INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced fro m a m ic ro film copy o f th e original docu m en t. W hile 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 the q u a lity o f the original subm itted. The fo llo w in g e xp lan ation o f techniques is provided to help you understand m arkings or patterns which m ay appear on this reproduction. 1. T h e sign or " ta rg e t" fo r pages ap p a re n tly lacking fro m the d ocum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to o b tain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced in to th e film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cu ttin g th ru an image and duplicating 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 lite ra te d w ith a large round black indication 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 or chart, etc., was part o f th e m aterial being p h o to g ra p h e d th e photographer fo llo w e d a d e fin ite m etho d in "sectioning" th e m aterial. It is custom ary to begin photoing at th e upper le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to co n tin 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 elo w th e firs t ro w and continuing on u n til com plete. 4. T h e m a jo rity o f users indicate th a t the te x tu a l c o n ten t is o f greatest value, how ever, made fro m dissertation. a som ewhat higher q u a lity "p ho to g rap h s" Silver prints if essential of reproduction could be to th e understanding o f the "p h o to g rap h s" may be ordered at additional charge by w ritin g th e O rd er D ep artm en t, giving th e catalog num ber, title , a u th o r and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company 73-5356 DAUNT, Patrick Douglas, 1942A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY--LANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT SERL PROJECT AND THE CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM OF STUDENT TEACHING IN THE LANSING PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH COMPARISONS OF TEACHER ATTITUDES, RATINGS, AND CAREER PROGRESS. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1972 Education, teacher training University Microfilms, A XEROX Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan ©Copyright by PATRICK DOUGLAS DAUNT 1972 A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYLANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT SERL PROJECT AND THE CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM OF STUDENT TEACHING IN THE LANSING PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH COMPARISONS OF TEACHER ATTITUDES, RATINGS, AND CAREER PROGRESS By Patrick D. Daunt A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1972 P L E A S E NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Fi l m e d as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ABSTRACT A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYLANSING SCHOOL DISTRICT SERL PROJECT AND THE CONVENTIONAL PROGRAM OF STUDENT TEACHING IN THE LANSING PUBLIC SCHOOLS WITH COMPARISONS OF TEACHER ATTITUDES, RATINGS, AND CAREER PROGRESS By Patrick D. Daunt Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to compare the nature of two Michigan State University student teaching programs as they related to several teaching variables. These pro­ grams were the SERL Project and the conventional program for junior high school student teachers in the Lansing School District. The questions investigated with refer­ ence to the SERL subjects were the following: 1. Do they have a more positive attitude toward children and teaching? 2. Are they considered to be more effective teachers? 3. Do they achieve more satisfying and successful career positions? 4. Do they meet the individual needs of their pupils more effectively? Patrick D. Daunt 5. Do they report greater satisfaction with their student teaching experience? Methodology The data were collected from former Michigan State University students who had student taught at the junior high level in the Lansing School District in one of the six terms between September 1966 and June 1968. Of the 14 3 members of this population 105 responded to the Minne­ sota Teacher Attitude Inventory and the Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers. It was found that 52 of these respondents were teaching at the time of the study, and these 52 were asked to complete the Teacher Self Rating instrument, and to have their current princi­ pals complete the Teacher Rating by Principal instrument. The data were analyzed through the use of chi square tests, analysis of variance tests, and percentage of responses to compare the effects of the two student teaching programs, the SERL Project and the conventional program. A p < .05 was arbitrarily established for this study. Findings of the Study Past student teachers from the SERL Project were found to have slightly more positive attitudes toward chil­ dren and teaching as a profession than past conventional program student teachers, but these differences were not Patrick D. Daunt statistically significant. The members of both groups of subjects who were not teaching had significantly more positive attitudes toward teaching and children than did those who were teaching. The past SERL student teachers scored slightly higher than past conventional student teachers on ratings given by their current principals and on self-ratings of their teaching ability, but these differences were not statistically significant. More SERL subjects than conventional subjects had continued in teaching longer, were active in extra functions which related to their positions, planned to take addi­ tional professional courses, rated their school influence to be somewhat stronger, were highly satisfied with and found student teaching very useful, had higher consider­ ation for the teachers they had worked with in student teaching, and had worked with more student teachers as supervising teachers. However, these differences were not statistically significant. There were no differences in the career plans of the SERL and conventional subjects, or in their reasons for remaining in a particular area to teach. The conventional subjects more often continued their professional preparation beyond a bachelor's degree than had the SERL subjects, were more active in political and community affairs, rated their present schools higher in overall quality, were more likely to be living in the Patrick D. Daunt same community in which they were teaching, and were con­ sidered by their principals to individualize instruction more effectively. However, these differences were not statistically significant. On the basis of the tests performed on the de­ pendent variables identified in this study only minor differences were found, on the instruments used, in the performances of past participants of the two student teaching programs studied. Though there were no signifi­ cant differences between the SERL and conventional sub­ jects studied, the majority of the minor differences found were in the direction of the SERL Project. The SERL Pro­ ject appears to be only a slightly superior program for student teaching with reference to attitudes, professional satisfaction, and teaching success. DEDICATION To Susan, my wife, whose patient support, love, and labor made it possible ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgment is gratefully extended to the follow­ ing people for their contributions of advice and assistance To Dr. George Myers, chairman of the guidance com­ mittee, for his time-consuming efforts and guidance; To Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, Dr. Sam Moore, and Dr. Lawrence Sarbaugh, for their contributions as members of the guidance committee; And to Linda Glendening for her invaluable assistance in the programming and the statistical analysis of the data. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. II. Page INTRODUCTION ............................. 1 Types of Student Teaching Programs to be S t u d i e d ...................... Purpose of the Study................... The Need for the S t u d y ................ H y p o t h e s e s ............................ Definition of T e r m s ................... Limitations............................ Assumptions............................ Organization of the S t u d y ............ 2 12 13 14 16 18 18 19 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............. 21 Introduction ......................... Development of Student Teaching . . . Partnership in Teacher Education. . . Teacher Effectiveness ................ Student Teaching at Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ......................... The Development of the SERL Project. . S u m m a r y ............................... III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY...................... Methodology............................ Measures............................... Procedure for Testing of Hypotheses. . S u m m a r y ............................... IV. 21 21 31 36 40 44 51 54 54 59 67 75 ANALYSIS OF DATA.......................... 77 Introduction ......................... Research Hypothesis A- l ............... Research Hypothesis B-l............... Research Hypothesis B-2............... Research Hypothesis C-l............... Research Hypothesis C-2............... 77 78 81 82 85 89 iv Chapter V. Page Research Hypothesis C-3............... Research Hypothesis C-4............... Research Hypothesis C-5............... Research Hypothesis C-6............... Research Hypothesis C-7............... Research Hypothesis C-8............... Research Hypothesis C-9............... Research Hypothesis C-10 Research Hypothesis C-ll ............ Research Hypothesis D-l............... Research Hypothesis E-l............... Research Hypothesis E-2. . . . . . Research Hypothesis E-3............... Research Hypothesis E-4............... Summary of F i n d i n g s ................... 92 92 94 94 97 101 101 104 105 108 109 Ill 113 115 117 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................... 121 S u m m a r y ............................... Conclusions............................ Suggestions for Further Research. . . BIBLIOGRAPHY 121 123 131 ...................................... 136 APPENDICES Appendix A. INTRODUCTORY LETTER....................... 142 B. COVER LETTER AND SURVEY OF FORMER MSU STUDENT TEACHERS......................... 143 C. MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY . D. COVER LETTER AND TEACHER SELF RATING INSTRUMENT............................... 156 COVER LETTER AND TEACHER RATING BY PRINCIPAL INSTRUMENT ................... 160 F. MTAI RAW S C O R E S .......................... 164 G. TEACHER SELF RATING S C O R E S ............. 165 H. TEACHER RATING BY PRINCIPAL SCORES. I. ABILITY TO INDIVIDUALIZE INSTRUCTION SCORES REPORTED BY PRINCIPALS . . . . E. V . . . 150 166 167 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. Population of the Study, by Year, Term, and Program ............................ 55 Return of MTAI and Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers ............................... 56 Percent and Number of Subjects Teaching from Total Population by Year of Expected Graduation ................... 58 Comparison of MTAI Scores of SERL and Conventional Subjects................... 78 Number of Subjects and Means of MTAI by Program for Those Employed and NonEmployed by a School System............ 79 Comparison of MTAI Scores by Employment in a School System......................... 80 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Ratings by Principals................... 81 Comparison of Responses of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Self-Rating of Teaching Ability ...................... 82 Comparison of Self-Ratings of Teaching Ability for SERL and Conventional Subjects ............................... 83 Means and Standard Deviations on the Teacher Self Rating Instrument. 83 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Teacher Self Rating Scores for Those Teaching at the Time of the Study. 84 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Reported Satisfaction with Present Occupation...................... 86 vi Table 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. 4.16. 4.17. 4.18. 4.19. 4.20. 4.21. 4.22. Page Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Reported Satisfaction with Teaching E x p e r i e n c e ............................... 87 Comparison of Teaching SERL and Conventional Subjects on Satisfaction with Teaching. . 88 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Reported Career Plans Five Years Into the F u t u r e ................... 91 Comparison Subjects 93 of SERL and Conventional on Years of Teaching Experience . Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Formal Educational Preparation............................... 95 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Activity in Extra Related F u n c t i o n s ............................... 96 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Activity in Political Affairs of the C o m m u n i t y ................ 98 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Activity in Community A c t i v i t i e s ............................... 99 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Educational Plans for the Next Y e a r .................................. 100 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Rating of the Overall Quality of Their Present Schools .................. 102 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Estimates of Their Influence on Their S c h o o l s ......................... 103 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on Living in the Same Community in Which They T e a c h ........................ 104 Means and Standard Deviations of SERL and Conventional Responses to Reasons for Remaining in the A r e a ..................... 105 vii Table 4.23. 4.24. 4.25. 4.26. 4.27. 4.28. 4.29. 4.30. Page Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects' Reasons for Remaining in the A r e a ..................................... 106 SERL and Conventional Reasons for Staying in the Area............................... 107 Means and Standard Deviations of SERL and Conventional Ratings by Their Principals of Ability to Individualize Instruction . 108 Comparison of Principal Reports of SERL and Conventional Subjects' Ability to Indi­ vidualize I n s t r u c t i o n ................... 109 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects' Satisfaction with Student Teaching Experience ...................... 110 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects' Reported Usefulness of Student Teaching Experience ............ 112 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects' Ratings of Teachers Worked with During Student Teaching ............ 114 Comparison of SERL and Conventional Subjects on the Number of Student Teachers the Subjects Worked With . . . 116 4.31. Summary of Findings.......................... 118 F-l. MTAI Raw S c o r e s ............................. 164 G-l. Teacher Self Rating Scores 165 H-l. Teacher Rating by Principal Scores. 1-1. Ability to Individualize Instruction Scores Reported by Principals............ . . . . . . . . . 166 167 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Teacher education has been ircreasingly criti­ cized by educators1 and those outsiue the education profession. 2 Since the early beginnings of teacher edu­ cation programs there have been charges " . . . that it [teacher education] contributes negligibly to the preparation of the prospective teacher." 3 Yet, one phase of teacher education that appears to merit praise from par­ ticipants and critics is that of student teaching. On the whole student teaching experiences have been excepted Joint Committe? on State Responsibility for Stu­ dent Teaching, A New Order in Student Teaching, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards (Washington, D.C.: Nations.^ Education Association, 1967), pp. 1-10. 2 Charles E. Silberman, "You May Not Agree, But Student Teaching Is Dismal," Today's Education, LX, No. 1 (January, 1971), 22. 3 Lindley J. Stiles and others, Teacher Education in the United States (New York: Ronald Press Co., I960), P .""2S2 L--------------- 1 2 from severe criticism. 4 Many teachers rate student teach­ ing as the most worthwhile learning experience they had as an undergraduate training to become a teacher. This does not indicate that educators are being complacent with existing programs. In fact, serious questions are being raised about the effectiveness of student teaching as it is generally conducted today. 5 Changes in student teaching programs have continually developed to include technological, social, and theoretical innovations. Most certainly there is a need for continuous re-examination of student teaching programs. In this study the author is concerned with examin­ ing the development of student teaching programs at Michigan State University. The author will investigate the present status of past participants of two Michigan State University student teaching programs. Types of Student Teaching Programs To Be Studied Generally, teacher education institutions employ student teaching programs in which students are assigned to one supervising teacher. Frequently the supervising 4 Ibid. 5 Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Stu­ dent Teaching, Who's in Charge Here: Fixing Responsibili­ ties for Student Teaching, a discussion paper, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1966), p. 1. 3 teacher serves as a teaching model for the student, and the student normally experiences successes and failures that are similar to the supervising teacher's. The stu­ dent teacher has limited latitude in this experience, and often has minimal contact with other student teachers, other experienced teachers, or with concomitant teaching activities. At Michigan State University student teachers who are assigned to one supervising teacher, as described above, are considered to be participants of the con­ ventional program of student teaching.*’ Typically, a college coordinator is assigned to facilitate this pro­ gram for twenty to twenty-five student teachers who may be assigned to student teach in several different schools. The students are expected to attend weekly seminars conducted by the college coordinators. 7 These seminars deal with a wide variety of topics, including classroom skill development, evaluation, and community 0 orientation. The coordinator also visits the student teacher's classes to establish a basis for assessing and assisting the student teacher. 9 Both the supervising ^Catherine Reed and Horton Southworth, eds., A Handbook for Student Teaching Coordinators (East LansTng, Mich.: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1965), p. 10. ^Ibid., p. 30. 9Ibid., p. 23. ®Ibid., p. 31. 4 teacher and the college coordinator are responsible for the evaluation of the student teacher. In recent years new student teaching programs have been replacing the conventional program of student teaching at Michigan State University. In the 1971-72 academic year approximately half of the student teachers at Michigan State University did their student teaching in the conventional program, while the other half student taught in what is known as the cluster program. The cluster program of student teaching at Michigan State University involves the assignment of ten to thirteen student teachers to one building. An outstanding member of the building teaching staff is selected by public school and university personnel and placed in charge of the student teaching program in that building for the term. This teacher is employed jointly by the public school district and the university, and is known as the cluster consultant. This consultant is able to spend a portion of his time working with the student teaching program. The SERL Project (Secondary Education Residency Lansing) was the outgrowth of planning by a joint com­ mittee representing the Lansing School District and Michigan State University's School of Teacher Education. SERL was the forerunner of the cluster student teaching program at Michigan State University. 5 The deliberations of this joint committee " . . . resulted in the belief that a special kind of student teach­ ing program, designed to train teachers for the junior high schools, was needed if significant improvements in the quality of teachers at this level were to be m a d e . " ^ As the committee developed this concept it became evident that student teaching experiences in Lansing were to undergo some dramatic changes. A student teacher in the SERL Project would normally work with and observe several different experienced teachers during the term, and participate in several classes for varying periods of time. Time was built into the SERL Project schedule to allow the student teacher to acclimate to the school and community through contacts with resource personnel and service agencies in the community.^ Some of the later reported changes were that stu­ dent teachers participated at a much higher level than usual in working with social agencies and teaching-related organizations. Student teachers were assigned on a much more flexible basis than in the conventional program in an effort to meet their individual needs. 12 ■^Lansing School District and Michigan State Uni­ versity, Student Teaching Office, SERL Project: A Project to Improve the Preparation of Teachers (brochure, Lansing, Michigan). ^ M a b e l Fry, "SERL Report: 1967" (Lansing, Mich. : Lansing School District, 1967). (Mimeographed.) 6 The Project participants were given the oppor­ tunity, through almost daily seminars with the consultant, to share experiences with each other. The student teachers had opportunities to pose problems in which they had had some involvement, help formulate the agenda for future seminars and Project activities, and determine which classes and teachers they would work with during the term. The SERL participants also had contacts with a variety of school personnel, including: audio visual experts, counselors, social agents, special education teachers, reading teachers, and principals. 13 These contacts were made in a variety of ways, including: seminars, visitations, interviews, discussions, and on-the-job experiences. The SERL activities were under the direction of the clinical consultant and the college coordinator. The clinical consultant was a teacher from the school staff, selected by the university and the school district. 14 Initially the consultant's time was donated by the Lansing School District. As the cluster concept developed further the school districts were reimbursed for the 13Ibid. 14 College of Education, "Newsletter," Michigan State University (East Lansing, Mich.: April 14, 1972), p. 4. 7 services of the consultants by Michigan State University. The consultant was able to allot part of his time to student teaching activities. The clinical consultant was responsible for all student teaching activities in the SERL building, and provided instruction to the stu­ dent teachers in such matters as were necessary. The clinical consultant also provided the leadership in planning and coordinating the SERL Project activities. The consultant received pre-service orientation and on­ going professional assistance from the college coordi­ nator . The SERL Project was tested in other schools, and eventually was modeled throughout other areas of the state in which Michigan State University had student teachers. This type of student teaching program became known as the cluster p r o g r a m . S e v e r a l basic purposes of the cluster program include: (1) Meeting the individual needs of student teachers in hopes that their teaching would reflect this approach; (2) Providing a broader base of experiences through exposure to several teaching models; 15Ibid. ■^"Student Teaching Year End Report: 1967-1968," Michigan State University, Student Teaching Office (East Lansing, Michigan, 1968), p. 28. 8 (3) Exposure to other teaching-related activities; (4) Involvement in the decision-making process; and (5) Bringing teacher preparation institutions into a closer relationship with the public schools they 17 serve. Today student teaching programs at Michigan State University include both the conventional and the cluster programs. Most members of the university student teach­ ing staff and the public school personnel agree that both programs should continue to be offered. 18 There is some research that has found some differences as a result of the program, 19 ' 20 but there is insufficient evidence to sup­ port either program as superior. Again, there is a 17 Deans and Directors Position Paper on Student Teaching Programs, Developed by Deans and Directors of Michigan Teacher Education Institutions, 1968. 18 Calvin C. Anderson, "Secondary Education Resi­ dency in Lansing— A Model Project Developed Cooperatively by the Lansing School District and Michigan State Uni­ versity to Improve the Preparation of Teachers" (unpub­ lished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 152. 19 Donald Chase, "A Comparative Study of the Coop­ erative Michigan State University— Lansing SERL Project and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching with Reference to Openness and Attitude Formation" (unpub­ lished dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971). 20 Charles L. Jackson, "A Study of Selected Stu­ dent Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State Uni­ versity Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers" (unpublished dissertation, Michigan State Uni­ versity, 1971). 9 reluctance to contend that either program is more effec­ tive in training teachers. This might be a result of a smugness that teacher educators have when they become too comfortable with modes of operation and are inflexible to change; 21 or it could be that student teaching is generally cited as one of the most valuable experiences of any in professional education and is not under severe criticism. 22 The overriding question becomes: Which program, if either, is more effective in fulfilling the objectives of student teaching? The enumeration of these objectives, and a description of a particular student teaching program can facilitate these goals. Most teacher educators agree that student teaching is a period of growth in which the student begins to focus on the critical analysis of the teaching act and the modification of behavior where necessary. 23 A major problem is the definition of the desired behavior. to aid m Some writers have developed theoretical models describing the effective teacher, 24 yet many 21 Robert S. Oana, "Flexibility in Student Teaching Building Approach" (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1968), p. 2. (Mimeographed.) 22 Silberman, o£. cit., p. 22. 23 Judson T. Shaplin, "Practice in Teaching," in Teacher Educ at ion, ed. by E. R. Smith (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p. 4. 24 Oana, o£. cit ., p. 2. 10 reject the position that student teaching means putting theory into practice. 25 Getzels and Jackson conclude in the Handbook of Research on Teaching that there is a lack of theory to explain the process used by the effective teacher. 26 Combs claims that there is no right way of teaching, and that we lack criteria on what makes a good teacher; yet, he indicates that we can somehow recognize a good teacher when we see one. 27 Some teacher educators are willing to more explicitly define teaching. Walton defines teaching as a " . . . systematic activity that induces or seeks to induce in oneself or others the learning of selected and preferred information, attitudes, skills, and habits." 28 Student teaching can approach this broad definition of teaching through experiences such as those listed by Oana 1. 2. 3. Planning; stating objectives in behavioral terms that are long range and flexible. Selecting and utilizing content and materials. Planning appropriate teaching methods. 25 Silberman, 0 £. cit., p. 63. 26 J. W. Getzels and P. Jackson, "The Teacher Per­ sonality and Characteristics," in Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 15*3), pp. 506-82. 27 Arthur Combs, "A Good Teacher," Educational Leadership, XXVII, No. 6 (March, 1970), 541. 28 John Walton, Toward Better Teaching in the Secondary Schools (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1966) , p. 14 11 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Analyzing classroom learning and teaching. Helping learners find meaning; knowing under what conditions they can best learn. Providing for individualized experiences for each child. Developing a secure classroom environment that is comfortable and interesting. Control of deviant behavior; pre-situation analysis; classroom management. Evaluating self and pupils; making adjustments and improvements in both. Establishing relationship with children, peers, parents, and others.29 Oana's listing is supported by the findings of Campbell who indicates a need for " . . . more exposure to and experience in a greater variety of teaching tech­ niques and teacher-pupil relationships.""^ These exper­ iences involve trying out theories in realistic situ­ ations under expert guidance. To implement these experiences appropriately there must be an improved relationship between the teacher preparation institutions and the public schools which allows long-range programs that center on a variety of laboratory experiences. 29 Oana, 0 £. 31 cit., p. 2. 30 Gene V. Campbell, "A Descriptive Study of the Effects of Student Teaching Upon Attitudes, Anxieties, and Perceived Problems of Student Teachers" (unpublished dissertation, University of Houston, 1968). 31 L. O. Andrews, "Initial Preparation of the Career Teacher," Educational Leadership, XXVII, No. 6 (March, 1970), 54T. 12 Purpose of the Study The author's purpose in this study is to determine the relationship of attitudes, teacher ratings, and career progress to the type of student teaching program in which the subject participated. It involves a comparison of past participants of the conventional student teaching program at Michigan State University with those past participants of the SERL Project. The author will investigate the following dependent variables: present attitudes held to­ ward teaching, the self reports of career success and satis­ faction of the past participants, their reported ability to individualize instruction, the supervisory ratings of their teaching, the self ratings of their teaching, and their satisfaction with student teaching. The questions under consideration are: (As com­ pared to past participants in the conventional student teaching program) 1. Do past SERL participants have a more positive attitude toward children and teaching? 2. Are past SERL Project participants considered to be more effective teachers? 3. Do past SERL participants achieve more satisfying and successful career positions? 4. Do past SERL participants meet the individual needs of their pupils more effectively? 13 5. Do past SERL participants report greater satis­ faction with their student teaching experience? The accepted level of significance was .05. The Need for the Study The information gathered and the answers provided by this study will assist those who work with student teacher programs at Michigan State University as well as those who are similarly employed in other teacher prepar­ ation institutions. If SERL Project participants demonstrate com­ paratively more positive attitudes toward children and teaching, are rated as more effective teachers by their superiors and themselves, are considered better able to individualize instruction, and are more successful and more satisfied in their teaching careers, then those responsible for teacher education programs must be made aware of these differences. It must be remembered that the SERL Project was the model for the more recent cluster program in student teaching at Michigan State University. If the objectives of student teaching are demonstrated to be more fully accomplished through the SERL Project, then educators must recognize this and implement the required changes in teacher education programs of the future. 14 Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested in this study: As a result of participation in the SERL Project: A-l Past participants in the SERL student teaching project will have significantly more positive attitudes toward teaching as a profession than student teachers who participated in the con­ ventional program. B-l Past SERL Project participants will be rated as significantly more effective teachers by their principals than teachers who had participated in the conventional program. B-2 Past SERL Project participants will rate them­ selves as significantly more effective teachers than will teachers who participated in the conventional program. C-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be significantly more satisfied in their occupation than will participants of the conventional program. C-2 Past participants of the SERL Project will be considered to be significantly more successful in their pursuit of career goals than will partici­ pants of the conventional program. C-3 Past participants of the SERL Project will have completed significantly more years of teaching than will participants of the conventional program. C-4 Past participants of the SERL Project will have completed significantly more formal professional education than will participants of the con­ ventional program. C-5 Past participants of the SERL Project will be significantly more active in extra school related function than will participants of the conventional program. 15 C-6 Past participants of the SERL Project will be significantly more active in political and com­ munity affairs than will participants of the conventional program. C-7 Past participants of the SERL Project will have significantly more plans for formal education in the next year than will participants of the conventional program. C-8 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the overall quality of their school significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. C-9 Past participants of the SERL Project will esti­ mate their influence in their school to be sig­ nificantly stronger than will participants of the conventional program. C-10 Past participants of the SERL Project will be significantly more likely to live in the same community in which they teach than will partici­ pants of the conventional program. C-ll Past participants of the SERL Project will sig­ nificantly more often rank their satisfaction with their school system as the most important reason for them to remain in the area in which they are living and teaching than will participants of the conventional program. D— 1 Past participants of the SERL Project will be reported to significantly more effectively indi­ vidualize instruction than will teachers who had participated in the conventional program. E-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be significantly more satisfied with their student teaching experience than will participants of the conventional program. E-2 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the usefulness of their student teaching experi­ ence significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. 16 E-3 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the teachers they worked with during student teaching significantly higher than will partici­ pants of the conventional program. E-4 Past participants of the SERL Project will have worked with significantly more student teachers during their teaching experience than will participants of the conventional program. Definition of Terms College coordinator.— The member of a college or university staff who is responsible for the organization coordination, and supervision of student teaching exper­ iences in the public schools. Coordinators in the con­ ventional program at Michigan State University typically visit, observe, and conduct weekly seminars with about twenty to twenty-five student teachers. Clinical consultant.— A regular public school teacher who is employed jointly by the public school dis trict and the university. He is responsible for all student teaching activities, assignments, planning, leadership, and coordination for a particular SERL building. Supervising teacher.— The public school teacher who is given the responsibility of working with the stu­ dent teacher during the classroom experience. referred to as the cooperating teacher. Also 17 Student teacher.— A college student in teacher education who is acquiring practical teaching experience under the guidance of qualified professionals. Conventional program.— The traditional program of student teaching offered at Michigan State University, which normally includes the assignment of one student teacher to one supervising teacher, joint evaluation by the college coordinator and the supervising teacher, and visitations, observations, and seminars with the college coordinator. SERL Project.— A joint project undertaken coopera­ tively by the Lansing School District and Michigan State University to improve the preparation of teachers for junior high school through a broadening of the learning experiences, individualizing of the experiences, and con­ tact with a variety of school-community activities and organizations. Cluster program.--A program of student teaching at Michigan State University which is modeled after the SERL Project, but includes all grade levels. Junior High Student Teacher.— A college student in teacher education who is acquiring practical teaching experience at a school that serves grades which may in­ clude 6th, 7th, 8th, and/or 9th. 18 Limitations This study is limited to the extent that the sample includes only SERL Project and conventional pro­ gram participants who student taught in the junior high schools of a particular city (Lansing, Michigan) during six terms of the project from fall term all through spring term, 1968. The data were gathered from subjects through a series of searches, follow-ups, mailings, and phone calls; yet, certain members of the sample could not be located. Three of the instruments were devised by the researcher, and were not formally validated, but were field tested bility. by the author or formally tested for relia­ The sample also includes members who did not enter the teaching profession, or who left after a short teaching experience. There was no attempt to compare subjects on the basis of personality, ability, achieve­ ment, marital status, grade points, or other such vari­ ables . Assumptions It is assumed that: 1. To have ing, high or positive attitudes toward teach­ as measured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, is desirable for teachers. 2. Supervisor ratings of teachers will be accurate indicators of teacher effectiveness. 19 3. Self-ratings will be accurate indicators of effective teaching. 4. Career success and satisfaction will be accurately reported. 5. Demographic variables such as: sex, socio­ economic status, age, ability, and pre-teaching experience will not be randomly distributed across both groups. Organization of the Study The author's purpose in this chapter has been to establish the nature of the study and its importance to educators. Descriptions of the SERL Project and the con­ ventional student teaching programs are included, as well as the limitations, assumptions, and organization of the study. Chapter II is devoted to a review of the litera­ ture related to the history and development of student teaching programs, and the findings of others who have investigated similar student teaching programs. Chapter III contains a discussion of the design of the study, and includes a description of instrument development, sample, and the statistical methods utilized. Chapter IV is devoted to the presentation and interpretation of the data. An analysis of the data will be presented along with the findings in relationship to the hypotheses. 20 The final chapter includes the summary and con­ clusions of the study, and the suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The literature relating to the development of stu­ dent teaching as an integral part of teacher education is reviewed in this chapter. A discussion of the bases for practical experience is followed by a review of the develop­ ments which lead to increased cooperation between public schools and teacher training institutions. A brief review of research on teacher effectiveness is followed by a review of the development of student teaching programs at Michigan State University. This section is concluded with a review of the SERL Project development. The summary draws upon the reported literature as it relates to the author's study. Development of Student Teaching Current trends in the professional education of teachers indicate that the emphasis is being placed on the practical aspects of teaching. Within the past twenty years the professional laboratory experience 21 22 has become increasingly an integral part of many pre­ service teacher preparation programs.^" It is in the laboratory situation of the school that " . . . the future teacher has an opportunity to analyze his problem (learning to teach), to bring to bear upon the problem such information and skill as he can command, to plan an attack, to apply the plan, and finally, to take an analytical look at the whole process." 2 In the ideal situation this is the true integration of theory and practice that enables the individual to become a teacher. 3 These experiences are of such high value to most that " . . . even the most vehement critics are willing to concede that one phase of professional edu­ cation has value— on-the-job experience commonly referred 4 to as student teaching." Lindley J. Stiles, A. S. Barr, H. R. Douglass, and H. H. Hubert, Teacher Education in the United States (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1966), p . 230. 2 Donald M. Sharpe, "Threshold to the Profession," National Education Association Journal, LIV, No. 4 (April, 1965), 33-35. 3Ibid. 4 Joseph A. DelPopolo, "Experiences a Student Teacher Should Have," in Secondary Student Teaching: Readings, ed. by Johnson (Glenview, 111. : Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971), p. 36. 23 Today student teaching is almost universally accepted as a requirement m teacher education. 5 Many go as far as to contend that professional educators should leave a good thing alone.8 Traditionally there has been a high value placed on practice teaching. 7 The apprenticeships of the middle ages were typical of the early strong belief g in learn by doing. In the early teacher training at the turn of the century the learn-by-doing experience in schools was considered to be the culmination of training to become a teacher. 9 Today the emphasis on learning through experience has gained the consensus of other professional groups that consider training effective if it " . . . emphasizes that utilization of the partici­ pant's background and experience is a more effective method of achieving relevance and meaningfulness. . . . Jim Johnson, A Brief History of Student Teaching (DeKalb, 111.: Creative Educational Materials, 1968) , pp. 3-10. 6Del Popolo, 0 £. cit., p. 36. 7 Johnson, o£. c i t . 8 Ibid. 9Ibid. ^8"The Michigan State University Agency for Inter­ national Development Communications Workshops" (paper presented at the International Communication Association Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, April, 1972), p. 6. (Mimeo­ graphed. ) 24 There is a strong modern tradition supporting the concept of learning through experience that extends from John Dewey to the present.^ The 1926 standards for accreditation of teacher education institutions included the recommendation that prospective teachers " . . . engage in first-hand experiences that go beyond verbalization. . . . " 12 The exact beginnings of the practice which sent prospective teachers into the schools for pre­ service experience is unclear. for " . . . Blair notes a requirement direct experiences for prospective teachers as early as 1600 in the schools in the Indian pueblos of New Mexico." 13 And also that, "In New England, in the early 1800's there grew a continuously sustained impression that opportunity for direct experience must be supplied as an imperative condition underlying effective teacher preparation." 14 Samuel Hall's early work established a model school in Concord, Vermont in 1823 ^ J o h n Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Collier Books, The Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series, 1938), p. 89. 12 Stiles, o£. cit., p. 234. "^^Lois C. Blair and Paul Erickson, The Student Teacher's Experiences in the Community (Cedar Falls, Iowa The Association for Student Teaching, No. 21, 1964), p. 3 14 Ibid. - v • j 25 in which prospective teachers were to observe and teach practice lessons under the supervision of a qualified teacher.^ The early interest in the preparation of teachers preceded the establishment of the first normal schools by several years. 16 With the development of the normal schools in the late 1830's teacher education turned toward the institutionalization of the concept of learn­ ing by doing. At Michigan State University the early teacher education program was imbued with this concept. 17 The idea of learning by doing was an evident philosophy of Michigan State University in its early years when stu­ dents were required to work several hours a week on the college farm as a part of their education. 18 This philosophy carried over to the university's development of the teacher education program about which it is 15 Mass.: Samuel Hall, Lectures in School Keeping (Boston, Richardson, Lord & Holbrook, 1829). 16 Allen S. Whitney, History of the Professional Training of Teachers: At the University of Michigan for the First-Half Century 1879 to 1929 (Ann Arbor, Mich.; George Wahr, publisher, i$3l) , p. 5. 17 . Victor H. Noll, The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State University (East Lansing, Mich.: College of Education, 1968), p. 231. 1ft Ibid., p. 173. 26 reported that teaching experience " . . . has always been obtained in a real, ongoing, classroom situation, never in a campus or demonstration school." 19 The purposes of such practical teaching exper­ iences at Michigan State University were not unlike those of other teacher education institutions elsewhere in the United States. Stiles reports that " . . . the growth of the prospective teacher is best promoted by placing the primary responsibility upon him for making decisions concerning the selection, organization, and presentation of instructional materials. . . . " 20 At Michigan State University the purposes of the teacher education program from the early beginnings were " . . . observing, consulting, actually teaching; living and participating in all activities of the school and the community. . . . " 21 It can be said that this philosophy was representative of other teacher education institutions throughout the development of teacher education programs in the United States. Implementation of Learning by Doing The concept of learning by doing in the prepar­ ation of teachers has been implemented in a wide variety 19Ibid., p. 231. 20 Stiles, ^Noll, 0 £. ci t ., p. 233. £. cit. , p. 231. 0 27 of ways. Most teacher educators view " . . . the teachers as the most important instrument through which a people could control its own future." 22 The best place for providing the future teacher the opportunity to develop was thought to be the laboratory school 23 m which a candidate could observe experienced teachers and do a limited amount of practice teaching. Hall 25 and Horace Mann 26 24 Samuel are considered to be the early proponents of the laboratory school. came under state regulation in 1839, These schools first 27 and served primarily as opportunities for modeling, observing, and practicing under the supervision of qualified teachers. In most laboratory schools several students were assigned to one qualified teacher 28 under which each would be able to teach on a limited basis. 22 Blair, o£. cit., p. 6. ^ Ibid ., p . 2 . 24 Stiles, ojd. ci t ., p. 231. 25x, ., Ibid. 26 Whitney, o£. cit., p. 8. 27 Stiles, 0 £. 2 8Sharpe, 0 ci t ., p. 231. £. cit., p. 35. The emphasis 28 was on observation and practice. 29 The " . . . college administration and faculty dominated and controlled the laboratory school . . . " 30 and " . . . the laboratory school was quite separate from the public schools. . . . " 31 The laboratory school was the typical practical experience offered by teacher training institutions until the 1930's. There was some limited use of the public schools in the early 1900's, but this proved to be a temporary expedient for teacher training institutions who were establishing their own schools. 32 By 1912 fully 75 per cent of those in teacher education received their practical experiences in laboratory schools. 33 Yet, there was a basic conflict between the theoretically based laboratory school and practicing teachers. 34 In 1965 Smith summarized it in this way: 29t, •, Ibid. 30 E. Brooks Smith and Patrick Johnson, eds., School-College Relationships in Teacher Education: Report of a National Survey of Cooperative Ventures (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges forTeacher Edu­ cation, 1964), p. 1. 3 1 32 Ibid. T u ■>» Johnson, o£. cit. 34 E. Brooks Smith, "Problems and Developments in: School-College Cooperation," National Education Associ­ ation Journal, LIV, No. 4 (April, 1965) , 36. 29 Despite many elaborate efforts in the past to break through the barrier between experimentalism and practice, between the realms of the working school and of the theorizing university school of education, gains have been modest, indeed. Everyone on both sides means well, but the means for working in col­ laboration toward the improvement of education for children has evaded us. In this respect, the demon­ stration laboratory school was a failure. It intensified the separation because it became such an unreal situation that teachers could not translate their observations into typical school settings.35 The laboratory school came under attack for not meeting the very objectives it had been established to meet. Between 1932 and 1952 full-time, off-campus practical experiences which included community experiences became a typical part of teacher preparation in the United States. 36 The use of off-campus public schools for student teaching doubled between 1940 and 1950. 37 Unfortunately these changes were forced primarily by factors other than current philosophical convictions. As campus laboratory schools became " . . . multitudes of prospective teachers" 38 inundated by after World War II it became economically impossible " . . . to build, staff 35Cooperative Structures in School-College Relationships for Teacher Education, E. B-! Smith, chair­ man (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1965), p. 101. 36 Johnson, o£. cit., p. 177. 37 J Ibid. 38 Smith and Johnson, £. ci t ., p. 2. 0 30 and administer the requisite number of campus schools." 39 Faced with the task of training such large numbers of teachers the teacher training institutions moved to the increased use of off-campus public schools for student teaching. At about the same time some teacher educators were recommending the abandonment of the laboratory school on a theoretical basis. In 1948 John Flowers and his associates recommended " . . . that off-campus stu­ dent teaching should replace the campus school program of practice teaching. . . . " 40 This report recommended that the functions of the laboratory school should be altered to include direct observation and participation, but not to include student teaching. 41 Between 1946 and 1953 there was also an increase in the time spent in student teaching. This " . . . seriously jeopardized the effectiveness of the laboratory school as a center for extensive individual and group J. Flowers, Recommended Standards Governing Professional Laboratory Experiences and Student Teaching, First Yearbook (Washington, D. C .: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1948), p. 89. 41Ibid., pp. 88-98. 31 observation and for pre-student teaching participation. 42 . . . " This increased the pressure on teacher edu­ cators to move to the public school setting. It can be concluded from the literature cited that there were four basic forces which influenced teacher education institutions to utilize the public schools for student teaching. These were: (1) the vast numbers of teacher candidates which flooded the colleges after World War II; (2) the resulting economic crises in higher education which prevented the further development of laboratory schools; (3) the increase in the time spent in student teaching; and (4) the philosophical conflict between those theoreticians of the laboratory school and those of the practicing profession. Partnership in Teacher Education Student teaching is generally considered to be an indispensible experience in pre-service teacher education programs. Stiles reported that, "Teachers are practically unanimous in the opinion that student teaching was the most valuable experience in the pre-service education program." 43 Yet it was not until the late 1940's and early 1950's that great numbers of schools were called 42 Blair and Erickson, 43 Stiles, 0 £. cit., p. 10. £. cit.., p. 260. 0 upon to aid in finding a solution to the unreal situation of the laboratory schools. Even then many teacher edu­ cation institutions "were rarely presented with the oppor­ tunity to share in the planning and decision making about the program of practice teaching which was to be carried on in their schools, and supervised by their teachers in their classrooms." 44 Not until professional educators became more aware that "a teacher's effectiveness in a school and a community depends in large part upon his relationships with other staff members, with pupils, and with citizens," and that " . . . 45 the teacher's responsibilities extend far beyond the classroom," 46 did it become overwhelmingly evident that teacher education was a joint responsibility. The idea of shared responsibility for teacher education received the support of both the public schools and the universities. 47 Accordingly, there has been a trend toward the emphasis of the practical or applied 44 Smith and Johnson, o£. cit., p. 3. 45 William T. Gruhn, Student Teaching in the Secondary School (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1954), p. 24 8. 46,., , Ibid., p. 6. 47 Calvin C. Anderson, "Secondary Education Residency in Lansing— A Model Project Developed Cooperatively by the Lansing School District and Michigan State University to Improve the Preparation of Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 28. preparation of teachers 48 to the point that some are pro­ posing a fusion of " . . . professional theory and con­ tent with continuous and simultaneous experience in the classroom situation." 49 Even with these blueprints for action there continued to be the fear that teacher edu­ cation institutions would simply dominate the development of the public school experience and " . . . the schools of their plans." merely notify 50 With time the recognition of student teaching as the responsibility of both the public schools and the uni­ versities became a reality. Smith summarized a 1965 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education report with the admonition that " . . . teachers and education professors should be partners in a profession where everyone is responsible for the induction of the novice. In 1965 Sharpe reported that, "One of the most promising developments in teacher education has been the increasing envolvement of elementary and secondary 48 Stiles, 0 £. cit., p. 228. 49 Glaydon D. Robbins, "New Preparation for Teachers," The Educational Forum, XXXVI, No. 1 (November, 1971), 101. 50A New Order in Student Teaching, Joint Committee on State Responsibility for Student Teaching (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, National Commission on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, 1971), p. 2. 51 Smith, £. ci t ., p. 35. 0 teachers, public school administrators, and even lay boards of education in planning and conducting the student teaching program." 52 The National Education Association recommended in one of its 1967 publications that "policies should be developed cooperatively by the institutions, groups, and agencies that are to be affected by such policies," 53 and "that colleges and schools recognize their mutual responsibility to plan and administer the student teach­ ing program cooperatively."'’^ The concept of student teaching broadened as the public schools generally became the accepted partner with the universities. In 1958 the Association for Student Teaching bulletin declared that "these directed exper­ iences cannot be limited to the school itself, for the prospective teacher must also learn of his responsibili­ ties to the community. " Further that, "studying the school program and its place in the community, observing 52 Sharpe, o jd . cit., p. 35. 53A New Order in Student Teaching, o p . cit., p. 7 ^ Ibid. , p . 9 . 55 Lois C. Blair, Dwight Curtis, and A. C. Moon, The Purposes, Functions and Uniqueness of the CollegeControlled Laboratory School, Bulletin No. 9 (Cedar Falls Iowa: The Association for Student Teaching, 1958), 29. 35 the school through the eyes of a resident, and trying to utilize community resources provide insights and under­ standings that can benefit student teachers throughout their professional careers." 56 Others also added their support to the expansion of the student teaching experience from the laboratory school practices. Gruhn stated that " . . . the school is not alone in providing educational experiences for the child," 57 and " . . . the teacher's responsibilities ex- tend far beyond the classroom." 58 In a Michigan State University coordinator's handbook the position that a "student's responsibilities are viewed broadly and may include involvement in civic and community undertakings. . . . " 59 Stiles suggested that: The program [student teaching] should be suf­ ficiently broad and varied to involve the student teacher actively in the major instructional and non-instructional activities of the teacher. . . . [It] might well include teaching in both major and minor subject fields to different groups of pupils.60 ~^Ibid. , p. 9. 57 Gruhn, op. cit. , p. 9. J®Ibid., p. 6. 59 Catherine Reed and Horton Southworth, eds., A Handbook for Student Teaching Coordinators (East Lansing, Mich.: College of Education, Michigan State University, 1965) , p. 10. ^Stiles, op. cit. , p. 265. 36 Stiles also outlined a plan whereby: Ideally a student preparing to teach should have direct experiences with two or more community agencies. Throughout the prospective teacher's college career he should be encouraged to visit, observe, and in some instances become an active . member of several types of organizations, . . . The federal government also gave its support to the development of cooperation between universities and public schools. A 1965 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education report on federal involvement in teacher education pointed out that, "The Elementary-Second­ ary Education Act of 1965 in Title III and IV suggests very close cooperation between schools and universities and other community and private agencies. . . . " 62 This partnership in student teaching developed throughout the 1950's and I960's. The surge of college students after World War II, and the conviction that a more realistic experience could be had in the public schools were the primary forces that resulted in the improvement of cooperation between public schools and universities. In many cases the public schools were beginning to have a major influence in teacher education. Teacher Effectiveness The question of what is an effective teacher has continuously plagued modern educators in their attempts 61Ibid., pp. 254-55. 62 Smith, op. cit., p. 1965. 37 to determine how to develop effective teacher training programs. Harris reported that: More than half-century of research effort has not yielded meaningful, measurable criteria around which the majority of the nation's educators can rally. No standards exist which are commonly agreed upon as the criteria of teacher effectiveness.65 Blume also concluded that "there is no single method of teaching which can be demonstrated to be superior for all teachers. 64 A 1961 American Association of School Adminis­ trators Survey of available research on teacher effective­ ness concluded there . . . appears to be no such single person as the uni­ versally effective teacher. Teaching is a complex of professions, each with widely differing requirements and activities. Teaching is as complex as the edu­ cational process in the modern world. No general definition has been worked out to date. • • • The notion of the "good teacher" so basic to [the] study of teacher effectiveness turns out to be almost as vague and diffuse as the range of human experience relative to teaching.65 Researchers continue to investigate the possible variables that contribute to effective teaching. Most research on teacher effectiveness has investigated: (1) personalities, (2) instructional styles, (3) self­ perceptions, or (4) the perceptions teachers have of 63 Chester W. Harris, ed., Encyclopedia of Educa­ tional Research (New York: Macmillan Co . , 1960), p. 1481. 64 Robert Blume, "Humanizing Teacher Education," Phi Delta Kappan, LII, No. 7 (March, 1971), 411-13. ^ W illiam J. Ellena, Question: Who Is A Good Teacher? (Washington, D.C.: American Association of School Administrators, 1961), pp. 36-37. 38 others.^6 The most conclusive statements about effective teaching ventured by some who consider they have support typically are that "a good teacher is a good person," 6V or a good teacher is characterized as a " . . . unique personality," 68 as human and flexible. 69 easier to identify what he is not, " . . . It appears he does not seem to be dominated by a narcissistic self which demands a spotlight . . . " 70 than what is an effective teacher. Ryans handled the problem of defining effective teaching by contending that: Each school system must . . . evolve its own oper­ ational definition of "good teaching." This means careful thought to the school system's own objec­ tives in light of local community values shared by the larger community. . . . 71 66 Don Hamachek, "Characteristics of Good Teachers and Implications for Teacher Education," Phi Delta Kappan, L, No. 6 (February, 1969) , 341. 6^Ibid., p. 343. 6Q Arthur W. Combs, The Professional Education of Teachers: A Perceptual View o£ Teacher Preparation (Bos­ ton: Allyn and Bacon,Inc., 1965) , p. 6"! ^Hamachek, op. cit. , p. 341. 71 David G. Ryans, "Theory Related to Teacher Effectiveness as Applied to Teacher Behavior," Theoretical Bases for Professional Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education, Forty-Fourth Yearbook (Dupuque, Iowa: William Brown Co., Association for Student Teaching, 1965), p. 15. 39 Hamachek pointed out that: Just as there are intellectual differences among students, there are also personality and self-concept differences which can have just as much impact on achievement. If this is true, then perhaps we need to do more about preparing teachers who are sensitive to the nature of these differences and who are able to take them into account as they plan for their classes.72 He also advised that teacher educators: Provide more opportunities for the teacher candidates to acquire more positive self-other perceptions. Self-concept research tells us that how one feels about himself is learned. If it is learned, it is teachable.72 Garvey concluded " . . . that success in student teaching is affected by, but not necessarily determined by a positive view of oneself. . . . " 74 Probably a more significant direction for teacher educators to take would be to help teachers become effective once they begin teaching. Aspy con­ siders the problem of survival more crucial than that of competence for beginning teachers. 72 Hamachek, 0 £. 75 The participants of cit., p. 343. 73Ibid., p. 344. 74 Reba Garvey, "Self-Concept and Success in Stu­ dent Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, XXI, No. 3 (Fall, 1970), 360. 75 David N. Aspy, "Maslow and Teachers in Train­ ing," Journal of Teacher Education, XX, No. 3 (Fall, 1969), 304. 40 his study reported one of their most serious problems to be that of meeting individual needs of pupils. 76 The identification of effective teaching can become an end in itself. Remmers warned: It is essential to remember that "teaching success" is not in itself an operational criteria. It is, rather, a standard of performance in a specific work situation that some individuals are said to manifest. These judgments are made by significant others in their e n v i r o n m e n t . 77 A more pragmatic approach is taken by Stiles. He contends that "teachers are now evaluated, have always been evaluated, and so far as we can now see will always be evaluated. The problem is how to get better evalu- ..78 ation." Student Teaching at Michigan State University Michigan State University became involved in the preparation of teachers early in its history. As an agricultural institution its early student teachers were quite naturally secondary teacher candidates in agri­ culture and home economics. Noll reported that pros­ pective teachers of home economics student taught in 76Ibid., p. 305. 77 H. H. Remmers, "Rating Methods in Research on Teaching," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1967), pp. 42021 . 78 Stiles, o£. cit., p. 151. 41 cooking courses in the vicinity as early as 1903, and by 1918 formal courses were offered in practice teaching. 79 The National Vocational Education Act of 1917 provided federal aid in support of vocational education in agri­ culture and home economics, and for the training of teachers in these fields. 8 0 This act required that the participating students be supervised by qualified critic teachers.8^ These early student teaching experiences were relatively short in duration when compared to the present day full-time experience of student teachers. Yet the basis for a practical teaching experience for teaching candidates had been established. In 1925 the student teaching program at Michigan State was expanded to include teachers in the Liberal Arts. 82 For the first time in its history Michigan State paid public school teachers to be critic teachers, and with this the basis for off-campus practice teaching had been firmly laid. 83 The early philosophy of the Michigan State Uni­ versity student teaching program was " . . . ^8Noll, 0 £. that student cit., pp. 18, 42. 88Ibid. , p. 37. 8^Ibid., p. 41. 82Ibid., p. 54. 88Ibid., p. 58. 42 teaching is mutually beneficial to the college and the High School, . . . " 'learning by doing' 84 and that " . . . 85 . . . " the idea of should prevail. A variety of schedules were tried in these early student teaching experiences. At one time students in home economics spent two full weeks each term for one year in the public school, and agricultural students spent one hour per week for six weeks in the public school. Other variations that developed included the visitation to one class, five days per week for one term; and eventually, in 1941 full time for six weeks. 86 In 1944 the Kellogg Foundation offered a limited number of scholarships to elementary students for full-time student 87 teaching away from campus. In 1957 Stearns reported in a follow-up study of the Kellogg program that it provided; (1) Opportunities to work and share as a group in all aspects of the program. (2) Experience in activities that helped develop self-confidence and critical thinking. (3) Experience in realistic situations involving all aspects of community living. (4) Appreciation of the values of service to the community.88 8 4 Ibid., p. 76. 8 5 Ibid., p. 173. 8 6 Ibid., pp. 52, 77, 95. 8 7 Ibid., p. 125. 88Ibid., pp. 126-27. 43 In 1955 the university's commitment to full­ time student teaching in the community was evidenced by the establishment of four student teaching centers. 89 These centers were established to: . . . emphasize more than the classroom activity. A major purpose of the arrangement was to permit the student to participate in every phase of the pro­ gram of the school and in many community activities .90 In the early 1970's Michigan State University had more than sixteen of these centers operating throughout the state. With the development of these centers came new ideas for working in cooperation with the public schools. Each center had a college coordinator or director who was responsible for the student teaching program in the center. Generally, college coordinators assigned students " . . . on a one to one basis to a supervising teacher"; 91 held weekly seminars with the students " . . . to plan, share and evaluate student teaching and extend the professional preparation beyond prior experience . . . "; 92 and approached these exper­ iences with the view that the responsibilities of stu­ dents should include involvement in civic and community . . . 93 activities. 8 9 Ibid., 91 pp. 126-27. 9 0 Ibid., p. 172. Reed, o p . cit., p. 10. 92Ibid., p. 30. 93Ibid., p. 10. 44 The Development of the SERL Project According to Shaplin, Murphy, 97 94 Fox, 95 Stiles, 96 and student teaching is a practical opportunity to appraise the entire educational program of a community and to learn how to analyze, evaluate, criticize, improve and control the learning situation. These opportunities required that the teaching candidate get involved in the broader community in which he taught. These concepts called for much more than the " . . . practice session in imitating the cooperating teacher or an exercise in exhibiting competencies already acquired." 98 There was also a growing concern for the indi­ vidual in student teaching programs. Stiles suggested that: 94 Judson T. Shaplin, "Practice in Teaching," m Teacher Education, ed. by E. Smith (New York: Harper and Row, publishers, 1962), p. 83. 95 Philip S. Fox, "Student Teaching: The Culmi­ nating Experience," in Readings in Student Teaching, ed. by J. Johnson and F. Perry (DuBuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company, 1967), p. 297. ^Stiles, 0 £. cit., pp. 52-54, 235. 97 Geraldine Murphy, "The Prospective Teacher as Observer," in Secondary Student Teaching: Readings, ed. by J. Johnson and R. Anderson (Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971), p. 24. 98 A New Order in Student Teaching, op. cit., p. 4 45 Student teaching should be adjusted to the abilities, experiences, and needs of the individual student teacher. The same principles which underlie pro­ visions in elementary and secondary schools for individual differences among pupils apply in programs of student teaching. The experiences of different student teachers should be varied with respect to time requirements and the nature of the activities in which they engage.99 It should therefore be the joint responsibility of the public school and the college to " . . . assist each college student to select and engage in the type of direct experiences that have optimum potential value for It was with these basic concerns that Michigan State University and the Lansing School District embarked upon the development of the Secondary Education Residency Lansing Project (SERL). More specifically, "The purpose of the SERL Project is to identify and develop methods of preparing teachers to organize and manage instruction in such a way as to meet at a higher level the unique learning needs of the wide variety of youngsters in the typical junior high classroom. And: It is intended that the student teachers will participate at a much higher level than usual, in working with social agencies and organizations in 99 Stiles, 0 £. cit., p. 266. 100Ibid., T. p. 236. 101,,SERL (Secondary Education Residency-Lansing) Project," Report to Lansing School District Board of Education (Lansing, Mich.: April 7, 1966). (Mimeographed.) 46 the community, and will be much more likely to spend time in student homes and community activities than is typical of student teachers. In carrying out their in-school activities, stu­ dents will be assigned on a much more flexible basis than in a typical student teaching arrangement .1 0 2 The university also provided a half-time coordi­ nator to work with the student teachers assigned to the SERL building, and the Lansing School District provided a part-time consultant to work with the students and teachers in the project. 103 The SERL Project seemed to draw upon the earlier recommendations of B l a i r , S h a r p e , S t i l e s , a n d Gruhn 107 that student teaching should be sufficiently broad to encompass the major instructional and noninstructional activities of teachers. Fry reported that during the first term of the project that student teachers would typically: . . . spend three hours a day in a classroom learning the instructional processes and how to manage the classroom. . . . [be] given time to plan their lessons, and time to visit classroom teachers to observe methods other than those of their supervising teachers. 102t. ., 103x, Ibid. 104 Ibid. Blair, Curtis, and Moon, ojd. c i t ., p. 29. 105_, •. c Sharpe, ojd. cit., p. 35. 1 0 6 Stiles, 107 Gruhn, o£. cit., p. 265. £. cit., p. 237. 0 47 . . . explorefs] the neighborhoods from where the school draws its students. . . . meet[s] the principal and assistant princi­ pals and becomes familiar with the hierarchy that composes the school. . . . meet[s] the office staff. . . . In addition to these activities the student teacher became involved in training in the use and preparation of instructional aids, the city-wide edu­ cation programs, professional organizations, and with school district specialists. 109 Fry also reported that: The students in SERL became a very close group. . . . They hashfed] many of their problems out with each other, and what a difference it makes to a student teacher to discover that someone else has the same difficulties.liO This sounds very much like the recommendations of Stiles^"*" and o thers ^ ^ who suggested that participants of a problem-solving situation must utilize their back­ grounds and experiences to achieve meaningfulness, and to effect change in behavior. 1 no Mabel Fry, "SERL" (paper submitted to Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich., College of Edu­ cation, 1967), pp. 1-4. 109t, .. Ibid. 110_. .. Ibid. ‘'"^Stiles, o£. cit., p. 230. 112 "The Michigan State University Agency for International Development Communications Workshops," o p . cit., p. 3. 48 Subsequent reports of the SERL Project indicated that it provided: 1. 2. 3. 4. A highly individualized and flexible student teaching experience. Contact with several different teachers in the school building instead of just one as under the traditional program. Contact with a variety of activities in the school and community in addition to classroom teaching. A close relationship between the student teaching program and the public school building staff, thus involving the professional more directly in teacher education.113 Much of a 1968 position paper on student teaching formulated by the deans and directors of teacher training institutions of the state of Michigan related directly to those objectives of the SERL Project. 114 Special emphasis was given to the concept of individualizing student teaching experiences, and broadening the teach­ ing and community experiences in cooperation with the public schools. At Michigan State University the SERL Project served as a model for development of similar programs "Student Teaching Year End Report 1967-1968" (East Lansing, Mich.: College of Education, Student Teaching Office, 1968). 114 "Deans and Directors Position Paper on Student Teaching Programs," Developed by Deans and Directors of Michigan Teacher Education Institutions, 1968. (Mimeographed.) 49 in several of the student teaching centers. 115 These programs, known as clusters, incorporated most of the objectives of the SERL Project. The major exception was that a college coordinator was expected to coordinate the cluster program for several clusters during the term, and was not able to spend as much time with the indi­ vidual student teachers as he was able to in the SERL Project. The cluster consultant, with the continued assistance of the college coordinator assumed many of those responsibilities. Subsequent research of the SERL Project and the similar cluster program has offered some support for the beliefs of the initiators of the programs. Probably the most significant findings were reported by C h a s e . H e found that student teachers in the SERL Project had more positive attitudes as indicated on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory than student teachers in the con­ ventional student teaching program. Chase also found that SERL Project student teachers were more open, had a greater positive change in openness during the term of 115 "Student Teaching Year End Report 1967-1968," op. cit., p. 28. 116 Donald J. Chase, "A Comparative Study of the Cooperative Michigan State University-Lansing SERL Pro­ ject and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching with Reference to Openness and Attitude Formation" (unpub­ lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), pp. 88-89. 50 student teaching, and had a greater positive change in attitudes than did the conventional group. 117 Anderson reported that 89 per cent of those who worked with the SERL Project endorsed the concept, with 70 per cent citing the opportunity " . . . to share common problems, experiences, ideas, success, failures, and techniques" as the major advantage. 118 He also reported that nearly all the subjects of his study be­ lieve the non-classroom experiences were desirable and should be an integral part of student teaching. 119 In a study of an elementary cluster program Jackson found that the cluster participants " . . . reported having experienced more of the selected student teaching experiences . . . " 120 and that " of those experiences reported by the respondents, more were reported as valuable by the cluster program student teachers than by the conventional program student 118 119 120 Anderson, 0 £. cit., pp. 89-97. . Ibid., p. 44. Charles Louis Jackson, "A Study of Selected Student Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State University Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 62. 51 teachers. 121 Jackson also reported that more of the cluster participants than conventional recommended the inclusion of more of the selected experiences. 122 Another study of the cluster program by Parker found only slight differences between the cluster and conventional participants when scores on attitude, stereotypic beliefs, and grade points were compared. 123 Parker also reported no significant differences on the K • of * sex. 124 basis In summary it is difficult to support broad generalizations based on the research available on the SERL Project and the cluster program. There have been somewhat conflicting reports concerning attitudes of student teachers, even while most support the general concepts of the project. Summary The concept of learning by doing has permeated teacher education programs since their early development. Throughout the history of teacher education it has been 121 , ., Ibid. 123 122 , Ibid. James Arthur Parker, "A Comparative Study of the Michigan State University Cluster Program and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching in the Saginaw Area with Reference to Stereotypic Beliefs and Attitude Formation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), pp. 73-74. 124t, ., Ibid. 52 realized that teachers become effective teachers through a myriad of experiences. Educators have continuously struggled with the implementation of this concept in the pre-service program of teachers. Stiles, 125 Blair, 126 and other teacher educators consider student teaching as an opportunity for the candidate to study the teaching process through analysis of the realistic teaching responsibilities. Teacher educators have experimented continuously with new approaches in attempts to meet these challenges. The development of teacher education programs at Michigan State University has been quite typical. The major emphasis has been on learning through experience in the most realistic setting available. was premised on these ideas. The SERL Project It included greater involve­ ment in the community, a broadening of both the teaching and non-teaching experiences, and a high level of indi­ vidualization . Researchers of the SERL Project have reported some promising results concerning attitudes and exper­ iences. Yet conclusive statements about the long-range effects of the program related to teacher effectiveness, 125 126 Stiles, 0 £. cit., p. 230. Blair, Curtis, and Moon, £. ci t ., p. 29. 0 53 attitudes, and success cannot be made. The literature supports the need for the testing of several hypotheses related to past participants of this teacher education program. These hypotheses have been set out in Chapter I. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The author's purpose in this chapter is to de­ scribe the methods employed in the study, the development of the data-gathering instruments, and to present the criterion levels established for the study. Methodology The population of this study was composed of 143 former student teachers of Michigan State University.^" This population consisted of 80 junior high student teachers who had participated in the SERL Project and 63 subjects from the conventional student teaching program in the Lansing School District during the following terms: fall, 1966; winter, spring and fall, 1967; winter and spring 1968 (Table 3.1). The subjects represented both sexes, teachers and non-teachers, and a wide range of educational preparation. There was no attempt to make comparisons based on teaching "^This number represents the members of the popu­ lation that could be located through the mail. 54 55 TABLE 3.1.— Population of the study, by year, term, and program. Year Term Conventional Totals 1966 Fall 8 7 15 1967 Winter 6 12 18 1967 Spring 11 13 24 1967 Fall 22 7 29 1968 Winter 18 15 33 1968 Spring 15 9 24 80 63 N = 143 Totals SERL Project experience, school size, or educational preparation. All comparisons were performed on the basis of the SERL and conventional student teaching programs. Each subject was located through the mail between December 1971 and March 1972. Several sources were used in locating these former students. Records in the Michigan State University Student Teaching Office were used to provide the list of participants for these terms. Addresses were acquired through these records, the Alumni Association records office, Married Housing office records, and student directories. Initial contact was made through an introductory letter (Appendix A) which explained the purposes of the study and requested verifi­ cation of the address on a returnable postcard. 56 A Survey of Former Michigan State University Stu­ dent Teachers was developed by the author with the assist­ ance of area teachers, administrators, and college pro­ fessors (Appendix B ) . This Survey was field tested in the local area and revisions were made on this testing basis. The Survey and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (Appendix C) were mailed to each subject in February 1972 with a stamped return addressed envelope. A follow-up postcard was sent out three weeks later. This card was followed by a series of telephone calls where possible, and finally another postcard. One hundred five subjects replied to the MTAI and the Survey. Four of these returns could not be used in the analysis. Table 3.2 indicates the returns from the participants of the two programs being studied. TABLE 3.2.— Return of MTAI and Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers. SERL Project Conventional Totals Number Mailed 80 63 143 Number Returned 63 42 105 Percent Returned 78.8 66.7 73.4 Percent not Returned 21.2 33.3 26.6 57 As the data were returned they were sorted to determine whether the subjects were teaching or not teach­ ing. If they were employed by a school district they were sent the two rating instruments that had been developed by the author. A second set of data-gathering instruments was developed during winter term of 1972. This set contained an instrument, Teacher Self Rating, on which those in the population who were teaching at the time of the study could rate their teaching effectiveness and satisfaction with teaching (Appendix D ) . The Teacher Rating by Princi­ pal instrument was designed to obtain a teacher effective­ ness rating by the current principal (Appendix E ) . These two instruments were developed with the assistance of school administrators and teachers from the surrounding area, college faculty members, and a representative of the Michigan Education Association. These instruments were field tested informally by the author. Fifty-one of the 105 subjects indicated they were employed by a school system, and they were sent the two rating instruments to complete and return. Table 3.3 indi­ cates the number of subjects that were employed by the school system who received the two rating instruments. These rating instruments were sent out April 1972. In May a duplicate set of these rating instruments was sent to each subject that had not yet responded. A TABLE 3.3.— Percent and number of subjects teaching from total population by year of expected gradu­ ation. SERL Project Contentional Total ---------------------------------------n % n % n Year 1967 11 52.4 9 40.9 20 46.5 1968 21 51.2 10 50.0 31 49.04 Totals 32 19 51 personal handwritten letter was enclosed with this final follow-up. The analysis was begun during the last week of May 197 2. Thirty-eight of the Teacher Self Rating instruments were returned (73%) , while thirty-three of the Teacher Rating by Principal instruments were returned (63.5%). The responses of two subjects on the Teacher Self Rating instruments were not usable in the analysis, while four of the Teacher Rating by Principal ratings were not used. 59 Measures Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was administered by mail to the 14 3 members of the population. The MTAI was used by Chase, 2 Price, 3 and Parker 4 in their studies of Michigan State University student teaching programs. The MTAI is probably " . . . the most popular 5 instrument for measurement of teacher attitudes. . . . " The MTAI was developed by Cook and others at the University 2 Donald J. Chase, "A Comparative Study of the Cooperative Michigan State University-Lansing SERL Project and the Conventional Program of Student Teaching with Reference to Openness and Attitude Formation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971) , p. 45. ^William J. Price, "A Study of the Effects of the Student Teaching Assignment upon the Educational Attitudes of Secondary Student Teachers at Michigan State Uni­ versity" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971), p. 37. 4 James Arthur Parker, "A Comparative Study of the Michigan State University Cluster Program and Conventional Program of Student Teaching in the Saginaw Area with Reference to Stereotypic Beliefs and Attitude Formation" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni­ versity, 1971) , p. 45. ^J. W. Getzels and P. Jackson, "The Teacher Personality and Characteristics," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. by N. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963), p. 508. 60 of Minnesota, where much of the testing and validation of the instrument was centered. Originally the MTAI was developed as an instrument to be used in the prediction of how well an individual would get along with pupils and how satisfied he would be as a teacher. The MTAI instruction manual suggests that "logically, the use of the Inventory may possibly be ex­ tended to other areas, such as measuring the effective­ ness of a teacher-education program. . . . The MTAI is constructed in such a way that: It is assumed that a teacher ranking at the high end of the scale should be able to maintain a state of harmonious relations with his pupils, characterized by mutual affection and sympathetic understanding.? With respect to the poor teacher: At the other extreme of the scale is the teacher who attempts to dominate the classroom. . . . Ridicule, sarcasm and sharp-tempered remarks are common. The teacher tends to think in terms of his status, the correctness of the position he takes on classroom matters, and the subject matter to be covered rather than in terms of what the pupil needs, feels, knows, and can do . 8 Callis reported that " . . . it appears that with the MTAI we can predict the kind of interpersonal re9 lations which will exist in a classroom . . . , Walter W. Cook, C. H. Leeds, and R. Callis, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1951), p. 3. ^Ibid. ®Ibid. 9 Robert Callis, "The Efficiency of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal while a later study reported by Munro questions the pre­ dictive validity of the MTAI in the selection of teacher training candidates.^ Stiles reported a rather low correlation of 0.56 between the MTAI and judged success of teachers. ^ There have also been conflicting reports of MTAI scores after student teaching. Sandgren reported a mean score of 42.6 on the MTAI before student teaching, and a mean of 54.34 after student teaching. 12 He found this to be a significant difference, and concluded that candi­ dates' attitudes improve during their student teaching experience. On the other hand, Sandgren was skeptical of the MTAI's usefulness in predicting success in teaching. However, Dutton found " . . . significant changes occurred in a negative direction toward children on the Relations in the Classroom," The Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII, No. 2 (1953), 62-85. ^ B a r r y C. Munro, "The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory as a Predictor of Teaching Success," The Journal of Educational Research, LVIII, No. 3 (November^ 1964) , 138-39. ■^Lindley J. Stiles and others, Teacher Education in the United States (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960), p. 146. 12 Duane L. Sandgren and Louis G. Schmidt, "Does Practice Teaching Change Attitudes Toward Teaching," Journal of Educational Research, XLIX, No. 7 (March, 1956), MTAI (total score) during student teaching." 13 Other sources indicate an increase can be expected in MTAI scores during student teaching. 14 A decrease in MTAI scores of beginning teachers can be expected, even after only six months of teaching . 1 5 Callis reported an estimated mean of 27.5 or slightly below for experienced teachers . 1 5 Day used the MTAI in a mail follow-up study of teacher education majors one year after graduation. 17 Seventy-five per cent of the subjects returned the com­ pleted MTAI. He found that the teaching group lost an average of points after one year of teaching, while 20 the non-teaching group lost an average of 1.5 points. 18 There has been some concern about faking when responding to attitude instruments. ates concluded that: Cook and his associ­ "It may be assumed that every Wilbur H. Dutton, "Attitude Change of Elementary School Student Teachers and Anxiety," The Journal of Educational Research, L V , No. 8 (May, 1962), 381. 14 Getzels and Jackson, op. cit., p. 515. 1 5 Ibid.. , p. 509. 1 5 Callis, op. cit., p. 84. 17Harry P. Day, "Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers After Initial Teaching Experience," Journal of Teacher Education, X, No. 3 (September, 1959), 327. 18 . ., Ibid. 63 teacher who has marked the MTAI items in the various stages of its development believed that his attitudes toward pupils and teaching were the proper ones." 19 And also that: The data reveal, however, that a poor teacher "fakes" it in a different way from a good teacher. The scor­ ing procedure adopted is such that the differences which may exist between good and poor teachers with reference to: (1) faking, (2) response set, (3) testtaking attitude, and (4) role-playing, operate in the direction of increasing the validity of the t e s t . 20 The scoring of the MTAI can be performed by hand or machine. There is a possible range of scores from +150 to -150. There are not any right or wrong answers, but only agreement or disagreement levels. A respondent indicates his level of agreement or disagreement with each of the 150 attitude statements. response a +1 For each agreement is scored, for each disagreement response a -1 is scored. The plus and minus scores are combined to give each subject a total score. Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers In addition to the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory measure it was necessary to acquire added information about each subject. A forty-six item questionnaire was constructed specifically for this 19 Cook, et al., op. cit., p. 13. study. This questionnaire was completed by each of the 105 subjects at the same time that the MTAI was adminis­ tered. This instrument was called the Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers. The Survey was designed to investigate several of the objectives of the SERL Project. In addition to determining demographic information such as sex, age, years of teaching, degree held and type of certification, a series of questions were Project objectives. formulated to examine the Subjects were asked to SERL estimate their degree of participation in extra functions related to teaching, in political affairs and community activities. They were also asked about their educational plans, career aspirations, teaching ability, and satisfaction with teaching. There were three items on which the subjects were asked to rate the usefulness of student teaching, their satisfaction with it, and the teachers they worked with during student teaching. If the subject was employed in a school system he was asked several questions about his school and com­ munity, his current teaching assignment, and the number of student teachers he had worked with as a teacher. This section of the Survey also asked if he lived in the community in which he was teaching. Finally, each subject was asked to estimate the strength of his school influence and the overall quality 65 of his school. These items were utilized to gather data to test the hypotheses posed in Chapter I. It was assumed that each respondent would reply honestly and accurately to the Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers. A valid comparison of the participants in the SERL Project and the con­ ventional program could be made based on these assumptions. Teacher Self Rating Instrument A Teacher Self Rating instrument was developed by the author. After a review of the literature related to teacher effectiveness, the author was assisted in this instrument development by principals and teachers from the area, college faculty members, and a Michigan Edu­ cation Association representative. The Teacher Self Rating instrument was designed to investigate the subject's teaching effectiveness and his satisfaction with teaching. Twenty-six items were related to teaching effectiveness, and five items dealt with satisfaction with teaching. Each item was designed so that the respondent could place a check mark along a continuum to describe himself as a teacher, or to describe his satisfaction with teaching. This continuum was ten centimeters in length, and a score for each item was derived by the 66 predetermined effect of the item and a measurement along the continuum. Each subject was given a teacher effectiveness score by averaging the scores for the first twenty-six items. These scores could range from 10.0 to 1.0. Satisfaction scores were derived by averaging the scores on the five related items. from 10.0 to 1.0. These scores could also range The teacher effectiveness scores and satisfaction scores of the SERL and conventional subjects were utilized in the analysis. Teacher Rating by Principal The Teacher Rating by Principal instrument was completed by the subject's principal. This instrument was developed with the Teacher Self Rating instrument and was very similar in content. The major differences be­ tween the two rating instruments were in the last ten items of the Teacher Rating by Principal. The content of the first twenty-six items paralled the Teacher Self Rating instrument. The last ten items focused on one of the objectives of the SERL Project. The SERL Project was in part an attempt to individualize the experience of the student teacher, and to prepare teachers " . . . who can organize and manage instruction with emphasis on unique learning needs of a wide variety 67 of youngsters in a typical junior high classroom." 21 The last ten items on the Teacher Rating by Principal instru­ ment were an attempt to investigate the subject's ability to individualize instruction. These scores were then used to compare the SERL and conventional subjects. Procedure for Testing of Hypotheses Level of Significance The level of significance established for this study was .05. It was used for each of the hypotheses tested. Hypothesis A - l : Past participants of the SERL student teaching project will have significantly more positive attitudes toward teaching as a profession than student teachers who participated in the conventional program. Criterion To test this hypothesis the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory scores for each group of subjects were used as the basis for comparison of the SERL and con­ ventional subjects. An Analysis of Variance was employed to test for differences in the means. In addition, the subjects were categorized into two groups on the basis of 21 "SERL Project: A Project to Improve the Preparation of Teachers," Lansing School District and Michigan State University brochure, undated. 68 employment by a school system (teaching and non-teaching). A two-way analysis of variance was used to test the effects of the student teaching program and employment in schools. Hypothesis B-l Past SERL Project participants will be rated as sig­ nificantly more effective teachers by their principals than teachers who had participated in the conventional program. Criterion This hypothesis was analyzed using the Teacher Rating by Principal scores the subjects had been given by their principals. A one-way analysis of variance was used to test the differences between means. Hypothesis B-2 Past SERL project participants will rate themselves as significantly more effective teachers than will teachers who participated in the conventional program. Criterion This hypothesis was tested through one question on the Survey and the average score of the first twentysix items on the Teacher Self Rating instrument. The 105 subjects responded to an item on the Survey which asked them to rate their overall teaching ability. An analysis of variance test was used to determine the relationship of the SERL and conventional responses. An analysis of variance was used to test the responses of the thirty-eight subjects who responded on the Teacher Self Rating instrument. 69 Hypothesis C-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more satisfied in their occupation than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion All 105 subjects of the study were asked to rate their satisfaction with their present occupation (Item 11 on Survey), and with their teaching experience (Item 3 on Survey). In addition those subjects who indicated in the Survey that they were teaching, were asked to indicate their satisfaction with teaching on the last five items on the Teacher Self Rating. A chi square test was used to compare the SERL and conventional responses to the two Survey items. An analysis of variance was used in the comparison of the items on the Teacher Self Rating. Hypothesis C-2 Past participants of the SERL Project will be con­ sidered to be significantly more successful in their pursuit of career goals than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion In an effort to test this hypothesis each subject was asked on the Survey to indicate what he hoped to be doing five years from now (Items 22-26). The subjects could respond to any number of the five items, thus there was a duplication of respondents for this series of items. 70 The percentage responses for each item are reported for purposes of comparison of the two groups of subjects. Hypothesis C-3 Past participants of the SERL Project will have com­ pleted significantly more years of teaching than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion All 105 subjects were asked to indicate the number of years they had taught (Item 5 on Survey). This hypothesis was tested through the use of a chi square test. Hypothesis C-4 Past participants of the SERL Project will have com­ pleted significantly more formal professional education than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion All 105 subjects were asked to describe their formal educational preparation in terms of graduate degrees and graduate courses completed (Item 10 on Survey). A chi square test was used to compare the responses of the SERL and conventional subjects. Hypothesis C-5 Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more active in extra school related functions than will participants of the conventional program. 71 Criterion Each of the 105 subjects was asked how active they were in extra functions that related to their occu­ pation (Item 15 on Survey). A chi square test was used to compare the responses of the SERL and conventional subjects. Hypothesis C - 6 Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more active in political and community affairs than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion Two items on the Survey were tested through the use of a chi square test. The 105 subjects were asked to indicate their activity in the political affairs of the community and the degree of their activity in other com­ munity activities such as service clubs, scouting, little league coaching, and similar activities. Hypothesis C-7 Past participants of the SERL Project will have sig­ nificantly more plans for formal education in the next year than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion The 105 subjects of the study were asked to indicate their educational plans for the coming year. They were given the opportunity to choose from four items, and were not restricted to a single choice. This 72 hypothesis was analyzed through a comparison of the per­ centage responses for each item. Hypothesis C-8 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the overall quality of their school significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion The fifty-two respondents that were employed by a school system at the time of the study were asked to rate the overall quality of their schools (Item 37 on Survey). The responses of the SERL and conventional subjects were compared through a chi square test. Hypothesis C-9 Past participants of the SERL Project will estimate their school influence to be significantly stronger than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion The fifty-two subjects that were employed by schools at the time of the study were asked to estimate the strength of their school influence. A chi square test was used to compare the SERL and conventional responses to this item. Hypothesis C-10 Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more likely to live in the same community in which they teach than will participants of the con­ ventional program. Criterion A chi square test data on this hypothesis. was performed to test The data were gathered from one question on the Survey (Item 39) which asked those fiftytwo respondents who were teaching if they lived in the same community in which they taught. Hypothesis C-ll Past participants of the SERL Project will signifi­ cantly more often rank their satisfaction with their school system as the most important reason for them to remain in the areain which they are living and teaching than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion An analysis of variance (using repeated measures) was employed to test this hypothesis. Each of the fifty- two respondents was instructed to rank five items dealing with this hypothesis in the order of importance to them. Hypothesis D-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be reported to significantly more effectively individualize in­ struction than will teachers who had participated in the conventional program. Criterion A series of items on the Teacher Rating by Principal instrument was used to test this hypothesis. An ability to individualize score was computed by taking the average score for the ten items that dealt with 74 individualizing instruction. These scores for the SERL and conventional subjects were compared through an analysis of variance. Hypothesis E-l Past participants of the SLRL Project will be signifi­ cantly more satisfied with their student teaching experience than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion All 10 5 subjects of the study were asked on the Survey to rate their satisfaction with their student teaching experience. A comparison of the SERL and con­ ventional subjects was made through the use of a chi square test. Hypothesis E-2 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the usefulness of their student teaching experience significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion All 105 subjects were asked on the Survey to rate the usefulness of their student teaching experience. A chi square test was used to test the relationship of the SERL and conventional responses. Hypothesis E-3 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the teachers they worked with during student teaching significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. 75 Criterion This hypothesis was tested through the use of a chi square test which was performed on data gathered on the Survey from all 105 subjects. Item 29 on the Survey asked each subject to rate the teachers he had worked with during his student teaching experience. Hypothesis E-4 Past participants of the SERL Project will have worked with significantly more student teachers during their teaching experience than will participants of the conventional program. Criterion A chi square test was used to analyze the data gathered on this hypothesis. Those fifty-two subjects who were teaching were asked on the Survey to report the number of student teachers they had worked with as a supervising teacher. The SERL and conventional responses were then compared to determine any differences. Summary This chapter has presented a description of the procedures used to gather data, a description of the development of the data-gathering instruments, and the procedures used for testing the hypotheses that underlie the study. The data were analyzed to compare the effects of two student teaching programs, the SERL Project and the conventional program. All members of the population 76 were asked to complete the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and the Survey of Former Michigan State Uni­ versity Student Teachers. Those fifty-two subjects who were teaching at the time of the study were asked to complete a Teacher Self Rating instrument, and to have their principals complete a Teacher Rating by Principal instrument. The hypotheses were tested through the use of either a chi square test or an analysis of variance. two cases, comparison of percentages was used. The level of significance for this study was established at .05. In CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Introduction In studies of teacher education programs such as the present one, interest is focused on improvement in the performance of the participants. The ideal research de­ sign would provide a pre-test and a post-test of perfor­ mance of control and experimental groups. In this study it was possible to design only a post-test of performance. The control group was represented by those students who had participated in the conventional student teaching pro­ gram, while the experimental group was represented by the SERL Project participants. It was necessary to hypothesize which variables and objectives of the SERL Project were most important to test. The differences in the two student teaching programs were the presumed differences in the treatments of the two groups. All other variables, such as: sex, socio­ economic status, age, ability, and pre-teaching experi­ ence were not investigated in this study. 77 An exploratory study of this nature is designed to provide a basis for further research. The purpose of the study was to identify differences in attitudes, status, satisfaction, success, and aspirations of past partici­ pants of two student teaching programs. It has been assumed that there were differences between the experi­ mental and control groups, other than their student teach­ ing experience, but these differences were not the subject of this study. The analysis of data is presented in this chapter. The restatement of each hypothesis is followed by a pre­ sentation of the data and a probability statement. Research Hypothesis A-l Past participants in the SERL student teaching pro­ ject will have significantly more positive attitudes toward teaching as a profession than student teachers who participated in the conventional program. TABLE 4.1.— Comparison of MTAI scores of SERL and con­ ventional subjects. Analysis of Variance. Source of Variation Program effect Error Total . f ' ’ Mean Square 1 346.579 97 1119.340 98 f 0.3096 p less than 0.5792 79 The responses on the MTAI were analyzed to deter­ mine if the past SERL participants had more positive atti­ tudes toward teaching than did the past conventional participants (Appendix F ) . While SERL subjects scored slightly more than four points higher on the average the analysis of variance indicates there is no significant difference in these mean scores (Table 4.1). TABLE 4.2.— Number of subjects and means of MTAI by program for those employed and non-employed by a school system. Employment in School System Yes SERL n = 30 X = 34.9 Conventional n = 21 No n = 30 X = 52.5 n = 20 Totals n = 60 X = 43.7 n = 41 X = 28.14 X = 51.8 X = 39.68 n = 51 n = 50 N = 101 X = 31.52 X = 52.15 Both the SERL and conventional subjects were further categorized on the basis of employment by a school system. Table 4.2 reports the means for each group on the basis of employment in a school system. Those employed in schools had an average score of 31.52 on the MTAI, while those not employed in schools averaged 52.15. 80 TABLE 4.3.— Comparison of MTAI scores by employment in a school system. Analysis of variance two-way fixed effect model. Source of Variation d.f. Mean Square F p less than School Employment 1 10202.64 9.12 0.003* Program 1 346.58 0.31 0.579 Interaction 1 223.32 0 .20 0.656 Within Cell 97 1119.34 Total 0.20 100 * Denotes significance at Alpha level = .05. A two-way analysis of variance was used to test whether there were significant differences on the MTAI scores between the two levels of the independent measures, program effect and school employment. Table 4.3 indicates that participants not currently employed in a school system have significantly more positive attitudes toward teaching as measured by the MTAI than do both SERL and conventional participants currently employed in a school system. In conclusion, on the basis of the reported MTAI scores there was an observed mean score difference between the SERL and conventional subjects. This average score difference was not significantly different when tested with an analysis of variance (Table 4.3). There was a signifi­ cant difference found when the subjects were analyzed on the basis of school employment (teaching, non-teaching). It was concluded that Research Hypothesis A-l cannot be accepted, and that past SERL participants do not have significantly more positive attitudes toward teaching than past conventional program participants. Research Hypothesis B-l Past SERL Project participants will be rated as significantly more effective teachers by their prin­ cipals than teachers who had participated in the conventional program. The average score on the Teacher Rating by Princi­ pal instrument for the SERL subjects was 7.31 (Appendix H) . The average of the conventional subjects was 7.04. A one­ way analysis of variance was used to test the mean scores to determine if they were significantly different (Table 4.4). TABLE 4.4.— Comparison of SERL and conventional ratings by principals. Analysis of variance. Source of Variation . f ‘ ’ Mean Square 1 1.191 Program Effect Error 27 Total p 0.481 p less than 0.494 2.475 28 Even though the SERL subjects received a higher average rating from their principals there was not a signitificant difference. be accepted. L The Research Hypothesis B-l cannot It was concluded that the SERL Project 82 participants were not rated as significantly more effec­ tive teachers than the conventional program participants. Research Hypothesis B - 2 Past SERL Project participants will rate themselves as significantly more effective teachers than will teachers who participated in the conventional program. TABLE 4.5.— Comparison of responses of SERL and conventional subjects on self-rating of teaching ability. Average Low Never Taught 54.84% 22.58% -0- 6.45% n = 62 14.29% 57.14% 21.43% -0- 7.14% n = 42 Total 15.38% 55.77% 2 2 .1 2 % -0- 6.73% n 16 58 23 Very High High SERL 16.13% Conventional unused = 0 7 N = 104 1 In the analysis of the reported teaching ability from the Survey it was found that 93.3 per cent rated themselves as average or above, no one rated himself as having low teaching ability, and 6.7 per cent had never taught (Table 4.5). The analysis of variance indicated there was no significant difference between the way SERL and con­ ventional subjects rated their own teaching ability in the Survey instrument (Table 4.6). 83 TABLE 4.6.— Comparison of Self-Ratings of teaching ability for SERL and conventional subjects. Analysis of Variance. Source of Variation a f Program effect Error Total Mean Square 1 .0012 102 .6522 Probability 2 0.0018 0.966 103 The fifty-two subjects who indicated they were teaching at the time of the study were also also asked to rate their teaching on the Teacher Self Rating instrument. A comparison of the SERL and conventional subjects was then conducted through an Analysis of Variance. The average scores on the Teacher Self Rating instrument (Appendix G) for the SERL subjects was 7.37 as compared to 6.96 for the conventional program (Table 4.7). TABLE 4.7.— Means and standard deviations on the Teacher Self Rating instrument. SERL Project n = 22 Conventional n = 14 X = 7.37 X = 6.96 s = 1.388 s = 1.78 TABLE 4.8.— Comparison of SERL and conventional Teacher Self Rating scores for those teaching at the time of the study. Analysis of variance. Source of Variation Program Effect Error Total , f ' ’ Mean Square „ p less than 1 .3021 .3740 .545 34 .8079 35 In the analysis of variance comparing the means of the two groups an F-ratio of 0.3740 with a p less than 0.545 was found (Table 4.8). This indicates that no sig­ nificant differences were found between the scores of the SERL and conventional subjects on the Teacher Self Rating instrument. In conclusion, in the analysis of the Survey item it was found that subjects from the SERL Project did not rate their teaching ability significantly higher than the participants of the conventional student teaching program. It was also found that among those subjects who were teaching at the time of the study there was no significant difference between the two groups on the Teacher Self Rating scores. Thus, the research hypothesis that past SERL participants will rate their teaching ability higher than conventional participants cannot be accepted. 85 Research Hypothesis C-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more satisfied in their occupation than will participants of the conventional program. All 105 subjects of the study were asked to rate their satisfaction with their present occupation and with their teaching experience. In addition, those 52 subjects who were teaching were asked to indicate their satisfaction with their present teaching position. These two sets of data were analyzed separately. The 105 subjects who were asked on the Survey to rate their satisfaction with their present occupation reported: 18.45 per cent very highly satisfied, 42.72 per cent highly satisfied, 23.3 per cent average satis­ faction, and 4.9). 6.8 per cent very low satisfaction (Table In the comparison of the SERL and the conventional subjects a chi square of .2 53 with 4 degrees of freedom was found indicating no significant difference between how the two groups of subjects rated their occupational satisfaction. This hypothesis was tested through another question on the Survey which asked each subject to rate his satis­ faction with his teaching experience. Considering all 105 subjects, 17.31 per cent reported they were very highly satisfied with their teaching experience, 40.38 per cent highly satisfied, 25.96 per cent average satisfaction, and 9.62 per cent low satisfaction (Table 4.10). TABLE 4.9.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on reported satisfaction with present occupation. Very High Program n SERL Project Conventional Totals High Average Less than Average % n % n % n 19. 35 26 41. 94 15 24.19 5 7 17. 07 18 43.90 9 21.95 19 18.45 44 42.72 24 23.30 12 Chi Square = .253* d.f. = 4 Unused = 2 *Not significant Low Totals n % n 8 .05 5 6.45 62 100 4 9.76 3 7. 32 41 100 9 8.74 7 6.80 103 100 % % TABLE 4.10.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on reported satisfaction with teaching experience. Program Very High High Low Average Never Taught Totals n % n % n % n % n % n SERL Project 11 17.46 26 41.27 18 28.57 3 4.76 5 7.94 63 100 Conventional 7 17.07 16 39.02 9 21.95 7 17.07 2 4.88 41 100 18 17.31 42 40. 38 27 25.96 10 9.62 7 6.73 104 100 Totals Chi Square = 4.713* d.f. = 4 Unused = 1 *Not significant % 88 It was found that the greatest differences between the SERL and conventional subjects occurred in the low satisfaction with teaching category. Of the SERL subjects 4.76 per cent reported low satisfaction with teaching while 17.07 per cent of the conventional subjects reported low satisfaction (Table 4.10). Even with this large a percentage of difference the chi square test indicated that there was no overall significant difference in the way past participants of the two programs responded to rating their satisfaction with their teaching experience. TABLE 4.11.— Comparison of teaching SERL and conventional subjects on satisfaction with teaching. Analysis of variance. Source of Variation Program Effect Error Total d. f. Mean Square 1 0.0086 34 3.8069 F 0.0023 p less than 0.963 35 Those fifty-two subjects who were teaching were also asked to indicate their satisfaction with teaching on a series of items on the Teacher Self Rating instru­ ments. The average scores of the two groups were nearly identical, 7.35 for the SERL subjects and 7.31 for the conventional. In the analysis of variance an F-ratio of 0.0023 with a p less than 0.963 was found, indicating no 89 significant difference between how the two groups answered this series of items. In conclusion, it was found that subjects in the SERL Project did not differ significantly in their satis­ faction with their occupations and their teaching experi­ ences from subjects in the conventional program. It was also found that when looking only at those subjects presently teaching there was no relationship between program (SERL and conventional) and satisfaction with teaching as measured by the Teacher Self Rating instru­ ment. Therefore, the hypothesis that past SERL partici­ pants would be more satisfied in their occupation than will past participants of the conventional program cannot be accepted. Research Hypothesis C-2 Past participants of the SERL Project will be con­ sidered to be significantly more successful in their pursuit of career goals than will participants of the conventional program. It has been indicated in Research Hypothesis C-l that there were no significant differences between SERL and conventional subjects on the dependent variables of satisfaction with occupation and satisfaction with teach­ ing (Tables 4.9, 4.10, 4.11). In an attempt to further investigate the question of pursuit of career goals, each subject was asked to indicate what he hoped to be 90 doing five years from now. A series of items were designed so the subjects could respond or not respond to each item to indicate their career plans. As indicated in Table 4.12, 31.7 per cent of the SERL and 33.3 per cent of the conventional subjects intend to be classroom teachers five years from now. Nine and a half per cent of both groups indicate they wish to be school administrators, while 23.8 per cent of the SERL and 19 per cent of the conventional subjects plan to leave teaching for another unrelated occupation. Another 28.6 per cent of the SERL and 35.7 per cent of the conventional groups indicate they will leave teaching for some other education-related position, while 26.98 per cent of the SERL subjects and 26.2 per cent of the conventional indi­ cate they plan to be involved in something else (Table 4.12) . In conclusion, it is of interest to note that the greatest difference (7.1%), occurs in the choice to be involved in some other education-related occupation, and that 32.4 per cent of all subjects plan to remain in or be teaching five years from now. Further inspection of Table 4.12 indicates that there is no major difference in the career plans of the two groups of subjects. It can be concluded that the SERL subjects are not significantly different in the pursuit of their career goals than are the conventional subjects. TABLE 4.12.--Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on reported career plans five years into the future. Program Classroom Teacher n % School Unrelated Administrator Occupation n % n % Related Position n % Total Other n % n SERL Project 20 31.7 6 9.5 15 23.8 18 28.6 17 26.98 76 Conventional 14 33. 3 4 9.5 8 19.0 15 35.7 11 26.2 52 Total 34 32.4 10 9.5 23 21.9 33 31.4 28 26.7 128* ♦Greater than N = 105 as a result of multiple responses. 92 Research Hypothesis C-3 Past participants of the SERL Project will have com­ pleted significantly more years of teaching than will participants of the conventional program. The subjects were divided on the basis of the ex­ pected year of graduation for this analysis. Of the 43 subjects who were expected to graduate in 1967, with a maximum possibility of five years of teaching since gradu­ ation, it was found that a greater percentage of the SERL subjects had completed three or more years of teaching than had the conventional. These differences were not significant when a chi square test was applied (Table 4.13). The number of years of teaching for subjects who were expected to graduate in 1968, and had a maximum possi­ bility of four years of teaching since graduation, were also analyzed with a chi square test. The differences be­ tween the SERL and conventional subjects were not as di­ verse for this group as they were for the 1967 graduates. However, these differences were not significant when analyzed with a chi square test (Table 4.13). Research Hypothesis C-4 Past participants of the SERL Project will have com­ pleted significantly more formal professional education than will participants of the conventional program. The 105 subjects of the study were asked on the Survey to describe their formal educational preparation in terms of degrees and graduate courses completed. the exception of the bachelor's degree level, the With TABLE 4.13.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on years of teaching experience. or Less 1 2 Yrs. 3 Yrs. 4 Yrs. n n n 5 or More Totals Program n % % % % n % n 9 5 14 42.86 22.73 32. 56 21 22 4.88 41 10.00 6 .56 20 % Subjects Expected to 1Graduate in 1967 SERL Conventional Totals 5 8 13 23.81 36. 36 30. 23 2 6 8 9.52 27.27 18.60 2 0 2 9.52 0 24.65 3 3 6 14.29 13.64 13.95 43 100.00 100.00 100.00 Chi Square = 5.815 d.f. = 4 Subjects Expected to Graduate in 1968 SERL Conventional Totals 11 4 15 Chi Square = 5.288 d.f. = 4 26. 83 2 0 .00 24. 59 5 3 8 12.20 6 15.00 13.11 7 13 14.63 35.00 21.31 17 4 2 0 .00 2 2 21 34. 43 4 41. 46 61 100.00 100.00 100.00 conventional subjects reported a slightly higher per­ centage at each level (Table 4.14). A chi square of 1.3272 was found when the hypothesis was tested. This is not significant. It was concluded that SERL Project subjects had not completed significantly more formal professional education than conventional subjects, and Research Hypothesis C-4 cannot be accepted. Research Hypothesis C-5 Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more active in extra school-related functions than will participants of the conventional program. As is indicated in Table 4.15, activity in extra related functions is not a factor on which SERL and con­ ventional subjects differ significantly. Thus, the research hypothesis that SERL subjects will be more active in school-related functions cannot be accepted. All 105 subjects of the study were asked how active they were in extra functions that relate to their present occupation. When the two groups were compared very small differences were observed (Table 4.15). Research Hypothesis C -6 Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more active in political and community affairs than will participants of the conventional program. All 105 subjects of the study were asked to indi­ cate their activity in the political affairs of their TABLE 4.14.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on formal educational preparation. Program B.A. B.A.+ M.A. ----------------------------n % n % n % M.A.+ Other n % n % Total n % SERL Project 19 30.16 23 36.51 12 19.05 8 12.70 1 1.59 63 100 Conventional 10 23.81 16 38.10 10 23.81 6 14.29 0 0 42 100 Total 29 27.62 39 37.14 22 20.95 14 13.33 1 105 100 Chi Square = 1.3272* d.f. = 4 *Not significant .95 TABLE 4.15.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on activity in extra related functions. „ Program Very Active Active Average n % n SERL Project 5 7.94 14 22.22 Conventional 5 12. 50 6 10 9.71 20 Total Chi Square = 3.024* d.f. = 4 Unused = 2 *Not significant % n Below Average % n % 22 34.92 9 14.29 15.00 11 27.50 5 19.42 33 32.04 14 Totals None n % n % 13 20.63 63 100 12. 50 13 32.50 40 100 13. 59 26 25.24 103 100 97 community and the degree of their activity in other com­ munity activities, such as: service clubs, scouting, little league coaching, and similar activities. It was found that the majority of both groups have little involve­ ment in politics, and that well over 30 per cent reported no involvement in community activities (Tables 4.16 and 4.17). The chi square tests performed on these two items resulted in no significant differences between how the two groups answered each item. It was concluded that past participants of the SERL Project were not signifi­ cantly more active in political and community affairs than were the conventional subjects. Research Hypothesis C-7 Past participants of the SERL Project will have signifi­ cantly more plans for formal education in the next year than will the conventional program. The 105 subjects of the study were asked to indi­ cate their educational plans for the coming year by re­ sponding to a list of possible activities. The results indicated that a greater percentage of the conventional program subjects were working on an advanced degree and were taking special training such as workshops, and that the SERL subjects reported a greater percentage were planning to take additional courses in the following year (Table 4.18). TABLE 4.16.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on activity in political affairs of the community. AcfiL “ tiv. n n Average Jgg. Totals n n Program % % n % n % % % SERL Project 5 7.94 3 4.76 6 9.52 44 69.84 5 7.94 63 100 Conventional 4 9.76 1 2.44 9 21.95 24 58.54 3 7.32 41 100 Total 9 8.65 4 3.85 15 14.42 68 65.38 8 7.69 104 100 Chi Square = 3.601* d.f. « 4 Unused = 1 *Not significant TABLE 4.17.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on activity in community activities. Program Very Active Active Average Less than Average n % n % n % n % SERL Project 3 4.76 8 12.70 17 26.98 11 17.46 Conventional 5 12.20 4 9.76 7 17.07 12 Total 8 7. 69 12 11. 54 24 23.08 23 Chi Square = 4.878* d.f. = 4 Unused = 1 *Not significant Totals Non[8 n % n % 24 38.10 63 100 29.27 13 31.71 41 100 22.12 37 35. 58 104 100 TABLE 4.18.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on educational plans for the next year. Program Advanced Degree n % Additional Courses n % Special Training No Plans n % n Totals % n 25 39.7 24 38.1 17 26.98 20 31.7 86 Conventional 19 45. 2 12 28.6 14 33.3 13 30.95 58 Total 44 41.9 36 36.7 31 29.5 33 31.4 *Greater than N = 105 as a result of multiple responses. 144* 100 SERL Project 101 An inspection of Table 4.18 indicates that there are no major differences in the educational plans of the SERL and conventional subjects. Therefore, Hypothesis C-7 cannot be accepted. Research Hypothesis C-8 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the overall quality of their school significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. The fifty-two respondents that reported they were teaching were asked to rate the overall quality of their present schools. Their responses were analyzed and com­ pared through a chi square test (Table 4.19). The chi square test performed resulted in no significant difference between how the two groups answered this item. It was concluded that past SERL Project par­ ticipants did not rate the quality of their schools higher than the conventional participants. Research Hypothesis C-9 Past participants of the SERL Project will estimate their influence in their school to be significantly stronger than will participants of the conventional program. The fifty-two subjects who indicated they were employed in a school system were asked to estimate their influence in their school. The two groups were compared through a chi square test (Table 4.20). TABLE 4.19.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on rating of the overall quality of their present schools. Very High High n n . Average Less than Average Very Lov/ _ . . Totals n n n Program % % n % % % % SERL Project 2 6.45 10 32.26 14 45.16 2 6.45 3 9.68 31 100 Conventional 4 19.05 5 23.81 10 47.62 2 9.52 0 0 21 100 Total 6 15 28.85 24 46.15 4 7.69 3 5.77 52 100 11.54 Chi Square = 4.233* d.f. = 4 * Not significant TABLE 4.20.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on estimates of their influence on their schools. Program Very Strong Strong Average Less than Average Very Little Total n % n % n % n % n % n % SERL Project 3 9.68 7 22. 58 16 51. 61 4 12.90 1 3.23 31 100 Conventional 0 0 8 38.10 9 42.86 1 4.76 3 14.29 21 100 Total 3 5.77 15 28.85 25 48.04 5 9.62 4 7.69 52 100 Chi Square = 6.130* d.f. = 4 *Not significant 104 The reported chi square of 6.130 indicates there is not a significant difference between the estimated influence of participants of the SERL and conventional programs. The hypothesis that SERL participants' influence will be stronger than the conventional program participants cannot be accepted. Research Hypothesis C-10 Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more likely to live in the same community in which they teach than will the conventional program participants. TABLE 4.21.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on living in the same community in which they teach. Yes No Other Totals rrogram n % 0 31 100 1 4.76 21 100 1 1.92 52 100 n % n % n SERL Project 11 35.48 20 64.52 0 Conventional 11 52.38 9 42.86 Totals 22 42. 31 29 55.77 % Chi Square = 3.374* d.f. = 2 *Not significant The fifty-two subjects who were employed by a school system responded to an item on the Survey which asked if they lived in the same community in which they 105 taught. For the group as a whole more lived outside than lived in the community. A chi square test was employed to compare the SERL and conventional subjects (Table 4.21) . The chi square test resulted in chi square of 3.374, which is not significant. The hypothesis that past SERL participants would be more likely to live in the same community in which they teach than would participants of the conventional program cannot be accepted. Research Hypothesis C-ll Past participants of the SERL Project will signifi­ cantly more often rank their satisfaction with their school system as the most important reason for them to remain in the area in which they are living and teaching than will participants of the conventional program. TABLE 4.22.— Means and standard deviations of SERL and conventional responses to reasons for remaining in the area. Items* Program 40 41 42 43 44 SERL Project X s 1.179 1.416 3.679 .819 1.821 1.188 2.107 1. 315 1.821 1. 278 Conventional X s 1. 526 1.219 3.211 1.475 2.158 1.344 2. 158 1.425 1.684 1. 416 Pooled Means X 1.319 3.489 1.957 2.128 1.766 Pooled Standard Deviations s 1. 340 1.128 1. 253 1. 360 1.335 *See Appendix B for wording of items. 106 Table 4.22 reports the means and standard devi­ ations for each group, and the pooled estimates for the item means and standard deviations. TABLE 4.23.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects' reasons for remaining in the area. Mean Square F p less than 1 0. 038 0. 03 n.s. 45 1.282 Measures (M) 4 31.345 P x M Interaction 4 1.334 180 1.747 Source of Variation d.f. Program (P) Subjects within M Subjects within P Total 17.94 <.05 0 .76 n.s. 234 n.s. denotes non-significance at the .05 level. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test this hypothesis. The comparison of the SERL and conventional subjects on these items found no significant differences. As indicated in Table 4.23 there was not a signifi­ cant difference between the two programs in the ranking of the items. However, as a result of this repeated measures analysis it was found that there was a significant differ­ ence in the way that the items were ranked by the subjects of both programs taken as a whole. The test of the mea­ sures (items) found an F-ratio of 17.94, which was 107 significant at <.05. Further inspection of Table 4.23 revealed that there was no significant difference found in the test of program and measures interaction. TABLE 4.24.— SERL and conventional reasons for staying in the area. Scheffe multiple comparisons, differences between means. Items ^2 X3 X1 2.170* .638 .809 .447 1.532* 1.361* 1.723* .171 .191 X2 X3 X,. X.4 .362 *Denotes significance at .05 level. The significant difference found when the measures were tested was further analyzed with Scheffe multiple comparisons. used. For this analysis paired comparisons were Table 4.24 shows that four of these simple mean contrasts were significant at the .05 level. The analysis with the Scheffe multiple comparisons technique indicates that the respondents as a total group ranked the items used to test this hypothesis in such a way so as to place higher value for living and teaching in the area on the fact that they have children in the schools and do not wish to move. 108 It can be concluded from the tests performed on this hypothesis that there were significant differences in the responses to the items, but that when SERL and con­ ventional subjects were compared as to their responses, no significant differences were found. Therefore, Hypothesis C-ll cannot be accepted, and with the conclusion that satisfaction with the school system was not more often cited by the SERL subjects than the conventional subjects as the most important reason for remaining in the area. Research Hypothesis D-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be reported to significantly more effectively individualize in­ struction than will teachers who had participated in the conventional program. TABLE 4.25.— Means and standard deviations of SERL and conventional ratings by their principals of ability to individualize instruction. SERL Project Conventional n = 16 n = 13 X = 6.755 X = 6.832 s = 1.928 x = 1.837 The Teacher Rating by Principal instrument that was sent to each of the fifty-two subjects who were teach­ ing contained ten items which pertained to the subjects' ability to individualize instruction. An average ability to individualize instruction score was computed for each 109 subject (Appendix I). The average score of the SERL subjects was 6.755 as compared to 6.832 for the con­ ventional subjects (Table 4.25). TABLE 4.26.— Comparison of principal reports of SERL and conventional subjects' ability to individual­ ize instruction. Analysis of variance. Source of Variation Program Effect Error Total . , * * Mean Square F 1 0.0420 0.01179 27 3.5640 p less than 0.914 28 An analysis of variance was used to test the SERL and conventional subject ratings that were given by the principals (Table 4.26). The analysis in Table 4.26 indicate that Research Hypothesis D-l is not acceptable when analyzed with analysis of variance. It can be concluded that past SERL Project participants do not score significantly higher than conventional program participants on a principal rating of their ability to individualize instruction. Research Hypothesis E-l Past participants of the SERL Project will be signifi­ cantly more satisfied with their student teaching experience than will participants of the conventional program. TABLE 4.27.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects' satisfaction with student teaching experience. Program High High y n n % % Average * n L ?ss than Average % n % ^ Low Totals n n % % SERL Project 19 30.65 21 33.87 13 20.97 4 6.45 5 8.06 62 100 Conventional 10 23.81 11 26.19 11 26.19 5 11.90 5 11.90 42 100 Total 29 27.88 32 30.77 24 23.08 9 8.65 10 9.12 104 100 Chi Square = 2.44 0* d.f. = 4 Unused = 1 *Not significant Ill All 105 of the subjects of the study were asked to rate their satisfaction with their student teaching experi­ ence. The responses ranged from very high satisfaction to very low satisfaction with their student teaching experi­ ence. When the SERL and conventional responses were com­ pared a chi square of 2.440 with 4 degrees of freedom was found. This is not significant at the .05 level estab­ lished for this study (Table 4.27). An examination of Table 4.27 reveals that over 64 per cent of the SERL subjects and 50 per cent of the con­ ventional subjects were either highly satisfied or very highly satisfied with their student teaching experience. The subsequent analysis did not find significant differ­ ences in the satisfaction with student teaching between the two groups of subjects. There was, however, a slight movement in the predicted direction. It can be concluded that SERL subjects were not significantly more satisfied with their student teaching experience than were con­ ventional subjects. Research Hypothesis E-2 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the usefulness of their student teaching experience significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. TABLE 4.28.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects' reported usefulness of student teaching experience. - ■"» '« « ■- J-- ■- Program ■ ' , »..JI ■■ .1. .. — ..I . . II — ... .» . . II !L ..-J- I Extremely Quite Average Limited Not Very Totals -----------------------------------------------------------------------n % n % n % n % n % n % 18 29.03 21 33.87 8 12.90 9 14.52 6 9.68 62 100 Conventional 9 21.95 13 31.71 9 21.95 7 17.07 3 7.32 41 100 27 26.21 34 33.01 17 16.50 16 15.53 9 88.74 103 100 Totals Chi Square = 1.992* d.f. = 4 Unused = 2 *Not significant 112 SERL Project All participants of the study were asked to rate the usefulness of their student teaching experience. Their responses ranged from extremely useful to not very useful. The SERL and conventional responses were compared through the use of chi square. A chi square of 1.992 with 4 degrees of freedom was found. This is not significant at the .05 level (Table 4.28). An examination of Table 4.28 reveals that more SERL subjects rated their student teaching experience as extremely useful than did the conventional subjects. Yet there was no significant difference found in the subse­ quent analysis which compared the two groups. It can be concluded that SERL subjects did not report their student teaching experience as significantly more useful than did the conventional subjects, and Hypothesis E-2 cannot be accepted. Research Hypothesis E-3 Past participants of the SERL Project will rate the teachers they worked with during student teaching significantly higher than will participants of the conventional program. Each subject of the study was asked to rate the teachers he had worked with during his student teaching experience. to very low. The possible responses ranged from very high The SERL and conventional responses were compared to determine if there were any differences in the TABLE 4.29.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects' ratings of teachers worked with during student teaching. Program Very High High Average Less than Average Very Low Totals % n % n % n % n % n % SERL Project 22 34.92 19 30.16 14 22.22 2 3.17 6 9.52 63 100 Conventional 13 31.71 11 26. 83 8 19. 51 5 12.20 4 9.76 41 100 Totals 35 33.65 30 28. 85 20 21.15 7 6.73 10 9.62 104 100 Chi Square = 3.262* d.f. = 4 Unused = 1 *Not significant 114 n 115 way they rated the teachers. A chi square of 3.262 with 4 degrees of freedom was found. This is not significant at the .05 level (Table 4.29). An examination of Table 4.29 indicates that the differences in the way the SERL and conventional subjects responded to this item are minor. The greatest differ­ ence is in the less than average category where 12.2 per cent of the conventional subjects rated the teachers as compared to 3.17 per cent of the SERL subjects. The over­ all chi square test indicates that there is no significant difference in the way that the two groups rated the teachers they worked with during student teaching, and that the SERL subjects did not rate the teachers they worked with during student teaching significantly higher than did the conventional subjects. Research Hypothesis E-4 Past participants of the SERL Project will have worked with significantly more student teachers dur­ ing their teaching experience than will participants of the conventional program. The 52 subjects that indicated they were teaching at the time of the study were asked how many student teachers they had worked with as a supervising teacher during their teaching career. none to more than six. The responses ranged from A chi square of 2.165 with 3 degrees of freedom was found (Table 4.30). This is not significant at the .05 level established for this study. TABLE 4.30.— Comparison of SERL and conventional subjects on the number of student teachers the subjects worked with. 3- 4 1-■2 None 5- 6 6 or More Totals Program n % n % n % n % n % n % 19 61.29 11 35.48 1 3.23 0 0 0 0 31 100 Conventional 14 66.67 5 23. 81 1 4.76 0 0 1 4.76 21 100 Totals 33 63.46 16 30.77 2 3.85 0 0 1 1.92 52 100 Chi Square = 2.165* d.f. = 3 *Not significant 116 SERL Project 117 An examination of Table 4.30 indicates that there were some minor differences between the SERL and con­ ventional subjects in the numbers of student teachers they worked with as supervising teachers. As a total group nearly two-thirds have never worked as a supervisor with student teachers. It can be concluded that SERL subjects have not worked with significantly more student teachers during their teaching careers than have con­ ventional subjects. Summary of Findings The analysis and findings from the data collected from past participants of two Michigan State University student teaching programs have been presented in Chapter IV. The data were collected from former students who had student taught at the secondary level in Lansing during six terms between Fall 1966 and Spring 1968. Of the 143 members of this population 105 responded to the four instruments used in the study. Just under 50 per cent, or 52, of the respondents were teaching at the time of the study. Statistical tests were conducted on each of the null hypotheses of the study and were accepted or rejected on the basis of a .05 level of significance. As a result of these tests a research hypothesis was either supported or not supported. Table 4.31 summarizes the results of the tests performed. 118 TABLE 4.31.— Summary of findings. All hypotheses were stated in the direction of the SERL subjects. SERL Project and conventional program partici­ pants were compared on the following dependent variables. Dependent Variables A-l B-l B-2 C-l C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 Significant Differences More positive attitudes on MTAI not supported (MTAI on basis of school employment) supported at p<.003 Rated by principals as more effective teachers not supported Rate selves as more effective teachers not supported More satisfied in occupation not supported More successful in pursuit of career goals not supported Completed more years of teaching not supported Completed more formal education not supported More active in extra school related functions not supported More active in political and community affairs not supported More plans for formal education not supported Rate quality of school higher not supported Estimate school influence to be stronger not supported 119 TABLE 4.31.— Continued. Dependent Variables C-10 C-ll D-l E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 Significant Differences Likely to live in the same community in which they teach not supported Satisfaction with school as the most important reason for remaining in area not supported (Placed higher value on having children in schools as reason for remaining) supported at p<.05 Individualize instruction more effectively not supported More satisfied with stu­ dent teaching experience not supported Rate usefulness of stu­ dent teaching experience higher not supported Rate teachers they worked with while student teaching higher not supported Worked with more student teachers not supported 120 On the basis of the tests performed on the de­ pendent variables identified in this study it appears that there are only minor differences found, on the instru­ ments used, in the performances of past participants of the two student teaching programs studied. An explora­ tory study of this nature must treat the important vari­ ables in a broad manner in an attempt to provide a basis for future research. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This chapter contains a summary of the purposes of the study, the conclusions that can be made as a result of testing the hypotheses, and the suggestions for further research. Summary The purpose of this study was to explore and com­ pare the nature of two Michigan State University student teaching programs as they related to several teaching variables. These programs were the SERL Project and the conventional program for junior high school teachers in the Lansing School District. The data were collected through the mail from former Michigan State University students who had student taught at the junior high level in the Lansing School District during six terms between September 1966 and June 19 68. Of the 143 members of this population 105 responded to the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and the Survey of Former Michigan State University Student Teachers. 121 It 122 was found that 52 of these respondents were teaching at the time of the study, and these 52 were asked to complet the Teacher Self Rating instrument, and to have their cur rent principals complete the Teacher Rating by Principal instrument. The data were analyzed through the use of chi square tests, analysis of variance tests, and comparison of percentage responses to compare the effects of the two student teaching programs, the SERL Project, and the con­ ventional program. The questions investigated were: 1. Do past SERL participants have a more positive attitude toward children and teaching? 2. Are past SERL Project participants considered to be more effective teachers? 3. Do past SERL participants achieve more satisfying and successful career positions? 4. Do past SERL participants meet the individual needs of their pupils more effectively? 5. Do past SERL participants report greater satis­ faction with their student teaching experience? On the basis of the tests performed on the de­ pendent variables identified in this study only minor differences were found, on the instruments used, in the 123 performances of past participants of the two student teaching programs studied. Conclusions Research Hypothesis A-l Past SERL Project participants showed a higher positive score as measured by the Minnesota Teacher Atti­ tude Inventory, which reflects attitudes toward children and teaching, than did past participants of the conventional program, but the differences in these scores were not statistically significant. When these scores were analyzed on the basis of employment by a school there was a significant difference at the 0.003 level which indicated that those who were not employed by a school had more positive attitudes toward children and teaching. Research Hypothesis B-l The average score of the SERL participants on the Teacher Rating by Principal, which was a rating of the overall teaching ability for those teaching at the time of the study, was higher than the average score of the con­ ventional participants, but the differences in these scores were not statistically significant. 124 Research Hypothesis B-2 There were only slight differences in the teach­ ing ability ratings that SERL and conventional subjects gave themselves, with the SERL subjects who were teaching scoring slightly higher on the Teacher Self Rating than the conventional subjects, but the differences in these scores were not statistically significant. It is of interest to note that no one from either group rated their teach­ ing ability low. Research Hypothesis C-l Subjects from the SERL Project rated their satis­ faction with their occupation and with teaching slightly higher than did the conventional subjects, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-2 There were not any statistically significant differences in the career plans when the SERL and con­ ventional participants were compared. Research Hypothesis C-3 A greater percentage of the SERL subjects than the conventional subjects had taught four years, and a lower percentage of the SERL subjects than the conventional subjects had taught two years, but these differences did not prove to be statistically significant. It is of interest to note that slightly more of the conventional 125 than the SERL subjects never taught after their student teaching experience. Research Hypothesis C-4 Subjects from the conventional program reported more often than the subjects from the SERL Project that they had gone beyond the bachelor's degree in their formal preparation, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-5 While SERL subjects reported more activity than the conventional subjects in extra functions related to their positions, these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-6 Conventional subjects reported slightly greater participation in political and community activities than did SERL subjects, but these differences were not sta­ tistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-7 A greater percentage of the SERL subjects than the conventional subjects reported they were planning to take additional courses in the next year, while more con­ ventional subjects reported they planned to work on an 126 advanced degree and take special training, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-8 A greater percentage of the conventional subjects than the SERL subjects rated their schools very high, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-9 SERL subjects rated their influence on schools where they were teaching somewhat higher than the con­ ventional subjects, but these differences were not sta­ tistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-10 A greater percentage of the conventional subjects than the SERL subjects reported they live in the same com­ munity in which they teach, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis C-ll There were no statistically significant differences found between SERL and conventional subjects when they were asked to rank reasons for living and teaching in the area in which they were located. The subjects as a total group did, however, place higher value on living and teaching in the area on the fact that they had children in the schools and did not wish to move. 127 Research Hypothesis D-l Conventional subjects scored slightly higher than the SERL subjects on the principals' ratings for individual­ izing instruction, but these differences were not sta­ tistically significant. Research Hypothesis E-l SERL subjects rated their satisfaction with stu­ dent teaching higher than did the conventional subjects, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis E-2 SERL subjects more often reported that student teaching was highly useful than did conventional subjects, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis E-3 SERL subjects rated the teachers they worked with during student teaching higher than did the conventional subjects, but these differences were not statistically significant. Research Hypothesis E-4 While more of the SERL subjects than the con­ ventional subjects reported they had worked with student teachers as supervising teachers, these differences were not statistically significant. 128 The experimental variable of student teaching pro­ gram did not differentiate between subjects who received the SERL treatment and those who received the conventional treatment, as measured by the instruments used in this study. But there were some minor non-significant differ­ ences between the groups with regard to the selected teacher characteristics studied. These findings could be indicative of the limi­ tations of this study. A combination of influences may account for the present findings. Perhaps the acceptable levels of significance were too rigorously established for this type of study and the dependent variables considered were too numerous to ade­ quately control and investigate thoroughly. If the level of significance had been established at 0.30 several hy­ potheses would have been supported, and perhaps this level of confidence would have been sufficient for many practitioners. Also, if the number of dependent variables had been limited, each could have been more adequately controlled and analyzed on the basis of additional demo­ graphic information. Many of the findings might have been repudiated or supported on the basis of the demographic variables which were not considered. Because the SERL Project was conducted in the same school district from which the conventional subjects were drawn it is possible that the conventional program 129 was influenced by activities of the SERL Project. It is even possible that many of the objectives and activities of the Project were incorporated into the conventional program in this school district. The similarities of the responses of the subjects on the instruments used could possibly be attributed to the effects of "guessing" the author's purpose. in part, be considered a "Hawthorne Effect." This may, The author made no pretense of disguising his instruments, and even the most casual observer could accurately guess the pur­ pose of each instrument. Perhaps a more thorough pre­ test of such instruments would result in the redesigning of the instruments to avoid the possibilities of antici­ pated responses from the subjects. Although the demographic characteristics of the subjects were not used as a criterion for comparison of the two groups of subjects, it could be that the two groups were not equivalent. If this is the case then it is likely that some of the variability between the treat­ ment groups may be accounted for on these bases. Further, the leveling factor of time could be identified as an im­ portant variable that may in fact account for the simi­ larities of the performances of the two groups. In this study the single treatment difference in­ vestigated was that of the type of student teaching pro­ gram experienced. This approach ignores important 130 variables such as: present school setting, prevailing attitudes of colleagues, size of school, and additional experiences that could very readily influence the selected teaching characteristics that were investigated. It is possible that a combination of such factors, still un­ defined, could be responsible for the attitudes and be­ haviors reported. This study found that MTAI scores declined with teaching experience. findings of others. This finding does not contradict It does pose the problem of identi­ fying where and why these attitudes declined for those teaching; and also, why those not teaching left or never entered teaching. Perhaps the type of student teaching program enhanced the subject's ability to make these kinds of decisions, and influenced the responses that led to the findings of this study. Another factor which might have improved the find­ ings of this study is the refinement of instruments to investigate the factors which led to continuation of advanced training of the subjects. A determination of reasons for continuing studies might reveal that this continuation was a direct result of state teacher certifi­ cation requirements, dissatisfaction with teaching, salary schedule improvements, lack of teaching positions, or other similar variables. The findings relating to 131 this variable may have been altered when analyzed with these other factors under consideration. The findings of this study certainly indicate a need for a refinement of the design and repetition of the study. The chief contribution of this study is possibly that it is an initial attempt to explore the long-term effects of a student teaching program using the most readily available tools of self-reports and principals' reports of the subjects' performance. It explores numerous variables that could singly be made the ob­ jectives of more refined and sophisticated research. Suggestions for Further Research It appears clear that teacher educators at Michigan State University will need additional data to continuously re-examine their objectives, and to continue to develop student teaching programs that will adequately fulfill these objectives. Suggestions for further research include: 1. A follow-up study of those who were identified in this study as having left teaching. This study could investigate the reasons for leaving teaching, the present occupations of these subjects, and their success and satisfaction with their chosen fields. 132 2. A comparative investigation of SERL and con­ ventional subjects of this study on the basis of demographic data available from this study. Com­ parisons could be made on the basis of such vari­ ables as: sex, age, marital status, educational preparation, size of schools in which the respon­ dents are teaching, and years of teaching experience. 3. A comparative study of past cluster and con­ ventional participants on a year-by-year basis to determine when changes in attitudes toward children and teaching take place. A pre-test, post-test, or a longitudinal study could be designed which may aid in the identification of particular years when attitude changes take place. A study of this nature may indicate a need for a reallocation of university resources to the in-service activities during certain crucial years. 4. A comparison of teacher attitudes and effective­ ness on the basis of the degree of university assistance and the contacts made with the uni­ versity by the subjects during their first years 133 of teaching. Such a study might provide new directions for teacher preparation institutions. 5. The development of additional instruments to measure teacher attitudes, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Such a study might examine the relationships between measurements on these kinds of instruments and be compared to observations made by trained, unbiased observers. 6 . The design of a study that compares attitudes and effectiveness of a random sample of all cluster student teachers with a random sample of all con­ ventional student teachers. 7. A study to identify and compare the different teaching variables of junior high and senior high school teaching. Possible results might be used to formulate suggestions for training the candi­ dates differently for these two levels. 8. A study of attitudes toward teacher education, including anecdotal data, of past SERL and con­ ventional student teachers. A study of this nature might enable teacher educators to eliminate those preparation processes which are concluded to be of little value, and to include and refine those which are of high value. 134 9. An examination of those attitudes held by teachers and administrators on the role of the public schools in teacher preparation. This study could aid teacher educators in the clarification of the goals of future teacher preparation, the direction of future relationships with teacher associations, and the role of the public schools in the prepa­ ration of teachers. 10. A study which compares the perceptions pupils have of their teachers with those of school adminis­ trators and the teachers. Such an investigation could identify characteristics of teachers which are highly valued by each group, compare these characteristics, and contribute to the identifi­ cation of effective teaching. 11. An investigation of the role expectations for the cluster consultants which are held by cooperating teachers, school administrators, college coordi­ nators, and cluster consultants. A study of this nature could identify areas of agreement and discrepancy which might merit the attention of those responsible for student teaching programs. 12. An examination of the attitudes held toward the student teaching programs by teachers working with student teachers in the cluster programs as 135 compared to those attitudes of supervising teachers in the conventional program. This study might offer suggestions useful to the college coordi­ nators in their work with cooperating teachers. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers; A Perceptual View of Teacher Preparation" Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1965. Dewey, John. Experience and Education. Collier Books, 1938. New York: Ellena, William J. Question: Who's A Good Teacher? Washington, D.C.: American Association ofSchool Administrators, 1961. Gruhn, William T. Student Teaching in the Secondary School. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1954. Hall, Samuel. Lectures in School Keeping. Boston: Richardson, Lord and Holbrook, 1829. Harris, Chester W . , and Libya, Marie R . , eds. Encyclopedia of Educational Research. The Macmillan Company, i960. New York: Johnson, Jim. A Brief History of Student Teaching. DeKalb, 111.: Creative Educational Materials, 1968. ________ , and Anderson, Roger C. Secondary Student Teach­ ing: Readings. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971. Noll, Victor H. The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State University. East Lansing, Mich.: College of Education, 19 68. Stiles, Lindley, J . ; Barr, A. S.; Douglas, Harl R.; and Mills, Hubert H. Teacher Education in the United States. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960. 136 Walton, John. Toward Better Teaching in the Secondary Schools. Boston: Ailyn andBacon, 1966. Whitney, Allen S. History of the Professional Training of Teachers: At the University of Michigan for the First-Half Century 1879 to 1929~ Ann Arbor, Mich.: George Wahr, Publisher, 1931. Articles Andrews, L. 0. "Initial Preparation of the Career Teacher. Educational Leadership, XXVII, No. 6 (March, 1970), 544-47. Aspy, David N. "Maslow and Teachers in Training." Journal of Teacher Education, XX, No. 3 (Fall, 1969), 303- 091 Blume, Robert. "Humanizing Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan, LII, No. 7 (March, 1971), 411-15. Callis, Robert. "The Efficiency of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Predicting Interpersonal Relations in the Classroom." The Journal of Applied Psychology, XXXVII, No. 2 (1953), 82-85. Combs, Arthur. "A Good Teacher." Educational Leadership, XXVII, No. 6 (March, 1970), 540-44. Day, Harry P. "Attitude Changes of Beginning Teachers After Initial Teaching Experience." Journal of Teacher Education, X, No. 3 (September, 1959), 326-29. Dutton, Wilbur H. "Attitude Change of Elementary School Student Teachers and Anxiety." The Journal of Educational Research, LV, No. 8 (May, 1§62), 380-83 Garvey, Reba. "Self-Concept and Success in Student Teach­ ing." Journal of Teacher Education, XXI, No. 3 (Fall, 19ft)), 357-61. Hamachek, Don. "Characteristics of Good Teachers and Implications for Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan, L, No. 6 (February, 1969), 341-44. Munro, Barry C. "The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory as a Predictor of Teaching Success." The Journal of Educational Research, LVIII, No. 3 (November, 1Tii U.S.A Th* P»rrhek*K il C ofpof«io«. »04 |* m 4*ih f c m t. N «* V**k. N . Y . 10017 150 70-19C T B 151 S A — S tro n g ly ag re e A— A g ree U— U n d e c id e d o r u n c e rta in 1. M ost children are obedient. 2. 3. I)— D isag ree S D — S tro n g ly d isa g re e 16. A pupil's failure is seld o m th e fault o f th e teacher. P u p ils w h o "act sm art" probably have to o h igh an opinion of th em selves. 17. T h ere are tim es w h en a teach er can n ot be blam ed for losin g p a tien ce w ith a pupil. M inor d isciplinary situ a tio n s should som etim es be tu rn ed into jokes. 18. A te a c h e r s h o u ld w ith th e p u p ils. 19. P u p ils h ave it too e a sy in the m odern sch ool. 20. A teacher sh o u ld n o t be ex p ected to burden h im self w ith a pupil’s problem s. n e v e r d is c u s s sex p ro b le m s 4. S h y n ess is preferable to b old n ess. 0. T ea ch in g n ever g e ts m on otonou s. 6. M ost pupils d on ’t ap preciate w hat a teacher d oes for them . 7. If th e teacher la u g h s w ith th e pupils in am us­ in g classroom situ a tio n s, th e class ten d s to g e t ou t o f control. £1. P u p ils ex p ec t too m u ch help from the teach er in g e ttin g th eir lesso n s. I. 9. 10. 11. 12. 19. 14. 15. 22. A teacher should n ot be ex p ected to sacrifice a n ev en in g o f recreation in order to v is it a ch ild's hom e. 23. M o st p u p ils do not m ak e an adequate effort to prepare th eir lesso n s. 24. T o o m any children n ow a d a y s are allow ed to h a v e their o w n way. 20. C hildren’s w a n ts are ju st as im portant as th o se o f an adult. 26. T h e teacher is u su a lly to blam e w hen p up ils fa il to fo llo w directions. 27. A child sh o u ld be ta u g h t to ob ey an a d ult w ith o u t q uestion. 28 . T h e b o a s t f u l c h ild is u s u a lly o v e r - c o n f id e n t o f h is a b ility . A ch ild 's com p an ion sh ips can be to o carefully supervised. A ch ild should b e en cou raged to k eep h is likes and d islik es to him self. It som etim es d o es a child g ood to b e criticised in th e presence o f other pupils. U n q u estion in g desirable. ob ed ien ce in a ch ild is n ot P u p ils should be required to do m ore stud yin g at hom e. T h e first lesson a child n eed s to learn is to ob ey th e teacher w ith out h esitation . Y ou n g people are difficult to understand th ese days. 29. C hildren h a v e a natural ten d en cy to be unruly. T h ere is too great an em p h asis upon “ keeping order" in the classroom . 30. A teacher can n ot p lace m uch faith in the s ta te ­ m en ts of pupils. GO ON T O THE NEXT PAGE 152 S A — S tr o n g ly a g re e A — A g ree U — U n d e c id e d o r u n c e rta in D — D is a g re e S D — S tr o n g ly d is a g re e . 43. M ore "old-fashioned w hipp ings" a re needed today. 31. Som a children ask too m an y questions. 33. A pupil shou ld not b e required to stand w h en reciting. 33. T h e teacher should not be exp ected to m an ­ a g e a ch ild if th e latter’* p aren ts are unable to do so. 34. A teacher should n ever ack n ow led g e h is ig ­ norance of a topic in the presen ce of n is p upils. 35. D iscip line in th e modern sch o o l is not a s strict a s it shou ld be. 33. M ost p u p ils lack p rod uctive im agination. 47. T he ch ild m ust learn that "teacher k n o w s best." 49. Increased freedom in th e classroom creates con fu sion. 40. A teach er should not be exp ected to be sy m ­ p athetic tow ard truants. 50. T each ers should exercise m ore au th ority over their p u p ils than th ey do. 61. D iscip lin e problem s are th e teacher's greatest 37. Standards o f work shou ld vary w ith th e pupil. 68. T h e lo w achiever p robably is not w ork in g hard enough and a p p lyin g h im self. 33. T h e m ajority o f children ta k e their resp o n si­ b ilities seriou sly. 53. T h ere is too m u ch em p h asis on grading. 30. T o m aintain good d iscip lin e in th e classroom a teacher n eed s to b e "hard-boiled." 64. M ost children lack com m on cou rtesy tow ard adults. 40. S u ccess is m ore m otivatin g th an failure. 66. A g g ressiv e children are th e greatest problem s. 41. Im agin ative tales dem and th e sam e p u n ish ­ m en t a s lyin g. 63. A t tim e s it is n ecessa ry th a t the w h o le class suffer w h en the teacher is unable to identify the culprit. 48. E very pupil in the sixth grad e should h ave six th grade ade reading ability. 43. A good m otivatin g d evice Is th e critical co m ­ parison of a pupil's w ork w ith that o f other pupils. 44. It it better for a child to be b ash fu l than t o be "boy or g ir l crasy." 46. C ourse grades should n ever b e low ered punishm ent. as 67. M any teachere are not sev ere en ou gh in their d ea lin g s w ith pup ils. 60. C hildren "should be seen and not heard." 60. A teach er should a lw ays h ave at le a st a few failures. 30. It is easier to correct d iscip lin e problem s than it is to prevent them . 00 ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 153 S A — S tr o n g ly a g re e A— A g re e U— U n d e c id e d o r u n c e rta in ! ) _ D isag ree S I ) — S tro n g ly d isag re e 61. C hildren are u su a lly too sociab le in th e cla ss­ room . 76. T h ere is too m uch len ien cy today in th e hand­ lin g o f children. 62. M o st pupils th eir own. 77. D ifficult d iscip lin ary problem s are seld om the fau lt o f th e teacher. 63. T o o m uch n on sen se g o e s on in m any cla ss­ room s th ese d ays. 78. T h e w him s and im pulsive desires o f children are u su ally w orth y of atten tion . 79. C hildren u su ally have a hard tim e follow ing instructions. 66. C hildren are to o carefree. 80. C hildren n ow ad ays are a llo w ed to o m uch free­ dom in school. 66. P u p ils w ho fail to prepare their le sso n s d aily sh ou ld be k ep t after sch o o l to m ake th is prep­ aration. 81. A ll children should start to read b y the age o f seven. 67. P u p ils w ho are foreign ers usu ally m ake the teacher's task m ore unpleasant. 82. U niversal prom otion of p up ils low ers ach ieve­ m ent standards. 68. M o st children w ou ld like to use g o o d E n glish . 63. Children are unable to reason adequately. are resourceful w hen left on 64. T h e school is often to blam e in cases o f truancy. 68. A ssig n in g ad dition al sch ool work is often an effective m ean s of punishm ent. 70. D ish o n esty as found in ch eating is probably o n e of the m o st serious of moral offen ses. 71. C hildren sh ou ld be allow ed m ore freedom in th eir execu tion of learning activities. 72. P u p ils m ust learn to resp ect teachers if for no oth er reason th a n that th ey are teachers. 78. C hildren need n ot alw ays understand the rea­ s o n s for social conduct. 74. P u p ils usually are not qualified to sele ct their o w n topics for th em es and reports. 76. N o child shou ld rebel again st authority. 64. A teacher shou ld not tolerate use o f slang ex p ressio n s by his pupils. 86. T h e child w h o m isb eh aves should be m ade to feel g u ilty and asham ed o f him self. 86. If a child w a n ts to speak or to leave h is seat during the cla ss period, he should a lw a y s get perm ission from the teacher. 87. P u p ils should not respect teachers any more than any oth er adults. 88. T h row in g o f chalk and erasers should a lw ays dem and severe punishm ent. 89. T eachers w h o are liked b est probably have a b etter understanding of their pupils. 90. M ost pupils try to m ake th in g s easier for the teacher. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 154 S A - S tr o n g ly .ig rc A— A g rcr ' 91. I- Undecided *ir m u ' c r l a i n M o tt teachers do n o t g iv e sufficient exp lan a­ tion in their teach ing. 92, T h ere are too m an y a ctiv ities lacking in acad­ em ic resp ectab ility th at are b ein g introduced in to th e curriculum o f the m odern sch ool. M ost pupils are u n n ecessarily th o u g h tle ss rel­ a tiv e to the teach er's w ish es. 95. C hildren should n ot exp ect talk in g p rivileges w h en adults w ish to speak. S tro n g ly disagrc 106. A teacher should n ot be ex p ected to do m ore w ork than he is paid for. 107. T here is n othin g th a t can be m ore irritating than som e pupils. 1 08. “ L a c k o f a p p lic a tio n " is p ro b a b ly o n e o f th e m o s t f r e q u e n t c a u s e s f o r f a ilu r e . 99. C hildren should be given m ore freedom in the classroom than th ey u su ally get. 94. I* Disagree S I) 109. Y oun g people n ow ad ays are to o frivolous. 110. 111. A s a rule teachers are too len ien t w ith their pupils. S lo w pupils certain ly try on e's patience. 99. P u p ils are u su ally s lo w to “catch on" to n ew m aterial. 112. Grading is o f value b eca u se of th e com petition elem ent. 97. T each ers are resp on sib le for k n o w in g the h om e con d ition s of every on e of their pupils. 113. P u p ils like to annoy th e teacher. 99. P u p ils can be very boring at tim es. 114. Children u su ally w ill n ot think for th em selves. 99. 100. C hildren h ave n o b u sin ess askin g q u estion s ab out sex. 115. C lassroom rules and reg u la tio n s m ust be co n ­ sidered inviolable. 116. M ost pupils have too ea s y a tim e of it and do n ot learn to d o real w ork. 117. C hildren are so likeable that their shortcom ­ in g s can u su ally be overlook ed . C hildren m u st be told ex a c tly w hat to d o and h o w to d o it. 101. M ost pupils sre con sid erate of their teachers. 102. W h isp erin g should not be tolerated. 103. S h y p up ils esp ecia lly sh ou ld be required to stand w hen reciting. 116. A pupil found w ritin g ob scen e n o tes should be severely punished. 104. T each ers should con sid er problem s of co n ­ d uct m ore seriou sly than th ey do. 119. A teacher seldom finds children really en jo y ­ able. 105. A teach er should n ever leave th e cla ss to its o w n m anagem ent. 120. T h ere is usu ally on e b est w a y to do sch ool w ork w hich all p u p ils shou ld follow . GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE 155 S A — S tro n g ly a g r e e A— A g re e U— U n d e c id e d o r u n c e rta in I)— D isa g re e S I)— S tr o n g ly d is a g re e 181. I t isn't practicable t o b a te sch o o l w ork upon children's in terests. 136. A p u p il shou ld a lw a y s b e fu lly aw are o f w h a t is ex p ected o f him . 188. It is d ifficult to und erstan d w h y so m e ch ib dren w a n t to com e to sch ool s o early in the m orn in g b efore o p en in g tim e. 137. T h ere is too m uch in term in g lin g o f th e sex es in extra-curricular activ ities. 138. T h e ch ild w h o stu tters shou ld be g iv e n the op p ortu n ity to recite o ften er. 188. C hildren th at can n ot m eet th e sch ool sta n d ’ ards sh ou ld be dropped. 184. C hildren are u su ally to o in q u isitive. 139. T h e teacher shou ld disregard th e com p laints of t h e child w h o co n sta n tly talk s ab out im a g ­ in ary illn esses. 185. It is so m etim es n ece ssa ry to break p rom ises m ade to children. 140. T ea ch ers p rob ably o ver-em ph asU e th e ser­ io u sn ess o f s u c h pupil beh avior a s th e w ritin g o f o b sc en e n o tes. 188. C hildren tod ay are g iv e n too m uch freedom . 187. O ne sh ou ld be able to g et a lo n g w ith a lm o st an y child. 141. T ea c h e rs sh o u ld not ex p ect p up ils to th em . like 148. C hildren act m ore civ ilise d than do m any ad u lts. 188. C hildren are not m atu re en ou gh to m ake their ow n d ecision s. 143. A g g ressiv e children requ ire th e m o st a tte n ­ tion . 189. A child w h o b ites h is n ails n eed s to be sham ed. 1 4 4 T ea c h e rs can be in th e w ro n g a s w e ll a s pup ils. 180. C hildren w ill think for th em selv es if permit* ted. 145. Y o u n g people tod ay are ju st a s g o o d a s th o se of th e past gen eration . 181. T h ere is n o excu se for th e ex tre m e se n sitiv ity of som e children. 148. K eep in g d iscip lin e is n o t the problem th at m a n y teachera claim it to be. 198. C hildren ju st csn n o t be tru sted . 147. A p u p il has th e right to d isa g ree o p en ly w ith his teachers. 188. C hildren sh ou ld be g iv e n reason s for th e re­ striction s placed upon them . 148. M ost pupil m isb eh avior is done to a n n o y the teacher. 184. M ost p u p ils are n ot in terested in learning. 149. O ne should n o t exp ect p up ils to en joy sch ool. 185. It ia u su a lly the u n in terestin g and difficult su b jects th a t w ill d o th e pupil th e m ost good. 150. In p u p il appraisal effo rt shou ld n o t b e d is­ tin g u ish ed from scholarship. APPENDIX D COVER LETTER AND TEACHER SELF RATING INSTRUMENT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN 48823 COLLBGB OP EDUCATION ■ STUDENT TEACHING OFFICE - 233 ERICKSON HALL April 3, 1972 Dear Colleague: This is the final phase of the research study I am conducting concerning student teaching programs at Michigan State University. As you know, this study is a follow up of past participants of Michigan State University student teaching programs; and no individual will be identified. This final phase is a two part rating questionnaire. The first part is a self-rating instrument. The second is a rating instrument that is to be completed by your building principal. Each instrument has a stamped, addressed envelope for its return to me. Please ask your principal to complete and return to me the instrument that is identified by the "Dear Principal" cover letter. It should take him less than ten minutes to complete that questionnaire. I would also appreciate it if you would complete and return to me the self-rating instrument that is attached to this cover letter. should take less than ten minutes to complete. It There will be no attempt to identify individual teachers or principal The coding that appears on the instrument is for distribution purposes only. I would appreciate your return of the completed questionnaire before April 14, 1972. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Patrick D. Daunt PDD:hb 156 TEACHER SELF RATING PLEASE DESCRIBE YOURSELF ON EACH ITEM BY PLACING A CHECK MARK ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE ALONG THE CONTINUUM. 1. I encourage studenc participation in my classes. ALWAYS NEVER I__________________________ 2. I encourage students to express their ideas. ALWAYS I NEVER I________________________________________ I 3. I allow pupils to make classroom related decisions. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 4. I dominate the talk in my classroom. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 5. I plan questions to motivate student discussion. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 6. I am able to see things from the student's point of view. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 7. I respect student ideas. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 8. I communicate effectively with pupils. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 9. I listen to student suggestions. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 10. I have as a primary goal the mastery of subject matter. ALWAYS NEVER 11. I utilize the lecture method for instruction. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 12. I provide small group activities when appropriate. ALWAYS NEVER I____________________________________________ I 157 158 13. I utilize the textbook as the basis of teaching. ALWAYS NEVER 1. 1 14. I treat all students fairly and impartially. ALWAYS 15. NEVER I am irritated by the actions of students. ALWAYS NEVER ___ 1 1 16. I am successful in motivating pupils to learn. ALWAYS 1 17. 18. 1 I handle discipline effectively. ALWAYS 1.... NEVER 1 I am highly satisfied and rewarded by contacts with students. ALWAYS NEVER 1 19. NEVER 1 Students treat me with respect. ALWAYS I_ NEVER 1 20. My teaching objectives are comprehensive and significant. ALWAYS NEVER I 1 21. My teaching objectives are expressed in student behavioral terms ALWAYS NEVER 1 _J 22. I willingly participate in and support community activit ies and projects. ALWAYS NEVER | . J 23. I communicate well and empathetically. ALWAYS I 24. Overall I am a very effective teacher. STRONGLY AGREE 1 NEVER 1 STRONGLY DISAGREE ................... _ .. 1 159 25. I have a thorough knowledge and understanding of ray teaching field. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 26. My students seem to have confidence in my professional ability. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 27. Teaching provides the social status I desire. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 28. If I could earn as much money in another occupation I probably would not have entered the teaching profession. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 29. My teaching assignment STRONGLY AGREE issatisfactory. STRONGLY DISAGREE J_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 30. If I could plan my career STRONGLY AGREE again I wouldlikely choose teaching. STRONGLY DISAGREE I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 31. I am satisfied with myteaching experience. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE I________________________________________ I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IF YOU WOULD LIKE A SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY WHEN IT IS COMPLETED FILL IN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. APPENDIX E COVER LETTER AND TEACHER RATING BY PRINCIPAL INSTRUMENT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY bast la n s in g • M ic h ig a n 48823 COLLEGE OF BDUCATION • STUDENT TBACHING OFFICE . 233 ERICKSON HALL April 3, 1972 Dear Principal: I am conducting a research study concerning the student teaching programs at Michigan State University. This study is a follow up of past participants of the student teaching programs. The information is being collected for research purposes only; therefore, no infor­ mation identifying any individual will be published. Please select the response for each item that best describes _____________________ as a teacher. Please return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped, addressed envelope. In order to protect the anonymity of the teacher and the principal, please do not return this cover letter with the completed questionnaire There will be no attempt to identify individual teachers or respondents The coding that appears on the questionnaire sheet is for distribution purposes only. I would appreciate your return of the completed questionnaire before April 14, 1972. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Patrick D. Daunt Assistant College Coordinator PDD:hb 160 TEACHER RATING BY PRINCIPAL PLEASE DESCRIBE THE TEACHER IDENTIFIED IN THE COVER LETTER BY PLACING A CHECK MARK ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACE ALONG THE CONTINUUM. 1. Encourages student participation in class. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ J 2. Encourages student expression of ideas. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ I 3. Allows pupils to make classroom related decisions. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ I 4. The classroom talk is dominated by the teacher. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ 5. Plans questions to motivate student discussion. ALWAYS | NEVER I_________________________________ I 6. Is able to see things from the student's point of view. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ I 7. Respects student ideas. ALWAYS NEVER I____________________________ 8. Communicates effectively with pupils. ALWAYS I NEVER I_________________________________ I 9. Listens to student suggestions. ALWAYS NEVER 1 10. Has as a primary goal the mastery of subject matter. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 11. Utilizes the lecture method for instruction. ALWAYS NEVER I________________________________________ I 12. Provides small group activities when appropriate. ALWAYS NEVER I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 161 162 13. Utilizes the textbook as the basis of teaching. ALWAYS NEVER I_______________________________ I 14. Is fair and impartial in the treatment of all students. ALWAYS NEVER I_______________________________ I 15. Is irritated by the actions of students. ALWAYS NEVER I_______________________________ I 16. This teacher is successful in motivating pupils to learn. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________________1 17. Handles discipline effectively. ALWAYS NEVER I_______________________________ I 18. Highly satisfied and rewarded by contacts with students. ALWAYS NEVER I_______________________________ I 19. Students treat this teacher with respect. ALWAYS NEVER I_______________________________ I 20. 21. Objectives are comprehensive and significant. ALWAYS NEVER Objectives are expressed in student behavioral terms. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________________I 22. Willingly participates in and supports community activities and projects. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________________I 23. 24. Communicates well and empathetically. ALWAYS NEVER Overall a very effective teacher. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE I______________________________________________ I 25. Has a thorough knowledge and understanding of his teaching field, STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 163 26. The students have confidence in the teacher's professional ability. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 1______________________________________________ I 27. Individualizes instruction to a greater extent than does the average teacher. STRONGLY AGREE STRONGLY, DISAGREE I__________________________________ 1 28. Demonstrates that his primary responsibility is to the individual pupil STRONGLY AGREE 29. STRONGLY DISAGREE Adapts teaching to individual needs and abilities of students. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ 1 30. This teacher's classes operate using individual instruction about what per cent of the time ? 0 - 20 31. % 21 - 40 7o 41 - 60 % 61 - 80 7. 81 - 100 7, This teacher expects all children to develop at the same rate and expects uniform performance and achievement from all children. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ I 32. This teacher's pupils are all studying the same things and are at about the same place in materials. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________J 33. Works with pupils on an individual basis. ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________________ I 34. All students of this teacher are required to fulfill the same ass ignment s . ALWAYS NEVER I_________________________ 35. 36. I Pupils have their choice of assignments in this teacher's classes. ALWAYS NEVER NEV This teacher is there to make eacli student feel important. ALWAYS NEVER 1________________________________________ THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION I APPENDIX F MTAI RAW SCORES 164 TABLE F.l.— MTAI Raw Scores. Student Teaching Program N = 101 SERL Conventional Employed in School System Employed in School System Yes No Yes No -55 -37 -24 -10 -50 -32 -15 -14 - 8 7 - 7 9 -11 - 9 - 7 -.7 3 12 23 32 34 37 43 45 47 48 51 52 56 59 60 61 66 66 67 80 82 84 89 14 16 19 21 21 26 30 31 41 41 43 44 46 49 52 54 57 62 63 63 65 65 75 77 80 103 103 103 103 12 14 19 27 36 41 41 46 52 61 63 70 71 71 79 21 21 38 45 47 49 55 60 60 62 62 66 66 70 73 84 88 105 APPENDIX G TEACHER SELF RATING SCORES 165 TABLE G-l.— Teacher Self Rating Scores (N = 36). SERL Conventional 5. 62 6.23 6.31 6.65 6 .73 6 .88 7. 27 7. 32 7.34 7.35 7. 50 7.58 7.69 7.89 7.90 7. 96 8.04 8 .08 8.19 8 .27 8.42 8.43 4.89 5.27 6.69 6.96 7.08 7.08 7.53 7.54 7.62 7.73 7.96 8.12 8.19 8.85 APPENDIX H TEACHER RATING BY PRINCIPAL SCORES 166 TABLE H-l.— Teacher Rating by Principal Scores (N = 33). SERL Conventional 4. 62 5. 35 5. 77 6 . 36 7.00 7. 00 7. 00 7. 46 7. 58 7. 69 7. 85 7. 96 8.60 8 .81 9. 00 9. 88 3.69 4. 50 5.31 5.97 6 .08 6.39 7.19 7. 97 8.35 8.39 8 .64 9.00 9. 04 APPENDIX I ABILITY TO INDIVIDUALIZE INSTRUCTION SCORES REPORTED BY PRINCIPALS TABLE 1-1.— Ability to Individualize Instruction Scores Reported by Principals. SERL Conventional 1.90 4.70 4.80 5.60 5.70 3.40 4.40 4.40 5.11 5.30 6.70 6.70 6.90 7.10 6.10 6.40 6.70 7.10 8 .00 8.00 8.20 8.20 8.80 8.88 8.10 8.30 8.60 8 .80 9.40