I
I

72-8707
JACKSON, Charles Louis, 1924A STUDY OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES
REPORTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CLUSTER
PROGRAM AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STUDENT TEACHERS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971
Education, administration

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan

A STUDY OF SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES
REPORTED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CLUSTER PROGRAM AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM
STUDENT TEACHERS

By
Charles Louis Jackson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1971

PLEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have i n d i s t i n c t
p rin t.
Filmed as re c e iv e d .
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS

ABSTRACT

A STUDY O F SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES
REPORTED BY MLCHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CLUSTER PROGRAM AND COHVEMTZONAI PROGRAM
STUDEUT TEACHEES
by
C h a r l e s Loud, s J aclc son.

The major

purpose of this study was

to determine

within the limitations of this inquiry if the Michigan State
University cluster* program of student

teaching

provided more

of the selected student teaching experiences than
conventional prrogrram of student
was to ascertain if those

teaching..

did the

A second purpose

student teachers involved evalu­

ated their student teaching experiences as heing valuable
or not.

The third purpose was to obtain

from the

respond­

ents their recommendations as to the selected student teach­
ing experiences they

would include

in future student

teaching

programs.
The literature reveals concern among teacher

edu­

cators with the student teaching phase o f the overall teacher
education program-

Modifications have been

initiated to expand the scope of student

implemented and

teaching -

There­

fore, this study sought to identify the experiences the
student teachers received

and to obtain their reaction to

Charles Louis Jackson
these pre-professional teaching encounters.
The normative survey and evaluative method of research
were used in this study.

After developing a questionnaire

from the literature and from pretesting the instrument with
professionals in the field of teacher education, one hundred
student teaching experiences were selected to be included
in the survey.

The instrument was mailed to 266 elementary

education majors who had completed their student teaching
the previous term.

A 73 per cent return was obtained with

71 respondents from the cluster program and 117 persons from
the conventional program completing the questionnaire.
The data obtained through the instruments were then
quantified and a t-test was conducted at the .05 level of
significance.
Further dimensions to the study were added by apply­
ing t-tests to each of the experiences measured in the study;
by developing from the data the ten most frequently, and
the ten least frequently reported incidents in the three
categories of the study; and a classification and analysis
of the types of participation the two groups reported.
Within the limitations of this study, the following
conclusions were supported:
1.

The cluster program student teachers reported having
experienced more of the selected student teaching expe­
riences than did the conventional program participants.

2.

Of those experiences reported by the respondents, more

Charles Louis Jackson
were reported as valuable by the cluster program student
teachers than by the conventional program student teachers.
Cluster program participants recommended that more of
the selected student teaching experiences be included
in future student teaching programs than did the conven­
tional program participants.

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my parents, Mr. and Mrs.
Louis F. Jackson,

and ray dear wife, Rita Anne Jackson, in

deepest gratitude for their love, their understanding,
faith,

their

and. the support they have offered over the years.

Without them,

this endeavor could not have been possible

nor had meaning.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express gratitude to the many
Michigan State University students and faculty members who
aided in making this study possible.
I want to extend appreciation to my thesis advisor,
Dr. George R. Myers,

who so willingly gave of his time and

energy to assist with the study.

The interest, support,

and encouragement from the members of my committee, Dr.
Clyde M. Campbell, Dr. William A. Faunce, Dr. Richard L.
Featherstone, and Dr. Max R. Raines, require special recog­
nition.
Recognition and sincere thanks are due to my many
friends for their support, encouragement and patience through
the doctoral study, the research and the writing of this
thesis.

To Dr. Richard Watson, my special thanks and rec­

ognition for his constant help, interest, and support.
The sacrifices of my children, Eric Charles,
Laurence Louis, and Lynne Marie, made this achievement
possible.

May it be possible that I will be able to repay

them in some small way.

TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION................................................ ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................
LIST OF TABLES..........

iii
vi

LIST OF

F I G U R E S ........................................ vii

LIST OF

APPENDICES.................................... viii

Chapter
I.

THE NATURE OF THE INVE S T I G A T I O N .............

1

Introduction to the Study
Need for the Study
Statement of Purpose
Hypotheses
Underlying Assumptions of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Definition of Terms
II.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE....................18
Background
Michigan State University
Individualization in Student Teaching
Various Teaching Models
College-Public School Relations
Summarizing Statements

III.

PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY............... 42
Introduction
Sources of Data
Design of Study
Collection of Data
Scoring and Validity of the Data
Summary

Page

Chapter
IV.

52

ANALYSIS OP DATA
Introduction
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis Three
Additional Comparative Analysis
Summary of the Findings

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .

64

Summary of the Conclusions
Recommendations and Implications
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................

78

APPENDICES..............................................

89

v

LIST OF TABLES
Page

Table
3.1.

Summary of Population Distribution and
R e s p o n s e s ..................................... 48

4.1.

Scores of Cluster and Conventional Program
Groups Related to Selected Student Teaching
Activities Experienced........................ 54

4.2.

Scores of Cluster and Conventional Program
Groups Related to the Value they Associated
with the Selected Student Teaching Expe­
rience............

4.3.

55

Scores of Cluster and Conventional Program
Groups Related to the Selected Student
Teaching Experience they would Recommend
to be Included in a Student Teaching Pro­
gram............................................57

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.

Geographic Locations of Michigan State
University Student Teaching Centers.

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A

B
C

Page
LIST OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT
TEACHING CENTERS IN WHICH WINTER TERM,
1971, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION MAJORS WERE
ASSIGNED TO STUDENT TEACHING AND THE
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS INVOLVED
BY CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM
.............
STATUS. . . . . . . . . . . .
APPROVAL FROM OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR TO
RELEASE DATA FOR STUDY. . . . . . . . . .
QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER SENT TO
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION MAJORS WHO STUDENT
TAUGHT IN WINTER TERM, 1 9 7 1 ...............

89
91

93

D

SCORES OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM
GROUPS RELATED TO SELECTED STUDENT
TEACHING EXPERIENCES........................ 100

E

THE TEN MOST FREQUENTLY AND TEN LEAST
FREQUENTLY REPORTED ITEMS IN EACH OF THE
THREE CATEGORIES OF SELECTED STUDENT
TEACHING EXPERIENCES AS REPORTED BY THE
RESPONDENTS ............... . . . . . . .

viii

116

CHAPTER I
THE NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION
Introduction to the Study
Much has been written and said regarding the growing
importance of education in the modern world.

We live in a

time of exploding change; a time in which many of the the­
ories and practices which have served our nation long and
well no longer appear to function well within the framework
of the critical contemplation of the academic world and its
relationships to the rest of society.

The appraisal of

education in general, and teacher education in particular,
has drawn considerable attention during the past quarter
of a century.
This close scrutiny of American education has re­
sulted in both approval and disapproval of past achievements,
present accomplishments, and predicted future performances.
Educational institutions are not immune to change.
In light of the social and academic changes taking place
in America, teacher education programs have been a kaleido­
scope of changing patterns, of expanding dimensions, of
increasing inquiry, and of shifting stresses.

Many studies

have focused on endeavors to prepare a more competent,

2
analytical, innovative, and critical teacher who can help
master the serious educational problems in our society.^
Sharpe, in supporting the need for directed student
teaching experiences, wrote the following concerning the
nature of the experience:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

The experiences should be challenging.
It should provide for involvement.
It should provide for guidance and assistance.
It should provide for intellectualization.
An inseparable part of the on-going work of the
student teacher is evaluation.
Evaluation should be cooperative and continuous.
Evaluation should be in terms of clearly defined
goals.
2
The experience should be satisfying.
Hunter and Amidon indicated four specific trends

in teacher education.
1.

The innovative areas included were:

Expansion of direct experiences through all parts

of the professional sequence.
2.

Increased recognition of the joint responsibil­

ity for teacher education by colleges, public schools, pro­
fessional organization and governmental agencies.
3.

A student teaching experience that included

developmental, planned learning experiences for the teacher1earner.
4.

The creation of conscious efforts to become

^Elmer R. Smith, ed., Teacher Education: A Re­
appraisal (New York:
Harper and Row, 1962), pi 10.
2

Donald M. Sharpe, "Threshold to the Profession,"
National Education Association Journal, LIV (1964), pp.
33-35.

students of teaching not just student teachers.
In a review of current issues in student teaching,
Bennie suggested the following trends:
1.

The role of the public school in teacher educa­

2.

The criteria for the selection of cooperating

tion.

teachers.
3.

The compensation level for cooperating teachers.

4.

The type or pattern of student teaching.

5.

The role of the college supervisor.

6.

The legal status of the student teacher.

7.

Evaluation procedures of student teaching.

8.

Pre-service professional laboratory experiences.

9.

Increased acceptance of the internship programs.
4
Accepting new emphasis in teacher education.

10.

"Teacher education," Smith projects, "is at a crit­
ical point in its history.

There is now enough knowledge

and experience to reform it, to plan a basic program of teacher
education for an open society in a time of upheaval."'

The

Elizabeth Hunter and Edmund Amidon, "Direct Experi­
ence in Teacher Education:
Innovation and Experimentation,"
The Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Fall, 1966), pp. 282-89
4

William A. Bennie, Cooperation for Better Student
Teaching (Minneapolis:
Burgess Publishing Company, 1966),
pp. 122-27.
^B. Othanel Smith et al., Teachers for the Real World
(Washington, D.C.:
The American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, 1969), p. ii.

4
task of identifying relevant practices for students in the
field of education is part of the challenge of this study.
The Council of State College Presidents of Michigan,
through the Deans and Directors of Teacher Education Programs,
worked to develop improved programs of teacher education.
Among their various efforts was a new program model that
would broaden the meaningful learning experiences of their
student teachers.

Provided for were:

1. A highly individualized and flexible student
teaching experience.
2. Contact with several different teachers in
the school building instead of just one as under the
traditional program.
3. Contact with a variety of activities in the
school and community in addition to classroom teaching.
4. A close relationship between the student teach­
ing program and the public school building staff, thus
involving the professional more directly in teacher
education.°
The implementation of this new model in the College of Edu­
cation at Michigan State University was in the form of clus­
ter programs.

This concept involved a cluster or group of

several student teachers assigned to a building where the
student was included in a planned variety of teachinglearning activities under the guidance of a local school
district faculty member employed by the University on a
part time basis.

The student of teaching observed or taught

with several teachers, utilized a variety of teaching methods,
worked with various grade levels or classes of public school
g

Student Teaching Office, '‘Student Teaching Year
End Report, 1967-68," East Lansing, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)

5
student, team taught, provided individual or small group
as well as total class instruction, analyzed teaching, ex­
amined learning styles, taught on the elementary and sec­
ondary level, and worked toward achieving realistic self­
established professional goals.

Involvement in the school-

community, as well as the total school environment, was more
possible under this flexible program.
Need for the Study
"The teacher," wrote Allen, "remains as central and
vital as he has ever been to the success of . . . education."
Recent educational research reported by Davies asserted that
". . . o f all the factors that constitute a school, the
single most influential in terms of pupil achievement is
the impact of the teacher." 8

The importance of the teacher

in the classroom suggests that any new program of student
teaching be supported by empirical evidence as to its merits
and worth to the participants.
In a recent publication, the Association for Student
Teaching (renamed in 1970 the Association of Teacher Edu­
cators), focused attention on the increased acceptance of
the role of teacher education in our society and how this
^Dwight W. Allen and Eli Seifman, The Teacher *s
Handbook (Glenview:
Scott, Foresman and Company, 19715,
p. ix.
8 Donald Davies, "The Teacher Numbers Game," American
Education. VI (October, 1970), p. 8.

7

9
increase had fostered further study .
The majority of professions provide neophytes a
period of preservice training.

In the field of teacher

education that period of time is commonly called student
teaching.

Johnson,"^ Roth,"^ and Wroblewski'*'^ support the

contention that student teaching has been considered for
many years the most important element in the teacher edu­
cation program.
Analysis of publications and annotated bibliographies
revealed studies on the roles, responsibilities and charac­
teristics of student teachers, cooperating teachers, college
coordinators, and directors of student teaching. 13

Many

publications describe current practices or advocate opera­
tional procedures but most frequently from the standpoint
9

The Director of Student Teaching:
Characteristics
and Responsibilities Research Bulletin No. 7 ( Washington^
D.C.:
The Association for Student Teaching, 1968), p. 1.
James A. Johnson and Roger C„ Anderson, Secondary
Student Teaching:
Readings (Glenview;
Scott, Foresman and
Company, 1971), p. 4.
■^Lois H. Roth, "Selecting Supervising Teachers,"
The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (September, 1961),
p. 476.
12

Claudia Wroblewski, "A Student Teacher Views the
Supervising Teacher," The Journal of Teacher Education, XIV
(September, 1963), p. 333.
13

Ruth Heideback and Margaret Lindsey, eds., Anno­
tated Bibliography on Laboratory Experiences and Related
Activities in the Professional Education of Teachers (Washington, D.C.:
The Association for Student Teaching, 1968).
(As well as The College Supervisor, Conflict and Challenge;
Forty-Third Yearbook, 1964.
Teacher Education and the Public
Schools; Fortieth Yearbook, 1961).

7
of the colleges or from those who direct the programs.
Comprehensive national surveys to analyze the vari­
ous approaches, programs, and practices in teacher education
have been reported by Stratemeyer and Lindsey,
and Troisi.

14

Johnson,

15

"L

Despite these efforts, there was relatively little
current information concerning the scope and variety of
student teaching experiences.

Reynard

17

and Michaelis

18

lamented the lack of empirical data on the nature and value
of these experiences.

Davies and Amershek stated it more

emphatically when they wrote:

“Studies of what really hap-

pens to Student Teachers are vital.**

19

Sorenson, concurring,

Florence Stratemeyer and Margaret Lindsey, Working
With Student Teachers (New York:
Teachers College Press,
Columbia University, 1958), pp. 23-53.
15

James A. Johnson, “A National Survey of Student
Teaching Programs,'* The Association for Student Teaching
News Letter, II (Winter, 1969), pp. 4-5.
18

Nicholas Troisi, “Development of the Supervising
Teacher's Role," The Supervising Teacher. Thirty-Eighth
Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Dubuque:
William C. Brown Company, Incorporated, 1959), pp. 12-23.
17

Harold E„ Reynard, “Pre-Service and In-Service
Education of Teachers," Review of Educational Research.
XXXIII (October, 1963), pp. 369-80.
18

John U. Michaelis, "Teacher Education— Student
Teaching and Internship," in the Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, 3rd edition, ed. by Chester W. Harris (New Yorks
The Macmillan Company, 1960), p. 1474.
19

Donald Davies and Kathleen Amershek, “Student
Teaching," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 4th ed.,
Edited by Robert L. Ebel (London:
The Macmillan Co., 1969),
p. 1384.

8
contends that we need to know more about what is learned in
student teaching and what experiences were most useful.

20

Student teaching programs exist in many modes of
operation,

styles, types, and program patterns.

There is,

however, little research to indicate that one mode is more
effective than another in the preparation of teachers.
The committee on research in student teaching of the Asso­
ciation of Student Teaching indicated that:
. . . there is a need to observe experimentally the
effects of different types of student teaching programs,
or experiences in lieu of student teaching relative to
the prospective teacher’s:
(1) knowledge of good edu­
cational practices, (2) personality traits and changes
in personality traits, (3) skill in using classroom
activities, (4) attitudes toward teaching, (5) ability
to recognize his pupils’ problems, (6) ability to rec­
ognize his subject matter content and resource mate­
rials, and (7) knowledge of teaching field of special­
ization. 21
Shaplin, in asserting that student teaching is an
important, integral aspect of a teacher's preparation,
identified several assumptions of a viable teacher educa­
tion program.
1.
2.

They were:

Teaching is behavior, and as behavior is subject
to analysis, change and improvement.
Much of the habitual behavior which individuals
have developed in other contexts is inappropriate
for the teaching situation and therefore, needs to
be recognized and extinguished.
20

Garth B. Sorenson, "What Is Learned in Practice
Teaching?" The Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Summer,
1967), pp. 173-78.
21

Association for Student Teaching, Research on Stu­
dent Teachingo Bulletin No. 5 (Dubuque, Iowa:
William C.
Brown Company, 1965), p. 27.

9
3»
4.
5.

Teaching is an extremely complex kind of behavior
involving the full range of thought processes, com­
munication, and physical action.
Teachers, through practice, can learn to analyze,
criticize, and control their own teaching behavior.
Practice provides the experiences which give mean­
ing to many other aspects of instruction in educa­
tion .22
It appears reasonable to assume that there is a grow­

ing need to identify those experiences that are considered
valuable by the student teachers to insure more effective
teacher-learner experiences for future teachers.
In the Handbook of Modern Sociology of 1964, Burton R.
Clark asserted that "one-third of all college graduates— a
staggering proportion— expect to enter primary and secondary
education."

23

Recent statistics on the supply and demand of teachers
indicated that "for the first time since World War II more
persons trained to teach are seeking work in the education
professions than there are appropriate teaching positions
available.
These reports may be interpreted by the universities
to mean that future teacher supply and demand needs will
be determined in qualitative terms and not in quantitative
22

Judson T. Shaplin, "Practice in Teaching, Break­
through to Better Teaching," Harvard Education Review
(Special Issue, 1965).
23

Burton R. Clark, Handbook of Modern Sociology,
Edited by Robert E. L. Faris (Chicago:
Rand McNally Company,
1964), p. 753.
^Davies, op. c i t ., p. 7.

10
termso

The applicant of the near future, as he seeks a

teaching position, is apt to find his preparation examined
by a more selective process.

The need to have those valu­

able student teaching experiences that will have enabled
him to develop his individual skills, abilities, interests,
needs and potential will be required elements which univer­
sities must provide their graduates.
Under the program model developed by the Deans and
Directors of Teacher Education Programs for the Council of
State College Presidents of Michigan is the criterion that
the professional teacher will be more directly involved in
teacher education.

When provided with the opportunity to

share in conducting the student teaching experience, do the
classroom teachers provide, encourage, and broaden the learn
ing experiences of their student teachers?

Or, do the clus­

ter program students continue to receive the same type, vari
ety, and amount of experiences as do those student teachers
in the conventional program?
Dwight Wo Allen is concerned about the ’'facade of
change" in which teacher educators "rarely see our visions
acted upon."

25

With many voices calling for change and

educators claiming innovations, Stiles and Parker indicate
that many modifications have been implemented and initiated
25

Dwight W. Allen, "Toward '76: A Revolution in
Teacher Education," Phi Delta Kappan, LI (May, 1970), p.
485.

11
but with a minimum of evaluation.

26

These writings cogently point out that it is neces­
sary that data be obtained to support empirically the claims
that student teachers do receive more valuable experiences
under the cluster program as anticipated under the Council
of State College Presidents of Michigan proposed model.

27

Statement of Purpose
The purposes of this study are as follows:
1.

To

determine if the Michigan State University cluster

program of student teaching provides more of the se­
lected student teaching experiences than does the con­
ventional program of student teaching.
2.

To

compare the value of the selected experiences in

student teaching as reported by the cluster program
participants and the conventional program participants .
3.

To

obtain from both the cluster and conventional program

participants those selected student teaching experiences
they would recommend for inclusion in a student teaching
program.
These accomplishments would provide additional data
for implementing a more viable student teaching program.
26

Lindley J. Stiles and Robert P. Parker, Jr.,
"Teacher Education Programs," in the Encyclopedia of Educa­
tional Research. 4th edition, ed. by Robert L. Ebel (London:
The Macmillan Company, 1969), p. 1414.
27

See Appendix C for examples of the types of ex­
periences being studied.

12
Hypotheses
The hypotheses to be tested in this study are as
follows?
1.

There will be a greater number of student teaching ex­
periences reported by cluster student teachers than by
the conventional program student teachers.

2.

Of those experiences reported by the respondents, a
higher percentage will be reported as having been valuable by the cluster program student teachers than by
the conventional program student teachers.

3.

The cluster program student teachers will recommend a
greater number of experiences for inclusion in future
student teaching programs than will the conventional
program student teachers.
Underlying Assumptions of the Study
The following observations were reasonable assump­

tions upon which this study was based:
1.

That an adequate student teaching experience is more
likely to result when a more individualized program is
developed.

2.

That student teachers benefit from participating in
selected experiences with a number of cooperating
teachers.

3.

That supervised, planned, and guided contact with a
variety of activities in the school and community

13
benefit the prospective teacher <>
4.

That the basic responsibility for the administration
of quality student teaching programs rests with insti­
tutions of higher education, public school administrators,
and classroom teachers.

5.

That the student teachers who responded had established
and could relate the experiences they considered valu­
able .

6.

That the experiences considered valuable by the partici­
pants in this study will apply to other programs where
student teaching is involved.

7.

That student teachers have convictions as to the type
and quality of experiences they want from student
teaching.

8.

That administrators of student teaching programs have
a responsibility to improve the quality of the teacher
education program.

9 o That student teaching is an important aspect of the
preparation of teachers.
Limitations of the Study
It is noted that an exploratory study of this nature
cannot be all encompassing.

The limitations of the study

are as follows:
1.

This study was limited to those Michigan State Univer­
sity students who completed their student teaching in
the winter term, 1971.

14
2.

This study was limited to the cluster and conventional
programs of regular elementary student teaching at
Michigan State University.

3«

This study concerned itself only with the student teach­
ing aspect of teacher education.

4.

This study is a normative survey with the participants
selected within the normal limitation of the question­
naire technique.

5.

The establishment of a cluster program in a school; the
elusive patterns of the personalities involved; and the
ability, resourcefulness, and enthusiasm of the student
teacher were imperative necessities but beyond the scope
of this studyo

6.

This study will be limited to those former student
teachers in the programs described and on whom data
were collected.
Definition of Terms
The terminology of student teaching has not been

standardized across the nation or from college to college.
To facilitate understanding and to delimit conceptions, the
following key terms require definition.
Student teaching
Student teaching is a period of guided teaching when
a college student assumes increasing responsibility for
directing the learning of a group or groups of learners

15
over a period of consecutive weeks.
Student teacher
A college student who is engaged in an assigned
student teaching experience.
Cooperating teacher
A teacher of school pupils who also directs the work
of a student teacher with these same pupils in a public school
setting.

Other designations that are used to describe this

teacher-function are:

supervising teacher, base teacher,

sponsoring teacher, critic teacher, and directing teacher.
Cooperating school district
A school system which provides facilities for stu­
dent teachers but which is neither controlled nor supported
by the college.
University student teacher director
This person is a regular university staff member
who has as a part or all of his assigned work load the super­
vision of the activities of student teachers and the rela­
tionships and conditions under which these students carry
on their work.

28

pQ

Leonard 0. Andrews, Student Teaching (New York:
The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964),
pp. 8-12.
These are the terms accepted for use by the
Association for Student Teaching.

16
Conventional program of student teaching
This term is associated with full-time residential
student teaching provided in a single public school classroom,
to a limited number of pupils, and within the contacts or
experiences provided by one person— the cooperating teacher.
Cluster consultant
This new position in the cluster program identifies
a competent person of the cooperating school staff who is
employed for a portion of the school day as a building con­
sultant to the student teachers and cooperating teachers
assigned to work with student teachers.

The college reim­

burses the school district for the time involved in conduct­
ing the building student teaching prc_:am.

This person is

designated as a faculty member of the teacher education in­
stitution as well as being on the faculty of the local school
district.

This individual assumes direct responsibility for

the experiences of the student teachers assigned to the
building.
Cluster program of student teaching
This program was devised at Michigan State Univer­
sity as a model that would broaden the learning experiences
of the student teachers.

Planned student contact with

several teaching models, a highly individualized experience,
contact with a variety of school-community activities, and
greater involvement of the public school cooperating staff

17
are primary elements of this program.

29

Overview of the Organization
In Chapter II, pertinent literature and related
studies will be presented.

The review concerns the litera­

ture which expresses a need for individualized student teach­
ing, the increased emphasis on the need for different teach­
ing models, the developing trend of cooperation between those
involved in providing the student teaching experience, the
history of student teaching, and the history of student
teaching at Michigan State University.
The research methodology, instrumentation and tech­
niques used to collect the data to test the hypotheses are
reported in Chapter III.
In Chapter IV, the research findings will be pre­
sented and an analysis of the data will be stated.
The summary of the findings with conclusions and
implications will be presented in Chapter V with the last
section including the bibliography and appendices.

pg

See p. 4 for Council of State College Presidents
of Michigan program model.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Background
The history of American teacher training institutions
has its antecedents in the Western World.

The majority of

colonial American educational concepts and practices were
originally transplanted from Europe <>
Standard histories of education provided a system­
atic study of the development of methods of teaching, ob­
jectives of education, and the training of those who taught.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, the Jesuits, and
the Scholastics were among the many individuals and philoso­
phies that developed distinctive styles of teaching.'1'
By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the
medieval universities trained teachers in subject matter
fields as "apprentice teachers trying to qualify for member2
ship in the teachers’ guild— the guild of masters."
Al­
though limited in scope to the lecture, repetition, and the
disputation, the concept of direct experience by doing, by
^"Harry S. Broudy, "Historic Exemplars of Teaching
Methods," in Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. by N„ L.
Gage (Chicago"! Rand McNally, 1963), pp. 5-42.
^Ibid., p. 19.

19
observing the "master’s" demonstrations, and the actual ap­
prentice teaching may be considered the forerunner of prac3

tice teaching <>

The Renaissance and Reformation, in both spirit and
content, permeated the schools„

Church leaders, as militant

foes combating the new intellectual challenges in Europe,
illustrated how methods of instruction, materials,

and

teacher training could be organized and systematized»
Atkinson and Maleske, writing on the contributions of the
two Catholic teaching orders, the Jesuits and Christian
Brothers, state that, "From this point on, professional
training of teachers as we know it today began to take initial form."

4

The earliest known school created to offer a system­
atic course for teachers was established by Jean Baptiste
de la Salle, in 1685, at Rheims, France, to train members
of the Brothers of the Christian Schools as elementary
teachers
Many other European educators such as Jean Jacques
3
W» Robert Houston, Frank Ho Blackington III, and
Horton Co Southworth, Professional Growth Through Student
Teaching (Columbus, Ohio;
Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc.,
1965), p. 8 o
4
Carroll Atkinson and Eugene T„ Maleska, The Story
of Education (New York;
Bantam Books, 1964), p. 379®

5

James A. Johnson and Floyd Perry, Readings in Stu­
dent Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa;
William Co Brown Book Co.,
1969), p. 2 o

20
Rousseau, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, August Hermann Francke,
Johann Friederich Herbart, and Friedrich Froebel, by stress­
ing the learning process and the individual student, created
an interest in and emphasis on the need for pedagogical
principles that compelled the future teacher to know the
childo

France and Prussia were the first nations to spon­

sor and establish state systems for the training of teachers
Education in the American colonies, concentrated
upon developing clergymen, lawyers, doctors, and leaders
for the yet unborn nation«

Rudolph, in emphasizing the

essential need for Harvard College, stated, “In the future
the state would need competent rulers, the church would
require a learned clergy, and society itself would need
the adornment of cultured men."

7

Modeled after the colleges of England and Northern
Europe, subject matter was stressed at the expense of in­
structional techniques or to those being taught«

Clergymen,

servants, graduates of the academies, and others, some of
g

whom lacked a secondary education, were teachers.
It was not until the post-Revolutionary War period
that Americans turned their attention to the development
^Atkinson and Maleska, op. cit., pp. 379-80 <,
7
Frederick Rudolph, A History; The American College
and University (New York;
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc <., 1965),
p • 6.
g

Atkinson and Maleska, op. c i t .{ p. 380o

21
of state supported normal schools modeled on the Prussian
pattern.,

A private school in Concord, Vermont, established

by Samuel Read Hall, in 1823, was the first full-time normal
school m

Americao

9

In 1834, the New York legislature began to subsidize
academies to train teachers for the states' school system<>
The state of Massachusetts, upon the urging of James G.
Carter, Horace Mann, and a matching financial grant by
Edmund Dwight, established in 18 38, the first state normal
,

. 10

schoolo

Advocates of student teaching continued to press
their demands that students be allowed the opportunity to
teach in the "model" schools which were operated in conjunc­
tion with the normal schools,

By the Civil War period, the

Oswego Training School received national attention for its
professional preparation of teachers.

Included in the prin­

ciples of this movement were "that one-half the time be given
to discussion of educational principles and the other half
to teaching under criticism<

>

The emphasis which this

school placed on "practice teaching" and its resulting im­
pact on teacher preparation is cited by Dr. Nicholas Troisi

9

Johnson and Perry, op. c i t ., p. 3.

■^Ernest J. Milner, edo, The Supervising Teacher,
Thirty-Eighth Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: William C» Brown Co., Inc., 1959), p.
13.
i;LIbido, p. 14.

22
as marking ”an epoch in the history of the normal schools."

12

By the turn of the twentieth century, normal schools,
with their model schools for practice, demonstration, and
observations, were an established part of American teacher
preparation.
Improving the quality of instruction and the recog­
nized need for high school teachers to hold college degrees
compelled states to reorganize their normal schools from
two year programs into state colleges.

In 1903, Michigan

created the first state teachers college in the United
States at Ypsilanti, Michigan.

13

While the movement from normal schools to teacher
colleges was taking place, new departures in American higher
education were also being undertaken.

Land grant colleges

and state universities were coming into being in greater
numbers and assuming new roles.

The blurring of distinction

between colleges and universities at the turn of the twen­
tieth century can be seen by the fact that '*. . . everywhere
the state universities became the major teacher-training
agencies,

14
setting standards for the public schools.'’

12Ibid., p. 15.
13
14

Atkinson and Maleska, loc. c i t .
Rudolph, op. c i t ., p. 361.

23
Michigan State University
Michigan State University, the prototype for landgrant institutions established under the Morrill Act of 1862,
was founded in 1855 as the nation's first agricultural col­
lege*

At that time, there was no stated program for the

preparation of teachers at Michigan Agricultural College,
the name by which the college was then known*
The process of adequately preparing teachers for an
industrial-agrarian economy demanded that Michigan State
University assume, along with other institutions of higher
education, the responsibility of teacher training*
after the turn of the century,

Shortly

the first course in education,

the History of Education, was offered on campus*

Noll re­

cords that this course offering was followed within a year,
in 1903, by student teachi n g * ^
The passage by the federal government of the National
Vocational Education Act in 1917 provided funds, when matched
by state money, for the training of teachers in the fields
of agriculture, home economics, and industrial education*
This highly significant legislation had direct bearing upon
teacher training and student teaching in particular as the
law required practice teaching for prospective teachers in
those vocational subjects*

The philosophy of the College,

combined now with the new Smith-Hughes Act requirements,
"^Victor H„ Noll, The Preparation of Teachers at
Michigan State University (East Lansing t Michigan State
University, 1968), pi 18.

24
compelled that a regular program for student teaching be
establishedo

Within a year of the passage of the law, the

College appropriated funds to implement the training of
teachers and appointed Mr« Eo L. Grover and Miss Elizabeth
Frazer as supervising teachers in the East Lansing High
School
The post World War I era at Michigan Agricultural
College was a period of transition, of growth, of searching
for breadth, scope and structure for the College<>

Many of

the internal changes during the 19 2 0 ’s had significant ef­
fect on the teacher education program»

Noll, in his valu­

able publication on the history of the College of Education
at Michigan State University, records that enrollments in
the sciences and arts soon outnumbered those preparing for
teaching in the vocational fields<,
were allocated for the latter only,.

State and federal funds
Continuing, Noll ex­

pressed that the "foundation for an off-campus program of
practice teaching had been firmly laid, to remain permanently
as a key element in the entire program of teacher education."
The early 1930's witnessed the continued movement
off-campus to cooperating public schools where the College
had students spend half a day teaching and participating in
the overall school and community programs„
16lbido, pp. 40-41o
17Ibido, p. 6 7 o

On campus, the

17

25
Board of Agriculture declared that ’’all persons and activi­
ties in teacher training in Michigan State College were to
be under the control and supervision of the Head of the
Department of Education." 18

This far reaching decision

determined that one department, and only one department,
would be responsible for the preparation of teachers.
In 1937, Michigan State College instituted the Barry
County Student Teaching program<>

This innovative endeavor

had full-time student teaching in a residential setting with
college courses taught in the center by a college faculty
19
member.
Although limited in the number of students in­
volved and in tenure, the principle of full-time residential
student teaching was again explored and accepted by the
college as a desirable goal.
Clem stated, "the program of full-time resident
student teaching at Michigan State University had its birth
in the 'Marshall Plan' in the Pall of 1946."

20

Similar in

structure to the Barry County program, students, at their
own expense, lived in the community of Marshall, Michigan,
and taught in the public schools as student teachers.

In­

volvement in the community was encouraged by both the college
and the community leaders of Marshall.

A College of Education

18Ibid., p. 75.
"^Paul N. Clem, "A Study of the Michigan State FullTime Resident Student Teaching Program" (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958), p. 10.
20

Ibid o, p © 14.

26
faculty member was assigned as a resident coordinator <>
The present full-time resident student teaching pro­
gram, for both elementary and secondary student teachers,
began in the academic year of 1955-56«

The extensive ex­

periences gained in the Barry County and "Marshall Plan**
supported the request to the State Board of Agriculture that
such a program be instituted as a requirement of all educa­
tion majors at Michigan State University<>

Four resident

centers at Battle Creek, Birmingham, Grand Rapids, and
Southwestern Michigan, with university coordinators in
local residence, were functioning in addition to the half
day programs located within the commuting distance of the
campuso

Enrollment increases demanded continued growth in

the number of off-campus centers„
The 1971 report by the College of Education to the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
states that;
In an effort to provide more realistic experiences
in the preparation of teachers, MSU has been a leader
in establishing full-time student teaching for all
candidateso
Since 1955, more than 130 Michigan school
systems and 16 resident centers operated cooperatively
in them have served some 3,000 teacher candidates an­
nually.
Some 57 full and part-time faculty members are
stationed in the resident centers,, 21
The historical precedents of innovation and leader­
ship in establishing full-time resident student teaching
21

Report to the National Council for Accreditation
of Teacher Education, College of Education (East Lansing;
Michigan State University, 1970), p„ 44.

27
have led Michigan State University to continue searching
for new patterns of student teachingo

Internships in ele­

mentary education under the Student Teacher Education Pro­
grams and the Elementary Internship Program were instituted
in the 1950's and early 1960's and had as one of their ob­
jectives "a means of achieving a functional partnership
between teacher education institutions and public school
22
systems <>"

The 1966 to 1970 period witnessed the development
of the cluster program in student teaching at Michigan State
Universityo

Ten to twelve student teachers were assigned

as a cluster to a cooperating school building»

The Director

of Student Teaching, Dr. Henry Kennedy, reported to the
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
that;
The school itself and the community it serves are
considered a composite learning laboratory in which the
student teacher studies the problems of teaching and
gains experience in solving these problems <> Outstand­
ing teachers in each school's instructional staff are
selected by the faculty, school administrator, and the
University; and released half time to serve as a "clin­
ical consultant," in planning optimum utilization of
the school for development of the individualized pro­
fessional experience program for each student teacher,
based on particular strengths and w e a k n e s s e s <> 23
The College of Education at Michigan State Univer­
sity grew to lead the nation in the number of elementary
22Ibid», p. 59o
23Ibido, p» 4 6 o

28
school teachers prepared and ranked second in the nation
in the preparation of secondary teachers.

24

The concept of full-time, off-campus, residential
student teaching has been a primary principle of the teacher
education program, has met the University's concept of dis­
semination of knowledge beyond the campus to all Michigan
people, and has had the advantage of providing to the neo­
phyte a first hand view of teaching as a whole program in
a whole community <>
Individualization in Student Teaching
Assessments from teacher educators argue convincingly
for increased meaning and applicability of the preservice
preparation program.

This should, they claim, include more

than the acquisition of additional facts but enable the stu­
dent the opportunity to enter into more personal meaningful
relationships with other students, faculty, and children<>
Included in the exploratory process should be opportunities
for examining, interpreting, and applying principles to
achieve individualized growth»
Individualizing student teaching is consistent with
the recognition of the primacy of the person.

These basic

human needs are variously categorized by psychologists and
anthropologists»
Gray, using the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory0
24

Ibido, p. 11.

29
reported that no one method was adequate for predicting suc25
cess in student teaching»
Garvey, in 1970, asserted that the '•« <> <> problems
of predicting success in teaching have not yet succumbed
even to the lifelong efforts of devoted researcherso"

26

A 1961 study published by the National Education
Journal failed to find any method of teaching which was
27
clearly superior to all others»
The Association for Supervision and Curriculum De­
velopment, in its yearbook,

stated;

"Since learning is the

exploration and discovery of personal meaning, the learning
process itself must be a highly personal one»"

28

A model elementary teacher education program devel­
oped in the late 1960’s by Michigan State University sug­
gested "that there seem to be many best ways of both learnmg

and teachingo" 29
25

Maxine Gray, "The Use of the Minnesota Teacher
Attitude Inventory in the Selection, Counseling, and Place­
ment of Student Teachers" (unpublished PhoD, dissertation,
Wayne University, 1956), p» 98»
26

Reba Garvey, "Self-Concept and Success in Student
Teaching," The Journal of Teacher Education9 XXI (Fall, 1970),
p. 357o
27

Robert Blume, "Humanizing Teacher Education," Phi
Delta Kappan, LII (March, 1971), p» 411o
28

Associatior for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Perceiving, Bf saving. Becoming, 1962 Yearbook (Wash­
ington, D.C.;
The .ssociation, 1962)^ p » 71«
~
29

Wo Robert Houston, Behavioral Science Elementary
Teacher Education Program, U.S. Department of Health, Edu­
cation, and Welfare, Office of Education (East Lansing;
Michigan State University, 1968), p. vii-lo

30
These varied attempts to study teaching, or of ap­
praising teacher qualities, or other aspects of the teaching
performance, support Combs' description of good teaching as
an intensely personal matter.

30

Dickhart reminds the profession that "all student
teachers do not require the same length of time in one class­
room and o o o programs should be made flexible <. <> « to
31
meet a variety of needs and circumstances<>"
Stratemeyer and Lindsey supported this when they
wrote:

"As individuals,

students will differ widely « o „

in this area of experience as in all other areas.

Obviously

these differences should in part control the nature and extent of opportunity providedo"

32

If student teaching is to help the pre-professional
see himself as a teacher, Wilhelms contends that broad varied
patterns of experiences should be "selected and evaluated
primarily for other than practice or skill-building.."

33

While the student is assessing his own strengths, weaknesses
and commitments, he will also be ascertaining what teaching
30

Arthur W D Combs, The Professional Education of
Teachers (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965), p» 25»
31

Audrey Dickhart, "Student Teachers Are People,"
The Journal of Te acher Education, XXI (September, 1961),
p. 302o
32
33

Stratemeyer and Lindsey, op. c i t e, p. 344o

Fred To Wilhelms, "Realignment for Teacher Educa­
tion," Teacher Education:
Future Directions (Washington,
D.C.: National Education Association, 1970), p» 11.

31
style he wants to master and in what kind of a schoolcommunity setting he may contribute the mosto
Teaching is a complex phenomenon involving the full
range of mental, emotional, and physical actSo

In many

student teaching programs, it appears that stress is placed
upon the completion of a mandated series of assignments
rather than upon the individual ■» A gradual increase in
responsibility and competence may be better achieved through
understanding the individual college student; by providing
flexibility in the teaching assignments of that student;
and by developing learning in a sequential pattern which
is related to the student teacher's needso
Such a progressive system of experiences was devel­
oped at Stanford University for the teaching-learning act.
Included were distinct phases of tutoring one student; of
teaching one concept for three weeks; and of four or five
student teachers planning together as a team*.

34

The differences between routinized practices and
teaching-learning experiences that promote and motivate
learning were summarized by Rex when he wrote i
Allowing a student teacher more time, and providing
more contact with a public school classroom or a public
school teacher does not alter his learning unless there
is a conscious effort to use that time in providing a
broader range of experience and in identifying
34

Dwight Wo Allen and Richard E» Gross, "Microteaching," The National Education Association Journals LX
(December, 1965), pp» 25-26o

32
realizable expectations for him®

35

Various Teaching Models
Student teaching programs originated in the Middle
Ages with prospective teachers serving an apprenticeship
with a "master teacher®"

With the advent of teacher train­

ing schools, students taught demonstration lessons to their
classmateso

As teacher normal schools were established,

students in teacher education practice taught in campus
laboratory schools»

Increased enrollments coupled with

changing educational philosophies in the past quarter cen­
tury have resulted in the preponderance of student teaching
being completed off-campus in the public schools®
For the student teacher, this may have meant that
the preceptor-apprentice arrangement basically remained
unchangedo

The supervisor was now a public school teacher

rather than one associated directly with a university in
a laboratory setting®
The conventional program of student teaching pre­
sented in a review of the literature has been an assignment
of a student teacher to a supervising teacher for a period
of times

a semester, a term, or for part time for two terms

or semesters®

The university student observed the super­

vising teacher, gradually assumed the teaching assignment
35 R® Gene Rex, "Supervising Teachers in Michigan
Student Teaching," Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Department
of Education, Bureau of Higher Education, 1968, p° 3®
(Mimeographed®)

33
of the supervisor, followed the classroom patterns and pro­
cedures established by the cooperating teacher, and was
exposed to the career teaching objectives within the frame­
work of one person— the cooperating teacher«>

Often, the

student teacher's success was related to the success of
the supervisoro

Price's study, in supporting these state­

ments, found that student teachers acquired many of the
practices of their supervising teachers as well as making
a considerable change in attitude in the same direction.. 36
Cooperating teachers are often cited as the singly
most influential person in the preparation of student teach­
ers but in Trimmer's study he concluded that only ten per
cent of the cooperating teachers were considered satisfactory by their student teachers.37
Differing opinions have been expressed by many edu­
cators on the value of an initial exposure to teaching unless
there is a conscious effort to use the period to provide a
broader range of learning experiences, to achieve needed
growth for the individual student, and to allow the student
to learn from various models of teaching.
This change of attitude in the purpose of student
36

Robert Do Price, "The Influence of Supervising
Teachers," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (December,
1961), pp. 471-75.
37
Russell L. Trimmer, "Student Teachers Talk Back,"
The Journal of Teacher Education, XI (December, 1960), pp.
537-38.

34
teaching is reflected in Rucker's statement thats
Student teaching is no longer considered . . . as
an examination period, or a period in which a student
is supposed to demonstrate what he has learned in
theory courses.
It is a learning period . . . facil­
itated by continuous evaluation cooperatively arrived
at by the student and the s u p e r v i s o r s <»38
Wilhelms warns teacher educators that placing a
novice teacher into the hands of one or two supervisors
is not only unsound but potentially damaging <>

He concluded

by supporting the programs that provided a varied pattern
of experiences where the student teacher would come into
contact with several models.39
The concern that a beginning teacher would imitate,
consciously or unconsciously, a particular model demands,
according to Shaplin, that the teacher-learner observe and
analyze the teaching of a variety of models.

40

Rex, in searching for a means to stop "imprinting1*
student teachers, focused attention on utilizing a number
of people in the school setting as mentors in student teach­
ing .

"This, in effect," he concludes,

teachers,

"would make many

'supervising teachers', it would reduce time and

energy demands being made on each individual, but it would
"^William C. Rucker, "A Critical Analysis of Current
Trends in Student Teaching" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard College, 1951), p. 192o
39 Wilhelms, op. c i t .0 pp. 10-11.
40

Judson T. Shaplin, "Practice in Teaching," in
Teacher Education, ed. by Elmer R. Smith (New Yorks
Harper
and Row, 1962), p. 90.

35
broaden the range of learning experiences provided for each
41
stu de nt te ac her <>**
The recent development of collective negotiations
in education has resulted in literature assessing the impact
of those provisions connected with teacher education»

Hazard,

in reviewing model contracts, states that those sections
prohibiting a teacher from supervising more than one student
teacher "is an unfortunate and unnecessary barrier to teacher
42
education >'*
Stratemeyer and Lindsey indicated that experiences
in initiating the transition from student to teacher should
be provided in the classrooms of grades above and below the
one the student teacher was assigned or with other teachers
m

the departments of secondary schools °43
McGeoch, in stressing that student teaching is a

time to study teaching, supports the contention that oppor­
tunities to appraise the various styles of teaching for
accomplishing specific objectives is a valuable experience
for prospective teacherso 44
41 Rex, op, c i t o, p, 4o
42

William Ro Hazard, "Negotiation and the Education
of Teachers," in Teacher Education;
Future Directions (Wash­
ington, D.C«:
National Education Association, 1970), p, 113»
43 _

Stratemeyer and Lindsey, op, cit., p. 330»

44

Dorothy M„ McGeoch, "Helping Student Teachers Be­
come Students of Teaching," Teachers College Journal9 XXXIX
(October, 1967), pp„ 18-21o

36
These writers appear to be saying that student teach­
ing should be so structured that the college student could
benefit from a variety of teaching experiences;

to better

insure that they are more ably prepared to decide vocation­
ally on a specific style or community in which the beginner
feels he can most effectively function as a teacher; and
enable the young professional to find his unique self as
a teacher.
College-Public School Relations
"It is now patently clear," write McGeoch and Olson,
"that the title 'teacher educator" no longer belongs to the
college faculty exclusively.

It is the rightful possession

of all who participate in the professional preparation of
teachers.

„ <> <>"45

Westfall, in his study on student teaching programs
in the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools, acknowledged that student teaching was no longer
the business of colleges and universities alone when a major­
ity of the North Central Association public schools had
student teachers.46
45

Dorothy M. McGeoch and Hans Olson, "The Charge
to Action," in Teacher Education;
Future Directions (Wash­
ington, D.C. s National Education Association, 1970") , p.
143.
46

Byron L. Westfall, "Student Teaching Programs in
Certain School Systems of the North Central Association
Area," The North Central Association Quarterly, XXXVII
(Winter, 1963), pp. 237-45.

37
The concept of joint responsibility for student
teaching by the colleges, the schools, and the teaching
profession is deemed necessary, according to recent publi­
cations, if educators are to develop new directions in field
experienceso

The schism between colleges and the public

schools may be lessened if models such as that developed
by the Council of State College Presidents of Michigan are
implementedo4 7
The term "clinical professor" is, according to Davies
and Amershek, the most important new term to enter the field
of teacher education in recent yearso

Conant used the term

to apply to a university or college professor but Robert
Bush employed the same term to a skilled classroom teacher
serving both the public schools and the colleges<>48
The Association of Teacher Educators is attempting
to give clarification to the term as the organization leads
in the efforts to determine the roles, skills, and positions
of those professional educators participating in the new
clinical experiences in teacher education»49
Smith, although warning of the problems inherent
in establishing such a partnership, writes that new school47
48
49

See page 4.
Davies and Amershek, op. c i t .9 p.. 13 78«

Executive Committee, Association for Student Teaching, A Guide to Professional Excellence in Clinical Experi­
ences in Teacher Education (Washington, D.C.s
National
Education Association, 1970) o

38
university programs have resulted in teaching centers in
several urban a r e a s o ^
That public schools are willing to accept this joint
responsibility is evidenced by the fact that the ten models
presented to the National Center for Research and Develop­
ment of the United States Office of Education ’’were devel­
oped as a cooperative effort of local school administrators
and university personnel."'*1
The important roles played in teacher education by
administrators are detailed by Kraft

52

and Schwartz.

53

They

support the contention that the total school staff, not just
classroom teachers, must be involved in the process of shar­
ing responsibility in the preparation of new teachers.
The cooperative efforts of the classroom teachers
are important as the public schools provide the most re­
alistic setting for teacher training resources.

The col­

lective negotiations support the statements that student
teaching is a joint responsibility between the colleges and
50

E.
Brooks Smith, ''Joint Responsibility," National
Education Journal (May, 1968), pp. 18-20.
51

Thomas L. Reddick, "Models for Elementary Teacher
Preparation," Phi Delta Kappan. LII (March, 1971), p. 4 3 9 o
5?
Leonard E. Kraft, "You're Getting a Student Teach­
er," The National Elementary Principal9 XLV (January, 1966),
pp. 17-20.
53
Sheila Schwartz, "The Principal's Role in the
Student Teaching Program," The Journal of Teacher Education,
XIII (March, 1962), pp. 78-81.

39
the public schools.

It was reported in 1968-69 that 110

out of 9 78 negotiated agreements contained provisions concerning student teaching..

54

The two national teacher organizations, the American
Federation of Teachers and the National Education Associa­
tion, through many of their state and local associations,
are declaring their right to be involved in the overall
teacher education program.

The Association of Classroom

Teachers, an affiliate of the National Education Association,
claim:
That classroom teachers have a right to speak un­
equivocally on all matters that affect them.
That the teaching profession must assume responsi­
bility for the quality of its service to society.
That, for the welfare of the child, the community,
and the profession, entrance to the teaching profession
must be guarded with extreme care.
That student teaching is an essential phase of
teacher preparation.
That classroom teachers must participate in making
educational policies and decisions affecting their
teaching service, including policies and procedures „
for conducting student teaching in any school system.
These writings stress the joint responsibility of
the schools, the teachers, and the universities in planning
and implementing student teaching experiences0

Liaison,

continuity, conditions of practice, role responsibilities,
common purposes, and close functional collaboration are
54
55

Hazard, op. cit., p. 104.

The Association of Classroom Teachers, Role of
the Classroom Teacher in the Student Teaching Program (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1970), p. iv.

40
necessary ingredients they recognize as necessary for the
improvement of teacher preparation programs«
Summarizing Statements
The preceding exposition of selected related litera­
ture established background for the study bys
1.

Highlighting the historical development of student teach
ing;

2o

Tracing the development of student teaching in the in­
stitutions of higher education in the United States;

3o

Reviewing the gradual development of the concept of full
time residential student teaching at Michigan State Uni­
versity;

4.

Focusing attention on the individual as an important
factor in developing student teaching effectiveness;

5o

Echoing the fact that research supports the claim that
no one method of teaching is common to all teachers;

6.

Calling attention to the need for progressive systems
of student teaching experiences related to the needs
of the individual student teacher;

7»

Focusing on the need to have student teachers associated
with several teaching models;

8o

Supporting the concept that student teaching experiences
are expanding in scope;

9o

Stressing that student teaching is a learning period
rather than just an examination period;

41
10 o

Recognizing the need for greater cooperation between
the colleges, the public schools, and the teaching
profession.

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY
Introduction
The purposes of this investigation were (1) to
determine if the cluster program of student teaching at
Michigan State University provided more student teaching
experiences than did the conventional program of student
teaching;

(2) to obtain from cluster program and conventional

program student teachers their perceptions as to the value
of selected student teaching experiences; and (3) to deter­
mine those student teaching experiences the respondents would
recommend to be included in future student teaching programs.
The primary intent of this chapter was to describe the re­
search design and procedures used in the study.
The hypotheses of the study were (1) that there will
be a greater number of student teaching experiences reported
by cluster student teachers than by the conventional program
student teachers;

(2) that of those experiences reported

a higher percentage will be reported as having been valu­
able by the cluster program student teachers than by the
conventional program student teachers; and (3) the cluster
program student teachers will recommend a greater number

43
of experiences for inclusion in future student teaching
programs than will the conventional program student teachers.
Sources of Data
The population of this study consisted of those
elementary education majors at Michigan State University
who had completed their elementary school student teaching
during the winter term of 19 71 and were enrolled in spring
term courses.

They were selected because;

(1) their stu­

dent teaching experiences were recent and vivid in their
memories but sufficient time had elapsed for reflection;
(2) they were less emotionally involved than if they had
been surveyed while directly engaged in their student teach­
ing;

(3) they were no longer under the supervision of a co­

operating teacher or a center director;

(4) it was assumed

that they shared a common concern for the improvement of
student teaching; and (5) the number of cluster program
participants during the winter term provided for the first
time an adequate number of respondents to support a reliable
survey.

Excluded from the population were those elementary

education majors who were student teaching for a second time
in their major special education field, those students who
were enrolled in the Elementary Intern Program, or those
who had completed their student teaching in a middle school
setting.
The names of those students elected to participate
in this study were obtained from the Winter Term, 1971,

44
Report of Student Teachers P l a c e d Access to this report
was obtained from the Director of Student Teaching, Dr.
Henry W. Kennedy.

This form listed the names of all those

students assigned to student teach in the winter terra, the
center to which they were assigned, the public school build­
ing in which they taught, and the name of the cluster con­
sultant or cooperating teacher.
The examination resulted in the selection of 30 7
names of university students who met the criteria listed
in this chapter.

This figure, 30 7, was the total number

of students eligible for the study and not a sampling.
Appendix A includes a summary of the Student Teaching Office
report on the number of cluster program participants selected,
the number of conventional program participants selected,
and the student teaching center in which they taught <>

Fig­

ure 1 provides the geographic locations of the centers in­
volved.
A student identification number for each of the 30 7
names was obtained from the Michigan State University Student
Directory .

This information was then submitted to the Uni­

versity Data Processing Department along with a request for
the spring term addresses of each student.

Official per­

mission was received from the University Office of the
Registrar for the release of the requested data from their
^Winter Term, 1971, Report of Student Teachers Placed
(East Lansing;
Michigan State University, 1971).
(Mimeographed.)

45

Traverse City

Saginaw

Grand
Rapids

Charlotte

Owosso

Flint

Lansing

Macomb,

•Walled La!
0

Pontiac

/

Livonia
Benton
Harbor

Battle
Creek

Jackson

Detroit

. Niles

Figure 1,

Geographic Locations of Michigan State University
Student Teaching Centers

46
office.

Appendix B contains a copy of the letter stating

that the University Research Committee approved the study
and authorized the release of the information.
The Data Processing Department produced 268 names
with spring term addresses from the original list of 307
names.

Of the 268 processed forms, only 266 names printed

out complete addresses sufficient to use in the mail.

N

equaled 266 at this pre-mailing stage of the study.
Design of Study
A questionnaire was designed from the literature
reviewed in Chapter II, from an instrument developed by Dr.
Irvin J. Shutsy, and from pretesting the questionnaire.
Dr. Shutsy, Director of Student Teaching at Cali­
fornia State College, California, Pennsylvania, developed
a questionnaire of selected teaching experiences by request­
ing all Directors of Student Teaching in Pennsylvania's
fourteen state colleges to send him a list of teaching ex­
periences their student teachers had obtained.
experiences were obtained from publications.

Additional
This compiled

list was then submitted to college personnel concerned with
student teaching for their critical analysis and evaluation.
Fourteen public school teachers, with one or two years of
experience, were also requested to examine the instrument.
The list was then submitted to the research committee of
the Board of Presidents of the State Colleges of Pennsylvania
for analysis and review.

The questionnaire was then used

47
in a survey of student teachers and beginning teachers from
2
the fourteen state colleges in the state of Pennsylvania«
Dr. Samuel J 0 Guello, while at Wisconsin State Col­
lege, Superior, Wisconsin, used the instrument constructed
by Dr« Shutsy in a study of the student teaching experiences
3

of graduates from nine Wisconsin State Colleges«

A pilot study of the questionnaire used in this study
was submitted to all Michigan State University center di­
rectors with elementary school clusters and conventional
programs in their centers»

The reactions of their elemen­

tary school cluster consultants was also sought as pilot
forms were sent to them0

They were requested to examine

the questionnaire for ambiguities, redundancy, and for stu­
dent teaching experiences not included in the instrument.
The suggestions made by these qualified individuals were
included in the final questionnaire.
After printing, copies of the questionnaire, with
a letter of transmittal and a stamped, self addressed en­
velope, were mailed to each of the 266 students for whom
a mailing label had been obtained from the University Data
2
Irvin Jo Shutsy, "An Evaluation by First-Year and
Second-Year Teachers of Their Student Teaching Experiences
as Provided by the Fourteen State Teachers Colleges of
Pennsylvania" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pittsburgh, 1961).
3
Samuel J. Guello, "An Evaluation of Ninety-seven
Student Teaching Experiences by First-year Teachers and
Supervising Teachers" (unpublished Ph.Do dissertation,
University of North Dakota, 1967)o

48
Processing Department»
A copy of the questionnaire and the covering letter
are included in Appendix C „

The tabulated results from the

total number of responses given to each of the selected stu­
dent teaching experiences can be found in Appendix D o
Collection of Data
A total of 266 copies of the questionnaire were mailed
to those Michigan State University students enrolled during
the spring 1971 term and who had completed their student
teaching in the winter term-

Table 3.1 indicates the popu­

lation distribution and the responses received.
TABLE 3.1.

Summary of Population Distribution and Responses
Number

Subjects
1.

Number of questionnaires distributed

2.

Number of questionnaires non-deliverable

3.

Number of questionnaires returned

4.

Percentage of questionnaires returned

73

5.

Number of questionnaires returned by cluster
program student teachers

71

6.

266
9
188

Number of questionnaires returned by conventional
program student teachers

117

N (deliverable) = 257

Each return envelope, questionnaire, and the record
copy of the Student Teaching Office Report of Student Teachers

49
Placed

4

were marked with a number®

This number was clearly

visible to the participants and was placed on the material
if the necessity of a follow up letter was deemed necessary®
The questionnaire had a section requesting the re­
spondent to indicate the student teaching center in which
he had taught and if he had student taught in a cluster
program®

The replies were then checked against the Student

Teaching Office report in order to verify the student as a
cluster or conventional program participant®
Questionnaires were mailed to the addresses of 266
former student teachers as those addresses were reported at
spring term, 1971, registration®

Nine questionnaires were

returned to the author as non-deliverable®

N equaled 257

deliverable questionnaires after the mailing.

The returns

by the end of the second week after the initial mailing were
177 in number.

To encourage further returns and thereby

obtain as accurate results as possible, a follow-up mailing
was made to those who had not returned the instrument by
the end of two weeks®

Eleven survey instruments were re­

turned as a result of the follow-up®

The total number of

questionnaires returned and used in the study was 188 or a
percentage of 73.

4
op. c i t ®

Winter Term, 1971, Report of Student Teachers Placed,

50
Scoring and Validity of the Data
The study is a normative survey and exploratory in
nature.

The existing student teaching experiences offered

within the two student teaching operations during the 1971
winter term was part of the purpose of the study.
Research Consultation Services of the College of
Education were available to the writer and provided advice
through the various stages of the study.
Each questionnaire returned was checked to determine
if the respondent had been a member of a cluster or a con­
ventional program.

The instrument was then coded for IBM

key punch processing and an employee was hired to transfer
the data to the IBM cards.

The analysis of the data was

performed through the use of a computer.
The mean, a descriptive statistic of the study num­
bers in terms of the average score returned, was selected
as an indicator of the difference between the number of
experiences reported by the two study groups.
The

t-test was then used to determine if there were

any significant differences between the mean scores of the
two groups.

A .05 level of significance was accepted rep­

resenting the 95 per cent confidence interval.
These statistical programs provided the needed in­
formation for testing the hypotheses and for making recom­
mendations for educators in student teaching.

51
Summary
The preceding pages of Chapter III have described
the procedures, methods, and sources of data used to investi­
gate the experiences of cluster program and conventional
program student teachers*

One hundred experiences were

selected from the literature, from previous studies, and
from a pilot survey to form the basis and rationale of the
questionnaire*

The instrument was mailed to 266 Michigan

State University students who were completing their course
work after having student taught in the winter term, 1971*
From this population, 259 deliverable questionnaires, a
return of 73 per cent resulted*
The data from the returned instruments were then
quantified and the t-test was conducted for each criterion
at the .05 level of significance*

Therefore, if the com­

puted t-test value exceeded the value at the *05 level of
significance, it indicated that the two groups were seem­
ingly not in agreement as to their responses*
An analysis of the data collected will be described
in the following chapter *

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Introduction
This chapter contains the analysis of data which
were gathered to support the hypotheses which were;
1.

There will be a greater number of student teaching ex­
periences reported by cluster student teachers than by
the conventional program student teachers®

2.

Of those experiences reported by the respondents, a
higher percentage will be reported as having been valu­
able by the cluster program student teachers than by
the conventional program student teachersD

3.

The cluster program student teachers will recommend a
greater number of experiences for inclusion in future
student teaching programs than will the conventional
program student teachers®
In order to test these hypotheses, one hundred stu­

dent teaching experiences were synthesized from the litera­
ture of teacher education and from previous studies®

These

selected experiences were then incorporated in a question­
naire which was submitted to Michigan State University resi­
dent coordinators and consultants involved in both cluster

53
and conventional programs for a pilot study®

The revised

instrument was then mailed to 266 Michigan State University
students who had completed their student teaching during
the winter terra, 1971®

The data measured in this study are

based upon the replies of 188 respondents who represent 73
per cent of the students surveyed®
Hypothesis One
According to Hypothesis I , there will be a greater
number of student teaching experiences reported by cluster
student teachers than by the conventional program student
teachers®

A t-test was used to test the difference between

mean scores of the replies of the two groups®
In order to test this hypothesis, one hundred se­
lected student teaching experiences were incorporated in
the questionnaire®

The respondents were requested to check

in the appropriate column if they had experienced the teach­
ing activity while student teaching®

Appendix D contains

the frequency of responses to each of the questionnaire
items, the mean score recorded, and the t-test level®

The

cluster and conventional participants* replies are shown
as separate entities in the appendix®
The data in Table 4®1 indicate that Hypothesis I
is accepted®

Using the mean as one indicator of the differ­

ence between the number of experiences reported by the two
study groups, a mean of 64®535 was computed for the cluster

54
respondentso

The mean of the conventional program student

teachers was 47<,478o

The difference between the mean scores

for the two groups was then subjected to a t-test.

The sig­

nificance of difference between the cluster and conventional
program replies was 11.549.

Requiring the level of signif­

icance at the o01 level. Hypothesis X can be accepted on
the data acquired.

Thus, it can be concluded that there

is a significant difference at the accepted confidence level
between the total scores of the two groups.

The cluster

program respondents indicated they participated in a signif­
icantly higher number of the selected student teaching ex­
periences than did the conventional program respondents.
TABLE 4.1.

Scores of Cluster and Conventional Program Groups
Related to Selected Student Teaching Activities
Experienced

Subject
Cluster Program
Conventional Program

N

f

X

71

4,582

64.535

117

5,555

47.478

t-value

11.549*
*Significant at .01 level.
Degrees of freedom;
186.00.
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis II states that of those selected student
teaching experiences reported by the respondents, a higher
percentage will be reported as having been valuable by the

55
cluster program student teachers than by the conventional
program student teachers.
This hypothesis is concerned with obtaining data
from the respondents as to the value they associated with
the selected student teaching experienceo

It was necessary

for the respondents to have participated in the experience
in order to complete this section of the questionnaire.
The data in Table 4 .2 indicate that Hypothesis II
is accepted.

The difference between the mean scores of the

two groups of student teachers is 59.633 and 41.111.

This

difference is statistically significant when subjected to
a t-test at the .01 level with 186 degrees of freedom.
TABLE 4.2.

Scores of Cluster and Conventional Program Groups
Related to the Value they Associated with the
Selected Student Teaching Experience

Subject
Cluster Program
Conventional Program

N

f

X

71

4,234

59.633

117

4,810

41.111

t-value

9.623*
•Significant at .01 level.
Degrees of freedoms
186.00.

One can conclude from the quantitative data measured
in this study that the cluster program student teachers rate
their selected student teaching experiences as significantly
more valuable than do the conventional program participants.

56
Hypothesis Three
According to Hypothesis III8 the cluster program
student teachers will recommend a greater number of the
selected student teaching experiences for inclusion in
future student teaching programs than will the conventional
program student teachers.
The respondents, 188 elementary education majors
who student taught during the winter term, 19 71, were re­
quested to indicate if they would recommend the selected
student teaching experiences measured in this study be in­
cluded in future student teaching programs.

It was not

necessary for the respondents to have experienced the teach­
ing activity as a student teacher in order to recommend its
inclusion in a program.
The data in Table 4.3 indicate that Hypothesis III
is accepted at the .02 level of significance when the t-test
is applied.

The mean score of the cluster respondents on

this hypothesis is 66.971 and that of the conventional pro­
gram participants is 59.478.

The significance level as

determined by the t-test is 2.433.

From an analysis of

Table 4.3 it can be concluded that there is a significant
difference at the accepted confidence level between the
total scores of the cluster and conventional program groups.
Cluster program student teachers do recommend a greater
number of selected teaching experiences for inclusion in

57
future programs than do the conventional program student
teachers.
TABLE 4.3.

Scores of Cluster and Conventional Program Groups
Related to the Selected Student Teaching Expe­
rience they would Recommend to be Included in
a Student Teaching Program

Subject

N

Cluster Program
Conventional Program

f

x

71

4,755

66.971

117

6,959

59.478

t-value

2.433*
•Significant at .02 level.
Degrees of freedom;
186.00.

Additional Comparative Analysis
Following the testing of the hypotheses, the quanti­
tative data from the questionnaire results were applied to
each selected student teaching experience measured in the
study.
The results of this examination indicate that each
of the selected student teaching experiences received some
degree of participation by the respondents.

The relative

frequency with which the experiences were encountered range
from a high of 100 per cent to a low of 00.8 per cent.
two experiences reported at the extremes were;

The

an oppor­

tunity to develop their own daily lesson plans which the
entire group of seventy-one cluster respondents reported
experiencing to the experience of joining a professional

58
teacher organization which was reported by only one of the
117 conventional program respondents.
The respondents in both study groups were to indi­
cate whether they evaluated the selected student teaching
experience encountered as a valuable experience.

The replies

of the two groups ranged from a high of 98.5 per cent to a
low of 00.8 per cent.

Item 71 from the list of selected

student teaching experiences, handling discipline problems
of the class without the supervising teacher, was reported
by the largest per cent of the cluster respondents as the
selected experience having the most value to them.

The low­

est per cent, 00.8, was the value attributed to joining a
professional organization.
The third category measured in this additional study
was the selected student teaching experience both the clus­
ter and conventional program respondents recommended to be
included in future student teaching programs.

The replies

ranged from a high of 98.5 per cent to a low of 12.6 per
cent.

The cluster respondents rated item 71, handling dis­

cipline problems without the supervising teacher, most fre­
quently as the experience they would recommend to be included
in future student teacher programs.

It is worthy of note

that the cluster respondents also rated this item, as stated
in the previous paragraph, as one of the experiences most
frequently reported as valuable.

The cluster respondents

reported the experience of joining a professional teacher

59
organization as the selected teaching experience they would
least recommend to be included in future student teaching
programs.

It is interesting to note that this experience,

joining a professional organization, received the lowest
mean score in each of the three categories.
A composite tabulation is reported in Appendix D .
The critical value with 186 degrees of freedom at the .05
level of significance was 1.97 in the tabulations.

This

indicates that the data were significant.
Appendix E provides information as to the ten most
frequently and the ten least frequently reported experiences
in the three categories of the study;

experiences, found

valuable, and recommended for inclusion in future student
teaching programs.

With further study and analysis, this

material may provide guidelines for teacher educators to
evaluate specific selected student teaching experiences in
terms of student teacher reactions.
Another indirect application of this study is the
possible relationship between the selected student teaching
experiences reported by the respondents and the various tasks,
responsibilities, skills, or functions associated with teach­
ing.
Teaching is a complex and multifaceted act.

It is

not the purpose of this study to make precise distinctions
between the various competencies involved in teaching.

Fur­

thermore, the study does not infer that in the assessment

60
of teaching or student teaching one area of teaching concern
or function is of more value than another area or function.
The intent of this phase of the analysis is to ex­
plore the possibility that one of the two study groups, the
cluster or conventional program participants, engaged in
more of the variables of teaching than did the other program
participants.
Five broad classifications were developed after con­
sulting with public school teachers, teacher educators, and
research specialists.

In addition, the objectives developed

by the College of Education at Michigan State University
for the student teaching program, the study of Dr. Samuel J.
Guello,

1

the study of Dr. Irvin J. Shutsy,

2

and the model

proposed by the Council of State College Presidents of Mich3
igan were reviewed and considered in the decision.
The
five divisions selected were;
1.

The classroom work itself

2.

The skills teachers use in preparing for the class

■^Samuel J. Guello, "An Evaluation of Ninety-seven
Student Teaching Experiences by First-year Teachers and
Supervising Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of North Dakota, 1967).
2
Irvin J. Shutsy, "An Evaluation by First-Year and
Second-Year Teachers of Their Student Teaching Experiences
as Provided by the Fourteen State Teachers Colleges of
Pennsylvania" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Pittsburgh, 1961).
3
Student Teaching Office, "Student Teaching Year
End Report, 1967—68," East Lansing, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)

61
3.

Those school related experiences outside of the class­
room

4.

Those community related activities of teachers

5«

The teaching experiences related to professional prob­
lems or actions.
The arbitrary divisions, as shown in Appendix D ,

classify the one hundred selected student teaching experi­
ences into one or more of the five categories described above.
The mean scores were then examined to determine if the clus­
ter or the conventional program respondents had participated
in more of any certain kind or type of student teaching ex­
perience .
This exploratory examination, based on the arbitrary
classification, indicates that the cluster program student
teachers responding in this study reported a higher mean
score in all of the five classifications.

The highest means

were reported in categories (1) classroom work itself;

(2)

the skills teachers use in preparing for the class; and (5)
the teaching experiences related to professional problems
or actions.
Summary of the Findings
Chapter IV presented the analysis and findings from
the d^ta collected from 188 elementary education majors who
were enrolled in the spring term at Michigan State Univer­
sity completing their degree requirements.

Each had student

taught during the winter term, 1971, in either a cluster or

62
conventional program of student teaching in a public school
cooperating with Michigan State University.
Three hypotheses were statistically analyzed and
the findings can be summarized as follows:
Hypothesis I
Hypothesis I :

Accepted at the .01 level of signif­

icance .
Finding:
a. Cluster program student teachers reported having
experienced more of the selected student teach­
ing experiences than did the conventional program
participants.
Hypothesis 11
Hypothesis II:

Accepted at the .01 level of signif­

icance.
Finding:
a. Of those experiences reported by the respondents,
more were reported as valuable by the cluster
program student teachers than by the conventional
program student teachers.
Hypothesis III
Hypothesis III:

Accepted at the .0 2 level of sig­

nificance.
Finding:
a. Cluster program participants recommended that

63
more of the selected student teaching experiences
be included in future student teaching programs
than did the conventional program participants»
Additional dimensions were added to the study by
ascertaining if there were differences in the replies of
the two groups to each of the selected student teaching ex­
periences; in developing a list of the most frequently re­
ported and least frequently reported replies in each of the
three categories of the study; and in comparing the number
of experiences reported by the two groups under a task,
style, function, or type of teaching classification»
Chapter V presents a summary of this study along
with the report of the conclusions»

Recommendations are

made for further study and for the implementation of the
results of the data revealed in this study»

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The hypotheses tested in this study were as follows:
1.

There will be a greater number of student teaching ex­
periences reported by cluster student teachers than by
the conventional program student teachers.

2.

Of those experiences reported by the respondents, a
higher percentage will be reported as having been valu­
able by the cluster program student teachers than by
the conventional program student teachers.

3.

The cluster program student teachers will recommend a
greater number of experiences for inclusion in future
student teaching programs than will the conventional
program student teachers..
The purposes of this study were to examine the

cluster program of student teaching at Michigan State Uni­
versity and the conventional program of student teaching
at Michigan State University to ascertain if any differences
exist among the number of experiences,

the value reported

on the experiences encountered, and the types of experiences
the respondents would recommend for inclusion in future stu­
dent teaching programs.

Underlying the study were the following assumptions:
That an adequate student teaching experience is more
likely to result when a more individualized program is
developed.
That student teachers benefit from participating in
selected experiences with a number of cooperating
teachers.
That supervised, planned, and guided contact with a
variety of activities in the school and community bene­
fit the prospective teacher.
That basic responsibility for the administration of
quality student teaching programs rests with institu­
tions of higher education, public school administrators,
and classroom teachers.
That student teachers who responded had established,
and could relate,

the experiences they considered valu­

able .
That the experiences considered valuable by the partici­
pants in this study will apply to other programs where
student teaching is involved.
That student teachers have convictions as to the type
and quality of experiences they want from student
teaching.
That administrators of student teaching programs have
a responsibility to improve the quality of the teacher
education program.

66
9.

That student teaching is an important aspect of the
preparation of teachers.
The normative survey and evaluative method of re­

search were used in the study.

To obtain the factual data

needed for making recommendations and to test the hypotheses,
a questionnaire was developed and sent to those students
who had completed their student teaching in the winter term
and who had returned to campus to complete their university
requirements.

Instruments were mailed to those elementary

education majors with current spring term addresses on file
with the University.

A return of 73 per cent was received

from 257 deliverable mailings representing 188 respondents.
The analysis of the data was performed through the use of
a computer.

A t-test was conducted for each of the hypoth­

eses at the .05 level of significance.
Further dimensions to the study were added by com­
paring the data on each of the selected student teaching
experiences reported by the two groups as well as exploring
comparisons as to the types of experiences the student
teachers reported having encountered.
Summary of the Conclusions
The research study included three hypotheses related
to selected student teaching experiences offered to Michigan
State University elementary education majors.
Hypothesis I was measured by a t-test which yielded

67
a ratio of 11.549, significant at the <>01 level.

The clus­

ter program of student teaching did provide significantly
more of the selected student teaching experiences than did
the conventional program of student teaching<>
The cluster program at Michigan State University
was developed to provide student teachers those teacherlearner experiences proposed in the model endorsed by the
Council of State College Presidents of Michigan.

Experiences

sought were:
1. A highly individualized and flexible student
teaching experience.
2. Contact with several different teachers in the
school building instead of just one as under the tradi­
tional program.
3. Contact with a variety of activities in the
school and community in addition to classroom teaching.
4. A close relationship between the student teach­
ing programs and the public school building staff, thus
involving the professional more directly in teacher
education.
The findings would seem to indicate that the cluster
type of student teaching program does tend to break the
strong adherence to the practice of the past in student
teaching.

The student teachers of the cluster program re­

ported experiencing significant differences in the number
and types of student teaching experiences.

Fifty-seven per

cent of the cluster program participants reported teaching
under two supervising teachers; only nine per cent of the
conventional program respondents reported a similar
■^Student Teaching Office, "Student Teaching Year
End Report, 1967-68," East Lansing, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)

68
opportunity®

Three per cent of the conventional program

respondents student taught under more than two supervising
teachers while 45 per cent of the cluster program partici­
pants had such an experience®

Sixty-nine per cent of the

cluster respondents indicated they had observed, while stu­
dent teaching, a minimum of five or six different classroom
teachers®

The conventional program participants reported

that only 22 per cent of their group had an opportunity to
make contact, by observing, with a similar number of teachers®
The cluster participants, with a comparison of 74
per cent to 26 per cent, stipulated through item 46 that
they taught classes on two different grade levels®

In addi­

tion, the data in item 62 indicate that 64 per cent of the
cluster respondents "Assumed the responsibility for the
partial teaching program of two supervising teachers,"
whereas only eight per cent of the conventional program
respondents so reported®
The arbitrary division of student teaching experi­
ences described on page 60 of this study classified sixtyseven of those experiences as category one or two®

These

functions listed in Appendix D were considered to be di­
rectly associated with the classroom teaching process.

In

forty-six of the sixty-seven experiences, the student teach­
ers in the cluster program reported that they had encountered
the experience.

The t-test indicated that this was signif­

icant statistically at the .05 level®

69
By comparing the mean scores reported in items 42
through 45 and 93 through 98, it is evident the cluster pro­
gram participants had a greater opportunity to observe other
teachers as well as to use various techniques to evaluate
themselves as prospective teachers.

The data indicate that

these experiences ranged from a high of 90 per cent on item
93, to a low of 16 per cent on item 98.

These same experi­

ences for the conventional program student teachers resulted
in responses ranging from 79 per cent to six per cent on
item 93 and 96 respectively.
Items 27, 30, 67, 6 8 , 76, 81, 97, 98, and 100 were
related to "A variety of activities in the school and com­
munity in addition to classroom teaching."

Classified as

either three, four, or five under the arbitrary numerical
division assigned to experiences, the differences between
the means of only items 67, 81, and 97 were significant at
the .05 level.
The second hypothesis, measured by a t-test which
resulted in a t-value of 9.623, was proven significant at
the .01 level.
An examination of Appendix E will disclose that the
cluster program student teachers rated as most valuable six
selected student teaching experiences that were not so rated
by the conventional program student teachers.

The conven­

tional program student teachers reported three items as most
valuable that the cluster people did not include in the ten

70
most valuable experiences they encountered.
Experiences such as item 69, ’’Preparing stencils
or dittos for supervising teacher,” item 21, ’’Assuming total
responsibility for opening activities of classroom," item
26, "Planning and installing a bulletin board," and item
56, "Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch room duty
for the entire term," are examples of experiences where sig­
nificant differences were not reported by the two groups.
Those experiences described in items 40, 46, 49,
50, and 51 are directly associated with a variety of teach­
ing experiences and under a variety of classroom teachers.
The differences between the means of the experiences mentioned
were significant at the .05 level as reported by the two
groups of respondents.
The findings were that the cluster respondents re­
ported more of the selected student teaching experiences as
being valuable than did the conventional program respondents.
Hypothesis III, examined by application of the ttest to the data obtained, resulted in a t-test value of
2.433 which was accepted with a significance level of .02.
This hypothesis permitted both groups of respondents an
opportunity to recommend which of the selected student
teaching experiences they would include in future programs
of student teaching.
After examining the accumulated lists of the ten
most frequently recommended experiences to be included in

71
future programs, it would appear that the two groups were
in common agreement on two-thirds of their recommendations.
The two experiences reported least frequently for
inclusion in future programs, "Joining a professional organi
zation," and "Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch
room duty for the entire term," were reported by both groups
as either the first or second item.

It is also interesting

to note in Appendix E that the cluster respondents listed
as one of the ten least frequently recommended items that
of "Teaching under only one supervising teacher for the
term."

The replies of the conventional respondents indi­

cated that they listed "Teaching under more than two super­
vising teachers during the term," as an experience they
would not recommend for inclusion in future programs.
The respondents appeared to have made a marked dis­
tinction between professional organization and the profes­
sional actions associated with the school programs and staff
Items 83 and 84 in Appendix D , "Attending professional or­
ganization meetings," and "Joining a professional organiza­
tion," were among the least frequently recommended experi­
ences by both the cluster and conventional participants.
At the same time, professional actions associated with
fellow teachers such as building meetings, in-service meet­
ings, orientation programs with building principals, and
meetings with the special services representatives, received
ratings from a high of 73 per cent to a low of 53 per cent

72
in items 79 and 82 respectively.
Items 40, 46, 50, and 51, associated with types of
teaching experiences and the number of teachers a student
teacher should work with, were reported significant at the
.05 level.
Recommendations
The study of the data revealed herein suggests some
recommendations and need for research in the field of stu­
dent teaching and in the specific programs measured in this
exploratory examination.
1.

They are:

It is recommended that similar data on secondary

education majors who student teach in both the cluster and
conventional programs be obtained and then compared with
the results of this study.
2.

It is recommended that additional investigations

be conducted to determine if there are any connections be­
tween the replies of the cluster program student teachers
and their level of satisfaction with their instructional
program as student teachers.
3.

The assertion that the group subculture influ­

ences individual attitudes and actions warrants evaluation
of the cluster program of student teaching by sociologists
and educators.
4.

The cluster program of student teaching should

be evaluated on how it affects the probability that capable
people enter and remain in the teaching profession.

73
5»

To generate further comparisons and research

data, graduates of both the cluster and conventional pro­
grams of student teaching should be re-examined after their
first two years of teaching to ascertain if they felt their
student teaching experiences were as valuable as they re­
ported them to be in this study»
6»

Research should be conducted to determine if

the cluster program of student teaching does change the
value orientation of prospective teachers toward students,
peers, the teaching profession, or themselves»
7.

It is recommended that a study be conducted to

determine if the graduates of the cluster program of student
teaching are more inclined to seek involvement in various
types of teaching programs, styles, or classroom functions
such as individualized prescribed instruction, differenti­
ated staffing, team teaching, continuous progress, multi­
age classrooms, open classrooms, independent study programs,
or other approaches to teaching,

than do the graduates of

the conventional program of student teaching °
80

It would appear most imperative that a compre­

hensive and in depth study, in conjunction with local pub­
lic school officials and representatives of the professional
organizations, be made of the graduates of the cluster pro­
gram of student teaching to assess their success as teachers
in the classroom.
9.

With the constant changes in school and society,

74
the purposes, functions, objectives, and expectations of
both student teachers and public school people involved in
student teaching must be constantly evaluated and considered
as changes are introduced into the teacher education programs.
10.

There should be efforts to study the roles and

role relationships among the University Coordinators, the
Clinical Consultants, and the Cooperating Teachers in order
to better develop the roles of each, to better understand
their responsibilities, and to constantly evaluate the clus­
ter program.
11.

The development of achievement or performance

objectives for cluster program student teachers should be
given immediate and most serious attention.

A nucleus of

experiences common to most student teachers may well be the
result of this study.
12.

The University Coordinators, the Clinical Con­

sultants, and the Cooperating Teachers should examine ways
and means to involve cluster programs student teachers in
more school-community activities.
13.

The rejection of certain selected student teach­

ing experiences by those student teachers surveyed in this
study should serve as a catalyst for the individuals in­
volved to evaluate carefully those experiences before they
are continued or discontinued.
14.

It is suggested by the results of this study

that professional organizations may need to consider what

75
they can do to involve student teachers in their local or­
ganizations while they are student teaching.
15.

It is proposed that a study be conducted to

determine if certain schools operating under the cluster
program of student teaching can be selected, based on their
educational philosophy, teaching methods,

school-community

environment, and student teachers assigned to that school
which most nearly represent or offer the type of teacherlearner experiences that the student teacher may desire to
be associated with in the future.
16.

Investigations should be made to include in

the traditional program those aspects of the cluster program
that the respondents felt provided more valuable experiences
until it is possible to provide the cluster experience to
all student teachers.
17.

The relationships between the various pre­

student teaching experiences or classroom involvement con­
ducted in the courses on campus and the cluster program of
student teaching should be studied and examined by the fac­
ulty members involved.
18.

Administrators and teachers in the public schools

should be involved in an evaluation of the cluster program
in order to obtain their assessment of its operation, ef­
fectiveness, and provedures.
19.

A study should be made in conjunction with the

University Placement Office to determine if prospective
employers view the cluster program student teacher as a

76
more desirable candidate than those student teachers who had
their field experience under the conventional program..
20.

More valid instruments to measure effective

teaching and teacher-learner experiences are needed in the
field of teacher education and warrant extensive research.
21.

The University should carefully examine those

school systems now involved in its student teaching programs
to determine if they can and will provide those varied stu­
dent teaching experiences that the respondents reported as
being most valuable and the experiences they would recommend
be included in future programs.

An analysis, center by cen­

ter, school system by school system, is possible by using
the questionnaire developed in this study and the results
would enable the University to determine if their students
are receiving the type of experiences they need and want.
22.

The University,

the public schools, and the

teaching profession should jointly take into account the
changing strategies involved in the cluster type of student
teaching program and institute a continuing education pro­
gram that takes into consideration the pre-service, inservice, and graduate programs of education of the teachers
involved and develop an interrelated and interacting program
of education for such individuals.
23.

The College of Education should be encouraged

to develop a model program, based on the present cluster
program of student teaching, that will move toward an

77
individualized progression of clinical student teaching
achievement-based experiences that may evolve into a full
year of student teaching.
This study underlines the expanding implications
of the cluster program for teacher education at Michigan
State University, other universities across the nation, and
the public schools.

Included in the framework of the pro­

gram is a basis for student teachers to become students of
teaching, to develop their unique style of teaching, and
to evaluate their teacher behavior by using the newer tools
of education.
The cluster program can be adapted to any schoolcommunity situation.

The age and achievement level of the

students, the subject matter, the types of teaching styles,
and the number of students involved do not affect the value
of the learning process.
It is readily apparent that the cluster program
should be instituted as rapidly as finances permit.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, Dwight W. "Toward *76: A Revolution in Teacher Edu­
cation," Phi Delta Kappan, LI (May, 1970), p. 485.
, and Gross, Richard E.
"Microteaching," The National
Education Association Journal, LV (December^ 1965),
pp. 25-26.
________ , and Seifman, Eli. The Teacher's Handbook. Glen­
view, Illinois:
Scott, Foresman Company, 1971.
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
Standard and Evaluative Criteria for the Accredita­
tion of Teacher Education. Washington, D.C.:
The
Association for Student Teaching, 1967.
Andrews, Leonard O.
Student Teaching. New York:
The Center
for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964.
________ . "Theory Underlying Proposed State and Federal
Support to Promote Quality Student Teaching,"
Eighteenth Yearbook of the American Association
of Colleges for Teacher Education. Washington,
D.C.: National Education Association, 1965.
____________"Initial Preparation of the Career Teacher,"
Educational Leadership, March, 1970, pp. 553-55.
Association of Classroom Teachers. Role of the Classroom
Teacher in the Student Teaching Program. Washing­
ton, D.C.: National Education Association, 1970.
Association for Student Teaching. A Guide to Professional
Excellence in Clinical Experiences in Teacher Edu­
cation. Washington, D.C.:
The Association for
Student Teaching, 1970.
________ . Facilities for Professional Laboratory Experi­
ences in Teacher Education. Thirty-third Yearbook.
Ann Arbor:
Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1954.
________ . Evaluating Student Teaching. Thirty-ninth Year­
book.
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company,
Inc., 1960.

80
Teacher Education and the Public Schools. Forti­
eth Yearbook.
Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Com­
pany, Inc., 1961o

o

The College Supervisor:
Conflict and Challenge.
Forty-third Yearbook.
Dubuque, Iowa: William C„
Brown Company, Inc., 1964.

_

_

.

________ . Professional Growth Inservice of the Supervising
Teacher. Forty-fifth Yearbook.
Dubuque, Iowa:
William C. Brown Company, Inc., 1966.
________ . Research on Student Teaching. Research Bulletin
No. 5. Dubuque, Iowa:
William C„ Brown Company,
Inc., 1965.
_________. Studying Role Relationships. Research Bulletin
No. 6. Dubuque, Iowa:
William C. Brown Company,
Inc., 1966.
. The Director of Student Teaching:
Characteris­
tics and Responsibilities. Research Bulletin No. 7.
Washington, D.C., 1968.
________ . Student Teaching:
A Mission of the Elementary
and Secondary Schools. Research Bulletin No. 13.
Iowa:
The Association for Student Teaching, 1960.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Perceiving, Behaving, Becoming. Yearbook, 1962.
Washington, D.C.: The Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development, 1962.
Atkinson, Carroll, and Maleska, Eugene T. The Story of Edu­
cation. New York:
Bantam Books, 1964.
Bennie, William A. Cooperation for Better Student Teaching.
Minneapolis:
Burgess Publishing Company, 1966.
________ . "Campus Supervision of Student Teaching— A Closer
Look," Teachers College Journal, XXXVI (May, 1964),
pp. 131-33.
Blume, Robert.
"Humanizing Teacher Education," Phi Delta
Kappan, LII (March, 1971), pp. 411-15.
Boyce, Kate L.
"What Is the Most Important Part of Student
Teaching?" Ohio School, XXX (September, 195 2), pp.
31-32.

81
Broudy, Harry S.
"Historic Exemplars of Teaching Methods,’*
Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by N. L.
Gage.
Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1963.
Clark, Burton R. Handbook of Modern Sociology. Edited by
Robert E. L. Faris»
Chicago: Rand McNally Company,
1964.
Clem, Paul N.
"A Study of the Michigan State Full-Time
Resident Student Teaching Program.” Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958.
Conant, James B. The Education of American Teachers.
York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1964.

New

Combs, Arthur W.
The Professional Education of Teachers:
A Perceptual View of Teacher Preparation. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1965.
Cruickshank, Donald R. "The Use of Simulation in Teacher
Education: A Developing Phenomenon," Journal of
Teacher Education, XX (Spring, 1969), p. 23.
Davies, Donald.
"What's Ahead in Teacher Education?" Jour­
nal of the Association for Childhood Education Inter­
national 8 Sept./Oct., 1969, pp. 14-16.
________ . "The Teacher Numbers Game," American Education,
VI (October, 1970), pp. 7-8.
________ , and Amershek, Kathleen.
"Student Teaching," Ency­
clopedia of Educational Research, 4th ed. Edited
by Robert L. Ebel. London:
The Macmillan Company,
1969.
Dean, Leland, and Kennedy, Henry A. A Position Paper on
Student Teaching Programs. Michigan State Univer­
sity, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)
Devor, John W. The Experience of Student Teaching.
York:
The Macmillan Company, 1964.

New

DeLong, Greta.
"Toward More Meaningful Teacher Preparation,"
Journal of Teacher Education, XXII (Spring, 1971),
pp. 15-17.
Dickhart, Audrey.
"Student Teachers Are People," Journal
of Teacher Education. XII (September, 196lT^ pp.
302-309.

82
Elam, Stanley, ed.
"Improving Teacher Education in the
United States," Phi Delta Kappan, XXXXVIII (March,
1967), pp. 411-15.
Etten, John F,
"Student Teachers Aren't for Filling the
Gap," Michigan Education Journal, XXXXV (April,
1968), pp. 12-13.
"Flexible Programming in Student Teacher Prepara­
tion," Peabody Journal of Education, XXXXVI (January,
1969), pp. 215-17.
Fullerton, Bill J. Needed Research in Student Teaching Pro­
grams . Research Bulletin No. 5. Dubuque, Iowa:
The Association for Student Teaching, 1965.
Garrett, Henry E„
Statistics in Psychology and Education.
6th edition.
New York:
David McKay Company, Inc.,
1966.
Garvey, Reba.
"Self-Concept and Success in Student Teach­
ing," Journal of Teacher Education, XXI (Fall, 1970),
pp. 357-65.
Goodlad, John I.
"Analysis of Professional Laboratory Ex­
periences in the Education of Teachers," Journal
of Teacher Education, XVI (September, 1965), pp.
263-70.
"Learning and Teaching in the Future," National
Education Association Journal. LVII (Fall, 1968),
pp. 49-51.
Grant, W. Vance.
"Statistical Look at American Education,
1970," American Education. V (October, 1969), pp.
24-25.
Gray, Maxine.
"The Use of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory in the Selection, Counseling, and Place­
ment of Student Teachers. Unpublished Ph.D. dis­
sertation, Wayne University, Detroit, Michigan, 1956,
Guello, Samuel J.
"An Evaluation of Ninety— seven Student
Teaching Experiences by First-year Teachers and
Supervising Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta­
tion, University of North Dakota, 1967.
Hamachek, Donald.
"Characteristics of Good Teachers and
Implications for Teacher Education," Phi Delta
Kappan. L (February, 1969), pp. 341-45.

83
Hays, William L.
Statistics.
Winston, 1963.

New York:

Holt, Rinehart,

Hazard, William R. The Tutorial and Clinical Program of
Teacher Education. Evanston:
Northwestern Univer­
sity Press, 1967.
________ . "Negotiation and the Education of Teachers,"
Teacher Education:
Future Directions. Edited by
Margaret Lindsey.
Washington, D.C.:
The Associa­
tion of Teacher Educators, 1970.
Heideback, Ruth, and Lindsey, Margaret, eds. Annotated
Bibliography on Laboratory Experiences and Related
Activities in the Professional Education of Teachers,
Washington, D.C. j The Association for Student
Teaching, 1968.
Hermanowicz, Henry J. "The Pluralistic World of Beginning
Teachers:
A Summary of Interview Studies," The Real
World of the Beginning Teacher. Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, 1966.
Hess, Mary B„
"A National Survey of State Practices and
Trends in Student Teaching," Innovated Programs in
Student Teaching. Edited by Roy A. Edelfelt.
Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education,
1969.
Hicks, W. Vernon, et a l . Professional Growth Through Stu­
dent Teaching. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill
Books, Inc., 1965.
Houston, W. Robert.
Behavioral Science Elementary Teacher
Education Program. U.S. Department of Health, Edu­
cation, and Welfare, Office of Education.
East
Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1968.
Houston, W. Robert, Blackington III, Frank H., and Southworth, Horton C. Professional Growth Through Stu­
dent Teaching. Columbus, Ohio:
Charles E. Merrill
Books, Inc., 1965.
Hunter, Elizabeth, and Amidon, Edmund.
"Direct Experience
in Teacher Education:
Innovation and Experimenta­
tion," Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Fall,
1966), pp. 282-89.
Johnson, James A. A Brief History of Student Teaching.
DeKalb, Illinois:
Creative Educational Materials,
1968.

84
and Anderson, Roger C. Secondary Student Teach­
ing : Readingso Glenview, Illinois?
Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971»
________ , and Perry, Floyd. Readings in Student Teaching.
2nd edo Dubuque, Iowa: William C„ Brown Book Com­
pany, 1969 o
Koerner, James Do The Mis-education of American Teachers.
Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1963o
Kraft, Leonard E c "You're Getting a Student Teacher,"
National Elementary Principal, XLV (January, 1966),
pp. 17-20o
Lindsey, Margaret, edo
Teacher Education:
Future Direc­
tions o Washington, D.C.:
The Association of Teacher
Educators, 1970»
New Horizons for the Teaching Profession. Wash­
ington, D.C.: National Commission on Teacher Edu­
cation and Professional Standards, National Educa­
tion Association, 1961»
Lowe, Alberta.
"Becoming a Teacher," Elementary Student
Teaching:
Readings. Edited by James A. Johnson
and Louis D c Deprin.
Glenview, Illinois:
Scott,
Foresman and Company, 1971.
McGeoch, Dorothy M 0 "Helping Student Teachers Become Stu­
dents of Teaching," Teachers College Journal, XXXIX
(October, 1967), pp. 18-21o
and Olson, Hans.
"The Charge to Action," Teacher
Education:
Future Directions. Edited by Margaret
Lindsey.
Washington, D.C.:
The Association of
Teacher Educators, 1970.
McIntosh, R» Gordon.
"The Clinical Approach to Teacher
Education," Journal of Teacher Educations XXII
(Spring, 1971), pp. 18-24.
~
McLain, Edwin W.
"Personal Growth for Teachers in Training
Through Self-Study," Journal of Teacher Education,
XXI (Fall, 1970), p. 372.
Michaelis, John U.
"Teacher Education— Student Teaching
and Internship," Encyclopedia of Educational Research,
3rd ed. Edited by Chester W. Harris.
New York:
The Macmillan Company, 1960.

85
Milner, Ernest J o , ed«
The Supervising Teacher. Thirtyeighth Yearbook of the Association for Student
Teaching o Dubuque, Iowa;
William C o Brown Company,
Inc., 1959o
Myers, George R.
"College and University Responsibility in
Student Teaching," Educational Comment. Edited by
R. Eo Ishler and J. D. Inglis«
Toledo; University
of Toledo, 1967o
National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional
Standards.,
"Who's In Charge Here?" Fixing Responsi­
bilities for Student Teaching» Washington, D.C.:
National Education Association, 1966»
________ . "A New Order in Student Teaching," Fixing Respon­
sibilities for Student Teaching» Washington, B.C.;
National Education Association, 1967»
New Horizons for the Teaching Profession;
A Report of the
Task Force on New Horizons in Teacher Education and
Professional Standards„ Washington, D.C.; National
Education Association, 1961»
Noll, Victor H. The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan
State Universityo East Lansing, Michigan;
College
of Education, Michigan State University, 1968o
Petrusich, Mary M„
"Teacher of Teachers; A New Dimension,"
Peabody Journal of Education, XXXXVI (January, 1969),
pp» 211-14o
Price, Robert Do
"The Influence of Supervising Teachers,"
Journal of Teacher Education, XII (December, 1961),
ppo 471-75»
Reddick, Thomas L.
"Models for Elementary Teacher Prepara­
tion," Phi Delta Kappan, LII (March, 1971), p» 4 3 9 o
Report to the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education, 1971, T„ Clinton Cobb, Director. Lansing,
Michigan;
Michigan State University, 1970»
Rex, R. Gene.
Supervising Teachers in Michigan Student
Teaching, Lansing, Michigan;
Michigan Department
of Education, Bureau of Higher Education, 1968,
(Mimeographed,)
Reynard, Harold E.
"Pre-Service and In-Service Education
of Teachers," Review of Educational Research, XXXIII
(October, 1963"5"^ pp. 369-80,

86
Roth, Lois H.
"Selecting Supervising Teachers," Journal
of Teacher Education, XIX (September, 1961), pp476-81o
Rucker, William C"A Critical Analysis of Current Trends
in Student Teaching-" Unpublished Ph-D- disserta­
tion, Harvard Graduate School of Education, 1951»
Rudolph, Fredericko
The American College and University:
A History. New York;
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc«, 1965Ryan, Kevin. "Student Teaching," The Teacher♦s Handbook.
Edited by Dwight D. Allen and Eli Seifmano
Glenview,
Illinois;
Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971 <»
Schwartz, Sheila"The Principal's Role in the Student
Teaching Program," Journal of Teacher Education,
XIII (March, 1962), pp- 78-81Shaplin, Judson T"Practice in Teaching, Breakthrough to
Better Teaching," Harvard Education Review, Special
Issue, 1965____________"Practice in Teaching," Teacher Education- Ed­
ited by Elmer R- SmithNew York;
Harper and Row
Company, 1962Sharpe, Donald M„
"Threshold to the Profession," National
Education Association Journal, LIV (1964)Shutsy, Irvin J"An Evaluation by First-Year and SecondYear Teachers of Their Student Teaching Experiences
as Provided by the Fourteen State Teachers Colleges
of Pennsylvania-" Unpublished Ph-D- dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
1961Smith, Bo Othanel, et a l - Teachers for the Real WorldWashington, D.C.;
American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education, 1969Smith, E- Brooks"Joint Responsibility," National Educa­
tion Association Journal, LVI (May, 1968), pp- 18’20________ . "Needed;
A New Order in Student Teaching That
Brings Joint Accountability for Professional De­
velopment," Journal of Teacher Education, XX
(Spring, 1969), pp- 26-36-

87
Smith, Elmer R., edo Teacher Education;
New York;
Harper and Row, 1962.

A Reappraisalo

Sorenson, Garth Bo
"What Is Learned in Practice Teaching?"
Journal of Teacher Education, XVII (Summer, 1967),
pp« 173-78o
Stile, Lindley J», et a l . Teacher Education in the United
Stateso New York; Ronald Press, 1960o
= and Parker, Robert Po, J r c "Teacher Education
Programs," Encyclopedia of Educational Research,
4th edo Edited by Robert L. Ebel. London;
The
Macmillan Company, 1969.
Stratemeyer, Florence B 0, and Lindsey, Margaret.
Working
with Student Teacherso New York;
Teachers College
Press, Columbia University, 1958.
Stone, James Co Breakthrough in Teacher Educationo
Francisco;
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1968.

San

Student Teaching Office Year End Report, 1967-68. East
Lansing, Michigan;
Michigan State University, 1968.
(Mimeographedo)
Student Teaching Office Year End Report, 1968-69. East
Lansing, Michigan;
Michigan State University, 1969.
(Mimeographed.)
Student Teaching Office Year End Report, 1969-70. East
Lansing, Michigan;
Michigan State University, 1970.
(Mimeographed.)
Trimmer, Russell L.
"Student Teachers Talk Back," Journal
of Teacher Education, XI (December, I960), pp. 53738.
Troisi, Nicholas.
"Development of the Supervising Teacher's
Role," Thirty-Eighth Yearbook of the Association
for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa;
William C.
Brown Company, Inc., 1959.
Westfall, Byron L.
"Student Teaching Programs in Certain
School Systems of the North Central Association
Area," The North Central Association Quarterly,
XXXVII (Winter, 1963), pp. 237-45.
Wilhelms, Fred T„ "Realignment for Teacher Education,"
Teacher Education;
Future Directions. Edited by
Margaret Lindsey. Washington, D.C.;
The Associa­
tion of Teacher Educators, 1970.

88
Winter Term, 19 71, Report of Student Teachers Placed. East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1971.
(Mimeographed.)
Wroblewski, Claudia.
"A Student Teacher Views the Super­
vising Teacher,” Journal of Teacher Education, XIV
(September, 1963), p.. 333.

APPENDIX A
LIST OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT TEACHING CENTERS
IN WHICH WINTER TERM, 1971, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
MAJORS WERE ASSIGNED TO STUDENT TEACHING AND THE
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS INVOLVED BY
CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM STATUS

90
APPENDIX A ;
CENTERS WHERE STUDENT TEACHERS WERE ASSIGNED AND
NUMBER OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION CLUSTER OR CONVENTIONAL PROGRAMS
Cluster Student
Teachers

Conventional
Student Teachers

Battle Creek

6

11

Benton Harbor

8

2

Center

Charlotte

3

Detroit

52

Flint

23

Grand Rapids

16

Jackson

11

2

Lansing

36

Livonia

23

Macomb

17

Niles

20

Owosso
Pontiac
Saginaw

5
28
4

Traverse City
Walled Lake

16
9

10
103

Total Numbers of Student Teachers Involved
in Initial Student Teaching Office Report

5
204
30 7

APPENDIX B
APPROVAL FROM OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR
TO RELEASE DATA FOR STUDY

92
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Office of the Registrar • Administration Building

Date:

April 13, 1971

To:

Frank Martin, Director
Data Processing Department

From:

James V. Stoneman
Office of the Registrar

The following data may be released from the files of the
Office of the Registrar:
For:

Charles L. Jackson, Director
Teacher Education Center
MSU Regional Center, Oakland University
Rochester, Michigan 48063

Data:

Labels showing Spring 1971 local addresses of MSU
Elementary Education majors who student taught dur­
ing the Winter of 1971.
(See attached letter dated March 31, 1971 signed by
C. Jackson.)

Purpose:

Special project follow-up.
This study has been approved by the University
Research Committee.

Details of the project, the timing of its completion,
and the distribution of the final data should be arranged
directly with the persons originating the request.
For Data Proc. Dept. Use:
Date Received________________________
Project Code_________________________
Account Number

APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER SENT TO ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION MAJORS WHO STUDENT TAUGHT
IN WINTER TERM, 19 71

94
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Pontiac Area Teacher Education Center
Post Office Box 510
Rochester, Michigan 48063
Dear Colleague:
In connection with my program in the College of
Education, I am researching how Cluster and Non-cluster
student teachers evaluate their elementary school student
teaching after they have completed that experience.
The population for this survey is drawn from those
elementary education majors who taught during the winter
term of 1971.
This information is being collected for re­
search purposes only; therefore, no information identifying
any individual will be published.
I know how busy you are upon your return to campus
and appreciate the less than thirty minutes it will take
you to complete the check list.
The value of any program,
however, must be measured by and through the consumer— YOU.
The accuracy of your answers and the worth of the findings
to future student teachers at Michigan State are, in part,
dependent upon your willingness to participate.
Enclosed is a postage paid return envelope.
While
you have the material at hand and before the mid-term rush,
please complete and return the form.
Again, many thanks for your cooperation and best
wishes for a successful career in education.
Sincerely yours,

Charles L. Jackson,
Director, Pontiac Area
Enel:

Check list
Return envelope

95
EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES
INFORMATION:
1.

At what Michigan State University Student Teaching
Center did you do your student teaching?

2.

Did you student teach in a Cluster Program?
Yes______________ No_____________

INSTRUCTIONS:
The checklist emphasizes specific student teaching ex­
periences .
1.
2.
3.

Indicate which of the following experiences you had
as a student teacher by placing an "X'* in the proper
column; otherwise leave blank.
Indicate if you evaluated the experience as being
"valuable" by placing an "X" in the proper column;
otherwise leave blank*
Indicate which of these teaching experiences you
would include as a part of future student teaching
programs by placing an "X" in the proper column.
Please rate ALL of these experiences in this column
whether you had them or not.
1
2 O'
-u a

n

in -h

o

do

<D

REMEMBERS

CHECK IF . . . . . . .

.

A

a) -h (d
h
<u
•h a a) eh
d

<u

u

a)

«j b
2 2 +>

ft rl H d

x

u

1.
2.
3.
4.

Developing own daily lesson plans.
Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
Selecting content material of a subject taught.
Making assignments for classroom material
taught.
5. Preparing and administering drills in subject
matter taught.
6. Developing material to enrich lesson you
taught.
7. Including in plans an introduction or set that
had as its purpose motivating the students.

2

>

o a>

d T3
H

96
I
-p a
d c

l/J -H
n
a u
rtj

x)

a)

O

a
<u
<U rH

REMEMBER:

CHECK IP . . . . . . .

.

m

'8 3+>

<u d
Qi h

h CJ
u a)

w

H

x

8 . Introducing innovative materials not included
in building curriculum into a unit you taught.
9. Giving classroom assessment tests for assigning
students to another level, group, or class.
10. Developing in your lesson plans material for
remedial pupils.
11. Including in lesson plans specific techniques
to control behavior problems.
12. Planning instruction through student teacherpupil involvement.
13. Developing and using behavioral objectives in
plans.
14. Using special testing material to diagnose
pupil needs.
15. Using a simulated learning game as a teaching
tool.
16. Teaching a unit prepared by others.
17. Using someone from the community as a resource
person in the classroom.
18. Developing a file of activities, pictures,
lesson plans or materials.
19. Previewing audio-visual material before using
in class.
20. Developing units structured around pupil
creativity.
21. Assuming total responsibility for opening
activities of classroom.
22. Preparing and presenting, with pupil involve­
ment, total school activities program.
23. Including in your lesson plans specific change
of pace techniques.
24. Reteaching a lesson after your self-evaluation
indicated a need.
25. Developing own teaching aids for a class
presentation.
26. Planning and installing a bulletin board.
27. Organizing and conducting field trips.
28. Analyzing your techniques of questioning.
29. Including provisions for individual differ­
ences in lesson plans.
30. Tutoring a student after school in a community
program.

<u
a) EH

«j d t >

>

REMEMBER:

CHECK IF . . . . . . .

.

TJ
<U
g
0)
•H
M
<D
Q»
X

^
H
A
fd
0
iH
<d

w >
31. Constructing and administering tests over
material you taught.
32. Determining grades for report cards without
supervising teacher’s directions.
33. Assisting in determining grades for report
cards.
34. Maintaining pupil progress records of tests
and grades.
35. Learning about and maintaining class attend­
ance procedures.
36. Working with commercial testing material in
class.
37. Writing in cumulative records of pupils.
38. Reading the cumulative records of pupils.
39. Teaching under only one supervising teacher
for the term.
40. Teaching under two supervising teachers dur­
ing the term.
41. Teaching under more than two supervising
teachers during the term.
42. Observing, while student teaching, 1-2
different teachers.
43. Observing, while student teaching, 3-4
different teachers.
44. Observing, while student teaching, 5-6
different teachers.
45. Observing, while student teaching, 7 or more
teachers.
46. Teaching classes on at least two different
grade levels.
47. Teaching classes on at least three or more
grade levels.
48. Teaching as a member of a team teaching unit
if school had such a team.
49. Teaching on an individualized (one to one)
basis.
50. Teaching on a small group (two to ten or
less) basis.
51. Teaching on a large group (more than one
class) basis.
52. Teaching, separate from rest of class,
remedial pupils.

Include in Stu
dent Teaching

97

REMEMBER;

CHECK IF

5 3 . Teaching, separate from rest of class,
advanced pupils.

5 4 . Teaching heterogeneous groups.
5 5 . Teaching homogeneous groups.
5 6 . Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch
room duty for entire term.

5 7 . Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch
room duty only when assigned by school.

5 8 . Teaching a multi-age class.
5 9 . Supervising directed study in classroom.
6 0 . Assuming responsibility for the teaching
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66 .
67.
68.

69.
70.
71 .
72.
73.

program of at least one subject for a period
of three weeks or more.
Assuming responsibility for the total teach­
ing program of supervisor for four or more
weeks.
Assuming responsibility for partial teaching
program of two supervising teachers.
Substituting for your supervising teacher
when she was ill.
Substituting for your supervising teacher
when she was participating in an in-service
project.
Substituting for a teacher other than your
supervising teacher in case of illness.
Substituting for a teacher other than your
supervising teacher when she was partici­
pating in an in-service project.
Participating in after school curricular
activities.
Participating in community activities while
student teaching.
Preparing stencils or dittos for supervising
teacher.
Preparing stencils or dittos for own lesson
plans.
Handling discipline problems of class without
supervising teacher.
Having conferences with students in relation
to classroom matters.
Counseling individual pupils at their initia­
tion.

•d
<U
u
d
<D
U
(U
a
X
«

Stu
hing

98

<D
h
(0
d
pH
fd
>
r—1

d o
d)
0) Eh
X»
3 -P
H d
U 0)
d TJ
H
•iH rtJ

99
I

+» a
cn -h
n

REMEMBERS

CHECK IP . . . . . . .

.

s:

O
C5 <U -H £
(U
<D
H
(1) EH
•HAD
M nJ 3 -P

0) 3
a, h

<-1 a

CJ >

H

oo)

X id 3 T3

74o Discussing pupils with school counselor or
principal.
75. Making a case study of a pupil.
76. Visiting the homes of pupils.
77. Joining in conferences with school principal
when one of your students was involved.
78. Having an orientation meeting with the prin­
cipal .
79. Attending building faculty meetings when
held.
80. Contributing in discussions at building
faculty meetings.
81. Participating in parent-teacher conferences.
82. Attending building or district in-service
meetings.
83. Attending professional organization meetings.
84. Joining a professional organization.
85. Attending Parent Teacher Association, or
other parent group, meeting.
8 6 . Meeting with representatives of special
services of school to discuss their role.
87. Examining courses of study.
8 8 . Participating in the development of curriculum
for the school.
89. Using the school library as a part of a lesson
plan.
90. Using the school library for your resource
material.
91. Using a film projector in a unit you taught.
92. Using a tape recorder in a unit you taught.
93. Evaluating your goals as a student teacher.
94. Using tape recorder for self-evaluation.
95. Using micro-teaching during student teaching.
96. Evaluating yourself on video tape while stu­
dent teaching.
97. Observing non-public schools while student
teaching.
98. Observing in secondary schools of district.
99. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a
student teacher.
100. Visiting Board of Education meetings.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION

APPENDIX D
SCORES OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM
GROUPS RELATED TO SELECTED
STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES

APPENDIX D— SCORES OF CLUSTER AND CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM GROUPS RELATED TO SELECTED
STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES

Teaching Experiences

Experienced the
Reported the
Selected
Experience
Recommended the
Activity
as Valuable
Experience
----------------- -----------------------------------------Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f

1. Developing own daily
lesson plans (2)#
2. Organizing and teaching
a unit of instruction (2)

%

71 100

f %

116

f %

99o0

f

%

f

69 9 7 d 105 89o7 * 66

%

f

%

92.9 104 88.8

66 92.9 105 89.7

70 98®5 106 90.5 * 66 92.9 100 85.4

3. Selecting content material
of a subject taught (2)
62 87o3

86

73o5 * 58

4o Making assignments for
classroom material taught
(1 )

65 91 o5

98

33o7

64 90.1

86 73.5 * 61

85.9

97 82.9

5. Preparing and administer­
ing drills in subject
matter taught (ls2)

67 94.3 100

85.4

64 90.1

80 68.3

84.5

81 69.2 *

tv:

t-test value.

^(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

=
=
=
=
=

81o6

83 70o9

64

*

60

90.1 103 88.0

The classroom work itself
The skills teachers use in preparing for the class
Those school related experiences outside of the classroom
Those community related activities of teachers
The teaching experiences related to professional problems or actions

•Significant at the .05 level.

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f %

f %

6 . Developing material to en­
rich lesson you taught (2) 66 92.9

7. Including in plans an in­
troduction or set that had
as its purpose motivating
the students (1,2)
66

f

%

f

%

f

%

f %

91 77.7 * 62 87.3

88 75.2 * 65 91.5 102 87.1

92.9 90 76.9 * 63 88.7

84 71.7 * 62 87.3 101 86.3
102

8 . Introducing innovative
materials not included in
building curriculum into
a unit you taught (1,2)

58 81.6

64 54.7 * 58 81.6

61 52.1 * 61 85.9

95 81.1

9. Giving classroom assess­
ment tests for assigning
students to another level,
group, or class(1,2)

25 35.2

23 19.6 * 25 35.2

18 15.3 * 49 69.0

79 67.5

10. Developing in your lesson
plans material for remedi­
al pupils (2)

57 80.2

71 60.6 * 54 76.0

65 55.5 •• 60 84.5 104 88.8

11. Including in lesson plans
specific techniques to
control behavior problems
(1,2)

47 66.1

52 44.4 * 44 61.9

47 40.1 * 54 76.0

83 70.9

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv’lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

f

%

1 2 o Planning instruction
through student teacherpupil involvement (1,2)

48 67 06 53

1 3 o Developing and using
behavioral objectives
in plans (1,2)

54 76.0 73 62.3 *

14. Using special testing
material to diagnose
pupil needs (1)

26 36.6

15. Using a simulated learn­
ing game as a teaching
tool (1)

f

%

4 5 o2 * 46 6 4 o7

f

%

f

%

f

%

98 8 3 o7

44 61.9

47 40.1 *

46 64.7

64 54.7

31 26.4

23 32.3

26 22.2

48 67.6

76 64.9

43 60.5

49 41.8 *

42 59.1

44 37.6 *

53 74.6

85 72.6

16. Teaching a unit prepared
by others (1,5)

46 64.7

43 36.7 *

31 43.6

24 20.5 *

37 52.1

44 37.6 *

17. Using someone from the
community as a resource
person in the classroom
(1.2)

38 53.5

22 18.8 *

35 49.2

20 17.0 *

49 69.0

77 65.8

18. Developing a file of ac­
tivities, pictures, les­
son plans or materials
(2.3)

63 88.7

95 81.1

63 88.7

91 77.7

57 80.2 104 88.8

103

49 4 1 08 * 62 8 7 o3

APPENDIX D (continued)

m
„
.
Teaching Experiences

Experienced the
Reported the
Selected
Experience
Recommended the
Activity
as Valuable
Experience
______ ______ j_________________________________ _____________
Cluster Conv’l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f

%

f %

f %

f

%

f

%

f

%

61 85.9

77 65.8 * 59

83.0

71 60.6 * 63

88.7

99 84.6

20. Developing units struc­
tured around pupil cre­
ativity (1,2)

53 74.6

61 52.1 * 52

73.2

59 50.4 * 60

84.5

92 78.6

64

90.1

96 82.0

90.1 104 88.8

21. Assuming total responsi­
bility for opening activ­
ities of classroom (1,2) 67 94.3

104

19. Previewing audio-visual
material before using in
class (2)

107 91.4

64

22. Preparing and presenting,
with pupil involvement,
total school activities
program (1,2)

24 33.8

24 20.5 * 24

33.8

19 16.2 * 41

57.7

48 41.0 *

23. Including in your lesson
plans specific change of
pace techniques (1,2)

48 67.6

56 4-7.8 * 48

67.6

54 46.1 * 50

70.4

86 73.5

24. Reteaching a lesson after
your self-evaluation in­
dicated a need (1,2)

56 78.8

76 64.9 * 56

78.8

72 61.5 * 55

77.4

95 81.1

25. Developing own teaching
aids for a class pre­
sentation (1.2)

69 97.1 103 88.0 * 69 97.1

97 82.9 * 65 91.5 100 85.4

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
m
,.
_
.
Activity
Teaching Experiences_____ ____________ j

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience
___________

Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

68 95.7

107 91.4

60 84o5

85 72.6

55

77.4

84 71.7

27. Organizing and conducting
field trips (1,2,3)

24 33.8

29 24.7

23 32.3

27 23.0

47

66.1

77 65.8

28. Analyzing your techniques
of questioning (1,2,5)

52 73.2

77 65.8

51 71.8

72 61.5

52

73.2

97 82.9

29. Including provisions for
individual differences in
lesson plans (1,2)
62 87.3
30 o Tutoring a student after
school in a community
program (3,5)

6 08.4

75 64.1 * 60 84.5

7 05.9

6 08.4

72 61.5 * 64 90.1 101 86.3

6 05.1

29

40.8

40 34.1

31. Constructing and adminis­
tering tests over material
you taught (1,2)
63 88.7

76 64.9 * 62 87.3

67 57.2 * 64 90.1

89

76.0 *

32. Determining grades for
report cards without
supervising teacher1s
direction (1,5)

25 21.3

20 17.0

38

32o4 *

33. Assisting in determining
grades for report cards
(1,5)

20 28.1

47 66.1

20 28.1

54 46.1 * 47 66.1

39

54.9

49 41.8 * 52 73.2

76 64.9

105

26o Planning and installing a
bulletin board (1,2)

APPENDIX D (continued)

m
,.
_
.
Teaching Experiences

Experienced the
Reported the
Selected
Experience
Recommended the
Activity
as Valuable
Experience
________________________________ _______________ ____________
Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

34. Maintaining pupil prog­
ress records of tests
and grades (1,5)

59 83 »0

83 70.9 * 58 81.6

74 63.2 * 54 76.0

87 74.3

35 o Learning about and main­
taining class attendance
procedures (1,5)

69 97»1 102 87.1 * 57 80.2

73 62.3 * 54 76.0

81 69.2
106

36. Working with commercial
testing material in class
30 42 c2
(1,5)

39 33.3

23 32.3

30 25.6

38 53.5

54 46.1

37. Writing in cumulative
records of pupils (3,5)

15 21.1

29 24.7

14 19.7

23 19.6

29 40 08

55 47.0

38 o Reading the cumulative
records of pupils (3,5)

60 84.5

92 78.6

53 74 o6

70 59.8

52 73.2

79 67.5

39 o Teaching under only one
supervising teacher for
term (1,5)

25 35.2 100 85.4

23 32.3

60 51.2 * 22 30.9

51 43.5

11 09.4 * 38 53 »5

7 05.9 * 43 50.5

40. Teaching under two super­
vising teachers during
41 57.7
the term (1,5)

42 35.8 *

APPENDIX D (continued)

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv'l. tv Clu ster Conv'1. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f
4 1 o Teaching under more than
two supervising teachers
during the term ( 1 , 5 )
42. Observing, while student
teaching, 1-2 different
teachers ( 1 , 5 )

%

32 45.0

39 54.9

f

%

4 03o4

54 46.1

f

%

* 30 4 2 c 2

32 45. 0

f

%

3 02o5

44 37.6

f

%

* 32 45.0

f

%

30 2 5 . 6 *

31 4 3 . 6

49 41.8
107

43. Observing, while student
teaching, 3-4 different
teachers ( 1 , 5 )

46 64.7

39 3 3 . 3 * 39 5 4 . 9

37 3 1 . 6

* 37 52.1

61 52.1

44. Observing, while student
teaching, 5-6 different
teachers ( 1 , 5 )

49 69.0

26 2 2 . 2

21 1 7 . 9

* 46 64.7

59 5 0 . 4

45. Observing, while student
teaching, 7 or more
teachers ( 1 , 5 )

25 3 5 . 2

2 1 1 7 . 9 * 23 3 2 . 3

20 1 7 . 0 * 29 4 0 . 8

61 52.1

46. Teaching classes on at
least two different
grade levels ( 1 , 5 )

53 74.6

31 26.4

* 51 71.8

27 23.0

* 55 7 7 . 4

67 57.2 *

47. Teaching classes on at
least three or more grade
levels ( 1 , 5 )

35 4 9 . 2

11 09.4

* 33 4 6 . 4

11 0 9 . 4

* 42 59.1

41 35.0 *

* 46 64.7

APPENDIX D (continued)

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

%

f

%

%

f

%

%

33 46.4

10 08.5 * 33 46.4

10 08.5 * 46 64.7

53 45.2 *

49. Teaching on an individ­
ualized (one to one)
basis (1,5)

64 90.1

73 62.3 * 64 90.1

68 58.1 * 62 87.3

92 78.6

5 0 o Teaching on a small
group (two to ten or
less) basis (1,5)

65 91.5

91 77.7 * 64 90.1

85 72.6 * 66 92.9

90 76.9 *

51o Teaching on a large
group (more than one
class) basis (1,5)

47 66.1

38 32.4 * 46 64.7

32 27.3 * 53 74.6

61 52.1 *

5 2 o Teaching, separate from
rest of class, remedial
pupils (1,5)

65 91.5

79 67.5 * 61 85.9

71 60.6 * 62 87.3

90 76.9

5 3 o Teaching, separate from
rest of class, advanced
pupils (1,5)

45 63.3

46 39.3 * 41 57.7

42 35.8 * 50 70.4

77 65.8

5 4 o Teaching heterogeneous
groups (1,5)

65 91.5

96 82.0

86 73.5 * 58 81.6

90 76.9

62 87.3

108

4 8 o Teaching as a member of
a team teaching unit if
school had such a team
(1,5)

APPENDIX D (continued)
Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

%

f

%

%

f

%

%

54 76.0

63

53.8 *

51 71.8

55 47.0 *

48 67.6

73 62.3

56. Assuming playground,
hall patrol, or lunch
room duty for entire
term (3)

13 18.3

25

21.3

11 15.4

13 11.1

12 16.9

20 17.0

57. Assuming playground,
hall patrol, or lunch
room duty only when
assigned by school (3)

36 50.7

45

38.4

27 38.0

28 23.9 *

34 47.8

39 33.3

58 o Teaching a multi-age
class (1,5)

25 35.2

15

12.8 *

25 35.2

14 11.9 *

40 56.3

35 29.9 *

59. Supervising directed
study in classroom (1,5)

52 73.2

56 47.8 * 45 63.3

60. Assuming responsibility
for the teaching program
of at least one subject
for a period of three
weeks or more (1,5)

67 94.3 102 87.1

61. Assuming responsibility
for the total program of
supervisor for four or
more weeks (1,5)

40 56.3

109

5 5 o Teaching homogeneous
groups (1,5)

65 55.5

44 37.6 * 45 63.3

46 39.3 *

64 90.1

94 80.3

63 88.7

94 80.3

37 52.1

62 52.9

50 70.4

88 75.2

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv'l« tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

62. Assuming responsibility
for partial teaching pro­
gram of two supervising
teachers (1,5)

46 64.7

10 08.5 *

42 59.1

9 07.6 *

46 64.7

40 34.1 *

63. Substituting for your
supervising teacher when
she was ill (1,5)

43 60.5

60 51.2

43 60.5

50 42.7 *

47 66.1

64 54.7

64. Substituting for your
supervising teacher when
she was participating in
an in-service project
(1,5)

54 76.0

79 67.5

52 73.2

71 60.6

53 74.6

71 60.6 *

65. Substituting for a teach­
er other than your super­
vising teacher in case of
illness (1,5)

15 21.1

25 21.3

15 21.1

18 15.3

32 45.0

33 28.2 *

36.6

13 11.1 *

23 32.3

10 08.5 *

37 52.1

38 32.4 *

46 64.7

50 42.7 *

43 60.5

39 33.3 *

43 60.5

67 57.2

66. Substituting for a teach­
er other than your super­
vising teacher when she
was participating in an
in-service project (1,5)
26
67. Participating in after
school curricular activ­
ities (3,4)

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv’lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

68 o Participating in community
activities while student
teaching ( 3 , 4 )
19 26.7

21 1 7 o 9

18 25o3

15 1 2 . 8 *

32 45 . 0

42 35.8

6 9 o Preparing stencils or
dittos for supervising
teacher ( 3 , 5 )

89 76.0

40 56.3

58 4 9 . 5

38 5 3 . 5

58 4 9 . 5

70. Preparing stencils or
dittos for own lesson
plans (3)

54 76.0

67 9 4 . 3 107 9 1 . 4

65 9 1 . 5

92 78.6 * 63 88.7 100 85.4

71. Handling discipline
problems of class with­
out supervising teacher

(1,5)
72. Having conferences with
students in relation to
classroom matters ( 1 , 3 , 5 )

70 9 8 . 5 1 1 2 9 5 . 7

62

70 9 8 . 5 1 0 7 9 1 . 4

70 9 8 . 5 1 0 5 8 9 . 7 *

87.3

85 72.6 *

61 85.9

78 6 6 . 6 *

60 8 4 . 5

86 73.5

73. Counseling individual
pupils at their initia­
tion (3,5)

48 67.6

50 42.7 *

45 63.3

45 38.4 *

48 67.6

69 58.9

74. Discussing pupils with
school counselor or
principal ( 3 , 5 )

40 56.3

45 38.4 *

37 5 2 . 1

39 33.3 *

42 59.1

62 52.9

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Reported the
Selected
Experience
Recommended the
m
„
.
Activity
as Valuable
Experience
Teaching E x p e r i e n c e s ____________ j_________________________________ ____________
Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

7 5 c Making a case study of a
pupil (3,5)

19 26.7

19 16.2

18 25.3

16 13.6 * 29 40.8

38 32.4

7 6 o Visiting the homes of
pupils (3,4)

14 19.7

13

11.1

13 18.3

13 11.1

32

45.0

41 35.0

20 28.1

25

21.3

19 26.7

23 19.6

37

52.1

53 45.2

65 91.5

58

49.5 * 52 73.2

45 38.4 * 52

73.2

76 64.9

102 87.1 * 58 81.6

78 66.6 * 53

74.6

85 72.6

7 7 o Joining in conferences

7 8 o Having an orientation
meeting with the prin­
cipal (5)

79 c Attending building fac­
ulty meetings when held
(5)

70 98.5

8 0 c Contributing in discus­
sions at building faculty
meetings (5)

30 42.2

36

30.7

25 35.2

24 20.5 * 30

42.2

43 36.7

teacher conferences (4,5) 52 73.2

67

57.2 * 48 67.6

59 50.4 * 57

80.2

88 75.2

63

53.8 * 43 60.5

46 39.3 * 38

53.5

65 55.5

8 1 . Participating in parent82. Attending building or
district in-service
meetings (3,5)

54 76.0

112

with school principal
when one of your students
was involved (3,5)

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv’l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f

%

£ %

f

%

f

%

29.5

23 1 9 . 6

f %

£

%

8 3 . Attending professional
organization meetings

(5) 3 2 45<>0 3 2 2 7 . 3 * 2 1

8 4 o Joining a professional
organization (5)
8 5 . Attending Parent Teacher

24 3 3 . 8

1 00.8

*

7 09,8

1 00.8

28
*

39.4

50 4 2 . 7

9 12o6

20 1 7 . 0

(3,4,5)

53

74.6 51 43.5 * 44

61.9

34 29.0

* 51 7 1 . 8

62

52.9 *

86. Meeting with representa­
tives of special services
of school to discuss
their role ( 3 , 5 )

52 73.2

52 4 4. 4

* 50 7 0 . 4

44 37.6

* 51 7 1 . 8

68 58.1

8 7 . Examining courses of
study ( 3 , 5 )

41 57.7

47 40.1

* 36 50.7

41 35.0

* 39 5 4 . 9

58 49.5

15

21.1

15 1 2 . 8

15 21.1

14 1 1 . 9

28 3 9 . 4

38 32.4

49 69.0

74 6 3 . 2

47 66.1

68 5 8 . 1

50 7 0 . 4

80 68.3

67 9 4 . 3

95 8 1 . 1

* 66 92.9

85 7 2 . 6 * 61 8 5 . 9

91 77.7

88. Participating in the
development of curricu­
lum for the school ( 3 , 5 )

8 9 . Using the school library
as a part of a lesson
plan (1)

9 0 . Using the school library
for your resource mate­
rial (2)

113

Association, or other
parent group, meeting

APPENDIX D (continued)

m
.
Teaching Experiences

Experienced the
Reported the
Selected
Experience
Recommended the
Activity
as Valuable
Experience
____________ __________________________________ _____________
Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'lo tv
f

%

91. Using a film projector in
66 92.9
a unit you taught (1)

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

f

%

74 63.2 * 61 85.9

91 77.7

51 71.8

54 46.1 * 49 69.0

49 41.8 * 51 71.8

76 64.9

64 90.1

93 79.4 * 59 83.0

86 73.5

56 78.8

86 73.5

94. Using a tape recorder for
24 33.8
self-evaluation (3,5)

21 17.9 * 21 29.5

18 15.3 * 30 42.2

51 43.5

95. Using micro-teaching dur­
ing student teaching
22 30.9
(3,5)

9 07.6 ♦ 19 26.7

9 07.6 * 26 36.6

24 20.5 *

27 38.0

8 06.8 * 26 36.6

8 06.8 * 39 54.9

47 40.1

31 43.6

10 08.5 * 30 42.2

9 07.6 * 44 61.9

38 32.4 *

10 08.5

10 14.0

7 05.9 * 36 50.7

43 36.7

69 97.1 106 90.5

66 92.9

9 2 c Using a tape recorder in
a unit you taught (1)

9 3 c Evaluating your goals as
a student teacher (3,5)

9 6 c Evaluating yourself on
viaeo tape while student
teaching (3,5)
97. Observing non-public
schools while student
teaching (3,5)

98. Observing in secondary
schools of district (3,5) 12 16.9
99. Feeling you were welcome
in the school as a stu­
dent teacher (5)

98 83.7

62 87.3

96 82.0

114

84 71.7 « 65 91.5

APPENDIX D (continued)
Experienced the
Selected
Activity

Teaching Experiences

Reported the
Experience
as Valuable

Recommended the
Experience

Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv Cluster Conv'l. tv
f

%

100o Visiting Board of Educa­
tion meeting (5)
15 21.1

f

%

22 18.8

f

%

10 14.0

f

%

16 13.6

f

%

22 30.9

f

%

41 35.0

APPENDIX E
THE TEN MOST FREQUENTLY AND TEN LEAST FREQUENTLY REPORTED
ITEMS IN EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OF SELECTED
STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES AS REPORTED
BY THE RESPONDENTS

117
SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES ENCOUNTERED
Ten Items Reported as Most Frequently Experienced by:
Cluster Respondents:

N=71

1.
2.
2.

Developing own daily lesson plans.
(71)
Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
(70)
Handling discipline problems of the class without the
supervising teacher.
(70)
2. Attending building faculty meetings when held.
(70)
5. Developing own teaching aids for a class presentation.
(69)
5. Learning about and maintaining class attendance proced­
ures.
(69)
5. Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student
teacher.
(69)
8. Planning and installing a bulletin board.
(68)
9. Preparing and administering drills in subject matter
taught.
(67)
9. Assuming total responsibility for opening activities
of classroom.
(67)
9. Assuming responsibility for the teaching program of at
least one subject for a period of three weeks or more.
(67)
9. Preparing stencils or dittos for own lesson plans.
(67)
9. Using school library for your resource material.
(67)
Conventional Respondents:
1.
2.
3.
3.
3.
6.
6.
8.
9.
9.
9.

N=117

Developing own daily lesson plans.
(116)
Handling discipline problems of class without the super­
vising teacher.
(112)
Assuming total responsibility for opening activities
of classroom.
(107)
Planning and installing a bulletin board.
(10 7)
Preparing stencils or dittos for own lesson plans.
(107)
Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
(106)
Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student
teacher.
(106)
Developing own teaching aids for a class presentation.
(103)
Learning about and maintaining class attendance proced­
ures.
(102)
Assuming the responsibility for the teaching program
of at least one subject for a period of three weeks or
more.
(102)
Attending building faculty meetings when held.
(102)

118
Ten Items Reported as Least Frequently Experienced
by;
Cluster Respondents:

N=71

1.

Tutoring a student after school in a community program.

2.
3.

Observing in secondary school of district.
(12)
Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch room duty
for an entire term.
(13)
Visiting the homes of pupils.
(14)
Writing in cumulative records of pupils.
(15)
Substituting for a teacher other than your own super­
vising teacher in case of illness.
(15)
Participating in the development of curriculum for the
school.
(15)
Visiting Board of Education meeting. (15)
Participating in community activities while student
teaching.
(19)
Making a case study of a pupil.
(19)

(6)

4.
5.
5.
5.
5.
9.
9.

Conventional Respondents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
6.
6.
6.
10.

N=117

Joining a professional organization. (1)
Teaching under more than two supervising teachers dur­
ing the term.
(4)
Tutoring a student after school in a community program.
(7)
Evaluating yourself on video tape while student teach­
ing . (9)
Using micro-teaching during student teaching.
(9)
Teaching as a member of a team teaching unit if the
school had such a team.
(10)
Assuming responsibility for partial teaching program
of two supervising teachers.
(10)
Observing non-public schools while student teaching.
(1 0 )
Observing in secondary schools of district.
(10)
Teaching under two supervising teachers during the term.
(1 1 )
Teaching classes on at least three or more grade levels.

10.
(11 )

119
SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES REPORTED VALUABLE
Ten Items Reported Most Frequently as a Valuable
Experience by:
Cluster Respondents:
1.
2.
2.
4.
4.
4.
7.
7.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.
9.

N=71

Handling discipline problems of class without the super­
vising teacher.
(70)
Developing own lesson plans.
(69)
Developing own teaching aids for a class presentation.
(69)
Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
(66)
Using the school library for your resource material.
(66)
Feeling you were welcome in the school as a student teacher.
(66)
Preparing stencils or dittos for own lesson plans.
(65)
Using a film projector in a unit you taught.
(65)
Making assignments for classroom material taught.
(64)
Preparing and administering drills in subject matter
taught.
(64)
Assuming total responsibility for opening activities of
classroom.
(64)
Teaching on an individualized (one to one) basis.
(64)
Teaching on a small group (two to ten or less) basis.
(64)
Assuming responsibility for the teaching program of at
least one subject for a period of three weeks or more.
(64)

Conventional Respondents:
1.

N=117

Handling discipline problems of class without the super­
vising teacher.
(107)
2. Developing own daily lesson plans.
(105)
3. Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
(100)
4. Attending building faculty meetings when held.
(98)
5. Developing own teaching aids for a class presentation.
(97)
6 . Assuming total responsibility for opening activities of
classroom.
(96)
7. Assuming responsibility for the teaching program of at
least one subject for a period of three weeks or more.
(94)
8 . Preparing stencils or dittos for own lesson plans.
(92)
9. Developing a file of activities, pictures, lesson plans,
or materials.
(91)
10. Developing material to enrich lesson you taught.
(88)

120
Ten Items Reported Least Frequently as a Valuable
Experience by:
Cluster Respondents:

N=71

1.

Tutoring a student after school in a community program.
(6)
2. Joining a professional organization.
(7)
3. Observing in secondary schools of district.
(10)
3. Visiting Board of Education meeting.
(10)
5. Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch room duty
for entire term.
(11)
6 . Visiting the homes of pupils.
(13)
7. Writing in cumulative records of pupils.
(14)
8 . Substituting for a teacher other than your supervising
teacher in case of illness.
(15)
8 . Participating in the development of curriculum for the
school.
(15)
10. Participating in community activities while student
teaching.
(18)
10. Making a case study of a pupil.
(18)
Conventional Respondents:
1.
2.

N=117

Joining a professional organization.
(1)
Teaching under more than two supervising teachers during
the term. (3)
3. Tutoring a student after school in a community program.
(6 )
4. Observing in secondary schools of district.
(7)
5. Evaluating yourself on video tape while student teach­
ing.
(8)
6 . Assuming responsibility for partial teaching program
of two supervising teachers.
(9)
6 . Using micro-teaching during student teaching.
(9)
6 . Observing non-public schools while student teaching.
(9)
9. Teaching as a member of a team teaching unit if school
had such a team.
(10)
9. Substituting for a teacher other than your supervising
teacher when she was participating in an in-service
project.
(10)

121
SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES RECOMMENDED
Ten Items Most Frequently Reported for Inclusion
in Future Student Teaching Programs by;
Cluster Respondents;
1.
2.
2.
2.
5.
5.
7.
7.
7.
7.

N=71

Handling discipline problems of class without the super­
vising teacher. (70)
Developing own daily lesson plans.
(66)
Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
(66)
Teaching on a small group (two to ten or less) basis.
(66)
Developing material to enrich lesson you taught.
(65)
Developing own teaching aids for a class presentation.
(65)
Selecting content material of a subject taught.
(64)
Assuming total responsibility for opening activities
of classroom.
(64)
Including provisions for individual differences in les­
son plans.
(64)
Constructing and administering tests over material you
taught. (64)

Conventional Respondents;
1.
1.
3.
3.
3.
3.
7.
8.
9.
9.

N=117

Organizing and teaching a unit of instruction.
(105)
Handling discipline problems of class without the super­
vising teacher.
(105)
Developing own daily lesson plans.
(104)
Developing in your lesson plans material for remedial
pupils.
(104)
Developing a file of activities, pictures, lesson plans
or materials.
(104)
Assuming total responsibility for opening activities
of classroom.
(104)
Selecting content material of a subject taught.
(103)
Developing material to enrich lesson you taught.
(103)
Including in plans an introduction or set that had as
its purpose motivating the students.
(101)
Including provisions for individual differences in les­
son plans.
(101)

122
SELECTED STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCES RECOMMENDED
Ten Items Least Frequently Reported for Inclusion
in Future Student Teaching Programs by:
Cluster Respondents:
1.
2.
3.
3.
5.
6.
6.
8.
8.
8.
8.

N=71

Joining a professional organization. (9)
Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch room duty
for entire term. (12)
Teaching under only one supervising teacher for term.
(22)
Visiting
Board of Education meeting. (22)
Using micro-teaching during student teaching.
(26)
Attending professional organization meetings.
(28)
Participating in the development of curriculum for the
school. (28)
Tutoring a student after school in a community program.
(29)
Writing in cumulative records of pupils.
(29)
Observing, while student teaching 7 or more teachers.
(29)
Making a case study of a pupil.
(29)

Conventional Respondents:
1.

N=71

Assuming playground, hall patrol, or lunch room duty
for entire term.
(20)
1 . Joining a professional organization.
(20)
3. Using micro-teaching during student teaching.
(24)
4. Teaching under more than two supervising teachers dur­
ing the term.
(30)
5. Substituting for a teacher other than your supervising
teacher in case of illness.
(33)
6 . Teaching a multi-age class.
(35)
7. Determining grades for report cards without supervising
teacher's direction.
(38)
7. Substituting for a teacher other than your supervising
teacher when she was participating in an in-service
project.
(38)
7. Making a case study of a pupil.
(38)
7. Participating in the development of curriculum for the
school.
(38)
7. Observing non-public schools while student teaching.
(38)