INFORMATION TO USERS

This dissertation was produced fro m a m ic ro film copy o f the original docum ent.
W h ile th e most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this
docum ent have been used, th e q u a lity is heavily dependent upon th e q u a lity of
th e original subm itted.
The

fo llo w in g exp lan atio n

o f techniques

is provided

to

help you

understand

markings o r patterns w hich m ay appear on this reproduction.
1.

T h e sign or "ta rg e t" fo r pages apparently lacking fro m th e docum ent
photographed

is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the

missing page(s) or section, th ey are spliced in to th e film along w ith
adjacent pages. This m ay have necessitated cu ttin g th ru an image and
d uplicating adjacent pages to insure you co m p lete c o n tin u ity .
2.

W hen an image on the film
m ark,
copy

it is an
may

is o b literated w ith a large round black

in d icatio n th a t th e photographer suspected th a t th e

have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred

image. Y o u w ill fin d a good image o f th e page in th e adjacent fram e.
3.

When a map, draw ing o r chart, etc., was p art o f th e m aterial being
p h o to g ra p h e d

th e

photographer

"sectioning" th e m aterial.

fo llo w e d

a

d e fin ite

m etho d

in

It is custom ary to begin photoing at the

upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to co ntin u e photoing fro m
le ft

to

right

in

equal sections w ith

a small

overlap.

If necessary,

sectioning is continued again — beginning b e lo w th e firs t ro w and
continuing on u ntil com plete.
4.

T h e m a jo rity of users indicate th a t the te x tu a l co ntent is o f greatest
value,

however,

made fro m
dissertation.

a som ew hat higher q u a lity

"p ho to g rap h s"
Silver

prints

if essential
of

reproduction

could

be

to the understanding o f the

"p ho to g rap h s"

may

be

ordered

at

ad dition al charge by w ritin g th e O rder D ep artm en t, giving th e catalog
num ber, title , au th or and specific pages you wish reproduced.

University Microfilms
300 North Z eeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
A Xerox Education Company

73-5336
BRISCOE, Fredrick George, 1937THE PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS OF FIRST-YEAR
SECONDARY TEACHERS IN SELECTED MICHIGAN PUBLIC
SCHOOLS: A PILOT STUDY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972
Education, curriculum development

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

THE PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS OF FIRST-YEAR
SECONDARY TEACHERS IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
A PILOT STUDY

By
Fredrick George Briscoe

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education

1972

PLEASE NOTE:

Some pages may have
indistinct print.
Filmed as received.
University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company

ABSTRACT

THE PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS OF FIRST-YEAR
SECONDARY TEACHERS IN SELECTED
MICHIGAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS:
A PILOT STUDY
By
Fredrick George Briscoe

The purpose of this study was to identify the
professional concerns of first-year secondary teachers in
selected public schools in Michigan and to relate the
identified concerns to a number of variables.

Specifically,

it was an investigation of differences in concerns among
groups of first-year teachers categorized on the basis of
each of the following factors:
1.
2.

Teaching level
Satisfaction with present teaching level

3.

Average class size

4.

Attendance at in-service meetings

5.

Enrollment in college graduate courses,

6.

Average age of building faculty

7.

Type of community

1971-72

Fredrick George Briscoe

8.

Racial composition of student population

9.

Ages of first-year teachers

10.

Extent of teaching assignment in major field

of

study
11.

Degree of philosophical congruence between self
and fellow teachers,

administrators,

Twenty buildings were selected.

All the first-year

teachers in each building were contacted,
all.

Sixty-five responded.

and communities.

seventy-six in

There were fifty-six usable

r es p o n s e s .
The professional concerns of first-year teachers
were expressed through a four-part questionnaire adminis­
tered during the last month of the school year.

The first

part gathered demographic information about the respondents.
The second part was a rating scale of fifty-one areas of
potential concern.

It asked teachers to indicate the

degree of their concern in each area at the beginning of
the year and at the end.

The third and fourth parts asked

teachers to identify the sources most helpful to them
during their first year,

and to respond to open-ended

questions designed to identify concerns that might not
have been included in the study, as well as elicit their
suggestions for upcoming first-year teachers and for the
improvement of teacher education programs.

Fredrick George Briscoe

Each of eleven hypotheses was tested with a o n e ­
way multivariate analysis of variance.

The results

indicated:
1.

There were no significant differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year secondary
t e a chers:
a.

at the various teaching levels

b.

with varying degrees of satisfaction with
their first-year teaching level

c.

with varying average class sizes

d.

with varying frequencies of attendance at inservice meetings

e.

employed in varying types of communities

f.

in buildings with varying racial compositions

g.

teaching to varying extents in their major
fields of study

h.

with varying degrees of philosophical congruence
between themselves and fellow teachers,
administrators,

2.

and communities.

There were significant differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year secondary
teachers:
a.

with varying ages

b.

with varying average faculty ages

c.

with varying frequencies of enrollment
college graduate courses.

in

DEDICATION

To the memory of my father who was a
man of uncompromising integrity.

To my mother who has spent a lifetime
caring and giving,

always putting others

before herself.

To my brother,

Bob, whose search for new

ideas and creative alternatives to the
status quo has taught me a great deal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is about people— people who had
professional concerns and were willing to share them, to
have them studied.
guidance committee.

It is about people who served on a
It is about people who were ready at

any time to stop everything to help work out many of the
problems I encountered.
Charles A. Blackman,
committee,

as chairman of the guidance

provided invaluable help with his uncanny

ability to help people grow without getting in the way or
abdicating his responsibility as a teacher.

His influence

on my life has been profound.
Samuel S. Corl,

III, as a committee member,

employer, and teacher scholar of the highest order,
contributed immeasurably to my growth.
Robert Docking and Donald Nickerson made committee
meetings times when I was really forced to examine
direction and focus.

Their contributions were extremely

helpful.
Joyce Kohfeldt left the staff at Michigan State
University before this study got underway,
talents and influence are still felt.

iii

but her creative

George Myers very graciously attended the orals in
the absence of a committee member and contributed in a
highly constructive fashion.
Jo Lynn Cunningham was a committee member— e x ­
officio.

Without her this study would never have been

completed.

She provided HOPE when it was needed.

Jack Willsey taught me the meaning of "focus" and
"get going!"
Gini Brown
was ready to

scrap

came to the rescue at a point where I
the whole project.

Her help was

invaluable.
Larry Schaftenaar provided help in another "hour
of n e e d . "
John A. Vargo and Bay Cliff Health Camp permitted
me to

take a leave of absence to finish.
Finally,

I will be eternally grateful to Superin­

tendent H. J. Bothwell and the faculty and staff of the
Marquette

(Michigan)

Public Schools.

Without their trust

and support as I grew into a new job and their continuing
friendship after I left,

I would not have had the confi­

dence to pursue a new venture.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.

Page
INTRODUCTION ..................................
Statement of the Problem
.................
Implications
...............................
Definition of T e r m s ...................
P o p u l a t i o n .............................
Overview of Succeeding Chapters . . . .

II.

III.

7
10
11
13
14

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

15

S u m m a r y .................................

34

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

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

Identification of Variables
..............
Design of the I n s t r u m e n t ............
Selection and Description of
R e s p o n d e n t s ..........................
Administration of the Questionnaire.
. .
Data Analysis Procedures and
Hypotheses to be T e s t e d ............
IV.

1

PRESENTATION OF THE F I N D I N G S ............
Differences in Concerns Among Groups
.....................
First-Year Teachers
Teaching L e v e l ..........................
Satisfaction With Present Teaching
Level .
Average Class S i z e ...................
Attendance at In-Service Meetings
. . .
Enrollment in College Graduate Courses,
1971-72
..................................
Average Age of Building Faculty . . . .
Type of C o m m u n i t y ......................
Racial Composition of Student Population .
Ages of First-Year T e a c h e r s ........

v

37
38
41
44
49
52
57

57
61
62
63
64
66
68
69
71
73

Chapter

Page
Extent of Teaching Assignment in
Major F i e l d ...............................
Philosophical Congruence
.................
The Professional Concerns of FirstYear T e a c h e r s ............................
Supplemental Findings
.....................

V.

SUMMARY,

IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

.

Implications for Teacher Education and
In-Service Education .....................
Limitations of the S t u d y .................
Implications for A c t i o n .....................
Recommendations for Further Research
. .
B I B L I O G R A P H Y .........................................

73
75
76
83
92

95
97
99
101
102

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

The Questionnaire Used to Gather Data
For the S t u d y ...............................

109

B.

Letter to Superintendents.....................

116

C.

Instructions to Dist r i b u t o r s ..................

117

D.

Letter to First-Year Teachers

119

E.

Postcards Returned by Respondents

F.

Tables for Multivariate Analysis
of
V a r i a n c e ......................................

vi

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

.

.

.

120

121

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.

Page
Characteristics of First-Year Teacher
Respondents:
Certification, Degrees and
Granting Institution ............................

2.

Characteristics of First-Year Teacher
Respondents:
Age and S e x ................... 47

3.

Characteristics of First-Year Respondents:
Educational Philosophies of First-Year
Teachers, Their Fellow Teachers, Adminis­
trators, and C o m m u n i t i e s ....................... 48

4.

Characteristics of First-Year Teacher
Respondents:
Levels Now Taught and Levels
Teachers Would Choose to Teach.
. . .
.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

.

46

49

Characteristics of First-Year Teacher
Respondents:
Subjects Taught .................

50

Summary of Multivariate Analyses of Variance
for the Eleven Independent Variables.
. . .

60

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
at Various Teaching Levels .....................

62

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Degrees Satisfaction With
First-Year Teaching Level
.....................

63

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Average Class Sizes ..............

65

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Frequencies of Attendance at
In-Service Meetings
............................

66

Page

Table
11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

F-l.

F-2.

F-3.

F-4.

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
and the Extent of Their Enrollment in
College Graduate Courses, 1971-72 . . . .

68

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
in Buildings With Varying Average Faculty
A g e s .........................................
Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
Teaching in Varying Types of Communities.

69

.

71

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
in Buildings With Varying Racial Compositions
of Student Population ...........................

72

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by FirstYear Teachers of Varying A g e s .................

74

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Extents of Teaching
Assignment in Major Field of Study.
. . .

75

Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Degrees of Philosophical
Congruence Between Self and Others.
. . .

76

Year-End Professional Concerns Expressed by
..............
First-Year Secondary Teachers

77

Sources Ranked "Most Helpful" by First-Year
T e a c h e r s ......................................

91

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
..................................
Teaching Level
Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Satisfaction With First-Year Teaching
L e v e l .........................................
Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Average Class S i z e ..............................
Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Attendance at In-Service Meetings .

.

.

.

121

121

122

122

Table
F-5.

F-6.

F-7.

F-8.

F-9.

Page
Multivariate Analysis of Variance for College
Courses Taken 1971-72 ........................

123

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Average Age of Building F a c u l t y ..............

123

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Type
of C o m m u n i t y ...................................

124

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Racial Composition of Student Population.

124

.

Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Ages
of First-Year T e a c h e r s ........................

125

F - 1 0 . Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Extent of Teaching Assignment in Major
F i e l d .........................................

125

F-ll. Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Philosophical Congruence .....................

126

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Teacher education institutions do not graduate
"finished products."

This is not their intention.

The

very nature of teaching and teacher education makes this
impossible,

for the effective teacher is himself

a continuing learner.

Yet the public schools do not

provide extensive staff or facilities for teacher edu­
cation, especially not for the first-year teacher since
their primary purpose is seen as educating children not
educating teachers.
James B. Conant in his book, The Education of
American T e a c h e r s , says,
. . . In my judgment, no kind of pre-service
program can prepare first-year teachers to operate in
the "sink or swim" situation in which they often find
themselves.
Many local school boards have, I believe,
been scandalously remiss in failing to give adequate
assistance to new teachers.

Teachers

^James B. Conant, The Education of American
(New York:
McGraw Hill, 1963), pi 70.

1

2
The new secondary teacher, on whom this study
focuses, not only lacks an adequate support system to help
make the transition between pre-service education and
initial professional employment, but he has other ad­
justments to make as well.

He is evaluated by his peers

and supervisors for teacher tenure.

He almost always

receives a full class load, generally with more than one
preparation,

and frequently is asked to supervise extra­

curricular activities.
Most initiates survive this year, but it need not
be as unproductive and traumatic as many teachers say it
is.

It also need not be lost as a valuable data-providing

tool.

Teacher educators and in-service planners should be

monitoring the perceptions of these people who can still
recall their undergraduate education courses and student
teaching and, at the same time, offer reactions to their
new environment.

This is not to infer that they have all

the answers, but conversely,
with having no answers,

inexperience is not synonymous

nor is it synonymous with a lack

of ability to raise pertinent questions.
Arthur W. Combs,

in The Professional Education of

T e a c h e r s , states that:
1.

2.
3.

Good teachers perceive their purpose in teaching
as being one of freeing, rather than controlling,
students.
Good teachers tend to be more concerned with larger
rather than smaller issues.
Good teachers are more likely to be self-revealing
than self-concealing.

3
4.
5.

Good teachers tend to be personally involved rather
than alienated.
Good teachers are concerned with furthering
processes rather than achieving goals.
If this is the case, it seems even more imperative

that experiences be provided for first-year teachers that
help them be more open.

It does not follow that permitting

graduates to walk into situations where they face inade­
quate support,

full class loads, and evaluation for job

tenure— all at o nce— is conducive to producing open,
caring teachers.
Previous studies have indicated that first-year
teachers tend to be preoccupied with smaller issues—
lesson plans,
procedures,

seating charts, building rules, grading

lunchroom duty, etc.

be identified systematically,

If these concerns can

perhaps school systems,

working in cooperation with colleges and universities,

can

provide support that will help solve some of the smaller
issues and help teachers work toward improvement and
solution of some of the larger issues.
Why should secondary schools suddenly become
concerned about support systems for first-year teachers
w hen historically this has not been the case?

There are

increasing indications of concern from a number of areas.
In 1965 the National Association of Secondary School

Teachers

^"Arthur W. Combs, The Professional Education of
(Boston:
Allyn & Bacon, I n c . , 1965), p. 85.

4

Principals launched a three-year study, an experimental
demonstration project, on the induction of beginning
teachers.

As an arm of the National Education Association,

they gave nationwide attention to the adjustments and
concerns of beginning teachers.
In Michigan, the State Department of Education has
stated in a proposal to the Board of Education that:
Formal training cannot develop a person fully
competent to deal with all kinds of classroom con­
ditions.
Extended experience with the actualities of
the classroom is necessary to round out teaching
competence.
The first year or two of experience is
a very critical time in the life of the new teacher.
Those who manage to survive either become competent
or inured to the press and demands of teaching.
. . . It is proposed that a state delivery system
be instituted responsible for state-level planning
and coordination of professional development programs.
. . . Reorganized intermediate school districts, in
cooperation with involved local school districts,
appropriate local teacher education institutions, and
teacher associations shall develop for State Board
approval comprehensive plans for professional teacher
development to be provided in addition to the required
180 days of student instruction. JIn 1969 the Michigan Education Association initiated
a two-year study of teacher education programs by the MEA
Teacher Education Task Force

(TETF).

The formation of the

Force was a loud cry for dramatic improvements in the
quality of teacher education.

The resolution directing

the establishment of this task force indicates the degree
of their concern:

John W. Porter, "Recommendations Regarding Teacher
Certification and Professional Development Issues" (To
the State Board of Education of Michigan, Lansing,
October, 19, 1971).

5
Dialogue between the Michigan Education Association
and representatives of all teacher preparation insti­
tutions and student representatives, within the State
of Michigan shall have been initiated . . . and a
mutual agreement reached . . . regarding student
teacher course content, curriculum, certification of
teachers and other negotiable items.
Failure to establish these goals . . . shall
result in all M E A teachers refusing student teachers,
and notification by local MEA leaders to the school
boards through the administration, that such pro­
fessional action is being taken.1
While the MEA TETF study focused on the teacher
preparation programs in Michigan,

it clearly called for

assumption of greater responsibility for first year
teachers by a number of parties,
schools.

including the public

The Task Force stated:

The preparation of prospective teachers is the
joint responsibility of the individual teacher, the
professional associations of which he is a member,
school administrators, the State Department of Ed u ­
cation, and teacher preparation institutions.
The recognition of this responsibility underscores
the state as well as local association concerns to
spell out process, structure, standards, and qoals for
the preparation of prospective teachers.
There is
recognition that continued improvement of the p r o ­
fessional teacher is a lifetime activity.
. . . Further it is the view of the Task Force
that decisions affecting teacher preparation may take
place at three levels:
the local school district, the
geographic region, or the state.
A joint council
should be established to bring the several parties
together for discussion and decision-making p u r p o s e s . 2

■^Michigan Education Association, "Report:
Teacher
Education Task Force," Spring Assembly, 1970.
(Mimeo­
graphed. )
Michigan Education Association, "Teacher Ed u ­
cation Task Force," Official Minutes, October 9, 1969,
East Lansing.
(Mimeographed.)

6
From the October 8, 1969, meeting of the MEA Task
Force five major areas of concern were suggested.

Among

them w a s :
Concern #3.
Continuing Teacher Education After Initial
Certi f i c a t i o n .
Al
Where does responsibility lie for in-service
training during the first years of teaching?
B.
What kinds of experiences should make up a planned
program for continuing certification?
C.
How can student teaching programs and in-service
programs for teachers be tied more closely
together?
D.
Should teacher education programs be planned as
four-year, four-and-3/5-year, or five-year
programs?!
While this was not a major concern of the MEA T E T F , it has
strong implications for the development of programs for
first year teachers and is implied as the next step to a
follow-up of their study recommendations.
One of the strongest positions taken by local
public schools is the statement drafted by the Oakland
County

(Michigan) Curriculum Council in May,

1970:

. . . A reality of education today is that factors
such as federal aid, social and political forces,
teacher organization and bargaining, and the pace of
change in a technologically mushrooming society have
all contributed a growing disparity between "prepa­
ration" and "practice" in public education.
We feel
that the "cutting edge" of educational change has
shifted from colleges of education to field practice
in public school d i s t r i c t s .
. . . Pre-service education courses are frequently
not responsive nor relevant to "real" educational
practices because of inappropriate and deficient
interaction between public school and college p r o ­
fessional staff.
. . . Local school district professional staff
should be involved with university staff in developing

1 Ibid.

7

a variety of "new" models of teacher preparation
programs based upon the foregoing points.
Temporary
Department of Education approval of such models should
then be jointly sought by public school and university
o f f icials.
. . . It will be further recommended . . . that
if no progress is made . . . all field experience
relationships with colleges and universities will be
d iscontinued.^
A first step toward bridging the trainingemployment gap appears to be greater cooperation between
universities and secondary schools in developing programs
for prospective teachers that move sequentially from pr e ­
service to employment and into continuing in-service
programs.

It then seems axiomatic that one way to help

develop such programs is to identify
expressed by first-year teachers,

and

(1) the concerns
(2) the kinds of

support they perceive as having been helpful, or still
needed.

Implicit in all of this is the notion that any

programs developed jointly by public schools and uni­
versities should have built-in renewal processes.

Statement of the Problem
The professional concerns of first-year secondary
teachers in selected public schools in Michigan were
identified in this pilot study.

The concerns expressed

were related to characteristics of
teacher,

(2) the school, and

(1) the first-year

(3) the community.

More

Oakland County Curriculum Council, "Position
Statement on Student Teaching and Pre-Service Education,"
May, 1970.
(Mimeographed.)

8

specifically,

the

study was an investigation of differences

in concerns

among groups of first-year teachers

categorized

on the basis of each of the following eleven factors and
their respective components:
1.

Teaching level
a.

senior high school only

b.

junior high school only

c.

senior high school and junior high school

d.
2.

Satisfaction with present teaching level
a.

desire no change in teaching level

b.

desire to add a teaching level

c.

desire to drop a teaching level

d.
3.

4.

elementary and junior high school

desire a complete change in teaching level

Average class size
a.

fewer than 25 pupils per class

b.

25-29 pupils per class

c.

30 or more pupils per class

Attendance at in-service meetings,

1971-1972

a.

attended no in-service meetings

b.

attended 1 or 2 in-service meetings

c.

attended 3 or more in-service meetings

Enrollment in college graduate courses,

1971-1972

a.

enrolled in no college courses

b.

enrolled in 1 college course

c.

enrolled in 2 or more college courses

Average age of building faculty
a.

under 30 years of age

b.

30-39 years of age

c.

40-49 years of age

d.

50 years of age or older

Type of community
a.

rural

b.

small town

c.

city

d.

suburban

e.

inner city

Racial composition of student population
a.

95-100 per cent white

b.

less than 95 per cent white

Age of first-year teacher
a.

23 years of age or less

b.

24 years of age or more

Extent of teaching assignment in major field of
study
a.

teaching primarily in major

b.

teaching primarily outside major

10
11.

Degree of philosophical congruence between self and
fellow teachers,

administrators,

a.

low discrepancy

b.

moderate discrepancy

c.

high discrepancy

and communities.1

(0-2 points)
(3-4 points)

(5 or more points)

Implications
School administrators and teacher preparation
institutions will be able to use the information provided
by responding first-year teachers as an aid in planning
pre-service and in-service programs.

Because first-year

teachers are untenured and because the supply of teachers
exceeds the demand,

they might be reluctant to respond

candidly to any inventory of concerns generated from
within their school building or system.
possible,

It is quite

then, that a confidential survey conducted by

someone from outside the school system might produce more
valid results and provide information about areas of
concern that would be helpful to school administrators.
On a longer range basis it is hoped that this
study will stimulate public schools to claim for first-year
teacher in-service programs a portion of the funds that
seem forth-coming from the State Department of Education
for professional development.

1Measured by discrepancy score, defined as the
summed deviation scores for fellow teachers, administrators,
and communities in relation to self-rating.

11
Definition of Terms
Professional Concerns were matters expressed by
the participating first-year teachers as problems, potential
problems, or concerns related to their employment, whether
or not they received help or desire help.
of this study,

For the purposes

these concerns were identified in the

structured portion of the questionnaire under two major
categories:

(1) Instruction, and

(2) Personal Relation­

ships .
The major categories were subdivided to include the
following topics:
1.

Instruction
a.

Classroom instruction:
learners,

individualizing instruction, writing

lesson plans,
b.

Dealing with slow

organizing instruction.

Evaluation of s t u d e n t s :

Constructing tests,

interpreting commercially prepared tests,
evaluating individualized instruction,
interpreting teacher-made tests,

implementing

the school's grading system.
c.

Instructional m a t e r i a l s :

Having adequate

instructional materials available, knowing
where to find instructional materials,
operating audio-visual equipment.
d.

Classroom m a n a g e m e n t :

Keeping order in

classes, handling racially mixed classes,

12

establishing classroom operating procedures,
keeping records, managing group dynamics.
2.

Personal Relationships
a.

Teacher/pupil r e l a tionships:

Maintaining

respect, getting to know students as indi­
viduals, having students like the teacher.
b.

Teacher/teacher relat i o n s h i p s :
supportive colleagues,
teachers,

c.

Finding

seeking help from other

getting to know other teachers.

Teacher/principal r e l a tionships:

Handling

administrator observations, getting along with
the principal,

understanding and following

administrative directives.
d.

Teacher/parent relationships:

Conducting

parent conferences, dealing with parent
criti c i s m s .
e.

Professional c o n f i d e n c e :
full-fledged staff member,
faculty meetings,

Being accepted as a
asking questions at

understanding the school's

unwritten rules, knowing what the tenure
evaluation criteria are, achieving tenure.
f.

Teacher/non-instructional p e r s o n n e l :

Dealing

with non-instructional p ersonnel--secretaries,
custodians,

cooks,

etc.

13
First-Year Secondary Teachers were persons holding
Michigan provisional secondary teaching certificates who
began teaching under contract in the fall of 1971, were
completing their first year of teaching and had never been
employed to teach before at any level of public school
service, K-12.

They must have been teaching primarily in

grades 7 -12.^

Population
A representative sample of twenty-five school
buildings was selected for use in this pilot study.

All

of the first-year teachers in each building chosen were
contacted.
The sample of buildings was selected to insure
variety in:
1.

Size of student populations within buildings

2.

Educational philosophy

3.

Racial composition

4.

Rate of teacher turnover

5.

Age of building

6.

Size and type of community

Some teachers of special subjects and areas such
as art, music, physical education or middle school may
have taught classes below the seventh grade level.

Overview of Succeeding Chapters
Literature pertinent to the study will be reviewed
in Chapter II.

Data collection and analysis procedures

will be presented in Chapter III.
presented in Chapter IV.

Findings will be

A summary of the study and its

limitations and recommendations for further research will
comprise Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Dear Son John:
'A wise son maketh a glad f a t h e r , '
but for a foolish son a dad takes no blame.
Whether I
shall be glad or have to place the responsibility for
your failure on Mother, your experience during the
next nine months will determine.
In spite of your good record as a student in
Normal Teachers College, you are only half-baked.
If
ignorance of the real tricks of the teaching trade
were a crime, you should be shot at sunrise!
Don't
think that I am so ungallant as to strike your poor
old Alma Mater while she is down.
She has followed
faithfully the traditional ruts of Psychology,
Principles of Education, History of Education, School
Hygiene, Methods, School Administration, Educational
Psychology, and similar "Sciences"; but what doth it
profit a pedagog to know all of these and follow them
from his youth, if he fall into a bottomless pit
digged by a practical dirt politician?
Rah, Rah,
Rah, Alma Mater! for filling you with such high
powered dope before sending you out into the cold,
cold, world.
The more of such learning you can hitch
to your teaching the better.
What you learned will
not hurt you; but I want to invite your attention to
what you didn't learn.1
And so a father admonishes his son before his
first year of teaching begins.
initiate.

Advice abounds for the

From pedagogs to hard-boiled teachers,

formulas,

George Miller, Letters from a Hard-Boiled
Teacher to His Half-Baked"Son (Washington, D . C . : The
Daylion C o . , 1935), pp. 3-4.

15

16
cautions,

reminiscences,

narrations and dissertations— all

offer keys to success or analyses of failure.
There are universal themes running through all the
literature about first-year teachers.

Examples include:

When I began teaching, I was confident that I was
ready to do a reasonably good job. . . . But once
hired and assigned to my first position, I was
literally abandoned to the isolation of my own
classroom.
My only guides were textbooks and courses
of study.1
Public school teachers go through a double
socialization process. . . . The second phase of the
socialization process begins as new teachers enter
the "real" teaching world as full-time members of a
school organization.
Here neophytes may suddenly
be confronted with a set of organizational norms and
values at variance with those acquired in formal
preparation; that is, the internalized ideal images
of the teacher role may be in conflict with the norms
and values of the school subculture.2
For years too many beginning high school teachers
have been left to their own devices, and too many
have become lost and crushed in the shuffle.3
I do feel that I've played this whole school
year by ear, though.
My training didn't prepare me
to be a teacher.
Oh, I had courses on putting up
bulletin boards, my professors gave me advice like,
'Join all three education associations, local, state,
and n a t i o n a l , ' and I have frequently drawn upon
information learned in music and reading courses,

Vern Archer, Roy Edelfelt, and Herbert Hite,
"POINT Points the Way," NEA Journal, LIV (October, 1965),
29.
2

Wayne K. Hoy, "Influence of Experience on the
Beginning Teacher," The School Review, LXXVI (September,
1968), 315.
3
Paul Marashio, "A Proposal for Helping the
Beginning Teacher," The Clearing House, XLV (March, 1971),
419.

17
but for the most part, my methods courses provided
no practical information on how to run a classroom.^
. . . There are many reasons for this exodus of
young people from the teaching profession.
It would
seem that one of the main reasons is that their four
years of college training is of such a nature that it
does not give them practical experience or knowledge
of the problems they will confront as beginning
t e a c h e r s .2
Many other themes occur and reoccur with pr e ­
dictable regularity.

Because this study focuses on the

identification of professional concerns of secondary
teachers, this review of pertinent literature will assume
a similar focus.

Not only will it provide an historical

perspective of teacher concerns,

it will provide help in

the design of instruments to identify teacher concerns
as well as give a framework in which to compare the newly
identified concerns.
reference,

As a means of providing points of

this review will also include the suggestions

made over the years for the improvement of teacher
induction as well as pre-service and in-service programs.
With one exception the literature discussed here
will be from the post-1950 era.

LX

The one exception is in

^ N E A , "The Beginning Teacher," Today 1s E d u c a t i o n ,
(September, 1971), 55.
2

Herbert Wey, "The Difficulties of Student
Teachers and Beginning Teachers as a Basis for the
Improvement of Teacher Education," Educational Adminis­
tration and Superv i s i o n , XXVII (February, 1951), 98.

18

the form of a delightful,

and in many ways still-current,

book with the unscholarly title of Letters from a HardBoiled Teacher to His Half-Baked S o n , by George Miller,
introducing this chapter.
The bulk of the attention paid to first year
teachers is found in periodicals.

Books and disser-.

tations vie for second place quantitatively.

In the post-

1950 era 1963-1968 seems to be the big period for ex­
amining first-year teacher problems.

The 1965 Conference

of the National Commission on Teacher Education and
Professional Standards was the culmination of eight
regional conferences conducted during 1963-1964 on the
topic,

"The Real World of the Beginning Teacher."

The

report of this conference published in 1966 presents
a variety of perspectives on the "real world of teaching."
The National Association of Secondary School
Principals devoted 155 pages of its October,
to the beginning teacher.

1968 Bulletin

This was part of the coverage

given to their three-year Project on the Induction of
Beginning Teachers.
The October 1965 issue of the NEA Journal

(now

T o d a y 1s E d ucation) devoted one full section of four
articles to the beginning teacher.
These reports provided broad national coverage for
a frequently recurring issue.

Preceding these articles

and studies, however, was the largest and most comprehensive

19

national study done of first-year teachers.

The Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare surveyed new teachers
in the public schools during 1956-1957.

Their findings,

published in the book, Beginning T e a c h e r , provide a vast
array of data about neophytes,

their backgrounds,

their

preparation for teaching, economic status, home and
community situation,
with teaching

occupational values,

satisfaction

(broadly d e f i n e d ) , and career commitment.

Professional concerns, however, were not isolated or
defined.
One large work that studied the whole profession—
including a section on new teachers— was Huggett and
Stinnett's Professional Problems of T e a c h e r s .

The unit

on first-year teacher problems, however, dealt with job
considerations,
freedoms,

ethics,

salary,

living conditions,

application forms, personal

and similar issues as opposed

to actual in-the-classroom concerns.^
Eye and Lane in their book also dealt with teacher
problems,

again from the job application and pre-service

perspective,

although they did cover such topics as "The

Cruel Treatment of Newcomers," where

Glen Eye and Willard Lane, The New Teacher Comes
to School (New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers,
1956), p. 66.

20
There has been an inclination for the receiving
group to place full responsibility upon the newcomer
to measure up to its expectations. . . . The newcomer
knew that he was being judged, but he did not know
the measures being applied.1
"Disparities in Teaching Loads, Equipment,

and

Room Assignments," and "Traditions and Hidden Policy" were
also treated.

A substantial portion of this text dealt

with a school's induction responsibilities,

not only in

completely informing the teacher before he is hired, but
following up with help and,

just as important,

"stimu­

lating the community to identify its obligations in the
inducation of new teachers and fulfill its appropriate
function."

2

Finally,

among the books dealing with first-year

teachers was So You Want to Be a T e a c h e r .

In its chapter,

"Guide Posts for Your First Job," readers were advised about
teaching in a rural school, a small town, and a city,
about self-analysis,
students'

flexibility,

and concern with

problems along with other hints.^

All of these works were written in eras when
there was a tremendous teacher shortage.

It seems ironic

that when the potential average was so great, teachers

■'‘Glen Eye and Willard Lane, The New Teacher Comes
to School (New York:
Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1956),
p. 66.
2 I b i d ., p. 186.

York:

3
Paul Gelinas, So You Want to Be a Teacher (New
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965), pp. 106-28.

were being told to roll with the punches and be prepared
for the "poor deals" first-year teachers frequently
received.

The literature revealed a tendency on the part of

authors to generalize about teacher problems and their
s o lutions.
At the other end of the spectrum several studies
sharply reversed this trend.
study,

Frank T. Lane,

in his doctoral

followed 106 beginning teachers during their first

semester with periodic tabulations of their problems.
These teachers "report a plurality of causes for more than
two-thirds of their problems

. . „ college preparation is

the primary cause of problems within three major cate­
gories for which beginners express the greatest concern
('Non-Disciplinary Provision for Children,'
Instruction,

and Control,

" . . .

and

i.e., Discipline')."1

(1) pressure of planning,

(3) clerical work,

'Methods of

(2) marking,

(4) controlling classes,

(5) time,

(6) finances" were listed as the "components com­

prising pressure" by first-year secondary intern teachers
studied by H. Bernard Miller.

2

He indicated that:

1Frank T. Lane, "A Study of the Professional
Problems Recognized by Beginning Teachers and Their
Implications for a Program of Teacher Education (at State
University of New York Teachers College at Brockport)
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New York
at Stonybrook, 1954).

2

H.
Bernard Miller, "An Analysis of Empirically
Selected Components of Pressure, Difficulty and Satis­
faction Reported by Beginning Secondary School Intern

22
Planning was ranked both the most frequent and
strongest source of pressure.
Interns reported
difficulty in (1) dealing with student misbehavior,
(2) finding ways to vary lessons, (3) going slowly
and simply enough for their students, (4) evaluating
student performance, and (5) analyzing aspects of
their teaching p e r f o r m a n c e .^
One hundred graduates of East Texas State Un i ­
versity were surveyed extensively by Thomas Allan Clinton
in 1965 to identify their problems during the first year
of teaching.

The survey covered the following areas

(as

determined by Clinton's extensive pre-study investi­
gation) :
1.

2.

3.
4.
5.

6.

School organization and relations— philosophy of
the school, objectives of the school, orientation
and assignment, curriculum, physical facilities,
classroom management, public relations, guidance
activities, interpersonal communications, adminis­
trative supervision, schedule;
Instructional activities— planning, materials and
resources, individual planning, materials and
resources, individual differences, motivation,
methods and techniques, evaluation of teachinglearning process (pupil progress, testing, grades),
knowledge of subject matter;
Discipline;
Non-instructional activities;
Teacher relationships— teacher-board of education,
teacher-superintendent-teacher-principal, teacherstaff, teach e r - p u p i l , teacher-parent, teachercommunity;
Professional development--membership and activities,
professional reading, future plans, teacher morale,
suggestions for improving teacher education
p r o g r a m s .2

Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D.
versity, 1970) .

dissertation, Temple Un i ­

1Ibid.
2
Problems:

Thomas Allan Clinton, "Beginning Teachers'
A Study of Problems Encountered by One

23

In the first Ohio State University follow-up
study to include analysis of beginning secondary teachers'
problems, Margaret Vesey contacted fifty-seven teachers
to determine "the problems,

satisfactions,

adequacy of

preparation and effectiveness of beginning teachers."
She found that:
secure in

"(1) The beginning teacher felt least

(a) meeting individual differences,

discipline,

and

(b) handling

(c) using a variety of teaching met h o d s . " 1

Edward Stone identified the most important
problems of junior and senior high school teachers
decreasing order of frequency)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

(in

as:

Motivating adolescents to achieve to their capacity;
Handling discipline problems in the classroom;
Teaching retarded or slower classes;
Establishing rapport with pupils while still
maintaining authority;
Accepting the erratic behavior and unpredictable
emotional reactions peculiar to the adolescent;
Finding time to do everything expected;
Understanding what should be taught;
Evaluating and reporting pupil achievement on
report cards;
Finding time for clerical activities;
Finding time for planning and preparation;
Being aware of the usual patterns of classroom
management used in the school.2

Hundred Graduates of East Texas State University and the
Functional Relationship Between These Problems and the
Teacher Education Program" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
East Texas University, 1965).
1Margaret Alice Vesey, "A Field Follow-Up Study of
Beginning Secondary School Teachers" (Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1957) .
2

Edward H. Stone, "Personal and Professional
Problems Recognized by Beginning Junior and Senior High
School Teachers and the Relationship of the Number of
These Problems to Personal Characteristics, Professional
Preparation, Teaching Assignment and Career Plans" (Un­
published Ed.D. dissertation, University of Denver, 1963) .

24

An interesting note is that new junior high school teachers
experienced four problems with significantly greater
frequency than did senior high school teachers.

The

problems were:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Accepting the erratic behavior and unpredictable
emotional reactions peculiar to the adolescent;
Accepting the adolescent's intense loyalty to
peers and his drive for emancipation from adults;
Establishing rapport with pupils while still
maintaining authority;
Handling discipline problems in the classroom.
As the title suggests, Gaylord Eugene Moller's

"A Comprehensive Study of the Problems of Beginning
Teachers in Selected Large Senior High Schools"

is the

most comprehensive of the studies reported in this
chapter.
(1)
Motivating students to satisfactory achievement
was by far the most frequently reported beginning
teacher problem.
(a) Activities pertaining to
classroom instruction (student motivation, grading,
meeting individual differences, discipline, working
with low-ability students, finding a satisfactory
speed for covering course material, making satis­
factory tests, lack of teaching creativity, tendency
to "talk over students' heads") were the most serious
problems reported.^
Among his other findings,
Beginning female teachers reported more problems
than beginning male teachers. . . . Fellow teachers
provided more help for new teachers than any other

1I b i d .
2

Gaylord Eugene Moller, "A Comprehensive Study of
the Problems of Beginning Teachers in Selected Large
Senior High Schools" (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
University of Nebraska, 1968).

25
source. . . . Novice teachers wanted more supervisory
help than they were receiving.!
Between the books which tended to over-generalize
about teacher concerns and dissertations which tended to
go directly to the source for identifying specific pr o ­
fessional problems lay a large body of literature, mainly
periodical, which covered the range between.

Needless

to say, not all books tended to over-generalize and not
all dissertations were surveys of specific problems.
Thus, while the remaining literature generally fell
between,

there was still overlap at both ends.

The range

of ideas and suggestions in the periodical literature was
as varied as the authors.
John Stout, on the one hand listed the "Deficiencies
of Beginning Teachers."

Thomas Butler on the other hand,

listed the "Satisfactions of Beginning Teachers."

Samples

of their remarks were:
Outstanding among basic weaknesses of beginning
teachers is their lack of understanding of the children
to be taught. . . . Don't recognize individual differ­
ences, they expect too much of their pupils, don't
expect enough of their students, don't understand
children.2
An analysis of . . . replies reveals that the most
satisfied teachers listed twenty-seven positive
statements concerning their administrators and super­
visors and only two negative statements. . . . Samples
of the positive replies from satisfied teachers were:

1I b i d .
2

John B. Stout, "Deficiencies of Beginning
Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, III (March,
44.

1952),

26

'I have supervisors who are broad-minded, under­
standing, and want to help,' and 'teachers are
supported by a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 1
Another author pleading the beginning teachers'
exclaimed:
With all the frustrations and obstacles we place
in the path of beginning teachers, it is a minor
miracle that any remain in the profession. . . .
Until we do everything we possibly can really to aid
beginning teachers, many more will become demoralized
and leave the profession.
American education can ill
afford such a tragic wa s t e . 2
Public schools were under fire once more from
Wilbur Yauch who, even in an era of great teacher shortage,
pleaded for greater concern for teacher induction:
It is blithely assumed that the teachers college
will adequately take care of all aspects of the p r o ­
fessional preparation for teaching. . . The only
hopeful solution to this apparent dilemma is for the
teacher education institution to concentrate on the
general preparation of teachers, and then to work
cooperatively with specific school systems in their
efforts to orient new teachers.3
Again motivated by a period of critical teacher
shortage,

the case for follow-through with first-year

teachers was presented by Robert Strickler who cited the
NEA:

^"Thomas Butler, "Satisfactions of Beginning
Teachers," Clearing H o u s e , XXXVI (September, 1961), 11-13,
2

Carl 0. Olson, Jr., "Let's Stop Demoralizing
Beginning Teachers," Peabody Education J o u r n a l , XLVI
(July, 1968), 23.
3

Wilbur A. Yauch, "Helping the New Teacher to
Succeed," Educational Forum. XX (November, 1955), 37-38.

27

One of the most effective ways to meet the teacher
shortage is to decrease the annual demand for
replacement of the teachers who quit. . . . In
truth, increased efforts to retain good teachers
can strike a telling blow at the teacher shortage.^
In descending order of difficulty,
(2) relations with parents,
evaluation,
and

(5) planning,

(1) discipline,

(3) methods of teaching,

(4)

(6) materials and resources,

(7) classroom routines were problems listed by seventy-

eight teachers

from the 1960 Queens College class studied

by Dropkin and Taylor.

They also reported that a city-

suburban difference appeared in the areas of discipline,
materials and resources,

and classroom routines.

City

teachers felt that their problems were more severe in
these areas than did suburban teachers.

2

A continuing interest in beginning teachers has
been expressed in both book and periodical by Willard
Abraham.

In "How Are Your New Teachers Doing Now?" he

asked schools to keep in touch with first-year teachers
throughout the year, especially after the "glow has
begun to wear off a bit,

and she has to have help in

Robert W. Strickler, "Follow-Through With the
First-Year Teacher," Educational Administration and
S u p e r vision, XLV (January, 1^53) , T~.
2

Stanley Dropkin and Marvin Taylor, "Perceived
Problems of Beginning Teachers and Related Factors,"
Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (December, 1963), 389.

28

recognizing that thousands of others have problems
similar to those she is facing."1
Nineteen factors were identified by two Northern
Illinois University staff members as factors influential
in the resignation of first-year teachers.

In this 1963

study they listed:
(1) Salary, (2) teaching loads, (3) assignments
beyond regular classroom teaching, (4) inadequate
supervision, (5) poor assignments given to first-year
teachers, (6) discipline problems are often placed in
the classes of beginning teachers, (7) pressure
groups, (8) poor mental hygiene, (9) marriage, (10)
inadequate preparation of major or minor field of
study or knowledge of subject, (11) inability to
handle classes, (12) unfair teacher evaluation, (13)
inadequate facilities, (14) poor faculty relation­
ships, (15) lack of opportunity to develop new ideas,
(16) routine clerical duties, (17) competition between
schools and industry for trained personnel, (18) poor
school boards, (19) heal t h . 2
Wallace Morris,

in a 1951 study of 136 newly

inducted teachers measured the relative difficulty of the
twenty-five problems most frequently encountered.
this group,

Among

the top ten listed in descending order of

difficulty were:
(1)
problem of gaining a clear and workable
understanding of the school's philosophy and objectives,
(2) conditions of w o r k — inadequate materials, (3)
demands for teacher's time and energy after school
hours, (4) learning administrative routines, reports
and procedures, (5) inadequate salary— not able to

1Willard Abraham, "How Are Your New Teachers Doing
Now?" Educational L e a d e r s h i p , XI (February, 1954), 311-15.
2

Robert H. Nelson and Michael Thompson.
"Why
Teachers Quit," The Clearing House, XXXVII (April, 1963),
467-72.

29

meet community standards of living, (6) disciplinary
problems, (7) conditions of wor k — inadequate building
facilities, (8) teacher-class load, (9) gaining an
understanding of the school's system of evaluating
pupil achievement, (10) problem of securing pleasant
living accommodations.
What were beginning teachers saying?
I would say the teacher shouldn't smile until
after he's midway through the second semester.
I
just began to get into the swing of things about
March.
I felt I had everything under control by then
and that I would make it by J u n e . 2
I found the other staff a great help. . . . As
it was I found myself regularly discussing my problems
with the other teachers.^
If I'd been able to read Up the Down Staircase a
year ago, before I began my first year of teaching,
my class probably never would have had a certain
vocabulary drill and I might have been spared a few
bad m o m ents.4
Spend as much time in a classroom ds possible
before you take over your own class and collect as
much resource material as you c a n . 5

Wallace Morris, "Problems Experienced by 136
Teachers During Their Induction Into Service," North
Central Association Q u a r t e r l y , XXV (January, 1951), 292.
2

"The Beginning Teacher," Today's E d u c a t i o n , LX
(September, 1971), 57.
3

Simon Jenkins, "Reflections on that First Year:
Interviews," Times Educational Suppl e m e n t , 2782 (September,
1968), 448.
^Robert St. Germain, "I Was an Innocent in the
Classroom," NEA Journal, LIV (October, 1965), 21.
5

"The Beginning Teacher," Today's E d u c a t i o n , LX
(September, 1971), 59.
(Statement by interviewee, Rosa
Lee, Colorado.

30
To new teachers I would say that all book learning
and all those courses don't amount to a thing unless
you have the soul, or the human understanding to deal
with children.
Don't think just because you've got
that B.S. or M.S. or whatever that you've got it made.
Remember you're working with human beings.i
What has been done to help?

As far back as 1954,

Curtis E. Nash described efforts to help first-year
teachers:
. . . the college has in each of the past two years
sponsored a one-day, on-campus conference for firstyear teachers. . . . According to . . . reports and
evaluation sheets received from the teachers, faculty,
members, and school administrators, these conferences
have been very successful.2
In Hawaii a fifth-year teacher internship was
begun in 1966 where the education majors were recognized
as regular employees of the Department of Education rather
than as college students.

The primary aim of the program

was to assist the beginning teacher in his professional
and personal growth as he entered the profession."

This

project assumed that the transition from student to
teacher is a critical one and should be met with adequate
resources to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
In a similar spirit,

the Project on the Induction of

1Ibid.
2

Curtis E. Nash, "A Conference for First-Year
Teachers," The Journal of Teacher E d u c a t i o n , V (December,
1954), 321.
3

Daniel S. Noda, "Beginning Teacher Development in
H a w a i i ," National Association of Secondary School Princi­
pals B u l l e t i n , LII (October, 1968), 63.

31
Beginning Teachers

(sponsored by the NASSP and mentioned

earlier in this chapter)

attempted to give new teachers

some "extra time and extra help so that they might learn
more effectively those things about teaching and the
school that can be learned only on the job."*

First-year

teachers in the three schools selected for the project
had their teaching load reduced by one class period.
A cooperating teacher

(who also had a similarly reduced

classload) was selected to advise the "neophyte."
Assistance in finding instructional material was provided,
as well as information about the community,
and school policies.

school body

2

N ew York State tackled first-year teacher problems
by training a master teacher to aid these fledglings in a
team situation.

Master teachers were trained in a six-

week summer workshop.

This program was unique from all the

others discussed in this chapter because it was "quasitherapeutic in nature";

that is it provided a climate of

trust among a team of people where problems could be
discussed in a setting where "without fear" was the key

*Patricia Swanson, "A Time to Teach— and A Time to
Learn," National Association of Secondary School Principals
Bu l l e t i n , LIT (October, 1968), 63.
2Ibid.

32

phrase.^"

No confidences were violated and no adminis­

trators were present.
In Salem, New Hampshire,

a program to help

beginning teachers was developed that consisted of a
four-part in-service training program:
(2)

interaction analysis,

(1) internship,

(3) seminars,

(4) observations.

According to teacher reports the project was extremely
helpful.2
The National Commission on Teacher Education and
Professional Standards
Association
(WEA)

(NCTEPS) of the National Education

(NEA) and the Washington Education Association

shared responsibility for the genesis of P OINT—

Project for the Orientation and Induction of New Teachers.
This project was designed on the premises
. . . that teacher education institutions need to
extend their responsibility into the beginning years
of teaching, that beginning teachers should be
inducted gradually into teaching and should, there­
fore, carry lighter teaching loads, that they should
have expert supervision and guidance, that they should
be introduced and exposed to the work of their p r o ­
fessional associations and learned societies and that
they should be helped to analyze and evaluate their
own strengths and weaknesses.^

Cecelia McGinnis, "The Beginning Teacher Project
in New York State," National Association of Secondary
School Principals B u l l e t i n , LII (October, 1^68), 44-48.
2

Paul Marashio, "A Proposal for Helping Beginning
Teachers," The Clearing H o u s e , XLV (March, 1971), 419-21.
3
Vern Archer, Roy Edelfelt, and Herbert Hite,
"POINT Points the Way," NEA Journal, LIV (October, 1965),
29-30.

33
POINT included numerous sub-projects designed to
explore ways to help the new teacher.

These were developed

and approved in such a way that there was a strong
evaluation section built into each proposal.
In 1966, the Cleveland public schools initiated a
program in their English departments to help new teachers
adjust, particularly at the junior high level.

Two regular

classroom teachers were released to provide help.
these teachers,

One of

the author of a Clearing House article

describing the program,

stated that

. . . as my position became more clearly defined and
as I became a more familiar figure in the schools,
rapport seemed to be more easily maintained.
I was
able to devote time to assisting teachers in their
planning and thereby supplement or reinforce the
guidance of their department chairmen.^
Anthony Mangione reported that "the beginning
teacher needs help in lesson planning;

in establishing and

in maintaining classroom rapport and management;
selecting and in using materials;
performance and his pupils',
munity."

2

in

in evaluating his own

in understanding the com-

He then succinctly offered advice in each of

these areas.

Ronald J. Goodrich, "Advisory Teacher Program
Benefits Beginning Teachers," The Clearing H o u s e , XLIV
(September, 1969), 12-15.
2
Anthony Roy Mangione, "Advice for Beginning
Teacher," The Clearing House, XLIV (September, 1969),
41-42.

34

Summary
An historical perspective of professional concerns
of first-year teachers has been the focus of this chapter.
These concerns were seen through the eyes of professional
educators— university faculty and public school
administrators— as well as first-hand through the
narrations and experiences of first-year teachers
themselves.
Chronologically examined professional concerns
changed in priority as the years passed and school
climates changed.

In addition there were increasing

pleas for programs that w o r k — programs that make a differ­
ence for the new teacher.
Conant suggested that in addition to the uni­
versity's responsibility,
. . . during the initial probationary period, local
school boards should take specific steps to provide
the new teacher with every possible help in the form
of (a) limited teaching responsibility; (b) aid in
gathering instructional materials; (c) advice of
experienced teachers whose own load is reduced so
that they can work with the new teacher in his own
classroom; (3) shifting to more experienced teachers
those pupils who create problems beyond the ability
of the novice to handle effectively; and (e) special­
ized instruction concerning the characteristics of
the community, the neighborhood, and the students he
is likely to encounter.!

1James B. Conant, The Education of American
Teachers (New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc.,
1963), pp. 70-71.

35
This, perhaps more than any other statement has
set the tone and frequently,

the focus,

for induction

programs in public schools.

It also provided incentives

for those who wished to continue studying the first-year
teacher as a means not only to give attention to an
important facet of the education of the American teacher,
but to provide continuing feedback for pre-service and
in-service programs.
A significant omission was apparent in the liter­
ature.

Despite repeated studies,

recommended solutions,

recurring concerns and

none of the studies proposed ways

to build in processes that would help educators continually
refine and up-date the data they have regarding first-year
teacher concerns.
There are a number of ways that this study differed
from those reviewed earlier in the chapter as well.
Clinton study,^ for example,

The

included a very detailed

survey of student problems that was similar to this
research.

A significant difference lay, however,

in the

inclusion in the present study of a section of open-ended
questions as well as a measure of degrees of concern both
at the beginning of the year and at the end.

Moller's

study showed that fellow teachers provided more help for
new teachers than any other source,

^Clinton, op. c i t .

2

2

but it did not list

Moller,

op. c i t .

36

in detail other sources and their ratings for helpfulness.
This information is of particular value to in-service and
pre-service planners who need to marshal the most effective
resources possible to help prospective and newly-inducted
teachers.
Many of the studies

(e.g., Frank T. Lane and

Thomas Allan Clinton)^ identified concerns which were in
turn used to determine implications for teacher education
at a particular university.

This study, however,

assumed

a community focus rather than a university focus.

It

attempted to broaden the examination of concerns to include
their relationship to selected variables such as racial
composition of school population,
average age of building faculty,

community philosophy,
and satisfaction with

teaching level.
The differences in concerns among teachers are the
result of the interaction of a number of variables,

thus

there is value in considering as broad a range of possible
influences as possible.

While cause and effect relation­

ships cannot be defined,

the data generated provides a

means of examining the ranges of differences that exist
with implications for a systems approach to studying
conce r n s .

^Lane and Clinton,

op. c i t .

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE

The purpose of this study was to identify the
professional concerns of first-year secondary teachers in
selected public schools in Michigan and to relate these
concerns to a number of variables.

The intent of this

chapter is to describe how the variables were selected,
how the concerns were identified, how the instruments to
identify them were developed and administered,
sample schools were chosen,

how the

and how the data collected

are to be analyzed.
Walter Borg says that the "purpose of descriptive
research in education is to tell

'what is.'"

He adds that

. . . although the major function of descriptive
studies in education will probably always be directed
to "what is," many surveys do go further. . . .
Surveys . . . can obtain information not only about
strengths and weaknesses of the current curriculum
[for e x a m p l e ] , but can also elicit recommendations
for change.
Many of the more recent surveys give
us both a description of current status and a source
of ideas for change and i m p r o vement.1

^Walter Borg, Educational Research
David McKay Company, I n c ., 1963), p. 203.

37

(New York:

38

It was the purpose of this study to tell "what is" as
the first step toward determining "what is good" and
"what is better."

Identification of Variables
The instrument developed to gather information for
this study has four major parts.
1.

The objectives were:

To gather demographic and descriptive information
about the r e s p o n d e n t s ;

2.

To determine the degree of concern teachers felt
about fifty-one potential problem areas at the
beginning of the school year and at the end of the
school year;

3.

To determine those sources which were most helpful
to the first-year teachers;

4.

To seek:
a.

advice for new teachers,

b.

ways to help these teachers,

c.

recommendations for improving teacher edu­
cation courses,

d.

and

concerns that may not have been included
elsewhere in the questionnaire.

A review of the literature and interviews with
teachers,

administrators,

researchers,

and university

staff all played a role in defining those variables to

39

be used.

In addition, other variables not used in the

study were included for use in future supplemental
studies.
The variables used were:
1.

Demographic and descriptive information about the
respondents:
a.

grade(s)

taught

b.

subject(s)

c.

grade (s) respondent would choose to teach

d.

number of classes taught in major field

e.

number of classes taught in minor field

f.

number of daily class preparations

g.

number of extra-curricular responsibilities

h.

number of in-service programs offered

i.

number of in-service programs attended

j.

number of college courses taken this year

k.

grade levels taught in respondent's building

1.

average age of faculty in building

m.

certification status

n.

degree(s)

o.

major(s)

p.

type of community

q.

racial composition of school

r.

age of building

taught

(secondary provisional)

held
and minor(s)

40
s.

2.

educational philosophies
1.

respondent

(self)

2.

administration

3.

fellow teachers

4.

community

t.

sex of respondent

u.

age of respondent

The extent to which first-year teachers perceived
problems at the beginning of the year and at the
end of the year in these a r e a s :
a.

b.

3.

instruction
1.

classroom instruction

2.

evaluation of students

3.

instructional materials

4.

classroom management

personal relationships
1.

teacher/pupil relationships

2.

teacher/teacher relationships

3.

teacher/principal relationships

4.

teacher/parent relationships

5.

professional confidence

6.

non-instructional personnel

Identification of sources which were helpful in
the areas of:
a.

classroom management

b.

grading students

41

I

4.

c.

planning for instruction

d.

adjusting to the job

e.

dealing with parents

f.

teaching subject area

g.

finding instructional materials

Identification of the ways teachers completing
their first-year in the classroom would help
prospective first-year teachers:
a.

if they could give new teachers advice before
they entered the classroom

b.

if they were principals

c.

if they could change teacher education courses

d.

by listing other concerns not covered in the
questionnaire.

Design of the Instrument
The variables of interest,

including the p r o ­

fessional concerns of teachers, were identified by means
of a four-part,

seven-page questionnaire

(see Appendix A ) .

The first three parts comprised the structured portion of
the instrument.

The fourth part consisted of four open-

ended questions.
One of the major questions that had to be resolved
in the instrument design was how to cover a broad range
of concerns without "leading" the respondent.
could conclude that an open-ended,
naire would be best.

One

"essay-type" q u e stion­

On the other hand, with this

42

type of approach, one could end up with little or nothing
from respondents who could not think of any problems at
the moment, or who would think of them long after the
questionnaire had been completed.

The researcher would

also have an enormously difficult,

if not impossible,

task of trying to classify or standardize responses to
permit comparison and analysis.

The mechanics alone of

having to write lengthy responses might be a serious
handicap.

It was decided to combine tactics and provide a

structured portion in which a respondent could react to a
pre-determined series of items which would constitute the
major focus of the study as well as to open-ended items
which would provide a great deal of latitude and allow
for individual differences.

This would insure uniform

coverage of a number of important issues, permit systematic
analysis of data, yet not completely box in the respondent.
Once this was decided,

the next question became:

What topics should be included in the structured portion
of the questionnaire?

And, of course, what should the

open-ended questions be?

Building the content and format

of the questionnaire became a seven-step process:
1.

Reviewing the literature;

2.

Interviewing ten second-year teachers;

3.

Writing the first draft of the instrument;

4.

Presenting the rough draft to five experienced
teachers and five administrators for reaction;

43
5.

Revising the rough draft;

6.

Presenting the revision to the following groups:

7.

a.

five first-year teachers,

b.

a panel of university staff from three areas:
1.

curriculum,

2.

secondary education,

3.

research;

Developing the final copy of the questionnaire.
The review of literature provided the "what has

been" as the logical antecedent in the search for "what
is."

It identified recurring themes that warranted

inclusion in the present study.

It also showed that

although a theme reoccurred it did not necessarily retain
the same degree of importance.

Salary as a concern,

for

example, diminished as a concern, while classroom control,
increased as a concern through the years.
Interviews with second-year teachers were the
next step.

While these teachers had lost much of the

detail of their first year,

they retained enough of a

global perspective to be able to share some of the major
concerns that they had felt.
The experienced teachers and administrators
provided breadth and depth through their very pertinent

44
questions and criticism.

Much redundancy was avoided

because of their helpful reactions.

The language of

several areas was simplified as well.
First-year teachers reacted favorably;

they added

no concerns, but did encourage revision of the directions
to Part II, the identification of concerns.

Their

responses indicated that the instrument was eliciting the
information sought.

None of the "trial run" first-year

teachers was used in the final study.

Selection and Description
of Respondents
First-year teachers were the subjects studied in
this research.

In defining the sample,

a representative

sampling process was chosen in an attempt to insure as
varied a sample as possible.

The sample was actually

based on the selection of buildings.

Then,

all the first-

year teachers in each building were contacted.
The geographic areas from which the buildings
would be selected were named first.
western Michigan;

One was central,

the other was the central and western

upper peninsula of Michigan.

Staff members from area

university education departments who were familiar with
the schools were asked to identify schools which would
provide a variety of characteristics including:

45
1.

Size of student populations within buildings,

2.

Educational philosophy,

3.

Racial composition,

4.

Rate of teacher turnover,

5.

Age of building,

6.

Size and type of community.
From the systems suggested,

were chosen.
teachers.
responded

twenty-five buildings

Five of the buildings had no first-year

Of seventy-six teachers contacted,
(a return rate of 85 per c e n t ) .

fifty-six usable responses;

sixty-five

There were

this represented 73 per cent

of those contacted and 86 per cent of those returned.
An examination of the demographic data about the
respondents indicated that a substantial majority of them
received their degrees and certificates in 1971, and that
two held masters degrees.

Fifty-one of these first-year

teachers graduated from colleges or universities in
Michigan

(see Table 1).
A majority of the teachers whose responses were

used in the study were twenty-three years of age or
younger.

There was almost equal representation of males

and females

(see Table 2).

The responding teachers were asked to indicate
their educational philosophies and then indicate what they
perceived to be the educational philosophies of their

46

TABLE 1.— Characteristics of First-Year Teacher Respondents:
Certification, Degrees and Granting Institution.

Highest Degree

(N = 56)

54
2

Bachelor's Degree
Master's Degree

Date of Secondary Provisional
Certificate (N = 56)

1971
1970
1969
1968
1967

49
4
1
■

•

2

Date of College Degree
(N = 55)

1971
1970
1969
1968
1967

50
2
3
•

•

•

•

Institution From Which Degree
Granted (N = 56)

Michigan Public Colleges
Michigan Private Colleges
Out-of-State Colleges

51
3
2

47

TABLE 2.— Characteristics of First-Year Teacher Respondents:
Age and Sex.

Ages of Respondents
Age

First-Year Teachers*

Age

First-Year Teachers*

22

3

31

1

23

25

32

0

24

9

33

1

25

7

34

0

26

2

35

0

27

1

36

0

28

3

37

1

29

2

38

30

0

39

Sex of Respondents

Male

24

Female

31

Total

55

*One person did not give age.

48

fellow teachers,
continuum from
Liberal,"

administrators,

and communities on a

(1) "Very Conservative" to

(5)

"Very

The teachers rated themselves as more liberal

than their fellow teachers,

administrators,

and communities

(see Table 3).

TABLE 3.— Characteristics of First-Year Respondents:
Educational Philosophies of First-Year Teachers,
Their Fellow Teachers, Administrators, and
Co m m u n i t i e s .

Educational Philosophy
Very
Conservative

Very
Liberal

Total Mean
N

Standard
Deviation

1

2

3

4

5

Self

0

9

19

23

5

56

3.43

.8709

Administration

9

16

19

12

0

56

2.61

1.0032

Fellow Teachers

0

12

32

12

0

56

3.00

.6606

Community

16

19

17

4

0

56

2.16

.9298

Total

25

56

87

51

5

Teachers were asked to indicate the grade level(s)
they had been assigned to teach
junior high/senior high,

(senior high,

junior high,

junior high/elementary)

indicate the grade level(s)

and then

they would choose to teach.

Teachers showed a preference for teaching senior high
over junior high and junior high/senior high

(see Table 4).

49

TABLE 4.— Characteristics of First-Year Teacher Respondents:
Levels Now Taught and Levels Teachers Would
Choose to Teach.

Number Teaching

Number Choosing
to Teach

Senior High

14

24

Junior High

37

18

Senior High/Junior High

4

12

Elementary/Junior High

1

1

56

55

Level

Total

Fifteen subject matter areas were taught by the
respondents.
science,

The largest numbers of them taught English,

social studies,

and math,

in descending order

(see Table 5).

Administration of the Questionnaire
The administration of a questionnaire becomes a
series of tactical decisions including:
1.

Deciding on the most effective time for adminis­
tering the study,

2.

Securing permission from the public schools,

3.

Designing administration procedures,

4.

Conducting the follow-up.
The decision was made to administer the question­

naire during the third and fourth weeks preceding the
end of the school year to permit the greatest portion of

50
TABLE 5.— Characteristics of First-Year Teacher Respondents
Subjects Taught.

Subject

Number of
Persons Teaching*

Art

1

Business Education

3

English

16

Foreign Language

2

Home Economics

6

Industrial Arts

5

Journalism

2

Math

8

Music

2

Physical Education

6

Reading

4

Science

10

Social Studies

9

Special Education

1

Speech

2

*Some teachers are counted more than once because
they teach more than one subject.

51
the beginner's first year to elapse without interfering
with the myriad tasks that come with the conclusion of
school.

There were a number of problems inherent in this

decision.
year,

Because this is such a busy time in the school

any extra paper work could irritate administrators

and teachers could misplace or put off a mailed question­
naire.

The second decision was to have the questionnaires

personally delivered during the teacher's prep hour or
before or after school.

This would eliminate extra work

for administrators and say to teachers,

"This study is

important enough to the researcher to warrant a personal
contact requesting your help."

At the same time,

the

decision was made not to identify in any way the respondent
or the building or the school system.

This decision

posed problems for the development of a follow-up
procedure;

the solution is discussed later in the chapter.

A letter

(Appendix B) was sent to the superin­

tendents of the selected school districts explaining the
study and requesting their cooperation.

A follow-up

phone call was made to obtain approval.

At the same time

dates were set when the schools would be contacted.
Three university students were hired and trained
(Appendix C) to distribute the questionnaires.

Each

teacher received a packet of materials that included:

52

1.

A n explanatory letter to first-year teachers
(Appendix D ) .

2.

A questionnaire

(Appendix A).

3.

A stamped-addressed envelope in which to return
the questionnaire.

4.

A postcard

(Appendix E) to mail back separately.

The postcard served a two-fold purpose.

It

enabled the researcher to retain a follow-up procedure and
still preserve the anonymity of the respondent.

(The card

had the respondent's name which could be checked off on
the original contact list, but did not link him to a
particular questionnaire in any w a y ) .

The card offered the

respondents the opportunity of requesting a copy of the
study.

This was a motivational device to provide a reward

for responding,

The trial of the instrument with first-

year teachers before its final construction had verified
that teachers would be very interested in the results.

Data Analysis Procedures and
Hypotheses to be Tested
Data from the returned questionnaires were coded,
quality checked,
verified.

transferred to data processing cards, and

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance was

computed with each of eleven independent variables for the
professional concerns of teachers.
ables selected were:

The independent vari­

1.

2.

3.

4.

Teaching level
a.

senior high school only

b.

junior high school only

c.

senior high school and junior high school

d.

elementary and junior high school.

Satisfaction with present teaching level
a.

desire

no change in teaching level

b.

desire

to add a teaching level

c.

desire

to drop a teaching level

d.

desire a complete change in teaching level

Average class size
a.

fewer than 25 pupils per class

b.

25-29 pupils per class

c.

30 or more pupils per class

Attendance at in-service meetings,
a.

5.

6.

1971-1972

attended no in-service meetings

b.

attended 1 or 2 in-service meetings

c.

attended 3 or more in-service meetings

Enrollment in college graduate courses,

1971-1972

a.

enrolled in no college courses

b.

enrolled in

1 college course

c.

enrolled in

2 or more college courses

Average age of building faculty
a.

under 30 years of age

b.

30-39 years

of age

54

7.

8.

9.

10.

c.

40-49 years

d.

50 years of

of age
age or older

Type of community
a.

rural

b.

small town

c.

city

d.

suburban

e.

inner city

Racial composition of student population
a.

95-100 per cent white

b.

less than 95 per cent white

Age of the first-year teacher
a.

2 3 years of

age or less

b.

24 years of

age or more

Extent of teaching assignment in major field of
study

11.

a.

teaching primarily

in major

b.

teaching primarily

outside major

Degree of philosophical congruence between self and
fellow teachers,

administrators,

a.

low discrepancy

b.

moderate discrepancy

c.

high discrepancy

and communities.

(0-2 points)
(3-4 points)

(5 or more points)

55
The null hypotheses to be tested at the

.05 level of

significance were:

Hypothesis 1 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers at the various
teaching levels.

Hypothesis 2 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying degrees
of satisfaction with their first-year
teaching level.

Hypothesis 3 ;

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
average class sizes.

Hypothesis 4 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
frequencies of attendance at in-service
meetings.

Hypothesis 5 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
frequencies of enrollment in graduate
college courses.

Hypothesis 6 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers in buildings with
varying average faculty ages.

Hypothesis 7 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers employed in varying
types of communities.

56
Hypothesis 8 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers in schools with
varying racial compositions.

Hypothesis 9 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers of varying age.

Hypothesis 1 0 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers teaching to varying
extents in their major fields of study

Hypothesis 1 1 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
degrees of philosophical congruence
between themselves and fellow teachers
administrators, and communities.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS

The research findings reported in this chapter
fall into two major areas:

(1) the expressed professional

concerns of first-year teachers, and

(2) the differences

in concerns among groups of first-year teachers cate­
gorized on the basis of eleven factors
ables) .

(independent var i ­

Also included is a brief discussion of the

responses to the open-ended questions at the end of the
instrument as they relate to the major findings of the
study and as they have implications for research and
program implementation.

Differences in Concerns Among Groups
First-Year Teachers
The differences in expressed professional concerns
among groups of first-year secondary teachers categorized
on the basis of eleven factors are presented in this part
of Chapter IV.

Each of the eleven variables which was

studied was stated in operational terms for hypothesis
testing.

57

58

For the purposes of this section,

"expressed pro­

fessional concerns" means "expressed professional concerns
in the areas of instruction and personal relationships."
The concerns were originally organized on the basis of
these two areas

(Instruction and Personal R e l ationships):

these in turn were divided into ten sub-topics.

These

sub-topics are listed below:
A.

Instruction
1.

classroom instruction

2.

evaluation of students

3.

instructional materials

4.

classroom management

Personal Relationships

1 . teacher/pupil relationships
2.

teacher/teacher relationships

3.

teacher/principal relationships

4.

teacher/parent relationships

5.

professional confidence

6.

non-instructional personnel

The differences occurring between these concerns
and the eleven independent variables chosen were examined
by means of a one-way multivariate analysis of variance
for each of the hypotheses postulated.

A .05 alpha level

of significance was selected as the critical value in the
interpretation of the findings.

These differences are summarized in Table 6 and
then reviewed briefly in the succeeding pages.

Appendix F

contains more detailed information about the univariate
dimensions of the multivariate analyses of variance of
the eleven variables.
There were two basic approaches used to examine
the professional concerns of first-year teachers.

The

first examined differences in professional concerns that
occurred among groups of teachers contrasted on the basis
of each of eleven independent variables.

These differences

were examined by means of a series of one-way multivariate
analyses of variance.

The second approach described the

average degrees of concern for each of fifty-one potential
problem areas.

The closer the average degrees of concern

or cell means were to 1.0, the greater the degree of
concern;

the closer the cell means were to 3.0, the lesser

the degree of concern.

While the multivariate analyses

did not all show statistically significant differences in
concerns among groups of teachers,

there still may have

been differences in the average degrees of concern which
reflected trends meriting consideration.

UiniBJi i i i i inii .! j

TABLE 6.— Summary of Multivariate Analyses of Variance for the Eleven Independent Variables.

Independent Variable

Multivariate
F-Ratio

Degrees of Freedom

P Less Than3

Results

Teaching Level

1.8613

6 & 102.000

0.0947

No Significant
Differences

Satisfaction With Present
Teaching Level

1.4293

6 & 102.00

0.2107

No Significant
Differences

Average Class Size

0.1621

4 & 104.00

0.9571

No Significant
Differences

Attendance at In-Service

0.8186

4 &

96.000

0.5164

No Significant
Differences

Enrollment in College
Graduate Courses, 1971-72

2.8359

4 & 104.000

0.0281

Significant
Differences

Average Age of
Building Faculty

2.4989

4 & 100.00

0.0474

Significant
Differences

Type of Community

0.9532

8 & 100.00

0.4770

No Significant
Differences

Racial Composition

2.1956

2 &

49.000

0.1222

No Significant
Differences

Age of First-Year Teachers

4.4049

2 &

52.000

0.0171

Significant
Differences

Extent of Teaching Assignments
in Major Field

0.6920

2 &

53.000

0.5051

No Significant
Differences

Philosophical Congruence

0.6959

4 & 104.000

0.5965

No Significant
Differences

aA .05 level of significance was used.

61

Teaching Level
Hypothesis 1 ;

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers at the various
teaching levels.

Results;

There were no significant differences
(a <_ 0.0947) [see Appendix Table F-l] .

Contrary to the expectation that junior high
teachers would have had more "problems," cell means for
the concerns showed that senior high school teachers had
a greater degree of concern in both areas— Instruction and
Personal Relationships— than did teachers at the other
levels.

There are several possible inferences to draw

from this finding.

Senior high school teachers are

generally more content-oriented than junior high school
teachers,

so instructional organization,

learners,

and individualizing of instruction would logically

be vital concerns.

Also,

teaching of slow

senior high school teachers are

closer in age to their students than junior high school
teachers which could contribute to a higher degree of
concern for personal relationships.

Comparison between

the two areas of concern for the senior high school
teachers, however,

indicated that relatively greater

concern was expressed in the area of Instruction
Table 7) .

(see

62
TABLE 7.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers at
Various Teaching Levels.
Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers
Teaching Levels
Instruction

Personal
Relationships

Senior high school

1.837143

2.047571

Junior high school

2.120568

2.298405

Junior high/senior high

2.138250

2.590250

Junior high/elementary

2.099000

2.514000

Satisfaction With Present
Teaching LeveT
Hypothesis 2 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying degrees
of satisfaction with their first-year
teaching level.

Re s u l t s :

There were no significant differences
(a £ 0.2107) [see Appendix Table F - 2 ] .

Cell means for the concerns showed that teachers
desiring a complete change in level indicated a higher
degree of concern in the areas of both Instruction and
Personal Relationships than did teachers who desired no
change in teaching level

(see Table 8).

These figures

were consistent with anticipated findings,

since it seemed

natural that teachers desiring a complete change in
teaching level were more dissatisfied with their present

63

TABLE 8.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Degrees Satisfaction With FirstYear Teaching Level.

Satisfaction Level

Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers

Instruction

Personal
Relationships

Desire no change in
teaching level

2.124222

2.332259

Desire to add a teaching
level

1.929333

2.108833

Desire to drop a teaching
level

2.130400

2.575000

Desire for a complete
change in teaching level

1.972917

2.119167

teaching level and might therefore have had greater
concerns.

The converse would also seem true:

teachers

desiring no change in teaching level would be more
satisfied with their assignment and therefore have fewer
concerns.

While reasons for these differences cannot be

attributed to a single factor, possible influences for
teacher dissatisfaction could have been unhappiness with
the type of student found at the present teaching level
or with the subject matter taught at the particular level.

Average Class Size
Hypothesis

3:

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
average class sizes.

64

Results;

There were no significant differences
(a £ 0.9571) [see Appendix Table F - 3 ] .

Although there were no statistically significant
differences in concerns among groups,

there was a slight

tendency for teachers with class sizes averaging thirty or
more students to express a greater degree of concern in
both Instruction and Personal Relationships,
teachers with smaller average class sizes.

compared to
Caution must

be used in generalizing from this finding, however.

It

cannot be assumed that reduction in class size will
automatically reduce the concerns of first-year teachers
or the problems that generate these concerns.

There may

also be differences among subject matter areas in relation
to class sizes.

For example, where it could be disastrous

to have forty students in a French class,

it might not be

as much of a problem in a band or orchestra class.
Although there is no inherently good class size that can
be projected for all subject areas in all schools for all
times,

this factor may interact with other variables in

relation to extent of teacher concerns

Attendance

at

(see Table 9).

In-Service Meetings

Hypothesis 4 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
frequencies of attendance at in-service
meetings.

Results:

There were no significant differences
(a <_ 0.5164) [see Appendix Table F-4] .

65

TABLE 9.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Average Class Sizes.

Average Class Size

Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers
----------------------------------Personal
Instruction
Relationships

Fewer than 25 pupils
per class

2.039421

2.277737

25-29 pupils per class

2.034269

2.233962

30 or more pupils
per class

2.108455

2.292909

Cell means for both Instruction and Personal
Relationships showed that there was a slightly greater
degree of concern expressed by teachers who had attended
any in-service meetings when compared to those who had not
attended any in-service meetings.
to interpret these figures.

There were several ways

For example,

teachers with

greater concerns may have a greater tendency to seek help,
i.e.,

in-service meetings.

This would suggest the inverse

conclusion that "non-attenders" had fewer concerns when,
in fact, the truth might be that they were not able to
recognize their problems or were too apathetic or insecure
to want to deal with them.

These results should also be

interpreted in consideration of the fact that some schools
may not have offered any in-service meetings, while
attendance at these meetings might have been a requirement

66
at other schools.

Information concerning the second of

these possibilities was not available in this study,

so

it was not possible to determine the extent to which
voluntary attendance and/or availability of meetings may
have been influential in relation to expressed concerns
(see Table 10).

TABLE 10.--Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Frequencies of Attendance at InService Meetings.
Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers
Frequency of
Attendance
Instruction

Personal
Relationships

0 meetings

2.173615

2.395231

1-2 meetings

1.992455

2.165364

3 or more meetings

1.976765

2.217353

Enrollment in College Graduate
Courses, 1971-72
Hypothesis 5 ;

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers with varying
frequencies of enrollment in graduate
college courses.

Results:

There were significant differences
(a <_ 0.0281) [see Appendix Table F-5] .

The possibility of multiple interpretations must
be considered in interpreting the relatively strong
differences between teachers with varying frequencies of

67

enrollment in college graduate courses.
means,

According to cell

teachers who enrolled in one course during the year

had a higher degree of concern in both Instruction and
Personal Relationships than did teachers who either took
no course,

or who took two or more courses

(see Table 11).

This could have been because "non-enrollers" had fewer
concerns in fact, or because they were unaware of their
problems or apathetic to the problems or their solutions.
The most difficult part of the data to explain was why
teachers taking two or more courses had fewer concerns
than teachers who took only one course.

This was

especially difficult to understand if one used the
rationale that teachers take courses to try to help
solve problems that cause concerns.

One explanation

might have been that teachers with more concerns felt
they had time to take only one course, whereas teachers
with fewer concerns were simply taking courses to fulfill
degree requirements and not to help with skill or content
deficiencies they sensed in their teaching.

Finally,

taking one course may have raised awareness levels to the
point where a first-year teacher suddenly saw many of his
shortcomings for the first time.

By the time he enrolled

in a second or third course he may have acquired a broad
enough perspective to place his own concerns in context
and not magnify them as he may well have done when he saw
them for the first time.

68
TABLE 11.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers and
the Extent of Their Enrollment in College
Graduate Courses, 1971-72.
Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers

Number of College
Graduate Courses
Enrolled in,
1971-72

Instruction

Personal
Relationships

0 courses

2.049306

2.230694

1 course

1.812556

2.186556

2 or more courses

2.249545

2.418000

Average Age of
Building Faculty
Hypothesis 6 ;

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers in buildings with
varying average faculty ages.

Results;

There were significant differences
(a £ 0.0474) [see Appendix Table F-6] .

Cell means showed that as the average age of
building faculty increased,

so did the average level of

concerns expressed by first-year teachers in the areas of
Instruction and Personal Relationships.

First-year teachers

could have seen older teachers as threatening or difficult
to communicate with or simply so well-organized and secure
that the first-year teacher was afraid to expose his own
inadequacies.

This finding was somewhat ironic since

first-year teachers also said elsewhere in the study that
their most valued resource was fellow teachers.

Readers

69
are cautioned to remember that the average ages of other
teachers are the ages as perceived by the first-year
teachers.

It may be that in their insecurity,

first-year

teachers see their colleagues as being older than they
actually are.

Many of the barriers between older and

younger teachers may exist only in the perceptions of the
new teachers who have not had or have not taken time to
get to know their fellow teachers

(see Table 12).

TABLE 12.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers in
Buildings With Varying Average Faculty Ages.

Average Faculty Ages

Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers
----------------------------------Personal
Instruction
Relationships

Under 30 years

of age

2.239462

2.389923

30-39 years of

age

2.035158

2.267868

40-49 years of

age

1.568667

1.694667

Type of Community
Hypothesis 7 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers employed in varying
types of communities.

Results:

There were no significant differences
(a
0.4770) [see Appendix Table F-7] .

Cell means showed that greater overall concern was
shown for the area of Instruction than for Personal

70
Relationships,

regardless of type of community.

Inner

city teachers showed the greatest concern for Instruction:
next in order were rural and city teachers.

There are

several factors that might contribute to the differences
in cell means in spite of the significant differences in
the multivariate analysis.

It seems logical that there

would be greater differences in value systems between
community and school with respect to inner city areas
where there tends to be a broader representation of value
systems.

This in turn would make the teacher's task more

difficult

(i.e., meeting parents'

expectations)

cause a higher degree of concern.

and thus

There would probably

also be a wider range of student problems in an inner city
school, and hence added concerns for first-year teachers.
Rural and city school teachers also showed greater
concerns;

one could speculate that rural schools might be

limited in facilities and staff.

If this were the case,

first-year teachers might have more than the usual number
of preparations and/or classes.

City teachers, on the

other hand, might have larger classes,
contacts with staff,

and bureaucratic complexities which

make it difficult to get supplies,
etc.

(see Table 13) .

less personalized

arrange field trips,

71
TABLE 13.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
Teaching in Varying Types of Communities.
Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers
Type of Community
Instruction

Personal
Relationships

Rural

1.936333

2.154333

Small town

2.107278

2.297000

City

1.962333

2.115778

Suburban

2.157625

2.361938

Inner city

1.823000

2.253500

Racial Composition of
Student Population
Hypothesis 8 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
secondary teachers in schools with
varying racial compositions.

Results:

There were no significant differences
(<x £ 0.1222) [see Appendix Table F-8] .

Cell means showed that there were greater concerns
in both Instruction and Personal Relationships for teachers
in schools with fewer then 9 5 per cent whites.
this particular hypothesis,

For testing

respondents were dichotomized

on the basis of school racial composition:

those with

95-100 per cent whites and those with less than 95 per cent
white students.

It should not be assumed from

(see Table

16) this that schools with more than 5 per cent minority

72

population are going to show greater teacher concerns just
because of this one factor.

It is important to note that

this division is merely a tool for dealing with information,
rather than a value-laden decision;

it might,

in fact, be

questioned whether there is a meaningful difference
between percentages differing by such a small amount as
those reflected in this study.
hypotheses,

As is the case in other

there are undoubtedly a number of inter-woven

factors that influence differences in professional
concerns.

For example,

racial balance in the school may

correspond strongly to reflect on factors such as socio­
economic level and previous educational opportunities of
the students.

TABLE 14.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers in
Buildings With Varying Racial Composition of
Student Population.
Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers
Racial Composition
Instruction

Personal
Relationships

95-100 per cent
white students

2.112268

2.305512

Less than 95 per cent
white students

1.883727

2.176818

73
Ages of First-Year Teachers
Hypothesis 9 ;

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year
teachers of varying ages.

Re s u l t s :

There were significant differences
(a <_ 0.0171) [see Appendix Table F-9] .

Teachers twenty-three years of age and under had
significantly greater degrees of concern in the areas of
Instruction and Personal Relationships than did teachers
twenty-four years of age or more

(see Table 15).

This was

the second time that age was a significant variable in the
multivariate analyses of variance for extent of concerns.
Here again caution must be used in reaching any conclusions
about reasons for these differences, but several possible
explanations might be suggested.

For example, younger

teachers might tend to be apprehensive as well as less
experienced.

Other factors that could enter include the

type of discipline standards maintained by the school,

the

maturity level of the teacher and the amount of age differ­
ence between the new teacher and his or her students.

Extent of Teaching Assignment
in Major Field
Hypothesis 10:

There are no differences in
professional concerns among
secondary teachers teaching
numbers of classes in their
field of study.

expressed
first-year
varying
major

Results:

There were no significant differences
(a < 0.5051) [see Appendix Table F - 1 0 ] .

74

TABLE 15.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by First-Year
Teachers of Varying Ages.
Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers

Ages of First--Year
Teachers

Instruction

Personal
Relationships

23 years of age or less

1.914786

2.154714

24 years of age or more

2.192704

2.372444

Despite the fact that the multivariate analysis of
variance did not show significant differences,

averages of

the responses indicating degree of concern (see Table 16)
showed that there were somewhat greater concerns expressed
by teachers who were teaching outside their major field
when compared with those who were teaching primarily in
their major fields.

This is consistent with expectations

based on studies indicating that teachers expressed concern
about being assigned to teach in areas outside their major
field.

Since first-year teachers have already indicated

concern over matters of instruction,

it would follow that

being placed in a class outside one's major area of concern
w ould compound the task and raise the level of teacher
concerns.

75
TABLE 16.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Extents of Teaching Assignment in
Major Field of Study.

Extent of Assignment
in Major Field

Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers

Instruction

Personal
Relationships

Teaching primarily
m ma^or

2.022350

2.216650

Teaching primarily
outside major

2.121188

2.369750

Philosophical Congruence
Hypothe sis 1 1 :

There are no differences in expressed
professional concerns among teachers
with varying degrees of philosophical
congruence between themselves and
fellow teachers, administrators, and
community.

Results:

There were no significant differences
(a £ 0.5965) [see Appendix Table F - l l ] .

As might be expected,

concern in both Instruction

and Personal Relationships increased as the degree of
philosophical congruence lessened.

It is interesting to

note that if the educational philosophy mean scores were
ranked,

fellow teachers would be the most congruent with

the self-perceptions of the respondents,

followed by

administrators and then community in that order.

It must

be remembered that these are all ranked on the basis of
the perceptions of the first-year teacher respondents
(see Table 17).

76
TABLE 17.— Mean Levels of Concern Expressed by Teachers
With Varying Degrees of Philosophical Co n g r u ­
ence Between Self and Others.

Expressed Professional Concerns
of First-Year Teachers

Philosophical
Congruence

Instruction

Personal
Relationships

Low discrepancy
(0-2 points)

2.134304

2.353826

Moderate discrepancy
(3-4 points)

2.024556

2.254611

High discrepancy
(5 or more points)

1.953467

2.124067

The Professional Concerns of
First-Year Teachers
The second part of the research instrument for
this study contained a listing of fifty-one potential
professional concerns

(see Appendix A ) .

Respondents were

asked to indicate to what degree each had been a concern
("Of Much Concern,"

"Of Some Concern,"

"Of No Concern")

at "The Beginning of the Year" as well as how much each
was still a concern at the end of the school year,

"Now."

For the purposes of this study only the "Now" concerns
were used for multivariate analyses of variance.

These

same scores were also ranked in order of their average
degrees of concern

(see Table 18).

w bw mhw

. « ! iib u iu m i

►
TABLE 18.— Year End Professional Concerns Expressed by First-Year Secondary Teachers.

Beginning Concerns

Professional Concern

N

Rank

Now Concerns

Mean

Standard
Deviation

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviatic

Providing instruction for slow learners

56

2

1.43

.5987

56

1

1.41

.5963

Organizing instruction for the year

56

7

1.59

.6544

56

2

1.61

.7053

Having adequate instructional
materials available

56

3

1.52

.6873

56

3

1.62

.6759

Determining students' academic needs

55

9

1.61

.6790

55

4

1.64

.6195

Finding appropriate instructional
materials

55

5

1.56

.7140

55

5

1.64

.6767

Providing instructional variety
within individual lessons

55

16

1.78

.6856

55

6

1.69

.7168

Having students respect me as teacher

56

14

1.70

.7844

56

7

1.71

.7559

Maintaining student respect

55

8

1.60

.6555

55

8

1.73

.7317

Handling single discipline problems
without interrupting instruction

56

10

1.64

.6988

56

9

1.75

.7198

Getting to know students as individuals

56

11

1.64

.6447

56

10

1.75

.7447

Keeping order in my classes

55

1

1.42

.6293

55

11

1.80

.6777

TABLE 18.— Continued.

Beginning Concerns

Professional Concern

N

Rank

Now Concerns

Mean

Standard
Deviation

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Dealing with "troublesome" students

54

4

1.54

.6054

54

12

1.80

.6258

Individualizing instruction

55

19

1.87

.7467

55

13

1.82

.7956

Establishing classroom operating
procedures

55

6

1.58

.7121

55

14

1.85

.7308

Providing instruction for gifted learners

55

21

1.89

.6790

55

15

1.87

.7215

Using evaluation techniques other than tests

55

23

1.93

.7417

55

16

1.89

.7858

Evaluating students with special needs

55

25

1.98

.7069

55

17

1.91

.6461

Avoiding showing favoritism

56

18

1.82

.7887

56

18

1.95

.7488

Dealing with groups of students

55

17

1.81

.6409

55

19

1.98

.7069

Handling administrators' observations
of my teaching

56

12

1.68

.7162

56

20

2.09

.6682

Knowing the principal's expectations
of me as a classroom teacher

56

13

1.68

.6904

56

21

2.12

.8104

Understanding the school's unwritten rules

56

26

1.98

.6464

56

22

2.12

.6623

Dealing with problems of drug use

55

35

2.18

.7224

55

23

2.14

.7308

TABLE 18.— Continued.

Beginning Concerns

Now Concerns

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Designing evaluation instruments to
measure individualized instruction

56

29

2.09

.7693

56

24

2.18

.7412

Dealing with parent criticisms

56

31

2.11

.7306

56

25

2.18

.6062

Having students like me

56

15

1.77

.6873

56

26

2.18

.6062

Getting to know other teachers

56

20

1.87

.6342

56

27

2.20

.7488

Constructing tests

56

22

1.91

.6682

56

28

2.21

.5943

Conducting individual parent conferences

53

30

2.11

.5428

53

29

2.21

.6894

Determining grades (report cards, etc.)

56

27

2.02

.6740

56

30

2.21

.7062

Getting along with the principal

56

28

2.05

.6986

56

31

2.21

.7796

Interpreting the results of teachermade tests

55

40

2.25

.6997

55

32

2.24

.6929

Arranging furniture to facilitate
learning

55

37

2.21

.7559

55

33

2.27

.6513

Understanding and following
administrative directives

55

32

2.11

.6287

55

34

2.31

.6346

Using bulletin boards

56

44

2.34

.6948

56

35

2.34

.6948

Professional Concern

-j

vo

TABLE 18.— Continued.

Now Concerns

Beginning Concerns

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

N

Rank

Mean

Keeping records (attendance, etc.)

56

34

2.14

.6988

56

36

2.34

.7693

Achieving tenure

56

36

2.21

.7062

56

37

2.36

.6158

Being accepted as a full-fledged
staff member

56

24

1.95

.6444

56

38

2.39

.7053

Asking other teachers for help

56

38

2.23

.6873

56

39

2.41

.6260

Handling criticism from other teachers

56

39

2.25

.7920

56

40

2.46

.6596

Asking questions at faculty meetings

56

48

2.48

.6028

56

41

2.46

.5709

Implementing the school's grading system

54

47

2.48

.5743

54

42

2.48

.6063

Finding supportive colleagues

56

33

2.12

.7151

56

43

2.48

.6028

Knowing the school's expectations for
me outside the classroom

56

42

2.30

.6006

56

44

2.48

.6322

Knowing what tenure evaluation
criteria are

56

46

2.39

.6231

56

45

2.50

.5721

Operating audio-visual equipment

56

45

2.36

.7243

56

46

2.50

.6030

Professional Concern

Standar<
Deviatic

TABLE 18.— Continued.

Beginning Concerns

Now Concerns

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

N

Rank

Mean

Standard
Deviation

Writing behaviorally stated
instructional objectives

54

43

2.34

.6404

54

47

2.52

.5718

Dealing with non-instructional personnel
(custodians, secretaries)

56

49

2.61

.6231

56

48

2.57

.6283

Doing lesson plans for the
administration

56

41

2.30

.7366

56

49

2.64

.5197

Interpreting the results of commercially
prepared tests

56

50

2.61

.6790

56

50

2.71

.5629

Handling racially mixed classes

54

51

2.80

.5623

54

51

2.81

.5167

Professional Concern

82
The five largest concerns were:
1.

Providing instruction for slow learners,

2.

Organizing instruction for the year,

3.

Having adequate instructional materials available,

4.

Determining students'

5.

Finding appropriate instructional materials.

academic needs,

All dealt with instruction in one w a y or another.

Three

of the five were also in the first five "Beginning-of-theYear" concerns.
teachers'
"Now."

The remaining two were areas where the

concerns increased between "Beginning" and

Four of the five concerns reflected problems of

classroom management/discipline,

or knowing students.

At the other end of the spectrum,
concerns were
1.

the lowest

(in descending o r d e r ) :

Writing behaviorally stated instructional
objectives,

2.

Dealing with non-instructional personnel,

3.

Doing lesson plans for the administration,

4.

Interpreting the results of commercially prepared
tests,

5.

Handling racially mixed classes.

83

Supplemental Findings
The identification of first-year teachers'

pro­

fessional concerns and an investigation of the differences
in these concerns among groups of teachers categorized on
the basis of eleven factors were the two objectives of
this research.

The findings have been reported.

To supplement the findings a brief report of some
of the major issues found in the open-ended section of the
questionnaire,

together with a brief comparison of before

and after responses is included here to help sharpen the
focus of the research findings.
of the questionnaire,

In the open-ended portion

four questions were posed.

Question

One asked:
1.

If I could give advice to first-year teachers
before they enter the classroom in September,

I

would tell them the following: __________________ .
The responses to this question were sorted by
topic.

One-hundred eighteen pieces of advice were provided

on varying topics.

Forty-eight of these dealt directly

with discipline/classroom management concerns.

Sample

remarks were:
Be firm.
school.

Kids HAVE changed since you were in

Be prepared for much teacher disrespect on the
part of students.
Try to get to know the students quickly.

84

Don't be hasty in forming good or bad opinions of
your students.
Refrain from showing favoritism.
Be strict.
Demand that the students be in their
seat when the bell rings, etc.
Be as unyielding and stubborn as you possibly can
in the beginning of the year.
Don't try to be a friend of the student.
They
will walk all over you.
Get their respect first.
Remember that your pupils are people and treat
them that way.
Make up a card file on all the students describing
behavior and background.
Thirty-four of the remarks dealt with instructional
organization and other instructional concerns.

Sample

comments w e r e :
Know your subject inside out— front— bac k — side—
top— bottom.
Be prepared when you enter the classroom each day.
Do long-range planning.
Practice writing lesson plans.
It was hard for me
to write lesson plans a week in advance.
Be organized and be consistent.
Be prepared to be discouraged.
It's different from
what you learned in college.
It is discouraging to
find that all high school students are not as enthusi­
astic about education as you are.
Teach the subject, but do not get so involved in
it that you forget the student's basic needs; teach
values as well as subject material.

85
The remaining suggestions were widely scattered
among fifteen other topics with no more than three
comments per topic.

Samples were:

Do not tolerate racial difficulties (fighting,
name calling, etc.).
Kids think racial name calling
is the thing to do to be "cool."
You have to make
them see it's not, even though you kick a few students
out to do i t .
Ask for the help of experienced teachers.
Ask for criticism and help from your fellow
t e a chers.
Really want to teach.
Forget the idealism taught in college of e d u ­
cation classes and learn to be practical.
Question Two stated:
2.

If I were a junior or senior high school principal
(and money and resources were no p r o b l e m ) , I would
help first-year teachers by: ________________________ .
There were seventy-four topical responses.

Thirty

suggested providing for more adequate instructional
materials or closely related suggestions.

Samples were:

Providing orientation and instruction on the use
of A-V materials.
Providing all the needed instructional materials
and supplies.
Low-level classes need materials.
I would make
sure they had books that were chosen by the teacher
working with that level student.
I would also get games and lab materials applicable
to the subject.
Having the latest and newest editions of texts and
materials for the teachers— not necessarily for the
s t u dents.

86

Seeing that they have adequate supplies.
I was
without creature comforts like a wardrobe, and
adequate bookshelves for the entire year.
This makes
organization rather difficult, to say the least.
Giving them more materials.
Remaining suggestions covered ten other topics.
Samples of comments in these areas were:
Offering a wider orientation.
By making sure they were communicating with at
least one of the experienced teachers and at least one
of the other first-year teachers.
Discussions with older, experienced teachers to
see how they organize for instruction.
Giving them in-service workshops.
Having a teacher aide for each first-year teachers
especially those teaching low-level classes, no matter
how small.
Among the comments were suggestions for principals
in their dealings with teachers:
Principals should make it perfectly clear what the
administration expects from teachers.
First establishing a personal relationship with
them so they aren't threatened when they walk in.
Backing them up when they have discipline problems
Checking with them every week or so in the
beginning to see if they had any problems or needs
could help them with.
First-year teachers are
sometimes very shy about seeking help themselves.

I

Question Three dealt with proposals for designing
teacher education c o u r s e s .

Hopefully first-year teachers'

suggestions would suggest ways they saw of solving
problems that caused professional concerns.
asked:

The question

87
3.

If I were in a position to design teacher edu­
cation courses and the student teaching experi­
ence,

I would do the following: ___________________ .

Sample suggestions were:
Students who intend to be teachers need to get
into classrooms with junior and senior high students
as soon as possible.
I needed more experience in the
classroom.
Have a lot of experiences outside of the college
classroom working with children.
In education courses stop lying to prospective
teachers.
Don't tell them if they make their courses
interesting enough they won't have discipline problems.
Eliminate seminars.
Preparing lesson plans, unit plans, and behavioral
objectives were fine, but no one ever spoke of
preparing individualized lesson plans.
Teacher education courses I experienced were
worthless.
I believe much discussion of classroom
management and educational incentives should have been
stressed.
Do away with all education courses except directed
teaching.
More help with lesson planning.
How to individualize lessons.
See that student teachers get a varied experience
with all available school situations such as urban,
suburban, city, etc.
Finally, Question Four asked:
4.

Some concerns I have had this year that have not
been mentioned in this questionnaire are: _________ .

88

Sample responses included:
Am I doing the job?
It is hard to know whether a
first-year teacher is successfully completing the
teaching assignment.
Legal aspects of teaching.
I am gravely concerned with the lack of training
in dealing with the incorrigible child.
Being involved in curriculum changes.
All

the

p a p e r work!

How to deal with the utter discouragement that one
can experience in teaching.
I had barely enough energy to come home and eat
during my first few weeks of teaching.
Being 22 years old and having kids 18 years old.
Providing significant alternatives in the public
schools for children (i.e., free school, etc.).
As a rule,

the findings in this study showed that

the concerns first-year teachers had at the beginning of
the year had diminished by the end of the year,
they were still concerns,
the "Now" column.

and while

they were rated much lower in

There are notable exceptions to the rule.

Some of the concerns listed at the beginning of the year
received higher rankings at the end of the year.

Caution

must be exercised in interpreting these changes in rank.
There are not c o r r e s p o n d i n g changes in mean values,
indicating that while there was movement among concerns
with respect to ranking,
varied very little.

the absolute value of the concerns

The concern which increased to one

of the highest levels,

"organizing instruction for the year,"

89
was ranked in seventh place at the beginning of the year.
At the end of the year it was ranked in second place.
"Providing instructional variety within individual
lessons," moved from sixteenth to sixth place.

"Having

students respect me as teacher" went from fourteen to
seventh place.

"Individualizing instruction," moved up

six placed to thirteenth.

Others experienced upward

movement were:
1.

Providing instruction for gifted learners,

2.

Using evaluation techniques other than tests,

3.

Evaluating students with special needs,

4.

Dealing with problems of drug use.
The third part of the questionnaire— sources seen

by teachers as having been helpful in dealing with firstyear teacher concerns— provided supplementary evidence to
keep sharpen the foci of the study.
potential concern were listed:
1.

Classroom management,

2.

Grading student,

3.

Planning for instruction,

4.

Adjusting to the job,

5.

Dealing with parents,

Seven areas of

90
6.

Teaching your subject,

7.

Finding instructional materials.
Teachers were asked to rank resources that were

most helpful "1," next most helpful "2," and so forth.
Categories from which choices could be made were:

1.

School administration,

2.

Fellow teacher,

3.

Secondary student,

4.

In-service program,

5.

Undergraduate education course,

6.

Student teaching,

7.

Course(s)

8.

Other.

taken this year,

Tabulating and combining the number of responses
"1," "2," and "3,"

(first, second,

and third most helpful)

showed without question that the most helpful sources in
the perceptions of first-year secondary teachers were
fellow teachers;

the second most helpful source was the

experiences gained from student teaching.
sources are ranked considerably lower

All other

(see Table 19).

A summary of the research findings and a description
of the limitations of the study,

as well as implications

for future research, will comprise Chapter V.

91

TABLE 19.— Sources Ranked "Most Helpful" by First-Year
Teachers.a

Sources of Help

Area of Concern

Classroom
Management

G
d)
o
■H
<0
-P
<0
<d
3
P
o
G
>i
(TJ O
•rH
*P
P
cn
p
ITJ -P > E p -H
r-H •rH 5 d) •o G P (0 O’ -p <u
cn
G d> <u p p
o c OX
rH O O
cn O’ d) o p
0
x E pH (0 O 3 i O T3 3 3
O Tl a) d) <D •P c P c n O
cn c
Eh cn cn H CU r> a o

G
d>
(0
EH
P
o> cn <0
-p G '— d>
G •H o ><
P
co
d) X
o p cn d)
3 Id 3 •H X
■P d> O X X
cn Eh U Eh o

14

35

3

0

4

23

0

8

Grading Students

9

21

4

1

11

29

0

1

Planning for
Instruction

2

25

3

1

13

36

3

2

Adjusting to the Job

15

38

2

2

1

24

0

5

Dealing with
Parents

21

24

0

0

2

16

9

Teaching Your
Subject

3

26

3

0

16

34

6

Finding Instructional
Materials

9

42

0

2

11

16

2

4

73 211

15

6

58

178

8

35

Total

aCombined totals for sources ranked first,
and third most helpful.

second,

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY,

IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The responses of fifty-six first-year secondary
teachers in selected public schools in Michigan were
examined in this pilot study.
was designed to
and

More spec i f i c a l l y , the study

(1) determine their professional concerns,

(2) investigate the differences in these concerns

among groups of teachers categorized sequentially on the
basis of eleven factors:
1.

Teaching level,

2.

Satisfaction with present teaching level,

3.

Average class size,

4.

Attendance at in-service meetings,

5.

Enrollment in college graduate courses,

6.

Average of building faculty,

7.

Type of community,

8.

Racial composition of student population,

9.

Age of first-year teacher,

92

1971-1972,
1971-72,

93

10.

Extent of teaching assignment in major field of
study,

11.

Degree of philosophical congruence between
themselves and fellow teachers, administrators,
and communities.
The identified concerns were measured with a check

list of fifty-one potential concerns in two basic areas ,
Instruction and Personal Relationships.

Results showed

that these teachers were most concerned, particularly at
the end of the year,

about instructional considerations,

such as dealing with slow learners, organizing instruction
for the year, having adequate instructional materials,
other similar concerns.

and

Classroom management/discipline

and teacher/student relationship concerns ranked next in
priority.
The one-way multivariate analyses of variance of
the eleven stated hypotheses indicated:
1.

There were no significant differences in expressed
professional concerns among first-year secondary
teachers:
a.

at the various teaching levels ;

b.

with varying degrees of satisfaction with
their first-vear teaching l e v e l ;

c.

with varying average class sizes ;

d.

with varying frequencies of attendance
service meetings ;

at in-

94
e.

employed in varying types of c o m m u n i t i e s ;

f.

in buildings wit h varying racial c o m p o s i t i o n s ;

g.

teaching to varying extents in their major
fields of s t u d y ;

h.

with varying degrees of philosophical congruence
between themselves and fellow teachers,
administrators,

and communities.

Factors which showed significant differences in
the areas of concern were:
1.

Ages of first-year teachers,

2.

Average age of building faculty,

3.

Enrollment in college graduate c o u r s e s .
Looking at the composite picture of ranked

concerns,
sources,
out.
twice:

compared differences,

information about helpful

and open-ended responses,

several points stand

Age as a factor showed significant differences
as average building faculty age and as respondent-

teacher age.

Cell means showed that as the average

faculty ages of teachers in various buildings increased,
so did the degree of first-year teachers'
the same time, however,

concerns.

At

first-year teachers showed in the

third part of the questionnaire that their greatest
source of help during their first year was fellow teachers.
There were significant differences in concern among firstyear teacher respondents of varying ages.

Younger

95

(twenty-three years of age or less)
degree of concern than older
more)

teachers had a higher

(twenty-four years of age or

teachers.
In other areas, the results for "attendance at

in-service meetings" and "enrollment in college graduate
courses,

1971-1972" provided interesting parallels.

both areas,

In

although there were significant differences

among groups for "enrollment in college graduate courses,
1971-1972" and not in "attendance at in-service meetings,"
teachers who were "non-attenders" and "non-enrollers"
also exhibited the least concern in both areas,
and Personal Relationships.
hypotheses,

Instruction

Finally, with all eleven

cell means showed greater concern in the area

of Instruction in contrast to Personal Relationships.

Implications for Teacher Education
and In-Service Education
What implications does all this have for teacher
educators and in-service planners?

The strongest impli­

cation is that each has a major area of strength on which
it should capitalize:
and universities)

student teaching

(for colleges

and contributions of fellow teachers

(for public s c h o o l s ) .

Ways should be found to provide

prospective teachers with increased contact time with
students before, during,

and after student teaching.

A

substantial portion of this time should be spent helping

96
helping prospective teachers explore effective classroom
management principles.

Hopefully,

this would occur in a

public school classroom with secondary pupils.

While

lectures in college classes and discussions of case
studies may be good starters,

respondents are saying in

the open-ended portion of the questionnaire that they want
more practical experiences and a substantial number of
those experiences should be about "handling kids"

in the

classroom.
In the same setting much greater concern must be
given to exposing prospective teachers to the multitude of
instructional materials and equipment available.

At the

same time public schools should listen carefully to the
first-year teachers who are saying that it was not
equipment,

in-service speakers, or conferences that

helped the most.

It was their fellow teachers:

resource every school has.

a

Needless to say, a simple

bringing-together of teachers is not the "pat" solution.
Each

school must find its own answer, but the intent of

the message is clear.
There are some first-year teacher concerns
have

fairly tangible solutions.

Examples of these

that
include

1.

Finding instructional materials,

2.

Having adequate instructional materials available,

97

3.

Knowing what tenure evaluation criteria are,

4.

Knowing the principal's expectations for me as a
teacher.

All of these areas can be covered at the time the teachers
sign contracts.

New teachers can be shown existing

instructional resources and, within school budget limits,
can be encouraged to suggest resources to be ordered that
will be helpful to them as they plan instruction for the
fall.

Tenure evaluation criteria and principal's expec­

tations can be discussed in detail as well.
In summary,

first-year teachers are saying that

helpful resources do exist.

It is up to the universities

and public schools working together to find many options
for prospective teachers to pursue using these resources
in present educational settings as starting points to
ward reducing teacher concerns through constructive
sol u t i o n s .
Limitations of the Study
1.

Several notes of caution warrant injection here.
It is easy to assess expressed professional
concerns at face value,

i.e.,

need instructional materials,

if teachers say they
this is, therefore

a valid need and will be remedied by the provision
of the appropriate materials.

In this case,

for

98

example, provision of instructional materials may
not answer the need at all.

The problem may well

be a classroom management one that the teacher
assumes "improved"
solve.

instructional resources will

The teacher may, on the other hand,

recognize the problem,

but not be able to discuss

it and requests books and other resources as a
safe way to seek solutions.
In a similar vein,

just because fellow teachers

are rated the over-whelming front-runner in "most
helpful resources," does not necessarily mean they
provide the best kinds of help as far as attitudes
toward students, educational philosophy or manage­
ment techniques are concerned.
may,

First-year teachers

in fact, be exposed to jaundiced,

bitter

colleagues who may have well-controlled classes
seen as "good" by first-year teachers— but also be
threatening to students and unconcerned about them
as persons.
2.

In the same vein,

the differences identified and

the comparisons drawn in this research do not
prove cause and effect relationships.

99

3.

The findings of this study cannot be generalized
in a statistical sense to a broad population.
Implications can be drawn in a theoretical sense,
however,

4.

to other populations of similar description.

This study deals only with secondary teachers.
Its findings may not necessarily be applicable to
elementary teachers.

5.

It might be implied from this study that the aim
of all public schools and universities should be
to eliminate all first-year teacher concerns.
This is not the intent of the study.
will always have concerns.

Teachers

The recommendation is

being made that, where possible, causes of concern
be eliminated before they arise and that co n ­
structive means be developed for dealing
constructively with others as they arise.

This

is seen as a continuing process, not just a oneyear focus.

Implications for Action
1.

Provide first-year teachers with ready access to
competent,

successful,

innovative and experienced

teachers, both on a consultation basis and a
classroom observation basis.

100
2.

Provide a wide range of instructional materials
with well-planned in-service programs to help
teachers find effective ways of using the
materials.

3.

Involve first-year teachers in frequent "rap
sessions" with the principal.

(Using appropriate

caution to consider barriers or perceived barriers
that may exist between the "administrator" and
the "teacher.")
4.

In buildings where communication seems poor or
minimal, organize well-planned,

non-threatening

constructive interaction programs to help faculty
of all ages and subject areas to relate to one
another more effectively.
especially,

First-year teachers,

find it difficult to enter the "main­

stream" of activity.

Needless to say, this process

would not stop when communication reached effective
levels, but would change to help maintain and
renew the process.
5.

Encourage universities,
schools,

in conjunction with public

to develop courses that would be offered

especially for teachers during their first year of
teaching.

These courses would not be just

discussion groups or gripe sessions, but oppor­
tunities to refine or develop classroom skills.

101
Recommendations for Further Research
1.

Assess the concerns of prospective teachers just
before they begin their student teaching, and
again at the end.

Repeat the procedure as they

begin their first-year of teaching and as they
conclude it.
2.

Study orientation programs for first-year teachers:
their frequency,

format,

and content, with impli­

cations for helping eliminate some of the causes
of concerns of first-year teachers.
3.

Conduct a study which would identify the ways in
which fellow teachers can best help first-year
teachers taking care to choose effective,

positive,

open veteran teachers.

4.

Conduct a study similar to the one reported here,
but study the professional concerns of more
experienced teachers

(e.g.,

fifth-year teachers).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Abraham, Willard.
A Handbook for the New T e a c h e r .
York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960.

New

Combs, Arthur.
The Professional Education of T e a c h e r s .
Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , l^diS.
Conant, James Bryant.
The Education of American T e a c h e r s .
New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1963.
Eye, Glen G . , and Lane, Willard R.
The New Teacher Comes
to S c h o o l . New York:
Harper and Brothers,
Publishers, 1956.
Gelinas, Paul J.
So Y o u Want to Be a T e a c h e r .
Harper & Row, Publishers, l9(>5.

New York:

Huggett, Albert J . , and Stinnett, T. M.
Professional
Problems of T e a c h e r s . New York:
The MacMillan
C o m p a n y , 3T5TI
Kerlinger, Fred N.
Foundations of Behavioral R e s e a r c h .
New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964.
Mason, Ward S.
The Beginning T e a c h e r . Washington, D.C.:
Status and Career Orientations, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1961.
Miller, George.
Letters From a Hard-Boiled Teacher to His
Half-Baked S o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : The Daylion
C o m p a n y , 1935.
National Education Association.
The Real World of the
Beginning T e a c h e r . Washington, D.C.:
National
Commission on Teacher Education and Professional
Standards, 1966.

102

103
Yauch, Wilbur A., Bartels, Martin, and Morris, Emmet.
Beginning T e a c h e r . New York:
Henry Holt &
Company, 1955.

The

Periodicals
Abraham, Willard.
"How Are Your Teachers Doing Now?"
Educational Leadership, XI (February, 1954),
311-15.
Archer, Vern B . , Edelfeldt, Roy, and Hite, Herbert.
"POINT Points the Way."
NEA Journal, LIV
(October, 1965), 29-30.
Baker, T. P.
"The High School Principal and the First
Year Teacher."
The High School Journal, XLII
(January, 1959), 112-15.
Butler,

Thomas M.
"Satisfactions of Beginning Teachers."
The Clearing H o u s e , XXXVI (September, 1961), 11-13

Cornett, Joe D.
"Effectiveness of Three Selective
Admissions Criteria in Predicting Performance of
First-Year Teachers."
Journal of Educational
R e s e a r c h , LXII (February^ 1969), 247-50.
Day, Harry P.
"Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers
A fter Initial Teaching Experience."
Journal of
Teacher E d u c a t i o n , X (September, 1 9 5 9 K 326-28.
Denemark, George W . , and MacDonald, James B.
"Pre-service
and In-service Education of Teachers."
Review of
Educational R e s e a r c h , XXXVII (June, 1 9 6 7 ) , 2 3 3 - 4 1.
Dropkin,

Stanley, and Taylor, Marvin.
"Perceived Problems
of Beginning Teachers and Related Factors."
Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (December, 1963)
384-90.

Goodrich, Ronald J.
"Advisory Teacher Program Benefits
Beginning Teachers."
The Clearing H o u s e , XLIV
(September, 1969), 12-15.
Hoy, Wayne K.
"Influence of Experience on the Beginning
Teacher."
The School Review, LXXVI (September,
1968), 312-237
Jenkins,

Simon.
"Reflections on that First Year:
Interviews."
Times Educational S u p p l e m e n t , 2782
(September 13, 1968), 448-49.

104

Jersild, Arthur T.
"The Voice of the Self."
LIV (October, 1965), 23-25.
Kaufman,

NEA Journal,

Bel.
"The Real World of the Beginning Teachers."
NE A J o u r n a l , LIV (October, 1965), 17-19.

Lemons, Lawrence A.
"Education Courses."
LIV (October, 1965), 26-28.

NEA Journal,
“

Mangione, Anthony Roy.
"Advice for Beginning Teachers."
The Clearing H o u s e , XLIV (September, 1969), 41-42.
Marashio, Paul.
"A Proposal for Helping Beginning
Teachers."
The Clearing House, XLV (March,
419-21.

1971),

McGinnis, Cecelia.
"The Beginning Teacher Project in New
York State."
National Association of Secondary
School Principals Bulletin^ LII (October, 1968),

44- 48 .
Nash, Curtis E.
"A Conference for First-Year Teachers."
Journal of Teacher Education, V (December, 1954),
320-22.
Nelson,

Noda,

Robert H . , and Thompson, Michael.
"Why Teachers
Quit."
The Clearing House, XXXVII (April, 1963),
467-72.

Daniel S.
"Beginning Teacher Development in Hawaii."
National Association of Secondary School Principals
B u l l e t i n , LII (October, 1968), 62-72.

Olson, Carl O. Jr.
"Let's Stop Demoralizing Beginning
Teachers."
Peabody Education Journal, XLVI
(July, 1968), 18-23.
Rehage,

Kenneth J.
"Induction:
When Student Becomes
Teacher."
National Association of Secondary
School Principals Bulletin, LII (October, 1968),
144-55.

Rosenberg, Jack.
"First Agonizing Term."
Times E d u ­
cational S u p p l e m e n t , 2789 (November 1, 1968) , 968.
St. Germain, Robert.
"I Was an Innocent in the Classroom."
NEA J o u r n a l , LIV (October, 1965), 21.
Stout, John B.
"Deficiencies of Beginning Teachers."
Journal of Teacher Education, III (March, 1952),
43-46.

105
Strickler, Robert W.
"Follow Through With the First-Year
Teacher."
Educational Administration and Super­
vision, XLV (January, 1959), 1-6.
Swanson, Patricia.
"A Time to T e a c h — And A Time to Learn."
National Association of Secondary School Principals
B u l l e t i n , LII (October. 1968). 74-83.
"The Beginning Teacher."
1971), 54-59.

Today's Education, LX

(September,

Wallace, Morris.
"Problems Experienced by 136 Teachers
During Their Induction Into Service."
North
Central Association Quarterly, XXV (January, 1951),
291-309.
Weaver,

D. C.
"The Effect of the First Year of Teaching
on Teachers' Attitudes to the Professional Element
in Their Initial Training Course."
British
Journal of Educational Psychology, XL (November,
1970), 352.

Wey, Herbert.
"The Difficulties of Student Teachers and
Beginning Teachers as a Basis for the Improvement
of Teacher Education."
Educational Administration
and S u p e r v i s i o n , XXXVII (February, 1951), 98-107.
Yauch, Wilbur A.
"Helping the New Teacher to Succeed."
Educational Forum, XX (November, 1955), 37-43.

Dissertations
Ackerman, Robert Leroy.
"An Identification of Professional
Problems of Beginning Elementary School Teacher."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Nebraska Teachers College, 1966.
Brewington, William Cleve.
"A Study of First-Year
Secondary School Science Teachers Who Completed
Preservice Programs at the Ohio State University."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State
University, 1971.
Chapman, George Franklin.
"A Study of the Problems of
Beginning Secondary Teachers in Suburban St. Louis
Public Schools."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of St. Louis, 1967.

106
Clinton, Thomas Allan.
"Beginning Teachers' Problems:
A Study of Problems Encountered by One Hundred
Graduates of East Texas State University and the
Functional Relationship Between These Problems
and the Teacher Education Program."
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, East Texas State University,
1965.
Cross, Charles Jack.
"The Teaching Difficulties and
Teaching Effectiveness of Beginning Secondary
Teachers, Who Taught Classes Both In and Out of
Their Respective Fields of Preparation, With
Respect to Certain Observable Factors."
Un­
published Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Arkansas, 1955.
Ducharme, Robert James.
"Selected Preservice Factors
Related to Success of the Beginning Teacher."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, The Louisiana
State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
College, 1970.
Force, William Riley.
"System Effects on Beginning
Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative Schools."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970.
Franc, Lillian Helen.
"Problems Perceived by Seventy-Five
Beginning Elementary School Teachers."
Unpublished
Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1970.
Hester,

Harold Eugene.
"Orientation and In-Service Training
for Beginning Intermediate School Teachers."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1971.

Lane, Frank T.
"A Study of the Professional Problems
Recognized by Beginning Teachers and Their Impli­
cations for a Program of Teacher Education (At
State University of New York Teachers College at
B r o c k p o r t ) ." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of New York, 1954.
McDavid, Fred Clyde.
"The Critical Requirements of the
Role of Department Chairman in Orienting FirstYear Teachers in Selected High Schools in Illinois."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Illinois
University, 1965.

107

Miller, H. Bernard.
"An Analysis of Empirically Selected
Components of Pressure, Difficulty and Satis­
faction Reported by Beginning Secondary School
Intern Teachers."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Temple University, 1970.
Moller, Gaylord Eugene.
"A Comprehensive Study of the
Problems of Beginning Teachers in Selected Large
Senior High Schools."
Unpublished Ed.D. disser­
tation, University of Nebraska, 1968.
Pilgrim,

Stone,

Beverly June.
"An Appraisal of Selected Aspects
of the Teacher Education Program at Eastern Texas
State University Based on a Follow-Up Study of
Beginning Secondary Teachers."
Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, East Texas State University, 1970.

Edward H.
"Personal and Professional Problems
Recognized by Beginning Junior and Senior High
School Teachers and the Relationship of the
Number of These Problems to Personal Character­
istics, Professional Preparation, Teaching
Assignment and Career Plans."
Unpublished Ed.D.
dissertation, University of Denver, 1963.

Taylor, Sol.
"Orientation and In-Service Education
Programs for Beginning Secondary School Teachers."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1971.
Vesey, Margaret Alice.
"A Field Follow-Up Study of
Beginning Secondary School Teachers."
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University,
1957.
Vinson,

Sharon Sue Weeks.
"Problems of Beginning Secondary
School Teachers of Foreign Languages With Impli­
cations for Sueprvision and In-Service Education."
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Florida State
University, 1969.

Vosburg, William A.
"A Study to Identify and Analyze Pr o ­
fessional Problems of Secondary School Cooperating
Teachers in the State Supported Colleges of
Louisiana."
Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation,
Northeast Louisiana University, 1970.
Wampler,

David Ray.
"A Study of First Year Teacher in
Disadvantaged Schools to Determine the Relation­
ship of Preservice Preparation Experiences to
Present Attitudes and Effectiveness."
Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1970.

108
Publications
Henderson, Gail.
"The Stormy First Year."
University Printing Service (June,

Michigan State
1971), 1-65.

Michigan Education Association.
"Report:
Teacher Edu­
cation Task Force."
Spring Assembly, 1970.
(Mimeographed.)
"Teacher Education Task Force."
Official
Minutes, October 9, 1969, meeting, East Lansing.
(Mimeographed.)
Oakland County Curriculum Council.
"Position Statement
on Student Teaching and Pre-service Education."
May, 1970.
(Mimeographed.)
Porter, John W.
"Recommendations Regarding Teacher
Certification and Professional Development
Issues."
To the State Board of Education of
Michigan, Lansing, October 19, 1971.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO GATHER
DATA FOR THE STUDY

A STUDY TO IDENTIFY
THE
PROFESSIONAL CONCERNS OF FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS
Please respond Co the following questions.
They eredesigned Coprovide
information which will help In Che Interpretationof yourresponses In
Part II.
We would appreciate It If you did not discuss this questionnaire with fellow
teachers. We seek YOUR opinions. From this Information we hope to be able to
make suggestions for teacher education programs and In-service programs.
1.

What grade(s) do you teach now?
K

2.

4.

1

2

3

1

4

2

1

10

5

6

7

8

11

12

(Circle all that apply)

9

10

11

12

[Please write In the subject(s)l

_________________________

3

4

5

6

7

(Circle your answer)

2

3

4

5

6

7

(Circle your answer)

How many different class preparations (subjects) do you have each day?
2

3

4

5

6

7

(Circle your answer)

What is the average size of your classes?
20-24

25-29

(Circle the answer)

30-34

35-39

Over 40

How many extra-curricular programs do you direct or help with?
1

2

3

4

5 or more

(Circle your answer)

Approximately how many in-service programs have been offered in your school
system for secondary teachers this year? (Circle your answer)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 or more

How many of the above in-service programs have you attended?
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

How many college courses have you taken this year?
0

12.

9

How many classes (periods) do you teach in your MINOR field of study?

0
11.

(Circle all that apply)

8

How msny classes (periods) do you teach In your MAJOR field of study?

0
10.

7

3.______________________________

0
9.

6

4.

Under 20
8.

5

1 ._____________________________

1
7.

4

2.

0
6.

3

What subject(s) are you teaching?

0
5.

2

What grade(s) would you choose to teach?
K

3.

1

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

10 or more
(Circle the answer)

5 or more

What grade levels are taught in your building?
K

(Circle the answer)

7

8

9

10

109

11

(Circle all that apply)
12

110

13.

What is tha avaraga age of the faculty in your building?
Under 30

14

30-39

(Circle the answer)

Over 50

Do you hold a current Michigan Secondary Provlalonal Teaching Certificate?
Yea

15.

40-49

No

(Check one)

If you anawered "Yea" to the above, from what lnatltutlon la your certificate?
______

Year Granted

(Collage or University)
16.

Pleaae list your degree(s), college(s), major(s), minor(s), date(s) received.
DATE(S)
DEGREE INSTITUTION
MAJOR(S) MINOR(S)
RECEIVED

17.

In what type of connunlty la your school located?
Rural

Small town

City

(Circle the answer)

Suburban

Inner City

18.

Do you live in the comsxinlty where you teach?

19.

Are you required to submit lesson plans In advance to the principal?
YES

NO

YES

NO

(Check one)

20.. What percentage of each of the following racial groupa la
your student population?
American Indian
21.

22.

Black

represented In

Chlcano

White

Approximately how old is the building In which you teach?
1-5 years

(Check one)

6-10 years

(Circle your answer)

16-20 years

11-15 years

Other

Over 20 years

Please circle the response that best Indicates the educational nhlloaonhv of
the following persons:
Verv Liberal

Verv Conservative
YOURSELF

1

2

3

4

5

ADMINISTRATION

1

2

3

4

5

FELLOW TEACHERS

1

2

3

4

5

COMMUNITY

1

2

3

4

5

23.

Your sex:

Femsle

24.

Year you were born:

____ Male

(Check one)
(Check one)

Ill

All beginning teachers experience many concerns. These concerns fall Into
many categories. Listed below are some situations you may have thought about
this year. Please Indicate(by checking the appropriate box)the extent to which
this situation has been a concern to you BOTH (1) at the BEGINNING of the year
and (2) NOW.
(i) AT THE
BEGINNlN G OF THI YEAR
(2) NOW
OF
MUCH
CONCERN

OF
SOME
CONCERN

OF
NO
CONCERN

OF
MUCH
CONCERN

Constructing tests
Providing instruction for slow
learners
Keeping order in my classes
Writing behaviorally slated
instructional ob Ject ives
Dealing with "troublesome" students
Dealing with non-instructional
personnel scustoc.ians, secretaries)
Determining students' academic needs
Conducting individual parent
conferences
Handling single discipline problems
without interrupting instruction
l

Designing evaluation instruments to
measure individualized Instruction
Handling racially mixed classes
Evaluating students with special needs
Achieving tenure
Determining grades (roport cards, etc.)
Implementing the school's grading
system
Using evaluation techniques other
than tests

I

I

Interpreting the results of
commercially prepared tests
Knowing what tenure evaluation
criteria are

I

Individualizing instruction
Handling criticism from other
teachers

I
I
I
I
I1

K
H

1
I

OF
SOME
CONCERN

OF
NO
CONCERN

112

(1)
OF
MUCH
CONCERN
Handling administrators' observation*
of my teaching
Being accepted as a full-fledged
staff member
Doing lesson plans for the
administration
Maintaining student respect
Getting to know students as Individuals
Asking questions at faculty meetings
Getting along with the principal
Finding supportive colleagues
Knowing the principal's expectations
for me as a classroom teacher
Having adequate Instructional
materials available
Establishing classroom operating
procedures
Finding appropriate Instructional
materials
Using bulletin hoards
Dealing with groups of students
Understanding the school's
unwritten rules
Having students respect me as teacher
Operating audio-visual equipment
Asking other teachers for help
Knowing the school's expectations for
me outside the classroom
Dealing with parent criticisms
Understanding and following
administrative directives
Keeping records (attendance, etc.)

AT THE
[NO OF THf
OF
SOME
CONCERN

fm

H

(2)

H of
NO
H MUCH
CONCERN I CONCERN
of

m.
OF
SOME
CONCERN

OF
NO
CONCERN

113

(1)

AT THE

BKIW ItULQF It iGjm
OF
MUCH
CONCERN
Having students like

OF
SOME
CONCERN

OF
NO
CONCERN

(2)
OF
MUCH
CONCERN

NOW
OF
SOME
CONCERN

OF
NO
CONCERN

me

Arranging furniture to facilitate
learning
Getting to know other teachers
Avoiding showing favoritism
Interpreting the results of teachermade tests
Providing instructional variety
within individual lessons
Organising instruction for the year
Providing instruction for gifted
learners
Dealing with problems of drug use
As you look back on this year, cons: !er what persons were most helpful as you
dealt with concerns in the areas listed below.
If more than one person was helpful in
a particular area, place a "1" below the MOST helpful, a "2" below the NEXT most help*
fu l , etc.
If you check "Other", please indicate who that is In (he space provided.

Classroom Management

Grading

Students

Planning for instruction
Adjusting to

the

Job

Dealing with Parents
Teaching Your Subject
Finding Instructional
Materials

114

In the first parts of this questionnaire you were asked to respond to a
number of specific ltemB.
In this final portion you are asked to respond to
questions of a more general nature. You may reinforce positions you have taken
earlier, as well as raise Issues that may not have been Included in the first
two parts. Because all of us have varied backgrounds and experiences, we will
respond differently to these questions. This is quite normal and to be expected.
We seek your candid responses.
1.

If I could give advice to first-year teachers before they enter the
classroom in September, I would tell them the following:

2.

If I were a junior or senior high principal (and money and resources
were no problem), I would help first year teachers by:

1 15

3.

If I were in a position to design teacher education courses
and the student teaching experience, I would do the following:

4.

Some concerns I have had this year that have not been mentioned
in this questionnaire are:

Thank you again for your support!
Folded In half, this questionnaire will fit in the stamped, addressed
envelope for mailing to:
Fredrick BrlBcoe
301-J Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS

APPENDIX B
LETTER TO SUPERINTENDENTS
MICHIGAN

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

bast

la n s in g

M i c h i g a n 48821

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION • DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY BDUCATION AND CURRICULUM • ERICKSON HALI.

May 22, 1972

There are some very special people in your secondary schools who can
provide data that will help public school and university staff plan
professional development programs. They are teachers who are
completing their first year of teaching.
I am conducting a study in cooperation with Professor Charles A.
Blackman Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Michigan
State University, which will identify the professional concerns of
first-year teachers and try to relate them to such variables as
undergraduate teacher education, class size, and grade level.
I
would like to visit each of your first-year teachers in the next two
weeks to leave a questionnaire for their response. The respondents
and school buildings will not be identified in the study or in the
questionnaire.
Responses will be mailed to me upon completion.
I know that this is not the most ideal time of year to intrude on
public schools, but it is the prime time in which to gather the
reflections of these teachers. After the study is completed, I would
be more than happy to share my findings with interested persons.
I will call shortly after you receive this letter to secure permission
to go ahead with the study. At that time I would like to know whom I
should contact to get the names of the first-year teachers in your
junior and senior high schools. A member of the project staff will
contact them individually to leave the questionnaire. This would, of
course, be done before or after school or during a prep period and
would require less than five minutes. Under no circumstances will we
pressure those teachers who are not interested in participating in
the study.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Fredrick Briscoe
301-J Erickson Hall

116

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS TO DISTRIBUTORS

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS TO DISTRIBUTORS

Questionnaire
May 22, 1972

Dear Questionnaire Distributor:
Thank you for your willingness to help with this study to identify the
professional concerns of first-year teachers. Your job will be to go
to several junior or senior high schools to give copies of a question­
naire to first-year teachers individually and explain what the study
is about and ask them to participate by filling out the questionnaire
and returning it in the mail.
Your specific responsibilities look like this:
1. I will have cleared with the principal and the superintendent.
Your first task will be to make an appointment with the principal to
show him the attached letter and a copy of the study (if he wishes to
see it). You also need to know who to see to get a copy of the names
of new teachers— teachers who are completing their first year of
teaching.
(They must not have taught anywhere else before this year,
and they must have started teaching in September.)
Assure the
principal that these teachers will only be contacted at the times he
recommends (probably during a prep hour, after school or before
school). Assure him, too, that you will spend less than five minutes
with each teacher.
2. When you contact the teacher, introduce yourself, and explain
that you are a member of a team that is asking first-year teachers
to help provide data that will be of value in planning undergraduate
teacher education courses, graduate education courses, and in-service
education programs for secondary teachers. Explain that the study
will not take more than TWENTY minutes for most people to complete.
We would appreciate their cooperation sometime in the next several
days. When they indicate their willingness to cooperate, give them
a copy of the "First-Year Teacher" letter which is a written expla­
nation of what you told them.
It also says that when they complete
the questionnaire and mail it they should, at the same time, mail the

117

118

attached postcard with their name and address— separately.
It will
preserve their anonymity completely, but at the same time let us know
who responded and who did not. We will not know the building they
are from, either.
3. Before you give the first-year teacher his or her letter, fill
in the two blank spaces at the bottom of the page. The first one
suggests a mailing deadline. Make this THREE days after you contact
them— three school days. Write this date in. The second blank is
when we will return to pick up any unmailed questionnaires. Make this
date FIVE school days after you contact them.
4. Please be sure that your total time with each teacher does not
exceed five minutes.
It is easy to get into an involved, interesting
discussion. AVOID THIS. Be brief, friendly, to the point. Thank
'em. GIT!
5. When you are finished in a particular building, please check
out their cooperation (and anybody else, for that matter).
6. Please keep track of the names and room numbers of the teachers
who received questionnaires.

APPENDIX D

LETTER TO FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS

APPENDIX D
LETTER TO FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS

MICHIGAN

STATE

UNIVERSITY

b a s t la n s in o

M ic h ig a n iw m

COLLBGB OP EDUCATION . DEPARTMENT OP SECONDARY EDUCATION AND CURRICULUM • ERICKSON HALL

May 22, 1972

Dear First-Year Teacher:
Thank you very much for your willingness to participate in this study
which is designed to identify the professional concerns of first-year
teachers and relate them to such variables as undergraduate teacher
education, class size, graduate courses, and in-service education
programs.
The questions in this study will help you think about concerns that
many first-year teachers may have had or may still have.
It should
take no more than TWENTY (20) minutes to respond to the multiple
choice and open-ended questions. Background data is requested on the
first pages to help in the interpretation of the responses.
PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE
This way your responses will be completely anonymous.
Your building
will not be identified either.
I would appreciate it if you did not
discuss this questionnaire with anyone while you have it.
A stamped, addressed envelope is provided for the return of your
questionnaire.
So that we can keep track of who has returned the
studies and still retain your complete anonymity, a postcard is
enclosed to return at the time you return the questionnaire. This is
to be mailed separately.
You will also be able to indicate on the
postcard whether or not you would like a copy of the results of this
study.
We would appreciate having you return the questionnaire by __________
If you should misplace the envelope, we will be stopping by your
building to pick up any unmailed questionnaires on ____________ ______
Thank you again for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Fredrick Briscoe
301-J Erickson Hall

119

APPENDIX E

POSTCARDS RETURNED BY RESPONDENTS

APPENDIX E
POSTCARDS RETURNED BY RESPONDENTS

Fredrick Briscoe
301-J Erickson Hall
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48823

I have completed the questionnaire on first-year
teachers and have put it in the mail.
N A M E _________________________________________________
ADDRESS

School Building _________________________________
I would like a copy of the results of the
study.

120

APPENDIX F
TABLES FOR MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE

TABLE F-l.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Teaching
Level.
F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 1.8613
D.F. = 6

Variable

and

Between

102.0000

P Less Than 0.0947

Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.2840

2.1402

0.1064

Personal
Relationships

0.3957

2.1815

0.1013

Degrees of Freedom

For Hypothesis = 3

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 52

TABLE F-2.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Satis­
faction With First-Year Teaching Level.

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 1.4293
D.F. = 6

Variable

and

Between

102.0000

P Less Than 0.2107

Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.1424

1.0104

0.3957

Personal
Relationships

0.3831

2.1037

0.1110

Degrees of Freedom

For Hypothesis = 3

Degrees of Freedom for Error = 52

121

122

TABLE F-3.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Average
Class Size.
F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 0.1621
D.F. = 4

and

104.000

P Less Than 0.9571

Variable

Between Mean Sq.

Univariate F

Instruction

0.0231

0.1586

0.8538

Personal
Relationships

0.0178

0.0889

0.9151

Degrees

of Freedom

For Hypothesis

P Less Than

= 2

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 53

TABLE F-4.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for
Attendance at In-Service Meetings.

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 0,8186
D.F. = 4

Variable

and

96.0000

Between Mean Sq.

P Less Than 0.5164

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.1735

1.3209

0.2763

Personal
Relationships

0.2223

1.1826

0.3151

Degrees of Freedom For Hypothesis = 2
Degrees of Freedom For Error = 49

123
TABLE F-5.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for College
Courses Taken 1971-72.

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 2.8359
D.F. = 4

Variable

and

Between

104.0000

P Less Than 0.0281

Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.4727

3.6802

0.0319

Personal
Relationships

0.1770

0.9140

0.4072

Degrees of Freedom

For Hypothesis = 2

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 53

TABLE F-6.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance For Average
Age of Building Faculty.

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 2.4989
D.F. = 4

and

100.0000

Between Mean Sq.

Variable

P Less Than 0.0474

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.5831

4.6240

0.0143

Personal
Relationships

0.5895

3.2009

0.0491

Degrees of Freedom For Hypothesis = 2
Degrees of Freedom For Error = 51

124

TABLE F-7.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Type of
Community.
F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 0.9532
D.F. = 8

Variable

and

Between

100.0000

P Less Than 0.4770

Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.1590

1.1392

0.3487

Personal
Relationship

0.1197

0.6019

0.6630

Degrees of Freedom For Hypothesis = 4
Degrees of Freedom For Error = 51

TABLE F-8.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Racial
Composition of Student Population.

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 2.1956
D.F. = 2

Variable

and

Between

49.0000

P Less Than 0.1222

Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.4530

3.4561

0.0690

Personal
Relationships

0.1436

0.7633

0.3865

Degrees of Freedom

For Hypothesis = 1

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 50

125
TABLE F-9.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Ages of
First-Year Teachers.
F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 4.4049
D.F. = 2

and

52.0000

P Less Than 0.0171

Variable

Between Mean Sq.

Univariate F

Instruction

1.0617

8.4106

0.0055

Personal
Relationships

0.6516

3.4664

0.0682

Degrees

of Freedom

For Hypothesis

P Less Than

= 1

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 53

TABLE F-10.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Extent
of Teaching Assignment in Major Field.

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 0.6920
D.F. = 2

Variable

and

Between

53.0000

P Less Than 0.5051

Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.1116

0.7889

0.3784

Personal
Relationships

0.2679

1.3975

0.2424

Degrees

of Freedom For

Hypothesis = 1

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 54

126

TABLE F-ll.— Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Philo­
sophical Congruence.
!. ...i.-.-p

,,

I

II ■ 1-

X

— .11..

»

<■

I-

--

-I

...n , J«B—

— J-

— — B

F-Ratio For Multivariate Test of Equality
of Mean Vectors = 0.6959
D.F. = 4

Variable

and

104.0000

P Less Than 0.5965

Between Mean Sq.

Univariate F

P Less Than

Instruction

0.1574

1.1218

0.3333

Personal
Relationships

0.2401

1.2550

0.2935

Degrees of Freedom

For Hypothesis = 2

Degrees of Freedom For Error = 53