I I 72-29,921 ANDERSON, Calvin Coolidge, 1923SECONDARY EDUCATION RESIDENCY IN LANSING--A MODEL PROJECT DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BY THE LANSING SCEOOL DISTRICT AND MICHIGAN STATE U NI­ VERSITY TO IMPROVE THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Education, teacher training U n iversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX Com pany , A n n A rbo r, M ich ig an SECONDARY EDUCATION RESIDENCY IN LANSING— A MODEL PROJECT DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BY THE LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TO IMPROVE THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS By Calvin Coolidge Anderson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State U n iv e rs ity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements f o r the degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f A dm in istratio n and Higher Education 1972 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have i nd i s t i n e t F i l m e d as U niversity M icrofilms, print. received. A X e r o x E d u c a t i o n Company ABSTRACT SECONDARY EDUCATION RESIDENCY IN LANSING— A MODEL PROJECT DEVELOPED COOPERATIVELY BY THE LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TO IMPROVE THE PREPARATION OF TEACHERS By Calvin Coolidge Anderson The purpose of th is study was to trace the development o f a model student teaching program designed and developed cooperatively by the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan State U n iversity College o f Education. This study was lim ite d to data from p a rtic ip a n ts represent­ ing the School D i s t r i c t and the U n iversity who had been involved in some phase of the p ro je c t, e it h e r in i t s planning or operation. Answers were sought to f i v e basic questions: (1) Is i t desirable fo r a public school and a u n iv e rs ity to establish a cooperative venture to improve th at phase of teacher education th at deals with student teaching? (2) Is i t desirable to provide non-classroom experiences as an in te g ra l p a rt of student teaching? (3) Is i t desirable fo r a student teacher to work with more than one supervising teacher? (4) Do student teachers b e n e fit from frequent contact with other student teachers? (5 ) What benefits accrue to the p ro je c t by having a local fa c u lty member serve as c l i n i c a l consultant? To fin d the answer to these questions, an opinionnaire was administered to those ad m in istrators, c lin ic a l consultants, supervising teachers, student teachers, and u n iv e rs ity coordinators from the Lansing Calvin Coolidge Anderson School D i s t r i c t and Michigan State U n iv e rs ity who had been involved in the p ro je c t. Those who responded stro n g ly endorsed the idea th a t the p u b lic school and U n iv e rs ity should p a r t i c ip a t e in a cooperative venture to improve student teach ing . Most believed th a t c e r ta in non-classroom experiences are b e n e fic ia l and should be an in te g ra l p a rt o f student teaching. The evidence was mixed regarding the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f student teachers working w ith more than one supervising tea ch er. Strong support was given to the idea o f frequent contacts between student teachers. Most o f the respondents indicated th a t there are b e n e fits th a t accrue by having a local f a c u lt y member serve as c l i n i c a l consultant to the p r o je c t. Much has been said in recent years about the value o f cooperation between the p ub lic school and the u n iv e r s it y . From e i t h e r the data or inform ation gathered in th is study i t was concluded th a t cooperation between the public school and the u n iv e r s ity did improve student teaching. S p e c ific recommendations were made f o r f u r t h e r study. I t was recommended th a t both i n s t it u t io n s continue to search out other areas o f cooperation th a t w i l l y i e ld p o s itiv e b e n e fits to a l l teacher education. concerned with Ded i ca ted to E van gelin e, Debra, and Judy ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS One cannot begin to acknowledge and thank a l l o f those who have aided in t h is endeavor. Special thanks and special appreciation is directed to : Dr. Van Johnson fo r his constant supportive encouragement and his w illingness to serve as committee chairman throughout th is doctoral program. Dr. George Myers fo r his dedication to the SERL P ro je c t and fo r the m ultitude o f hours spent as advisor to th is d is s e r ta tio n . His personal and continued involvement in SERL has been one of the in g re d i­ ents th at has made th is study possible. Dr. Robert L. Green fo r his continued deep in te r e s t and personal concern and fo r providing the i n i t i a l incentive fo r the w r i t e r to become a c tiv e ly involved in a doctoral program. Dr. J. Edward Green f o r his continued frien d sh ip and a v a i l a b i l i t y in time o f need. Dr. Robert J. School Chamberlain and Mr. Robert E. L ott o f the Lansing D i s t r i c t f o r th e ir ro le in making th is p ro ject to improve teacher education a r e a l i t y . To Miss MableFry, the f i r s t c l i n i c a l consultant to and the p ro je c t, to the many other persons who have been involved e i t h e r in the planning or operation of th is cooperative venture. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction Background of th is Study Purpose of th is Study Scope and Lim itatio n s D e f in itio n of Terms Basic Assumptions Organization o f th is Study 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 Chapter 2 History of Student Teaching J u s tif ic a t io n f o r Involving Public Schools in Teacher Education 9 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 14 Introduction The Development o f the SERL Model Objectives of the Project Results of the P ro ject Findings of the SERL Model Survey of Opinions Shared R e sp on sib ility Non-classroom Experiences Student Teacher Involvement with more than one Supervising Teacher Benefits of Frequent Student Teacher Contacts Local Faculty as C lin ic a l Consultants Recommended Changes in the SERL Model 21 21 22 24 27 28 45 64 93 114 136 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations Summary of Findings Conclusions Derived from th is Study Recommendations fo r Further Study 150 150 153 155 Bibliography 158 Appendix A L e tte r 161 Appendix B Opinionnaire 162 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Caption Page Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Age 31 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by M a r ita l Status 32 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Sex 33 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years o f Experience in Education 34 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Past R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t 35 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t 35 A Comparison o f Responses by Age o f the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 39 A Comparison o f Responses by M a r it a l Status o f the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 40 v LIST OF TABLES ( c o n t ' d . ) Table 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Caption Page A Comparison of Responses by Sex of the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R esp on sib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 41 A Comparison of Responses by Years o f Experience in Education of the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e sp on sib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 42 A Comparison of Responses by Past R e sp on sib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e sp o n s ib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 43 A Comparison of Responses by Current R e sp on sib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e sp o n s ib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 44 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Age o f the D e s i r a b i l it y of Non-Classroom Experiences 46 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by M a rita l Status of the D e s ir a b ilit y o f Non-Classroom Experiences 47 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Sex o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Non-Classroom Experiences 48 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the D e s i r a b i l it y of Non-Classroom Experiences 49 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Past R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Non-Classroom Experiences 50 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Current R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Non-Classroom Experiences 51 A Comparison of Responses by Age o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Non-Classroom Experiences 54 vi LIST OF TABLES ( c o n t ' d . ) Table 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Caption Page A Comparison of Responses by M a rita l Status of the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Non-Classroom Experiences 56 A Comparison of Responses by Sex of the D e s i r a b i l it y of Non-Classroom Experiences 57 A Comparison of Responses by Years o f Experience in Education o f the D e s ir a b ilit y of Non-Classroom Experiences 58 A Comparison of Responses by Past R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t of the D e s ir a b ilit y of Non-Classroom Experiences 60 A Comparison of Responses by Current R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL P roject of the D e s ir a b ilit y of Non-Classroom Experiences 62 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Age o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 67 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by M a rita l Status o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 68 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Sex o f the D e s i r a b i l it y of a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 69 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years o f Experience in Education of the D e s i r a b i l it y of a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 70 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Past R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 71 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Current R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL Project of the D e s i r a b i l it y o f a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 72 vii LIST OF TABLES ( c o n t ' d . ) Table 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Caption Page A Comparison of Responses by Age of the Major Reasons fo r Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 75 A Comparison of Responses by M arital Status o f the Major Reasons fo r Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 76 A Comparison of Responses by Sex of the Major Reasons fo r Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 77 A Comparison of Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the Major Reasons for Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 78 A Comparison o f Responses by Past R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Reasons f o r Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 79 A Comparison o f Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Reasons f o r Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 80 A Comparison of Responses by Age of the Major Reasons fo r a Student Teacher Not to Become Involved With More Than One Supervisory Teacher 83 A Comparison of Responses by M arital Status of the Major Reasons fo r a Student Teacher Not to Become Involved With More Than One Supervisory Teacher 85 A Comparison of Responses by Sex of the Major Reasons fo r a Student Teacher Not to Become Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 86 A Comparison of Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the Major Reasons for a Student Teacher Not to Become Involved With More Than One Supervisory Teacher 87 A Comparison of Responses by Past R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL P roject o f the Major Reasons f o r a Student Teacher Not to Become Involved W ith More Than One Supervisory Teacher 89 vi i i LIST OF TABLES ( c o n t ' d . ) Caption 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Page A Comparison of Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t o f the Major Reasons f o r a Student Teacher Not to Become Involved With More Than One Supervisory Teacher 91 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Age o f the D e s i r a b i l i t y of Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 95 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by M a r ita l Status o f the D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 96 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Sex o f the D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 97 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years o f Experience in Education o f the D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 98 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL Project of the D e s i r a b i l i t y of Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 99 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Past R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 100 A Comparison o f Responses by Age of the Major D esirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 102 A Comparison of Responses by M arital Status o f the Major Desirable Reasons fo r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 103 A Comparison o f Responses by Sex o f the Major D esirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 104 A Comparison o f Responses by Years o f Experience in Education of the Major Desirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 105 ix LIST OF TABLES ( c o n t ' d . ) Caption Page A Comparison of Responses by Past R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Desirable Reasons fo r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 106 A Comparison of Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL Project of the Major Desirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 107 A Comparison of Responses by Age of the Major Undesirable Reasons fo r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 109 A Comparison of Responses by Sex o f the Major Undesirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 110 A Comparison of Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the Major Undesirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 111 A Comparison o f Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Undesirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 112 A Comparison of Responses by Past R e sp on sib ility to the SERL Project o f the Major Undesirable Reasons f o r Frequent Contacts Between Student Teachers 113 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Age o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P roject 116 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by M a rita l Status o f the D e s ir a b ilit y o f Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P ro ject 117 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Sex o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 118 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years o f Experience in Education o f the D e s ir a b ilit y o f Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P roject 119 x LIST OF TABLE ( c o n t ' d . ) Table 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Caption Page A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Past R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL P roject o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 120 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Current R e sp o n s ib ility to the SERL Project o f the D e s i r a b i l it y o f Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 121 A Comparison of Responses by Age o f the Major Reasons fo r Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P roject 123 A Comparison o f Responses by M a rita l Status of the Major Reasons f o r Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 124 A Comparison o f Responses by Sex o f the Major Reasons fo r Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 125 A Comparison o f Responses by Years o f Experience in Education o f the Major Reasons f o r Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 126 A Comparison of Responses by Past R esp on sib ility to the SERL P roject o f the Major Reasons fo r Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 127 A Comparison o f Responses by Current R esp on sib ility to the SERL P roject o f the Major Reasons f o r Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 128 A Comparison o f Responses by Age o f the Major Reasons fo r Not Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL Project 130 A Comparison o f Responses by M a rita l Status o f the Major Reasons fo r Not Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P roject 131 xi LIST OF TABLES ( c o n t ’ d . ) Table 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Caption Page A Comparison o f Responses by Sex of the Major Reasons f o r Not Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P ro je c t 132 A Comparison o f Responses by Years o f Experience in Education o f the Major Reasons fo r Not Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P ro je c t 133 A Comparison of Responses by Past R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t o f the Major Reasons f o r Not Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C lin ic a l Consultant to the SERL P ro je c t 134 A Comparison o f Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t o f the Major Reasons f o r Not Having a Local Faculty Member Serve as C l i n i c a l Consultant to the SERL P ro je c t 135 A Comparison o f Responses by Age of the Major Changes Recommended in the SERL P roject 138 A Comparison o f Responses by M a rita l Status o f the Major Changes Recommended in the SERL P ro je c t 140 A Comparison o f Responses by Sex of the Major Changes Recommended in the SERL P roject 142 A Comparison o f Responses by Years o f Experience in Education o f the Major Changes Recommended in the SERL P ro je c t 144 A Comparison o f Responses by Past R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t o f the Major Changes Recommended in the SERL P ro je c t 146 A Comparison o f Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro je c t o f the Major Changes Recommended in the SERL P roject 148 CHAPTER 1 NATURE OF THIS STUDY INTRODUCTION Educators have long been concerned w ith making teacher prepara­ tio n as e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e as possible. Since student teaching is considered to be one of the most important aspects in the spectrum of teacher p rep aratio n, much thought has been given to what co n stitutes the best pattern fo r th is experience. In an attempt to improve teacher edu­ c a tio n , patterns such as the u n iv e rs ity laboratory school, f u l l - d a y and h alf-day programs, and internships have been developed. Some o f these programs have been good; others have raised questions as to t h e i r e ffe c tiv e n e s s . T r a d it io n a lly , the tra in in g o f teachers has been conceptualized by the u n iv e rs ity . Public school educators have had minimum input into the t o ta l program development. T heir ro le has been to fo llo w the program as established by the u n iv e rs ity . In many cases, conventional tra in in g methods have not been e f f e c t iv e in providing student teachers with the kinds of experiences th at adequately prepare them to meet the needs and demands th a t are placed on the f i r s t year teacher. In the planning of teacher education programs, Haskew, among o thers, has argued th a t we should aim to co rrect fundamental in s u ffic ie n c ie s in present p rac tice .^ Silberman, in a ^ Lawrence 0. Haskew, "Planning fo r the Education of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, (Summer, 1966). 2 re c e n t address a t a n ation al conference on teacher ed ucation, recognized the importance o f cooperation o f the lo c a l school and u n iv e r s it y when he s ta te d : The study o f teacher education cannot s t a r t w ith the teacher colleges or the graduate schools, o r departments o f education. It must s t a r t w ith the elementary and secondary schools themselves w ith what should be tau g h t, in what manner, and to what purpose.^ BACKGROUND OF THIS STUDY In recent years i t has been recognized th a t an e f f e c t i v e teacher education program must re q u ire cooperation and partn ersh ip in the development and design o f the to ta l program. One o f the primary reasons f o r e s ta b lis h in g cooperative teaching centers a t Wayne S tate U n iv e r s ity , according to a proposal prepared by E. Brooks Smith, was to bring the p u b lic school and u n iv e r s it y closer to g e th e r in the cooperative planning and supervision of student teaching.^ Many educators have argued f o r t h is kind o f cooperation in teacher education. A re p o rt from the National Commission f o r Teacher Education and Professional Standards s ta te s ; Schools and colleges have r e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r j o i n t planning o f student tea ch in g , and they b e n e fit m utually from i t . The in te r p la y o f c o lla b o ra tio n in student teaching prompts examination o f present p ra c tic e and stim u lates experim entation in teaching. I t also provides o p p o rtu n itie s to t e s t re la tio n s h ip s between theory and p r a c tic e , to lea rn from re s u lts o f actual teaching le a rn in g ^ Charles E. Silberman, Research and Action Imperatives in Teacher Education, a speech to the National I n v it a t io n a l Conference on Teacher Education, A u s tin , Texas, October 24, 1967. 3 P a tric k J. Johnson, "An Assessment o f the A d m in is tra tiv e O rg an ization o f a Cooperative S tru c tu re ," in Partnership in Teacher Education, E. Brooks Smith, e t a l . , eds. (Washington, D .C .: American Association o f Colleges f o r Teacher Education, 1968), p. 142. 3 s itu a tio n s , and to co n trib u te to assurances th a t new teachers w i l l be well prepared.4 Margaret Lindsey notes that i t is necessary fo r the school d is ­ t r i c t and the college to share the re s p o n s ib ility in planning and con­ ducting programs in the professional preparation o f teachers. She fu rth e r states th at neither the school d i s t r i c t nor the college alone can ade­ quately provide the lab orato ry and experience phases of teacher education.5 There has been and continues to be widespread concern th a t pro­ grams o f teacher education be cooperatively developed by a l l those share the re s p o n s ib ilitie s fo r teacher preparation. who This study seeks to describe such an attempt a t cooperative development by representatives of the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and by representatives of the Michigan State U n iversity College o f Education as a model fo r providing meaning­ fu l professional laboratory experience at the ju n io r high school le v e l. PURPOSES OF THIS STUDY The purpose o f th is study is to teacher education program, designed and trace the development o f a model developed cooperatively by the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and the Michigan State U n iversity College of Education. This model is known as Secondary Education Residency in L_ansing, or SERL. F u rth e r, i t is the in te n t o f th is study to show how * Jo int Committee on State Responsibility fo r Student Teaching. Mho's in Charge H ere--Fixinq R e sp o n s ib ilitie s fo r Student Teaching, a discussion paper (Washington, D.C.: National Commission fo r Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, 1966). 5 Margaret Lindsey, "Speculations on the Future of Teacher Educa­ tio n and Cooperative Endeavors," in Partnership in Teacher Education, E. Brooks Smith, e t a l . , eds. (Washington, D .C .: American Association of Colleges fo r Teacher Education, 1968), pp. 287-288. th is r e la t io n s h ip in teaching has developed a new p a rtn e rs h ip between those who use teachers and those who prepare teachers. In a d d itio n * th is study w i l l (1 ) review the l i t e r a t u r e dealing w ith cooperative development of student teaching programs; (2) trace the development o f the SERL model as a unique example o f cooperation between the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and the Michigan State U n iv e r s ity College o f Education; (3 ) in v e s tig a te the reactions o f persons who have been c lo s e ly involved and associated w ith the development and execution o f th is p r o je c t; and (4 ) make recommendations r e l a t i v e to fu tu r e m o d ifica­ tio n o f t h is p r o je c t . I t is the in t e n t o f th is study to answer the fo llo w in g questions 1. Is i t d e s ira b le f o r a p ub lic school and a u n iv e r s it y to e s ta b lis h a co o perative venture in student teaching? 2. Is i t d e s ira b le to provide non-classroom experiences as an in te g ra l p a rt o f student teaching? 3. Is i t d e s ira b le f o r a student teacher to work w ith more than one supervising teacher? 4. Do student teachers b e n e fit from frequent ( d a i l y ) contact with other student teachers? 5. What b e n e fits accrue to the SERL P ro je c t by having a local f a c u lt y member serve as a c l i n i c a l co n su lta n t fo r the student teaching experience? SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS This study is lim ite d to the Secondary Education Residency in Lansing as a model p ro je c t in student teaching and as a cooperative venture between Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity and the Lansing School 5 D is tr ic tterms. It is not the purpose to evalu ate t h is p ro je c t in s t a t i s t i c a l Rather, i t w i l l describe the manner in which th is program was developed, and w i l l sample opinions of selected persons who have been involved in t h is p ro je c t th a t was modeled as the SERL P ro je c t. The study does not seek to deal with the c u rre n t " c lu s te r programs" as they e x is t a t Michigan State U n iv e rs ity and other u n i v e r s it i e s . The SERL model involves a p ro je c t th a t was i n i t i a t e d in Lansing in 1966 a t Dwight Rich Junior High School and has been in continuous operation since th a t tim e. Although o r i g i n a l l y developed as a ju n io r high school program, i t has now been expanded to include two senior high schools, E v e re tt and H i l l . The experience a t H i l l does not fo llo w the SERL model in th a t i t is a la r g e r program in v o lv in g more student teachers w ith a u n iv e r s ity c o n s u lta n t, r a th e r than a lo c al teacher serving as c l i n i c a l co n su lta n t. This study is lim it e d to Lansing and to those p r in c ip a ls , a s s is ta n t p r i n c ip a ls , c l i n i c a l c o n s u lta n ts , supervising tea ch ers, student tea ch ers, and u n iv e r s it y coordinators who have p a rtic ip a te d in some phase o f the p r o je c t , e i t h e r in i t s planning or in i t s o peratio n. This study does not attempt to q u a n tify a l l t h is an e v a lu a tiv e study. the data in order to make I t uses data obtained from the use o f an instrument designed s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r th is study. DEFINITION OF TERMS Many o f the terms used in th is study have more than one meaning, th e r e fo r e , the p e r tin e n t d e f i n i t i o n s are explained below. P r in c ip a l: The p rin c ip a l is the b u ild in g a d m in is tra to r who is responsible f o r the educational le a d e rs h ip , the supervision o f the 6 o peration, and management of the school f a c i l i t y . ® This term encompasses a s s is ta n t p rin c ip a ls and other persons who are assigned f u l l - t i m e a d m in is tra tiv e functions. C lin ic a l Consultant: The c l i n i c a l consultant is a teacher who is employed j o i n t l y by the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan State U n iv e rs ity . The consultant is responsible fo r student teacher assign­ ments; providing in s tru c tio n to student teachers on such matters as lesson planning and d is c ip lin e ; planning and coordinating SERL group a c t i v i t i e s ; and providing leadership in counseling, ev a lu a tio n , and feedback.^ Supervising Teacher: A f u l l - t i m e experienced teacher employed by the school d i s t r i c t who is selected to work with the student teacher in the classroom. He shares the r e s p o n s ib ility fo r the supervision and guidance of the student teacher's experience in the classroom and in re la te d teacher a c t i v i t i e s . Student Teacher: A prospective teacher who is acquiring p ra c tic a l teaching experience and s k i l l under the guidance o f a super­ vis in g teacher or other q u a lifie d person.8 U n ive rsity Coordinator: A member of the u n iv e rs ity s t a f f who has the re s p o n s ib ility to v i s i t , observe, a s s is t in ev a lu a tio n , and ® Enrolled House B i l l No. 4195, Act 75th L e g is la tu re . No. 246, State of Michigan ^ Donald J. Chase, A Comparative Study of the Cooperative Michigan State U n iversity--Lansing SERL P ro je c t and Conv^tionaT~Programs o f Student Teaching w ith Reference to Openness and A ttitu d e Formation, unpublished doctoral d is s e rta tio n , Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , 1971. ® Carter V. Good, D ictio n ary of Education (New York: H i l l , 1959), p. 530. McGraw- 7 conduct seminars with student teachers. He is also responsible fo r in - service t r a in in g fo r both c l i n i c a l consultants and supervising teachers as this re la te s to the supervision of student teaching a c t i v i t i e s . It is through him th at feedback information is supplied to the local school system and the u n iv e rs ity to modify and improve the program. SERL: Secondary Education Residency in Umsing is a pro ject developed j o i n t l y by the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan State U n iversity College of Education. This program is a j o i n t e f f o r t to improve student teaching. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS I t is necessary to make c e rta in basic assumptions f o r th is study. F i r s t , there are models th a t should be examined that would give insight in to the improvement of th a t phase of teacher education th a t deals with the to ta l lab orato ry experience o f student teaching. I t is also necessary to assume th at students can b e n e fit from those experiences not usually gained from the conventional student teaching programs. These experiences to a degree are lim ite d to the usual a c t i v i t i e s o f a tr a d it io n a l classroom. In t r a d itio n a l programs, student teachers are assigned to a sin gle supervising teacher. The assumption is made th at student teachers can p r o f it from exposure to more than one supervising teacher. I t is also assumed th a t student teachers can b e n e fit from frequent contacts with each other through seminars, group discussions, f i e l d t r i p s , e t c . , as experienced in the SERL P roject. The la s t assumption made is th at a c l i n i c a l consultant is the best q u a lifie d person to work w ith student teachers at the b uilding level because of his knowledge o f the local school, i t s ad m in is tra tio n , students, fa c u lty and community, and his f a m i l i a r i t y with the u n iv e rs ity . 8 ORGANIZATION OF THIS STUDY Chapter 1 is a general introduction to th is study. The back­ ground, purpose, scope and l im it a t io n s , and basic assumptions are s ta te d , and the d e f in it io n of terms as used in th is study are defined. Chapter 2 is devoted to the review o f l i t e r a t u r e which includes a b r i e f h isto ry of student teaching as i t re la te s to teacher education, and a review of the l i t e r a t u r e as i t re la te s to the j u s t i f i c a t i o n fo r the involvement of public schools in teacher education. In Chapter 3 the development o f the SERL model and the survey instrument used in th is study is described. This chapter also includes a presentation and in te rp re ta tio n o f the data. Chapter 4 includes a summary o f the fin d in g s , the conclusions derived from th is study, and recommendations fo r fu rth e r study. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE HISTORY OF STUDENT TEACHING I t could be said th a t the h is to ry o f the student teaching process goes as f a r back in h is to r y as an cient Greece. The dialogues between Socrates and young Greeks, such as P la to , who were to become teacher-philosophers was a kind o f p ra c tic e teaching. Plato was one student who used t h is experience p a r t i c u l a r l y w ell when he became a te a c h e r.^ During the Middle Ages, clergymen were responsible f o r most o f the formal teaching and u n t i l 1700 the church assumed the r e s p o n s ib ilit y f o r education almost e x c lu s iv e ly . Since education had a r e lig io u s m otive, and since the teaching was c a rr ie d on by the c le r g y , teachers received r e lig io u s t r a in in g r a th e r than special teacher t r a i n i n g J ® Other persons were included in the broadening o f education. were included in the educational spectrum. Lay teachers Lay teachers taught in p r iv a te i n s t i t u t i o n s , acq uirin g t h e i r t r a in in g by serving long a p p re n tic e ­ ships w ith a master teacher who was p a rt o f the c le rg y . The apprentice was not requ ired to study p a r t i c u l a r subjects in depth nor did he receive any kind o f l i b e r a l ed ucation, although he was required to do ® Edward C. M e r r i l l , J r . , Professional Student Teaching Programs ( D a n v il l e , 111.: The I n t e r s t a t e P rin te r s and P u b lish ers, 1967 ), p. b. 111.: 10 James A. Johnson, A B r i e f H is to ry o f Student Teaching (DeKalb, C rea tiv e Educational M a t e r i a l s , 1 9 6 8 ), p. 1. 9 10 some directed reading. Rather, the prospective teacher was d ir e c t ly involved in teaching a c t i v i t i e s receiving "on-the-job" t r a i n i n g . H Schools th at were designed s p e c i f ic a l l y to t r a in teachers were in existence in Europe by the 1400s. In these schools, fu tu re teachers taught demonstration lessons to fello w students. the program a t one o f these schools: not include what we should now c a ll Arrnytage describes "The curriculum in Godshouse did 'method* le c tu re s , fo r the simple reason th a t in the normal preparation fo r a degree each student was supposed to g iv e , as well as lis te n to , a c e rta in number o f l e c t u r e s . " ^ This p ra c tic e o f re q u iring teacher trainees to give lessons to fe llo w students was not common in Europe u n til the l a t t e r p art o f the seventeenth c e n tu ry .13 Education in co lonial America was based almost s o le ly upon European practices and ideas. Religion permeated co lonial education ju s t as i t did European education. they could read the B ib le . Children were taught to read so th a t Teachers in th is period also served an apprenticeship which, a t the tim e, was the only form o f teacher educa­ tio n .^ Other attempts to provide teacher tra in in g in the colonies were not very successful. In the e a rly nineteenth century, people became more interested in developing ad d itio nal and b etter schools and the subject of teacher H M e r r i l l , p. 9. 12 W.H.G. Armytage, "William Byngham: A Medieval Protagonist of the Traininq o f Teachers," History o f Education Journal, I I (Summer, 1951), p. 109. 13 Johnson, p. 8. 14 Ib id . , pp. 31-35. 11 t r a in i n g received considerable a t t e n t io n . P ra c tic e teaching in the normal school was the outgrowth o f t h is concern f o r improved education and model schools were used to provide a b r i e f period o f p ra c tic a l teaching e x p e r i e n c e . ^ A student from the normal school was placed in charge o f the model school classroom f o r one week. school students were assigned as a s s is ta n ts u n t i l The other normal i t was t h e i r tu rn to be in charge o f the c la s s ro o m .^ The f i r s t normal school in the United States was a p r iv a t e school opened in 1823 in Concord, Vermont, 150 years a f t e r the f i r s t normal school was opened in Europe. Sixteen years l a t e r , the f i r s t s ta te normal school was opened in Lexington, Massachusetts. By the 1860s, the normal school was a w ell accepted p a rt o f teacher education. Depending upon the in d iv id u a l school's requirem ents, students were requ ired to teach from two to twenty weeks. By 1895, according to a survey conducted by the National Education A s s o c ia tio n , only fo u r o f the c o u n try's s ix t y - t h r e e normal schools did not have a provision f o r p ra c tic e t e a c h i n g . ^ The Oswego S ta te Normal School in New York, established in 1861, has been an important in flu e n ce in American ed ucation, serving as a model f o r several normal schools. The s i g n i f i c a n t d iffe re n c e between Oswego and other normal schools was th a t each model class a t Oswego had D .C .: p. 8. 15 Asahel D. Woodruff, Student Teaching Today {Washington, The American Association o f ColTeges T o r Teacher Education, 1960), Johnson, pp. 46-55. 17 Association f o r Student Teaching, The Outlook in Student Teaching (Dubuque, Iowa: The A s so cia tio n , 1 9 6 2 ), p. 2. 12 i t s own regular teacher and student teachers taught under close super­ v is io n . Toward the l a t t e r p art o f the nineteenth century, normal schools began formal tr a in in g o f secondary teachers. teachers were fo rm a lly tra in e d . Previously, only elementary At the same tim e, most normal schools were expanding to fo u r-y ea r in s t itu tio n s and academic studies were becoming more s p e c ia lize d . By 1907, according to Johnson, four normal schools in I l l i n o i s received permission to award degrees.^8 Practice teaching in u n iv e rs itie s and p riv a te schools developed in much the same way as in normal schools, although the e a rly tr a in in g programs fo r high school teachers conducted by u n iv e rs itie s and p riv a te schools did not include p ractice teaching. Johnson speculates th a t th is may have stemmed, in p a r t , from the f a c t th a t the u n iv e rs ity t r a d i t i o n a l l y had been a l ib e r a l a rts in s t it u t io n and as such looked w ith d is fa v o r upon the technical tra in in g of teachers.^9 Some educators b elieve th a t the lack o f in te re s t in p ractice teaching was the re s u lt of a fe e lin g th a t the u n iv e rs ity graduate did not need p ra c tic e teaching. The increasing demand fo r teachers th a t continued throughout the e a r ly 1900s brought with i t a concommitant growth in u n iv e rs ity depart­ ments of education. Many of these departments of education were developed into schools or colleges of education arid many established model schools. One such school, at the U n iv e rs ity o f Michigan, Snarr e x p la in s , "served both as a laboratory fo r s c i e n t if i c study o f secondary 18 Johnson, p. 145. 19 I b i d . , p. 16. 20 G.W.A. Luckey, The Professional T raining of Secondary Teachers in the United States (New York: The Macmi11 an Co. , 19 0 3 )T P• 207. 13 school problems and as a school fo r observational work and directed teaching.W ith the demand fo r more teachers, both elementary and secondary, i t became necessary fo r p riv a te in s t it u t io n s to expand t h e ir teacher tr a in in g programs and increase these programs from two to four years. U n til c e r t i f i c a t i o n of teachers came in to existence through state departments o f education, student teaching had not been a re q u ire ­ ment.22 Between 1920-1940 student teaching began to be recognized as a v i t a l and essential p art o f teacher preparation. By 1930, most states had begun to require supervised student teaching as an in te g ral p a rt of the teacher education program. Upon completion of the fo ur-year program, teaching c e r t i f i c a t e s were awarded.2^ The p ra c tic a l aspects o f teaching were provided f o r in the laboratory schools or p ractice schools and co n tro lled by the normal schools or teachers colleges and were separate from the public schools.24 However, mounting enrollments and teacher shortages made i t impossible fo r the model schools to accomodate a l l o f the p ra c tic e teachers. This led to the use o f off-campus f a c i l i t i e s f o r p rac tice te a c h in g .25 State governments began to pass laws which made i t possible f o r teacher t r a i n ­ ing in s t it u t io n s to work cooperatively with the public schools to provide 21 Otto W. Snarr, The Education o f Teachers in the Middle States (Moorhead, Minn.: Moorhead State Teachers College, 1946), pp. 266-267. 22 Woodruff, p. 8. 23 A.R. Mead, "Legal Status o f Laboratory Schools and Teacher Education Laboratory P ra c tic e s ," Journal o f Teacher Education (December, 1957), p. 356. 24 Woodruff, p. 1. 25 Johnson, pp. 166-167. 14 p ra c tic e teaching experiences. Consequently, the number o f normal schools using off-campus laboratory f a c i l i t i e s s te a d ily increased. The shortage of laboratory school space was not the only condition th at contributed to the trend to use off-campus f a c i l i t i e s . Another reason was economics; s u f f i c i e n t funds had never been a v a ila b le to b u ild and maintain enough model schools. Perhaps the most s i g n i f i ­ cant reason, however, was th at some educators believed th at experiences in actual school s itu a tio n s would give the student a more r e a l i s t i c opportunity to put in to practice those theories learned in c o lle g e . ^ JUSTIFICATION FOR INVOLVING PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN TEACHER EDUCATION Today, student teaching is considered to be the most important and most dynamic phase o f teacher education. I t is also g en erally accepted th at "student teaching is the one part of the professional preparation th at is shared by the public schools and in s t itu t io n s of higher education without c le a r -c u t lin e s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " ^ As has been s ta te d , the i n i t i a l reason fo r public school involvement in teacher preparation was to put theory in to practice in a r e a l i s t i c s e ttin g . M e r r i l l has noted: As "The purpose o f the professional student teaching program is to provide a planned, c a r e f u lly supervised learning a c t i v i t y 26 E. Brooks Smith and P a tric k J. Johnson, e d s ., School-College Relationships in Teacher Education: Report of a National Survey of Cooperative Ventures (Washington, D .C .: American Association o f Col 1eges f o r Teacher Education, 1964), p. 2. 27 J o in t Committee on State R e sp o n s ib ility f o r Student Teaching. A New Order in Student Teaching (Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards o f the National Educa­ tio n Association, 1967), p. 1. 15 fo r the student teacher which allows him not only to demonstrate but to improve his resourcefulness as a teacher in a real school s e ttin g . Colleges and u n iv e r s itie s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y dominated teacher education programs. Today, however, th is domination is being challenged, and r i g h t f u l l y so, by many who b elieve r e s p o n s ib ility and control o f teacher preparation should re s t with both the college and the public schools. Smith and Johnson point out: The p ra c tic in g profession, fe e lin g t h e i r r i g h t f u l r e s p o n s ib ility as keepers o f the school, has never q u ite accepted the u n iv e r s ity 's domination over teacher education and has developed means fo r influencing lo c a l, s t a t e , and national groups to challenge t h e i r leadership. Thus, there has emerged a kind of cold war in many s itu a tio n s between the u n iv e rs ity -o rie n te d teacher educators and the school-oriented professionals. In other instances, u n iv e rs ity representatives have gone out in to the community w ith the hand o f comradeship asking schools to help them in th is great ta s k , always making sure th a t they keep the upper hand.29 Conant suggests th a t the u n iv e rs ity be responsible fo r the academic content and the foundational study and methodology o f teacher education. The s ta te , representing the public and the profession, should be responsible fo r c e r t if y in g p ra c tic e s , along with the j o i n t p a r tic ip a tio n of schools and colleges in estab lis h in g professional lab orato ries and proper supervision.**® The problem continues to p e rs is t. Although n e ith e r the u n iv e rs ity nor the school can function e f f e c t i v e l y independent o f one another, there is s t i l l little cooperation between them. Only a few professionals from each i n s t it u t io n are involved in student teaching and since there is re la tiv e ly l i t t l e feedback from student teacher programs, the programs 28 M e r r i l l , p. 28. 29 Smith and Johnson, p. 61. York: 3® James B. Conant, The Education o f American Teachers (New McGraw-Hill, 1963). 16 do not change in e i t h e r the u n iv e r s it y or the school. The importance o f constant in te r p la y between the c o lle g e , the s t a te legal agency, and the local school system cannot be stressed enough. I f they are to work w ell to g e th e r, the r e s p o n s ib i li t i e s of each must be c le a r ly s ta te d . I t is also important f o r each to support the program, make a commitment, and p a r t ic ip a t e f u l l y in the commitment.31 Smith b elieves i t is no easy task to bring the u n iv e r s it ie s and the schools to g e th e r. He a t t r ib u t e s the d i f f i c u l t y to " b a rr ie rs o f status and d iffe re n c e s o f outlook between the two domains. . . . I n the realm o f the school there is a p r a c tic a l focus and r i g h t f u l l y so; while in the realm o f the u n iv e r s it y , th e o r e tic a l considerations are the order o f the day as educational ideas develop in thoughtful foundational d i s c i p l i n e s . "32 in te r p la y w ith u n fo rtu n a te ly , e f f o r t s to break through these b a r r ie r s have produced only modest gains. Although a l l concerned p a r tie s are w ell meaning, the primary reason f o r working together has been overlooked, th a t i s , improving education f o r a l l c h ild re n . Much has been w r itte n about the need f o r cooperation between colleges and schools. For example, Rogers w r ite s : The a d m in is tra tio n o f student teaching programs, p a r t i c u l a r l y in large c i t i e s , has come to be a major undertaking and the two agencies [c o lle g e and p ub lic school] are m utually dependent, one upon the o th e r , i f they are to provide an adequate preservice educa­ tio n f o r the teachers who w i l l s t a f f the p ublic schools in the United S t a t e s . 33 31 M e r r i 11, p. 117. 32 e . Brooks Smith, "Summary," Cooperative Structures in SchoolCollege R elationships f o r Teacher Education (Washington, D .C .: American Association o f Colleges f o r Teacher Education, 1965 ), p. 101. 33 Helen Rogers, The A d m in istratio n o f Student Teaching in the Secondary Schools o f Large C i t i e s , Ed.D. d is s e r ta tio n (Los Angeles: U n iv e rs ity o f Southern C a l i f o r n i a , 19 51 ), p. 3. 17 Francis Keppel, former U.S. Commissioner of Education, believes the model established in medicine and a g ric u ltu re can be e f f e c t i v e l y applied to the betterment o f American education, and th a t a comparable re la tio n s h ip should deal with r e c r u it in g , tra in in g teachers, and develop­ ing c u rric u la th at would strengthen American ed u catio n.34 The U n iversity o f Utah's Cooperative Center f o r Teacher Education, recognizing the need fo r a cooperative working re la tio n s h ip between schools and colleges, suggests " th a t student teaching centers can con­ s t i t u t e a natural lin k between the college and the schools. They furnish a point o f common in te r e s t a t which the academic profession, the educa­ tio n professor, the classroom teacher and the supervisor can meet to examine and te s t constructive ideas, as they watch the college trained teacher carry his acquired education in to a f i e l d try o u t s i t u a t i o n . "35 A ra tio n a le f o r making cooperative decisions in education is presented by George Denemark: Determination o f who should make teacher education decisions is based on analysis of the substantive character of the decisions. The concept o f cooperation in teacher education is much in need of c la rific a tio n . Too often we assume the automatic v ir tu e of exten­ sive involvement without reference to the p r in c ip le group size which asserts th at the 'i d e a l ' group is th a t which contains a l l the resources needed fo r the task a t hand and no more. U nfortun ately, we seem y e t to lack the conceptual schemes by means of which the p ers iste n t decisions of teacher education and the data sources fo r dealing with these are i d e n t i f i e d , c la s s if ie d , and in t e r r e la t e d . Certain involvements, however, seem obvious. I t is c le a r , fo r example, th at decisions about the contribution o f mathematical syntax to the teaching o f mathematics are l i k e l y to be vacuous without the involvement of a mathematician. S im ila r ly , a lo g ic a l 34 Francis Keppel, "Forward," in Team Teaching, Judson R. Shaplin and Henry Olds, eds. (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), p. XI. Smith and Johnson, p. 33. 18 way to i d e n t i f y what teachers do in the classroom is to ask teach ers.36 As Smith and Johnson perceive i t , faced w ith i s : the question educators are "Who should teach teachers how to teach?" They w r it e : I t is very tempting to seize upon the simple s o lu tio n o f d iv id in g up the t h e o r e tic a l and the p r a c tic a l tasks. Let the schools who know most about the everyday job o f teaching ch ild ren be completely in charge o f student tea ch in g , methodology, and o f the supervision and improvement o f in s t r u c t io n . Let the u n iv e rs i­ tie s teach the psychology, the so c ia l foundations, the philosophy and the academic background fo r curriculum c o n te n t.37 The t o ta l profession must learn to work to gether as equals. f i r s t the roles each is to p la y , must be c l e a r l y d e fin e d . But Smith and Goodlad stress th a t school personnel, u n iv e r s it y p ro fesso rs, and s ta te department experts are eq u a lly important in t h e i r c o n trib u tio n to the education e n te r p r is e , but the c o n trib u tio n s are d i f f e r e n t . They w r it e : The school's r i g h t f u l business is p r a c tic e — examined and enlightened p ra c tic e . This can be accomplished best in the f i e l d . The u n iv e r s it y 's r i g h t f u l job is s c h o la rly in v e s tig a tio n o f the educational a c t i v i t y by b u ild in g theory from experimental fin d in g s , and from study o f d is c ip lin e s th a t touch on education. This can best be done a t the u n iv e rs ity where the means f o r in te n s iv e scholarship reside and where students o f education may view educa­ tio n a l problems from a universal and o b je c tiv e p o s itio n . The s ta te agency f o r p u b lic in s tru c tio n is responsible f o r overseeing the t o ta l e n t e r p r is e , enforcing minimum standards, and fo s te r in g cooperative leadership a t local and regional le v e ls . Professional o rgan izatio n s should be responsible f o r encouraging members to reach f o r maximum standards and f a i r p r a c tic e s . They should provide a forum f o r the discussion o f issues and innovative ideas which w i l l promote im aginative p o lic y making.38 36 George W. Denemark, e d ., C r i t e r i a f o r Curriculum Decision in Teacher Education (Washington, D.C.: Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education A s so ciatio n, 1 9 6 4 ), p. 44. 37 Smith and Johnson, p. 63. 38 £. Brooks Smith and John I . Goodlad, "Promises and P i t f a l l s in the Trend Toward C o lla b o ra tio n ," in Partnership in Teacher Education, E. Brooks Smith, e t a l . , eds. (Washington, D .C .: American Association o f Colleges f o r Teacher Education, 19 68 ), p. 14. 19 One problem which has in te rfe r e d with meaningful cooperation in the past has been the tendency fo r one agency to in fr in g e upon another's r e s p o n s ib ilit y , p a r t ic u la r ly when i t has been lin ked with p o l i t i c a l expediency. But partnership is very necessary because the job of t r a i n ­ ing teachers is the re s p o n s ib ility o f the e n t ir e profession. What makes f o r successful cooperation between school systems and u n iv e rs itie s and between classroom teachers and college supervisors? three facto rs are important: and (c ) an in te n t to make i t Owen believes (a) mutual respect, (b) common purposes, w o r k . 39 Corrigan, discussing the meaning o f p artn ersh ip , notes th at in various programs in teacher education the emphasis is on what resources the u n iv e rs itie s have to o f fe r the schools. L i t t l e emphasis is given to the idea th a t the schools have resources which could improve the u n iv e r s it ie s . The college professor has always been the "expert." College personnel must have the chance to share ideas about and p a r t i c i ­ pate in innovative programs in education i f the u n iv e rs ity is to be relevan t to the needs o f students and teachers in today's schools. " If a true partnership were to emerge, the partners would j o i n t l y control and have a commitment to s h a r i n g . "40 Although the colleges have always played the ro le o f "senior p a rtn e r," assuming major re s p o n s ib ility fo r 30 George H. Owen, "The View from the Other Side: The Role of the Public Schools in Student Teaching," in Partnership in Teacher Education, E. Brooks Smith, e t a l . , eds, (Washington, D.C.: TFe American Association o f Colleges fo r Teacher Education, 1968), p. 114. 40 Dean Corrigan, " A f f i l i a t e d Schools and Research and Development Centers," in Partnership in Teacher Education, E. Brooks Smith, e t a l . , eds. (Washington, D. C. : the American Association of Colleges fo r Teacher Education, 1968), p. 75. 20 planning and standards in the p ra c tic e o f a t ta in in g professional competence, the p u b lic schools now have the opportunity and the o b lig a ­ tio n to assume le a d e rs h ip .41 Southworth suggests th a t agreements between u n iv e r s it ie s and p u b lic schools be f u r t h e r expanded to include re p re s e n ta tiv e classroom teachers selected by teacher organizations in each regional a r e a . 42 Supervising teachers also want to p a r t i c ip a t e in teacher education as a study by the North Central Association o f Colleges and Schools in d ic a te s . This study revealed th a t 80 percent o f 13,146 teachers who were d ir e c t in g p ra c tic e teaching experiences f o r 25,072 student teachers welcomed the o pp ortun ity to p a r t i c ip a t e in teacher p rep a ratio n . to be t h e i r "professional r e s p o n s ib i li t y . " They considered i t The remaining 20 percen t, f o r the most p a r t , agreed th a t although they accepted the added r e s p o n s ib ilit y r e l u c t a n t l y , they considered i t to be necessary.43 41 Dorothy McCuskey, "The View Ahead in Student Teaching," Teacher Education and the Public Schools, The F o r tie th Yearbook of the Association f o r Student Teaching (Dubuque, Towa: Wm. C. Brown C o ., I n c . , 1969), p. 37. 42 Horton Southworth, "Issues and Problems as Viewed by a Large M ulti-Purpose State U n iv e rs ity Located in a Small C ity in E s ta b lish in g Off-Campus Student Teaching O perations," in Partnership in Teacher Education. E. Brooks Smith, e t a l . , eds. (Washington, D. C. : The American Association o f Colleges f o r Teacher Education, 1968 ), p. 141. Journal 43 h .W. Schooling, "Partnership in Teacher P re p a ra tio n ," NEA (May, 1962 ), p. 61. CHAPTER 3 INTRODUCTION This chapter is devoted to a b r i e f h is to ry o f the SERL P ro jec t and i t s o b je c tiv e s . I t w i l l f u r t h e r present the find in g s o f the f i r s t study completed on the SERL model. Discussed w i l l be the re su lts of an opinionnaire administered to representatives of the Lansing Public Schools and representatives o f Michigan State U n iv e rs ity who p a rtic ip a te d in th is p ro je c t. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SERL MODEL The SERL P roject was organized during the 1965-66 school year as an attempt to improve teacher education programs. The purpose was to i d e n t if y and develop methods th a t would b e tte r prepare student teachers to organize and manage in s tru c tio n . Emphasis was i n i t i a l l y placed on the unique learning needs o f youngsters in the ty p ic a l ju n io r high school classroom, but was l a t e r expanded to include student teachers a t the senior high school and elementary le v e ls . The p ro je c t is a cooperative venture by the In s tru c tio n a l D ivisio n of the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and the School of Teacher Education in the Michigan State U n iv e rs ity College o f Education. Both agencies believed th a t a special kind o f student teaching program was needed th a t would improve the q u a lit y o f teachers a t the ju n io r high school l e v e l . 44 44 Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan S tate U n ive rsity Student Teaching O f f ic e , SERL P ro je c t: A P roject to Improve the Preparation of Teachers, 1967. 22 Dwight Rich Ju n io r High School was selected as the lo c a tio n f o r the SERL P ro je c t because o f i t s teaching personnel, geographic lo c a t io n , and physical f a c i l i t i e s th a t allowed the f l e x i b i l i t y needed f o r such a p i l o t p r o je c t . The p ro je c t was conducted a t Dwight Rich during the spring and f a l l q u a rters o f 1966 and in the w in te r q u a rte r o f 1967 i t was operated in West Junior High School. The p ro je c t was expanded in the f a l l o f 1967 to include both Dwight Rich and West Junior High Schools, w ith ten student teachers a t each school. jo in e d the p ro je c t in t h is o rd er: w in te r 1970; and P a t t e n g i l l , f a l l Other ju n i o r high schools W alter French, f a l l 1971. 1969; O tto , E v e re tt High School began the p r o je c t during the w in te r term o f 1971 and H i l l High School jo in ed the p ro je c t f a l l 1971. A v e r il l Elementary School jo in ed the p ro je c t w in te r 1972. OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The basic o b je c tiv e s o f the SERL P ro je c t are to provide s i g n i f i ­ cant improvements in the q u a li t y o f experiences o f student teachers involved ; observations and analyses o f a v a r i e t y of models o f teaching under varying c o n d itio n s ; and o ther kinds o f school experience in a d d itio n to classroom te a c h in g .45 The SERL P ro je c t Is also designed to acquaint the student teachers w ith the many fa c e ts o f the modern educational system. This includes lea rn in g about the social and c u ltu r a l environment o f the surrounding community; the a d m in is tra tio n o f a school; school p o l i c i e s , programs, and resources; c ity -w id e resources, f a c i l i t i e s , programs, and 45 ib id . 23 c u r r ic u la ; social agencies and law enforcement agencies th a t work in cooperation with the schools; innovative programs; in s tru c tio n a l m?dia; and professional organizations. At the end o f the term the student teachers r e a liz e th at the f i e l d of education is no longer the narrow vocation i t was f i f t y years ago when a classroom teacher might become a p rin c ip a l o r, in many instances, might f i l l both positio ns. The teaching assignments fo r the SERL student teachers are made on a more f l e x i b l e basis than are assignments in the ty p ic a l student teaching program. Each student teacher is assigned three classes, a planning period, a lunch period, and a two-hour block of time to explore the to ta l educational program and supportive services o ffered by the school d i s t r i c t . In addition to t h e i r in-school experiences, these student teachers work with social and community agencies. They are much more l i k e l y to spend time in student homes and involved in community a c t i v i t i e s than is ty p ic a l o f student teachers in the conventional programs. Because of it s f l e x i b i l i t y , the SERL student teachers are able to group and regroup as they id e n t if y problems o f in s tru c tio n and problems o f learn in g ; analyze these problems and begin to develop hypo­ theses about solving them; develop plans f o r organizing and managing in s tru c tio n to solve the id e n t if ie d problems; and develop evaluation techniques to determine the success o f t h e i r e f f o r t s . In the process, the student teachers examine and gain p ra c tic e with d i f f e r e n t methods of organizing in s tru c tio n fo r small groups, larg e groups, in d iv id u a liz e d tu to rin g , and team teaching. 24 RESULTS OF THE PROJECT The SERL P ro je c t was not seen as a research experiment but r a th e r as a means o f try in g out some ideas f o r improving the lab o rato ry experience in teacher p rep a ratio n . The documented fin d in g s and the s u b je c tiv e ap p raisals of the people involved have in d ica te d the f o ll o w i n g : 4® a) The f i n a l evalu ation s prepared by both the supervising teacher and the co lleg e coordinator have c o n s is te n tly been higher than those o f comparable students in the re g u la r program. b) A higher proportion o f p ro je c t people than others have accepted teaching p ositions in the Lansing system. c) The p ro je c t people have gained f a r wider experience during student teaching than is possible in the re g u la r program where the burden o f in s tr u c tio n is on a s in g le supervising teacher. d) Students have gained valuable experience in teaching remedial classes and in observing special education classes. e) Student teachers in the p ro je c t are more l i k e l y than others to obtain some experience in t h e i r minor as well as t h e i r major fie ld s . f) Extensive work w ith in s tru c tio n a l media has been provided. g) The p ro je c t has made possible the re lea se o f groups o f supervising teachers during the school day f o r in - s e r v ic e meetings a t which departmental curriculum matters are being discussed in a nonpressured s e t t in g . h) V i s i t a t i o n s by student teachers to the homes o f the students are p ossible. i) V i s i t s to study the programs o f social agencies, other schools, and o ther grade le v e ls are ro u tin e . j) S k i l l s in working in a classroom have been as w ell developed as with o th e r student teachers (each student teacher is assigned to th ree c la s s e s ). k) Concentration in a s in g le b u ild in g has made more e f f i c i e n t use o f the c o o rd in a to r's time and equipment. The video tape machine Is used much more e f f e c t i v e l y in the p ro je c t s e t t in g . 1) Student teacher re a c tio n has been one o f u n q u a lifie d enthusiasm. Many students who could not be assigned to the p ro je c t have reported f e e lin g somewhat cheated. m) U n iv e rs ity s p e c ia lis t s have been more a v a ila b le to the pro­ j e c t than to the re g u la r student teaching program. 46 Ib id . 25 n) Student teaching has become an in d iv id u a liz e d experience in the p ro je c t. In d iv id u a l assignments are s h ifte d e a s ily to compen­ sate f o r s p e c if ic stren g th s, weaknesses or in te r e s ts as they are Id e n tifie d . Each stu d en t's schedule 1s examined and modified when t h is seems d e s i r a b l e . 47 The f i r s t study involving the SERL P ro je c t was completed by Donald J. Chase e a r ly in 1971. He compared student teachers in the SERL P ro je c t w ith the student teachers in the conventional programs using openness and a t t i t u d e formation as dependent v a r ia b le s . He found th a t teachers in the SERL P ro je c t: Showed more p o s itiv e gains in both a t t i t u d e and openness as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r exposure to the a c t i v i t i e s o f the p r o je c t , and 1n the SERL P ro je c t fin is h e d a t a higher lev el o f openness and a t t i t u d e than the conventional student tea ch ers. As a r e s u l t of t h e i r group a c t i v i t i e s , in in te r a c tio n w ith p u p ils , p aren ts, and in d iv id u a ls from community service o rg a n iz a tio n s , the SERL student teachers should be b e t t e r prepared to meet t h e i r o b lig a tio n s as f i r s t - y e a r teachers. The SERL p a r tic ip a n ts have had g reat o p p o rtu n itie s to develop techniques and to recognize and use o p p o rtu n itie s from a wide v a r ie ty o f sources. The s o c i a l i z a t i o n , the in te r a c t io n o f the group, appeared to be the most s i g n i f i c a n t c o n trib u tin g f a c to r to the d i f f e r e n t i a l re s u lts o f the study. The group, along w ith the co o rd in a to r, and the cooperation o f the many in d iv id u a ls and agencies providing the m u ltitudinous v a r ie ty o f experiences, makes the SERL P ro je c t a superior p a tte rn f o r providing the student teach­ ing exp erience, w ith reference to openness and a t t i t u d e fo rm a tio n .4® This p ro je c t served as a model f o r the " c lu s te r programs" t h a t have been developed a t Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity . I t f u r t h e r served as the model fo r a p o s itio n paper on student teaching programs adopted by the Deans and D ire c to rs o f Michigan Teacher Education I n s t it u t io n s in which i t is stated : In designing the s tru c tu re o f a model student teaching program, fo ur main p r in c ip le s were considered paramount. They are: 47 ib id . 4® Chase, p. 82. 26 1. The program of student teachers should provide great f l e x i b i l i t y so th at strengths and weaknesses o f Individual students w i l l determine the s p e c ific program each w i l l fo llo w . 2. The student teacher should be involved 1n a program which is designed to provide contact with several teachers and various teach­ ing s ty le s . 3. The program should be structured to provide many other kinds of school experiences fo r the student teacher in addition to c la s s ­ room teaching. 4. E ffe c tiv e means should be developed to bring practicing teachers and teacher preparation In s tit u t io n s in to a true p artn er­ ship in the design and implementation of teacher education programs.49 The SERL model d i f f e r s from the conventional teacher education program in th a t students are assigned to buildings ra th e r than to an Individual supervising teacher. A group o f e ig h t to ten student teachers 1s under the d ir e c tio n of a local fa c u lty member who supervises the student teachers' e n tir e experience and coordinates the public schoolu n iv e rs ity a c t i v i t i e s . Each student teacher's schedule includes a good deal o f c la ss­ room teaching experience, but not necessarily under the supervision o f a single teacher. For example, a student might be teaching three classes in social studies, but under the guidance o f more than one supervising teacher. The remainder o f the day the student might engage in an organized program designed e s p e c ia lly fo r him in which he learns about the many facets o f the teach er's job outside the formal classroom s e ttin g . This includes working with small groups or in d ividu als 1n remedial tu to rin g s itu a tio n s , v i s i t i n g homes o f students, learning about community a c t i v i t i e s , learning about the adm in istratio n o f a school as viewed by the p r in c ip a l, attendance o f f i c e r , custodian, or groundskeeper, 49 Leland W. Dean, "A Student Teaching Program f o r the 1970s," unpublished paper, School of Teacher Education, Michigan State U n iv e rs ity , January 1969, presented to the Deans and Directors o f Michigan Teacher Education In s t it u t io n s . 27 and learn in g about the work o f so c ia l agencies th a t are i n f l u e n t i a l the community. in I t also includes becoming f a m i l i a r with the special services o f the school such as guidance, remedial read in g , n ursing , l i b r a r y , and au d io -vis u a l a id s . FINDINGS OF THE SERL MODEL SURVEY OF OPINIONS The instrument developed to sample the opinions o f those involved in the SERL P r o je c t, past and p res en t, was based on the r a t io n a le o u tlin e d by those persons from the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan State U n iv e rs ity who were responsible f o r the program's inception.®® The f i n a l instrument was developed a f t e r c o n s u lta tio n w ith ad m in is tra to rs from the Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity professors o f education who are involved in teacher education and who have been a c t i v e ly involved in the p r o je c t . In May 1971, 160 l e t t e r s (Appendix A) and o pinionnaires (Appendix B) were sent to secondary school p r i n c ip a ls , a s s is ta n t p r i n c ip a ls , c l i n i c a l c o n s u lta n ts , supervising te a c h e rs , student te a c h e rs , u n iv e r s ity c o o rd in a to rs , and some se rv ic e personnel such as counselors, l i b r a r i a n s , and persons who had been or are now involved in the SERL P ro je c t. Of the 160 opinionnaires s e n t, 128 (80%) o f those returned contained info rm ation th a t was useable in th is study. Five re tu rn s were not useable. The responses used were from twelve school a d m in is tra to rs , p r i n c ip a ls , a s s is ta n t p r i n c ip a ls , and c l i n i c a l co n s u lta n ts , grouped to g e th e r because o f t h e i r small number and the s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e i r 50 Lansing School D i s t r i c t and Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity Student Teaching O ff ic e , SERL P r o je c t, 1967. 28 responses. Other respondents included 74 supervising teachers, 18 student teachers, 5 u n iv e rs ity coordinators, and 19 o thers, including counselors, l i b r a r i a n s , and other school personnel involved 1n the pro­ je c t. In a d d itio n , th is la s t category encompasses persons who were involved in the past but who are not c u rre n tly involved in the p ro je c t. Opinionnaires were sent to those persons who were known to have had involvement 1n the p ro je c t. Since no information was recorded on the opinionnaire to id e n t i f y the respondents, no e f f o r t was made to fo llo w up those p a rtic ip a n ts who did not respond. The respondents were asked to give a yes-no answer to the questions and then to l i s t t h e ir reasons. By using th is open type of answer, i t was necessary to make some general categories o f responses. This was done a f t e r a ca re fu l survey o f a l l responses was made and only then was i t desirab le to assign categories to s p e c ific responses. f i r s t or what seemed the major response from each person was used. The By using th is method some loss and some m is in te rp re ta tio n o f responses was inherent. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY The f i r s t basic question presented fo r response was: "Should the school and college o f education continue to share the re s p o n s ib ility in a cooperative venture in student teaching?" Tables 1 through 6 con­ ta in the responses to th is question. Tables 1 through 6 Inspection of Table 1 in d icates an overwhelming endorsement o f the idea o f shared r e s p o n s ib ility in student teaching by the public school and u n iv e rs ity regardless o f the age o f the respondent. Of the 29 125 useable r e p l i e s , only 3 did not respond in the a f f i r m a t i v e . respondent in the 30-34 age bracket responded n e g a tiv e ly . One Two in the 20-24 age group responded "yes and no." Table 2 compares by m a rita l status responses re la te d to the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f school college cooperation. Both the one "no" response and the two "yes and no" responses were made by married persons. Table 3 compares the the school and u n iv e r s it y to respondents by sex and the d e s ir a b ility of continue to share th is r e s p o n s ib i li t y . The one "no" response came from a male, w hile the two "yes and no" responses were divided one each between the sexes. Table 4 contains responses o f the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f continued shared r e s p o n s ib ilit y according to the respondents' years o f experience in education. The one "no" response was from a person w ith fo ur to nine years o f ex p erience, w hile the two "yes and no" votes came from persons w ith less than f i v e years o f experience in education. In Table 5 responses are presented according to past responsi­ b i l i t y to the SERL P ro je c t and the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f continuing to share the r e s p o n s ib i li t y . Thus, we see t h a t the "no" and the "yes and no" respondents were a l l persons who have not had p r i o r experiences with the SERL P ro je c t. Table 6 presents a comparison o f the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f continuing to share the r e s p o n s ib ilit y by present r e s p o n s ib ilit y to the SERL P ro je c t. From th is ta b le we see th a t the one negative response was from a cu rre n t supervisory teacher and the "yes and no" answers were from c u rre n t student teachers. An an a ly s is o f Tables 1 through 6 in d ic a te s strong support fo r the school and u n iv e r s ity to continue to share the r e s p o n s ib i li t y fo r 30 th a t segment o f teacher education th a t deals with student teaching. The person who believed th is cooperation should not continue was between 30 to 35 years of age, a single male with fiv e to nine years o f exp eri­ ence in education and who was a supervisory teacher f o r the f i r s t time. S im ila r ly , the "yes and no" respondents were student teachers, one male and one female, both o f whom were married and between 20 to 24 years o ld . TABLE 1 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Age 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 25.00 20.00 31.00 24.80 13.00 10.40 17.00 13,60 14.00 11.20 4.00 3.20 9.00 7.20 6.00 4.80 3.00 2.40 122.00 97.60 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .80 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 2.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.on 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.60 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 27.00 21.60 31.00 24.80 14.00 11.20 17.00 13.60 14.00 11.28 4.00 3.20 9.00 7.20 6.00 4.80 3.00 2.40 125.00 100.00 Unused - 3 32 TABLE 2 Should the School and College of Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by M arital Status Married Single Divorced Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 105.00 82.68 17.00 13.39 2.00 1.57 124.00 97.64 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .79 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 2.00 1.57 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.57 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 108.00 85.04 17.00 13.39 2.00 1.57 127.00 100.00 Unused - 1 33 TABLE 3 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in A Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Sex Male Female Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 67.00 52.76 57.00 44.88 124.00 97.64 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 1.00 .79 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .79 1.00 .79 2.00 1.57 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 69.00 54.33 58.00 45.67 127.00 100.00 Unused - 1 TABLE 4 Should the School and College of Education Continue to Share the Responsibilities in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years of Experience in Education 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Total YES Frequency Pet, of Total 46.00 36.22 25.00 19.69 21,00 16.54 12.00 9.45 8.00 6.30 2.00 1.57 7.00 5.51 3.00 2.36 124.00 97.64 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .79 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 2.00 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.57 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 48.00 37.80 26.00 20.47 21.00 16.54 12.00 9.45 8.00 6.30 2.00 1.57 7.00 5.51 3.00 2.36 127.00 100.00 Unused - 1 TABLE 5 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Past R e sp o n sib ility to the SERL P roject Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Adm inistrators and C lin ic a l Consultants U n iv e rs ity Coordinators None Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 20.00 15.63 14.00 10.94 6.00 4.69 4,00 3.13 81.00 63.28 125.00 97.66 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .78 1.00 .78 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.56 2.00 1.56 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 20.00 15.63 14.00 10.94 6.00 4.69 4.00 3.13 84.00 65.63 128.00 100.00 Unused - 0 TABLE 6 Should the School and College o f Education Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ilitie s in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching? A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Current R e s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P roject Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School A dm inistrators and C lin ic a l Consultants U n iv e rs ity Coordinators None Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 73.00 57.03 16.00 12.50 12.00 9.38 5.00 3.91 19.00 14.84 125.00 97.66 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .78 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.56 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 74.00 57.81 18.00 14.06 12.00 9.38 5.00 3.91 19.00 14.84 128.00 100.00 Unused - 0 37 Tables 7 through 12 Those who responded p o s it iv e ly to the question "Should the school and co lle g e o f education continue to share the r e s p o n s ib i li t y in a cooperative venture in student teaching?" were asked to s ta te the reasons why they b e lie v e th is type o f cooperation should continue. Tables 7 through 12 contain the analysis o f the major reasons the respondents gave f o r continuing the cooperative venture. An inspection o f Table 7 , which compared the response by age of the major reasons f o r continuing the cooperative venture* in d ic a te s th a t 44 o f the 105 (42%) who gave a p o s itiv e response to the idea o f school­ e d lege cooperation gave the reason "to gain p ra c tic a l experience to put theory into p r a c t ic e ." "To combine the resources of both i n s t it u t io n s " was stated by 22% o f the respondents. Twenty percent responded "to keep both i n s t it u t io n s c u rre n t as to changing needs thereby forming a basis f o r ev alu atio n and change." Ten respondents expressed the major reason f o r cooperation was to give the student teacher a r e a l i s t i c view o f the school and o f the community. Other responses included such reasons as "They [th e school and the u n iv e r s it y ] do not have any choice but to share r e s p o n s ib ilit y ; " "They must cooperate;" and "Student teachers must work w ith experienced tea ch ers." Included in t h is "other" category were those who did not respond or who gave a response th a t was not r e la te d to the question. In Table 8 , in which the d e s i r a b i l i t y o f continuing the coopera­ t i v e re la tio n s h ip in student teaching is compared according to m a rita l sta tu s o f the respondents* i t is in te r e s tin g to note th a t the major reasons f o r continuing the cooperative r e la t io n s h ip remained in the id e n t ic a l order as the comparison by age. There was very l i t t l e d iffe re n c e in the responses from married o r s in g le respondents. 38 Table 9 compares, according to the sex o f the respondents, the major reasons f o r continuing the cooperative r e la t io n s h ip . Once again the major reasons were In id e n t ic a l order in the age comparison (Table 7) and m a rita l comparison (Table 8 ) responses. An an a ly s is o f the 59 males and 47 females who responded to t h is question in d ica te s very s im ila r responses regardless o f the sex o f the respondent. Table 10 compares the major reasons f o r continuing the coopera­ t i v e arrangement by years o f experience in education. Experience in education did not seem to be a f a c t o r in ranking the major reasons to continue the cooperative venture between the local school and the College o f Education. Tables 11 and 12 make a comparison o f the major reason f o r continuing the cooperative venture by past and present r e s p o n s ib i li t y . "To gain p r a c t ic a l experience" is rated f i r s t (42% o f the respondents), followed by "To combine the resources o f both in s t it u t io n s " (24%); "To keep both i n s t it u t io n s c u rr e n t in the changing needs" (20%); and "To give a r e a l i s t i c view o f the school and community" (10%). percentage o f each category are id e n tic a l The order and t o t a l in both ta b le s . Table 8 through 12 in d ic a te a close s i m i l a r i t y o f reasons fo r continuing the r e la tio n s h ip regardless o f the respondents' age, m a rita l s ta tu s , sex, years of experience in ed u ca tio n , or past or cu rre n t r e s p o n s ib ilit y to the SERL P r o je c t. Of those who responded to th is set o f questions, 58 c u rr e n tly were supervisory teachers, 14 were student teach ers, 12 were school a d m in is tra to rs o r c l i n i c a l c o n s u lta n ts , and 18 had no d i r e c t r e s p o n s ib ilit y to the p ro je c t a t the time the opinio nn alre was completed. No responses were given to the request to sta te reasons why the U n iv e r s ity -p u b lic school cooperation should not continue. TABLE 7 A Comparison of Responses by Age of the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the Responsibility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 20-24 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Total To gain p ra c tic a l experience to put theory in to p ra c tic e . 8.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 4.00 Frequency 7.62 6.67 7.62 3.81 Pet. o f Total 5.71 3.00 2.86 4.00 3,81 3.00 2.86 1.00 .95 44.00 41.90 To combine the resources o f both in s titu tio n s . 5.00 2.00 6.00 Frequency 4.76 1.90 5.71 Pet. o f Total 1.00 .95 1.00 .95 1.00 .95 1.00 .95 23.00 21.90 25-29 30-34 35-39 3.00 2.86 3.00 2.86 To keep both in s titu tio n s curre nt as to the changing needs thereby forming a basis fo r evaluation and change. 8.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 0.00 1.00 20.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Frequency 0.00 0.00 7.62 5.71 0.00 .95 19.05 1.90 1.90 .95 Pet. o f Total To aive a r e a lis t ic view o f the school and the community. 0.00 3.00 1.00 Frequency 3.00 0.00 .95 2.86 0.00 Pet. o f Total 2.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 .95 10.00 9.52 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 4.00 3.81 1.00 .95 1.00 .95 0.00 0.00 1.00 .95 0.00 0.00 1.00 .95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.80 7.62 Total Frequency Pet. o f Total 22.00 20.95 26.00 24.76 11.00 10.48 13.00 12.38 12.00 11.43 4.00 3.81 9.00 8.57 5.00 4.76 3.00 2.86 105.00 100.00 Unused - 23 40 TABLE 8 A Comparison of Responses by M a rita l Status o f the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e sp on sib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching Married Single Divorced Total To gain p ra c tic a l experience to put theory into p ra c tic e . 7.00 37.00 0.00 Frequency 34.92 0.00 Pet. o f Total 6.60 44.00 41.50 To combine the resources o f both in s t it u t io n s . 20.00 Frequency 4.00 3.77 18.87 Pet. o f Total 24.00 22.64 0.00 0.00 To keep both in s titu tio n s current as to the changing needs thereby forming a basis fo r evaluation and change. 0.00 20.00 18.00 Frequency 2.00 0.0 0 1.89 18.75 16.98 Pet. o f Total To give a r e a l i s t i c view o f the schodl and the community. 9.00 0.00 Frequency 1.00 8.49 0.00 Pet. o f Total .94 10.00 1.43 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 6.00 5.66 1.00 .94 1.00 .94 8 .0 0 7.55 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 90.00 84.92 15.00 14.15 1.00 .94 106.00 100.00 Unused - 22 41 TABLE 9 A Comparison o f Responses by Sex o f the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the R e s p o n s ib ility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching Male Female T o tal To gain p r a c t ic a l experience to put theory in to p r a c t ic e . Frequency 27.00 18.00 Pet. o f Total 25.47 16.98 45 .00 4 2 .4 3 To combine the resources o f both i n s t i t u t i o n s . 13.00 10.00 Frequency P e t. of Total 12.26 9.43 23.10 21 .70 To keep both i n s t it u t io n s cu rren t as to the changing needs thereby forming a basis f o r e v a lu a tio n and change. Frequency 11,00 9 .0 0 20 .00 Pet. o f T o ta l 10.38 8 .4 9 18.87 To give a r e a l i s t i c view o f the school and community. Frequency 5.00 5.00 P et. o f Total 4 .7 2 4.72 10.00 9 .4 3 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 3.00 2 .8 3 5.0 0 4.7 2 8 .0 0 7.5 5 TOTAL Frequency P et. o f Total 59.00 55.66 47.00 44.34 106.00 100.00 Unused - 22 TABLE 10 A Comparison of Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the Responsibility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Total To gain p ra c tic a l experience to put theory in to p ra c tic e . Frequency 11.00 12.00 7.00 5.00 Pet. o f Total 10.28 11.21 6.54 4.67 4.00 3.74 1.00 .93 4.00 3.74 1.00 .93 45.00 42.06 To combine the resources o f both in s titu tio n s . 5.00 3.00 Frequency 10.00 Pet. o f Total 9.35 4.67 2.80 1.00 .93 1.00 .93 2.00 1.87 0.00 0.00 24.00 22.43 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 2.00 1,87 To keep both in s titu tio n s current as to the changing needs thereby forming a basis fo r evaluation and change. 10.00 9.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Frequency 4.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 18.69 0.00 1.87 0.00 .93 8.41 3.74 0.00 Pet. o f Total 3.74 To give a r e a lis t ic view o f the school and community. 2.00 Frequency 0.00 1,00 5.00 1.87 4.67 0.00 Pet. o f Total .93 1.00 .93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .93 10.00 9.35 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 4.00 3.74 2.00 1.87 1.00 .93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .93 0.00 0.00 8.00 7.48 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 39.00 36.45 22.00 20.56 17.00 15.89 11.00 10.28 6.00 5.61 2.00 1.87 7.00 6.54 3.00 2.80 107.00 100.00 Unused - 22 TABLE 11 A Comparison of Responses by Past Responsibility to the SERL Project of the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the Responsibility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Adm inistrators and C lin ic a l Consultants U n iv e rs ity Coordinators None Total To gain p ra c tic a l experience to put theory in to p ra c tic e . 9.00 6.00 4.00 Frequency 5.61 3.74 Pet. o f Total 8.41 3.00 2.80 23.00 21.50 45.00 42.06 To combine the resources o f both in s titu t io n s . 3.00 Frequency 2.00 Pet. o f Total 1.87 2.80 1,00 .93 16.00 14.95 24.00 22.43 2.00 1.87 To keep both in s titu tio n s cu rre n t as to the changing needs thereby forming a basis f o r eva lu atio n and change 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Frequency 14.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 13.08 Pet. o f Total 4.67 .93 18.69 To give a r e a lis t ic view o f the school and the community. 1.00 0.00 Frequency 1.00 .93 0.00 Pet. o f Total .93 0.00 0.00 8.00 7.48 10.00 9.35 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .93 1.00 .93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 5.61 8.00 7.48 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 18,00 16.82 12.00 11.21 6.00 5.61 4.00 3.74 67.00 62.62 107.00 100.00 Unused - 21 TABLE 12 A Comparison of Responses by Current Responsibility to the SERL Project of the Major Reasons the School and College Should Continue to Share the Responsibility in a Cooperative Venture in Student Teaching Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and Clinical Consultants University Coordinators None Total To gain practicel experience to put theory into practice. 2.00 22.00 8.00 Frequency 7.48 1.87 Pet. of Total 20.56 3.00 2.80 10.00 9,35 45.00 42.06 To combine the resources of both institutions. 5.00 14.00 Frequency 4.67 13.08 Pet. of Total 2.00 1.87 3.00 2.80 24.00 22.43 0.00 0.00 To keep both institutions current as to the changing needs thereby forming a basis for evaluation and change 3.00 3.00 11.00 0.00 3.00 Frequency 20.00 2.80 0.00 18.69 10.28 2.80 2.80 Pet. of Total To give a re a lis tic view of the school and the community. 2.00 7.00 0.00 Frequency 1.87 6.45 0.00 Pet. of Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 .93 10.00 9.35 Other Frequency Pet. of Total 4.00 3.74 2.00 .87 1.00 .93 0.00 0.00 1.00 .93 8.00 7.48 TOTAL Frequency Pet, of Total 58.00 54.21 14.00 13.08 12.00 11.21 5.00 4,67 18.00 16.82 107.00 100.00 Unused - 21 45 NON-CLASSROOM EXPERIENCES Tables 13 through 18 The next question experiences are d es irab le asked was "Do you fee l th a t non-classroom as an in te g ra l p art of student teaching?" An inspection o f Tables 13 through 18 indicates th a t nearly a l l o f the respondents, regardless of age, believe th a t non-classroom experiences are d es irab le and should be included as a p a rt o f student teaching as shown in Table 13. The same is true when responses are compared by m a rital status as in Table 14, sex as in Table 15, experience In education as in Table 16, and past or SERL Project as in Tables 17 and 18. current re s p o n s ib ility to the TABLE 13 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Age of the D e s ira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 25.00 20,16 27.00 21.77 12.00 9.68 15.00 12.10 13.00 10,48 4.00 3.23 9.00 7.26 6.00 4.84 3.00 2.42 114.00 91.94 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .81 3.00 2.42 1.00 .81 2.00 1.61 1.00 .81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 6.45 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .81 1.00 .81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.61 TOTAL Frequency Pet, o f Total 27.00 21,77 31.00 25.00 13.00 10.48 17.00 13.71 14.00 11.29 4.00 3.23 9.00 7.26 6.00 4.84 3.00 2.42 124.00 100.00 Unused - 4 47 TABLE 14 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by M a r it a l Status o f the D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Non-Classroom Experiences Married Single Divorced Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 97.00 76.98 17.00 13.49 2.00 1.59 116.00 92.06 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 8.00 6.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.0 0 6.35 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 2.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.59 TOTAL Freq. Pet. o f Total 107.00 84.92 17.00 13.49 2.00 1.59 126.00 100.00 Unused - 2 48 TABLE 15 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Sex o f the D e s ir a b ilit y o f Non-Classroom Experiences Male Female Total YES Frequency P et. o f T o tal 65.00 51.59 51.00 40.48 116.00 92.06 NO Frequency P et. o f Total 4 .0 0 3.17 4.00 3.17 8.00 6.35 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 0.0 0 0.0 0 2.00 1.59 2.00 1.59 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 69.00 54.76 57.00 45.24 126.00 100.00 Unused - 2 TABLE 16 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the D e s ira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Total YES Frequency Pet. o f Total 45.00 35.71 19.00 15.08 20.00 15.87 12.00 9.52 8.00 6.35 2.00 1,59 7.00 5.56 3.00 2.38 116.00 92.06 NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 2.00 1.59 5.00 3.97 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 6.35 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. o f Total 1.00 .79 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.59 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 48.00 38.10 25.00 19.84 21.00 16.67 12.00 9.52 8.00 6.35 2,00 1.59 7.00 5.56 3.00 2.38 126.00 100.00 Unused - 2 TABLE 17 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Past Responsibility to the SERL Project of the D e sira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and Clinical Consultants University Coordinators None Total YES Frequency Pet. of Total 18.00 14.17 14.00 11.02 6.00 4.72 3.00 2.36 76.00 59.84 117.00 92.13 NO Frequency Pet, of Total 1.00 ,79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1.00 ,79 6.00 4.72 8.00 6.30 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.57 2.00 1.57 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 19.00 14,96 14.00 11.02 6.00 4.72 4.00 3.15 84.00 66.14 127.00 100.00 Unused - 1 TABLE 18 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Current Responsibility to the SERL Project of the D e sira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and Clinical Consultants University Coordinators None Total YES Frequency Pet. of Total 66.00 51.97 16.00 12.60 12.00 9.45 5.00 3.94 18.00 14,17 117.00 92.13 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 7.00 5.51 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 6.30 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 1.00 .79 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.57 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 74.00 58.27 18.00 14.17 12.00 9.45 5.00 3.94 18.00 14.17 127.00 100.00 Unused - 1 52 Tables 19 through 24 Those respondents who in d ica te d t h a t non-classroom experiences should be an in te g r a l p a rt o f student teaching were asked to in d ic a te the non-classroom experiences they deemed to be most d e s ira b le . Tables 19 through 24 contain these responses. Inspection o f Tables 19 through 24 in d ic a te s th a t 24 (22%) o f the respondents l i s t e d "Those a c t i v i t i e s t h a t present an understanding o f the conrnunity as i t a ffe c t s the stu d en ts." were: Other experiences l i s t e d V i s i t s to conrnunity agencies th a t have d i r e c t contact w ith students, f o r example, social s e rv ic e s , p o lic e , ju v e n ile c o u r t, model c i t i e s , boy's t r a in i n g school, 21 (18.6% respondents); v i s i t s to o th e r schools in the system, e s p e c ia lly those schools w ith special f a c i l i t i e s to serve students w ith special educational needs such as Walnut School f o r those students w ith unique physical handicaps and the Beekman School f o r the t r a in a b le m entally handicapped s tu d en t, 18 (16%) respond­ ents . Fourteen respondents (12%) saw value in involvement in non­ classroom school r e la te d a c t i v i t i e s . This category Included p a r t i c i p a ­ t io n in various c lu b s , supervision a t sports events and dramatic productions, and chaperoning school social a f f a i r s . Contact w ith the " in school" supportive fac ets o f the educational program was seen as a d e s ira b le non-classroom experience by 11 (10%) o f the respondents. These contacts included both b u ild in g and c e n tra l a d m in is tra tio n personnel. Frequent contacts w ith counselors was l i s t e d as a valuable experience. Often student teachers and supervising teachers singled out as an e s s e n tia l non-classroom experience t h e i r work w ith media during which students became f a m i l i a r w ith the use and 53 operation of in s tru c tio n a l media equipment and m aterials f o r classroom use. Eight respondents (7%) f e l t th at v i s i t s to community resources o f an educational nature were among the d e s ira b le non-classroom experiences. This category included t r i p s to various business, in d u s try , and c u ltu ra l centers throughout the c i t y . Supervising teachers e s p e c ia lly expressed the b e n e fits derived from becoming acquainted with those educational o pportunities a v a ila b le to the student outside the formal school s e ttin g . Several responses l is t e d as important a c t i v i t i e s are l i s t e d in the tab les under "other" such as a l l experiences re lated to students, most seminars and speakers, and a l l a c t i v i t i e s related to the classroom. Tables 19 through 24 appear to be very much in agreement as to the ranking o f desirable non-classroom experiences. TABLE 19 A Comparison of Responses by Age of the D esira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 Those a c tiv itie s that present an understanding of the community as i t affects the student. Frequency 10.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Pet. of Total 8.85 3.54 1.77 1.77 1.77 .88 1.77 0.00 60-65 Total 2.00 1.77 25.00 22.12 Visits to the conrnunity agencies that have a direct contact with students, e . g ., social service, police, juvenile court, model c i t i e s , Boy's Training School. Frequency 3.00 8.00 3,00 1,00 3.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pet. of Total 2.65 7.08 2.65 .88 2.65 0.00 .88 .88 .88 21.00 18.58 Visits to other schools within the system, especially special f a c i li t i e s such as school for the mentally and physically handicapped. Frequency 5.00 ' 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 18.00 Pet. of Total 4.42 2.65 1.77 1.77 1.77 .88 1.77 .88 0.00 15.93 Involvement in supervision of school related a c tiv itie s * e .q ., clubs, sports. Frequency 3.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Pet, of Total 2.65 3.54 .88 1.77 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 0.00 14.00 12.39 Contacts with supportive facets of the educational program, e .g ., administration, counselors, and instructional media. Frequency 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Pet. Of Total .88 1.77 .88 .88 3.54 0.00 0.00 1.77 0.00 11.00 9.73 Visits to conrnunity resources of educational nature. Frequency 1.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 Pet. of Total .88 2.65 1.77 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 “ 8.00 7.08 TABLE 19 (continued) 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 Total Other Frequency Pet. of Total 3.00 2.65 3.00 2.65 1.00 .88 4.00 3.54 2.00 1.77 1.00 .88 2.00 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 14.16 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 26.00 23.01 27.00 23.89 12.00 10.62 14.00 12,39 13.00 11,50 3.00 2.65 9.00 7.96 6.00 5.31 3.00 2.65 113.00 100.00 Unused - 15 Ln tn 56 TABLE 20 A Comparison o f Responses by M a rita l Status o f the D e s ir a b ility o f Non-Classroom Experiences Married Single Divorced Total Those a c t i v i t i e s th at present an understanding o f the community as i t a ffe c ts the student. 21.00 4.00 Frequency 0.00 25.00 18.26 3.48 0.0 0 21.74 Pet. o f Total V is its to the community agencies th at have a d ir e c t contact with students, e . g . , social serv ices , p o lic e , ju v e n ile c o u rt, model c i t i e s , BTS. Frequency 16.00 5.00 0.00 21.00 Pet. o f Total 13.91 4.35 0.00 18.26 V is its to other schools w ith in the system, e s p e c ia lly f a c i l i t i e s such as school f o r the mentally and physically handicapped. Frequency 17.00 1.00 0.0 0 18.00 Pet. o f Total 14.78 .87 0.00 15.65 Involvement in supervision- of" school re la te d a c t i v i t i e s , e . g . , clubs, sports. Frequency 12.00 1.00 2.00 15.00 Pet. o f Total 10.43 .87 1.74 13.04 Contacts w ith supportive facets of the educational program, e . g . , ad m in is tra tio n , counselors, and in s tru c tio n a l media. Frequency 8.0 0 3.00 0.0 0 11.00 Pet. o f Total 6.96 2.61 0.00 9.57 V is its to community resources of’ educational nature. Frequency 8.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 Pet. o f Total 6.9 6 0.0 0 0.0 0 8.00 6.96 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 15.00 13.04 2.00 1,74 0.0 0 0.00 17.00 14.78 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 97.00 84.35 16.00 13.91 2.00 1.74 115,00 100.00 Unused - 13 57 TABLE 21 A Comparison o f Responses by Sex o f the D e s ir a b ility o f Non-Classroom Experiences Male Female Total Those a c t i v i t i e s th a t present an understanding o f the community as i t a ffe c ts the student. Frequency 13.00 12.00 25.00 Pet. o f Total 11.30 10.43 21.74 V is it s to the community agencies th a t have a d ir e c t contact with students, e . g . , social se rv ice, p o lic e , ju v e n ile c o u rt, model c i t i e s , Boy's Training School. Frequency 13.00 8.00 21.00 Pet. o f Total 11.30 6.96 18.26 V is it s to other school s witTTin the system, e s p e c ia lly special f a c i l i t i e s such as school fo r the m entally and p h y sica lly handicapped. 10.00 Frequency 18.00 8.00 8.7 0 15.65 Pet. o f Total 6.96 Involvement in supervision o f school re la te d a c t i v i t i e s , e . g . , clubs, sports. 8.00 7.00 Frequency 15.00 6.09 13.04 Pet. o f Total 6.96 Contacts with supportive facets of the educational program, e . g . , a d m in is tra tio n , counselors, and in s tru c tio n a l media. 5.00 6.00 Frequency 5.52 4.35 Pet. o f Total V is it s to comnunity resources o f educational nature. 2.00 6.00 Frequency 1.74 Pet. o f Total 5.22 11.04 9.57 8.00 6.96 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 10.00 8.70 7.00 6.09 17.00 14.78 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 64.00 55.65 51.00 44.35 115.00 100.00 Unused - 13 TABLE 22 A Comparison of Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the D e sira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 Those a c tiv itie s that present an understanding of the community as i t affects the student. Frequency 12.00 2.00 4,00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Pet. of Total 10.43 1.74 3.48 2.61 0.00 0.00 1.74 35-39 Total 1.00 .87 24.00 20,87 Visits to the community agencies that have a direct contact with students, e.g . , social service, police, juvenile court, model c it ie s , Boy's Training School. Frequency 6.00 6.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 21.00 .87 .87 18.26 Pet. of Total 5.22 5.22 2.61 1.74 1.74 0.00 Visits to other schools within the system, especially special f a c i li t i e s such as school for the mentally and physically handicapped. 0.00 0.00 18.00 Frequency 7.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.65 Pet. of Total 6.09 2.61 2.61 1.74 2.61 0.00 Involvement in supervision of school related a c tiv itie s , e .g ., clubs, sports. Frequency 7,00 1.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Pet. of Total 6.00 .87 1.74 0.00 2.61 .87 0.00 0.00 1.00 .87 Contacts with supportive facets of the educational program, e . g ., administration, counselors, and instructional media. Frequency 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 Pet. of Total 2.61 1.74 2.61 .87 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 Visits to conrnunity resources of educational nature. Frequency 4.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 Pet. of Total 3.48 1.74 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 13.04 11.00 9.57 8.00 6.96 TABLE 22 (continued) 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Total Other Frequency Pet. of Total 6.00 5.22 3.00 2.61 2.00 1.74 4.00 3.48 0.00 0.00 1.00 .87 2.00 1.74 0.00 0.00 18.00 15.65 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 45.00 39.13 19.00 16.52 19.00 16.52 12.00 10.43 8.00 6.96 2.00 1.74 7.00 6.09 3.00 2.61 115.00 100.00 Unused - 13 ui vo TABLE 23 A Comparison of Responses by Past Responsibility to the SERL Project of the D e sira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and Clinical Consultants University Coordinators None Those a c tiv itie s that present an understanding of the comnunity as i t affects the student. Frequency 6.00 4.00 1.00 0.00 14.00 Pet. of Total 5.17 3.45 .86 0.00 12.07 Total 25.00 21.55 Visits to the community agencies that have a direct contact with students, e .g ., social service, police, juvenile court, model c itie s , Boy's Training School. Frequency 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 12.00 21.00 Pet. of Total 2.59 1.72 2.59 .86 10.34 18.10 Visits to other schools within the syTtemV especially special f a c i li t i e s such as school for the mentally and physically handicapped. Frequency 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 18.00 Pet. of Total 1.72 .86 0.00 0.00 12.93 15.52 Involvement in supervision of school related a c tiv it ie s , e.g .7 Flubs",""sports". Frequency 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 Pet. of Total 1.72 1.72 0.00 0.00 11.00 1.48 Contacts w ith supportive face ts o f the educational program, e .g ., a d m in is tra tio n , counselors, and in s tru c tio n a l media. Frequency 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 6.00 Pet. of Total 0.00 1,72 ,86 1.72 5.17 15.00 12.93 11.00 9,48 TABLE 23 (continued) Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and Clinical Consultants University Coordinators None Total Visits to community resources of educational nature. 0.00 2.00 Frequency 1.72 0.00 Fct. of Total 1.00 .86 0.00 0.00 5.00 4.31 8.00 8.69 Other Frequency Pet. of Total 5.00 4.31 0.00 0.00 1.00 .86 0.00 0,00 12.00 10.34 18.00 15.52 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 18.00 15.52 13.00 11.21 6.00 5.17 3.00 2.59 76.00 65,52 116.00 100.00 Unused - 12 TABLE 24 A Comparison of Responses by Current Responsibility to the SERL Project of the D e sira b ility of Non-Classroom Experiences Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and Clinical Consultants University Coordinators None Total Those a c tiv itie s that present an understanding of the community as i t affects the student. Frequency 12.00 4.00' 4.00 0.00 5.00 Pet. of Total 10.34 3.45 3.45 0.00 4.31 25.00 21.55 Visits to the community agencies that have a direct contact with students, e .g ., social service, police, juvenile court, model c it ie s , Boy's Training School. Frequency 7.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 5.00 21.00 Pet. of Total 6.03 2.59 3.45 1.72 4.31 18.10 Visits to other schools within the system, especially special f a c i l i t i e s such as school for the mentally and physically handicapped. Frequency 11.00 3.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 18.00 Pet. of Total 9.48 2.59 1.72 0,00 1.72 15.52 Involvement in supervision of school related a c tiv it ie s , e .g ., clubs, sports. Frequency 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Pet. of Total 9.48 .86 .86 .86 1.00 .86 Contacts with supportive facets of the educational program, e .g ., administration, counselors, and instructional media. Frequency 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 Pet. of Total 4.31 .86 .86 .86 2.59 15.00 12.93 11.00 9.48 TABLE 24 (continued) Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and C linical Consultants University Coordinators None Total V isits to community resources of educational nature, Frequency 6.00 1.00 .86 Pet. of Total 5.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 .86 8.00 6.03 Other Frequency Pet. of Total 12.00 10.34 4.00 3.45 0.00 0.00 1.00 .86 1.00 .86 18.00 15.52 tOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 64.00 55.17 17.00 14.66 12.00 10.34 5.00 4.31 18.00 15.52 116.00 100.00 Unused - 12 64 STUDENT TEACHER INVOLVEMENT WITH MORE THAN ONE SUPERVISING TEACHER Tables 25 through 30 The next basic question presented was: "Should a student teacher become involved w ith more than one supervising teacher?" Tables 25 through 30 contain the responses to th is question. Table 25 shows th a t o f the 123 useable r e p lie s , 57 (46%) o f the respondents endorse the idea o f student teachers working w ith more than one supervising teacher. F ifty -o n e (41%) ind icated th a t they do not b e lie v e th is to be a good idea. Another 15 (12%) respondents suggested th a t i t was and was not a good idea. A clo ser examination o f the data in d icates th a t s lig h t ly over h a lf o f those in the 20-24 age group endorse the id e a , 30% are n eg ative , and 18% are unsure. The la rg e s t "no" group was in the 25-29 age group. Approximately 50% in both the 3 5 -3 9 , 40 -44 , and 50-55 age groups does not agree th a t i t is d es irab le fo r a student teacher to become involved w ith more than one supervising teacher. From Table 25 we can conclude th a t although 47% o f the population used in th is study are in agreement w ith the SERL p ra c tic e o f using m u ltip le supervising teachers, th ere is a considerable segment th a t e ith e r responded no (41%) or expressed mixed fe e lin g s (12%). Table 26 compares the d e s ir a b ilit y o f a student teacher being involved w ith more than one supervising teacher by m a rita l sta tu s . S im ila r to Table 25, 46% o f the respondents gave a favorab le response, 42% a negative response, and 12% had mixed re a c tio n s . Even though most o f the subjects were m arried, a close inspection o f Table 26 should 65 suggest th a t percentage-w ise, there is l i t t l e d iffe re n c e in the response based on the respondents' m a rital statu s. When a comparison o f responses is made in Table 27 by sex, 1 t 1s noted th a t males made up 55% o f the to ta l population and females 45%. I t is fu rth e r noted th a t the m a jo rity o f the males (57%) b elie ve i t 1s a good idea to become involved w ith more than one supervising teach er, w hile 50% o f the females responded no to th is question. A higher percentage o f females (18%) had mixed reactions than males (7%). A comparison o f years o f experience in education and the d e s ir a b ilit y o f student teachers being involved w ith more than one super­ vis in g teacher is shown in Table 28. An Inspection indicates 13 o f the 21 (62%) 1n the 10-14 group, a l l o f the 20-24 group, and 5 o f 7 (71%) in the 30-34 group are in favor o f more than one supervising teacher. Of those not in fav o r are the 14 o f 26 (54%) in the 5-9 group, 6 o f 12 (50%) in the 15-19 group, and 6 o f 8 (75%) 1n the 20-24 group. Years o f experience in education does not seem to be the fa c to r th a t determines the d e s ir a b ilit y o f a student teacher working w ith more than one super­ vis in g teacher. Tables 29 and 30 are concerned with the d e s ir a b ilit y o f in volvin g more than one supervising teacher w ith a student teacher by past and cu rren t re s p o n s ib ility to the SERL P ro jec t. While these tab les are very s im ila r , i t is in te re s tin g to note the change in the a ttitu d e s . For example, 10 out o f 19 (52%) o f those who were past supervising teachers responded "yes." Twenty-six o f 74 (35%) cu rren t supervising teachers responded "yes" to the same question. The data fo r student teachers remain about the same--44% o f the cu rren t student teachers responded "yes" as compared w ith 46% o f the 66 form er student te a c h e rs . The percentage f o r the same groups th a t responded "no" were 33% cu rren t student teachers and 30% form er student teach ers. The responses o f school a d m in is tra to rs and u n iv e r s ity con­ s u lta n ts seem to in d ic a te th a t those who are c u rre n tly involved w ith the SERL P ro je c t fe e l more p o s itiv e than those who were p rev io u sly in vo lved . Tables 25-30 in d ic a te the m a jo rity o f the population surveyed is In fa v o r o f using more than one supervising teacher per student tea ch er. Those in favo r seem to be males in the 35-55 age group, and e it h e r are o r have been supervising teachers. the id ea. Student teachers g e n e ra lly endorse Those responding "no" seem to be women. and m a rita l s ta tu s do not seem to make a d iffe re n c e . Years o f experience TABLE 25 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Age of the D e s ira b ility of a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Total YES Frequency Pet. of Total 14.00 11.38 7.00 5.69 9.00 7.32 7.00 5.69 6.00 4.88 3.00 2,44 5.00 4.07 3.00 2.44 3.00 2.44 57.00 46.34 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 8.00 6.50 19.00 15.45 2,00 1.63 9.00 7.32 7.00 5.69 1.00 .81 2.00 1.63 3.00 2.44 0.00 0.00 51.00 41.46 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 5.00 4.07 3.00 2.44 3.00 2,44 1.00 .81 1.00 .81 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 12.20 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 27.00 21.95 29.00 23.58 14.00 11.38 17.00 13.82 14,00 11.38 4,00 3.25 9,00 7.32 6.00 4.88 3.00 2.44 123.00 100.00 Unused * 5 68 TABLE 26 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by M a rita l Status o f the D e s ir a b ility o f a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher Married Single Divorced Total YES Frequency P et. down P et. o f Total 49.00 46.23 39.20 8.00 47.06 6.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 NO Frequency P et. down P et. o f Total 45.00 42.45 36.00 6.00 35.29 4.80 2.00 100.00 1.60 53.00 YES AND NO Frequency P et. down P et. o f Total 12.00 11.32 9.60 3.00 17.65 2.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 TOTAL ACROSS Frequency P et. o f Total 106.00 84.80 17.00 13.60 2.00 1.60 125.00 100.00 Unused - 3 45.60 42.40 12.00 69 TABLE 27 A Comparison o f Yes-No Responses by Sex o f the D e s ir a b ility o f a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher Male Female Total 57.00 YES Frequency P et. down P et. o f Total 39.00 56.52 31.20 18.00 32.14 14.00 NO Frequency P et. down P et. o f Total 25.00 36.23 20.00 28.00 50.00 22.40 YES AND NO Frequency P et. down P et. o f Total 5.00 7.25 4 ,0 0 10.00 17.86 8.00 12.00 TOTAL Frequency P et. o f Total 69.00 55.20 56.00 44.80 125.00 100.00 Unused - 3 45.60 53.00 42.40 15.00 TABLE 28 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Years of Experience in Education of the D e s ira b ility of a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 Total YES Frequency Pet. of Total 20.00 16.00 10.00 8.00 13.00 10.40 4.00 3.20 1.00 .80 2.00 1.60 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.40 58.00 46.40 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 18.00 14.40 14.00 11.20 7.00 5.60 6.00 4.80 6.00 4.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 .80 0.00 0.00 52.00 41.60 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 8.00 6.40 2.00 1.60 1.00 .80 2.00 1.60 1.00 .80 0.00 0.00 1.00 .80 0.00 0.00 15.00 12.00 TOTAL Frequency Pet. o f Total 46.00 36.80 26.00 20.80 21.00 16.80 12.00 9.60 8.00 6.40 2.00 1.60 7.00 5.60 3.00 2.40 125.00 100.00 Unused - 3 TABLE 29 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Past Responsibility to the SERL Project of the D e s ira b ility of a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and C linical Consultants University Coordinators None Total YES Frequency Pet. of Total 10.00 7.94 6.00 4.76 6.00 2.38 3.00 2.38 36.00 28.57 58.00 46.03 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 8.00 6.35 4.00 3.17 2.00 1.59 1.00 .79 38.00 30.16 53.00 42.06 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 1.00 .79 3.00 2.38 1.00 .79 0.00 0.00 10.00 7.94 15.00 11.90 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 19.00 15.08 13.00 10.32 6.00 4.76 4.00 3.17 84.00 66.67 126.00 100.00 Unused - 2 TABLE 30 A Comparison of Yes-No Responses by Current Responsibility to the SERL Project of the D e s ira b ility of a Student Teacher Being Involved With More Than One Supervising Teacher Supervising Teachers Student Teachers School Administrators and C linical Consultants University Coordinators None Total YES Frequency Pet. of Total 26.00 20.63 8.00 6.35 10.00 7.94 5.00 3.97 9.00 7.14 58.00 46.03 NO Frequency Pet. of Total 39.00 30.95 6.00 4.76 2.00 1.59 0.00 0.00 6.00 4.76 53.00 42.06 YES AND NO Frequency Pet. of Total 9.00 7.14 4.00 3.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1,59 15.00 11.90 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 74.00 48.73 18.00 14.29 12.00 9.52 5.00 3.97 17.00 13,49 126.00 100.00 Unused - 2 73 Tables 31 through 36 Respondents were asked to s ta te t h e i r reasons fo r endorsing the concept o f a student teach er working w ith more than one supervising te a c h e r. Tables 31 through 36 contain th e responses to th is endorsement. Table 31 in d ic a te s the reasons given f o r in v o lv in g m u ltip le supervising teachers by age. "To gain exposure to more than one philosophy, s ty le o f te a c h in g , and d is c ip lin e " was th e major advantage given by 72% o f the 20-24 age group; 80% o f the 25-29 age group; 63% o f the 30-34 age group; 88% o f the 35-39 age group; 71% o f the 40-44 age group; 67% o f the 45-49 age group; 57% o f the 50-54 age group; and 68% o f the 55-59 and 60-65 age group. "To gain a wide range o f experiences in both major and minor teaching areas" and to "Help student teachers broaden views and to develop f l e x i b i l i t y " were lis t e d by a much s m a lle r percentage o f respondents. Other reasons l i s t e d , although not fr e q u e n tly , were "To give the student teacher an o p p o rtu n ity to develop h is own s ty le o f te a c h in g ," " I t is h e lp fu l," and " I t depends upon the a b i l i t y o f the student te a c h e r." According to Table 32, 70% o f th e m arried persons and 73% o f the s in g le persons agree th a t the most im portant reason f o r the involvement o f more than one supervising teacher Is "To gain exposure to more than one philosophy, s ty le o f te a c h in g , and approach to d is c ip lin e ." S im ila r responses were a l l shown In Table 3 3 , which makes a comparison o f responses by sex; Table 3 4 , which makes a comparison by years o f experience; and Tables 35 and 3 6 , which compare past and present r e s p o n s ib ilitie s to the SERL P ro je c t. 74 The comparisons shown in Table 31 through 36 are a l l e q u a lly supportive o f the reasons f o r involvin g a student teacher w ith more than one su p ervisin g teacher. TABLE 31 A Comparison of Responses by Age of the Major Reasons for Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher 40-44 55-59 60-64 Total Gain exposure to more than one philosophy, style of teaching and approach to d iscip lin e. Frequency 13.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 2.00 Pet. o f Total 18.57 11.43 10.00 10.00 7.14 2.86 5.71 2.86 2.00 2.86 50.00 71.43 Gain a wide range of experiences in both major and minor teaching areas. Frequency 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Pet. o f Total 4.29 2.86 1.43 0.00 0,00 1.43 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.43 9.00 12.86 Help student teachers broaden views and develop f l e x ib i li t y . Frequency 0.00 0,00 2.00 0.00 1.00 Pet. of Total 0.00 0.00 2.86 0.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.29 Other Frequency Pet. of Total 2.00 2.86 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.43 1.00 1.43 0.00 0.00 3.00 4.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.00 10.00 TOTAL Frequency Pet. of Total 18.00 25.71 10.00 14.29 11.00 8.00 11.43 7.00 10.00 3.00 4.29 7.00 10.00 3.00 4.29 3.00 4.29 70.00 100.00 20-24 Unused - 58 25-29 30-34 15.71 35-39 45-49 50-54 76 TABLE 32 A Comparison o f Responses by M a rita l Status o f the Major Reasons f o r Student Teacher Involvement With More Than One Supervising Teacher Married Single Total Gain exposure to more than one philosophy, s ty le o f teaching and approach to d is c ip lin e . 41.00 8.00 Frequency 58.57 11.43 P et. o f Total 49.00 70.00 Gain a wide range o f experiences in both major and minor teaching areas. 7.00 2.00 Frequency 10.00 2.86 P et. o f Total 9.00 12.86- Help student teachers broaden views and develop f l e x i b i l i t y . 3.00 0.00 Frequency 4.29 0.00 Pet. o f Total 3.00 4.29 Other Frequency Pet. o f Total 8 .0 0 11.43 1.00 1.43 9.00 12.86 TOTAL Frequency P et. o f Total 59.00 84.29 11.00 15.71 70.00 100.00 Unused - 58 77 TABLE 33 A Comparison o f Responses by Sex o f the Major Reasons fo r Student Teacher Involvement With With More Than One Supervising Teacher Male Femal e Gain exposure to more than one philosophy, s ty le o f teaching and approach to d is c ip lin e . Frequency 33.00 17.00 24.29 P et. o f T o ta l 47 ,1 4 Total 50.00 71.43 Gain a wide range o f experiences in both m ajor an