teachers to participate in
the state teacher education workshops in which repre­
sentatives from all of the disciplines participate.
10. Make available to supervising teachers the
latest research and significant studies related to
student teaching.
11. Waive tuition and fees whenever supervising
teachers enroll in college courses and conferences
that foster their growth as supervising teachers.
Patricia A. Graham

22

attempted to ascertain the

status of inservice education programs for supervising
teachers and to develop a suggested course of study for an
22

Patricia A. Graham, "Status of Inservice Educa­
tion Programs for Supervising Teachers and the Development
of an Inservice Education Course for Supervising Teachers"
(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at
Austin, 1968).

29
inservice education course.

A questionnaire was sent to

institutions accredited by the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education concerning the presence
or lack of such a program and the administrative details of
organization and execution of such programs.

These were

the results of the study which included responses from
eighty-eight per cent of the participating institutions or
four hundred and fifty-seven institutions.
1. All institutions provided for the preparation
of supervising teachers, although great reliance was
placed on a variety of techniques.
2. Slightly under half
indicated that a formalized
was offered, usually in the
during the academic year or
college campus.

of the institutions
program of preparation
form of a course offered
summer session on the

3. The typical course gave three semester or
quarter hours of graduate credit and was not required
of all supervising teachers.
It was usually taught
by the Director of Student Teaching or the college
supervisor with some consideration given to sugges­
tions of the supervising teachers concerning the
content.
The typical course was a unified approach,
including both elementary and secondary supervising
teachers. Over forty per cent waived tuition for
supervising teachers enrolling in the course. No
extra cash compensation was paid to those enrolling,
although most institutions did compensate supervis­
ing teachers for their services in the student
teaching program.
4. The course of study for inservice sessions
was constructed relying on the results of the question­
naire and printed materials provided by the institutions.

30

The suggested content included these areas of
interest and examination for the supervising teacher:
1.

Orientation and induction of the student
teacher.

2.

Observation and conferences as learning
experiences.

3.

Planning and the evaluative process.

4.

Broadening the student teaching experience.

5.

Evaluation of the student teaching experience.

6.

Personal and professional growth and develop­
ment of the student teacher.

It is apparent that there needs to be much more
research related to the supervising teacher and to the
inservice training of the supervising teacher*

It is true

that many public school administrators have observed the
growth of faculty members as they have helped prospective
students in becoming responsible members of a profession.
In addition, many teacher education institutions are con­
scientious in their efforts to promote the personal and
professional growth of the supervising teacher.

Certainly,

many serious efforts have been made by both public school
and university personnel in initiating inservice training
experiences for supervising teachers.

31
Throughout the literature, many references are made
to the importance of acquainting the supervising teacher
23
with conference techniques. Chandler A. Barbour,
in a
study, focused on changes in the perception of appropriate
supervisory behavior that supervising teachers may experi­
ence.

His purpose was to determine if supervising teachers'

perceptions regarding supervisory behavior would change in
the direction of greater objectivity as a result of training
in and use of an observer schedule and conference guide.
The experimental variable of working with the Barbour
Observation Schedule and Conference Guide was injected to
determine if the perceptions of the subjects would be
changed significantly.

The results of the study showed

that:
1.
When subjects were considered as a total
group, the results of post-tests showed that subjects
evidenced a significant change in their perceptions
of supervisory behavior.
The change was in the direc­
tion of greater objectivity.
It appears that training
in and the use of Barbour Observation Schedule and
Conference Guide in conferences did influence the
perceptions that subjects had of supervisory behavior.
It also appears that perception change toward greater
objectivity came about as the result of treatment. A
correlation of the subjects in the pre-test and post­
test ratings suggests that changes on the part of these
people were consistent, irrespective of experience and
background.
23

Chandler A. Barbour, "A Study of Change in
Objectivity of Supervising Teachers Perceptions about
Supervising Behavior Through the use of the Observation
Schedule and Conference Guide" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Wayne State University, 1968)•

32
In another study, William J. Ray

24

reported on the

relationships of observational information conveyed through
conference procedures to the accompanying changes in
teaching behavior of a selected sample of student teachers.
He found that the conference techniques described in the
study to discover change in the classroom behaviors of
student teachers suggest two implications for the super­
visory process in the improvement of teaching:
1. Conference techniques provided the use of a
common language based on the quantitative rather than
qualitative or adjectival descriptions of teacher
behavior, by means of which college supervisors,
supervising teachers and student teachers can discuss
specific instructional and interactive strategies.
2. Feedback information based on structured
observations should change the role of the college
supervisor into a role concerned more with informing
and assisting student teachers to accomplish behavioral
changes in educationally sound directions.
25
Carolyn Carr
made several observations in an
investigation related to the conference techniques employed
in the student teaching experience.

She concluded:

1.
Effective interpersonal relationships occurred
with longer periods of consultation and pre-planning
of the conference.
W i l l i a m J. Ray, "Assessing the Effects of Obser­
vational Information upon Changes in the Teaching Behavior
Space of Student Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Wayne State University, 1968).
25
Carolyn Carr, "Factors in Constructive Human
Relationships Between College Supervisors and Student
Teachers in Selected Professional Situations" (unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1967).

33
2. Sample findings from student teachers indicated
that it was during morning conferences outside the
classroom when effective interpersonal relationships
occur.
3. Effectiveness of the interpersonal relation­
ships can also be influenced by personal characteristics
of the persons involved, as their facial expressions or
tone of voice.
In short, the affective, conative, and
cognitive aspects of communicators were all important
in the supervisory conference.
In addition, Oniel G. Decoteass

26

found that super­

vising teachers were more effective in their relationships
with their student teachers if in conducting a conference
they:

(1) conferred at a regularly scheduled time and at

other necessary times,

(2) conferred with the group and

also privately when supervising more than one student, and
(3)

conducted discussion type conferences in an informal

atmosphere.

He recommends that supervising teachers con­

fer with students at a regularly scheduled time and at
other times, when necessary.

Conferences should be pre­

dominately discussion in type and informal in nature.
In an investigation conducted by William M. Hill,

27

interaction analysis as another type of inservice training
for supervising teachers was reviewed.

In learning inter­

action analysis as an inservice education activity, it was
Dr. Hill's purpose to examine the effects of verbal teaching
26 Decoteass, loc. c i t .
2 ^William Morris Hill, "The Effects on Verbal Teach­
ing Behavior of Learning Interaction Analysis as an InService Education Activity" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Ohio State University, 1966).

behavior of learning interaction analysis as an inservice
education activity and to examine the effects of two
variables of training technique:

training time and mode

of feedback from teaching on the change in verbal teaching
behavior.

He found that interaction analysis proved to

be an effective inservice education activity.

There was

an increase in teacher acceptance of student ideas and
an increase in the revised-indirect-direct ratio of teacher
talk.

He indicated that ten hours of training time was

superior to shorter periods of training.

He said that the

mode of feedback should be determined by individual
preference.
In addition, Gertrude Moskowitz

28

conducted a

study in which her purpose was to determine whether train­
ing supervising teachers and their student teachers in
interaction analysis would affect the teaching patterns
of the cooperating teachers; teaching patterns of student
teachers in relation to their cooperating teachers; atti­
tudes of cooperating teachers toward student teachers; and
attitudes of student teachers toward their cooperating
teachers.

She found no significant differences in the

amount of teacher talk and student talk in classes of
28Gertrude Moskowitz, "The Effect of Training in
Interaction Analysis on the Attitudes and Teaching Patterns
of Cooperating Teachers and Their Student Teachers"
(unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, 1966).

35
trained and untrained cooperating t e a c h e r s .

Trained

cooperating teachers used significantly more indirect
teaching patterns than untrained cooperating t e a c h e r s .
For cooperating teachers, there appeared to b e a r e l a t i o n ­
ship between training in interaction analysis and more
indirect teaching patterns and more pos i t i v e interpersonal
relationships w i t h student teachers.

The attitudes and

teaching patterns of student teachers a p peared to be
affected by their cooperating teachers and b y training in
interaction analysis, w i t h the student teachers

(a) using

teaching patterns similar to those of their cooperating
t e a c h e r s , unless the student teachers w e r e trained in
interaction analysis and cooperating teachers w e r e not,
(b) having more positive attitudes toward trained cooper­
ating teachers, and
patterns,

(c) using more indirect teaching

if either they or their c ooperating teachers

were trained in interaction analysis.

It appeared that

training in interaction analysis increased the individuality
in the teaching patterns of the trained g r o u p s .
This effort is by n o means an exhaustive attempt
to present all the research related to the inservice
training of the supervising teacher.

However, it is

apparent that there is a definite n e e d for more research
related to the supervising teacher.

Certainly, w e

36
recognize that a quality student teaching p r o g r a m cannot
be achieved unless those w h o supervise student teachers
are assi s t e d in p r e p a r i n g themselves for such responsibility.
Appropri a t e inservice education programs for supervisors
of student teaching should b e developed b y cooperative
particip a t i o n by p e r s o n n e l from universities and local
school d i s t r i c t s .

CHAPTER III
INVESTIGATIONAL PROCEDURE AND
RESEARCH DESIGN

The outline of the investigational procedure shall
consider the technique and instrumentation employed in the
research design.

The population to be sampled, procedures,

methods, and technique used in the study will be clearly
defined.

This explanation includes what is to be done

(procedure), how this was accomplished (methods), and
which devices and instruments

(techniques) were employed

in completing the research.
In working with supervising teachers at Flint
College, specific guidelines were followed in implement­
ing the objectives of a program of inservice training for
supervising teachers.

First, it was important that the

staff members of the Education Department accepted
supervising teachers as they are.

In all interactions

with supervising teachers and others affecting the student
teaching program, we attempted to behave in a open, accept­
ing, and supportive manner.

In this manner, we eventually

hoped to gain the acceptance and support of the supervising
teacher.
37

38
In the task of designing an inservice program,
the first emphasis was on designing procedures for doing
whatever was necessary so that the program gained acceptance
by the teachers, administrators, and all other educational
personnel in the program.

All efforts were made so that a

climate of trust and mutual acceptance was established.
In addition, the staff analyzed and determined the kind of
situation within which they were working.

They analyzed

the factors that encouraged and inhibited action.

They,

also, determined the specific kinds of observation skills
that could be used in different situations.

This flexi­

bility was necessary, since the procedure employed needed
to be effective in the specific situations from which each
supervising teacher came.
Finally, the staff investigated teaching techniques
and procedures that accomplished our teaching objectives
most effectively.

Consideration was given to interaction

skills and content skills.

Important were the group dynamics

evident in the workshop situations and the opportunity to
use these action patterns to promote the desired changes.
If they were to be successful in developing and
implementing inservice training for supervising teachers,
staff members needed to be cognizant of the importance of
careful planning in the initial stages.

For this reason,

they followed this procedure in initiating the inservice
training for supervising teachers.

39
Procedure
Population to be Sampled
In order to obtain the necessary information
related to the inservice training of supervising teachers
for student teachers,

supervising teachers during the

1970-71 Pall Semester at Flint College, University of
Michigan were selected to participate in the study.

A

random assignment of supervising teachers to control and
experimental groups was conducted.
At the beginning of the Fall Semester, a random
selected sample of supervising teachers was compiled by
making a separate alphabetical list of the elementary and
secondary supervising teachers at Flint College, University
of Michigan.

Each supervising teacher was assigned a

number; then the sample was selected from a table of random
numbers.

The supervising teachers with numbers correspond­

ing to those chosen from the table ultimately made up the
sample group.

The elementary supervising teachers were

further divided into three g r o u p s , depending on the student
teaching assignment.
eight-week,

These groups included:

first half;

full-time,

full-time, eight-week, second half;

and half-day sixteen-week sessions.

Because a representa­

tive number was not available in the full-time, eight-week,
first half, and half-day, sixteen week sessions, the
experimental group was selected from the full-time, eightweek,

second half session of elementary supervising teachers.

40
The number of elementary teachers in the experimental group
totaled eleven.
In the secondary experimental group, a random
selected sample of supervising teachers was selected from
the nine-

and twelve-week student teaching assignments.

The number of sixteen-week secondary student teaching
assignments was not sufficient to constitute a total group.
The number of secondary supervising teachers in the experi­
mental group totaled nine.

All secondary nine- , twelve-,

and sixteen-week assignments begin at the beginning of the
semester, while the elementary eight-week full-time
student teaching assignments may either begin at the begin­
ning of the first week or the ninth week of the semester.
Supervising teachers selected to participate in the
study were sent letters of invitation.

These letters

identified the topics of the planned inservice sessions,
as well as the time and the place.

In order to insure

better attendance, the inservice sessions were conducted
during the school day, when student teachers were available
to assume the full responsibility of the classes involved.
In addition, similar letters were sent to the principals
of the buildings involved in order to insure and facilitate
the acceptance of the anticipated program.

Appendix A

contains copies of these letters.
Previously,

it has been noted that a flexible and

individualized inservice program should be established for

41
the inservice training of supervising teachers.

To

accomplish this goal, it was important to design materials
for presentation that could be utilized by different per­
sonnel at different time, in different situations, and at
different stages of capability and experience.
The first step in designing such material was to
identify the skills or behavioral outcomes to be achieved.
At the present time, much research and development in
teacher education is directed toward identifying these
skills and devising materials for training teachers to use
them.

At Flint College, University of Michigan, the staff used

as its guide a list of behavioral criteria 1 for supervising
teachers as recommended by student teachers.

It was the

practice to supplement this list with appropriate activities
for the accomplishment of our objectives.

Appendix B

includes a copy of "Behavioral Criteria for Supervising
Teachers as Recommended by Student Teachers."
Inservice training was presented to the experimental
and not the control group.

The major variables controlled

in this design consisted of stimulus to the experimental
group in the form of inservice training related to con­
ference techniques, Flanders Interaction Analysis, and the
evaluation of the student teaching performance.

The

necessity of a pretest was eliminated since the scope and
1Lois H. Roth, "Selecting Supervising Teachers,"
Journal of Teacher Education, 12:478-81 (December, 1961).

42
complexity of the inservice training had already been pre­
determined.

Too, since a random selected sample of

elementary and secondary supervising teachers composed the
experimental group, it was not necessary to administer a
pre-test to the total number of supervising teachers.
Application of this design to the inservice training
of supervising teachers is presented in the following chart:

Experimental Group I

Control Group I
1.

Elementary and secondary
supervising teachers con­
tinue normal routine, not
receiving any special
instructions or inservice
training concerning con­
ference t e c h n i q u e s ,
Flanders Interaction
Analysis, or evaluation
for student teachers
during the student
teaching assignment.

1.

Elementary and secondary
supervising teachers
receive inservice train­
ing concerning Flanders
interaction Analysis at
the beginning of the
third week.

2.

Continues normal routine,
only receiving the evalua­
tion forms for student
teachers at beginning of
ninth week.

2.

Supervising teachers
receive inservice
training concerning
conference techniques
at beginning of sixth
week.

3.

Post-test at beginning
of eleventh week.

3.

Supervising teachers
receive inservice train­
ing concerning evalua­
tion of the student
teacher at beginning
of ninth week.

4.

Analysis of results.

4.

Post-test at beginning
of eleventh week.

5.

Analysis of results.

43
Techniques
To help insure the acceptance of such an inservice
program in the inital a t t e m p t s , the m a t erials and p r o ­
cedures were flexible rather than rigidly programmed.
the estimation of the staff at Flint College,
Michigan,

In

University of

they had the responsibility for inservice training

in several specific areas.

More information related to

conference techniques, teaching analysis systems,

and

evaluation had been periodically requested b y supervising
teachers.

Therefore, we planned to give instruction in

these three areas in three, two-hour sessions.
depending on the needs and desires of the group,

Here,

again,

f l exi­

bility was our key to the planning and implementation of
such a program.
The content of each inservice session was determined
by specific behavioral objectives related to Flanders Inter­
action Analysis, conference techniques,
the student teacher.

and evaluation of

Listed below are the specific b e h a v ­

ioral objectives for the three inservice sessions:
Flanders Interaction Analysis
1.

Given the history and d e v e l o p m e n t of Flanders

Interaction Analysis,

the supervising teacher will become

acquainted with a teaching analysis system as a m eth o d of
systematic observation.
2.

Given a list of the ten categories of Flanders

Interaction Analysis,

the supervising teacher w ill place

44
verbal communication of the student teacher in one of the
ten categories at the rate of approximately one classifica­
tion every three seconds.
3.

Given specific examples of the verbal pattern

of teachers in the classroom, the supervising teacher will
be able to distinguish between the indirect and direct
influence based upon the amount of student vs teacher
talk in the classroom.
Conference Techniques
1.

Given the purposes of conferences, the super­

vising teacher will become acquainted with the use of the
conference
2.

in thestudent teaching assignment.
Given the techniques of successful conferences,

the supervising teacher will:
a.

Develop a conference agenda to conduct
formal and informal conferences with the
student teacher.

b.

Create a climate in the classroom which
encourages good communication between
himself and the student teacher.

c.

Guide the student teacher to assume the
initiative in the conference and to be
responsible for plans of action.

Evaluation of the Student
Teacher
~
1.

Given the principles of evaluation the

supervising teacher will:
a.

Define and state his objectives in terms
of the kinds of behavior and performance
desired and expected of the student teacher.

45
b.

Lead the student teacher to a more realistic
understanding of "self" and to the develop­
ment of a positive emotional approach to
teaching, learning, and living.

2.

Given the techniques of writing an evaluation

the supervising teacher will write a meaningful and con­
structive mid-term and final evaluation for the student
teacher.
Attendance at each session was fairly stable.

In

isolated instances, because of illness or school responsi­
bilities,

supervising teachers missed several sessions.

A

post card reminder was also sent to all supervising teachers
before the third inservice session.

Appendix C contains

a copy of the post card reminder.
Instruments
Related to the accomplishment of these behavioral
skills, the determination of appropriate materials and
procedures for the evaluation of any inservice program is
essential.

In both the control and experimental groups,

supervising teachers were given post-tests in the form of
a questionnaire.

The post-test questionnaires evaluated

specific aspects of student teaching supervision:

con­

ference techniques, Flanders Interaction Analysis, and the
evaluation of the student teacher.
In an attempt to devise valid instruments for
evaluation, these steps were followed:
1.

The format for the questionnaire used as post

tests for supervising teachers was adapted from the
questionnaire entitled,

"Student Teaching in Michigan,"

46
a recent study conducted by all teacher preparation
institutions in Michigan-.
2.

Research studies and references in the area of

teacher education were studied to determine a selective
list of items related to conference techniques, Flanders
Interaction Analysis, and student teaching evaluation.
items were organized into separate lists.

The

From these lists,

a post-test was formulated.
3.

The post-test was then revised on the basis

of the suggestions made by educators enrolled in a
Directors and Coordinators of Student Teaching Workshop at
Michigan State University and the staff of the Educational
Research Department at Michigan State University.
The questionnaires were mailed to supervising
teachers with a letter of explanation.

In addition, those

supervising teachers who participated in the inservice
sessions, were asked to respond to three questions assess­
ing their general observations of the inservice sessions.
Student teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire
during the seminar sessions.

For a few students who were

absent, it was necessary to mail the questionnaire.

Copies

of the questionnaires and letters of explanation for
supervising teachers and student teachers are included in
Appendix D.
It is naive to believe that administering an
inservice program for supervising teachers will present no

47
problems.
lems.

Min o r details can cause a complexity of p r o b ­

However,

it was important to the success of our pro

gram to believe in the advantages of such a program.

Our

faith in the value of inservice training for supervising
teachers wa r r a n t e d our consideration and sincere efforts
in initiating such a program.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

In the development and design of a tentative model
for the selected ir.service experiences for supervising
teachers of student teachers at Flint College, University
of Michigan, the following hypotheses were determined:
1.

Supervising teachers who have had inservice
training will be more effective in guiding
the professional growth of the student
teacher than supervising teachers who have
not had inservice training.

2.

Student teachers whose supervising teachers
have had inservice training will demonstrate
more competence and achieve a higher degree
of performance in the classroom than student
teachers whose supervising teachers have not
had inservice training.

In order to substantiate these hypotheses, the
findings of this investigation were organized in terms of
(a) the responses of supervising teachers and student
teachers to Supervising and Student Teacher Questionnaires,
and (b) the evaluation ratings of the university coordinator
and supervising teacher on the Master Student Teacher
Evaluation Form.

48

49
Analysis of the Responses
Supervising and Student
Teacher Questionnaires
The questionnaires were divided into three
separate dimensions:
1.

How does the supervising teacher use the
student teacher?

2.

In what kinds of activities do the super­
vising teachers engage?

3.

How does the supervising teacher evaluate a
student teacher's performance in the classroom?

A Multivariate Analysis of Variance programmed by Jeremy
Finn at State University of New York

at

Buffalo was used

to test these three dimensions.
The correlation between these three measures is
presented in Table 1.

From this table, it is apparent that

activity and evaluation are highly correlated.

As far as

the responses indicate, as the evaluational dimension
increases, so do the activities
teacher seem to increase.

used by the

supervising

The activity and evaluational

dimensions are of greatest concern to teachers as evidenced
by the high means relative to the student dimension.
TABLE 1.— Correlation between dependent variables.

Student
Activity
Evaluation

Student

Activity

Evaluation

1.000000
0.269285
0.278077

1.000000
0.704991

1.000000

50
TABLE 2.— Cell means by group and variable.
Variable
Group

■ ■■
Student

Supervisor-Control
Supervisor-Treatment
Student Teacher-Control
Student Teacher-Treatment

9.31
9.41
8.66

10.82

Activity

Evaluation

28.50
29.41
30.72
34.71

29.41
30.41
23.88
29.53

Since it is apparent to the researcher that there
is a high correlation between the activity and the evaluational dimension, it is important to ascertain to what
extent the evaluational dimension is predicated on the
activities that the teachers use.
In addressing ourselves to specific questions on the
questionnaires, there is a relationship between the kinds
of activities the supervising teacher needs to engage in,
in order to objectively evaluate the performance of the
student teacher.

Therefore, due to the nature of the

questions on the activity and evaluational dimensions, we
would anticipate that in order to rate higher in the
evaluational dimension, the supervising teacher will engage
in activities to which the questionnaire directs itself.
It is important, too, to assess the other two mean­
ingful correlations represented in Table 1.

In both the

correlations between activity and student and evaluation
and student, we find that there is a relatively low correla­
tion.

Although they tend to operate in the same direction,

51
they are weaker in strength.

Supervising teachers who

achieve a higher composite score in the student dimension
of the questionnaire also tend to react in a slightly
lesser degree to the activity and evaluational dimensions
of the questionnaire.

One also observes that the correla­

tion between activity and students is almost of the same
magnitude:

.27 and .28.

Again, this reinforces the idea

that the activity and evaluational dimensions relatively
act in the same direction with about the same strength.
A t this time in the discussion, the analysis p r o ­
ceeds to look at an interaction between the group m e mber­
ship of the r espondents.

We need to ascertain whether there

is an interaction between group and role membership:
whether the respondents were supervising teacher or student
teacher and from the treatment or control groups.

We find

the interaction to be significant at the .0987 level.

TABLE 3.— Interaction between group and role.
Variable

Between Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Student

23,7400

4,6232

0.0342

Activity

52,5009

1,7958

0.1835

119,9700

3,7446

0.0560

Evaluation

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis * 1
Degrees of Freedom for Error
» 94
F-ratio for multivariate test of equality of m ean vectors *=
D.F, = 3 and 92.0000
P
= less than 0.0987

52
Since this study is exploratory,
ma n dated that the

it will not be

.05 level of significance, which is

usually the case in d i s s e r t a t i o n s , be adherred to in the
strictest sense.

Basically, the significance level of

this hypothesis says that if we say that there is a d i f ­
ference, we will be wrong on the average of ten times
out of one hundred.

Since this is exploratory,

the author

has decided to take the risk and call this test significant.
As a consequence,

the findings of the interaction hypothesis

indicate that there is a relationship between the super­
vising teacher and student teacher and the treatment and
control g r o u p s .
U pon inspecting the cell means as shown in Table 2 in
relationship to the interaction, we find that the supervising
teachers * ratings of themselves are higher than the student
teacher’s rating of the supervising teacher.

This indicates

that the supervising teacher suspects that she is accomplishi
the task better than w hat her student teachers say she is.
However, we find that the student teachers who-are placed
w ith supervising teachers w h o have undergone the treatment
rate those teachers higher than the teachers rate t h e m ­
selves.

This indicates that student teachers placed with

supervising teachers who have undergone inservice training
score them higher on using students, than student teachers
w ho are placed with supervising teachers w h o did not undergo
the treatment.

Therefore,

student teachers whose

53
supervising teachers have undergone the treatment rate
their supervising teachers higher on use of students and
activities participated in, than the supervising teachers,
themselves.
In the evaluational dimension of the questionnaire,
the situation is somewhat different.

Here, the super­

vising teacher sees himself as doing better than the stu­
dents.

Upon investigating the content of the evaluational

questions, we find that the supervising teachers rate them­
selves higher in this dimension than what the student
teachers did.

However, the supervising teachers believed

that they used their student teachers more effectively than
what the student teachers perceived.
However, in the treatment group, the student teachers
saw their supervising teachers as using students and partici­
pating in activities to a greater extent than the super­
vising teachers, themselves, saw their using student
teachers.

Whereas, in the control group, we find that the

supervising teacher claims that she uses students more than
what the student teachers see themselves as being used.
Therefore, from this analysis, we may make the
assumption that the supervising teachers have a slightly
unrealistic perception as to the extent that they use
student teachers.

Too, on the activity dimension, student

teachers see the supervising teacher as participating in
activities more than what the supervising teachers see

54
themselves participating.

Therefore, we may assume that

the supervising teacher has not perceived how frequently
she does participate in activities with the student teacher.
On evaluation, we emphasize, however, that the supervising
teachers still see themselves as using their student
teachers more effectively than what the student teachers
see, themselves.
From this analysis, the trend is quite clear.

The

supervising teachers in the treatment group are higher on
each dimension.

To be more explicit, these supervising

teachers act more positively on using students, engaging
in activities, and subsequent evaluation than their counter­
parts in the control group.

This is true for student

teachers as well, whose supervising teachers participated
in the treatment group.
In relationship to the student dimension on the
questionnaire, the tendency is for the supervising teachers
in the control group to perceive themselves as using
student teachers more than what they actually do.

In the

treatment group, however, the supervising teachers see
themselves as using student teachers less than what they
actually do.

Those teachers in the treatment group have

become more aware and cognizant of their responsibilities,
while those supervising teachers in the control group,
perhaps had not considered when they might have used
student teachers.

55
In the activity dimension on the q u e s t i o n n aire, in
both the treatment and control g r o u p s , the supervising
teachers believe that they participated in activities to a
lesser extent than what the student teachers say they
actually do.

It is interesting to observe, however,

regardless of their being in the control or treatment
groups, the supervising teachers do not perceive their
participation in activities as accurately as their student
teachers .
In both the treatment and control groups, in the
evaluational dimension on the questionnaire,

supervising

teachers see themselves in a more positive manner than do
the student teachers.

Both supervising teachers and student

teachers still have not reached the m a r k of coincidence in
what they say they are doing and what they seem to be
doing.

However, it should be emphasized that the difference

in the group mean between the supervising teacher and the
student teacher in the treatment group is extremely small,
so that it does not appear to be significant.

Therefore,

this suggests that another aspect of the treatment succeeded
in bringing both the supervising teacher and the student
teacher closer together on the evaluational aspect.

Still,

however, in the control group there is a wide difference
between what the supervising teacher says she does and what
the student teacher p e r c e i v e s .

56
In summary, we m a y again remind ourselves of our
objective in restating the first hypothesis to w h ich both
the Supervising and Student Teacher Questionnaires a s c r i b e :
Supervising teachers who have had inservice training will
be m o r e effective in guiding the professional growth of the
student teacher than supervising teachers who have not had
inservice training.

As the result of our findings, we can

say that supervising teachers who participate in inservice
training do better o n using students, participating in
student teaching centered a c t i v i t i e s , and on evaluation
than supervising teachers who do not participate in
inservice e x p e r i e n c e s .
It is important to determine in a systematic
assessment,

the accuracy of both supervising and student

teacher p e r c e p t i o n s .

To ascertain this a c c u r a c y , we have

solicited the responses of b oth supervising teachers and
student teachers on commensurate questions.

As a result,

we have found that supervising teachers have underestimated
their use of student teachers and activities participated
in, b ut h ave overestimated the evaluational dimension as
far as the treatment group is concerned.

Whereas,

in the

control group, we find that the teachers have overestimated
their ability to use students which is different from the
treatment group.

However,

in their ability to evaluate,

they have overestimated, w h i c h is similar to the treatment
group.

In addition,

they have underestimated their

57
perception of activity participation which, again, is
common with the treatment group.

TABLE 4.— Summary of findings.
Treatment

Control

Student

Students rate teachers
higher than teachers
rate themselves

Teachers rated them­
selves higher than
student teachers
rated the teacher

Activities

Students rate teachers
higher than teachers
rated themselves

Teachers rated them­
selves higher than
student teachers
rated the teachers

Evaluation

Teachers rated them­
selves higher than
the student teachers'
ratings.

Teachers rated them­
selves higher than
the student teachers 1
ratings.

In conclusion, the writer ascertains that the
treatment has raised the supervising teacher's perception
of himself.

It has also succeeded in assisting the super­

vising teacher to accomplish the expectations of the
student teacher.

However, it has failed to correct the

overestimation of the supervising teacher's evaluational
procedures.

Still, however, it needs to be emphasized

that this overestimation is not serious, since it only
constitutes a statistical difference, rather than a mean­
ingful difference from the student teacher's evaluation
of the supervising teacher.

58
Therefore, it is established that those supervising
teachers who participated in selected inservice experiences
do better than the control group on all dimensions of the
Supervising Teacher Questionnaire.

This is also true in

relation to the student teachers whose supervising teachers
participated in the inservice activities.

In addition, the

analysis reflects that the participation in selected
inservice experiences succeeded in establishing a commensu­
rate perception between the supervising teacher and the
student teacher.
Master Student Teacher Evaluation Form
At Flint College, University of Michigan, both the
university coordinator and supervising teacher have the
responsibility for the evaluation of the student teacher.
Ideally, there should not be a difference between the
ratings of these two people, since they are reputed to be
skilled in observational techniques. ,.In addition, they
are both evaluating the performance of the student teacher
on the same criteria.
It is important,then,that we address ourselves to
the second hypothesis which s t a t e s :

Student teachers whose

supervising teachers have had inservice training will
demonstrate more competence and achieve a higher degree of
performance in the classroom than student teachers whose
supervising teachers have not had inservice training.

59
We need to consider these questions.

Is there

a difference between the ratings of the supervising teacher
and the university coordinator?

If there is a difference,

which measure makes the difference?

As we look at Table 5,

we find there is no significant difference between the
ratings of both the university coordinator and the super­
vising teacher.

Essentially both of these evaluators are

assessing the same things in evaluating the student teacher.
TABLE 5.— Test for differences between college coordinator and
supervising teachers on performance of student teachers.
F-Ratio of
Multivariate
Test of Equality
of Mean Sectors
1.8043

Degrees of Freedom

5,110.0

Signi ficance
Level

.1179

It is important to our study to further determine
whether there is a difference in the ratings of those student
teachers whose supervising teachers have participated in
selected inservice experiences.

When considering this, we

find that there are differences between the two groups of
students.

The results of this analysis are found in Table 6 .

Since a high score indicates a better performance, we find
that there are differences in performance on Working with
People, Planning for Instruction, and Knowledge of Subject.
In addition, the strongest difference is in the area of
Classroom Management.

However, there is no serious differen­

tiation on Personal and Professional Qualities.

60
TABLE 6.— Performance ratings of student teachers whose
supervising teachers participated in the treatment group
vs. student teachers whose supervising teachers did not
participate in selected inservice experiences.
Variable

Between
Mean S q .

Univariate
F.

Signifi­
cance

Ml.
M2.

Working w ith People
Classroom Management

1.5659
3.9000

3.0431
6.8683

0.0838

M3.

Planning for
Instruction
Knowledge of Subject

1.9002
1.5741

3.2667
3.0574

0.0734

Personal and Profes­
sional Qualities

1.1148

2.4725

0.1187

M4.
MS.

0.0100

0.0831

In add i t i o n , we find that student teachers who work
with supervising teachers who participated in the inservice
activities as opposed to student teachers who worked with
supervising teachers who did not participate in the inservice
sessions rated higher on all measures.

We may then conclude,

as we look at the significance level, that the treatment
group does better than the control group, with the most sig­
nificant difference in the second measure, Classroom Mana g e ­
ment .
To be more specific in our interpretation, we may, in
addition, look at the cell means on each variable by group.
This is reported in Table 7.

From Table 7 we can see which

group does better by remembering that a higher score means a
better performance.

We can ascertain from Table 7 also that

the treatment group on all measures has a higher m ean than
the control group.

We may then conclude that o n all measures

the treatment group does better than the control- group.

TABLE 7.— Group means on student te-acher performance ratings

Variable

Control

Treatment

Ml. Working with People

4.38

4.60

M2. Classroom Management

3.80

4.21

M3. Planning for Instruction

4.29

4.47

M4, Knowledge of Subject

4.33

4.47

M5. Personal and Professional
Qualities

4.47

4.71

At this point it is important to the study to con­
sider a digression dealing with meaningful differences as
opposed to statistical differences.

TABLE 8 .— Revised performance measures of student teachers
by group.
Control

Treatment

Ml. Working with People

4

5

M2. Classroom Management

4

4

M3. Planning for Instruction

4

4

M4. Knowledge of Subject

4

4

M 5 . Personal and Professional
Qualities

4

5

Variable

62
From both these tables we see that there is a
difference.
to us?

However, is it a difference that is important

That is to say, although we have a statistical

difference, is it a meaningful difference?

Essentially,

in the control group, if we were to round out the average,
it is apparent that the control group is above average on
all of the given measures

(4.0 - above average).

Whereas,

the treatment group is above average on M2, 3, 4 and
outstanding on Ml and M5.
How, for purposes of decision making, rounding off
has advantages both good and bad.
ferences .

It tends to mask dif­

For exa m p l e , 3.6 and 4.4 both round out to the

same number.

Therefore, there is danger in masking what

may be meaningful differences.

However, if we had to

describe each group in a succinct manner, we are really
left with this alternative.
In our best interests, therefore, we need to ask
the question:

What constitutes a meaningful difference?

Is it .50, 1.0, or 1.5?

For purposes of this study, we

will consider .50 to be a meaningful difference.

There­

fore, we have a statistical significance, but not a mean­
ingful difference on the ratings of student teachers per­
formance by both the university coordinator and the super­
vising teacher.
We,therefore,conclude that although the treatment
makes a difference, it is not a difference that makes a

63
difference.

That is to say, both groups are essentially

above average.

For purposes of evaluation, the difference

between groups is negligible in a meaningful s e n s e ,
although significant in a statistical sense.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Results
The objective of the study was to determine if
providing inservice training for supervising teachers pro­
duces measurable results when compared with supervising
teachers who were not specifically given inservice training.
It was predicted that the supervising teachers who have
had inservice training will be more effective in guiding
the professional growth of the student teacher than super­
vising teachers who have not had inservice training.
Also, it was expected that student teachers whose super­
vising teachers have had inservice training will demonstrate
more competence and achieve a higher degree of performance
in the classroom than student teachers whose supervising
teachers have not had inservice training.
The following procedures were used:
1.

At the beginning of the Fall Semester, 1970, a

randomly selected sample of twenty supervising teachers
were invited to participate in a series of three inservice
sessions for supervising teachers.

The content of each

inservice session was determined by specific behavioral
objectives related to Flanders Interaction Analysis,
64

65
conference techniques, and the evaluation of the student
teacher.
2.

During the final two weeks of the student

teaching assignment, the student teachers were rated by
university coordinators and supervising teachers.

In

addition, the student teachers were asked to complete the
Student Teacher Questionnaire.

The supervising teachers,

also, completed a Supervising Teacher Questionnaire at this
time.
Conclusions
1.

Supervising teachers who participated in

selected inservice experiences are more effective in using
students, participating in student teaching centered
activities, and on evaluational techniques than teachers
who did not participate in selected inservice experiences.
2.

In the treatment group, supervising teachers

have underestimated their use of student teachers and
activities participated in, but have overestimated the
evaluational dimension.
3.

Supervising teachers, in the control group,

have also overestimated their ability to use students and
to evaluate.

However, they have underestimated their p er­

ception of activity participation.

This* again, is common

with the treatment group.
4.

There is no meaningful difference between the

ratings of both the university coordinator and the

66
supervising teacher in evaluating the performance of the
student teacher.
Limitations
A number of limitations have been observed in carry­
ing out this study.

In relating this study to a specific

setting and teacher education program, many variables
were involved.

Perhaps, however, the results are more

meaningful because of these ne c e s s i t i e s .
We cannot underestimate the degree to which the
responses to the questionnaire were influenced by events
prior to the administration of the questionnaire for both
student teachers and supervising teachers.

Some question­

naires were completed in seminars, while others were mailed
and completed individually by the r e s p o n d e n t s .
We cannot ignore either the duration of the study
or the size of the sample employed.
to produce measurable r e s u l t s .

The study was designed

We have no way of determin­

ing the further influence of inservice training on the
supervising t e a c h e r .

It is quite possible that inservice

training produced long range outcomes w h ich were not assessed
or described in this study.

67
The task of the supervision of the student teacher
is one of magnitude and complexity.

A student teacher's

experience is not restricted to the influence of the super­
vising teacher alone.

Instead, the student teacher is

influenced by a multitude of factors.
numerous people:

He interacts with

university coordinators, other staff

members, students, and other student teachers during his
student teaching assignment.

In addition, the type of

student teaching assignment and a specific school setting
can influence the performance of the student teacher.
Consequently, the treatment effects of inservice training
on the performance of a supervising teacher toward a
student teacher may have been erased or magnified by
uncontrollable forces.
In addition, the rating scale used to assess the
performance of the student teacher has obvious limitations.
When each supervising teacher may approach and interpret
evaluation differently, how much importance can be placed
on a rating scale?

Too, there are other rating scales

that might have been more appropriate for this study, but
impossible to use, since this specific rating scale was
adopted by the Education Department, Flint College,
University of Michigan.

68
Recommendations
As a university coordinator responsible for the
development of selected inservice experiences for super­
vising teachers, it has become evident to me that we, as
educators, have many responsibilities towards effecting a
satisfactory student teacher experience.

Certainly,we

have a major responsibility toward the planning and imple­
mentation of the supervising teacher inservice seminar.
At Flint College, University of Michigan, university
coordinators are responsible for selected inservice
experiences for supervising teachers during the student
teaching assignment.

Activities and problems related to

the student teaching experience can be emphasized and dis­
cussed.

If there is adequate planning related to the

concerns and needs of the student teacher, the inservice
seminar can provide a continuous orientation to the student
teaching situation.
Seminars^ which are described as successful by super­
vising teachers and coordinators, alike, are those with an
emphasis on participation.

At first, this participation is

difficult for some supervising teachers to comprehend.
However, once they become accustomed to accepting their
responsibility for such participation, they are highly
motivated to participate enthusiastically in the program
which they have helped to develop.

69
The inservice seminar can also provide an opportunity
for the coordinator to establish informal relationships and,
thereby, promote a better opportunity for personal guidance
of student teachers.

Actually, the inservice seminar can

provide a type of group therapy as supervising teachers in
different situations can share their anxieties, concerns,
and experiences.

Supervising teachers can be given an

opportunity to solve problems by discussing them among
people with whom they feel comfortable.

It has been my

experience that throughout the student teaching experience,
supervising teachers need a great deal of support, con­
sideration and encouragement, in some instances.

Certainly,

the inservice seminar with informal discussion can serve to
accomplish this objective.
Another concern of the university coordinator in
planning inservice seminars is the necessity to be alert
and cognizant of the problems and needs of supervising
teachers.

The nature of these problems will change as time

passes during the student teaching experience and with dif­
ferent students enrolled each term.

Again, the importance

of creating an emotional climate which encourages communica­
tion and supportive human relationships is essential.
However, before any program design can be formalized,
specific objectives must be outlined.

The imperative in

teacher education is to educate teachers of high professional
competence.

Competence operationally defined is performance,

70
a performance which can be observed, analyzed, commented
on, and in some manner, measured.^"

Instruction in a

clinically oriented program aims at fostering competencies
in the responsibilities and tasks of teaching; it is these
responsibilities that I would attempt to accomplish in the
planning and implementation of the inservice seminar for
supervising teachers to accompany student teaching.
As conference group lea d e r s , how can we be respon­
sible for achieving the empathy and atmosphere which is
conducive to the accomplishment of our aims?

Claudia

Lewis has suggested that the conference adviser be seen
as responsible for creating an atmosphere in which relaxed
and frank discussion can take place.

The adviser is seen

as a catalyst in furthering discussions and bringing forth
opinions,

suffusing the group with an actively seeking

atmosphere,

sparking vital areas for discussion, refocusing

rambling discussions,
in content.

and seeing to it that they are rich

Furthermore,

she helps the individuals

involved generalize from the experiences that are discussed.
And sometimes the a d v i s e r 1s activity takes the form of
actual teaching, particularly when she is in a position to
2
offer concrete facts, examples, and materials.

^Claudia Lewis, "The Conference Group Leader— A
Model?" Journal of Teacher E d u c a t i o n , 22:63 (Spring, 1969).
2Ibid.

71
In addition, the conference leader certainly should
have had some training in the skills of leading groups and
in understanding the implications of the interaction
process.

Certainly, this small group experience in the

form of an inservice seminar can offer a stimulus and an
enriching experience for supervising teachers during the
student teaching assignment.

It is an opportunity for the

individual supervising teacher to react and evaluate one's
own perception of himself and the role in which the group
perceives him.

In addition, the student teacher should

gain some experience in the process of interaction which
he can carry over to his own experience with his own
student t e a c h e r .
As the student teaching experience continues, the
inservice seminar should begin to concern itself with
wider, more theoretical issues.

Crucial issues and problems

of education as well as the complexities of supervision are
more appropriate as the immediate demands of supervision
become less pressing and supervising teachers have experi­
ences which make these subjects more relevant and meaning­
ful.

This affords an excellent opportunity to incorporate

the use of resource persons within the community and the
local school district.

In addition, there should be ample

opportunity to develop supervision s k i l l s .
use of simulation and micro-teaching,

Through the

supervisory techniques

and teaching styles can be practiced and formalized.

The

72
use of appropriate teaching analysis systems within the
classroom can also be a contribution to the student
teaching experience.
Indeed, it is important for the college coordinator
to remember that in planning any program, flexibility is
the key to successful program design and implementation.
Too, it is imperative that we listen to supervising teachers
in order to determine their needs and interests.

If we are

willing to investigate and experiment, we can plan m e a ning­
ful experiences for supervising teachers in selected
inservice experiences.
Because many people will be affected by our attempts
to improve the student teaching program by developing a
tentative model for selected inservice experiences for
supervising teachers, it is imperative that we utilize the
cooperative efforts of all people responsible for teacher
education.

However, we must remember that if cooperative

action is to be most effective, those participating must be
free to introduce modification in their procedures.

Ways

of working must be appropriate to the job they are working
on and they must have numerous opportunities to try out
and evaluate processes that give promise of increasing
productivity.
It is important, also, to remember that each group
of supervising teachers is different.

For this reason, in

response to their needs and interests, our attempt to
determine a tentative model for selected inservice experiences

73
for supervising teachers cannot be a list of specific
activities.

Instead, it can only be a theoretical projection

of a possible program design on the basis of a collection
of statistical data.
To be more specific, concerning our needs in
developing a tentative model for selected inservice experi­
ences for supervising teachers at Flint College, University
of Michigan, these recommendations are appropriate and
worthy.
1.

Improvement and utilization of both the

Supervising Teacher and Student Teacher Questionnaire
should be continued.
2.

It is important to encourage meetings between

representatives of local school districts and university
personnel in an effort to provide meaningful inservice
experiences for supervising teachers of student teachers.
3.

Advice and participation of supervising teachers

should be solicited in providing information concerning
their needs as supervising teachers in the Teacher Educa­
tion Program at Flint College, University of Michigan.
4.

Systematic evaluation by the student teacher of

the student teaching experience is imperative to keep
teacher educators informed and cognizant of our responsi­
bilities .
5.

Systematic assessment of the inservice program

for supervising teachers should be provided.

Supervising

teachers should be given the opportunity to evaluate selected
inservice experiences.

74
6.

In the future, supervising teachers should be

provided tuition free, graduate credit in supervisory
techniques.
7.

Attention should be given to the construction

or modification of another evaluation instrument to assess
the performance of the student teacher.
8.

As conference group leaders, university

coordinators need to possess the necessary leadership
characteristics to achieve an atmosphere conducive to the
accomplishment of the aims of the Teacher Education Program
at Flint College, University of Michigan.
9.

Selected inservice experiences for supervising

teachers can not be a pre-determined list of specific
activities.

Instead, a program design can only be imple­

mented on the basis of a collection of statistical data.
Implication for Further Study
At this time, one needs to reflect on his exper­
tise.

Indeed, are there meaningful differences between

student teachers which necessitate a more sophisticated
rating scale of their performance?

Since the answer will

probably be "yes", one needs to turn his attention to the
instrument which gathered the data.

Upon investigating

the evaluation scale, it appears that the instrument is not
sophisticated from the standpoint of precision and accuracy
to assess the differences in student teacher performance
that the participation in selected inservice activities was
attempting to achieve.

75
However, we must, also, recognize that the standard
instrument that has been adopted and used for a number of
years by the Education Department, Flint College, University
of Michigan to evaluate the performance of student teachers
was the evaluation instrument used in this study.

There­

fore, it is recommended that further research which would
ultimately lead to the construction or modification of a
new rating scale would be most appropriate.
It would be important to the Education Department to
consider two things in the construction of such an instru­
ment:

items included in the rating scale need to be more

precise in attempting to assess the performance of the
student teacher; and the scale of measurement needs to be
modified or corrected.

Unfortunately, because of the tend­

ency of both university coordinators and supervising teachers
to consistently give high ratings for student teacher perfor­
mance, this type of instrument in present use at Flint
College, University of Michigan, may be totally inaccurate.
In addition, because of their vested interests and positions,
high ratings by supervisory personnel for student teachers
are a common occurrance.

Too, most of the rating scales of

this type, upon examination will result in statistical dif­
ferences, but not meaningful differences.

Therefore, it is

desirable to begin an investigation which would ultimately
lead to the construction of a n e w instrument for the evalua­
tion of student teachers.

76

Another dimension of this study which suggests
further research is an attempt on the part of the investi­
gator to assess the performance of the student teacher,
before any participation by supervising teachers in selected
inservice experiences.

This is a difficult assignment.

However, it may be possible through longitudinal studies and
records to supply some data on teacher candidates before the
student teaching assignment.

Too, it may be a worthy task

to direct our efforts in the construction of a rating scale
on student teaching performance in the initial stages of
the student teaching assignment.

Certainly, as university

coordinators and supervising teachers alike, we would have
a more accurate description of our responsibilities in
guiding the professional growth of the student teacher in
clinical experiences.

Likewise,

the university's responsi­

bility to the supervising teacher would be more precise
and meaningful.
Perhaps, too, the most important implication from
this entire study, in this age of accountability, is the
need for universities and public school personnel# alike,
to clearly define a list of criteria for supervising
teachers.

Somehow, in all dimensions of supervision, we

succeed in deceiving ourselves as to specific kinds of
behavior we desire from the classroom teacher.

The

questionnaires used in this study attempted in a unified
manner to identify specific behavioral objectives.

However,

77
before any solid kinds of evidence may be achieved, it is
imperative at Flint College, University of Michigan, that
we conscientiously attempt to clearly define our expecta­
tions for supervising teachers.

It is important to our

program in teacher education to investigate what consti­
tutes meaningful differences between classroom teachers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

78

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books
Barr, A. S.; Burton, William H . ; and Brueckner, Leo L.
Supervision. New Y o r k : Appleton Century-Crofts,
inc., T5T7T
Bennie, William A.
Cooperation for Better Student Teaching.
Minneapolis: Burgess, 1966.
Hunter, Elizabeth.
The Cooperating Teacher at W o r k ; Case
Studies of Critical" Incidents, Bureau of"Publica­
tions . New Yorki
Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1962.
Johnson, Jim and Perry, Floyd.
Readings in Student
Teaching— for Those Who Work with Student T eachers.
Dubuque: W m . C . Brown, 1969.
Kraft, Leonard E., and Casey, John P.
Roles in Off-Campus
Student Teaching. Champaign, 1 1 1 .: Stipes
Publishing Company, 1967.
Stratemeyer, Florence B . , and Lindsey, Margaret.
Working
with Student Tea c h e r s . New York:
Bureau o?
Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University,
1958.
Tanruther, Edgar M.
Clinical Experiences in Teaching for
the Student Teacher or Intern. New York:
Dodd,
Mead and -Company, 1967.
Periodicals
Amidon, E . , and Kirk, J.
"When Student Teachers Study
Interaction."
Elementary School Journal, 68:97-104
(November, 19677“!
Barber, Shirley.
"Supervision of Student Teachers."
National Business Education Quarterly, 29:44-46
"(June," 1961) .-------------------------Bennie, William A.
"Student Teachers in Your Classrooms."
Overview, 2:76-77 (February, 1961).
79

80
Bossone, Richard M.
"Training the Supervising Teacher."
The Teachers College Journal, 35:178-179 (March,

i § W . ---- ~ —

-------------

Brekke, G. W.
"Cooperating Teacher's Role." Minnesota
Journal of Education, 48:29-31 (December, 1967).
Brode, E. Leland.
"The Supervisor as a Model in Teacher
Classroom Behavior."
The High School Journal,
51:53-60 (October, 1967}.
Brown, Don W. and Dallas, Louis.
"Improving Supervision
of Student Teachers Through TEPS." Journal of
Teacher Education, 11:63-65 (March, 1*>6£))~.
Cummings, J. R. and Wright, R. E.
"New Approach to Student
Teaching Evaluation." Montana Education, 42:25-26
(September, 1965) .
Dickson, George E.
"The Crux of an Effective Off-Campus
Student Teaching Program." Educational Administra­
tion and Supervision, 22:141-142 (March, l£53) .
Edelfelt, Roy.
"Student Teaching Can Contribute to the
Improvement of Instruction." Journal of Teacher
Education, 11:66-70 (March, 1960).
Edmund, Neal and Hemak, Lyle H.
"Do Student Teachers and
Supervising Teachers Communicate with Each Other?"
Journal of Educational Research, 55:355 (May, 1960).
Flanders, Ned A.
"Intent, Action and Feedback: A Prepara­
tion for Teaching."
The Journal of Teacher
Education, 14:251-260 (September, 1963).
Gage, N. L.
"A Method for 'Improving* Teacher Behavior."
The Journal of Teacher Education, 14:261-266
(September, 19^3).
Gant, Jack and Masterton, Pauline.
"Preparing Teachers
for Inner City Schools." The Journal of Teacher
Education, 20:420-426 (Winter, 1953).
Grayson, William H . , Jr.
Responsibility."
1962).

"Student Teaching— Increasing
High Points, 44:28-32 (June,

Greene, G . , et a l . "Student Teaching: Do the Participating
Schools Benefit?"
Illinois Education, 55:107-108
(November, 1966).

81

Hruska, Jack L.
"A Student Teacher's View on Supervision."
National Business Education Quarterly, 29:47-52
(May, 1 9 T O .------ ------------------Ishier, Richard E.
43:240-243

"Train the Trainer."
(December, 1968).

Clearing House,

Jordan, A. C.
"Improving Student Teacher Evaluation."
Peabody Journal of Education, 45:139-142 (November,

lwrrr

-------------------

Kraft, L. E.
"You're Getting a Student Teacher."
National
Elementary Principal, 45:17-18 (January, 1966).
Lecky, Barbara; Tuskey, Lillian; and Wardeberg, Helen.
"How Teacher Education Looks to the Student Teacher,
Supervising Teacher, and Teacher of Teachers."
Grade Teacher, May, 1963.
Lingren, Vernon C.
"The Certification of Cooperating
Teachers in Student Teaching Programs." Journal
of Teacher Education, 8:403-407 (1957).
Lowther, Malcolm A.
"Most and Least Helpful Activities of
Student Teachers." Clearing H o use, 4 3:40-4 3
(September, 1968).
McAuley, J. D.
"How Much Influence has a Cooperating
Teacher?" Journal of Teacher Education
(March, 1960), 79-83,
Milanovich, A.
"Wanted: More Good Supervising Teachers."
Elementary School Journal, 67:22-27 (October, 1966).
Moskowitz, G.
"Toward Human Relations in Supervision."
National Association of Secondary Sc lool Principals
Bulletin, !>0:96-114 (December, 1966) .
Price, Robert D.
"The Influence of Supervising Teachers."
Journal of Teacher Education, 12:471-475 (December,
l9(3l) .
Roth, Lois H.
"Selecting Supervising Teachers."
Journal
of Teacher Education, 12:478-81 (December, 1961).
Schwartz, Sheila.
"The Principal's Role in the Student
Teaching Program." Journal of Teacher Education,
13:78-81 (March, 19671
Shaplin, Judson T . , and Powell, Arthur G.
"A Comparison
of Internship Programs." The Journal of Teacher
Education, 15:175-183 (June, 1964)•

82

Sleeper

William R . , and Telfer, Harold E.
"Evaluation:
The Heart of Student Teaching."
Journal of
Teacher Education, 11:71-74 (MarcKTJ I960) .
"Planning Orientation to Student Teaching."
Journal of Teacher Education, 13:50-54 (March,

TSTTT.-------------------------------Smith,

1. B.
"Joint Responsibility."
57:18-29 (May, 1968).

NEA J o u r n a l ,

Stoller

Nathan; Lesser, Gerald S.; and Freedman, Philip I.
"A Comparison of Methods of Observation in P re­
service Teacher Training." AV Communication R e v i e w ,
12:177-197 (Summer, 1964).

"Problems Confronting
Taylor, G. K . , and Fields, J. W.
the College Coordinator in an Off-Campus Student
Teaching Program."
Peabody Journal of E d u cation,
41:308-411 (March, 1964).
"Factors in the Decision to Become a
Taylor, Gem Kate.
Supervising Teacher."
Peabody Journal of Educa­
t i o n , 38:351-352 (May, 19$1).
Veselak

Kenneth E.
"Supervising Student Teachers."
High Points, 43:56-59 (December, 1961).

"Are We Improving Our Student Teaching
Wesley, D. A.
Programs?"
Teachers College Journal, 38:112-115
(December, 1966).
Whiting

Helen A.
"Internship of Supervising Teachers and
Its Appraisal." Educational Administration Supervision, 43:23-32 (19S7).

83

Association for Student
Teaching Yearbooks*-*
Hayes, Robert B. , ed.
Professional Growth Inservice of the
Supervising T e a c h e r . 45th Yearbook, 1966.
Milner, Ernest J., ed.
The Supervising T e a c h e r .
Yearbook, 1959.

38th

Rippey, Andrew D., ed.
Evaluating Student T e a c h i ng.
Yearbook, 1960.

39th

Theoretical Bases for Professional Laboratory Experiences in
Teacher Education. 4 4th Yearbook, 1965.
Ward, Ted, ed.
Concern for the Individual in Student
Teaching.
42nd Yearbook, 1963.
Association for Student
Teaching Bulletins*
Number 1.

Guiding Student Teaching Experiences.

1951.

Number 2.
Helping Student Teachers Through Evaluation.
1953.
Number 3.
Helping Student Teachers Through Conferences.
195*.
?---------------- -------- --------------Number 8. Achieving Quality in Off-Campus Professional
Laboratory Experiences. 1951
?.
Number 16.
Building Good Relationships:
the CoYiege Supervisor. I96lT

A Major Role of

Number 22.
New Developments, Research, and Experimentation
in Professional Laboratory. 1964.
Number 24.
Supervising Teacher:
Recommended Standards
for S e l e c t i o n a n d ' F u n c t i o n . 19 66.
Number 28.
Supervisory Conferences as Individualized
Teaching. 1969.

*

Yearbooks and other publications of The Association
for Student Teaching may be obtained from The Association
for Student Teaching, State College of Iowa, Cedar Falls,
Iowa.

84

Unpublished Materials
Barbour, Chandler A.
"A Study of the Change in Objectivity
of Supervising Teachers1 Perceptions About Super­
vising Behavior through the Use of an Observation
Schedule and Conference Guide." Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Wayne State University, 1968.
Bennie, William A.
"An Analysis of Student Teaching and
Supervision at the University of Texas."
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas,
1964.
Butcher, James Alvin.
"An Analytical Study of the
Selection and Preparation of Off-Campus Supervising
Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, American
University, 1966.
Carr, Carolyn J.
"Factors in Constructive Human Relationships
Between College Supervisors and Student Teachers
in Selected Professional Situations." Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1967.
Decoteass, Oniel G.
"Analysis of the Perceptions of
Supervising Teachers Regarding the Duties they
Perform in Connection with the Student Teaching
Program in Select Colleges and Universities in
Louisiana." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University
of Mississippi, 1965.
Graham, Patricia A.
"Status of Inservice Education
Programs for Supervising Teachers and the Develop­
ment of an Inservice Education Course for Super­
vising Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
The University of Texas at Austin, 1968.
Harven, Jeraline D.
"The Supervising Teacher: A Synthesis
of Research Findings and Thought." Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, 1964.
Hill, William Morris.
"The Effects on Verbal Teaching
Behavior of Learning Interaction Analysis as an
In-Service Education Activity." Unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University, 1966.

85

Moskowitz, Gertrude
"The Effect of Training in Interaction
Analysis on the Attitudes and Teaching Patterns
of Cooperating Teachers and Their Student Teachers."
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, 1966.
Ray, William J.
"Assessing the Effects of Observational
Information upon Changes in the Teaching Behavior
Space of Student Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Wayne State University, 1968.

APPENDICES

86

APPENDIX A
LETTERS OP INVITATION TO SUPERVISING
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS CONCERNING
INSERVICE MEETINGS SPONSORED BY
FLINT COLLEGE, UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN

87

THE

UNIVERSITY
FLINT

De p a r t m

ent

of

E

OF

MICHIGAN

COLLEGE

September 17, 1970

d u c a t io n

1321 E.

C o u r t St r e e t

F l i n t , M ic h i g a n 4 8 3 0 3

TO:
FROM:

Supervising Teachers of Elementary and Secondary Student Teachers
Harold Stahly, Chairman, Department of Education, Flint College,
University of Michigan

As a supervising teacher, you are invited to participate in a series of
inservice meetings sponsored by the Education Department at Flint College,
University of Michigan.
The purpose of these meetings is to acquaint you
with the new concepts and developments in teacher education and to assist
you in the complex task of teacher preparation and supervision.
This year it is our pleasure to announce that Mrs. Glenora Andresen will
conduct a series of inservice meetings to a limited number of elementary
and secondary supervising teachers.
The following meetings will be held
at the Sarvls Food Center from 9 to 11 a.m.:
September 30
October 20
November 10

Interaction Analysis
Conference Techniques
Evaluation of the Student Teacher

Your student teachers may assume the teaching duties in your classroom,
while you are attending inservice meetings related to student teaching.
Your principal will, also, be notified of your selection and be invited
to participate in these meetings, if he desires.
We sincerely hope that you will have an opportunity to arrange your
schedule in order to permit you to attend these informative meetings.
If, for any reason, you cannot attend all of these meetings, please let
us know by calling the Education Secretary, Mrs. Black, at 235-7541,
Extension 260, by noon on Wednesday, September 23, 1970.,

89

94
Criterion X ;

The effective supervising teacher shared ideas.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.

Shared ideas, resources and guide materials.
Gave practical suggestions for classroom control,
bulletin boards, and projects.

Criterion X I ;

The effective supervising teacher encouraged
the student teacher to use his own ideas.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.
3.

Experimented cooperatively to determine acceptability
of materials for grade level.
Permitted the student teacher to learn from his own
mistakes when the extent of recovery was not too
serious.
Allowed freedom in use of a variety of materials,
methods, and activities.

Criterion X I I :

The effective supervising teacher provided
for the student teacher to reach his goals.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.

Was sensitive to the goals the student teacher had
set for himself.
Allowed the student teacher an opportunity to test
himself as a teacher and share in evaluating his
progress.

Criterion XIII;

The effective supervising teacher gave the
student teacher an awareness of his
strengths and weaknesses.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.

Evaluated teaching so the student teacher used his
strengths to improve his weaknesses.
Identified weaknesses, then provided time and
guidance for development.

Criterion X I V :

The effective supervising teacher remained
available.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.

Remained where the student teacher could ask for
help.
Used free time to perform other teaching duties in
and out of the room.

95

Criterion X V ;

The effective supervising teacher treated
the student teacher as a teacher.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Introduced the student teacher to the class as
another teacher.
Encouraged children to address their questions to
the student teacher when he was giving the instruc­
tions .
Acquainted the student teacher with the building
and associates at the beginning of student teaching.
Planned for children over a long period of time
with the student teacher.
Gave teaching responsibility to the student teacher
on the first day.

Criterion X V I :

The effective supervising teacher placed
confidence in the student teacher.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.
3.
4.

Built confidence by letting the student teacher work
alone part of the time.
Provided opportunities for experimentation in
learning situations.
Maintained a self-confidence that could be passed on
to the student teacher.
Added increased responsibility gradually as the
student teacher was ready for it.

Criterion XVII:

The effective supervising teacher gave
praise with criticism.

Specific Behaviors
1.
2.
3.

Complimented the student teacher on the growth he
had made.
Used the student teacher's questions as opportuni­
ties for learning.
Commented on the effective aspects of teaching when
pointing out the ineffective.

Criterion XVIII;

The effective supervising teacher had
faith in himself.

Specific Behaviors
1.

Gave adequate directions that left the student
teacher comfortable.

96
2.
3.

Observed -the student teacher in a manner that
left the children sure about whom they were to
follow.
Evaluated the total work of the student teacher
in keeping with previous impressions given to him.

Lois H. Roth, "Selecting Supervising Teachers,"
Journal of Teacher Education, 12:478-481 (December, 1961)

APPENDIX C
POST CARD REMINDER FOR THIRD
INSERVICE SESSION

97

98

The final inservice meeting for supervising
teachers entitled "Evaluation of the Student
Teacher" will be held on Tuesday, November
10 at Sarvis Food Center from 9 to 11 a.m.
G. Andresen
Coordinator

APPENDIX D
POST-TEST QUESTIONNAIRES FOR
SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND
STUDENT TEACHERS

99

THE

UNIVERSITY
FLINT

De p a r t m e n t

of

OF

MICHIGAN

COLLEGE
1321 E.

E d u c a t io n

Fl

in t

, M

C ourt

November 29, 1970

TO:
FROM:

Supervising Teachers of Elementary and Secondary Student
Teachers
Harold Stahly, Department of Education, Flint College,
University of Michigan

In our efforts to initiate appropriate insorvice experiences
for supervising teachers, we are requesting your assistance. En­
closed is a questionnaire which solicits general information related
to your role as a supervising teacher. Your responses will guide
us in determining our approach to selected inservice experiences
for supervising teachers.
Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed return enve­
lope by December 1, 1970. We appreciate your assistance in our
endeavors.
one.
s.i

100

S

ic h ig a n

SUPERVISING TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Which of the following are you now?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

A single student teacher.
A married student teacher.
A supervising (cooperating, sponsoring) teacher.
A supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment in
addition to teaching.
A school administrator.

What is your sex?
a . Male.

b . Female

Which statement below best describes the school in which you teach?
a. Inner-city junior or senior high.
Large suburban high school.
e. Small suburban high school.

b.

d. Inner-city elementary school.
e. Suburban elementary school,
f. Suburban middle school.

How many years of teaching have you completed including this year?
a.
b.

Three or less years.
Four to seven years.

c.
d.

Eight to twelve years.
More than twelve years.

How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the
student teachers with whom you have worked?
a.

Only one.

b.

TWO.

c.

Three.

d.
e.

Four to six.
More than six.

With how many student teachers have you worked in the last 5 years?
a.
b.
c.
d.

One.
Two.
Three.
Four.

e.
f.
g.

Five.
Six to ten.
More than ten.

In this assignment (contact), how was your student teacher scheduled in
student teaching?
a.
b.

Full-time, (eight weeks).
Full-time except he was also
enrolled in a non-student
teaching course.

c.
d.
e.

Half-days (sixteen weeks).
Four classes with one non-student
teaching credit course.
Three classes with two non-studen
teaching credit courses.

In this assignment (contact) how was your student teacher placed?
a.
b.
c.
d.

With
In a
With
In a

you as the single supervising teacher.
team-teaching situation (two or more team members).
two or three different teachers (but not team-teaching).
flexible cluster arrangement.

9. How many weeks is your student teacher scheduled in this assignment (contact)?
a.
b.

8 or 9 weeks.
10 or 11 weeks.

c.
d.

12 to 14weeks.
More than 14 weeks.

10. What is your current teaching assignment?
a.
b.

Junior high school.
Senior high school.

c.
d.

K to 3.
4 to 6.

11. To what subject area are you primarily assigned?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Business Education.
English.
Foreign Language.
Mathematics.
Science (Biology, Chemistry,
Physics).

f. Science (General, Natural, Earth).
g. Social Studies (including History),
h. Social Science— English conibinatioi
i. Other.

12. Did your student teacher bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or diff­
erent instructional materials?
a.
b.

A great many.
Some.

c.

No.

13. Did your student teacher suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas?
a.
b.

A great many.
Some.

c.

No.

14. What use were you able to make of the contributions (13 & 14) of your student
teacher?
a.

I used them.

b.
c.
d.

I did not use them.
I had to discouragehim from contributing too freely.
My student teacher really did not have much to offer.

15. How many hours per week on the average did your student teachers teach your
assigned classes?
a.
b.
e.

Less than an hour aweek.
One to five hours perweek.
Six to ten hours perweek.

d.
e.
f.

Eleven to fifteen hours per week.
Sixteen to twenty hours per week.
More than twenty hours per week.

To what extent did you engage in any of the following activities to further assist
your student teacher in his student teaching assignment
15. Conducted informal conferences?
a.
b.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c.

Not at all.

c.

Not at all.

17. Conducted formal conferences?
a.
b.

A great deal
To some extent

18.

Develop a conference agenda?
a.
b.

19.

Often.
Sometimes.

No.
Don’t know.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

Often.
Sometimes.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

Maintain objectivity during discussions?
a.
b.

23.

c.
d.

Recognize the uncertainities and fears of the student teacher?
a.
b.

22.

No.
Don’t know.

Listen to the comments, suggestions, and explanations of the student teacher'
a. Often.
b . Sometimes.

21.

c.
d.

Record conference plans and results?
a.
b.

20.

Often.
Sometimes.

Often.
Sometimes.

Initiate plans for action?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

24. Give an opportunity for your student teacher to list questions to be discusse
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c.
d.

No.
Don't know.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

25. Held conferences without interruptions?
a. Often.
b . Sometimes.
25. Avoid a useless duplication of topics?
a.
b.
27.

Often.
Sometimes.

Include informal conferneces ’’that just happen" as an important aspect of the
student teaching experience?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

28. Solicit the advice and assistance of the University coordinator?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c.
d.

No.
Don’t know.

4

n evaluating your student teacher did you
9.

Make periodic analysis and constructive suggestions concerning his performance'
a. Often.
b. Sometimes.

0.

Evaluate continuously the progress and performance of your student teacher?
a. Often.
b. Sometimes.

1.

c. No.
d. DonTt know.

Cooperate with your student teacher in the mid term and final evaluations?
Yes.

2.

c. No.
d. Donft know.

No.

Create a climate conducive to meaningful evaluation?
a. Often.
b. Sometimes.

c.
d.

No.
Don't know.

3. Assist in developing skills in planning classroom activities?
a. Often.
b. Sometimes.
4.

c.
d.

No.
Don't know.

Promote a sense of confidence and security in the student teaching experience?
a.
b.

6.

No.
Don't know.

Foster innovation in the classroom?
a. Often,
b. Sometimes.

5.

c.
d.

Often,
Sometimes.

o. No.
d. Don't know.

Seek suggestions and questions?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c. No.
d. Don't know.

7. Encourage responsibility for professional growth?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c. No.
d. Don't know.

18. Provide a basis for discussing goals and setting standards?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c. No.
d. Don't know.

*9. Determine what competencies for student teachers should be developed and
improved?
a.
b.

Often.
Sometimes.

c. No.
d. Don't know.

40.

Stress the importance for self-evaluation?
a.
b.

41.

Often.
Sometimes.

c.
d.

No.
Don't know.

Did you use Flanders Interaction Analysis in working with your student teacher?
a. Frequently.
b. Sometimes.
c. Seldom.

d.
e.

Never.
Don't know.

If you did use Flanders Interaction Analysis, please complete the following questions
If you did not use Flanders Interaction Analysis, do not complete the remainder of
the questionnaire.
In using Flanders Interaction Analysis in working with your student teacher did you
42.

Focus preliminary questions on what happened and how one situation differs from
another?
a.
b.
c.

Frequently,
Sometimes.
Seldom.

d.
e.

Never.
Don't know.

43. Give your student teacher an opportunity to be an observer before being observed
himself?
a.
b.
c.

Frequently.
Sometimes.
Seldom.

d.
e.

Never.
Don't know.

14. Make changes in your own teaching behavior?
a.
b.
c.

Frequently.
Sometimes.
Seldom.

d.
e.

Never.
Don't know.

45. Make changes in the teaching behavior of your student teacher?
a. Frequently.
b. Sometimes.
c. Seldom.

d.
e.

Never.
Don't know.

46. Create in your student teacher a sense of inquiry and experimentation?
a.
b.
c.

Frequently.
Sometimes.
Seldom.

d.
e.

Never.
Don't know.

To what extent did the use of Flanders Interaction Analysis in your classroom?
47, Enable your student teacher to behave in a more indirect manner?
a. Much more.
b. Somewhat more.
c. No change.

d.
e.
f.

Somewhat less.
Much less.
Don't know.

-o-

4-8.

Enable the students in the classroom more freedom to expand their own ideas?
a.
b.
c.

49.

Much more.
Somewhat more.
No change.

d.
e.
f.

Somewhat less.
Much less.
Don’t know.

Much more.
Somewhat more.
No change.

d.
e.
f.

Somewhat less.
Much less.
Don't know.

Demonstrate that your student teacher trained in the system shows evidence of
significant positive change in attitudes toward teaching as compared with othe
student teachers not trained in the system?
a.
b.
c.

52.

Somewhat less.
Much less.
DonTt know.

Enable your strident teacher to accept student ideas and student behavior?
a.
b.
c.

51.

d.
e.
f.

Train your student teacher to initiate more pupil talk?
a.
b.
c.

50.

Much more.
Sometimes.
No change.

Much more.
Somewhat more.
No change.

d.
e.
f.

Somewhat less.
Mfcieh less.
Don’t know.

Help your student teacher gain insight into teaching by providing a tool which
can be used both to gain self-awareness and to change behavior?
a. Much more.
b. Somewhat more.
c. No change.

d.
e.
f.

Somewhat less.
Much less.
Don’t know.

THE

UNIVERSITY
FLINT

Departm ent

of

OF

MICHIGAN

COLLEGE

E d u c a t io n

1321 E . C o u r t S t r e e t
F l i n t , M ic h i g a n 4 8 5 0 3

November 2**t 1970

TO:
FROM:

Elementary and Secondary Student Teachers
Harold Stahly, Department of Education, Flint College,
University of Michigan

in our efforts to initiate appropriate inservice experiences
for our supervising teachers, we are requesting your assistance.
Enclosed is a questionnaire which solicits general information re­
lated to your role as a student teacher. Your responses will guide
us in determining our approach to selected inservice experiences
for supervising teachers.
Please return this questionnaire in the enclosed return enve­
lope by December 10, 1970. We appreciate your assistance in our
endeavors.
enc.
sj

107

STUDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Which statement below best describes the school in which you did your student
teaching?
a. Inner-city high school
b. Large suburban high school
c. Small suburban high school

d.
e.
f.

Inner-city elementary school
Suburban elementary school
Suburban middle school

What was your status as a student when you did your student teaching?
a.
b.

Had junior standing
Had senior standing

c.

Had BA or BS degree

What is your all-college grade point average?
a.
b.
c.

Below 2.0
2.0-2.5
2.5-3.0

d.
e.

(Scale:

A»4, B»3, 0 2 ,

D-l, F-0)

3.0-3.5
above 3.5

How old were you at the beginning of this student teaching assignment (contact)?
a.
b.
c.

21 years or under
21 to 24 years
25 to 30 years

d.
e.

31 to 40 years
Over 40 years

In this assignment (contact), how much time were you scheduled in student
teaching?
a.
b.
c.

Full-time (all day assignment)
Four classes — one non-student teaching credit course
Three classes -- two non-student teaching credit courses.

In this assignment (contact), how were you placed?
a.
b.
c.
d.

With
In a
With
In a

a single supervising teacher.
team-teaching situation (two or more team members).
two or three different teachers (but not team-teaching).
flexible cluster arrangement.

How many weeks long is your current assignment (contact)?
a.
b.

8 or 9 weeks
10 or 11 weeks

c.
d.

12 to 14 weeks
more than 14weeks

What is your primary current student teaching assignment (contact)?
a.
b.

Junior High School
Senior High School

c.
d.

Kindergarten to 3
4 to 6

9.

How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the
physical presence (close enough to see or talk with) of your supervising
teacher?
a.
b.
c.
d.

Less than 10
10 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25

e.
f.
g.
h.

26 to
31 to
36 to
More

30
35
40
than 40

To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in the following activities
because of your presence?
10.

Planning with you
a.

1.

c.

Not at all

A great many extra hours.
Some extra hours.

c.

No extra hours.

Has
made him a much more effective teacher.
Has
made him a more effective teacher.
H a b 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.

What recommendation would you give your friends about accepting a student teachin
assignment in the same school with the same supervising teacher (or in the same
project)?
a.
b.
c.

15.

A great deal
To some extent

What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the perfor
mance of your supervising teacher?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

14.

Some hours

Evaluating your progress and activities.
a.
b.

13.

b.

Observing your teaching performance
a.
b.

12.

A great many hours

Accept with enthusiasm
Accept.
Be neutral.

d. Try for a different assignment.
e. Reject the assignment.

To what extent have your supervising teacher and/or other school personnel been
helpful to you on matters not directly concerned with student teaching?
a.
b.
c.
d.

They have gone out of their way to be helpful.
They have helped when asked.
They have not helped.
No such help was needed.

109

To what extent do you perceive your supervising teacher as possessing the following
professional attitudes and beliefs.
16.

Possesses a positive attitude towards teaching.
a.
b.

17.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't Know.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know,

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Understands his responsibilities and can describe them clearly.
a.
b.

24.

A great deal
To some extent.

Tends to do creative thinking in his area of professional responsibility.
a.
b.

23.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Demonstrates that his work is a result of organized planning guided by
identified objectives.
a.
b.

22.

Many times.
To some extent.

Reveals his competence as a scholar in his area of teaching responsibility.
a.
b.

21.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Assists learners to develop objective attitudes toward self-improvement.
a.
b.

20.

A great deal.
To some extent.

Welcomes the opportunity to experiment with innovative practices in the
classroom.
a.
b.

19.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Believes that working with student teachers is an important contribution to
the teaching profession.
a.
b.

18.

A great deal.
To some extent.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Expresses himself effectively both orally and in writing.
a.
b.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

110
i

25.

Possesses a working knowledge of sound principles of human learning.
a.
b.

26.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

A great deal.
To some extent

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Makes effective use of consultant and supervisory personnel and services.
a.
b.

30.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Demonstrates ability to challenge learners.
a.
b.

29.

A great deal.
To some extent.

Utilizes a variety of information needed to understand the learner.
a.
b.

28.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Demonstrates acceptance and understanding of individual differences.
a.
b.

27.

A great deal.
To some extent

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Demonstrates an active acquaintance with the organizations and literature
of his profession.
a.
b.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

To what extent did your supervising teacher reflect his understanding of person­
ality development of himself and others?
31.

Demonstrates a respect for the worth and dignity of others, adults and children
a.
b.

32.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Possesses the skills and understanding for developing effective team-working
relationships and can apply these strengths in working with colleagues and
student teachers in interpreting theory and practice.
a.
b.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

33. Demonstrates emotional stability.
a.
b.

A great deal.
To some extent.

c. Not at all.
d. Don't know.

Ill

34.

Evaluates himself objectively.
a.
b.

35.

c.
d.

N o t at all.
D o n ' t know.

c.
d.

N o t at all.
D o n ' t know.

Is optimistic and open-minded.
a.
b.

36.

A great deal.
To some extent.

A great deal.
To some extent.

Did your supervising teacher engage in conducting informal or formal con­
ferences during your student teaching experience?
Yes

No

If the answer is "YES" to the above question, complete questions 37-47.
37.

Develop a conference agenda?
a.
b.

38.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

Often
Sometimes

c. No
d . Don't know

Maintain objectivity during discussions?
a.
b.

42.

c. No
d . Don't know

Recognize your uncertainties and fears?
a.
b.

41.

Often
Sometimes

Listen to your comments, suggestions, and explanations?
a.
b.

40.

c. No
d . Don't know

Record conference plans and results?
a.
b.

39.

Often
Sometimes

Often
Sometimes

c. No
d . Don't know

Initiate plans for action?
a.
b.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

112

No
Don't know

43.

Give you an opportunity to list questions to be discussed?
a.
b.

44.

Often
Sometimes

. c.
d.

No
Don't know

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

Include informal conferences "that just happen" as an important aspect of
the student teaching experience?
a.
b.

47.

No
Don't know

Avoid a useless duplication of topics?
a.
b.

46.

c.
d.

Held conferences without interruptions?
a.
b.

45.

Often
Sometimes

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

Solicit the advice and assistance of the university coordinator?
a.
b.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

In the evaluative process, did your supervising teacher lead you:
48.

To understand your strengths and weaknesses?
a.
b.

49.

c.
d.

No
Don't know

c.
d.

No
Don't know

To fear the outcomes of evaluation?
a.
b.

50.

Often
Sometimes

Often
Sometimes

To be more innovative in your approach to the classroom?
a.
b.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

51. To develop a sense of confidence and security in the student teaching
experience?
a.
b.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

32. To develop skills In planning classroom activities?
a.
b.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.
113

No
Don't know

53.

To assume responsibility for professional growth?
a.
b.

54.

No
Don't know

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

Often
Sometimes

o.
d.

No
Don't know

To consider to what extent competencies should be developed and Improved?
a.
b.

59.

c.
d.

To provide a basis for discussing goals and setting standards?
a.
b.

58.

Often
Sometimes

To understand that evaluation is a continuous process?
a.
b.

57.

No
Don't know

To cooperate with him in your mid-term and final evaluations.
a.
b.

56.

c.
d.

To solicit suggestions and ask questions?
a.
b.

55.

Often
Sometimes

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

To understand the importance for selv-evaluation?
a.
b.

Often
Sometimes

c.
d.

No
Don't know

To what extent did your supervising teacher:
60.

Use Flanders Interaction Analysis in working with you?
a.
b.
c.

61.

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

d.
e.

Never
Don't know

Focus preliminary questions on what happened and how one situation differs
from another?
a.
b.
c.

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

d.
e.

114

Never
Don't know

62.

Give you an opportunity to be an observer before being observed yourself?
a.
b.
c.

63.

D o n 't k n o w

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

d . Never
e. Don1t know

Make changes in your teaching behavior?
a.
b.
c.

65.

e.

Make changes In his own teaching behavior?
a.
b.
c.

64.

d . Never

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

d . Never
e . Don1t know

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

Create In you a sense of inquiry and experimentation In your classroom.
a.
b.
c.

d . Never
e . Don1t know

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

Did your supervising teacher use Flanders Interaction Analysis in analyzing your
teaching behavior?
Yes
No
If the answer is "YES" complete Questions 66-72.
To what extent did the use of Flanders Interaction Analysis in your classroom:
66.

Enable you to behave in a more indirect manner?
a. Much more
b. Somewhat more
c. No change

67.

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less
f. Don't know

Enable the students in the classroom more freedom to expand their own ideas?
a. Much more
b. Somewhat more
c. No change

68.

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less

Train you to initiate more pupil talk?
a. Much more
b. Somewhat more
c. No change

69.

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less
f. Don't know

Enable you to accept student ideas and student behavior?
a. Much more
b. Somewhat more
c. No change

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less
f. Don't know
115

70.

Develop a more positive attitude toward teaching as compared to other
student teachers not trained In the system.
a.
b.
c.

71.

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less
f. Don't know

Help you to gain more self-awareness of your teaching behavior?
a.
b.
c.

72.

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less
f. Don't know

Help you to change your teaching behavior, when appropriate to the specific
situation ?
a.
b.
c.

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

d. Somewhat less
e. Much less
f. Don't know

116

APPENDIX E
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, FLINT
COLLEGE STUDENT TEACHING
EVALUATION

117

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN-FLINT COLLEGE

Name

STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION
Grade Level, Courses
1

(FINAL)
Supervising Teacher
1

2

a

_5

College Coordinator
1,

2

3

4

5

Code

Working with People

1. Serious Difficulty

Classroom Management

2. Needs Inprovement

Planning for Instruction

-

Knowledge of Subject

Above Average

Personal & Professional
Qualities

SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT.

3. Acceptable

5• Outstanding

(Mention qualities that the student teacher has demonstrated or lacked and indicate
any potentialities or reconmendations you may have regarding his future assignments.)

Supervising Teacher— School

Date

Coordinator— University of Michigan Date
Flint College

EXPLANATION OF STUDENT TEACHING EVALUATION FORM
I. WORKING WITH PEOPLE
1. Maintains reasonable level of expectations from pupils.
2. Retains adult status while working at pupilTs level.
3. Gains confidence and respect of pupils.
4. Works successfully with pupils of various backgrounds.
5. Relates with staff members in a comfortable manner.
6. Seeks and uses suggestions from staff and administration.
7. Seeks opportunity to meet and talk with parents.
8. Communicates effectively with parents in a mature and profess­
ional manner.
II.

CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
1. Assists pupils in developing habits of democratic living.
2. Handles discipline problems effectively.
3. Demonstrates both a permissive and authoritative manner when
appropriate to a classroom situation.
4. Demonstrates that he is judicious and fair with all pupils.
5. Provides for group discussion and pupil participation. In­
volves pupils in appropriate decision-making situations.
6. Gains confidence and respect of students.
7. Moves to specific learning activities as group shows readiness.
8. Paces activities so that interest lag among pupils is minimized.
9. Uses methods designed to reach and maintain attention of b U
pupils•
10. Arranges and provides for facilities in the classroom conducive
to optimum learning (chairs, tables, library corners, bulletin
boards, etc.)
11. Adjusts pupil activity to the instructional situation.
12. Considers and attends to factors related to pupil safety and
comfort.
13. Gives directions and makes assignments in a specific manner.
14. Introduces and implements daily plans meaningfully.
15. Uses variety of teaching techniques and in an effective manner
a variety of audio-visual aids and supplementary materials.
16. Teaches planned units effectively.
17. Manages instructionso that pupils are interested and motivated
to learn.
18. Uses types of reasoning appropriate to pupil level and compre­
hension .
19. Develops a questioning attitude and intellectual curiosity in
pupils•
20. Develops effective processes of problem solving and critical
thinking on the part of pupils.
21. Works effectively with pupils in small groups.
22• Works effectively with pupils in large groups (entire class).
23. Evidences awareness of interest and attention span of pupils.
24. Recognizes the needfor reteaching at appropriate intervals.
25. Deals appropriatelywith unexpected situations as they develop.
26. Shows ability to use smoothly spontaneous situations to achieve
aims.
27. Adapts instruction to changing needs of pupils and class.

III.

PLANNING FOR INSTRUCTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
G.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

IV.

Shows evidence of consistent reading, study, and time spent on
gathering information for his teaching plans,
Demonstrates recognition of appropriate use of textbook.
Selects appropriate teaching materials and has them imnediately
available for use when needed.
His plans for short-term (daily) and long-term (unit or project)
work are thoroughly made.
His plans show that he considers sequence and continuity of
pupil experiences as key factors in learning.
When suitable, plans for a field trip and/or use of community
resources in his teaching.
Studies individual pupil and school records carefully as a
basis for evaluating pupil progress.
Recognizes individual differences in evaluating pupil performanc
Uses a wide variety of procedures for appraising pupil achieve­
ment.
Makes evaluations in a judicious and fair manner in terms of the
purposes of the subject or grade taught.
Recognizes the importance of parent-teacher conferences in
evaluation.

KNOWLEDGE OF SUBJECT
1. Is able prepared in the subjects and/or grades he is assigned
to teach.
2. Has shown persistence in seeking added information and knowledge
from many sources in his teaching subjects this term.
3. Has sought help and suggestions from specialists and consultants
in subject areas where needed.
4. Has a variety of teaching materials in his subject and/or grade.
5. Is able to relate his area of knowledge to other areas of
knowledge •

V.

PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALITIES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7
8
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
m.

.
.

Is rarely absent because of illness.
Demonstrates physical stamina and enthusiasm for teaching.
Appears to be emotionally stable.
Tends toward flexibility rather than rigidity in thought and
behavior patterns.
Exhibits an appropriate sense of humor.
Dresses appropriately. Always neat and well groomed.
Carries out all tasks effectively and on time.
Trustworthy in all respects.
Accepts and profits from constructive criticism.
Demonstrates ability for self-evaluation.
Reveals genuine interest in pupils.
Is sensitive to feelings and needs of others.
Adjusts voice appropriately to the instructional situation,
Uses spoken language correctly and effectively.

15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.

Writes effectively and legibly.
Spells correctly.
Participates willingly in school and faculty activities.
Seeks opportunity to assume responsibility.
Shows interest in and hdlps supervise pupils in extra-class
activities•
Shows persistence in completion of tasks.
Behaves in ethical and professional manner.

APPENDIX F
ASSESSMENT OF SUPERVISING TEACHER
INSERVICE SEMINARS

122

ASSESSMENT OF SUPERVISING TEACHER INSERVICE SEMINARS

1.

What seminars would you suggest as being important enough to repeat
for each succeeding group.

2.

In your estimation, which seminars were of most value to you in your
role as a supervising teacher.

3.

Use this space to communicate any additional information, suggestions,
criticisms, or comments about inservice training for supervising
teachers.

123

APPENDIX G
MASTER STUDENT TEACHER
EVALUATION FORM

124

MASTER STUDENT TEACHER EVALUATION FORM
Fall, 1970

Supervising Teacher
1
2
3
4
5

College'coordinator
1
2
3
4___5

Code

(forking with People

__ ____________

1. Serious Difficulty

Classroom Management

__ ______ __

2. Needs Improvement

Planning for I n s t r u c t i o n ____________________

3. Acceptable

Knowledge of Subject_______ ____________________

4. Above Average

Personal & P r o f e s s i o n a l ____________________

5. Outstanding

Qualities
NAME

__

125