I

/

I

71-31,223
HELDER, William James, 1932AN EVALUATION OF THE PREPARATION OF JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AT MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971
Education, teacher training

U n iv e rs ity M icro film s, A XEROX C o m p a n y , A n n A rb o r, M ich ig an

AN EVALUATION OF THE PREPARATION OF JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY
By
William J? Helder

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum
1971

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

ABSTRACT
AN EVALUATION OF THE PREPARATION OF JUNIOR
HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY
By
William J. Helder

Since its beginnings in the first decade of the
century, the junior high school and its more recently
emerging counterpart, the middle school, have grown im­
pressively.
Programs to prepare teachers for the junior high
or middle school have not been developed with parallel
vitality.
This has resulted in a teaching milieu which has
little self-identity; one which is too often a grey area
where some are waiting for "promotion" to senior high
schools and some, prepared for elementary teaching,

find

themselves in junior high by default.
Students in the age group served by the junior
high or middle school have done nothing to deserve this
type of educational second-class citizenship.

They are,

for the most part, a spirited, curious group of early

William J. Helder
adolescents who deserve leadership prepared to meet: their
needs.
Michigan State University has developed a program
for the preparation of junior high school teachers.

It

was the purpose of this study to determine what graduates
of the Junior High Teacher Preparation Program of the
College of Education, Michigan State University, judge to
be the most significant areas of preparation for a junior
high school teaching position;

to determine the effective­

ness of the Junior High Teacher Preparation Program as
judged by graduates of the program; to determine the areas
in which the Junior High Teacher Preparation Program needs
to be strengthened; to determine the number of graduates
of the Junior High Teacher Preparation Program who actually
teach at that level;

to determine the factors which in­

fluence their choice of the Junior High Preparation Program
and to determine the factors causing qualified graduates
to reject a career in the junior high classroom.
A questionnaire was developed which would provide
an opportunity for graduates to evaluate eighteen com­
ponents of a pre-service program which they felt were most
significant to a junior high school teacher's effectiveness
and to rate the Michigan State University program on the
quality of preparation in each of the areas listed.
Two opportunities were provided for open-ended
responses concerning additional areas of preparation

William J. Helder
considered necessary for a pre-service program and any
comments respondents might want to make on the nature of
the junior h igh school.
In order

to provide comparative data, the areas

of significance listed on the questionnaire paralleled
those developed by Dean in his 1956 study of a preparation
p r o gram for junior-high-school teachers.1
In a d d i t i o n , respondents were asked a variety of
questions concerning their teaching careers and their
reasons

for choosing the Junior High Preparation Program.
All of the graduates of the Junior High Prepar­

ation Program between the years
copies of the questionnaire.

1960 and 1967 were sent

Of the 120 graduates,

78

responded.
F r o m the analysis of the opinions expressed by the
graduates of the Junior High Preparation Program, it seems
reasonable to conclude that:
1.

The junior high or middle school is a distinctive
enough teaching situation to require a specialized
preparation program.

This conclusion is confirmed

by the Dean study.
2.

Student teaching in a junior high school or middle
school situation, pre-student teaching experience
w ith junior high or middle school students in
situations provided by the university,

and a

seminar focusing on the nature of the junior high

William J. Helder
school and its students should be a part of the
preparation program for every student.
3.

As viewed by the respondents in this study, the
following five areas of preparation are most sig­
nificant for junior high school teachers:

human

growth and development, guidance and counseling,
special methods of teaching, reading methods, and
general education.
(These areas are identical to those reported
in the Dean study although the internal ranking
varies.2
The application of these areas of preparation
to the middle school situation is significantly
strengthened by the Dean study which reports the
same five areas rank at the top for upperelementary-school teachers although in a different
internal order.)^
4.

The area of reading methods is the single most
critical area for strengthening the Michigan State
University Preparation Program.

5.

Classroom management, guidance and counseling, and
special methods of teaching are additional areas
which should be considered for revision to increase
their effectiveness.

6.

Greater emphasis should be given to audio-visual
techniques and human relations experiences in the
total Junior High Preparation Program.

Wil l i a m J. Helder
7.

The Jun i o r High Preparation Program should be given
greater visibility in the College of Education
since the influence of faculty members seems to be
the m o s t important university-controlled factor in
the

8.

The

selection of the junior high program.
n u m b e r of graduates teaching at the junior high

school level is not below national averages.
9.

The

factors causing rejection of a junior high

career are most often related to a preference for
the elementary age group or the more generalized
elementary teaching situation.

Leland W. Dean, "A Preparation Program for JuniorHigh-School Teachers'' (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1956).
(Hereinafter referred
to as "Preparation P r o g r a m . ")
2 I b i d . , p. 74.

3Ibid.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study could never have been completed w i t h o u t
the patience and assistance provided by Dr. Charles A.
Blackman w h o serv e d as chairman of the guidance committee.
The debt of gratitude is willingly acknowledged.
The writer wishes to express his appreciation to
Dr. Keith P. Anderson, Dr. William K. Durr, Dr. John B.
Harrison,

and Dr. Daniel Jacobson for their cooperation as

members of the guidance committee.
Acknowledgment is also due Dr. Charles G. Eberly
of the Office of Evaluation Services for his suggestions
and advice concerning the statistical treatment of the data
and to Mrs.

Gail E. Nutter for providing background i n f o r ­

mation .
To my wife, L e o n o r e , my deepest thanks are due for
the depth o f her understanding.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

II.

Page

INTRODUCTION ..............................

1

The Problem.............................
Strengths of theS t u d y ..................
Limitations ofthe Study
................
Overview.................................

5
8
8
9

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

12

Functions of the Junior High School.
.
Preparation of the Junior High School
T e a c h e r .............................
S u m m a r y .................................
III.

IV.

12
14
24

M E T H O D O L O G Y ..............................

26

Development of the Rating Form
. . .
Obtaining the Ratings
................
S u m m a r y .................................

26
30
33

ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ....................

36

Description of the Population.
. . .
Need for Junior High Preparation
P r o g r a m .............................
Preparation Areas of Greatest
Significance..........................
Critical Areas
Student Teaching
Correlation Coefficients Between
Ratings of Significance and Effec­
tiveness .............................
Factors Influencing Choice of Junior
High Program
Previous Experience with Junior High
Age Students..........................
Graduates as Teachers
................
Reasons for Never Entering Junior
High T e a c h i n g .......................

36

iii

38
39
44
47
48
48
52
54
55

Chapter

Page
Reasons for Leaving Junior High School
T e a c h i n g .............................
S u m m a r y .................................

V.

VI.

UNSTRUCTURED

RESPONSES..................

56
57
61

Negative Experiences....................
Specific Recommendations for Program
Change.................................
Nature of Junior High School Teacher
.......................
Certification
S u m m a r y .................................

65

SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S .................

77

Conclusions.............................
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .......................
Suggestions for Further Research.
.

79
82
88

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

68
73
75

90

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

Questionnaire Developed to Gather Data

B.

Initial Cover Letter

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

97

C.

Second Cover Letter.......................

98

D.

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings
for Each of the Eighteen Program Com­
ponents Submitted to Respondents
. . .

99

E.

.

Michigan State University, College of
Education, Junior High School Teacher
Preparation Program, Revised Winter,
1966.......................................

iv

93

117

!

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

4.1.

Total Graduates and Respondents by Year .

4.2.

Geographic Distribution of Respondents by
F r e q u e n c y ..................................

38

Ranking of the Eight Preparation Areas of
Greatest Importance ........................

41

Comparative Significance Ratings of Fifteen
Preparation A r e a s ...........................

43

4.3.
4.4.
4.5.
4.6.
4.7.
4.8.
D.l.
D.2.
D.3.
D.4.
D.5.

.

Comparison of Significance Ratings with
Ineffectiveness of Preparation Ratings.

.

37

45

Correlation Coefficients Between Ratings of
Significance and Effectiveness
. . . .

49

Factors Influencing Choice of the Junior
High Preparation Program
.................

50

Experience w ith Junior High Age Group
Prior to Program C h o i c e ....................

53

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
General Education, i.e., Survey Courses

.

99

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Specialized Subject M a t t e r .................

100

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Guidance and C o u n s e l i n g ....................

101

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Audio-Visual
...............................

102

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Sociology of Education ....................

10 3

v

Table
D.6.
D.7.
D.8.
D.9.
D.10.
D.ll.
D.12.
D.13.
D.14.
D.15.
D.16.
D.17.
D.18.

Page
Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
History and Philosophy ...................

104

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Special Methods of Teaching
.............

105

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Human Growth and D e v e l o p m e n t .............

106

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Learning Theory
..........................

107

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Special Education..........................

10 8

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Reading Methods
..........................

109

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Core C u r r i c u l u m ..........................

110

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Classroom Management.......................

Ill

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Human R e l a t i o n s ..........................

112

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Tests.......................................

113

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Junior High Seminar . . . . . . . .

114

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Pre-Student Teaching Experience . . . .

115

Significance and Effectiveness Ratings for
Student Teaching ..........................

116

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The report of the Commission on the Reorganization
of Secondary Education released in 1918 recommended:
We . . . recommend a reorganization of the school
system whereby the first six years shall be devoted
to elementary education designed to m eet the needs of
pupils approximately 6 to 12 years of age; and the
second six years to be secondary education designed
to meet the needs of pupils approximately 12 to 18
years of age.
The six years to be devoted to secondary education
may well be divided into two periods w h ich may be
designated as the junior and senior periods.
In the
junior period emphasis should be placed upon the
attempt to help the pupil explore his own aptitudes
and make at least provisional choice of the kinds of
work to which he shall devote himself.
In the senior
period emphasis should be given to training in the
fields thus chosen.
This distinction lies at the
basis of the organization of the junior and senior
high schools.
In the junior high school there should be a
gradual introduction of departmental instruction,
some choice of subjects under guidance, promotion by
subjects, prevocational courses, and a social o r g a n i ­
zation that calls forth initiative and develops the
sense of personal responsibility for the welfare of
the g r o u p .^

Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary
Education, Cardinal Principles of Secondary E d u c a t i o n ,
Bulletin No” 33 (Washington, D . c". : Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Education, 1918), pp. 12-13.

1

2
Despite a lack of consensus on the merits of the
junior high as a separate institution and the lack of
teachers trained specifically for the junior high, its
growth was impressive.

In 1934 there were 1,948 separate

junior high schools in the United States.

By the 1963-64

school year, that number had risen to 6,606.

Of these

totals, the state of Michigan counted 91 separate junior
high schools in 1934 and 399 in the 1963-64 school year.

2

This rapid growth rate is not completely a result
of the appeal of the junior high school as an institution.
Since the early part of the century, schools have increased
their holding power and the population as a whole has
steadily increased.

Still, the need for teachers to staff

these junior high schools has increased with the rising
number of separate junior high schools being built.
In its Guidelines for Junior High and Middle
School Education, the National Association of Secondary
School Principals states that ideally:
The junior high or middle school is staffed by teachers,
principals, and other staff members who are interested
and have special competence in working with this age
group.
Salary and personnel policies of the school
system reflect the need to attract and retain special­
ized teachers for this l e v e l . 3
2

William Van Til, Gordon V a r s , and John Lounsbury,
Modern Education for the Junior High School Years (2nd e d . ;
Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., T967),
p. 40.
(Hereinafter referred to as Modern Education.)
3
Gordon F. Vars, e d . , Guidelines for Junior High
and Middle School Education (Washington, D ,C .: National
Association of Secondary School Principals, 1966), p. 16.
(Hereinafter referred to as Guidelines.)

3
They go on -to recommend that:
Colleges and universities provide programs specifically
designed to prepare staff members for the junior high
or middle schools.
State education departments promote
this aim through appropriate policies and p r o c e d u r e s . 4
To digress briefly at this point, one might note
that the title of the publication from which the preceding
quotation was taken treats the junior high school and the
middle school as sufficiently congruent to permit the
guidelines to apply interchangeably.

This is, perhaps,

significant in view of the quantity of material which has
been written in recent months to differentiate between the
two methods of organization.

For, in the final analysis,

the middle school is little more than a restructuring of
age groups and buildings with the rationale for curriculum
a restatement of the original goals of the junior high.
The North Central Association has proposed that
consideration be given in staffing the junior high school,
"to the selection of staff members prepared specifically
for and/or having teaching experience in the junior high
school."

5

This would seem to be quite unrealistic in

light of the fact that there is a conspicuous lack of
undergraduate programs designed to prepare teachers

^ Ibid. , p. 17.
5

North Central Association of Colleges and Second­
ary Schools, Policies, Principles, and Standards for the
Approval of Junior High Schools (Proposed?* (Chicago:
North Central Association of Colleges andSecondary
Schools, 1966), p. 13.

4
specifically for the junior high school.

Indeed, there is

doubt in the minds of some administrators about the
practicality of a program which provides credentials
which will limit a prospective teacher to a relatively
narrow grade/age range in seeking employment.
The College of Education, Michigan State Uni­
versity,

is one of the institutions of higher learning

which has sought to implement a program for the prepar­
ation of teachers for the junior high school years.
Dean concluded, in a study of preparation programs
for junior high school teachers, that a majority of
teachers who have had experience in the junior high school
believed that a separate preparation program for teachers
at this instructional level should be offered but that of
the two common types of teacher preparation programs then
available, the elementary training program offered the
better possibilities for producing adequately prepared
junior high school teachers.**
In March of 1958, the College of Education, Michi­
gan State University, requested permission from the State
Board of Education to offer, on a five-year experimental
b a s i s , a teacher preparation program that would give
greater emphasis to the junior high school level of in­
struction.

This permission was granted to the College of

Education and a program was inaugurated.

**Dean, "Preparation Program."

The main

5
elements of this newly inaugurated program were cited
in a memorandum to Michigan State University coordinators
in April, 1959, as:

"A strengthening of the preparation

in majors and minors, a modification of the professional
course requirements, and a student teaching experience at
the junior high school level."
At Michigan State University there have been,
since 1958, three routes to a teaching position in the
junior high school, i.e., elementary,

secondary,

and the

junior high program itself.
There is some feeling that the Junior High Prepa­
ration Program is in need of an evaluation and that it
should be given greater visibility.
The emergence of the middle school concept will
undoubtedly raise some questions concerning teacher
preparation.

This tends to reinforce the need for evalu­

ation of teacher preparation for the junior high/middle
school age group.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
It is the purpose of this study:

(1) to deter­

mine what graduates of the Junior High Teacher Preparation
Program of the College of Education, Michigan state Uni­
versity, judge to be the most significant areas of
preparation for a junior high school teaching position;
(2) to determine the effectiveness of the Junior High

6
Teacher Preparation Program as judged by graduates of the
program?

(3) to determine the areas in which the Junior

High Teacher Preparation Program needs to be strengthened?
(4) to determine the number of graduates of the Junior
High Teacher Preparation Program who actually teach at
that level;

(5) to determine the factors which influence

the choice of the Junior High Preparation Program;

(6) to

determine the factors causing qualified graduates to
reject a career in the junior high classroom.
Importance of the Study
Few teacher preparation institutions have shown
evidence that they consider the preparation of teachers
for the junior high school as distinctive enough to merit
a specialized program.

As a result, it is difficult for

a school administrator to hire a teacher prepared specifi­
cally for junior high school teaching.
This situation persists despite the fact that it
is during the junior high years that most students enter
adolescence.
In delineating the nature of adolescence, John E.
Horrocks presents the following:
1.

Adolescence tends to be a time of seeking status
as an individual. There is a tendency to attempt
emancipation from childish submission to parental
authority, and in general a struggle against
relationships with adults where the adolescent is
subordinated on the basis of inferiority in age,
experience, and skill.
It is a period of emerging
and developing vocational interests and striving
toward economic independence.

7
2.

3.

4.

5.

Adolescence tends to be a time when group relation­
ships become of major importance.
The adolescent
is usually most anxious to attain status with, and
recognition by, his age mates.
He tends to desire
intensely to conform to the actions and standards
of his peers.
It is also a time of emerging hetero­
sexual interests that bring complexity and sometimes
conflict to emotions and activities.
Adolescence is a time of physical development and
growth that forms a continuous pattern common to
the race, but idiosyncratic to the individual.
During this period there is a rapid altering of
the body, and revision of the body image and
habitual motor patterns.
It is during this time
that physical maturity is attained.
Adolescence tends to be a time of intellectual
expansion and development, and academic experience.
The individual finds himself in the position of
having to adjust to increasing academic and intel­
lectual requirements.
He is asked to acquire many
skills and concepts useful at some future time but
often lacking immediate motivation.
It is a time
when an individual is gaining experience and
knowledge in many areas and is interpreting his
environment in the light of that experience.
Adolescence tends to be a time of development and
of evaluation of values.
The quest for the con­
trolling values around which the individual may
integrate his life is accompanied by an increasing
awareness of "self," development of self ideals,
and acceptance of self in harmony with those
ideals.
It is a time of conflict between youthful
idealism and reality.7
Thus, we have a situation in which the student

group is undergoing a time of tremendous stress, a time of
struggle against subordinate relationships with adults,
a time of intellectual expansion often lacking immediate
motivation and we provide no clearly defined preparation
program for the teachers who are to guide this student
group.
7
John E . Horrocks, The Psychology of Adolescence
(2nd e d . ; Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), pp.
25-26.

8
By identifying elements of preparation judged as
significant by graduates of the Junior High Preparation
Program, some direction can be suggested for the continued
development of such programs.
By rating the effectiveness of preparation in given
areas of the program at Michigan State University, specific
areas can be identified as in need of strengthening.

Strengths of the Study
A particular strength of this study is the oppor­
tunity it affords to compare the ratings of identical sets
of program components by two populations of experienced
teachers separated in time by over a decade.

The simi­

larity of the ratings despite the passage of over ten
years gives increased importance to the components identi­
fied as significant for the preparation of junior high
school teachers.
Limitations of the Study
One limitation inherent in the sample is the fact
that all respondents were graduates of the same institution.
While this provides maximum effectiveness in generating
recommendation for change at that institution, it limits
the generalizations from these data to other institutions
within the state and throughout the country.
A second limitation results from the nature of the
population.

Ratings were solicited only from graduates of

the program.

While this provides a valuable insight into

program areas which are in need of strengthening, it
represents only one point of view since comparable ratings
were not solicited from Michigan State University faculty
nor from junior high school administrators.
Findings of this study were based upon, and stated
within the limitations of the assumed validity of, data
obtained from the questionnaire method.

It should be

pointed out, however, that signing the questionnaire was
optional.

This was intended to assure the respondent that

there was no latent threat should tie return to Michigan
State University to continue his education after returning
a negative questionnaire.

Overview
In Chapter II of this study, the literature related
to the objectives of the junior high and the middle school
is briefly reviewed.

The literature related to preparation

programs for junior high/middle school teachers is reviewed
in greater detail.
In Chapter III, the methodology employed in gather­
ing the data and the procedures of reporting them is
described.

A rating instrument was developed which sought

an evaluation of eighteen components of a pre-service pro­
gram for junior high school teachers.

10
Respondents were also asked to rate the effective­
ness of their preparation in each of the eighteen areas by
Michigan State University.
In addition, respondents were asked a variety of
questions concerning their teaching careers and their
reasons for choosing the Junior High Preparation Program.
All of the graduates of the Junior High Preparation
Program between the years 1960 and 1967 were sent copies of
the questionnaire.
In Chapter IV the findings of the questionnaire
are reported.
Percentages of respondents who felt that the junior
high school was a distinctive enough teaching situation to
merit a specialized preparation program and those who felt
they would take the Michigan State University program again
are calculated.
The five areas of greatest significance to junior
high teachers are tabulated and compared with findings of
an earlier study.
Areas in critical need of strengthening are
identified.
Factors influencing the choice of the junior high
program and prior experience with the junior high age group
are tabulated and rated in terms of degree of influence.
The percentage of graduates currently teaching in
the junior high school is calculated and reasons for never

11
entering junior high school teaching or for leaving it
are explored.
Data obtained from a rating scale, while more
readily accessible, often does riot reveal a personalized
dimension which can sometimes be obtained from an openended question.

Respondents were given two opportunities

for unstructured responses.

The first opportunity per­

mitted them to add areas of preparation which they judged
important to the list of eighteen provided in the question­
naire.

The second opportunity encouraged responses to an

open-ended question on the entire area of the junior high
school and the preparation required for junior high
teachers.
The data generated from these two unstructured
opportunities are categorized and reported in Chapter V.
In Chapter VI, the study is summarized, con­
clusions are drawn, and recommendations are made.

The

final segment of this chapter contains suggestions for
further research.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In order to prepare teachers for the junior high
school, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of
the functions of the junior high school as an institution.
Once these functions have been identified, the nature of
the preparation program can be better prescribed.
Functions of the Junior High School
An excellent historical survey of the functions of
the junior high school can be found in Van Til, Vars, and
Lounsbury.

As they trace the evolution of the roles of

the junior high school from its beginnings in 1909, they
are able to state the following broad purposes:
(1) to continue the common education needed by
all citizens in a democracy (general education) and
(2) to provide experiences especially suited to the
diverse abilities, needs, and interests of widely
varying individual young adolescents (education for
diversity). Fulfillment of these purposes imposes
on the modern junior high school responsibility for
the following more specific functions:
1.
2.

Continuing and extending the general education
program of the elementary school, including
development of the basic skills.
Providing for a transition between the organi­
zation and approach of the elementary school and
that of the senior high school.
12

13
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Introducing new subject areas and additional
specialization within basic areas.
Providing opportunities for students to discover
and pursue their special interests and aptitudes.
Providing appropriate experiences to assist and
guide the rapid physical development that is
characteristic of early adolescence.
Providing experiences that will develop the social
competence needed as students enter young manhood
and womanhood.
Providing experiences that will assist individuals
in developing values and building a philosophy of
life.
Providing ample opportunities for self-management
and the development of leadership under super­
vision. 1
Van Til and his colleagues acknowledge that dis­

putes over the function of the junior high school still
go on but maintain that essentially the functions of the
junior high school are,
schools.

"the same as those of other

Differences are matters of degrees, not kind,

and stem primarily from the age group involved."

2

This statement is elaborated upon in Guidelines
for Junior High and Middle School E d u c a t i o n ;
The purposes and functions of the junior high
school are essentially the same as those of any other
school.
However, the unique characteristics of the
age group require special emphasis on guidance and
exploratory experiences, as well as increased
attention to individual differences.
As an insti­
tution intermediate between the elementary school
and the senior high school, the junior high also
gives particular attention to the articulation of
its program with those above and b e l o w . 3

^Van Til, et a l ., Modern Education, p.
2I b i d . , p.

36.

3
Vars, G u i d elines, p. 4.

35.

14
Dean, in his summary of the literature related to
the function of the junior high school includes the follow­
ing :
Counseling and guidance; bridging the gap between
elementary and secondary schools; integration of
learning experiences; exploration of pupil aptitudes,
abilities, and interests; meeting individual differ­
ences of students; providing a suitable educational
environment for children approximately 12 to 16
years of age; and the development of qualities of
good citizenship.^
Attention to individual differences seems to be a
commonly agreed upon objective of the junior high school.
The complexity of carrying out this charge is pinpointed
by the anthropologist, Margaret Mead, when she writes,
"junior high school students are more unlike each other
than they have ever been before or ever will be again in
5
the course of their lives."
Preparation of the Junior High
School Teacher
Even a casual review of the literature will reveal
a dissatisfaction with the manner in which junior high
school teachers are prepared.
Prospective junior high school teachers are pre­
pared either as elementary or as secondary teachers.

It

4
Dean, "Preparation Program," p. 27.
5
Margaret Mead, "Early Adolescence in the United
States," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary
School Principals, XLIX, No. 300 (April, 196 5) , rfl.

15
was this situation which led Dean to conduct his 1956 study
in which he concluded that "of the two common types of
teacher preparation programs

. . . available, it seems

evident that the elementary training program offers the
best possibilities for producing adequately-prepared
junior-high-school teachers.
Yet, in this same study, a majority of teachers
who had had experience teaching in the junior high school
believed that a separate preparation program for teachers
at that instructional level should be offered.

When asked

that question directly, 55 per cent felt that the prepa7
ration program should be specialized.
In 1964, teacher education institutions were still
being charged with failure to provide special programs for
the adequate preparation of professional personnel to
Q

teach and guide junior high students.
Two years later, it could still be said that:
Perhaps the most serious obstacles to the educational
development of the junior high school has been the
lack of teachers specifically prepared for work at
this level. . . . Only a handful of the hundreds of
institutions that educate teachers have definite

^Dean, "Preparation Program," p. 75.
7I b i d .
p
Nelson L. Bossing and Roscoe V. Cramer, The
Junior High School (Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin Company,
19<SS), p. 315.----

16
programs for preparing junior high school -teachers.
A sprinkling of summer-school courses is about all
that most of the college catalogs contain.9
Michigan State University was one of the teacher
preparation institutions which did offer a program especi­
ally for the preparation of junior high school teachers as
a major in elementary education.

In a memorandum dated

May 19, 1969, this program was discontinued effective
with students entering July 1, 1969.

This was done b e ­

cause the new Michigan Teacher Certification Code pro­
vided that students entering Michigan State University in
July of 1969 or thereafter would receive Elementary Teacher
Certificates valid through grade nine.

Until then. Ele­

mentary Certificates were valid only through grade eight.
The National Association of Secondary-School
Principals has some rather specific recommendations for
the pre-service preparation of junior high and middle
school teachers.

They feel such preparation should con­

sist of:
. . . approximately 40% general education, 40% study
in the teaching field(s), and 20% professional e du­
cation, including student teaching.
Ideally, junior
high and middle school teachers not only know their
subject areas well, but also understand and accept
young adolescents.
They possess a sound background
in psychology, anthropology, sociology, and human
relations, which they are both willing and able to
apply in working with this age group.
The recommended professional education sequence
includes study, but not necessarily separate courses,
in the following:
philosophy, purposes, and current
q
Van Til, et al., Modern E d u c a t i o n , p. 35.

17
developments in junior high school education; charac­
teristics of young adolescents; principles of teach­
ing and learning; methods of teaching reading and
communication in the chosen subject field(s); obser­
vation and student teaching under competent guidance
in junior high schools; and skills in counseling and
group guidance .10
The 1960 Upper Midwest Regional Conference on
Junior High School Education held at Cedar Falls, Iowa,
urged that preparation programs for junior high school
teachers include courses in the teaching of reading, in­
struction in guidance, and information on conducting
practical experience projects.

Participants felt that

appropriate major-minor combinations, in addition to
provisions for a broad general background, should be con­
sidered.

The study of psychology, with emphasis on the

adolescent, was considered essential as were student
teaching experiences at the junior high school level.
Brimm is of the opinion that the transitional role
of the junior high school requires specialized preparation.
He advocates a type of teacher education which balances the
basic skills orientation of the elementary school and the
subject matter specialization of the senior high.

He notes

a trend toward the employment of secondary teachers with

^®Vars, Guidelines, pp. 16-17.
■^Upper Midwest Regional Conference on Junior High
School Education. Proceedings of the Regional Conference
(Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1960).
Printed in Bulletin of the
National Association of Secondary SchooT~~Principals, XLV,
No". 266 (September, 1961) , 16-48.

18
the possibility of over-emphasis on subject matter
specialization.12
N o a r ^ suggests that in addition to such courses
as Educational History, Theory, Philosophy and Psychology,
Human Growth and Development and Social Science, college
departments of education must offer courses in Classroom
Techniques and in the Nature of Unit Construction and
Teaching if the junior high school is to be well served.
Not only must these new courses emphasize curriculum con­
tent and methods,

"the courses themselves will have to be

conducted in such fashion that the members of the classes
will experience the kinds of learning experiences that
14
they in turn will be required to use with children."
Eichhorn, 15 in describing the preparation of
middle school teachers, is rather general.

Except for

the use of a fairly contrived term which designates pupils
served by the middle school as "transescents," there is
12

R. P. Brimm, The Junior High School (Washington,
D . C . : The Center for Applied Research in Education, 19 63),
P . 72.
^ G e r t r u d e Noar, The Junior High School— Today and
Tomorrow (2nd ed. ; Enqlewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall

mrr:—

1 4 Ibid., p.

87.

^ D o n a l d H. Eichhorn, The Middle School (New York:
The Center for Applied Research in Education, 1966) .

19
nothing w h i c h could not apply to a junior high school
t e a c h e r 's preparation.

He maintains

that the prospective

teacher should have a thorough professional preparation
w h i c h should give the teacher an e x t ensive understanding
of both the physical and mental growth processes of stu­
dents, p a rticularly as their growth patterns relate to
our culture.

Teacher preparation should provide compe­

tence in a subject area which includes,

"not only a compre­

hensive knowledge of subject content but also a knowledge
of the function of the thought processes relative to the
area of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n .1,16
Popper puts a pre m i u m o n "teachers who,

regardless

of the teaching field, have ma s t e r e d skills of the Core
cu r r icu l u m " 1 ^ b u t goes on to assert that

"because the

professional preparation of middle school teachers is
still

'a no man's land'

in America, most middle school

teachers in the United States are neither equipped with
the required skills for the role nor have they internalized
an institutional commitment to the role." 18
M aynard devised a model pre-service program for
the preparation of junior high school teachers which was

1 6 I b i d . , pp.
17

91-92.

Samuel H. Popper, The American Middle S c h o o l ,
(Waltham, M a s s .:
Blaisdell

1 8l b i d . , p.

306.

20
acceptable to and considered desirable by a representative
sampling of 143 junior high school principals representing
a minimum of thirty states. 19
Considering the opinions of respondents, he con­
cludes that a separate and specific program for junior
high school teachers is necessary and desirable.
His program suggested thirty-eight semester hours
of general education broken down into twenty-six hours of
required courses and twelve hours of elective courses.
For the junior high school major, seventy semester hours
were required.

These seventy hours were divided among

thirty hours of professional education and psychology and
forty hours of subject matter specialization.
twenty semester hours free for electives.

This left

The program

totalled 128 semester hours.
The problem of forcing a choice between elementary
and secondary preparation programs for junior high school
teachers is further dramatized by a study conducted by
Callaway.

In this study junior high administrators were

asked to rate a sample of teachers in terms of:
1 ) the quality of the teacher's subject matter back­
ground and preparation; 2 ) the teacher's effectiveness
in teaching the subject matter; 3) the teacher's
ability to relate to the age group; 4) an overall
rating of the teacher's effectiveness.
Data were

H.
Glenn Maynard, "A Study of the Profession
Preparation of Junior High School Teachers" (unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1960).

21
also collected on the nature of the certification
program experienced by the teacher.
Analysis of these data indicates that the pre­
ponderance (78 per cent) of the nearly 500 teachers
involved were prepared as secondary school teachers,
and that this group displayed significantly better
subject matter background and preparation.
On the
other hand, the 22 per cent who were prepared as
elementary school teachers were rated as signifi­
cantly better teachers of the subject and possessed
higher overall ratings of teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 20
Further support for a separate program for the
preparation of junior high school teachers is provided in
a study by Kirby. 21

The focus of his study was the prepa­

ration of social studies teachers in selected junior high
schools in Colorado, but his findings led to the conclusion
that while junior high school social studies teachers have
not developed a common point of view regarding the content
of preparation programs for prospective junior high school
teachers, a majority of the respondents in his study indi­
cated that they favored accreditation of the junior high
school as a separate entity and favored special certifi­
cation of junior high school teachers.
The study most closely allied to the current one
was conducted by Schmidt who explored the preservice

20

Rolland Callaway, "Selecting a Teacher for
Junior High," Phi Delta Kapp a n , October, 1966, p. 84.
21

Darrell Francis Kirby, "Factors Relating to the
Preparation of Social Studies Teachers in Selected Junior
High Schools in Colorado" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Colorado, 1964).

22
professional preparation of junior high school teachers
22
xn Kansas.
He determined that specific preparation for junior
high school teachers was almost nonexistent in public col­
leges and universities in Kansas.

He concluded that the

quality of preparation could be improved with a specific
curriculum and that there was dissatisfaction w ith the
present block-of-time and methods courses.
Subject area evaluations of the teachers and
experts in his study led to the recommendation of the
following areas of preparation for potential junior high
school teachers:

junior high school student teaching,

psychology of learning,

theory and functions of the junior

high school, reading instruction, child growth and develop­
ment and/or psychology of adolescence, methodology of the
subject,

junior high school curriculum development,

audio­

visual instruction, guidance and counseling, extra­
curricular activities, observation in a junior high school,
individual differences related to gifted and remedial,
sociological factors related to early adolescents.
Sheehan, 23 in a study conducted in thirty-seven
junior high schools in suburban St. Louis, Missouri,

found

22

Gerald Lee Schmidt, "Preservice Professional
Preparation of Junior High School Teachers" (unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation. University of Colorado, 1965).
2 3Melbourne Richard Sheehan, "Junior High School
Teachers' Evaluation of Pre-Service Preparation"

23
that pre-service preparation as it related to a teaching
experience at the junior high school level was rated un­
satisfactory.

The group expressed the opinion that teach­

ing at this level required special training not normally
provided in the traditional elementary or secondary train­
ing programs.
"Student Teaching," "English Composition and Liter­
ature," and three psychology courses were rated the most
valuable of those courses taken during undergraduate
training.
Since
i English Composition and Literature was cited
in the preceding study as having been of value, a comment
from a Michigan State University graduate should be noted:
I feel that M.S.U. did not adequately prepare me to
teach junior high English.
Far too much time is spent
in taking all types of literature classes.
Some were
helpful, but for junior high, one needs to know how to
effectively teach grammar— not the history of the
language. One needs to present literary material
which stimulates students— not necessarily Chaucer,
Whitman or M e l v i l l e . 2 4
Sheehan lists the following expressed needs of
junior high school teachers following their entrance into
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, St. Louis University,
1969).
(Hereinafter referred to as "Teachers' Evalu­
ation. '*)
24 Elizabeth H. Rusk, "A Study of Secondary School
Teachers of English Who Graduated from Michigan State Uni­
versity" (unpublished study for the College of Arts &
Letters Teacher Preparation Committee and for the Humani­
ties Teaching Institute, Michigan State University, 1967) ,
p. 49.
(Hereinafter referred to as "Secondary Teachers of
English.")

24
the teaching field.

They provide valuable suggestions

for the strengthening of the preparation program:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.

Accommodating individual differences in the
classroom.
Methods of evaluating one's own teaching
effectiveness.
Special teaching techniques appropriate to
junior high.
Availability of texts appropriate for low
ability students.
Evaluating pupil progress.
Availability of resource materials.
Curriculum development and/or evaluation.
Developing valid and reliable teacher-made
tests.
Selection and use of audio-visual materials
and equipment.
25
Better understanding of pre-adolescent child.
Summary
A review of the literature suggests that there has

been a recognition of the problems involved in preparing
junior high school teachers.

Before examining prepa­

ration programs that best meet the needs of teachers at
this level of instruction, a brief survey of the functions
of the junior high school was undertaken.
A number of studies have been made in an effort
to identify these functions.

Essentially, they are the

same as those of any other school but an emphasis is
placed on guidance and exploratory experiences which
reflect the unique characteristics of the age group to
be served.

Great stress is placed on providing for

25
Sheehan, "Teachers' Evaluation."

25
individual differences since such a wide maturational span
is found in this age group.
Most sources consulted agreed on the need for a
specialized preparation program for teachers who will
staff the junior high and middle schools.

There is also

agreement that present programs are not meeting the p ro­
fessional needs of junior high and middle school teachers.

CHA P T E R III
METHODOLOGY

In the fall of 1958, the College of Education,
M ichigan State University,

instituted a pro g r a m designed

to prepare teachers more adequately for the junior high
school.

Graduates of this pro g r a m are in a unique position

to judge the quality of their preparation.

Therefore,

this

study was based on the opinions of graduates of the program.
In order to determine the opinions of graduates
concerning the desirable components of a preparation pro­
gram, it was necessary to develop a rating instrument which
could be submitted to them.
Development of the Rating Form
Since the study undertaken by Dean was instrumental
in launching the Junior High Teacher Preparation Program at
Michigan State University,

it was the list of program com­

ponents generated by that study w h i c h was used as the
basis for the list submitted to the graduates of the pro­
gram.
Dean developed his p rogram components by submitting
a preliminary component list to thirty-eight teachers
26

27
chosen from seven different Michigan school systems.

These

seven systems were selected after consideration of size,
location, and organizational structure.

The teachers were

identified by an administrator in their system as competent
and willing to give thoughtful consideration to such a
study.^
Revisions were made on the basis of the suggestions
derived from this survey.
The revised list was submitted to a panel of ten
faculty experts in the College of Education, Michigan
State University.

Their additions and clarifications

were incorporated into the final list.
The fifteen areas of preparation ultimately identi­
fied can be summarized as follows:
1.

General Education

2.

Specialized Subject Matter

3.

Counseling and Guidance

4.

Audio-Visual Materials and Techniques

5.

Sociology of Education

6.

History and Philosophy of Education

7.

Special Methods of Teaching

8.

Human Growth and Development

9.

Learning Theory

10.

1

Special Education

Dean,

"Preparation Program," pp. 95-97.

28
11.

Reading Methods

12.

Core Curriculum

13.

Classroom Management

14.

Human Relations

15.

Tests

In order -to permit comparisons with the data
reported in the Dean study to the greatest possible extent,
the items were retained in original sequence and wording,
with three new elements appended to the end of the listing.
The three new elements related more to structure
than to content, i.e.,

"seminar situation focusing on the

nature of the junior high school and its students,"

"pre­

student teaching experience with junior high school stu­
dents in situations provided by the university," and
"student teaching."

The three new items were included

to determine their importance to the prospective junior
high school teacher.
Respondents were given two opportunities for un­
structured responses.

The first opportunity permitted

them to add areas of preparation which they judged im­
portant to the list of eighteen provided in the question­
naire.

The second opportunity encouraged responses to

an open-ended question on the entire area of the junior
high school and the preparation required for junior high
school teachers.

29
Respondents were also asked to indicate their
present teaching position, the number of years they had
taught,

the number of years taught in the junior high

and at other levels, and their reasons for either leaving
the junior high school or for never accepting a junior
high teaching position.
In addition, respondents were asked if they felt
the junior high teaching situation was distinctive enough
to require a specialized program, whether they would
choose the junior high preparation again, and whether or
not they had done their student teaching in a junior high
school ,
In an attempt to gain some insight into the
reasons for choosing the junior high school program,
graduates were given an open-ended list of possible
factors influencing their choice and were asked to rate
each applicable factor in terms of importance.
A listing of possible previous experiences with
the junior high age group was also developed.

It, too,

was open-ended and graduates were asked to rate each
applicable experience in terms of its influence on their
choice of the Junior High Preparation Program.
A draft of the instrument was submitted to the
students of the 1966 Spring Term Seminar for Junior High
School Teachers.

As a result of this trial, ambiguous

30
wording was corrected and revisions in format were
m a d e .2
Obtaining the Ratings
A search of the records in the College of Education
and the Office of the Registrar yielded 120 graduates who
were listed as having received the junior high provision
on their teaching credentials between the years 196 0 and
1967.
Addresses were obtained by a search of the records
of the Alumni Office.

Returns have indicated that in a

number of cases the addresses obtained from the Alumni
Office were, understandably, not current.

In some cases,

questionnaires were forwarded but there is strong reason
to believe that many were not.
Accompanying each questionnaire was a letter co­
signed by Dr. Leland Dean, Assistant Dean of the College
of Education and Director of the School of Teacher Edu­
cation and the principal investigator.

This letter ex ­

plained the purpose of the study and the need for it.
Questionnaires were mailed out on April 5, 1968.3

In

order to make the percentage of returns as complete

2

See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire

used.
3

See Appendix B for a copy of the initial cover
letter sent.

31
as possible, a second letter was sent out on May 13,
1968.4
Of the 12 0 graduates of the junior high program
to w ho m questionnaires were sent, 78 or 65 per cent
responded.
Data secured from the questionnaire determined
what graduates of the Junior High Teacher Preparation
Program of the College of Education, Michigan State Uni­
versity judged to be the most important areas of prepa­
ration for a junior high school teaching position.

This

was accomplished by providing an opportunity for respond­
ents to rate each of the eighteen components on a fivepoint scale ranging from,

"A = Extremely significant"

a junior high school teacher's effectiveness to,

for

"E = Of

practically no significance" for a junior high school
teacher's effectiveness.

These ratings are reported both

by numerical frequency and percentage of frequency.
Data secured from the questionnaire determined the
effectiveness of the Michigan State University program by
providing an opportunity for respondents to rate each of
the eighteen components on a five-point scale ranging
from "1 = Very effective" to "5 — Very poor."

An addi­

tional response was permitted in that respondents were
asked to leave blank any described course content which
4

See Appendix C for a copy of the second cover
letter sent.

32
they felt they had never had.

These ratings are reported

both by numerical frequency and percentage of frequency.
Both of the preceding sets of data are reported
as tables using the model suggested by Rusk.

5

Preparation areas in critical need of strengthening
are defined a priori for the purposes of this study as
those areas whose significance ratings of A + B equal or
exceed 50 per cent while the Michigan State University
preparation rating of 4 + 5

equal or exceed 50 per cent.

This would mean that over half of the respondents rated
an area of preparation as either "extremely significant"
or "quite significant" to a junior high school teacher
while at the same time they rated the University's program
for preparation in that area as either "ineffective" or
"very poor."

These two ratings are designated as signifi­

cance ratings and ineffectiveness ratings in Chapter IV of
this study.
Correlation coefficients of the significance
ratings and the ineffectiveness ratings have also been
calculated and are reported in Chapter IV.
Areas of concern will further be indicated by "no
ratings."

Such ratings mean that the respondent felt he

received no preparation in the area so rated during his
program at Michigan State University.

5 Rusk,

"Secondary Teachers of English."

33
Data secured from the questionnaire yield the
number of respondents who actually teach at the junior
high school level.
Further, the responses will determine some factors
which influence the choice of the Junior High Preparation
Program and the factors causing qualified graduates to
reject a career in the junior high classroom.

These

factors will be reported in rank order of importance.
Summary
A rating instrument was developed which sought an
evaluation of eighteen components of a pre-service program
for junior high school teachers.
Respondents were also asked to rate the effective­
ness of their preparation in each of the eighteen areas by
Michigan State University.
Data secured from the questionnaire determined
what graduates of the Junior High Teacher Preparation
Program of the College of Education, Michigan State Uni­
versity judged to be the most important areas of prepa­
ration for a junior high school teaching position.

This

was accomplished by providing an opportunity for respond­
ents to rate each of the eighteen components on a fivepoint scale ranging from,

"A = Extremely significant" for

a junior high school teacher's effectiveness to, "E = Of
practically no significance" for a junior high school

34
teacher's effectiveness.

These ratings are reported both

by numerical frequency and percentage of frequency.
Data secured from the questionnaire determined
the effectiveness of the Michigan State University program
by providing an opportunity for respondents to rate each
of the eighteen components on a five-point scale ranging
from "1 = Very effective" to "5 = Very poor."

An addi­

tional response was permitted in that respondents were
asked to leave blank any described course content which
they felt they had never had.

These ratings are reported

both by numerical frequency and percentage of frequency.
Preparation areas in critical need of strengthening
are defined a priori for the purposes of this study as
those areas whose significance ratings of A + B equal or
exceed 50 per cent while the Michigan State University
preparation rating of 4 + 5

equal or exceed 50 per cent.

This would mean that over half of the respondents rated
an area of preparation as either "extremely significant"
or "quite significant" to a junior high school teacher
while at the same time they rated the University's program
for preparation in that area as either "ineffective" or
"very poor."

These two ratings are designated as signifi­

cance ratings and ineffectiveness ratings in Chapter IV
of this study.
Correlation coefficients of the significance
ratings and the ineffectiveness ratings have also been
calculated and are reported in Chapter IV.

35
Areas of concern will further be indicated by "no
ratings."

Such ratings mean that the respondent felt he

received no preparation in the area so rated during his
program at Michigan State University.
Respondents were given two opportunities for un­
structured responses concerning any aspects of the junior
high school teaching situation which they felt had not
been covered in the questionnaire.

These responses are

categorized and reported in Chapter V of this study.
Data secured from the questionnaire yield the
number of respondents who actually teach at the junior
high school level.
Further, the responses will determine some factors
which influence the choice of the Junior High Preparation
Program and the factors causing qualified graduates to
reject a career in the junior high classroom.
In addition respondents were asked a variety of
questions concerning their teaching careers and their
reasons for choosing the Junior High Preparation Program.
These data are tabulated and reported in Chapter IV of
this study.
All of the graduates of the junior High prepa­
ration Program between the years 1960 and 1967 were sent
copies of the questionnaire.
responded.

Of the 120 graduates,

78

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The instrument prepared to gather the data for this
study was mailed to the 12 0 graduates of the Junior High
School Teacher Preparation Program at Michigan State Uni­
versity between the years 1960-1967.

The number of re­

spondents was seventy-eight for a 6 5 per cent return.
According to Rusk, this is more than is usual in this
kind of survey .1
Description of the Population
A tabulation of the graduates of the junior high
school preparation program, the number of respondents by
year of graduation, and the percentage of return for each
year is shown in Table 4.1.
A chi-square goodness of fit comparison demon­
strated there were no proportional differences between the
number of potential and actual responses to the question­
naire by class year of graduation.

This result helped to

support the assumption that the reaction of actual

1 Rusk,

"Secondary Teachers of English," p. 5.
36

37
respondents could be considered representative of the
reaction of potential respondents.

The value of the chi-

square statistic for these data was 0.903; a value of
14.067 at 8 degrees of freedom was needed to reach the
.05 level of significance in difference between the two
distributions of responses by class year.

2

TABLE 4.1
TOTAL GRADUATES AND RESPONDENTS BY YEAR
Year

Graduates

1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967

Respondents

Percentage

9
5
7

82
56
50
60
65
75
60

11

9
14
10

6
11
12

17
16
15
28

9
19

120

78

68

65%

A geographic distribution of respondents by state
is provided in Table 4.2.

The fifty-six Michigan respond­

ents break down into six from Detroit, six from the
Lansing-East Lansing area, five from Grand Rapids, and
the remainder scattered throughout the state.
A seventy-ninth respondent is currently living in
American Samoa and not teaching.
2

Unfortunately, this was

William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists
(New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963), pp. 850-54.

38
all the information included in her response so it could
not be reported with the other respondents.
TABLE 4.2
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OP RESPONDENTS
BY FREQUENCY
State

State

Frequency

Michigan

56

Frequency

Georgia

1

California

4

Illinois

1

New York

3

Puerto Rico

1

Ohio

3

South Carolina

1

Arizona

2

Tennessee

1

Indiana

2

Washington, D.C.

1

Pennsylvania

2

78

Need for Junior High Preparation Program
In response to the question,

"Do you feel that the

junior high school is a distinctive enough teaching situ­
ation to require a specialized program," seventy-six of
the seventy-eight respondents answered affirmatively for
a percentage of 98.

Of the seventy-six affirmative re­

sponses, eleven were emphasized with stars, triple checks,
or comments such as "definitely."
undecided.

Two respondents were

None responded negatively.

There was not, however, such near-unanimity in
responses to the item which gave graduates the opportunity
to choose the Junior High Preparation Program if they were

39
to begin again.
do so.

Nineteen indicated that they would not

The most frequent reason given for not taking the

program again was that it was inadequate.
Seven of the respondents were undecided as to
whether they would choose the program again.

Among those

seven undecided respondents, a 1967 graduate furnishes a
significant if negative clue when he says, "Can’t say
either one

(yes or no) because I feel that although I was

enrolled in the Junior High Program, there really wasn't
one as far as preparation goes."
Thus, only fifty-two of the seventy-eight respond­
ents or 67 per cent would take the program again even
though 9 8 per cent feel that the junior high school is
a distinctive enough teaching situation to require a
specialized program.
Preparation Areas of Greatest
Significance
Dean, in his 1956 study, identified fifteen com3
ponents of a Junior High Teacher Preparation Program.
In order to permit comparisons with the data reported in
Dean’s study to the greatest possible extent, these pro­
gram components were retained in their original sequence
and wording with three new elements appended to the end
of the listing.
3

Dean, "Preparation Program," pp. 95-97.

40
The three new elements:

"Student teaching," "Pre­

student teaching experience with junior high school students
in situations provided by the university," and "Seminar
situation focusing on the nature of the junior high school
and its students," were among the eight most highly rated
items ranked by importance using the total of respondents
rating them as "A = Extremely significant" for a junior
high teacher’s effectiveness.
Although their positions are slightly modified
when the total of respondents rating them "A" is combined
with those rating them "B = Quite significant" for a junior
high teacher's effectiveness, they remain within the eight
most highly rated items.

The only change is found in the

pre-student teaching experience which drops from fourth
to seventh position as shown in Table 4.3.
Since these three items have been so highly rated,
there can be little doubt of their perceived importance to
the junior high program graduates and therefore should be
recommended for inclusion in future program planning.
Omitting the three program components not listed
in the Dean study, all of which related more to structure
than to content, let us consider the rankings in compari­
son to those found by Dean.

The five areas ranked of

greatest importance to the prospective junior-high-school
teachers in that study were:

guidance and counseling,

TABLE 4.3

RANKING OF THE EIGHT PREPARATION AREAS OF GREATEST IMPORTANCE

Area

1

.

2.

1

.

Student Teaching

72

Guidance and Counseling

50

2.

Human Growth and
Development

71

3.

Guidance and Counseling

69

4.

Special Methods of
Teaching

65

5.

Reading Methods

61

6.

General Education

61

7.

Pre-student Teaching
Experience

60

Junior High Seminar

59

4.

Pre-student Teaching
Experience

7.
8.

Total "A”
"B" Ratings*

64

Reading Methods

6.

Area

Student Teaching

3.

5.

Total "A"
Ratings*

Special Methods of
Teaching
Human Growth and
Development

47
44
43
40

Specialized Subject
Matter

39

Junior High Seminar

38

♦Possible 78.

8.

42
special methods of teaching, general education, human
growth and development, and reading methods.

4

The respondents in the current study ranked four
out of the five areas designated in the Dean ranking:
guidance and counseling, reading methods, special methods
of teaching, and human growth and development, among the
five most highly rated program components using the total
of "A" ratings as the criteria.

The single substitution

is that of specialized subject matter which replaces
Dean's, general education.
By using the criterion of "A” + "B" ratings, the
five are identical to the five identified by Dean although
the internal ranking is not the same.
In Table 4.4 the Dean rankings for prospective
junior high school teachers appear in the first column.
The rankings of the junior high graduates using "A"
ratings as the criterion appear in the second column.
The rankings of the junior high graduates using "A" +
"B" ratings as the criterion appear in the third column.
Unlike Table 4.3, all fifteen areas appearing in the Dean
study are listed and the three new program components are
omitted.

^Ibid., p . 54.

TABLE 4.4
COMPARATIVE SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS OF FIFTEEN PREPARATION AREAS
Total "A H
Rating*

Dean Ranking3

Total "A"
+ *B" Fating*

1.

Guidance and Counseling

Guidance and Counseling

50

Human Growth and Development

71

2.

Special Methods of Teaching

Reading Methods

47

Guidance and Counseling

69

3.

General Education

Special Methods of Teaching

43

Special Methods of Teaching

65

4.

Human Growth and Development

Human Growth and Development

40

Reading Methods

61

5.

Reading Methods

Specialized Subject Matter

39

General Education

61

6.

Classroom Management

Classroom Management

37

Classroom Management

58

7.

Learning Theory

General Education, i.e., survey courses

34

Specialized subject Matter

57

8.

Human Relations

Learning Theory

27

Audio-Visual

54

9.

Tests

Audio-Visual

23

Tests

48

10.

Specialized Subject Matter

Tests

21

Human Relations

46

11.

Audio-Visual

Sociology of Education

15

Learning Theory

45

12.

Sociology of Education

Human Relations

15

Sociology of Education

44

13.

Core Curriculum

Special Education

9

Core Curriculum

36

14.

Special Education

Core Curriculum

6

Special Education

24

15.

History and Philosophy

History and Philosophy

4

History and Philosophy

19

aLeland W. Dean, "A Preparation Program for Junior-High-School Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1956), p. 55.
•Possible 78.

44
Critical Areas
The areas of the preparation program which are in
critical need of strengthening are defined a priori for
purposes of this study as those areas whose significance
ratings of "A” + "B" equal 50 per cent or more while the
Michigan State University preparation rating of 4 + 5
equal 50 per cent or more.

Separate comment will be made

about "no ratings" which indicate that the graduate felt
that he had received no preparation at all in the area.
A complete bivariate frequency distribution for
each of the eighteen areas rated by the respondents is
included as Appendix D.
Table 4.5 shows combined "A" + "B" rating per­
centages, combined 4 + 5

rating percentages, and "no

rating" percentages for each of the eighteen items.

The

items appear in the order in which they appeared in the
questionnaire.
Table 4.5 indicates that the area of preparation
in greatest need of strengthening is the area of Reading
Methods which shows a significance rating of 78 per cent
with an ineffectiveness rating of 51 per cent.

This means

that while 78 per cent of the graduates rated the course
as "extremely significant" or "quite significant," 51 per
cent rated the Michigan State University offering as
"ineffective" or "very poor."

When one adds to this the

finding that an additional 11 per cent feel they have had
no such course content at all, it yields a total of 62

45
TABLE 4.5
COMPARISON OF SIGNIFICANCE RATINGS WITH
INEFFECTIVENESS OF PREPARATION RATINGS
Ineffectiveness
Rating
4 + 5

Significance Rating
"A" + "B"

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

General Education
Specialized
Subject
Guidance &
Counseling
Audio-visual
Sociology of
Education
History &
Philosophy
Special Methods
of Teaching
Human Growth &
Development
Learning Theory
Special Edu­
cation
Reading Methods
Core Curriculum
Classroom
Management
Human Relations
Tests
Junior High
Seminar
Pre-student
Teaching
Experience
Student
Teaching

"No Rating”
(No Prepa­
ration)

79%

9%

5%

73%

22%

13%

79%
68%

39%
23%

13%
36%

58%

22%

11%

24%

24%

13%

84%

30%

5%

91%
58%

13%
21%

8%

30%
78%
47%

20%

74%
59%
62%

41%
26%
24%

22%

76%

22%

53%

78%

24%

53%

92%

6%

11%

51%
21%

21%

65%
11%
29%

34%
32%

46
per cent of the respondents who were not well prepared in
an area which they rated as significant.
Although the area of Reading Methods is the only
area which meets the criterion established in this study
for those preparation areas needing strengthening, perhaps
consideration should be given to the area of Classroom
Management which has a significance rating of 74 per cent
and an ineffectiveness rating of 41 per cent, with a "no
rating" of 22 per cent.

Concern should also be shown for

Guidance and Counseling with a significance rating of 70
per cent, an ineffectiveness rating of 39 per cent, and
"no rating" of 13 per cent.

Less critical perhaps but

still a cause for concern is the highly rated Special
Methods of Teaching with a significance rating of 84 per
cent, but an ineffectiveness rating of 30 per cent and a
"no rating" of 5 per cent.
Another type of concern is reflected in the 53 per
cent of the respondents who were never enrolled in the
Junior High Seminar and the 53 per cent who were never
afforded a pre-student teaching experience under the
auspices of the University despite the fact that these
two areas received significance ratings of 76 per cent
and 78 per cent respectively.

It should be noted that

the Junior High Seminar was not required until spring of
1966 which explains the high percentage of respondents who
gave it a "no rating."

Although it was not required until

47
spring term, 1966, it was available as early as spring
of 1965.
Two other areas with significance ratings of over
50 per cent which received a substantial "no rating" were
Audio-Visual with a significance rating of 6 8 per cent
and a "no rating" of 34 per cent.

In each case, the

combination of ineffectiveness rating and "no rating"
would more than meet the 50 per cent or more criterion
set in this study for areas needing strengthening.

Such

a combined rating for A-V would yield 59 per cent while
Human Relations would yield 6 0 per cent.

In both cases,

Michigan State University preparation was either ineffec­
tive, very poor, or non-existent.
Student Teaching
Since student teaching is consistently rated as
the most significant component in the preparation program
as shown in Table 4.3, it is assumed that a student teach­
ing experience in a junior high situation will be most
useful for a prospective junior high teacher.
The data indicate that nineteen of the seventyeight respondents did not do their student teaching in a
junior high school situation.

This means that 24 per cent,

or nearly one-quarter of the respondents were not in a
junior high school situation during the most significant
area of the preparation program.

48
Correlation Coefficients Between Ratings
of Significance and Effectiveness
An alternate way of analyzing the data presented
as significance ratings and ineffectiveness ratings in
the preceding sections of this chapter is by means of
correlation coefficients.

Table 4.6 shows the correlation

coefficients for each of the eighteen areas of preparation
which were rated by the program graduates in terms of
significance to a junior high school teacher and in terms
of effectiveness of the Michigan State University program
in that area.
Bivariate frequency charts for each of the eighteen
areas for which correlation coefficients are shown are
included as Appendix D.
The correlation coefficients shown in Table 4.6
would seem to indicate that a statistically non-significant
relationship exists between importance to the student and
effectiveness of instruction in at least the thirteen
areas of preparation showing a correlation of .20 or
less.^
Factors Influencing Choice of
Junior High Program
Respondents were asked to indicate factors which
influenced their choice of the junior high preparation

5

Walter R. Borg, Educational Research:
An Intro­
duction (New York:
David McKay Company, 1963) , pT 281.
(Hereinafter referred to as Educational Research.)

49
TABLE 4.6
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN RATINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS3
1.

General Education

.44

2.

Sociology of Education

.29

3.

History and Philosophy

.28

4.

Pre-student Teaching

.25

5.

Human Growth & Development

.24

6.

Specialized Subject Matter

.20

7.

Student Teaching

.20

8.

Special Methods of Teaching

.12

9.

Special Education

.09

10.

Reading Methods

.06

11.

Guidance and Counseling

.06

12.

Audio-Vi sual

.05

13.

Learning Theory

.02

14.

Human Relations

-.01

15.

Tests

-.02

16.

Core Curriculum

-.03

17.

Junior High Seminar

-.11

18.

Classroom Management

-.14

aHelen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Elementary Statistical Methods (3rd ed.; New Yorki Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1969), p. 218.

50
program and to rate relevant factors in order of impor­
tance.

The factors listed for their choice were:

enjoyed working with junior high age people";

"I

"There

seemed to be favorable job prospects in the junior high
field"; I was influenced by parents or friends"; I was
influenced by supervising teacher(s)"; "I was influenced
by a college faculty member"; and "Other (Please specify)."
Responses to the factors influencing the choice
of the junior high preparation program are reported in
Table 4.7.
TABLE 4.7
FACTORS INFLUENCING CHOICE OF THE JUNIOR
HIGH PREPARATION PROGRAM
Rank Order of Importance
Factors

No
Ranking

Total

1

2

3

4

5

6

39

7

1

1

1

0

10

59

Job prospects

2

14

5

5

0

0

5

31

Parental or peer
influence

1

3

3

3

7

0

1

18

Supervising
teacher influence

0

5

7

3

1

1

2

19

11

9

5

5

3

0

3

36

Enjoyed working
with age group

College faculty
influence

These data would indicate that interest in working
with this age group is clearly the most important reason

51
for choosing the junior high preparation program.

A p pro­

priate as this is, it is not a factor over which the
University has much control.
Far more useful is the evidence which suggests
that the second most important factor in choosing the
junior high program is the influence of a college faculty
member.

This evidence suggests that faculty members of

the College of Education should have the most complete
information possible about the program since they appear
to be the single best avenue of recruitment.
A second area which can be influenced by the
College of Education is that relating to job prospects.
The number of responses

(31) indicate that a wide dissemi­

nation of junior high school placement information could
be of value to students who are making choices within the
College of Education.
The responses of those who chose to indicate an
unlisted factor can be broken down as follows:
Those who wanted the flexibility of the junior
high program.

(Nine responses.)

Those who saw the junior high as filling special
needs of children.

(Four responses.)

Those whose own junior high experience led them
to see the need for better junior high school teachers.
(Four responses.)

52
Those who saw the junior high as the most challeng­
ing area for teaching.

(Two responses.)

Four respondents provided no data for this item.
Previous Experience with Junior High
Age Students
Respondents were given an opportunity to list the
experiences which they had had with the junior high age
group and rate each experience in terms of its influence
on their choice of the Junior High Preparation Program
using the following scale:
1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=

Of
Of
Of
Of
Of

very great influence
great influence
moderate influence
little influence
no influence

Types of experiences were listed as follows:
none; work with summer camps or recreation programs; church
work; scout work; coaching athletics or dramatics; MSU
Student Education Corps; general observation of this age
group; Future Teacher Corps; MSU required "September
Experience"; and other

(please list).

Data reveal that seventeen of the respondents or
22 per cent had no previous experience with the junior
high age group prior to choosing the program.
An additional twelve respondents had no experience
other than "general observation of this age group" prior
to choosing the program.

53
Collectively,

this means twenty-nine or 37 per cent

of the respondents had no structured experience of any kind
prior to choosing the program.
Experience w i t h the junior high age group prior to
choosing the Junior High Preparation Program and a rating
of the influence of this experience on the choice of the
p r o g r a m is reported in Table 4.8.
TABLE 4.8
EXPERIENCE WITH JUNIOR HIGH AGE GROUP PRIOR
TO P ROGRAM CHOICE
Influence Rating
Experience

No
Ranking

Total

1

2

3

4

5

Summer camp or
recreation

7

5

14

1

1

1

29

Church w ork

0

2

7

2

1

2

14

Scout work

1

3

3

0

2

0

9

Coaching

2

3

4

0

2

2

13

MSU Student
Education Corps

0

0

2

0

3

0

5

18

17

6

1

1

1

44

Future Teachers
Corps

1

1

1

0

2

0

5

MSU "September
Experience"

1

2

5

1

3

0

12

General o b ser­
vation

54
In addition to the choices listed, the following
experience factors were reported:

4-H with two responses,

both of which were rated as of great influence;

the rais­

ing of children through the junior high years with two
responses, one of very great significance and the other
with no ranking of significance.

Substitute teaching,

teaching in a rural school, and having a husband teaching
at the junior high level were each listed once but did not
receive a significance rating.
The evidence suggests that the choice of the Junior
High Preparation Program is seldom based on direct or
structured experience with the junior high age group.
Although 63 per cent of the graduates of the program had
had some experience with the age group, only twelve, or
15 per cent can point to any single experience as being of
very great influence.
From the data shown in Table 4.8, it would seem
that only summer camps or recreation programs would be a
potential field for recruitment activities.
Graduates as Teachers
Returns indicate that thirty-five of the seventyeight respondents or 4 5 per cent were currently teaching
in the junior high school.

Although this is in line with

a national survey which reports that "over half of those
receiving teaching certificates are not teaching two

55
years later,"® it is far from achieving the results of the
Elementary Intern Program, another special pro g r am of
teacher preparation sponsored by the College of Education,
Michigan State University which reported nearly 93 per
cent of its graduates still teaching after two to six
7
years of experience.
Only one respondent never taught at all.

In

addition, twenty-six of the respondents, or a total of
35 per cent never taught in the junior high school.
All but one of those who never taught at the
junior high level taught in a K-6 situation.

The lone

exception taught at the senior high school level.
Of those who taught in the junior high and at
other levels,

eighteen out of twenty-three or 7 8 per cent

taught in the elementary grades

(K-6).

Reasons for Never Entering Junior
High Teaching
Reasons given for never entering junior high
school teaching can be broken down into two general cate­
gories:

preference for younger children or the elementary

situation

(11 r e s p o n s e s ) , and lack of job availability

g

Robert N. Bush, The Real World of the Beginning
Teacher (Washington, D.C.l
National Commission on Teacher
Education and Professional Standards, 1966), p. 7.
7

Robert W. Houston, A Study of the Teaching Status
of Graduates of the Elementary Intern Program at Michigan
State University (East Lansing:
College of E d u c a t i o n ,
Michigan State University, 1967).
(Mimeographed.)

56
(11 responses).

Two respondents indicated that they simply

did not want to go into the junior high school but elabor­
ated no further.
These responses suggest that earlier contact with
junior high school age children would help students formu­
late career plans more effectively.
Reasons for Leaving Junior High
School Teaching
Reasons given for leaving the junior high school
are more diversified than those given for never entering.
The most frequent reason given

(4) is to raise a family.

Other reasons relating to family responsibilities include
one respondent who prefers the teaching hours provided by
adult education teaching.
Two other general categories into which reasons
for leaving could be placed would be transfer to some other
educational level or a move to a new location in which no
opening was available.
Few who leave do so out of dissatisfaction with
the junior high.

Only one respondent expressed disgust

with the administrative detail and disciplinary problems.
Two respondents gave no reason for leaving.

One

indicated a better paying job outside the field of edu­
cation .

57
Summary
The instrument prepared to gather the data for
this study was mailed to the 120 graduates of the Junior
High School Preparation Program at Michigan State Uni­
versity between the years 1960-1967.

The number of

respondents was seventy-eight for a return of 6 5 per cent.
Ninety-eight per cent of the respondents felt that
the junior high school was a distinctive enough teaching
situation to merit a specialized preparation program.
Fifty-two per cent of the respondents felt that
they would take the Michigan State University program again
now that they have graduated.
The five areas of greatest significance to junior
high teachers as measured by "A" + "B" ratings are:

Human

Growth and Development, Guidance and Counseling, Special
Methods of Teaching, Reading Methods, and General Education.
These five areas are identical to those ranked as
of greatest importance to prospective junior high school
teachers in the Dean study although the internal ranking
is not the same.
The areas of the preparation program which are in
critical need of strengthening were defined for purposes
of this study as those areas whose significance rating of
"A” + "B" equal 50 per cent or more while their effective­
ness of the Michigan State University program rating of
4 + 5

equal 50 per cent or more.

58
Reading Methods received a significance rating of
78 per cent and an ineffectiveness rating of 51 per cent.
This means that while 78 per cent of the respondents rated
Reading Methods as "extremely significant" or "quite
significant," 51 per cent of them rated their M i c higan
State University preparation as "ineffective" or "very
poor."
Other areas showing a wide disparity between p er­
ceived significance and effectiveness of M i chigan State
University preparation were Classroom Manage m e n t wit h a
significance rating of 74 per cent and an ineffectiveness
rating of 41 per cent. Guidance and Counseling w i t h a
significance rating of 79 per cent and an ineffectiveness
rating of 39 per cent, and Special Methods of Teaching with
a significance rating of 84 per cent and an ineffectiveness
rating of 30 per cent.
Another type of concern is reflected in the 53 per
cent of the respondents who were never enrolled in the
Junior High Seminar but this can be attributed to the fact
that the Seminar was not a program requirement until 1966
even though it was available as early as spring term of
1965.

A pre-student teaching experience under the auspices

of the University was another highly rated preparatory
experience which was not available to 53 per cent of the
r es p o n d e n t s .

59
Two other areas where a combination of ineffective­
ness and "no ratings" yielded a total of 50 per cent or
more were Audio-Visual with a combined total of 59 per
cent and Human Relations with a combined total of 60 per
cent.
Student teaching is rated as the most significant
component of the preparation program, yet 24 per cent of
the respondents were not in a junior high school situation
for their student teaching experience.
Of the factors influencing choice of the junior
high preparation program, the responses indicated that an
interest in working with the age group was the most fre­
quent reason given for choosing the program.
More useful is the evidence which suggests that
the second most important factor in choosing the junior
high program is the influence of a college faculty member.
Only a summer camp or recreation program involving
the junior high age group was rated as a significant prior
experience in choosing the program.
Returns indicated that 4 5 per cent of the graduates
were currently teaching in the junior high school.
one respondent never taught at all.

Only

All but one of those

who never taught at the junior high level taught in a K-6
situation.
level.

The lone exception taught at the senior high

60
Reasons for never entering junior high school
teaching fell largely into two categories:

a preference

for younger children and lack of job availability.
Reasons for leaving the junior high school showed
no clear pattern.
raise a family.

The most frequent reason given was to
Transfers to other educational levels

and a move to a new location in which no opening was
available were other reasons given for leaving the junior
high situation.
Only one respondent left because of the junior
high situation itself.

Two gave no reason for leaving and

one indicated a better paying job outside of education.

CHAPTER V
UNSTRUCTURED RESPONSES

Data obtained from a rating scale, while more
readily accessible, often does not reveal a personalized
dimension which can sometimes be obtained from an openended question.

In order to gain this expanded view of

the situation, respondents were given two opportunities
for unstructured responses.

The first opportunity per­

mitted them to add areas of preparation which they judged
important to the list of eighteen provided in the question­
naire.

The second opportunity encouraged responses to an

open-ended question on the entire area of the junior high
school and the preparation required for junior high school
teachers.
Of the seventy-eight respondents, twenty-five
chose to respond to Item 15:
Now that you have had teaching experience, is there
any area in addition to those listed in Question 14
which you feel was lacking in your undergraduate
preparation?
If so, please list it (them) below
and rate it (them) according to the above scale of
significance to teachers (continue on enclosed sheet
if necessary).1
1See Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire
used.

62
The twenty-five graduates who chose to respond to
this item yielded thirty-two responses.

With one possible

exception, however, none of the responses represented a
real addition to the eighteen areas provided in the
questionnaire, since all could be subsumed under those
areas.

The possible exception would be the recommendation

that some coverage be given to the matter of professional
negotiations, although this topic could be subsumed under
"present issues in education."
The responses are significant, though, since they
highlight concerns of experienced teachers.

The responses

have been broken down into seven categories which contain
two or more similar responses and an eighth category of
responses appearing only once.

Responses are listed under

the eight categories, with the categories arranged accord­
ing to frequency.
Practical experience in addition to student teaching:
(8 responses)
"More student teaching experiences— perhaps for 2 or
3 terms."
"I feel that possibly two or more semesters of student
teaching would be beneficial."
"More emphasis on the practical and actual teaching
situations rather than theoryl!"
"Internship as a teacher's aid for maybe 3 hours a
w e e k ."
"Practical experience in all areas."
"More observation of junior high students in school
setting."

63
"None, but I would like to stress the area indicated
by the arrow.
(Pre-student teaching experience with
junior high school students in situation provided by
the University.)
"Stronger emphasis on curriculum development.
The
Block is weak.
More practical experience needed in
course of study."
Adolescent psychology or counse l i n g :

(6 responses)

"Adolescent Psychology."
"Psychology

(Junior High Age Children)."

"Guidance and Counseling."
"More training in treatment of specific learning
disabilities."
"Emotional problems from poor or unstable b a ck­
grounds . "
"Courses exposing a teacher to some of the emotional
and family problems she will meet in an inner city
s c h o o l ."
Di s c i p l i n e :

(3 responses)

"Discipline— How to do it."
"Classroom Management— discipline."
"Classroom discipline tempered with understanding.
(This has not been a problem with me, probably because
of e x p e r i e n c e .) Many teachers are completely unpre­
pared ."
Reading or literature:

(3 responses)

"Much more study in field of r eading."
"A course in p h o n i c s ."
"Literature geared to junior high level
or Reading m a j o r s ) ."

(for English

64
Testing;

(2 responses)

"A better knowledge of tests— both achievement and
psychological."
"More practical experience in making and administering
tests and evaluation of the tests."
Creativity:

(2 responses)

"Methods of more creative teaching."
"Course in how to be a creative teacher— creative
techniques course over typical methods course."
Maintaining and interpreting student records:
T2 responses)
"Evaluation of student records and relation to
planning."
"Individual student record keeping."
Responses appearing only o nce;
"Class dealing with team-teaching, departmentali­
zation and self-contained classrooms in 7th-9th
level."
"General Philosophies related to Education,"
"Ways to present material in a problem solving way."
"Methods of grading— essays, homework, how much
homework, final grades."
"Curriculum planning for year of teaching— very
little experience in getting organized to teach
subject matter."
"Required;

Class in negotiation."

Of the seventy-eight respondents in the sample,
thirty-six availed themselves of the optional reaction

65
sheet which was enclosed with the questionnaire to comment
on the closing statement:
Thank you most sincerely for taking time to fill
out this questionnaire.
If you should wish to make
any general comments about the nature of the junior
high school as an institution, the students, the
teachers or the junior high teachers preparation
program, please feel free to do so on the enclosed
sheet.
Comments fell into the following general cate­
gories :
1.

Negative experiences.

2.

Specific recommendations for program change.

3.

Nature of Junior high school teacher
certification.
Negative Experiences

If pleas for a separate junior high preparation
program can be interpreted as evidence of dissatisfaction,
exactly 50 per cent of those who chose to supplement their
questionnaire with comments, feel a strong dissatisfaction
with the present treatment of potential junior high school
teachers.

The comments below represent the degree and

nature of their dissatisfaction:
The junior high program would be much better if
they had a different methods class than that of Ele­
mentary Education.
I feel the methods bloc was mostly
a waste of my time and has not greatly influenced my
junior high teaching.
There should be courses for
middle school teachers and they should not be in the
same sections as elementary education students.
2
used.

See Appendix C for a copy of the questionnaire

66

In my own preparation, since my only choice was
between an elementary or secondary certificate, I
wasted many hours in classes highly suitable for
elementary children but of little value to me as a
junior high teacher.
The secondary program would
have been equally ineffective, I'm sure, since it
would have been beyond the capabilities of these
students except in rare instances.
I would also like to comment on the ineffective­
ness of the Block for such a program.
I can see it's
necessary since we do have an elementary certificate,
but as far as the program g o e s , it offers little
toward our interest in the junior high school student.
Since in the junior high school a teacher is
required to teach in a major area, I think a separate
block methods program of study should be set up for
the junior high.
It is not effective to take the
same methods courses as the Elementary people because
they must teach in all areas.
(This was the procedure
when I graduated in 1965.)
To me, the main fault in M.S.U.'s junior high pro­
gram was its similarity to the elementary education
program.
I felt, and still do feel, that taking the
Elementary Education block was a complete waste of a
term of school.
I don't think I've used anything
that I was taught in those courses.
Junior high is a much more specialized field than
the Elementary Education preparation calls for.
I
would feel better prepared had I been required to
take the "Methods” courses required of Secondary Edu­
cation majors in my major and minor fields.
I do not
regret selecting the junior high school as my teaching
level, but I do regret having taken that program
(which I felt was thrown together and mostly irrele­
vant) as opposed to the Secondary Education Program.
For instance, although I was enrolled in this
Preparation Program I had to take the Elementary Block
which was a waste of time as far as
preparation for
junior high school teaching.
It seemed as though very
few of us enrolled in the Junior High Plan received
much help with elementary school discipline and teach­
ing techniques.
There should be definite method
courses for those enrolled in the same program as I
in their specialty fields such as Social Studies,
Science, Math, etc.
Elementary social studies methods
simply do not work at the junior high level.
It would have helped if we who were enrolled in
the Junior High School Program could have at least

67
been grouped together in one section of the Elementary
Block so that we might have exchanged ideas on some­
thing that concerned u s . I got a lot of ideas about
how to teach elementary children but nothing on how
to teach junior high students— who, somehow, even
though they are still children, are completely
different from elementary youngsters— especially on
the disciplinary level.
I would have appreciated a deeper and more
thorough background in subject area.
I felt the
"block" methods courses were of very questionable
value and theory courses too basic and repetitious.
The MSU program gave much lip service to "indi­
vidual differences," but no real instruction in how
to cope with them within the classroom.
Unless this
is done X feel we will continue to have frustrated
beginning teachers and/or frustrated students of
those who persist on one method for all children.
The time when this could be effectively accomplished
— the block— was the most wasted.
I hope the program
has undergone change.
I feel that I wasted a lot of my time taking such
courses as 301 [School and Society]— and a few from
the block.
Junior high program should be separated from the
elementary curriculum because junior high teachers
should have more attention given them regarding the
particular problems at the junior high level.
Too
much attention is given to the elementary preparation
and junior high teachers are ignored.
Put elementary methods up to 6th grade as Elemen­
tary Block.
Put junior high with secondary or by
itself.
All the "trivial" courses don't apply to a
Junior High Specialist.
Junior High methods need
concentration on the major area of the student, not
a spattering as in Elementary Block.
If one is to
teach plain English, for example, how does Modern
Math Methods Class ever help? Elementary Block
should have 1. pre-school
2. early primary
3. middle
primary breakdown for methods.
Then junior high
methods should start away from the standard elemen­
tary block.

68
Reactions to Michigan State University instructors
were mixed.

Respondents were generally negative toward

graduate teaching assistants, and positive toward full­
time faculty.

One criticism of teaching assistants from

an anonymous respondent is included below.

This criticism

is included to serve as a caution against the use of
graduate students who put personal priorities above pro­
fessional obligations:
I felt that most of my instructors in the College
of Education were a mediocre lot. Most of them were
working on a degree and the class was of secondary
importance.
Of the instructors (approximately 15)
only one was intellectually respectable and he was
too busy with "research" to be concerned with the
class.
In contrast, four full-time faculty members were
praised by name and in two instances the respondents felt
that the College of Education faculty had prepared them
well.
Specific Recommendations for
Program chang~e
As might be expected from the negative feelings
expressed toward the elementary methods block, the most
frequently recommended change was the creation of a
special junior high methods block.

Comments which follow

are representative:
We hear how we (the teacher) should individualize
our instruction, yet our universities do not practice
what they preach. The least they could do is to
develop a program for the junior high or middle school.

69
Let's have courses specifically designed for
junior high teachers (or middle school or whatever
it might be called), but let's acknowledge that
these are students w ith specific characteristics
unlike their younger or older brothers and sisters,
and not treat them as s t e p -children, or consign them
to the fringes of the elementary or secondary cur­
riculum.
I feel there should be a definite Junior High
Methods Course rather than the elementary methods
courses which was required when I went through the
junior high program.
This was one of the reasons
I was afraid
to enter junior high teaching.
I have felt for some time that there is a •’m u s t ”
for revision
in the Junior High Preparation program.
There should
be a special Junior High Methods
Course.
The program should be individualized, not in
conjunction with Elementary or Secondary Methods.
The junior high is unique, and so are its students;
and so should the teachers be u n i q u e .
If there is to be a Junior High Preparation Pro­
gram there should be method courses for those people
enrolled in it that relate strictly to the junior
high schools.
Have a course reviewing various types of junior
high schools— middle schools, etc.
(We did this in
our Junior High Seminar and it was beneficial.)
Form a definite Junior High Curriculum.
It's
now too wishy w a s h y — a major can either go up or
down— junior high plus elementary or junior high
plus secondary.
I took junior high plus elementary
and feel very unprepared.
Elementary is too differ­
ent than subject per hour junior high.
Junior high
definitely is more similar to Secondary due to
subject concentration per teacher.
I feel that there are unique problems that the
junior high faces and that this area should be
treated as a specific area of study.
It should not
be part of the elementary program or the high school
program, but as a program of its own.

70
Not all respondents were negative toward the
block.

In at least three instances, teachers felt a

degree of satisfaction either with the block or with the
existing program as indicated below:
In my situation I find that my background in
teaching physical education, art and music is very
inadequate, but because of the Michigan State Uni­
versity basics [the four general education courses
required of all students] I feel competent in
science and the humanities.
Personally, I feel the educational block was the
most helpful to me in the classroom.
A discussion or
class instructing education majors of the different
methods of teaching in the 7th through 9th grades
might be helpful.
For instance, some schools use
departmentalization, some team teaching, some are
self-contained.
A look at the pros and cons of these
types of classrooms would be helpful to the new
teacher deciding where to begin a teaching career.
I liked the junior high elementary program b e ­
cause it gave me an opportunity to teach other grades
and I've found the area of teaching I like best.
I'd
like to see all students spend time in all grades so
they can choose the area that satisfies them.
The junior high specialization allowed me to
study in areas outside the field of Education.
At
the same time I was exposed, as an elementary teacher,
to child development, learning processes and the
creativity needed in teaching a subject area.
Although those who proposed a separate junior high
school methods block represented the most frequently
advocated program change,

five respondents advocated more

contact with pupils prior to student teaching.
the five comments are included below;

Two of

the first because

it seems so heartfelt— the second because of the nature
of the suggested remedy, tinged w ith sarcasm though it
may b e 1

71
The student interested in teaching should feel,
sense and judge personal situations with those he
will soon influence and "educate."
If possible, he
should be "thrown into every combination" and com­
plexity possible with time alloted, under constant
supervision and with a handy ready advisor to assist
in understanding and resolving situation.
(On one-toone basis, small group situation, total class.)
In other words, one learns by feeling (personally),
and observing subjectively.
I repeat, these meetings
and exposures with junior high students should occur
at varying junctures as student finds it necessary—
other than solely the Student Teaching situation.
So many, many pupils in the grades need individual
attention or tutoring (perhaps cannot afford i t ) . Why
not utilize the tremendous potential available in the
university student?
My first real conviction that I would be a teacher,
on any level, occurred, unfortunately, during my Stu­
dent Teaching experience.
A trifle too late to fully
appreciate and enjoy my courses prior to it.
Please, consider my pleal
D o n ’t lose any prospec­
tive teachers for this reason.
Perhaps, had I had more exposure to the junior
high level of students (student teaching and above
mentioned) I may have had a more valid set of choices
to draw from. . . . Perhaps I would now be teaching
on the junior high school level.
My experiences in the
inner-city schools of
Washington, D.C., have convinced me that on-campus
teachers' education programs are too remote from the
real thing.
I feel an apprentice-type situation tied
to one school in any city should be arranged as early
as the sophomore year.
One faculty member would be
assigned to teach two or three courses in the after­
noons or evenings in the school.
The students would
be required to immediately apply their course work
during the school day.
The rewards to the student would include free
tuition (including full time summer school on campus)
and a chance to decide if
they would like tograduate
as teachers.
For the faculty member a chance to find
out what it's really "all about” would be provided.
The school system would benefit from the talented,
energetic, and inexpensive help of the students.
Most of the courses mentioned in your survey
could be brought to life under my program.
These
same courses offered on campus merely prepare a
student for designing surveys or graduate work in
general1

72
Two suggestions seem particularly relevant in the
light of the newly developed Triple T Project.

3

Unfortu­

nately, in both instances the comments reflect negatively
on the staff of the College of Education.

Both comments

are included in their entirety to insure the flavor of the
response:
I think the College of Education would be more
helpful to future teachers if they would recruit
practicing Master teachers at the junior high level
to teach class while remaining on a junior high
school staff.
The university and public school
systems are overrun with “expert theoriticians" who
are “experts" because they couldn't stand the humdrum
routine of teaching and were not willing to be hard
working and innovative enough to keep stimulating
young adolescents.
It is very demanding work which
requires a rare combination of talents.
State should
use their research facilities to find master teachers
and use their services to help young teachers.
Ideally this is the purpose of practice teaching
but I have seen the best teachers at our school (a
class "A") refuse to take a student teacher because
"I have too much to teach my students to allow some­
one to develop or practice methodology."
Hopefully the quality of instruction within the
college has changed since I left.
In short, more
advice from practicing master teachers.
One class that should be mandatory for English
and/or Social Science, etc. potential teachers:
CREATIVITY. Given such situations as the following
which are frighteningly R E A L : Problem:
Show, t ell,
explain, how one would teach a 3-5 week or longer
unit on the most critical area in the world— South­
east Asia (for example, a very important o n e ) , with
the following hitches:
1.
There are no textbooks available for the class.
2. The books available in the library are very
advanced, very boring (for this age level).
3
Trainers of Teacher Trainers Project, a joint
project of Michigan State University and the Lansing
School District supported in part by the U.S. Office of
Education through the Education Professions Development
Act, 1969-70.

73
3.
4.

No individual maps available, etc.
A teacher does have access to a ditto machine,
but doesn't want to spend her whole time typing
or writing on them.
How do you make a fun, exciting, informative
learning situation here?
I've been put in this position many times, in
English class as well as Social Studies.
For in­
stance, the class set of "readers" is lousy and it
would be an insult to them to use them— what do you,
and how do you give them other p e o p l e 's experiences
through reading?
I must say I feel pretty successful— but for the
first four months I could hardly stay on my feet, and
was miserable.
This course should also utilize the teachers in
the community, first year and many year veterans, who
have been successful (you know who they a r e ) . Just
one session with questions and/or demonstration is
valuable (different teachers for different tech­
niques) .
Also, incorporate or have as a separate course,
one on the problem-solving method in the classroom.
Have a professional (salesman) and teachers in to
speak about it.
This could be a life-saver for
many teachers and k i d s .
Nature of Junior High School
Teacher Certification
Seven of the respondents express concern for the
certification of junior high school teachers.

There is

agreement that separate certification is a desirable
thing:
I feel strongly that the junior high program rates
its own special certification.
These are neither ele­
mentary nor secondary (high school) students.
They
are in a crucial, difficult stage of growth, mentally
and physically, and need a curriculum designed to take
these facts into consideration, and teachers trained
to cope with their moods, laziness, their flashes of
maturity one moment and childishness the next.
However, if separate certification should become
a reality, major efforts will need to be made to
publicize such a program.
Concern is being expressed
about inadequate visibility of the current program.
I had a serious, unexpected problem.
Since the
Junior High School Program is not offered in many

74
areas, out-of-state certification is an extremely con­
fusing affair. Many school systems were skeptical.
I
feel it necessary to inform students on the problem of
securing certification.
In my case, I received certi­
fication in both high school English and Elementary
Education, but other "job-seekers" may not be as
fortunate as I. Those students who are interested
or may possibly consider teaching outside of Michigan
should be better informed about certification procedures
and job interviews.
I was not and went through a lot of
unnecessary anxiety.
There seems to be very little publication about
the MSU Junior High Program. Most educators and many
people interviewing prospective teachers had never
heard of the junior high major when I explained my
major.
Would it be possible to send letters or bro­
chures to the schools or the people interviewing for
the schools to let them know that MSU is training
teachers specifically for junior high teaching? I
think many schools are continuing to hire people
trained for secondary schools because they are un­
aware of the junior high program at MSU.
I mentioned that I was quite concerned as to the
reaction of Personnel Director in hiring a teacher
with an elementary certificate in the junior high
school.
I wish that there might be a brief description
of the junior high program that could accompany your
transcript so that they would have a better under­
standing of the background that we have had.
Although a K-9 certificate looks good, I really
think it is meaningless because one can't really be
prepared to teach ten grades; therefore I would like
to see specialized programs that will produce teachers
able to teach grades in quality, not just quantity.
In regard to my answer for question (10). There
is too much correlation between a secondary certifi­
cate and the junior high curriculum. For instance, I
was forced to take (30) credits minimum for a minor
and 45 plus for my major.
This actually allowed me
secondary accreditation with only a little deviation,
such as, the methods bloc and requirements of art in
the elementary curriculum. Yet, my teaching certifi­
cate allowed me to teach only through 8th grade, while
most junior high schools run from 7 through 9. Conse­
quently, there is no distinction between an elementary
certificate and the junior high program except for
the requirements.

75
And one lone dissent.:
School Administrators don't care very much if
you've had a special junior high program or not—
just whether you're certified in the areas that
they happen to need a teacher for.
Taking a positive view of what seems to be a
negative situation, is the following suggestion:
Start building up junior high teaching via M.S.U.
course booklets, etc. Propagandize!
Right now, junior
high is made to sound like the last resort, the last
grade to ever teach.
If students were prepared for
junior high teaching, it would prove most a rewarding
age group— at least that's how I found it.
Summary
Graduates were given an opportunity to comment on
the nature of the junior high school as an institution,
the students, the teachers, or the junior high teacher
preparation program.

Of the seventy-eight respondents,

thirty-six availed themselves of the opportunity.
Exactly 50 per cent of those responding expressed
dissatisfaction with the present program.

The most fre­

quent recommendation for change was the creation of a
methods block unique to the junior high.

Another recom­

mendation for change made by five respondents was the
incorporation into the preparation program of more con­
tact with pupils prior to student teaching.
Certification was of special concern to seven of
the respondents.

There is agreement that separate

76
certification is desirable but concern that such certifi­
cation be given greater publicity and that other states
establish reciprocal certification.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Since its beginnings in the first decade of the
century, the junior high school and its more recently
emerging counterpart, the middle school, have grown im­
pressively .
Programs to prepare teachers for the junior high
or middle school have not been developed with parallel
vitality.
This has resulted in a teaching milieu which has
little self-identity; one which is too often a grey area
where some are waiting for "promotion" to senior high
schools and some prepared for elementary teaching find
themselves in junior high by default.
Students in the age group served by the junior
high or middle school have done nothing to deserve this
type of educational second-class citizenship.

They are,

for the most part, a spirited, curious group of early
adolescents who deserve leadership prepared to meet their
needs.

77

78
Michigan State University has developed a program
for the preparation of junior high school teachers.

It

was the purpose of this study to seek evaluative data from
the graduates of this program so that recommendations
could be made for its improvement.
To that end, a questionnaire was prepared which
would provide an opportunity for graduates to indicate
the areas which they felt were most significant to a
junior high school teacher's effectiveness and to rate
the Michigan State University program on the quality of
preparation in each of the areas listed.
In order to provide comparative data, the areas
of significance listed on the questionnaire paralleled
those developed by Leland Dean in his 1956 study of a
preparation program for junior-high-school teachers.
Thus,

it was the purpose of this study to deter­

mine what graduates of the Junior High Teacher Preparation
Program of the College of Education, Michigan State Uni­
versity,

judge to be the most significant areas of prepa­

ration for a junior high school teaching position;

to

determine the effectiveness of the Junior High Teacher
Preparation Program as judged by graduates of the program;
to determine the areas in which the Junior High Teacher
Preparation Program needs to be strengthened;

to determine

the number of graduates of the Junior High Teacher Prepa­
ration Program who actually teach at that level; to

79
determine the factors which influence their choice of the
Junior High Preparation Program; and to determine the factors
causing qualified graduates to reject a career in the
junior high classroom.
Conclusions
From the analysis of the opinions expressed by the
graduates of the Junior High Preparation Program, it seems
reasonable to conclude that:
1.

The junior high or middle school is a distinctive
enough teaching situation to require a specialized
preparation program.

This conclusion is confirmed

by the Dean study.1
2.

Student teaching in a junior high school or middle
school situation, pre-student teaching experience
with junior high or middle school students in situ­
ations provided by the University, and a seminar
focusing on the nature of the junior high school
and its students should be a part of the prepa­
ration program for every student.

3.

As viewed by the respondents in this study, the
following five areas of preparation are most sig­
nificant for junior high school teachers:

human

growth and development, guidance and counseling,
special methods of teaching, reading methods, and
general education.
1Dean,

"Preparation Program," pp. 74-75.

80
(These areas are identical to those reported
in the Dean study although the internal ranking
v a r i e s .2
The application of these areas of preparation
to the middle school situation is significantly
strengthened by the Dean study which reports the
same five areas rank at the top for upperelementary -school teachers although in a different
internal o r de r . )^
4.

The area of reading methods is the single most
critical area for strengthening the Michigan
State University Preparation Program.

5.

Classroom management, guidance and counseling,
and special methods of teaching are additional
areas which should be considered for revision to
increase their effectiveness.

6.

Greater emphasis should be given to audio-visual
techniques and human relation experiences in the
total Junior High Preparation Program.

7.

The correlation coefficients shown in Table 4.6
would seem to indicate that a statistically no n ­
significant relationship exists between importance
to the student and effectiveness of instruction in

2I b id., p. 74

3I b i d .

81

at least the thirteen areas of preparation
showing a correlation of .20 or less.

4

(These correlations must be interpreted with
caution.

Elements such as History and Philosophy

of Education, which received consistently low
significance ratings

(see Table 4.4), will show

a satisfactory correlation because they were not
rated as effectively taught either.
It is reassuring, however, to note that
General Education, with a correlation coefficient
of .44, was also rated as effectively taught.
One value of the data reported in Table 4.6
is to reinforce the apparent disparity between the
perceived importance of what is being taught and
the effectiveness with which it is taught.)
8 . The Junior High Preparation Program should be
given greater visibility in the College of Edu­
cation since the influence of faculty members
seems to be the most important university-controlled
factor in the selection of the junior high program.
9.

The number of graduates teaching at the junior high
school level is not below national averages but is
considerably below EIP, another special preparation
program of the College of Education.

4

Borg, Educational Research, p. 281.

82
10.

The factors causing rejection of a junior high
career are most often related to a preference
for the elementary age group or the more general­
ized elementary teaching situation.
(The middle school, with a younger student
body and a more exploratory curriculum, may de­
crease the importance of these rejection factors.)

Recommendations
A preparation program should continue to be
offered especially for junior high and middle school
teachers.

By neglecting the further development and im­

provement of such a program or by abandoning it alto­
gether, the College of Education is abdicating its responsi­
bility to provide a positive influence on the choice of the
junior high school level of instruction as a worthy career.
If, for reasons of certification, the College finds
it impractical to continue to offer an undergraduate pro­
gram in the junior high or middle school, it should con­
sider graduate offerings in the area which could lead to
a Master's degree.
In addition, some consideration could be given
to the development of in-service modules designed for
school districts which are interested in upgrading their
junior high or middle school staff.

83
The College of Education should build a pre-student
teaching experience with junior high or middle school age
students into the program of each participant.

Student

teaching coming near the end of the college career as it
currently does, is not sufficient to give college students
an opportunity to assess their interest in the age group
nor does it lend relevance to the courses taken in prepa­
ration for teaching.

This experience should come as early

in the college career of each student as possible.
The College of Education should ensure that stu­
dent teaching, when it is undertaken, will be in a junior
high or middle school situation.
The College of Education should require a seminar
situation focusing on the nature of the junior high school
and its students of all program participants.

Ideally

this would be conducted in conjunction with the pre­
student teaching experience with junior high or middle
school students.
The following areas of preparation should form
the basis of the program:
1.

Experiences which develop an understanding of the
physical, psychological, and social development
of the child and the relation of his environment
to his development.
The purpose of such preparation would be to pro­

vide junior high and middle school teachers with an

84
unders-banding of the needs and interests of adolescent
students.

By providing teachers w i t h an u n d e r s t anding of

the wide variations which psychologists have discovered
among early adolescents,

teachers will be b e t t e r able to

provide intelligently for the individual differences among
the children they will teach.
Courses providing such understandings are often
titled:

Human Growth and Development;

Child Psychology;

or, perhaps more appropriate for the teacher group in
question. Adolescent P s y c h o l o g y . 5
2.

Experiences which help the prospe c t i v e teacher
learn more about understanding the individual and
counseling with him about his p r o b l e m s .
The principal purpose of this area of preparation

would be to help the teacher to further d evelop an u n d e r ­
standing of individual differences and their relationship
to actual teaching situations.

This area of preparation

should develop in the teacher the ability to help students
understand themselves and their p r o b l e m s .
Courses designed to develop such understandings
often carry such titles as:

Principles of Guidance and

Personnel Services.6
5

See Appendix E, "Michigan State University College
of Education, Junior High School Teachers Preparation P r o ­
gram, Revised Winter 1966."
6 Ibid.

85
3.

Experiences designed to show objectives# materials,
and teaching techniques in particular subject areas
which a student is preparing to teach.
Such experiences should develop skill in the pre­

sentation of the subject matter to be learned, knowledge of
teaching materials appropriate to the planned objectives,
and the ability to formulate objectives clearly and in
behavioral terms whenever appropriate.
are reflected in courses titled:

Such experiences

Special Methods

(in the

major teaching field) or Professional Methods Block.
Consideration should be given to a separate Methods Block
for junior high or middle school teacher candidates.
4.

Experiences designed to teach the basic principles
and techniques of reading improvement.

Causes of

reading difficulties, diagnostic testing, materials,
and instructional procedures.
This is an area which has come under both state
and national consideration within the past few years.
Although Children's Literature is required, there
is no adequate provision for developing skill in the teach­
ing of reading at the junior high school level despite the
fact that reading is a fundamental skill without which not
much success can be achieved by any student.

7Ibid.

86
5.

Courses which give the prospective teacher a broad
general background in the principal fields of
organized knowledge.
Such courses are often termed general or liberal

education.

They would include physical and natural

science, the humanities, social sciences, philosophy, and
communication skills.
Thorough study in these areas is precluded by the
limitations of time in the normal four-year program of
pre—service teacher education.

In addition, the junior

high or middle school teacher is not usually required to
teach only one subject in isolation nor subject matter of
such complexity that a detailed mastery is imperative.
Providing breadth instead of depth should better
prepare the teacher to aid his students in the exploration
of various fields of knowledge.

This is consistent with

the nature of both the junior high and the emergent middle
school.
Recommendations up to this point can be generalized
to programs of junior high or middle school teacher prepa­
ration anywhere in the country, since respondents include
those teaching in ten states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico as well as Michigan.
From this point, however,

recommendations must

apply exclusively to Michigan State University.

87
The area of the preparation program which is in
most critical need of strengthening is the area of Reading
Methods.

It is recommended that such a course be developed

specifically for the junior high or middle school age group
and that each prospective teacher be required to take it.
It is further recommended that the course Principles
of Guidance and Personnel Services be reassessed for effec­
tiveness and that elements relating to classroom manage­
ment be given greater emphasis in the appropriate course
context.

The Junior High Seminar could afford such oppor­

tunities .
Two other areas of preparation which should be
given greater emphasis are those which provide training in
the use of instructional media and experiences which pro­
vide insights into working with parents, administrators,
and peers.
Both of these elements could be more effectively
presented if prospective teachers were introduced to class­
room experience prior to student teaching.
The Junior High School Teacher Preparation Program
should be given greater visibility within the College of
Education.

The influence of faculty members on student

choice of program seems to be the most important factor
under the control of the University.

Such visibility and

support could help combat the too-pervasive view of the
junior high school as an educational step-child.

88
The Dean study

7

noted that one of the largest

stumbling blocks to the specialized preparation of junior
high school teachers was the certification codes under
which most states operate.
Hearings are currently being held on a proposed
new Middle School Certificate Endorsement.

It is possible

that the resulting changes in the certification code will
provide direction for future program changes in the prepa­
ration of teachers for this age group.

Such changes in the

Michigan Certification Rules will not, unfortunately,
resolve the problem of the teacher who seeks employment
in other states.
Suggestions for Further Research
This study was undertaken for the purpose of
evaluating the program which the College of Education,
Michigan State University has developed for the prepa­
ration of junior high school teachers.

There are many

other related questions which need more adequate answers.
1.

What balance should be recommended between a
four-year preparation program and a five-year
preparation program for junior high or middle
school teachers?

2.

How can the junior high-middle school teaching
situation be given greater professional prestige?
7
Dean,

"Preparation Program," p. 83.

89
3.

How w ell is the junior high school performing
the function for w h ich it was created?

4.

Has the middle school solved any of the problems
faced by the junior high school?

5.

A c k n owledging that some of the weaknesses of the
pre-service preparation identified in this study
will have been overcome through formal or informal
means subsequent to graduation, what areas remain
of concern?

Based on these areas of concern, what

is the most useful in-service pro g r a m w h ich
M i chigan State University can m ake available to
M i chigan junior high and middle school teachers?
The p roblem of preparing the junior h igh or middle
school teacher will never be completely solved, but in­
vestigation of the preceding questions will provide
valuable direction as programs are designed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borg, Walter R.
Educational Research;
An I n t r o d uction.
New York:
David McKay^ C o m p a n y , 1963.
Bossing, Nelson L . , and Cramer, Roscoe V.
The Junior
High School.
Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin Co. ,

1965 .

Brimm, R. P.
The Junior High S c h o o l . Washington, D.C.:
The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
1963.
Bush, Robert N.
The Real World of the Beginning T e a c h e r .
Washington^ D .C. : National Commission on Teacher
Education, 1966.
Callaway, Rolland.
"Selecting a Teacher for Junior High."
Phi Delta K a p p a n , XLVIII, No. 2 (October, 1966),

83 .

Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education.
Cardinal Principles of Secondary E d u c a t i o n .
Bulletin No. 35.
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .: Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Education, 1918.
Dean, Leland W.
"A Preparation Program for Junior-HighSchool Teachers."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1956.
Eichhorn, Donald H.
The Middle S c h o o l . New York:
The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
1966.
Hays, William L.
Statistics for P s y c h o l o g i s t s .
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

New York:

H o r r o c k s , John E.
The Psychology of A d o l e s c e n c e . 2nd
edition.
B o s t o n : Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.

90

91
Houston, Robert W.
"A Study of the Teaching Status of
Graduates of the Elementary Intern Program at
Michigan State University." East Lansing: Michi­
gan State University, College of Education, 1967.
(Mimeographed.)
Kirby, Darrell Francis.
"Factors Relating to the Prepa­
ration of Social Studies Teachers in Selected
Junior High Schools in Colorado." Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1964.
Maynard, H. Glenn.
"A Study of the Professional Prepa­
ration of Junior High School Teachers." Unpub­
lished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College,
1960.
Mead, Margaret.
"Early Adolescence in the United States."
Bulletin of the National Association of SecondarvSchool Principals, XLIX, No. 300 (Apri1, 1965) , 10,
N oar, Gertrude. The Junior High School--Today and
Tomorrow. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N . J . :
Prentice-Ha11, Inc., 1961.
North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools.
Policies, Principles, and Standards
for the Approval or Junior High Schools (Proposed).
Chicago: North Central Association of Colleges
and Secondary Schools, 1966.
Popper, Samuel H. The American Middle School--An Organi­
zational Analysis. Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell
Publishing Company, 1967.
Rusk, Elizabeth H.
"A Study of Secondary School Teachers
of English Who Graduated from Michigan State Uni­
versity."
Study for the College of Arts and
Letters Teacher Preparation Committee and for
the Humanities Teaching Institute of Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1967.
Schmidt, Gerald Lee.
"Preservice Professional Preparation
of Junior High School Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation. University of Colorado, 1965.
Sheehan, Milbourne Richard.
"Junior High School Teachers'
Evaluation of Preservice Preparation." Unpub­
lished Ph.D. dissertation, St. Louis University,
1969.

92
Upper Midwest Regional Conference on Junior High School
Education. Proceedings of the Regional Conference.
Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1960.
Printed in Bulletin of
the National Association of Secondary School
Principals, XLV, No. 266 (September, 1961), 18-48.
Van Til, William; V a r s , Gordon? and L o u nsbury, John.
Modern Education for the Junior High School Y e a r s .
2nd ed.
Indianapolis: The Bobbs Merrill Company,
I n c . , 1967.
Vars, Gordon F . , ed.
Guidelines for Junior High and
Middle School Education^
Wa s h i n g t o n , D . C . :
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
19 66.
Walker, Helen M . , and Lev, Joseph.
Elementary Statistical
Methods. 3rd ed.
New York:
H o l t , Rinehart and
W inston, 1969.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPED TO GATHER DATA

Questionnaire for Graduates of the Junior High School Teacher Preparation Program
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Male _____

Female

2.Year ofMSU graduation__

1.

Sex

3.

In what subject fields are you certified?

4.

Major at MSU _if different from certification areas:

5.

What subjects are you currently teaching?
________________________________

Grade(s)_________________

Subject ______________________________________

Grade(s)_________________

Subject ______________________________________

Grade(s) ________________

Subject

6.

Number of years in teaching prior to the present year?

7.

Number of those years in grades 10, 11, and/or 12?

8.

Number of those years in grades K-6?

9.

Number of those years in grades 7, 8, and/or 9?

_______________________

__________________

_____________________

9A. If the answer to #9 was "0", what is the single most important reason that you
not go into junior high teaching?

10.

Are you currently teaching in grades 7, 8, and/or 9?
YES

NO ___________

10A. If the answer to #10 was "NO" why aren't you teaching at that level now?

10B. If the answer to #10 was "YES" what grades are included in your junior high sch
6-8__________
11.
YES

12.

7-8

7-9___________

_____ __

Given the choice, would you choose the junior high preparation program again?
NO

Why do you say this?________________

Do you feel that the junior high school is a distinctive enough teaching situat

to require a specialized program?
13.

Other (Please specify)

YES ______________

NO_____________

Did you do your student teaching in a junior high school?

93

YES _ _ _ _

NO ______

-214. Below you will find a set of statements. Each statement describes courses ot
course content which could be considered appropriate preparation for a junior high
school teacher. In Column I please Indicate how significant you believe each type
of course could be to a junior high school teacher *s effectiveness. Circle the
letter corresponding to the phrase that best describes your reaction:
A
B
C
D
E

»
"
=
=
■

Extremely significant
Quite significant
Somewhat significant
Of relatively little significance
Of practically no significance

Regardless of your statements on significance, indicate in Column II how
effective you believe your MSU program was in teaching the content described.
IF YOU NEVER HAD A COURSE WHICH INCLUDED THE CONTENT DESCRIBED, PLEASE LEAVE 1
1 » Very effective
2 = Good
3 *• Satisfactory
4 ■ Ineffective
5 = Very poor
I
Significance
to teachers
Courses which give the prospective teacher
a broad general background in the principal
fields of organized knowledge. For example,
survey courses in science, literature, the
humanities, etc.

II
Rating of MSU
Program

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 3

Courses designed to give a thorough and com­
plete background of training on the subject
matter specialty or specialities of the teacher.
For example, advanced English courses for the
English teacher, or advanced mathematics courses
for the teacher of mathematics.
A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Courses of study which help the prospective
teacher learn more about understanding the
individual and counseling with him about his
problems.

1 2 3 4 5

A B C D E

Audio-visual materials and techniques. For
example, projector operation, selection
sources and elements of effective utiliza­
tion of such teaching tools as flat pictures,
slides, film strips, sound picture films, and
field trips.
A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Course work which gives the prospective teacher
a better understanding of the school as a social
institution and the structure of school society.
For example, cliques, social classes, etc.
A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Study of the historical background of present
issues in education and an analysis of
educational theory and practice.

i 9 **

A B C D E

a

-3I
Significance
to teachers

IX
Rating of MSU
Program

Courses showing objectives, material, and
teaching techniques in particular subject
areas which a student is preparing to teach.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Physical, psychological and social development
of the child and the relation of his environment
to his development.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Courses which develop an understanding
of the theories of learning as they
apply to the classroom.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Training in working with children with special
problems. Methods of facilitating growth and
development of children who are crippled, hard
of hearing, defective in vision, mentally
handicapped, etc.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Basic principles and techniques of reading
improvement.
Causes of reading difficulties,
diagnostic testing, materials and instruc­
tional procedures.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Courses designed to develop an understanding
of various ways of developing the core or
fused curriculum.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Classroom management such as techniques
for classroom organization, record keeping,
teacher-pupil planning, handling disciplinary
problems, etc.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Techniques for working with parents, adminis­
trators and other teachers.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

An understanding of the construction, selection,
administration and uses of tests.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Seminar situation focusing on the nature of
the junior high school and its students.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Pre-student teaching experience with junior
high school students in situations provided
by the university.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

Student teaching.

A B C D E

1 2 3 4 5

15. Now that you have had teaching experience, is there any area in addition to
those listed in Question 14 which you feel was lacking in your undergraduate
preparation? If so, please list it (them) below and rate it (them) according
to the above scale of significance to teachers.
(Continue on back If necessary.)

A B C D E
A B C D E

-416

What factors influenced your choice of the junior high preparation progr
(Indicate relevant factors in order of importance using 1 as most Import
______

I enjoyed working with junior high age people.

______

There seemed to be favorable job prospects in the junior high fie

______

I was influenced by parents or friends.

______

I was influenced by supervising teacher(s).

______

I was influenced by a college faculty member.

______

Other (Please specify)

17.
Check each previous experience you had with the junior high age group whi
influenced your choice of the junior high preparation program.
In the parenth
which follow the items rate each experience which you checked in terms of its
influence on your choice of the junior high preparation program using the foil
scale:
1
2
3
4
5

=
=
=
=*
*

Of
Of
Of
Of
Of

very great influence
great influence
moderate influence
little influence
no influence

None

MSU STUDENT EDUCATION CORPS

Work with summer camps or
recreation programs ( )

General observation of this
group ( )

Church work ( )

Future Teachers Corps ( )

Scout work ( )

MSU required "September Expe

Coaching athletics or
dramatics ( )

Other (Please list) _________

Your answers will be treated confidentially.
However, in order
get the largest possible number of returns, we will be making a
second mailing in the near future. To help us avoid inconvenient
you with this second mailing, your signature would be appreciate!
OPTIONAL
OPTIONAL

(signature is optional)
If you wish us to send you a summary of the results of this surve
in the address blank below:
(street & number)

(city)

(sta

Thank you most sincerely for taking time to fill out this questionnaire.
If you
should wish to make any general comments about the nature of the junior high sch
as an institution, the students, the teachers or the junior high teachers prepar
program, please feel free to do so on the b&cfcxxftsckuEKXpcqgKX: e n c l o s e d sheet.:

APPENDIX B

INITIAL COVER LETTER

M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

bast lansing

• u k m o a n 4*m j

COLLBOB OV EDUCATION • BUCKSON HAIX

April 5, 1968

Dear
The College of Education is interested in strengthening its prepara­
tion program for junior high school teachers.
Since our own graduates
are a major source of information, we hope you will be willing to
give the 10-15 minutes required to fill out this questionnaire.
It will enable you to have a very real part in improving the prepara­
tion of teachers for a most critical age group.
We shall appreciate very much your sincere and honest reactions.
They will be considered confidential and will be summarized without
identification.
You will note that provision has been made on the questionnaire
should you wish a copy of a summary of the results of this study.
Sincerely,

L.W. Dean
Assistant Dean and Director
School of Teacher Education

William Helder
Coordinator
Social Science Teaching Institute

97

APPENDIX C

SECOND COVER LETTER

M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

u s r l a n u n o • M R anoA N

COLLEGE or EDUCATION • ERICKSON HALL

May 13, 1968

X
X
X

Dear x
Several weeks ago you may have received a copy of the enclosed
questionnaire.
Perhaps you have already returned yours, exercis­
ing the option to return it unsigned.
If this is the case, we
thank you most sincerely and ask that you excuse the duplication.
If you have not had an opportunity to complete the questionnaire,
we hope that you will be willing to give the 10—15 minutes required
to fill it out. As a graduate of the junior high preparation
program, your opinion represents a valuable contribution to the
efforts of the College of Education to strengthen that program.
Your reactions will be considered confidential and will be summarized
without identification.
Should you wish a copy of a summary of the results of this study,
please include both name and address in the optional section at the
end of the questionnaire.
Sincerely,

L.W. Dean
Assistant Dean and Director
School of Teacher Education

William Helder
Coordinator
Social Science Teaching Institute

98

APPENDIX D

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
EACH OF THE EIGHTEEN P R O G R A M COMPONENTS
SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENTS

TABLE D.l

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
GENERAL EDUCATION, i . e . , SURVEY COURSES

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N
A
B
C
D

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
5
4
e
No

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

34
27

44%
35%

15

44%

26%

6

18%

3

9%

0

7

33%
50%

9
4

33%
40%

1

10

0

26%
0%
0%

9
9
5
0

0%

2

2

0

0%

0

0%

0

50%
0%

0

4%
0%
50%
0%

0%

1

50%

0

0%

0

24

31%

21

6

E
No
Rating

1

13%
5%
1%

2

2%

0

TOTAL

78

100%

22

4

0

28%

27%

0

N

%

0%

1

0

0%

1

0

0%

1

0

0%

0

1

100%

0

3%
4%
10%
0%
0%

0%

0

0%

1

50%

8%

1

1%

4

5%

%

TABLE D.2
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
SPECIALIZED SUBJECT MATTER

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

__________ Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
^
2
3
^
5

No

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

N %

13%

13

33%

9

23%

9 23%

0

0%

3 .8%

5 30%

0

0%

2

10%

%

2

20%

N %

39

51%

5

B

18

23%

1

5%

9

50%

1

5%

C

10

13%

1

10%

3

30%

3

30%

1

10%

0

0

D

8

10%

0

0%

0

0%

5

62%

1

13%

0

0%

E

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

NO
Rating

2

2%

0

0%

1

50%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 50%

TOTAL

78

100%

7

9%

26

33%

18

16

21%

1

1%

10 13%

23%

2 25%
0

0%

100

A

TABLE D.3
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
GUIDANCE AND COUNSELING

Significance to Junior
High Teachers

__________ Rating of MStJ Program br MSU Graduates
3

%

N

%

N

%

A

50

65%

5

10%

6

B

19

24%

0

0%

C

6

8%

0

D

2

2%

E

0

0%

N

%

N %

N

%

N

%

12%

13

26%

17 34%

4

8%

5

10%

4

20%

6

32%

6

32%

1

5%

2

11%

0%

0

0%

3

50%

1

1

1

17%

1

17%

0

0%

0

0%

1

50%

0

0%

0

0%

1

50%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

10 13%

23

6

8%

10

No
Rating

1

1%

0

0%

TOTAL

78

100%

5

5%

0

30%

24 31%

13%

101

N

No
Rating

5

4

TABLE D.4

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
AUDIO-VISUAL
Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
High Teachers
N

3

2

1

4

5

No
Rating

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

N

%

9%

4 17%

6

26%

12

39%

A

23

29%

2

9%

3

13%

6

26%

2

B

31

39%

2

7%

6

19%

3

10%

5 15%

3

10%

C

12

17%

1

9%

2

16%

3

25%

2

16%

1

9%

3

25%

D

8

10%

0

0%

1

12%

2

25%

1

13%

0

0%

4

50%

E

1

1

%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

3

4%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3

100%

TOTAL

78

100%

5

5%

12

8

10%

28

17%

15

19%

10

13%

36%

102

%

TABLE D.5
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

Rating of MSD Program by MSU Graduates
1

2

4

3

5

1,0

Rating

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

N %

N

3

20%

3

20%

3 20%

0

11%

41%

7

26%

3 10%

13%

4

10

35%

7 25%

14%

2

40%

0

0% 2

A

15

19%

5

34%

B

29

39%

2

7%

C

27

35%

3

12%

4

D

5

5%

0

0%

0

0%

2

E

1

1%

0

0%

1

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

1

1%

TOTAL

78

100%

L0

12%

12

20%

16%

26%

22

29%

13

0%

%

13%
8%

40%

1

20%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 100%

17% 4

5%

9

11%

TABLE D.6

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY
Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers

No

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

A

4

5

0

0%

2

50%

2

50%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

B

15

19%

3

20%

4

26%

3

20%

1

7%

1

7%

3

20%

C

30

39%

0

0%

4

13%

15

50%

4 13%

3

11%

4

13%

D

22

28%

2

9%

5

23%

7

31%

5 23%

1

5%

2

9%

E

6

8%

0

0%

1

16

1

16

1

3 50%

0

0%

No
Rating

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

100%

TOTAL

78

100%

5

6%

16

21%

28

0%

36%

0
11

16
0%

14%

N %

0

0%

1

8

10%

10

13%

TABLE D.7
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
SPECIAL METHODS OF TEACHING

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

1

2

4

5

No
Rating

N %

N %

N %

3

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

43

56%

7

16%

7

16%

12

27%

12

27%

4 11%

1

B

22

28%

0

0%

9

40%

8

36%

3

14%

0

2 100%

C

10

13%

0

0%

0

0%

5

50%

3

30%

2 20%

0

0%

D

2

2%

0

0%

0

0%

2

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

E

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

7

9%

16

21%

27

35% 18

23%

6

7%

4

0%

3%

5%

105

A

TABLE D.8
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
HUMAN GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

%

1

4

3

2

N

%

N

%

N

%

No
Rating

5

N %

N

%

N

%

A

40

52%

10

25%

11

27%

12

30%

3

8%

1

2%

3

8%

B

31

39%

1

4%

11

35%

11

35%

6 18%

1

4%

1

4%

C

6

8%

0

0%

1

17%

4

66%

0

0%

0

0%

1

17%

D

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

E

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

TOTAL

78

100%

11

14%

23

30%

27

35%

9 11%

2

1 100%
2%

6

8%

TABLE D.9
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
LEARNING THEORY

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

1

3

2

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

No
Rating

5

4
%

N %

N

%

27

35%

1

4%

5

18%

8

30%

7 26%

2

7%

4

15%

B

18

23%

1

5%

7

37%

5

31%

2 11%

1

5%

2

11%

C

23

29%

0

0%

4

17%

12

52%

1

0

0%

6

27%

D

7

9%

0

0%

0

0%

3

43%

2 29%

1 14%

1

14%

E

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

3

4%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

2

2%

16

21%

28

35%

12 16%

4

5%

4%

16

21%

107

A

TABLE D.10
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers

1

3

2

4

5

No
Rating

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

N %

N

%

A

9

11%

1

11%

1

11%

0

0%

2 22%

2 22%

3

34%

B

15

19%

0

0%

1

6%

1

6%

5 33%

0

0%

8

55%

C

26

34%

0

0%

2

8%

5

19%

3 12%

1

4%

15

57%

D

9

11%

0

0%

1

11%

0

0%

1 11%

1 11%

6

67%

E

3

4%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 33%

2

67%

No
Rating

16

21%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

16 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

1

1%

5

6%

6

8%

11 14%

5

6%

50

65%

TABLE D.ll
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
READING METHODS

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
2

1

4

3

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

5
%

N %

No
Rating
N %

47

60%

2

4%

5

10%

10

21%

18 40%

10

21%

2

4%

B

14

18%

0

0%

1

8%

5

35%

5 35%

1

8%

2

14%

C

12

17%

0

0%

0

0%

7

58%

3 25%

0

0%

2

17%

D

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 100%

E

2

2%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

2 100%

0

No
Rating

2

2%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

2 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

2

2%

6

8%

22

28%

26 34%

13

17%

9

0%

11%

109

A

TABLE D.12

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
CORE CURRICULUM
Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

%

No
Rating
N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

N %

N %

A

6

8%

0

0%

0

0%

2

33%

2

33%

0

0%

2

33%

B

30

39%

0

0%

1

3%

16

54%

4

13%

5

17%

4

13%

C

28

35%

0

0%

2

7%

17

61%

2

7%

0

0%

7

25%

D

6

8%

0

0%

0

0%

1

17%

2

33%

0

0%

3

50%

E

I

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 100%

0

0%

No
Rating

7

9%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

TOTAL

78

100%

0

0%

3

4%

36

46%

10

13%

6

8%

7 100%
23

29%

TABLE D.13

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT
Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
High Teachers
N

1

3

2

4

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

No
Rating

5
N

%

N %

A

37

47%

3

8%

2

5%

8

22%

8 22%

10 27%

6

16%

B

21

27%

0

0%

2

9%

4

19%

3 15%

8 38%

4

19%

C

10

13%

0

0%

3

30%

5

50%

1 10%

1 10%

0

0%

D

3

4%

0

0%

0

0%

1

33%

1 33%

0

0%

1

33%

E

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

6

8%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

6 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

3

4%

7

9%

19

24% 13 17%

19 24%

17

22%

TABLE D.14
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
HUMAN RELATIONS

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

________ Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
1
2
^
4
5

No

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

N %

N %

15

19%

3

20%

1

7%

4

27%

2 13%

2 13%

3

20%

B

31

40%

0

0%

1

4%

11

35%

4 14%

7 22%

8

25%

C

17

22%

0

0%

1

6%

7

41%

3 18%

1

6%

5

29%

D

6

8%

1

17%

0

0%

1

17%

1 16%

0

0%

3

50%

E

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

8

10%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

8 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

4

5%

3

4%

24

31%

10 13%

10 13%

27

34%

112

A

TABLE D.15

SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
TESTS
Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

2

1

3

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

No
Rating

4

5

N %

N %

N

%

21

27%

1

5%

1

5%

5

22%

4

19%

3 15%

7

34%

B

27

35%

3

11%

6

22%

5

19%

3

11%

3 11%

7

26%

C

20

25%

1

5%

2

10%

9

45%

2

10%

2 10%

4

20%

D

3

4%

0

0%

0

0%

1

33%

1

33%

0

0%

1

33%

E

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 100%

0

0%

0

0%

Rating

6

8%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

6 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

5

6%

9

12%

20

26%

11

14%

NO

8 10%

25

32%

113

A

TABLE D.16
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
JUNIOR HIGH SEMINAR

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

1

2

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

No
Rating

4

5

N %

N %

N

3

%

A

38

49%

6

15%

2

5%

1

3%

8 23%

6 15%

15

39%

B

21

27%

1

5%

1

5%

5

22%

2 10%

1

5%

11

53%

C

7

9%

0

0%

1

14%

1

14%

0

0%

0

0%

5

72%

D

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

E

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

1

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

10

13%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

10 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

7

9%

4

51

9

11%

10 13%

7

9%

41

53%

TABLE D.17
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
PRE-STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

________ Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates
1

3

2

4

5
N %

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

No
Rating
N %

A

44

57%

6

14%

4

9%

3

7%

1

2%

11

25%

19

43%

B

16

21%

1

6%

2

12%

1

6%

2 12%

0

0%

10

64%

C

8

10%

0

0%

0

0%

1

12%

1 12%

2

25%

4

50%

D

2

2%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1

50%

1

50%

E

1

1%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

1 100%

0

0%

No
Rating

7

9%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

TOTAL

78

100%

7

9%

6

8%

5

6%

4

5%

15

19%

7 100%
41

53%

TABLE D.18
SIGNIFICANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS RATINGS FOR
STUDENT TEACHING

Rating of MSU Program by MSU Graduates

Significance to Junior
High Teachers
N

%

4

3

2

1

No
Rating

5

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N %

8%

5

8%

0

0%

2

3%

N

%

A

64

82%

41

64%

11

17%

5

B

8

10%

0

0%

4

50%

1

13%

0

0%

0

0%

3

37%

C

3

4%

1

33%

0

0%

1

33%

0

0%

0

0%

1

33%

D

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

E

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

No
Rating

3

4%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

3 100%

TOTAL

78

100%

42

7

9%

5

6%

0

0%

9

55%

15

19%

11%

APPENDIX E

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION
PROGRAM, R E V I S E D WINTER, 1966

Revised Winter, 1966

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
Students wishing to prepare for teaching at the junior high school level
may qualify for a teaching certificate valid in grades K-9 (teaching in
major and minor fields only in grade nine). The program leading to this
modified elementary provisional certificate may also be of Interest to
those wanting to teach in grades five and six.
For students intending to qualify for an elementary provisional certificate
with emphasis upon teaching in the junior high school, two important
requirements should be considered!
(1)

There are two major and minor patterns which can be followed
in subject matter areas taught in junior high schools:
(a)
One major of at
least 40 hours (preferably 45) and
one minor of at
least 30 hours.
(b)
One major of at
least 36 hours and two minors of
at least 23 hours each.
A student at Michigan State University following this program
must have a major in one of the following fields: General
Science, English, or Social Science. A major in Social
Science must be accompanied by a minor in English and vice
versa. A major in General Science must be accompanied by
a minor in Mathematics.
In addition, students are encouraged to select at least 15
hours of work of a general liberal nature, under the guidance
of their advisor.

(2)

In addition to the preparation required in subject matter
fields, it is necessary to complete the following professional
education courses:
ED 200
*ED 301
ED 325C
ED 32 1A, B, C
ED 436
PSY 348
ED 815B
*ED 482

Individual and the School
School and Society
Children's Literature
Professional Methods Block
Student Teaching
Adolescent Psychology
Principles of Guidance and
Personnel Services
Junior High Seminar

5
6
3
15
15
3
3
3
53

*ED 301 will become ED 450 Fall Term, 1966 and will have 5 credits.
ED 450 should be taken after ED 436 (Student Teaching).
*ED 482 can be taken at any time in your program as either a
required or elective course.

118
Revised Winter» 1966

For the student wishing to take professional electives, the following
are suggested;
ART 201
ED 312
ED 327
ED 431
ED 465
ED 82IB

Arts and Crafts
Human Growth and Development
Special Methods (in the major
teaching field)
Audio-Visual Instruction
Introduction to Measurement and
Evaluation in the Classroom
Core Curriculum

Requirements for subject matter area majors and minors are attached.

4
4
3
3
3
3

119
Revised Winter, 1966
POSSIBLE MAJORS IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
ENGLISH MAJOR

Credits

American Thought and Language 111, 112, 113
English 206, 207, 208 (Forms of Literature)
Five credits from: English 213, 214, 228A, 228B
(Expository, Essay, and Creative Writing)
English 402 (Modern English Grammar)
English 465 or 466 or 470 or 471 or 472 (English Literature)
Speech 101 (Public Speaking) or 108 (Voice and Articulation) or
116 (Group Discussion) or 260 (Oral Reading)
TOTAL

9
9
5
5
5
3_
36

If one major and one minor, add from the following:
English 480 (Literary Criticism)
English 446 or 447 or 448 (American Literature)
English 421 or 422 or 423 (Shakespeare)

3
5
5

ASHSOCIAL SCIENCE MAJOR
Social Science 231, 232, 233
History 220, 221 (U.S. History Federal Union andNation State)
Political Science 300, 301 (American National and State Gov't)
Geography 204 (World Regional Geography)
Emphasis upon a discipline such as: Sociology, Geography
Economics, History
OR
Emphasis upon a multi-disclpllnary grouping of courses with a
focus such as: Latin America, Asia, Africa, U.S.
TOTAL
If one major and one minor, add (at least 6) credits related
to one of the disciplines or multi-disciplinary groupings
listed above

12
8
10
4
(6 or more)

(6

or more)
40

6
45+

GENERAL SCIENCE MAJOR
Natural Science 181, 182, 183
Geology 200, 200L (Foundations of Earth Science) OR
201, 202 (General Geology--Physical and Historical)
Chemistry 111, 112, 103 (Comprehensive Basic Concepts)
Biological Science 211, 212 (General Biology)
TOTAL
If one major and one minor, add (at least 8) credits from:
Physics and Astronomy 247, 248, 249 (General Physics)
OR
Physics and Astronomy 119 (General Astronomy)
Fisheries and Wild Life 402 (Conservation Education)
Geology 421 (Mineralogy)
Zoology 341 (Human Heredity)
TOTAL

12
4
8
11
10
37 to 41
12
4
4
4
4
45+

Majors in other fields may be developed in consultation with the advisor

120

Revised Winter, 1966
POSSIBLE MINORS IN THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
ENGLISH MINOR

Credits

American Thought and Language 111, 112, 113
English 213 or 214 or 228A or 22SB (Expository, Essay, and
Creative Writing)
English 206 and 208 (Forms of Literature)
English 402 (Modern English Grammar)
English 381 (English Literature)

9
3 or 5
6
5
3
26+

TOTAL
If one major and one minor, add:
English 207 and 380 (Forms of Literature and American
Literature)

6
TOTAL

30+

SOCIAL SCIENCE MINOR
Social Science 231, 232, 233
History 220, 221 (U.S* History Federal Union and Nation State)
Geography 204 (World Regional Geography)
TOTAL
If one major and one minor, add:
Political Science 300 and 301 (American National & State Gov't)
or a course chosen from:
Economics, Sociology, Geography or
History instead of 300 or 301
TOTAL

12
8
4
24

10
_____
32+

GENERAL SCIENCE MINOR
Natural Science 181, 182, 183
Sixteen hours from the following:
Biological Science 202 (Foundations)
Physical Science 203 (Foundations)
Geology 200, 200L (Foundations of Earth Science)
Physics and Astronomy 119 (General Astronomy)
Fisheries and Wild Life 402 (Conservation Education)

12
4
4
4
4
4
16
28

TOTAL
MATHEMATICS MINOR
Mathematics 106, 109 (College Algebra and Trigonometry)
Mathematics 112, 113 (Analytic Geometry,and'Calculus)
Mathematics 301 (Foundations of Mathematics)
OR
Mathematics 201, 202 (Foundations of Arithmetic and
Algebra)

10
10

8
23+
7
30+

TOTAL
If one major and one minor, add 7 hours:
TOTAL
Minors

In

other

fields

may

be

developed

in c o n s u l t a t i o n

with

the

ad

121

Revised Winter, 1966
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM SUMMARY
lame .

Major

Minor(s)

REQUIREMENTS:
University College
9
12
3

Professional

ATL 111. 112. 113

5

ED 200

NS 181. 182. 183

6

HPR (3 terms)

3

ED 301
(ED 450) (5)
ED 325C

12

SS 231. 232. 233

15

ED 321A.B.C

12

HUM 241. 242. 243

15

ED 436

(48)

■TOTAL

3

PSY 348

3

ED 815B

3

ED 482

(53)

TOTAL

Some Suggested Electives (20 to 30 credit hours necessary beyond required
work to reach the minimum total of 183 term hours). Some of these courses
can be used to strengthen major or minor teaching fields.
General Liberal

Professional

4___________________ BS 202__________________ 4___________________

ART 201

___________________
3
COM 100_________________ 4___________________

ED 312

_
4__________________ MTH 201_________________ 3___________________

ED 32?

_
3__________________ PHIL 137________________ 3___________________

ED 431

4__________________ PHS 203_________________ 3___________________
_

ED 465

Other units for total

3

ED

82IB

Other
Electives
(

)__________________ TOTAL

Major

M inor

University College Not Counted Elsewhere

(

)___________________ TOTAL

Minor

Professional
Professional Electives,

122

Revised Winter, 1966

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
SOCIAL SCIENCE MINOR

ENGLISH MAJOR

3_
3_
3_
3_
3_
3_
6_
OR
5

ATL 111
_ATL 112
~ATL 113
ENG 206
_ENG 207
”ENG 208
JENG 213 & 214
"OR 228A or 228B
JENG 402
_ENG 465 or 466 or
_470 or 471 or 472
SPH 101 or 108 or
"ll6 or 260

4
4
4
4
4

(36).

.TOTAL (For 2
minors)

C
wM

5
5

_ENG 480
JENG 446 or 447 or
_448
ENG 421 or 422 or
"423
"t o t a l

5
5

(45+).

(32+)

SS 231
SS 232
SS 233
HST 220
HST 221
GEO 204

TOTAL (Fo;
2 minors)
PLS 300
PLS 301
ECON, SOC.
GEO, or HST. in
place ef 300 or
201
TOTAL

SOCIAL SCIENCE MAJOR

ENGLISH MINOR
3__
3__
3_
3_
OR
5__
3_
3_
5_
3

_ATL
ATL
“ATL
~ENG
JOR
_ENG
"ENG
~ENG
“ENG
ENG

(24+),

.TOTAL (For 2
minors)

(40)

ENG 207
"ENG 380

6

111
112
113
213 or 214
228A or 228B
206
208
402
381

4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
6

SS 231
SS 232
SS 233
HST 220
HST 221
PLS 300
PLS 301
GEO 204
Discipline

Emphasis
TOTAL (For
2 minors)
Other
Emphasis
Related
Units

(30+).

TOTAL

(45+).

TOTAL

1 23

Revised Winter, 1966

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
MATHEMATICS MINOR

GENERAL SCIENCE MAJOR

4
4
4
4
OR
8
4
4
3
3
5

NS 181
NS 182
NS 183
GLG 200 and 200L
OR
GLG 201 and 20z
CEM 111
CEM 112
CEM 103
BS 211
BS 212

5
5
5
5
3
OR
8

(37-41)

TOTAL (For 2 minors)

(23+)

TOTAL
2 min

7

Other
For To

at least 8 units from:
4
4
4

MTH
MTH
MTH
MTH
MTH
OR
MTH
202

108
109
112
113
301
201

PHY 247
PHY 248
PHY 249
OR

4
4
4
4

PHY 119
FW 402
GLG 421
ZOL 341

(45+)

TOTAL

GENERAL SCIENCE MINOR
4
4
4

NS 181
NS 182
NS 183

Sixteen units from:
4
4
4
4
4

BS 202
FHS 203
GLG 200 and 200L
PHY 119
FW 402

(28)

TOTAL

(30+)

TOTAL

Revised

Winter, 1966

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM

Course Schedule Plan

Name

FALL TERM

FROSH.

GRADES
3
4
1

ATL 111
NS 181
HPR
TOTAL

SOPH

WINTER TERM

ATL 112
NS 182
HPR

3
4
1

TOTAL

SS 231
HUM 241

4
4

3
4

ATL 113
NS 183
HPR

1

IUIALi

4
4

SS 233
HUM 243

TOTAL

TOTAL*

TOTAL

total

TOTAL

TOTAL

4
4

-

JUNIOR
TOTAL

_

,

----

SENIOR

TOTAL

-

124

TOTAL

SS 231
HUM 242

GRADES

SPRING TERM

GRADES

125
Revised Winter, 1966

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM
Waiver and Substitution Record

Name
Student Number
Course

OTHER:

Substitute
(list courses used)

Waive

Advisor

Date