INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of thp original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Paga(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatost value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be mcde from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, autpor and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North 2o«b Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

74-6095
MYERS, Jr., Julius, 1932A STUDY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CLINICAL
CONSULTANTS IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CLUSTER PROGRAM.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973
Education, teacher training

U niversity M icrofilm s, A XEROX C om pany, A n n A rbor, M ichigan

A STUDY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CLINICAL CONSULTANTS
IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CLUSTER PROGRAM
By
Julius Myers, Jr.

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education
1973

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF CLINICAL CONSULTANTS
IN THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CLUSTER PROGRAM
By
Julius Myers, Jr.

The major purpose of this investigation was to
study the existing criteria now used for selecting clini­
cal consultants to determine whether student teachers,
supervising teachers, public school principals, center
directors and clinical consultants agree upon commonly
accepted criteria for selection of clinical consultants.
A second purpose was to determine to what degree these key
persons in the cluster program regard a basic list of
selection criteria for clinical consultants to be
important.

The third purpose was to utilize the data

obtained in this study to develop a list of criteria that
can be used as a guide by institutions and teacher educa­
tion centers for the selection of clinical consultants.
The normative survey and evaluation method of research
were used in this study.

After developing a questionnaire

from the literature and from pretesting the instrument with
persons in the cluster program, 30 selection criteria were
selected to be included in the survey.

The instrument was

mailed to 319 subjects who participated in the cluster
program during the fall term of 1972.

A 72 per cent return

Julius Myers, Jr.
was obtained with 231 o£ the respondents returning usable
questionnaires.
The data obtained were then quantified and a F-test
of the multivariate analysis of variance was conducted at
the .05 level of significance.
The following twenty-six criteria were identified,
and are suggested as a basic guide for the selection of
clinical consultants.
Possess the level of academic preparation required by
state certification laws.
Have completed at least three years of successful
teaching experience.
Possess a bachelor's degree.
Participate in the program willingly and look upon
supervising the growth of student teachers as a con­
tribution to the profession.
Demonstrate or has demonstrated ethical principles in
guiding his actions.
Be recommended by his or her administrators, co-workers
and by the student teaching staff of the teacher educa­
tion institution.
Possess the ability to diagnose, analyze, and evaluate
the behavior of children, student teachers, and himself.
Demonstrate that hiB or her work is the result of
organized planning based on well defined objectives.
Reflect a positive professional attitude and a real
liking and respect for teaching.
Be able to establish a feeling of security on the part
of student teachers by clarifying his responsibilities
throughout the student teaching period.
Be able to demonstrate and understand the basic prin­
ciples of effective teaching and learning.

Julius Myers, Jr.
Be able to exhibit a cooperative attitude in relation­
ships with other members of the staff.
Have worked with student teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the responsibilities of a supervising
teacher.
Be enthusiastic regarding the role of clinical consultant.
Be able to consider new and different teaching tech­
niques in an open-minded manner.
Be able to help student teachers to develop under­
standing of their strengths and weaknesses and foster
in them a healthy self-concept.
Be able to utilize conferences with student teachers
as a form of teaching and learning through discussion.
Be capable of working with the student teachers and
building staff in developing individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed needs of the student
teachers in the building.
Shows willingness in providing classroom supervision
of student teachers in the building in cooperation
with regular classroom teachers.
Be able to help the student teachers in the building
on such matters as lesson planning, discipline, and
human relationships, which are called for by the
objectives of the courses they teach.
Be capable of taking corrective measures which will
improve difficult situations.
Be able to demonstrate an acquaintance with the lit­
erature of his or her professional field.
Have developed an appreciation for people who are dif­
ferent in culture, racial, religious, economic, and
national background, and is willing to accord them
full equality of opportunity.
Set positive example for student teachers in personal
appearance and hygiene, grooming, speech, and habits.
Be able to utilize recent developments and trends in
the teaching profession.
Have an understanding of the program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools, especially at the level
where he or she is the clinical consultant.

Julius Myers, Jr
Within the limitations of this investigation, the
following conclusions were supported:
1.

Even with a pre-determined list of criteria for
the selection of clinical consultants, cluster
program personnel did not totally agree as to
their importance.

2.

Among the respondents in the cluster program of
student teaching, there was a nucleus of criteria
which were agreed upon as important by most of
the population.

3.

There is an insufficient number of clinical con**
sultants available for vigorous application of any
but the basic selection criteria.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincere appreciation and gratitude are extended
to the members of my committee, Dr s. Banks Bradley,
Joseph H. McMillan and Donald Nickerson, for their assist­
ance, and especially to the committee chairman, George
Myers, for three years of unfailing support, encouragement
and friendship.
Special appreciation is extended to members of the
Student Teaching Office staff for their cooperation in
the study and to the many student teachers, public school
principals, supervising teachers, clinical consultants and
center directors who gave freely of their time to make this
study possible.
I am particularly appreciative of my wife Lena
for her love, patience and sustained encouragement over the
several years of the program.

To my son Stanley, who will

come to understand this educational endeavor, I extend a
special thanks for his patience and understanding.

ii

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

IV.

Page
NATURE OF THE S T U D Y .........................

1

Introduction to the Study ...................
Need for the S t u d y ...........................
Statement of Purpose .........................
H y p o t h e s e s .................... .. ............
........
Underlying Assumptions of the Study
Limitations of the Study .....................
Definition of Terms
.........................
Organization of the Study ...................

1
2
3
3
4
5
5
8

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH

9

Introduction .................................
The Cluster Program of Student Teaching . . .
Research Related to the Cluster Program . .
Roles of Persons in Related P r o g r a m s ........
Role of
the Tutorial P r o f e s s o r s .........
Role of
the Clinical P r o f e s s o r ...........
Role of
the Intern C o n s u l t a n t ...........
Review of Selected Studies Based on Selection
C r i t e r i a ...................................
S u m m a r y ......................................

9
9
16
18
20
21
22

PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY . . . . . . .

29

Introduction .................................
Source of D a t a ...............................
Design of
the S t u d y ........................
Collection of D a t a ..........................
Scoring and Validity of the D a t a ............
Items to be T e s t e d ...........................
C r i t e r i a ...................................
S u m m a r y .....................................

29
30
32
35
37
38
39
41

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

42

Introduction
Tests of the
Hypothesis
Hypothesis

42
43
43
44

.................................
H y p o t h e s e s .....................
1 ...............................
2 ...............................
iii

24
27

Chapter

V.

Page
Additional Comparative Analysis
............
Summary of the F i n d i n g s .....................
Hypothesis 1 ...............................
Hypothesis 2 ...............................

46
59
59
59

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S .............................

61

S u m m a r y ......................................
Conclusions and Implications .................
Recommendations for Further Research ........

61
62
64

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

66

Appendix A: Questionnaire and Cover Letter Sent
to Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers, Prin­
cipals, Center Directors and Clinical Consultants

69

Appendix B: Total Number of Responses Given to
Each Criterion by Student Teachers, Supervising
Teachers, Center Directors, Principals and
Clinical Consultants .............................

76

APPENDICES

Appendix C: Scores of Student Teachers, Principals,
Center Directors, Supervising Teachers and
Clinical Consultants Related to Selection Criteria
96
Appendix D: Criteria Considered to Be Basic,
Fundamental Requirements by a Majority of the
Respondents that Participated in the Michigan
State University Cluster Program of Student
Teaching, Fall Term, 1972

iv

99

LIST OF TABLES

Table
3.1

3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3

Page
Summary of Centers Where Student Teachers
Were Assigned and the Number of Cluster
Student Teachers and Clusters
...............

32

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

35

Summary of Population Distribution and Type
of S c h o o l ............

37

Effect of Group Responses Upon Selection
C r i t e r i a ......................................

44

Effect of Type of School Upon Selection
C r i t e r i a ......................................

45

Criterion I. Possess the Level of Academic
Preparation Required by State Certification
Laws.
(Univariate Analysis of Variance
Comparing the Mean Scores of the Five Groups)

47

4.4

Group Mean Scores

for Criterion 1 .............

47

4.5

Criterion II. Have Completed at Least Three
Years of Successful Teaching Experience
(Univariate Analysis of Variance Comparing
the Mean Scores of the Five Groups of
Respondents) ..................................

48

4.6

Group Mean Scores

for Criterion I X ...........

49

4.7

Criterion III. Possess a Bachelor's Degree
(Univariate Analysis of Variance Comparing
the Mean Scores of the Five G r o u p s ) ........

49

Group Mean Scores

50

4.8
4.9

for Criterion I I I .........

Criterion IV. Possess a Master's Degree (Univariate Analysis of Variance Comparing the
Mean Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents

v

50

Table

Page

4.10

Group Mean Scores for Criterion I V ..........

51

4.11

Criterion V I I I . Demonstrate or Has Demonstrated Ethicai"Principles in Guiding His Actions
(Univariate Analysis of Variance Comparing the
Mean Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents

51

4.12

Group Mean Scores for Criterion V I I I ........

52

4.13

Criterion IX. Be Recommended by His or Her
Administrators, Co-Workers and by the Student
Teaching Staff of the Teacher Education Insti­
tution (Univariate Analysis of Variance Com­
paring the Mean Scores of Five Groups of
Respondents) .................................

53

4.14

Group Mean Scores for Criterion I X ..........

53

4.15

Criterion X I . Demonstrate that His or Her
Work Is theResult of Organized Planning
Based on Well Defined Objectives (Univariate
Analysis of Variance Comparing the Mean
Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents . . .

54

4.16

Group Mean Scores for Criterion X I ..........

55

4.17

Criterion X X . Be Able to Utilize Conferences
With Student Teachers as a Form of Teaching
and Learning Through Discussion (Univariate
Analysis of Variance Comparing the Mean
Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents)
. .

55

4.18

Group Mean Scores

56

4.19

Criterion XXIII. Shows Willingness in Providing Classroom Supervision of Student
Teachers in the Building in Cooperation With
Regular Classroom Teachers (Univariate Analy­
sis of Variance Comparing the Mean Scores
of the Five Groups of Respondents)..........

56

4.20

Group Mean Scores

57

4.21

Criterion XXVIII. Set Positive Example for
Student Teachers in Personal Appearance and
Hygiene, Grooming, Speech, and Habits (Uni­
variate Analysis of Variance Comparing the
Mean Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents

58

Group Mean Scores

58

4.22

for Criterion XX . . . . .

for Criterion XXIII

. . . .

for Criterion XXVIII . . . .
vi

.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
1

Page
Geographic Location of Michigan State
University Student Teaching Cluster
C e n t e r s ...................................

vii

33

CHAPTER I
NATURE OP THE STUDY

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Teacher education programs face more challenges
today than ever before.
ground to a halt.

The need for sheer numbers has

Colleges and universities cannot

afford to continue to produce teachers who are out of
touch with the real world of the school.^
In an effort to further student teacherB'
experiences within the real world of schools, programs
have been designed that stress visiting social agencies
and community organizations, spending time in Btudents'
homes, and involvement in other community activities, in
addition to the conventional in-school student teaching
activities.

The Cluster Program of Student Teaching at

Michigan State University emphasizes these activities.

^Joseph Robinson, "A Field Experience Program in
Teacher E d u c a t i o n Kappa Delta Pi Record, Vol. 8 (Feb­
ruary 1972), p. 87.

1

2

NEED FOR THE STUDY
Because there is a continuing need for clinical
cluster consultants, it becomes important to develop use­
ful criteria for selecting those teachers in the public
schools who will be most competent as clinical consultants
to serve in cluster programs.
The quality of our clinical consultants should be
of vital concern, not just the quality of their academic
classroom preparation, but of their total impact on all
these persons in teacher preparation programs.
Merrill states:
. . . student teaching programs and even internships
are too often staffed by a variety of temporary,
sometimes uncommitted, often inappropriately pre­
pared, but conveniently available persons. No
institution deliberately staffs in this manner; in
practice, however, the evidence is sometimes incrimi­
nating even for those institutions which are sup­
posedly particular about employing staff.2
No research is available regarding identification
of criteria for selecting clinical consultants.

The

success of the Cluster Program for Student Teaching depends
upon the clinical consultant, who is in a position to do a
great deal for student teachers.

It iB essential to

select someone who will enhance the student teachers1
experiences.

To be more precise, at the present time there

is no single list of criteria for selection of the clinical

2Edward C. Merrill, Jr., Professional Student Teach­
ing Programs (Danville, 111.; The Interstate Printers and
Publishers,- Inc., 1967), p. 100.

3

consultant to be found in the literature of teacher
».

education.

STATEMENT OP PURPOSE
The purposes of this study are to:
1.

Investigate the existing criteria now used for
selecting clinical consultants and to deter­
mine whether student teachers, supervising
teachers, public school principals, clinical
consultants and center directors agree upon
commonly accepted criteria for selection of
clinical consultants.

2.

To determine to what degree these key persons
in the cluster program regard a basic list of
selection criteria for clinical consultants to
be important.

3.

To utilize the data obtained in this study to
develop a list of criteria that can be used
as a guide by institutions and teacher educa­
tion centers for the selection of clinical
consultants.

HYPOTHESES
The hypotheses to be tested in this study are
as follows:
1.

There will be no commonly accepted criteria for
selection of clinical consultants which are
recognized by student teachers, supervising
teachers, public school principals, center dir­
ectors and clinical consultants.

2.

The elementary school cluster program personnel
will not identify a different list of selection
criteria than will the secondary school cluster
program personnel.
As was pointed out earlier, there is no single

list of criteria for selecting clinical consultants to be

4
found in the professional literature on student teaching.
However, the absence of an accepted list of criteria should
not lead to a refusal to accept some concurrence with
regard to criteria for selection of clinical consultants.

UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY
The following assumptions were made in the formula­
tion and conduct of this study:
1.

That an adequate student teaching experience is
more likely to result when certain general cri­
teria are employed in the selection of clinical
consultants.

2.

That the clinical consultant must be carefully
selected since not all persons possess the qual­
ities and level of competence necessary for
serving in this capacity.

3.

That the criteria used for the selection of clini­
cal consultants will apply to all programs where
clinical consultants of student teachers are
involved.

4.

That a clinical consultant requires special qual­
ities and competencies.

5.

That student teachers, supervising teachers,
principals, center directors and clinical con­
sultants of the cluster program have responsibili­
ties to determine the personal and professional
competencies that clinical consultants should
possess.

6.

That since the basic responsibility for-the
administration of quality student teaching
programs depends upon the total cluster program
personnel, the selection of clinical consultants
represents a necessary element in the development
of a total staff in the cluster program of student
teaching.

5
7.

That this study is not intended, nor should it be
interpreted, as an evaluation of any specific
student teaching program, student teaching staff
or institution.

LIMITATIONS OP THE STUDY
It should be noted that since an exploratory study
of this nature cannot be all-encompassing, limitations of
the study are as follows:
1.

This study was limited to those Michigan State
University students who completed their student
teaching in the fall term, 1972.

2.

This study was limited to the cluster program of
student teaching as utilized at Michigan State
University.

3.

This study was confined to those public schools
where there were cluster programs.

4.

This study involved only those principals, super­
vising teachers, center directors and clinical
consultants of the cluster program.

5.

This study was limited to the student teaching
phase of teacher education.

6.

This study was a normative survey, with the par­
ticipants selected within the normal limitations
of the questionnaire technique.

DEFINITION OP TERMS
Some of the terms used have meanings which vary
among the different fields of education.

The following

explanations of terms give the meaning applied to each
term as it has been used in this study.

6
Principal
The principal is the building administrator who
is responsible for educational leadership, the supervision
of the operation, and management of the school facility.3
Supervising Teacher
A full-time experienced teacher employed by a
school district, who is selected to work with the student
teacher in the classroom.

He shares responsibility for

the supervision and guidance of the student teacher's
experience in the classroom and in related school activi­
ties.

Other terms that are used to describe this teacher-

function are:

cooperating teacher, base teacher, spon­

soring teacher, critic teacher, and directing teacher.
Student Teacher
A prospective teacher who is acquiring practical
teaching experience and skill under the guidance of a
supervising teacher or qualified person.*
Center Director
A member of the university staff who has

Enrolled House Bill No. 4195, Act No. 246, State
of Michigan, 75th Legislature, 1970.
York:

4Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education
McGraw-Hill, 1959), p. 530.

(New

7
responsibility to visit, observe, assist in evaluation,
and conduct seminars with student teachers.

He is also

responsible for in-service training for both clinical
consultants and supervising teachers as this relates to
the supervision of student teaching activities.

It is

through him that feedback information is supplied to the
local school system and the university to modify and
improve the program.5
Cluster Consultant or Clinical Consultant
This new position in the cluster program identifies
a competent person of the cooperating school staff who is
assigned for a portion of the school day as a building
consultant to the school teachers.

The college, in some

instances, reimburses the school district for the time
the clusber consultant devotes to the student teaching
program.

This person may be regarded as a member of the

college or university staff in addition to being a member
of the teaching staff of the local school district.

The

individual assumes direct responsibility for the experiences
of the student teachers and supervising teachers in his
building.

5Calvin C. Anderson, "Secondary Education Resi­
dency in Lansing: A Model Project Developed Cooperatively
by the Lansing School District and Michigan State Univer­
sity to Improve the Preparation of Teachers," Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972.

8

Cluster Program of Student Teaching
A program devised at Michigan State University as
a model that would broaden the learning experiences of the
student teachers.

Planned student contact with several

teaching models, a highly individualized experience,
contact with a variety of school-community activites, and
greater involvement of the public school cooperating staff
are primary elements of this program.**

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
Chapter I describes the general nature of the
study.

The need for the study, statement of purpose,

hypotheses, underlying assumptions, limitations, and
operational definitions are stated.
In Chapter II, pertinent literature and related
studies are discussed, while in Chapter III the research
methodology, instrumentation and techniques used to
college the data to test the hypotheses will be treated.
In Chapter IV, the research findings are presented
and analyzed.
A summary of the findings with conclusions and
implications are presented in Chapter V.

^Student Teaching Office, "Student Teaching Year
End Report, 1967-68," East.Lansing: Michigan State Uni­
versity, 1968 (Mimeographed).

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED RESEARCH

INTRODUCTION
The review of literature focused upon four areas,
which were (1) the Cluster Program of Student Teaching,
(2) selected research studies related to the cluster
program,

(3) the roles of persons in related programs,

and (4) selected studies related to identification of
selection criteria.
(1)

This review was designed to provide

a frame of reference for this study,

(2) selected

descriptions of related research findings, and (3) a
discussion of the research methods used in this study.

THE CLUSTER PROGRAM OF STUDENT TEACHING
The SERL Project created the basic design for the
"cluster program" at Michigan State University.

The pur­

pose was to identify and develop a pattern for the clinical
preparation teachers who could organize and manage instruc­
tion, with emphasis on unique learning needs of a wide
variety of youngsters.

The project was a cooperative

venture by the Instructional Division of the Lansing
School District and the School of Teacher Education at
9

10

Michigan State University.

It was initially designed to

prepare teachers for junior high schools, but was later
expanded to include student teachers at the senior high
and elementary levels.1
Jackson2 states in his introduction to the Cluster
Consultant Monograph;

"much has been written and spoken

advocating individual attention but often student teachers
are put through a lock-step program with little thought
to their individual needs."
Recognizing this need in teacher education, college
personnel and public school representatives have been
working together to develop improved programs of field
experiences for student teachers.
The deans and directors of Michigan teacher educa­
tion institutions considered four main principles paramount
in designing a model student teaching program.

They

were:
1.

The program for student teachers should provide
great flexibility so that strengths and weak­
nesses of the individual student will determine
the specific programs each will follow.

2.

The student teacher should be involved in a
program which is designed to provide contact
with several teachers and various teaching styles.

Lansing School District and Michigan State Univer­
sity Student Teaching Office, SERL Project; A Project to
Improve the Preparation of Teachers, 1§6?.
2Charles Jackson, "Introduction," Cluster Consult­
ant Monograph (East Lansing: Student Teaching Office,
Michigan State University, Pall 1972), pp. 1-2.

11
3.

The program should be structured to provide many
other kinds o£ school experiences for the student
teacher in addition to classroom teaching.

4.

Effective means should be developed to bring prac­
ticing teachers and teacher preparation institu­
tions into a true partnership in the design and
implementation of the teacher education program.
With these objectives in mind, the staff members

of the Michigan State University Student Teaching Program
and public school teachers, developed from the SERL
project in the mid 1960's into the maturing cluster program
of the 1970's.
The student teaching cluster program is now reaching
its potential because teacher educators at Michigan
State University are really looking upon the entire
school and the community in which it operates as a
laboratory for learning. Teacher educators are
utilizing the vast resources available within the
school and within the community, to build a program
for each individual student teacher in the cluster
program. Recognizing that each brings unique strengths
and weaknesses, the teacher educators are building a
program that is tailor-made for each individual
student.4
During the term preceding student teaching the
students in the SERL Project participated in a series of
non-credit orientation sessions.

They were required to

have completed all of their pre-student teaching

^Lee W. Dean and Henry Kennedy, "Position Paper on
Student Teaching Programs Developed by Deans and Directors
of Michigan Education Institutions," Teacher Education in
Transition, ed. by Howard E. Bosley, I (Baltimore! MultiState Teacher Education Project, 1969), p. 165.
4Lee W. Dean, Excerpt from Speech Presented at the
Intern and Clinical Consultant Conference (East Lansing:
School of Teacher Education, Michigan State University,
May 25, 1972), p. 3.

■3

12

professional education courses.
Students spent full time in student teaching and
were assigned to school buildings in clusters of
ten or twelve students per building. The school
and community served, was considered a learning
laboratory in which the student teacher studied
the problems of teaching and gained experience in
solving those problems.®
The student teacher was assigned to a schedule
of activities designed to foster the greatest possible
learning during the student teaching period.

The indivi­

dualized schedule for each student teacher was examined
periodically, and revised as needed to meet the needs of
that student teacher.

Assignment to at least one or two

teachers and classes were continued for several weeks in
order to provide an extended experience with the same
group of students and permit the development of long range
units of instruction.
There was a planned sequence of activities in
which student teachers were engaged as they progressed
toward the more complex problems of instruction.

The

student teacher was also in contact with several teachers
and classes to observe such things as:
styles,

(a) instructional

(b) more difficult methods of instruction,

(c) lecture,

(d) discussion,

(e) unit teaching,

lem solving, and (g) inquiry learning.

(f) prob­

He moved through

®Lee W. Dean, "A Student Teaching Program for the
1970's," (Mimeographed Speech) (East Lansing: School of
Teacher Education, Michigan State University, December 29,
1969), p. 2.

13
these experiences as rapidly as he was capable of moving.
In addition, the student teacher was engaged in a
program designed especially for him to learn about the
many other aspects of a teacher's job outside the formal
classroom setting.
were included:

Such experiences as the following

(a) working with small groups or individ­

uals in remedial tutoring stituations,

(b) visiting homes

of students and learning about community activities,
(c)

learning about the administration of a school as viewed

by the principal, attendance officer, custodian or grounds
keeper,

(d) learning about and working with social agencies

influential in the community, and (e) becoming familiar
with the special services of the school (guidance, remedial
reading, school nurse, library, audio-visual aids and
the like).6
To guide the learning experiences of student
teachers in this educational laboratory, an outstanding
teacher from the instructional staff of the school was
selected jointly by the local school district, and the
Michigan State University center director.

This teacher

was released part-time by the school district (this time
was sometimes purchased by the university) to serve as a
clinical consultant who helped plan for the optimum
utilization of the resources of the school in developing
an individualized professional experience program for

6Ibid.

14
each student teacher based upon his strengths and
weaknesses.^
The clinical consultant was responsible for the
student teachers assigned to his building and worked with
the building staff to provide a variety of experiences
for the student teachers and to insure that the student
teachers made a positive contribution to the school program.
He was also responsible to the Michigan State University
Student Teaching Center Director for all activities
involving student teachers.

His specific responsibilities

were as follows:
(a) Providing leadership to, and working with, the
student teachers and the building staff in
developing individual partipatory schedules
based on the diagnosed needs of the student
teachers in the building. This will include
arranging with teachers in the building for
classroom teaching experiences for student
teachers on a block-time basis or for extended
periods for part of the BChool day.
(b) Providing classroom supervision of student
teachers in the building in cooperation with
the regular classroom teachers.
(c) Providing instruction to student teachers in the
building on such matters as lesson planning, dis­
cipline, and relationship, which are called for
by the course objectives. This insturction may
be provided in conference group sessions in which
all the student teachers in the building are
involved.
(d) Providing leadership in the counseling and evalua­
tion of student teachers as they progress through

7 "Agreement with Schools for Clinical Cluster
for Student Teaching" (East Lansing; Michigan State
University, Student Teaching Office, 1970), p. 1.

15
the experiences and providing to them the
results of the evaluation conferences.
(e) Identifying those problems or questions in which
the building staff might be involved with the
university through its student teaching coordi~
nator, and arranging sessions in which these
questions can be dealt with on a formal basis.
(f) Assisting student teachers in identifying social
and philosophical issues in the community as the
basis for considering these topics in ED 450
{"School and Society").
(g) Providing for faculty involvement in the evalua­
tion of the program,®
Cragun, et al.,® indicated that in addition to the
responsibilities agreed upon by Michigan State University
and the school district, the clinical consultant was
involved in understanding the roles of the (1) central
administration,
(4) parents,
(6)

(2) building principal,

(3) students,

(5) professional teacher organizations,

youth-serving agencies, and (7) center director or

university coordinator in relation to the program.
In providing the experiences that gave student
teachers a realistic assessment of their skills, the
clinical consultant was (8) interviewing,

(9) assigning,

(10) having group and individual instruction,

^'Responsibilities in Clinical Cluster Program:
Supplement to Agreement with School for Clinical Clusters"
(East Lansing: Michigan State University, Student Teaching
Office, 1970), pp. 1-2.
^John Cragun, et al., Cluster Consultant Monograph,
coordinated by Arden Moon (East Lansing: Michigan State
University, Student Teaching Office, Fall 1972), pp. 5-60.

16
(11) providing orientation,

(12) scheduling,

(13) getting

involved in the community, (14) evaluating and recommending
placement, and (15) doing research and experimentation.
He was also giving direction and helping to develop
specific procedures and techniques with the student teachers
in (16) identifying the skills to be learned,
instructional objectives,

(18) working in simulation,

(19) doing some behavior modification,
using feedback,

(17) stating

(20) gathering and

(21) making career choices,

evaluation through conferences,

(22) self-

(23) forming a philosophy

of education, and (24) getting involved in in-service
education.
Research Related to the Cluster Program
Jackson^-® studied selected student teaching
experiences reported by Michigan State University cluster
program and conventional program student teachers.

He

utilized a questionnaire developed by Dr. Irvin J. Shutsy
and modified it from pretesting the instrument with pro­
fessionals in the field of teacher education, and one
hundred student teaching experiences.

The t-test procedure

was used in analyzing the data.
Jackson concluded that the cluster program student

10Charles L. Jackson, "A Study of Selected Student
Teaching Experiences Reported by Michigan State University
Cluster Program and Conventional Program Student Teachers,"
Unpublished Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971.

17
teachers had experienced more of the selected student
teaching experiences than had the conventional program
student teachers.

He also reported that the cluster pro­

gram student teachers reported their experiences were more
valuable to them than the conventional program student
teachers.

And it was finally recommended that more of

these experiences were included in the cluster program
than in the conventional program.
B l o o m ^ explored the role expectation for clinical
consultants as viewed by student teachers and clinical
consultants in the Michigan State University Cluster
Student Teaching Program.

The study explored preference

for, and perceived frequency of occurrence o f , selected
clinical consultant tasks.
were:

The eight types of tasks used

(a) community involvement,

(b) variety of experi­

ences within the school, (c) management,
of learning, planning for learning,
learning,

(d) conditions

(e) evaluation of

(f) analyzing teaching behavior, and (g) sup­

portive behavior.

Bloom's study also dealt with, student

teachers1 and clinical consultants1 preference for and
*

perceived method of operation.

The selected clinical

consultants' methods of operation were theoretical or
practical, student teacher or clinical consultant

11Darrell A. Bloom, "Role Expectations for Clinical
Consultants as Viewed by Student Teachers and Clinical Con­
sultants in the Michigan State University Cluster Student
Teaching Program," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1971.

18

initiative, and directive or non-directive.

Bloom developed

the "clinical consultant inventory" from the categories
listed above.
Bloom concluded that the eight measures of tasks
and methods of operation as measured by the Clincal Con­
sultant Inventory revealed no significant difference
between the student teacher and clinical consultant per­
ceptions of the role of the clinical consultant in the
Michigan State University Cluster Program.

ROLES OF PERSONS IN RELATED PROGRAMS
The Tutorial and Clinical Program in Teacher
Education grew out of a faculty committee appointed by
the Dean of the School of Education in 1961, to develop
plans for the improvement of the facilities of North­
western University.

This committee recommended the crea­

tion of an experimental program planned by the faculties
of the School of Education and College of Arts and Sciences
with the aid and counsel of select teachers and adminis­
trators from the public schools.

This planning was based

on three fundamental agreements.
1.
. 2.

3.

That the program meet the general education require­
ments as established by the university faculty;
That all academic majors for secondary teachers
be planned jointly with the appropriate academic
departments in the College of Arts and Sciences;
and
That all instruction in the art of teaching be
given through tutorials and related clinical

19
experiences rather than through formal course work
in professional education.12
The basic elements of the program considered by
the committee were academic majors for elementary and
secondary teachers, content of the tutorials, and various
types of related laboratory or clinical experiences.

The

final report contained the following guidelines:
1.

All students recommended for certification as
teachers through Northwestern University will
meet the general education requirements common
to all undergraduates in the university.

2.

All students will take work in the social sciences
beyond the general education requirements, since
the practicing teachers are considered to be prac­
ticing social scientists. Such programs in the
social sciences should be jointly developed by
appropriate faculty members from the School of
Education and the College of Arts and Sciences.

3.

Secondary teachers will be certified in only one
teaching field.

4.

Elementary teachers will take a minimum of nine
courses (36 quarter-hours) in each of two discip­
lines which are commonly taught in the elementary
school in addition to the general education
requirements of the university, and appropriate
work in subject matter areas commonly taught by
elementary teachers.

5.

Instruction in professional education will be
given through tutorials and parallel laboratory
experiences under the direction of tutorial
professors and clinical professors. The clinical
professors are master teachers employed by
cooperating public school districts and are members
of the faculty of the School of Education on a
half-time assignment.

12William R. Hazard, The Tutorial and Clinical
Program of Teacher Education (Evanston, 111.: North­
western University Press, 1967), p. 4.

20
6.

The program will be subject to constant evalua­
tion, modification, and revision.

7.

Such continuous study and evaluation shall be
the responsibility of the tutorial professors in
the consultantion with appropriate faculty members
from the College of Arts and Sciences and public
schools.!3

Role of the Tutorial Professors
The tutorial professors direct the total prepara­
tion of the students that become involved in the Tutorial
Program.

They work directly with ten to twelve students,

alone with the clinical professors and supervising teachers
in the cooperating public schools.

The tutorial professors

and students try to relate the work in the academic area
to the realities of classroom teaching.

These two factors

involve the analysis of the pupils, the teaching process,
the operational patterns of school at all levels, and
the environmental forces that shape teaching practices.
In the implication of these factors are curriculum, evalua­
tion, planning, teaching methods, and research skills, and
a thorough understanding of the means and ends of education.
The tutorial professors meet with the students on
a one-to-one basis or in groups; have orientation and
academic advisement; use discussions, lectures, field
trips, reports, panel discussions, or guest speakers.
They must be familiar at each class level with the

13Ibid., pp. 4-5.

21
academic, tutorial, and clinical background of their
students and the nature of subsequent work in the program.
This means that the tutorial professors need competencies
in specific teaching and research areas in addition to
skill in tutorial teaching.*14
Role of the Clinical Professor
James B. Conant recommended the appointment of
full-time clinical professors with recent teaching exper­
iences in the schools .^

The Northwestern scheme attempts

to maintain current practitioner skills through dual
appointment to both the college and school faculties.
Clinical professors work directly with students
in the tutorial-clinical program.

Clinical assignment

in elementary and secondary schools, community agencies,
and a variety of teaching-learning settings are arranged
for the students by the clinical professors.

The student

teachers undertake teaching aid, tutorial, and other
participant-observer roles under the immediate direction
of classroom teachers and administrators in the cooperating
schools.

The clinical professors supervise these clinical

assignments, conduct the regular seminars with the student
teachers, and maintain close contact with the cooperating

14Ibid., pp. 15-16.
15James B. Conant, The Education of American
Teachers (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), pp. 140-45.

22
teachers and administrators.

1 fk

Role of the Intern Consultant
The Elementary Intern Program at Michigan State
University began in 1959 in an attempt to help students
from community colleges meet certification requirements.
The Michigan State Intern Program is now operating in
eight regional centers.

Introduction into teaching is

considered to be easier in the intern program than in the
traditional program.

While the students are in the program

the responsibility for supervision rests with the intern
consultant.
The consultants spend time with the interns in
observations, planning, demonstration teaching, and con­
ferences.

Each intern consultant supervises five interns

for the entire school year and has no other classroom res­
ponsibilities.

Occasional visits are made by the resident

coordinator and his assistants.

The coordinator also

conducts frequent in-service training sessions for the
intern consultants.

17

Fitch investigated role expectation for intern

16William R. Hazard and B. H. Chandler, "The
Clinical Professor in Teacher Education," Phi Delta Kappan
(February 1972), p. 370.
^Ma r v i n A. Henry, "Summary of Representative
Internship Programs," Internship in Teacher Education, ed.
by Horton C. Southworth (Washington, D. C.s The Association
for Student Teaching, Forty-Seventh Yearbook, 1968), p. 179.

23
consultants as viewed by the intern teachers and intern
consultants.**®

Role expectations were defined in terms

of behaviors expected of the consultant's job rather than
in terms of observed behavior.

He developed an instrument

that measured preference for, and perceived frequency of,
selected intern consultant tasks (planning for learning,
evaluation of learning, etc.).

Another aspect of the study

involved preference for, and perceived actual intern con­
sultant method of operation.

This phase was designed to

determine the degree of (1) theoretical or practical,
(2) consultant or intern initiative, and (3) directive or
non-directive method of operation used by the intern con­
sultant in actual practice.
Fitch concluded that intern consultants expressed
a higher preference for and greater frequency of occurrence
of each selected consultant task than elementary intern
teachers.

Consultants perceived interns receiving greater

assistance with greater frequency than interns.

Consultants

and internB preferred practicalness in intern consultant
method of operation.

Consultants perceived their method

of operation as theoretically based while interns per­
ceived consultant assistance as practical.

Both groups

preferred and perceived consultants as allowing interns to

**®Thomas C. Fitch, "Role Expectation for Intern
Consultants: View of Intern Teachers and Intern Consult­
ants in Michigan State University Elementary Intern Pro­
gram,' n Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1969.

24
initiate action toward the solution of problems and
encouraging interns to initiate in problem situations.
Consultants and interns preferred directiveness in clinical
consultant method of operation, but perceived consultants
as being indirective.

Interns and consultants wanted con­

sultants to assist interns in planning, but both groups
perceived interns as receiving the least attention with
planning than with any other selected consultant task.

The

analysis of the teaching task was also highly preferred but
was perceived to occur with little frequency.

REVIEW OF SELECTED STUDIES BASED ON
SELECTION CRITERIA
Many studies have been done to determine the cri­
teria for selecting personnel to work with student teachers.
Many of these studies have been concerned with the sel­
ection of teachers or supervising teachers.
In an investigation of 150 Ohio school administra­
tors , two lists of desirable teachers' characteristics were
developed.

The study indicated that school superintendents

consistently place a high value upon ability to influence,
work with, and be liked by people.
rated ninth and twelfth in one list.

Poise and grooming
One list of desirable

characteristics for teachers, ranked in order of importance,
is as follows:
1.

The teacher apparently likes children.

25
2.

The teacher has demonstrated ability to work
with people.

3.

The

teacher inspires confidence.

4.

The

teacher expresses him or herselfwell.

5.

The

6.

The

teacher is pleasant and basically happy.
19
teacher is well poised.

Later in the same study a question was asked con­
cerning factors that help discriminate between potentially
good and poor teachers.

The responses, again ranked in

order of importance, were as follows:
1.

Emotional and mental stability.

2.

Ability to work with people.

3.

Confidential statements about the person.

4.

Past teaching experiences.

5.

Knowledge in the field of specialization.

6.

Previous principal report.

7.

Student teaching success.

8.

Confidence inspired by the candidate.

9.

Poise of candidate.

10.

Academic grades.

11.

Oral expression ability of the candidate.

12.

Grooming.

13.

Extracurricular activity.

14.

Work experience.

l^Neil R. Gibbons, "How Superintendents Select
Teachers," Ohio Schools, Vol. 40 (April 1962), p. 44.

26

15.

Cultural experiences.2®
Rogers

21

found five criteria associated with

supervising teacher effectiveness, while David G. Kelley22
suggested forty-three criteria for selection of supervising
teachers.
Youstra

23

investigated criteria for selection of

college supervisors of student teachers as perceived by
student teaching administrators of selected institutions
of the Southeastern Regional Association for Student
Teaching.
Youstra concluded that there was an absence of
established criteria or job specifications for the position
of college supervisor of student teaching.

The majority

of the respondents considered twenty of the twenty-eight
criteria "basic, necessary requirements" for college
supervisors.

20Ibid.
21Charles Harman Rogers, "Factors Associated with
Supervising Teacher Effectiveness," Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, Cornell University, 1964.
22

* David George Kelley, "An Exploratory Study of
the Criteria Used by College Supervisors of Student Teachers
and Elementary School Principals in the Selection or Recom­
mendation of Cooperating Teachers," Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1965.
22George David Youstra, "A Study of Criteria for
Selection of College Supervisors of Student Teachers as
Perceived by Student Teaching Administrators of Selected
Institutions of the Southeastern Regional Association for
Student Teaching," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1968.

27
Although there was some disagreement between
college personnel and the public school teachers over the
importance o£ the selection criteria/ the administrators
agreed that a list of criteria would be helpful when
attempting to select new college supervisors of student
teaching.
Johnson24 studied the criteria used by adminis­
trators of "Big Ten" universities to select supervising
teachers in secondary schools.

He found agreement on five

of eighteen selected criteria, while a majority of the
other items were agreed upon by seven of the ten adminis­
trators.

The instrument used in this study was adapted

from the ones developed by Johnson and Youstra.

SUMMARY
In summary, the preceding discussion of the
related literature tried to establish some background for
the study by the following:

(1) focusing on the develop­

ment of the cluster program of student teaching as it
relates to the clinical consultant role and responsi­
bilities,

(2) calling attention to two research studies

on the cluster program,

(3) describing the roles of

24Manley F. Johnson, "A Study of Criteria for
Selection of Supervising Teachers in Secondary Schools as
Perceived by Student Teaching Administrators," Unpublished
Ed.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968.

28

tutorial and clinical professors, and (4) discussing the
intern consultant's role in internship programs, and
finally,

(5) concentrating on the selected research of

selection criteria cited by teacher educators of student
teaching.

CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY

INTRODUCTION
The purposes o£ this study were:

(1) to inves­

tigate the existing criteria now used for selecting
clinical consultants and to determine whether student
teachers, supervising teachers, public school princi­
pals, center directors and clinical consultants agree
upon commonly accepted criteria for selection of clinical
consultants;

(2) to determine to what degree these key

persons in the cluster program regard a basic list of
selection criteria for clinical consultants to be
important; and (3) to utilize the data obtained in this
study to develop a list of criteria that can be used as a
guide by institutions and teacher education centers.
The hypotheses of the study were (1) that there will
be no commonly accepted criteria for selection of clinical
consultants which are recognized by student teachers,
supervising teachers, public school principals, center
directors and clinical consultants; and (2) the elemen­
tary school cluster program personnel will not identify

29

30
a different list of selection criteria than will the
secondary school cluster program personnel.

SOURCE OF DATA
Student teachers, public school principals,
supervising teachers, center directors and clinical con­
sultants in the Michigan State University Cluster Program
of Student Teaching were selected as the subjects of this
study.

They were selected because:

(1) it was assumed

that they shared a common concern for the improvement of
student teaching;

(2) they share a mutual concern for the

selection of competent clinical consultants;

(3) they

had been involved for almost an entire quarter (11 weeks,
full-time) with the clinical program; and (4) they were
accessible and cooperative in conducting the study.
The names of the subjects selected to participate
in this study were obtained from the "Pall Term, 1972,
Report of Student Teachers Placed."1

Permission to use

this report was obtained from the Director of Student
Teaching, Dr. Henry H. Kennedy.

This report contained

the names of all those students assigned to student teach
in the fall term of 1972, the center to which they were
assigned, the public school building in which they taught,

lwFall Term, 1972, Report of Student Teachers
Placed'* (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1972),
Mimeographed.

31
and the name of the cluster consultant and supervising
teacher or base teacher.
Involved in the cluster program were 44 principals,
42 clinical consultants and 13 center directors.

These

individuals comprised the total number of respondents
eligible for the study and thus were not a sample.
The student teachers selected for the sample
represented 39 per cent of the total population of the
cluster program student teachers in the fall term of 1972.
Three student teachers were randomly selected from each
cluster.

Seventy-two per cent of the sample of student

teachers returned a completed questionnaire.
The supervising teachers making up the sample
represented 13 per cent of the total population of the
cluster program supervising teachers in the fall term of
1972.

Two supervising teachers were randomly selected

from each cluster.

Sixty-five per cent of the sample of

supervising teachers returned a completed questionnaire.
It was assumed that these samples were representa­
tive of the population of student teachers and supervising
teachers in the Michigan State University Cluster Program
of Student Teaching.
Table 3.1 includes a summary of the Student
Teaching Office report on the number of student teachers
in each center where clusters were located, and the number
of elementary and secondary clusters in each center.

Fig­

ure 1 provides the geographic locations of the centers.

32
TABLE 3.1.

Summary of Centers Where Student Teachers
Were Assigned and the Number of Cluster
Student Teachers and Clusters.

Number of
Student Teachers

Center

Number of Clusters
Elemen­
Secon­
tary
dary

Battle Creek

10

1

Benton Harbor/
Niles

21

2

2

Flint

32

2

2

Grand Rapids

18

1

2

Jackson

19

2

1

Lansing

91

5

7

Livonia

23

1

1

Macomb

12

1

1

Pontiac

35

2

2

Saginaw

37

2

4

Suburban Area

20

1

1

Walled Lake

22

1

2

Totals

340

50 Clusters

DESIGN OF THE STUDY
A questionnaire was designed consisting of criteria
selected from the literature referred to earlier in this
study.

Of particular importance were those specifications

33

SagEnaw
Grand P.lpld a

Lansing
and Subv rban
Benton
Harbo

Flint
Macomb,
PohtLai

ILivonia#
#Jaakson I

attic ,
Crc ek
0Niljes
0
ii

FIGURE 1.

SO
- J-

Mlltt

40

J

Geographic Location o£ Michigan State Univer
sity Student Teaching Cluster Centers.

34
suggested in the Johnson

2

^
and Youstra0 studies, both of

which provided pertinent criteria related to this study.
A copy of the questionnaire and cover letter are included
in Appendix A, while the tabulated results from the total
number of responses given to each criterion can be found
in Appendix B.
A pilot administration of the questionnaire used
in the study was submitted to student teachers, supervising
teachers, center directors, public school principals and
clinical consultants in elementary and secondary schools
located in Flint, Pontiac and Lansing, Michigan, of the
Michigan State University cluster program student teaching
centers, in order to eliminate ambiguities and redundancy.
Suggestions made by these respondents were considered in
preparing the final questionnaire.
After printing, copies of the questionnaire, with
a letter of transmittal and a stamped, self-addressed
envelope, were mailed to each of the 319 persons selected
from the "Fall Term, 1972, Report of Student Teachers
Placed.
2

Johnson, op. cit., pp. 83-87.

^Youstra, op. cit., pp. 72-75.
4
-■
"Fall Term, 1972, Report of Student TeacherB
Placed," op. cit.

35
COLLECTION OF DATA
A total of 319 copies of the questionnaire were
mailed to those subjects that participated in the Michigan
State University Cluster Program during the fall term of
1972.

Table 3.2 indicates the population distribution

and the number of responses received.

TABLE 3.2.

Summary of Population Distribution and
Responses.

Number
Returned

Subjects

Number
Sent

Percentage
Returned

Total Population

319

231

72

Clinical Consultants

42

36

86

Center Directors

13

10

77

Student Teachers

132

95

72

Principals

44

33

75

Supervising Teachers

88

57

65

Each return envelope and questionnaire were
marked with a number.

This number was clearly visible

to the participants and was placed on the material in case
a^follow-up letter was needed.
Questionnaires were mailed to school addresses of

36
the 319 participants of which 44 were principals, 42
clinical consultants, 88 supervising teachers, 13 center
directors and 132 student teachers where there were cluster
programs in the fall term of 1972.

A total of 231 ques­

tionnaires were returned after the mailing.

The date that

all questionnaires were to be returned was February 12,
1973.

To encourage further returns and thereby obtain as

accurate results as possible, a follow-up mailing was
made to those who had not returned the instrument by
February 18, 1973.

No survey instruments were returned

as a result of the follow-up letter.

The total number

of questionnaires returned and used in the study was
231, or a percentage of 72.
In Table 3.3 a distribution is shown of the
types of schools in which the participants taught.

Ele­

mentary school positions were held by 45 per cent of
the participants, while 38 per cent of the positions were
held by senior high school and 13 per cent by middle or
junior high school participants.

37
TABLE 3.3.

Summary of Population Distribution and Type
of School.

Elementary
Middle
{K-5 or 6) (6-9)

Subjects

Clinical Consultants

13

Center Directors

—

Student Teachers

MSU
Staff

18

—

—

—

10

46

15

34

—

Principals

16

5

12

—

Supervising Teachers

28

5

24

—

103

30

88

10 (231)

13%

38%

Totals

45%

Percentages

5

Senior
High
(9-12 or
10-12)

4% (100)

SCORING AND VALIDITY OP THE DATA
The study is a normative survey and exploratory
in nature.

The criteria that were presented to the subjects

during the fall term of 1972 were part of the study.
Each guestionnnaire returned was checked to
determine if the respondent was a student teacher, public
school principal, supervising teacher, center director or
clinical consultant.

The instrument was then coded for

IBM key punch processing and that data were transferred
to IBM cards.

The analysis of the data was performed

through the use of a CDC 3600 computer.

38
The mean scores of the student teachers, prin­
cipals, supervising teachers, center directors and
clinical consultants were matched with each other as a
group.

The scores of 30 dependent variables consisted

of the mean differences between the five groups.
Finn's® multivariate analysis of variance was
used to find overall significance and avoid the problems
of compounded alpha errors.

This statistic investigated

all of the dependent measures as a group.

The procedures

provided simultaneous comparison across the thirty measures.
Upon finding overall significance, the differences of the
means was justified.

The .05 level of significance was

used.

ITEMS TO BE TESTED
The following list of criteria resulted from a
review of literature, pertinent studies and publications
regarding suggested criteria as being desirable for the
selection of clinical consultants.

The original lists of

criteria were edited to remove any overlap or redundancy,
and to permit the respondents to react to each criterion
with as much objectivity as possible.
5
Jeremy D. Finn, "Multivariance," Version 4
(Buffalo; State University of New York at Buffalo,
Department of Educational Psychology, June 1968).

39
Criteria
1.

Possess the level o£ academic preparation required
by state certification laws.

2.

Have completed at least three years of successful
teaching experience.

3.

Possess a bachelor's degree.

4.

Possess a master's degree.

5.

Possess a specialist degree.

6.

Possess an earned doctorate degree.

7.

Participate in the program willingly and look
upon supervising the growth of student teachers
as a contribution to the profession.

8.

Demonstrate or has demonstrated ethical principles
in guiding his actions.

9.

Be recommended by his or her administrators, co­
workers and by the student teaching staff of the
teacher education institution.

10.

Possess the ability to diagnose, analyze, and
evaluate the behavior of children, student
teachers, and himself.

11.

Demonstrate that his or her work is the result
of organized planning based on well defined
objectives.

12.

Reflect a positive professional attitude.and a
real liking and respect for teaching.

13.

Be able to establish a feeling of security on the
part of student teachers by clarifying his respon­
sibilities throughout the student teaching period.

14.

Be able to demonstrate and understand the basic
principles of effective teaching and learning.

15.

Be able to exhibit a cooperative attitude in
relationships with other members of the staff.

16.

Have worked with student teachers and acquired a
basic understanding of the responsibilities of a
supervising teacher.

40
17.

Be enthusiastic regarding the role of clinical
consultant.

18.

Be able to consider new and different teaching
techniques in an open-minded manner.

19.

Be able to help student teachers to develop under­
standing of their strengths and weaknesses and
foster in them a healthy self-concept.

20 . Be able to utilize conferences with student
teachers as a form of teaching and learning
through discussion.
21 .

Be or is willing to become associated with organ­
izations concerned with student teaching such
as The Association of Teacher Educators and
M-Step.

22 . Be capable of working with the student teachers
and building staff in developing individual
participatory schedules based on diagnosed needs
of the student teachers in the building.
23.

Show willingness in providing classroom supervision
of student teachers in the building in cooperation
with the regular classroom teachers.

24.

Be able to help the student teachers in the building
on such matters as lesson planning, discipline,
and human relationships, which are called for
by the objectives of the courses they teach.

25.

Be capable of taking corrective measures which
will improve difficult situations.

26.

Be able to demonstrate an acquaintance with the
literature of his or her professional field.

27.

Have developed an appreciation for people who are
different in culture, racial, religious, economic,
and national background, and is willing to accord
them full equality of opportunity.

28.

Set positive example for student teachers in
personal appearance and hygiene, grooming, speech
and habits.

29.

Be able to utilize recent developments and trends
in the teaching profession.

41
30.

Have an understanding of the program, personnel,
and problems of cooperating schools, especially
at the level where he or she is the clinical
consultant.6
••

+B

SUMMARY
Chapter III includes descriptions of the pro­
cedures, methods, and sources of data utilized to inves­
tigate the criteria used to select clinical consultants
in the Michigan State University Cluster Program of
Student Teaching.

Thirty criteria were selected from the

literature, from previous studies, and from a pilot survey
to form the basis of the questionnaire.

The instrument

was mailed to 319 subjects who participated in the cluster
program during the fall term of 1972.

From this popula­

tion, 213 usable questionnaires, a return of 72 per cent,
resulted.
The data from the returned instruments were then
quantified and Finn's multivariate analysis of variance
was used to find overall significance at the .05 level.
Analyses of the data collected will be described
in Chapter IV.

These criteria are also found in the questionnaire,
which is in Appendix A. They are placed here for convenient
reference in reading Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains the analyses of data which
were gathered to support the hypotheses which were:
1.

There will be no commonly accepted criteria for
selection of clinical consultants which are recog­
nized by student teachers, supervising teachers,
public school principals, center directors and
clinical consultants.

2.

The elementary school cluster personnel will not
identify a different list of selection criteria
than will the secondary school cluster personnel.
In order to test these hypotheses, 30 selection

criteria were identified from the literature of teacher
education and from previous studies.

These selection cri­

teria were then incorporated in a questionnaire which was
submitted as a pilot study to student teachers, supervising
teachers, public school principals, center directors and
clinical consultants in elementary and secondary schools
located in Flint, Pontiac and Lansing, Michigan, of the
Michigan State University cluster program student teaching
centers.

The revised instrument was then mailed to 319

subjects who participated in the Michigan State University
cluster program during the fall term of 1972.

The data

43
collected in this study are based upon the replies of 231
respondents who represent 72 per cent of the subjects
surveyed.
i

i r>

TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1
According to Hypothesis 1 there will be no commonly
accepted criteria for selection of clinical consultants
which are recognized by student teachers, supervising
teachers, public school principals, center directors and
clinical consultants.

An F-test was used to test the dif­

ference between mean scores of the replies of the five
groups.
In order to test this hypothesis, 30 criteria were
incorporated in the questionnaire.

The respondents were

requested to check in the appropriate box if the criterion
is (1) important (a basic, fundamental requirements);
(2) has some importance (necessary, but not absolutely
essential) and (3) has no importance (is not relevant to
the success of the clinical consultant).

Appendix B con­

tains the frequency of responses to each of the question­
naire items by the respondents.
Table 4.1 presents the results of the F-test for
the multivariate test of equality for the effect of group
responses upon the 30 criteria.

TABLE 4.1.

Effect of Group Responses Upon Selection
Criteria.

F-ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean
Vectors - 1.83
Degrees of Freedom = 120 and 785.74
P Less Than 0.0001

With initial differences adjusted, the effect of the five
groups on the selection criteria were proven to be signi­
ficant at P less than 0.0001.

Requiring the level of sig­

nificance at the .05 level, Hypothesis 1 can be accepted
on the basis of the data acquired.

Thus, it can be con­

cluded that there is a significant difference at the
accepted confidence level between the socres of the five
groups.

This means that the five groups in the cluster

program did not agree upon all the 30 criteria.
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 states that the elementary school
cluster personnel will not identify a different list of
selection criteria than will the secondary school cluster
personnel.
The F-ratio for multivariate test of equality on the
type of school effect upon the selection criteria, as shown
in Table 4.2, with 30 univariates eliminated, shows the type
of school effect was not significant at the P less than

45

TABLE 4.2.

Effect of Type of School Upon Selection
Criteria.

F-ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean
Vectors « .860
D.F. o 90 and 590.43
P less than .814
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

Between
Means Sq.
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.25
0.21
0.10
0.01
0.31
0.44
0.18
0.88
0.02
0.36
0.05
0.14
0.63
0.09
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.21
0.14
0.22
0.13
0.18
0.49
0.04
0.35
0.23
0.17

Univariate F
0.67
0.20
0.06
0.45
0.48
0.28
0.11
1.92
1.57
1.57
3.18
0.49
2.32
0.40
0.90
2.20
0.68
0.60
1.40
0.51
0.45
0.69
0.61
0.71
1.34
1.26
0.20
0.79
0.77
0.89

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 3
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 226

P Less
Than .05
.5683
.2012
.9810
.7162
.6993
.8369
.9543
.1277
.1975
.1977
.0647
.6897
.0760
.7511
.4407
.0887
.5634
.6125
.2427
.6775
.7201
.5608
.6087
.5466
.2624
.2892
.8898
.4983
.5126
.4472

46

.05 level.

Hypothesis 2 can not.be accepted at the .05

confidence level between the scores of the types of schools,
but is rejected at the P less than 0.814 level.
One can conclude from the quantitative data pre­
sented in this study that elementary school cluster per­
sonnel did not identify a different list of criteria than
the secondary school cluster personnel.

ADDITIONAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Following the testing of the hypotheses, the quan­
titative data from the questionnaire results were applied
to each selection criterion measured in the study.
A univariate analysis of variance compared the
mean scores of the student teachers, supervising teachers,
public school principals, center directors and clinical
consultants with each other on Criterion Is
Preparation.

Academic

The analysis yielded an F-ratio of 6.111

with a probability less than 0.0002.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.3,
the five groups disagreed upon Criterion I.

47
TABLE 4.3.

Source of
Variation
Between
Groups

Criterion I. Possess the Level of Academic
Preparation Required by State Certification
Laws. (Univariate Analysis of Variance Com­
paring the Mean Scores of the Five Groups of
Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

4

1.002

Within
Groups

226

0.164

Total

230

1.166

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

6.111

0.0002

Since there were disagreements on Criterion I, the
data were further analyzed by a comparison of mean scores
As reported in Table 4.4, the higher mean score of the
student teachers suggests that they disagreed more than the
other groups on Criterion I.

However, the total population

rated Criterion I as being important.
TABLE 4.4.

Principals
1.030

Group Mean Scores for Criterion I .

Supervising Center
Teachers
Directors
1.035

1.000

Clinical
Consultants
1.194

Student
Teachers
1.315

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean
scores for the five groups with each other on Criterion II:

48

Teaching Experience.

The analysis yielded an F-ratio of

3.574 and with a probability of 0.0076.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.5,
the five groups disagreed upon Criterion II.
TABLE 4.5.

Source of
Variation

Criterion II. Have Completed at Least Three
Years of Successful Teaching Experience (Uni­
variate Analysis of Variance Comparing the
Mean Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

Groups

4

0.581

3.574

0.0076

Within
Groups

226

Be ^^0Bn

Total

230

0.162
0.743

Since there were disagreements on Criterion II,
the data were further analyzed by comparison of mean
scores.

As reported in Table 4.6, the higher mean score

of the student teachers suggests that they disagreed more
than the other groups on Criterion II.
TABLE 4.6.

Group Mean Scores for Criterion II.

Principals

Supervising
Teachers

1.181

1.035

Center
Clinical
Directors Consultants
1.200

1.055

Student
Teachers
1.263

49
A univariate analysis of variance compared the
mean scores for the five groups with each other on Cri­
terion III:

Bachelor's Degree.

The analysis yielded an

F-ratio of 2.847 and a probability of 0.0249.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.7,
the population disagreed upon Criterion III.
TABLE 4.7.

Source of
Variation

Criterion III. Possess a Bachelor's Degree
(Univariate Analysis of Variance Comparing the
Mean Scores of the Five Groups).

Degrees
of Freedom

Between
Groups

Mean
Squares

4

0.459

Within
Groups

226

0.161

Total

230

0.620

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

2.847

0.0249

Because there were disagreements among the popula­
tion on Criterion III, the data were further analyzed by
comparing mean scores.

As reported in Table 4.8, the

higher mean score of the student teachers suggests that
they disagreed more than the other part of the population
on Criterion III.

Criterion III was given a rating of

important by the total population.

50
TABLE 4.8.

Group Mean Scores for Criterion III.

Supervising
Principals
Teachers
1.030

1.052

Center
Directors
1.100

Clinical
Consultants
1.138

Student
Teachers
1.242

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean
scores of the population with each other on Criterion IV:
Master1a Degree.

The analysis produced an F-ratio of

9.125 and a probability of 0.0001.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.9,
the five groups disagreed upon Criterion IV.
TABLE 4.9.

Source of
Variation
Between
Groups

Criterion IV. Possess a Master's Degree (Univariate Analysis of Variance Comparing the Mean
Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

4

4.427

Within
Groups

226

0.485

Total

230

4.912

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

9.125

0.0001

Since there were disagreements on Criterion IV, the
data were further analyzed by comparison of mean scores.
V

Table 4.10 shows the student teachers having the highest

51
mean score, which indicates that they disagreed more on
Criterion IV than the other members of the population.
Having some Importance was the rating given to Criterion IV
by the total population.
TABLE 4.10.

Principals
1.636

Group Mean Scores for Criterion IV.

Supervising Center
Teachers Directors
2.017

Center
Consultants

1.900

2.027

Student
Teachers
2.421

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean
scores for the five groups with each other on Criterion
VIII:

Ethical Principles.

The analysis yielded an F-ratio

of 4.961 and a probability of 0.0008.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.11,
the five groups disagreed upon Criterion VIII.
TABLE 4,11.

Source of
Variation
Between
Groups

Criterion V I I I . Demonstrate or Has Demonstrated
Ethical Principles in Guiding His Actions (Uni­
variate Analysis of Variance Comparing the Mean
Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

4

0.772

Within
Groups

226

0.155

Total

230

0.927

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

4.961

0.0008

52
Because there were disagreements among the respondents
on Criterion VIII, the data were further analyzed by
comparing mean scores.

As reported in Table 4.12, the

highest mean score of the student teachers suggests that
they disagreed more than the other members of the population
on Criterion VIII.

However, the total population rated

Criterion VIII as being important.
TABLE 4.12.

Principals
1.000

Group Mean Scores for Criterion VIII.

Supervising
Center
Teachers Directors
1.017

0.900

Center
Consultants
1.055

Student
Teachers
1.242

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean
scores of the populations with each other on Criterion IX:
Recommended by Administrators or Co-Workers.

The analysis

yielded an F-ratio of 4.715 and a probability of 0.0012.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.13,
the five groups disagreed on Criterion IX.

53
TABLE 4.13.

Source of
Variation

Criterion IX. Be Recommended by His or Her
Administrators, Co-Workers and by the Student
Teaching Staff of the Teacher Education
Institution (Univariate Analysis of Variance
Comparing the Mean Scores of Five Groups of
Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Between
Groups

Mean
Squares

4

1.254

Within
Groups

226

0.266

Total

230

1.520

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

4.715

0.0012

Since there were disagreements on Criterion IX, the
data were further analyzed by comparing the mean scores.
Table 4.14 shows the student teachers having the highest
mean score, which indicates that they disagreed more on
Criterion IX than the other members of the population.
Important was the rating given to Criterion IX by the
total population.
TABLE 4.14.

Group Mean Scores for Criterion IX.

Principals

Supervising
Teachers

Center
Directors

1.242

1.192

1.100

Clinical
Consultants
1.083

Student
Teachers
1.452

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean

54

scores for the five groups with each other on Criterion XI:
Organized Planning.

The analysis yielded an F-ratio of

7.332 and a probability of 0.0001.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.15,
the five groups disagreed upon Criterion XI.
TABLE 4.15.

Source of
Variation
Between
Groups

Criterion X I . Demonstrate that His or Her
Work Is the Result of Organized Planning Based
on Well Defined Objectives (Univariate Analysis
of Variance Comparing the Mean Scores of the
Five Groups of Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

4

1.885

Within
Groups

226

0.257

Total

230

2.142

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

7.332

0.0001

Because there were disagreements among the respondents
on Criterion XI, the data were further analyzed by comparing
mean scores.

As reported in Table 4.16 the highest mean

score of the student teachers suggests that they disagreed
more than the other members of the population on Criterion XI.
However, the total population rated Criterion XI as
important.

55
TABLE 4.16.

Principals
1.242

Group Mean Scores for Criterion XI.

Supervising
Teachers
1.140

Clinical
Consultants

Center
Directors
0.900

Student
Teachers

1.388

1.515

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean
scores of the members of the population with each other on
Criterion XX:

Utilizes Conferences.

The analysis produced

an F-ratio of 3.571 and a probability of 0.0076.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.17,
the group disagreed on Criterion XX.
TABLE 4.17.

Source of
Variation

Criterion X X . Be Able to Utilize Conferences
With Student Teachers as a Form of Teaching
and Learning Through Discussion (Univariate
Analysis of Variance Comparing the Mean
Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents).

Mean
Squares

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

4

0.034

3.571

0.0076

Within
Groups

226

0.170

Total

230

0.204

Between
Groups

Degrees
of Freedom

Since there were disagreements on Criterion XX, the
data were further analyzed by comparing mean scores.

56
Table 4.18 shows the student teachers once again having the
highest mean score r which indicates that they disagreed
more on Criterion XX than the other members of the popula­
tion.

Important was the rating given to Criterion XX by

the total population.
TABLE 4.18.

Principals
1.121

Group Mean Scores for Criterion XX.

Supervising Center
Teachers
Directors
1.070

1.100

Clinical
Consultants
1.083

Student
Teachers
1.294

A univariate analysis of variance compared the mean
scores for the five groups with each other on Criterion XXIII:
Providing Classroom Supervision.

The analysis yielded an

F-ratio of 4.959 and a probability of 0.0008.
On the basis of the findings presented in Table 4.19,
the five groups disagreed upon Criterion XXIII.
TABLE 4.19.

Source of
Variation

Criterion XXIII. Shows Willingness in Providing Classroom Supervision of Student Teachers
in the Building in Cooperation with Regular
Classroom Teachers (Univariate Analysis of
Variance Comparing the Mean Scores of the Five
Groups of Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

Between
Groups
Within
Groups

4

1.619

226

0.326

Total

230

1.945

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

4.959

0.0008

57
Because there were disagreements among the popula­
tions on Criterion XXXII, the data were further analyzed
by comparison of mean scores.

As reported in Table 4.20,

the highest mean score of the student teachers suggests
that they disagreed more than the other members of the
population on Criterion XXXII.

However, the total popula­

tion rated Criterion XXIII as being important.
TABLE 4.20.

Group Mean Scores for Criterion XXIII.

Principals
1.181

Supervising
Teachers
1.280

Center
Directors
1.100

Clinical
Consultants

Student
Teachers

1.083

1.505

A univariate analysis of variance compared the
mean scores of the population with each other on Cri­
terion XXVIII:

Set Positive Example.

The analysis

produced an F-ratio of 17.617 and a probability of 0.0001.
On the basis of the findings presented in
Table 4.21, the group disagreed on Criterion XXVIII.

58
TABLE 4.21.

Source of
Variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups

Criterion XXVIII. Set Positive Example for
Student Teachers in Personal Appearance and
Hygiene, Grooming, Speech, and Habits (Uni­
variate Analysis of Variance Comparing the
Mean Scores of the Five Groups of Respondents).

Degrees
of Freedom

Mean
Squares

Univariate
F

P Less
Than

4

6.012

17.617

0.0001

226

Total

230

0.341
6.353

Since there were disagreements on Criterion XXVIII,
the data were further analyzed by comparison of mean scores.
Table 4.22 shows the student teachers having the highest
mean score, which indicates that they disagreed more on
Criterion XXVIII than the other members of the population.
Being important was the rating given to Criterion XXVIII
by the total population.
TABLE 4.22.

Principals
1.090

Group Mean Scores for Criterion XXVIII.

Supervising Center
Directors
Teachers
1.175

1.300

Clinical
Consultants
1.250

Student
Teachers
1.831

Any further information about the scores can be
found in Appendix C .

59
SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
Chapter IV has presented the analyses and findings
from the data collected from 231 subjects who participated
in the Michigan State University Cluster Program during
the fall term of 1972.
Two hypotheses were statistically analyzed and the
findings can be summarized as follows:
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 : Accepted at the .05 level of signi­
ficance.

Finding:

a.

Of the criteria that were significant (1,,2, 3, 4,
8, 9, 11, 20, 23 and 28) the student teachers
disagreed more on these criteria than any of the
other members of the population. Although the total
population rated most of the criteria as being
important, Criterion IV was rated as having some
importance by the total group.

b.

Criteria 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,
19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 30 were not
significant at the .05 level of significance, but
the majority of the population rated most of the
criteria as being important. The exceptions were
criteria 5, 6, 21 and 29, which were rated as
having some importance.

Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 2 :
ficance.
a.

Rejected at the .05 level of signi­

Finding:
Elementary school cluster personnel did not identify
a different list of selection criteria than the
secondary school cluster personnel.

60
. Chapter V presents a summary of this study along
with the report of the conclusions.

Recommendations are

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

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY
This study was concerned with the identification
of selection criteria for cluster consultants in student
teaching programs.

The hypotheses tested in this study

were as follows:
1.

There will be no commonly accepted criteria for
selection of clinical consultants which are recog­
nized by student teachers, supervising teachers,
public school principals, center directors and
clinical consultants.

2.

The elementary school cluster program personnel
will not identify a different list of selection
criteria than will the secondary school cluster
program personnel.
Hypothesis 1 was measured by an F-test which

yielded a ratio of 1.83, significant at the .05 level.
Hypothesis 1 was accepted at the 0.0001 level of signifi­
cance.

The five groups of respondents in the cluster

program indicated that they did not agree upon all the 30
selection criteria.

Twenty-six of the criteria which were

considered were identified as worthy of use for selection
purposes.
Hypothesis 2 was also measured by an F-test which
yielded a ratio of .860, significant at the 0.814 level.
61

62

Hypothesis 2 was rejected at the .05 level of significance.
Elementary school cluster personnel did not identify a
different list of criteria from the secondary school
cluster personnel.
A list of criteria supported by this investiga­
tion and considered “basic and necessary" by a majority of
the subjects in the cluster program of student teaching
may be found in Appendix D .

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusion 1:

Even with a pre-determined list of

criteria for the selection of clinical consultants, cluster
program personnel did not totally agree as to their
importance.
Implication 1:

Although the cluster program of

student teaching reflects a relative homogeneity of loca­
tion and size, some lack of congruity in programs seems to
be reflected in the data presented in this study.

This

raises the question of even greater diversity when widely
different geographic, social, or political influences
exist.

To the extent that commonly accepted norms for

teacher preparation are desirable, the question of such
diversity demands further investigation.

It may be that

local selection criteria need to be developed which take
into account differences in philosophy, program and pur­
poses of local teacher education programs.

63

Conclusion 2:

Among the respondents in the cluster

program of student teaching, there was a nucleus of cri­
teria which were agreed upon as important by most of the
population.
Implication 2:

This nucleus, then, can provide a

basis for the further study of criteria for the selection
of clinical consultants.

However, the fact that some cri­

teria received agreement as well as disagreement does not
insure that these criteria really relate to effective
clinical consultants.

Therefore, this investigation only

constitutes an initial approximation to this crucial area.
One possible approach would be to determine the actual per­
formance of clinical consultants selected on the basis of
these criteria.

This investigation thus serves only to

generate an initial list for further study and comparison.
Conclusion 3:

There are insufficient numbers of

clinical consultants available for vigorous application of
any but the most basic selection criteria.
Implication 3:
research.

This conclusion requires further

For example, we need to devise experimental

situations where there is a surplus of potential clinical
consultants, and to verify that school personnel will in
fact be selected according to these criteria.

If these

criteria are valid (see implication 2), this implies
initiating whatever preparation programs will significantly
increase the number of qualified clinical consultant
applicants.

Conclusion 4:

These selection criteria serve little

or no useful purpose unless they are utilized in the imple­
mentation of teacher education programs that involve
clusters.
Implication 4:

These criteria should be carefully

considered by public school and university personnel.

Pro­

cedures for their application in the selection process
should be agreed upon by those involved.

To accomplish this

purpose, copies of these criteria should be placed in the
hands of persons involved in cluster programs of teacher
education.

This should include public school and univer­

sity administrators and teachers.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
1.

A study should be made to assess the actual per­
formance of clinical consultants chosen on the basis
of the selection criteria developed in this inves­
tigation. The fact that these criteria received
agreement among the respondents from the cluster
program does not insure that these criteria really
relate to effective clinical performance.

2.

An investigation should
designed to compare the
consultants selected by
with the performance of
chosen.

3.

The question of whether commonly accepted criteria
for the selection of clinical consultants are
affected by local factors demands further inves­
tigation .

4.

Because student teaching programs are undergoing
continuous change, it is recommended that selection
criteria for clinical consultants be subjected to
periodic evaluation as to their relevance and
practicality.

be initiated which is
performance of clinical
the criteria suggested here
clinical consultants not so

65
This study, it is hoped, will contribute, in a
small way, to the improvement of clinical consultant sel­
ection procedures at the public school and university
level.

It is offered as an encouragement to university and

public school leadership in raising the quality of student
teaching programs and thus to the refinement of teacher
education.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Agreement with Schools for Clinical Cluster for Student
Teaching." East Lansing: Michigan State University
Student Teaching Office, 1970.
Anderson, Calvin C.
"Secondary Education Residency in
Lansirtg - A Model Project Developed Cooperatively by
Lansing School District and Michigan State University
to Improve the Preparation of Teachers." Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972.
Bloom, Darrell A.
"Role Expectations for Clinical Con­
sultants as Viewed by Student Teachers and Clinical
Consultants in Michigan State University Cluster
Student Teaching Program." Unpublished Ph.D. Disserta­
tion, Michigan State University, 1971.
Conant, James B. The Education of American Teachers.
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19t>3.

New

Cragun, John et al. Cluster Consultants Monograph.
Coordinated by Arden Moon. East Lansing; Michigan
State University Student Teaching Office, Fall, 1972.
Dean, Lee W. "Excerpt from Speech Presented at the Intern
and Clinical Consultants Conference." East Lansing:
Michigan State University, School of Teacher Education,
May 25, 1972.
Dean, Lee W. "A Student Teaching Program for the 1970's.
A Mimeographed Speech. East Lansing: Michigan State
University, School of Teacher Education, December 29,
1969.
Dean Lee W . , and Henry Kennedy.
"Position Paper on Student
Teaching Programs Developed by Deans and Directors of
Michigan Teacher Education Institutions." In Teacher
Education in Transition. Edited by Howard E. Bosley.
• V o l . T~, Baltimore: Multi-State Teacher Education
Project, 1969.
Enrolled House Bill No. 4195, Act No. 246, State of Michigan,
75th Legislature, 1970.

66

67

"Fall Term, 1972, Report of Student Teachers Placed."
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1972
(Mimeographed).
Finn, Jeremy D.
"Multivariance." Department of Educa­
tional Psychology, State University of New York at
Buffalo, Version 4, June, 1968.
Fitch, Thomas C.
"Role Expectations for Intern Consultants:
Views of Intern Teachers and Intern Consultants in
the Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State Univer­
sity, 1969.
Gibbons, Neil R.
"How Superintendents Select Teachers."
Ohio Schools, XL (April, 1962), 42-44.
Good, Carter V. Dictionary of Education.
McGraw-Hill, 1959.

New York:

Hazard, William R. and B. J. Chandler.
"The Clinical Pro­
fessor in Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan.
(February, 1972), 368-72.
Hazard, William R. The Tutorial and Clinical Program of
Teacher Education! Evanston: Northwestern Univer­
sity Press, 1967.
Henry, Marvin A.
"Summary of Representative Internship
Programs." Internships in Teacher Education. Edited
by Horton C . Southworth. Washington, D . C .: The
Association for Student Teaching. Forty-Seventh
Yearbook, 1968.
Jackson, Charles L.
"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.
Jackson, Charles L.
"Introduction." Cluster Consultant
Monograph. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Student Teaching Office, Fall, 1972.
Johnson, Manley F. "A Study of Criteria for Selection of
Supervising Teachers in Secondary Schools as Perceived
by Student Teaching Administrators." Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968.
Kelley, David George.
"An Exploratory Study of the Criteria
Used by College Supervisors of Student Teachers and
Elementary School Principals in the Selection or Recom­
mendation of Cooperating Teachers." Unpublished Ed.D.
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1965.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE AND COVER LETTER SENT TO STUDENT TEACHERS,
SUPERVISING TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, CENTER
DIRECTORS AND CLINICAL CONSULTANTS

69

Michigan State University
College of Education
807-A Cherry Lane
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
Dear Fellow Educator:
We are attempting to determine (a) how clinical consultants of
student teaching are selected for their positions; and (b) if there is
any agreement, among the personnel who work with student teachers, regarding
the criteria used for selection. Would you please complete the following
questionnaire and return it before February 12. 1973?
For our program, the clinical consultant is defined as a member of
the cluster program that is responsible for the student teachers assigned
to the building, and works with the building principal and other teachers to
provide a variety of experiences for the student teachers.
This information is being collected for research purposes only.
Therefore, no information Identifying any individual will be published.
will be pleased to send you a summary of the results, if you desire.

We

Enclosed is a postage-paid return envelope. While you have the
material at hand and before the big rush, please complete and return the
questionnaire.
Thank you in advance for your assistance in this necessary research
endeavor.
icerely yours

Julius Myers, Jr.
Coordinator
Enel:

Questionnaire
Return Envelope

INTRODUCTION

The purpose for asking you to respond to the
following items is to find out what your opinions are as
to their importance as criteria for the selection of
clinical consultants.

As a member of the cluster program

team, you may or may not be directly involved in the
selection of the clinical consultant in your building.
However, by virtue of your position, experience, contacts
in the total field of teacher education, you are in a
position to express an important opinion concerning the
criteria used in the selection of clinical consultants.
Thus, we hope you will feel free to express your opinion
on each item, qualifying your responses if you feel the
need, and we also hope you will add any other criteria
which you feel are important.
You or your school will not be specifically iden­
tified, but your responses will be part of the total
sample, which includes persons involved in the Michigan
State University Cluster Program of Student Teaching.

70

71
CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION OF CLINICAL CONSULTANTS
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE O F EDUCATION
INFORMATION:
1 .Y O U R P O SITION
Admini s trator I

t

Clinical consultant I

Teacher I
j

l

Center Director I

I

Student T e a c h e r C Z J

2.TYPE/LEVEL O F SCHOOL
Secondary |

I

Middle I

I

Elementary I

I

MSU I

f

3.L o c a t i o n o f the school _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
City / Town
INSTRUCTIONS:
Place a check in one of the appropriate boxes following each
item:
1. First box - Is important (a basic,
ment)

fundamental require­

2. Second box- Has some importance (necessary,

but not a b ­

solutely essential)
3. Third box-

Has no importance (is not relevant ts the
sseoess’af the clinical
consultant)

If y o u wish to qualify y o u r responses, o r add to the criteria
please do so in the space provided following each item.

THE CLINICAL CONSULTANT SHOULD:

1. Possess the level of aoademic pre­
paration required by state certi­
fication laws.
Comments:

Is

Has some

H as no

Imp.

Imp.

Imp.

72
18 Has some
Imp.
Imp.
?. Have completed at least three years
of successful teaching experience.
Comments:
3. Possess a bachelor's degree.
Comments:
4. Possess a master's degree.

□ o
□ □
(=
t m

Comments:
6. Possess an earned doctorate degree.
Comments:
7. Participate in the program willing­
ly and look upon supervising the
growth of student teachers as a con
tribution to the profession.

□
I

l

l

(=□

i

□

Comments:
5. Possess a specialist degree.

Has no
I m £.

□

i

□

CD

CD

□ a

n

□ □

CD

a P

□

□

□

Comments:
8. Demonstrate or has demonstrated
ethical principles in guiding his
actions.
Comments:
9. Be recommended by his or her ad­
ministrators, co-workers and by the
student teaching staff of the teach
er education institution.
Comments:
10. Possess the ability to diagnose,
analyze, and evaluate the behavior
of children, student teachers, and
himself.
Comments:

1

1

73
Is
Has some
Imp.
Imp.
11. Demonstrate that his or her work is
the result of organized planning
based on well defined objectives.

Has no
Imp.

□

□

U

□

□

□

Comments:
1 2 . Reflect a positive professional

attitude and a real liking and
respect for teaching.
Comments:

13. Be able to establish a feeling of
security on the part o f student
teachers by clarifying hiB resp ons ibi l1ties throughout the-------------|---- 1---I---1
student teaching period.___________________ |____I
I I

□

Comments:
14. Be able to demonstrate and under­
stand the basic principles of
effective teaching and learning.

|
I

I-- 1
1 1

I
|

□

Comments:
13. Be able to exhibit a cooperative
attitude in relationships with
other members o f the staff.

□

□

□

Comments:
16. Have worked with student teachers
and acquired a basic understand­
ing of the responsibilities o f a
supervising teacher.

|

L

L I--- 1

□

) [”*
I I

□

I |

|

Comments:
17. Be enthusiastic regarding the role
of clinical consultant.

[
I

[
I

Comments:
18. Be able to consider new and different
teaching techniques in an open-minded
manner.
Co m m e n t s (

□ □

□

74
Is Has some
Imp.
Imp.
19. Be able to help student teachers to
develop understanding o f their
strengths and weaknesses and foster
in them a healthy self-concept.

□

□

□

□

Has no

□

Comments:
20. Be able to' utilize conferences with
student teachers as a form of teach­
ing and learning through discussion.
Comments:
21. Be or Is wil lin g to become associated
with organizations concerned with
student teaching such as The A s s o c i ­
ation of Teacher Educators and MStep.

□ □

□

Comments:
22. Be capable of working with the Btudent
teachers and building staff in de velop­
ing individual participatory schedules
based on diagnosed needs of the student I
1
teachers in the building.__________________ |___ |

1--- 1
I___ |

n

Comments:
23. Show willingness in pro viding class­
room supervision of student teachers
in the building in cooperation with------ I--- 1
the regular classroom teachers.
L
I

|--- 1
|___ |

□

Comments:
24. Be able to h elp the student teachers
in the bu ilding on such matters as
lesson planning, discipline, and

huftfcn^relatlohfthips,' whlfch & rtf- called
for by theJobjJeativbe of the cShrees
they teach.

□ □

Comments;
25. Be capable of taking corrective
measures which will Improve difficult
situations.
Comments:

I

_____
T I
T

I 1 L

J

□

75
Is
Has some
Imp. " Imp.
26. Be able to demonstrate an acquain­
tance with the literature of his
or her professional field.

□

□

Has no
Imp.

□

Comments:
2 1 , Have developed an appreciation

for
people who are different in culture,
racial, religious, economic, and
national background, and is willing to accord them full equality----------- |-- 1
o f opportunity.
|__ |

I---1
|___[

□

Oomments:
28, Set positive example for the student
teachers in personal appearance and
hygiene, grooming, speech, and
habits.

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

O

n

Comments:
29, Be able to utilizes recent de velop­
ments and trends in the teaching
profession.
Comments:
30, Have an understanding o f the pro­
gram, personnel, and problems of
cooperating schools, especially
at the level where he or she is
the clinical consultant.
Comments:

Please return before February 12,

1975.

APPENDIX B
TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONSES GIVEN TO EACH CRITERION BY
STUDENT TEACHERS, SUPERVISING TEACHERS, CENTER
DIRECTORS, PRINCIPALS AND CLINICAL CONSULTANTS

77
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
13.

14 *

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

Be able to establish a feeling
of security on the part of
student teachers by clarifying
his responsibilities through­
out the student teaching
period.

75

19

1

Be able to demonstrate and
understand the basic princi­
ples of effective teaching
and learning.

81

12

1

Be able to exhibit a coopera­
tive attitude in relationships
with other members of the
staff.

75

18

2

Have worked with student
teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the respon­
sibilities of a supervising
teacher.

74

15

6

Be enthusiastic regarding the
role of clinical consultant.

80

14

1

Be able to consider new and
different teaching techniques
in an open-minded manner.

85

9

1

Be able to help student
teachers to develop understand­
ing of their strengths and
weaknesses and foster in them
a healthy self-concept.

86

9

0

Be able to utilize conferences
with student teachers as a form
of teaching and learning through
discussion.

69

24

2

Be or is willing to become as­
sociated with organizations con­
cerned with student teaching
such as The Association of
Teacher Educators and M-Step.

24

49

18

78
Has
Has
Is
Some
No Import- Import- Import*
ant
ance
ance
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Be capable of working with
the student teachers and
building staff in developing
individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed
needs of the student teachers
in the building.

57

2Q

0

Show willingness in providing
classroom supervision of
student teachers in the build­
ing in cooperation with the
regular classroom teachers.

57

2 4

11

Be able to help the student
teachers in the building on
such matters as lesson plan­
ning, discipline, and human
relationships, which are called
for by the objectives of the
courses they teach.

77

Be capable of taking corrective
measures which will improve
difficult situations.

81

13

1

Be able to demonstrate an acquain­
tance with the literature of his
or her professional field.
35

47

13

Have developed an appreciation
for people who are different in
culture, racial, religious,
economic, and national back­
ground, and is willing to
accord them full equality of
opportunity.

4

74

19

2

Set positive example for student
teachers in personal appearance
and hygiene, grooming, speech,
and habits.
45

43

17

Be able to utilize recent develop­
ments and trends in the teaching
profession.
52

36

4

79

Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
30.

Have an understanding of the
program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools,
especially at the level where he
or she is the clinical consultant.

74

19

2

80
RESPONSES GIVEN BY PRINCIPALS
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
Possess the level of academic
preparation required by state
certification laws.

32

1

0

Have completed at least three
years of successful teaching
experience.

28

4

1

3.

Possess a bachelor's degree.

30

2

0

4.

Possess a master's degree.

13

16

3

5.

Possess a specialist degree.

0

16

15

Possess an earned doctorate
degree.

0

6

25

Participate in the program
willingly and look upon super­
vising the growth of student
teachers as a contribution to
the profession..

33

0

0

Demonstrate or has demonstrated
ethical principles in guiding
his actions.

33

0

0

Be recommended by his or her
administrators, co-workers and
by the student teaching staff
of the teacher education
institution.

23

8

1

Possess the ability to diag­
nose, analyze, and evaluate
the behavior of children,
student teachers, and himself.

32

1

0

Demonstrate that his or her
work is the result of organi­
zed planning based on well
defined objectives.

25

8

0

Reflect a positive professional
attitude and a real liking and
respect for teaching.

32

1

0

1

2

6

.

.

.

7.

8

.

9.

1 0

1 1

1 2

.

.

.

81
Is
Import*
ant

Has
Has
Some
No
Import­ Impo
anc
ance

Dc able to establish a feeling
of security on the part of
student teachers by clarifying
his responsibilities through­
out the student teaching
period.

29

4

0

Be able to demonstrate and
understand the basic princi­
ples of effective teaching
and learning.

28

5

0

Be able to exhibit a coopera­
tive attitude in relationships
with other members of the
staff.

32

1

0

Have worked with student
teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the respon­
sibilities of a supervising
teacher.

21

12

0

Be enthusiastic regarding the
role of clinical consultant.

31

2

0

Be able to consider new and
different teaching techniques
in an open-minded manner.

31

2

0

Be able to help student
teachers to develop understand­
ing of their strengths and
weaknesses and foster in them
a healthy self-concept.

32

1

0

Be able to utilize conferences
with student teachers as a form
of teaching and learning through
discussion.

30

3

0

Be or is willing to become as­
sociated with organizations con­
cerned with student teaching
such as The Association of
Teacher Educators and H-Step.

5

23

5

82
Has
Has
Ho
Is
Some
Import­ Import­ Import­
ant
ance
ance
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Be capable of working with
the student teachers and
building staff in developing
individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed
needs of the student teachers
in the building.

11

17

Show willingness in providing
classroom supervision of
student teachers in the build­
ing in cooperation with the
regular classroom teachers.

26

6

1

Be able to help the Btudent
teachers in the building on
such matters as lesson plan­
ning, discipline, and human
relationships, which are called
for by the objectives of the
courses they teach.

31

2

0

Be capable of taking corrective
measures which will improve
difficult situations.

31

2

0

Be able to demonstrate an acquain­
tance with the literature of his
or her professional field.

11

21

1

Have developed an appreciation
for people who are different in
culture, racial, religious,
economic, and national back­
ground, and is willing to
accord them full equality of
opportunity.

31

2

0

Set positive example for student
teachers in personal appearance
and hygiene, grooming, speech,
and habits.

27

5

0

Be able to utilize recent develop­
ments and trends in the teaching
profession.
25

5

0

83
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Important
ance
ance
30.

Have an understanding of the
program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools,
- especially at the level where he
or she is the clinical consultant. 29

3

1

84
RESPONSES GIVEN BY SUPERVISING TEACHERS
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
.

Possess the level of academic
preparation required by state
certification laws.

51

4

0

Have completed at least three
years of successful teaching
experience.

53

3

0

3.

Possess a bachelor's degree.

51

4

0

4.

Possess a master's degree.

13

27

16

5.

Possess a specialist degree.

5

18

33

Possess an earned doctorate
degree.

2

11

43

Participate in the program
willingly and look upon super­
vising the growth of student
teachers as a contribution to
the profession.

56

0

0

Demonstrate or has demonstrated
ethical principles in guiding
his actions.

54

2

0

46

9

1

Possess the ability to diag­
nose, analyze, and evaluate
the behavior of children,
student teachers, and himself.

50

5

0

Demonstrate that his or her
work is the result of organi­
zed planning based on well
defined objectives.

46

9

0

Reflect a positive professional
attitude and a real liking and
respect for teaching.

55

1

0

1

2

6

.

.

7.

8

.

9 . Be recommended by his or her
administrators, co-workers and
by the student teaching staff
of the teacher education
institution.
1 0

1 1

1 2

.

.

.

85
Is
Import
ant
Be able to establish a feeling
of security on the part of
student teachers by clarifying
his responsibilities through­
out the student teaching
period.

Has
Has
Some
No
Import­ Impo
anc
ance

10

0

Be able to demonstrate and
understand the basic princi­
ples of effective teaching
and learning.

51

5

0

Be able to exhibit a coopera­
tive attitude in relationships
with other members o£ the
staff.

49

7

0

Have worked with student
teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the respon­
sibilities of a supervising
teacher.

46

10

0

Be enthusiastic regarding the
role of clinical consultant.

49

7

0

Be able to consider new and
different teaching techniques
in an open-minded manner.

50

5

1

Be able to help student
teachers to develop understand­
ing of their strengths and
weaknesses and foster in them
a healthy self-concept.

52

4

0

Be able to utilize conferences
with student teachers as a form
of teaching and learning through
discussion.

50

6

0

Be or is willing to become as­
sociated with organizations con­
cerned with student teaching
such as The Association of
Teacher Educators and M-Step.

11

38

6

86
Has
Has
Some
No
Is
Import­ Import­ Import­
ance
ance
ant
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Be capable o£ working with
the student teachers and
building staff in developing
individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed
needs of the student teachers
in the building.

42

11

1

Show willingness in providing
classroom supervision of
student teachers in the build­
ing in cooperation with the
regular classroom teachers.

41

14

1

Be able to help the student
teachers in the building on
such matters as lesson plan­
ning, discipline, and human
relationships, which are called
for by the objectives of the
courses they teach.

46

6

1

Be capable of taking corrective
measures which will improve
difficult situations.

49

5

1

Be able to demonstrate an acquain­
tance with the literature of his
25
or her professional field.

27

4

Have developed an appreciation
for people who are different in
culture, racial, religious,
economic, and national back­
ground, and is willing to
accord them full equality of
opportunity.

48

7

1

Set positive example for student
teachers in personal appearance
and hygiene, grooming, speech,
and habits.

47

8

1

Be able to utilize recent develop­
ments and trends in the teaching
profession.

17

3

87
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
30.

Have an understanding of the
program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools,
especially at the level where he
or she is the clinical consultant, ^g

88
RESPONSES GIVEN BY CENTER DIRECTORS
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
1

.

2.

Possess the level of academic
preparation required by state
certification laws.

10

0

0

Have completed at least three
years of successful teaching
experience.

8

2

0

3.

Possess a bachelor's degree.

9

1

0

4.

Possess a master's degree.

9

1

0

5.

Possess a specialist degree.

6 . Possess an earned doctorate
degree.
7.

Participate in the program
willingly and look upon super­
vising the growth of student
teachers as a contribution to
the profession.

10

8 . Demonstrate or has demonstrated
ethical principles in guiding
his actions.

9

9 . Be recommended by his or her
administrators, co-workers and
by the student teaching staff
of the teacher education
institution.

9

10 .

Possess the ability to diag­
nose, analyze, and evaluate
the behavior of children,
student teachers, and himself.

11 . Demonstrate that his or her
work is the result of organi­
zed planning based on well
defined objectives.
12

.

Reflect a positive professional
attitude and a real liking and
respect for teaching.

10

9

10

1

1

8

1

0

9

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

89
Is
import*
ant
Be able to establish a feeling
of security on the part of
student teachers by clarifying
his responsibilities through­
out the student teaching
period.

9

Has
Has
Some
Ho
Import­ Impo
anc
ance

1

0

Be able to demonstrate and
understand the basic princi­
ples of effective teaching
and learning.

10

0

0

Be able to exhibit a coopera­
tive attitude in relationships
with other members of the
staff.

10

0

0

3

0

Have worked with student
teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the respon­
sibilities of a supervising
teacher.

7

Be enthusiastic regarding the
role of clinical consultant.

10

0

0

Be able to consider new and
different teaching techniques
in an open-minded manner.

10

0

0

Be able to help student
teachers to develop understand­
ing of their strengths and
weaknesses and foster in them
a healthy self-concept.

10

0

0

Be able to utilize conferences
with student teachers as a form
of teaching and learning through
discussion.

9

1

0

Be or is willing to become as­
sociated with organizations con­
cerned with student teaching
such as The Association of
Teacher Educators and M-Step.

i

9

0

90
Mas
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- import­
ant
ance
ance
22.

23.

24.

25.

Be capable of working with
the student teachers and
building staff in developing
individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed
needs of the student teachers
in the building.
Show willingness in providing
classroom supervision of
student teachers in the build­
ing in cooperation with the
regular classroom teachers.

10

9

Be able to help the student
teachers in the building on
such matters as lesson plan­
ning, discipline, and human
relationships, which are called
for by the objectives of the
courses they teach.

10

Be capable of taking corrective
measures which will improve
difficult situations.

10

26.

Be able to demonstrate an acquain­
tance with the literature of his
or her professional field.
4

27.

Have developed an appreciation
for people who are different in
culture, racial, religious,
economic, and national back­
ground, and is willing to
accord them full equality of
opportunity.

9

Set positive example for student
teachers in personal appearance
and hygiene, grooming, speech,
and habits.

7

28.

29.

Be able to utilize recent develop­
ments and trends in the teaching
profession.
9

91
Has
Has
Is
Some
Ho
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
30.

Have an understanding of the
program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools,
especially at the level where he
or she is the clinical consultapt.

8

2

0

92
RESPONSES GIVEN BY CLINICAL CONSULTANTS
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
Possess the level of academic
preparation required by state
certification laws.

30

6

0

Have completed at least three
years of successful teaching
experience.

33

3

0

3.

Possess a bachelor's degree.

31

5

0

4.

Possess a master's degree.

9

19

8

5.

Possess a specialist degree.

0

12

24

2

2

32

34

1

1

8 . Demonstrate or has demonstrated
ethical principles in guiding
his actions.

35

1

0

9 . Be recommended by his or her
administrators, co-workers and
by the student teaching staff
of the teacher education
institution.

32

4

0

10 . Possess the ability to diag­
nose, analyze, and evaluate
the behavior of children,
student teachers, and himself.

34

2

0

1 1 . Demonstrate that his or her
work is the result of organi­
zed planning based on well
defined objectives.

23

13

0

35

1

0

1.

2.

6 . Possess an earned doctorate
degree.
7.

12.

Participate in the program
willingly and look upon super­
vising the growth of student
teachers as a contribution to
the profession.

Reflect a positive professional
attitude and a real liking and
respect for teaching.

93
Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import­ Import­
ant
ance
ance
13.

14.

Be able to establish a feeling
of security on the part of
student teachers by clarifying
his responsibilities through­
out the student teaching
period.

J

0

Be able to demonstrate and
understand the basic princi­
ples of effective teaching
and learning.

33

3

0

Be able to‘exhibit a coopera­
tive attitude in relationships
with other members of the
staff.

31

5

0

Have worked with student
teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the respon­
sibilities of a supervising
teacher.

19

15

1

Be enthusiastic regarding the
role of clinical consultant.

32

4

0

Be able to consider new and
different teaching techniques
in an open-minded manner.

32

4

0

Be able to help student
teachers to develop understand­
ing of their strengths and
weaknesses and foster in them
a healthy self-concept*

32

4

0

20 . Be able to utilize conferences
with student teachers as a form
of teaching and learning through
discussion.

31

4

0

21 . Be or is willing to become as­
sociated with organizations con­
cerned with student teaching
such as The Association of
Teacher Educators andM-Step.

11

20

4

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

94

Has
Has
Is
Some
No
Import- Import- Import­
ant
ance
ance
22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Be capable of working with
the student teachers and
building staff in developing
individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed
needs of the student teachers
in the building.

30

5

Show willingness in providing
classroom supervision of
student teachers in the build­
ing in cooperation with the
regular classroom teachers.

31

4

Be able to help the student
teachers in the building on
such matters as lesson plan­
ning, discipline, and human
relationships, which are called
for by the objectives of the
courses they teach.

32

3

Be capable of taking corrective
measures which will improve
difficult situations. ■

31

4

Be able to demonstrate an acquain­
tance with the literature of his
or her professional field.

11

22

Have developed an appreciation
for people who are different in
culture, racial, religious,
economic, and national back­
ground, and is willing to
accord them full equality of
opportunity.

24

12

Set positive example for student
teachers in personal appearance
and hygiene, grooming, speech,
and habits.

28

7

Be able to utilize recent develop­
ments and trends in the teaching
profession.
21

15

0

95
Has
Has
Ho
Is
Some
Import- Import­ Import­
ant
ance
ance
30.

Have an understanding o£ the
program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools,
especially at the level where he
or she is the clinical consultant. 32

4

0

APPENDIX C
SCORES OF STUDENT TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, CENTER DIRECTORS,
SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND CLINICAL CONSULTANTS
RELATED TO SELECTION CRITERIA

96

Effect of Group Responses Upon Selection Criteria.

P-ratio for Multivariate Test of Equality of Mean
Vectors « 1.83
D. F. =* 120 and 785.74
P less than .0001
Variable
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
5
6

7
* 8
* 9
10
*11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
*20
21
22

*23
24
25
26
27
*28
29
30

Between
Means Sq.

Univariate
F

P Less
Than .05

1 .0 0

6 .1 1

.0 0 0 2

0.58
0.46
4.43
0.62
0.30
0.14
0.77
1.25
0.19
1.89

.0080
.0250

0 .1 1

3.57
2.85
9.13
1.40
0.85
1.43
4.96
4.72
1.63
7.33
1.98
1.23
0.97

0.32
0.60

2 .2 0
2 .1 1

0 .1 1

0.85
0.32
0.44
3.57
0.51
1.95
4.96
2.08

0 .1 0

0.19

0.04
0.03
0.61
0.24
0.40
1.62
0.37
0.16
0.28
0.41

1 .2 0

0.71

0.73
2.13
7.62
2.36

0.20

1 .0 0

6 .0 1

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis ** 4
Degrees of Freedom for Error = 226
*Significant at P less than .05

.0 0 0 1

.2300
.5000
.2600
.0008
.0 0 1 2

.1700
.0 0 0 1
.1 0 0 0

.3000
.4200
.0700
.0800
.4900
.8700
.7800
.0008
.7300
.1 0 0 0

.0008
.0800
.3100
.5700
.0800
.0 0 0 1

.0543
.4100

Distribution of Mean Scores for Each Criterion Disagreed Upon by the Five Groups.

Center
Directors

Clinical
Consultants

Principals

Supervising
Teachers

1

1.03

1.04

1 .0 0

1.19

1.32

1 .1 2

2

1.18

1.04

1 .2 0

1.06

1.26

1.15

3

1.03

1.05

1 .1 0

1.14

1.24

1 .1 1

4

1.64

2 .0 2

1.90

2.03

2.42

2 .0 0

8

1 .0 0

1 .0 2

0.90

1.06

1.24

1.04

9

1.24

1.19

1 .1 0

1.08

1.45

1 .2 1

11

1.24

1.14

0.90

1.39

1.52

1.24

20

1 .1 2

1.07

1 .1 0

1.08

1.29

1.13

23

1.18

1.28

1 .1 0

1.08

1.51

1.23

28

1.09

1.18

1.30

1.25

1.83

1.33

29

1 .2 1

1.35

1 .1 0

1.41

1.48

1.31

Criterion

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 4

Significant

Student
Teachers

P less than .05

Grand
Mean

Distribution of Mean Scores for Each Criterion Agreed Upon by the Five Groups.

Criterion Principals

5

Supervising
Teachers

Center
Directors

6

2.33
2.64

2.46
2.67

2.70
2.80

7

1 .0 0

1 .0 0

1.03

1.05

1 .0 0

1 .0 0

1 .0 0
1 .0 0
1 .0 0

1.09

1.14
1.07

10
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22

24
25
26
27
30

1 .1 2

1.03
1.36
1.09
1.06
1.03
1.97
1.15
1.03
1.03
1.70
1.06
1.15

1 .1 1

1 .1 0
1 .0 0
1 .0 0

1.14

1.30

1 .1 2
1 .1 0

1 .0 0
1 .0 0
1 .0 0

1.05
1.84
1.19
1.14
1.07
1.61
1.16
1.14

Degrees of Freedom for Hypothesis = 4

1.90
1 .0 0
1 .0 0

Clinical
Consultants

2.67
2.80
1.06
1.06
1 .0 0

1.08
1.08
1.14
1.44
1 .1 1
1 .1 1

1.08
1.75
1 .1 1

1 .1 0

1.06
1.08
1.78
1.33

1 .2 0

1 .1 1

1 .0 0

1.60

Student
Teachers

2.53
2.80
1 .1 1

1.16
1.08

Grand
Mean

2.54
2.74
1.03
1.06
1 .0 2

1.16

1.13
1.09

1 .2 2

1 .1 0

1.33
1.18
1.09
1.08
1.89
1.29

1.31

1 .2 2

1 .2 2

1.16
1.77
1.24
1.25

Significant P greater than .05

1 .1 0

1.07
1.05
1.87
1.15
1.09
1.07
1.69
1.18
1.17

APPENDIX D
CRITERIA CONSIDERED TO BE BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
BY A MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT PARTICIPATED IN
THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY CLUSTER PROGRAM OF
STUDENT TEACHING, FALL TERM, 1972

99
CRITERIA CONSIDERED TO BE BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR SELECTING CLINICAL CONSULTANTS

-Possess the level of academic preparation required by
state certification laws.
-Have completed at least three years of successful teaching
experience.
-Possess a bachelor's degree.
-Participate In the program willingly and look upon super
vising the growth of student teachers as a contribution
to the profession.
-Demonstrate or has demonstrated ethical principles in
guiding his actions.
-Be recommended by his or her administrators, co-workers
and by the student teaching staff of the teacher education
institution.
-Possess the ability to diagnose, analyze, and evaluate
the behavior of children, student teachers, and himself.
-Demonstrate that his or her work is the result of
organized planning based on well defined objectives.
-Reflect a positive professional attitude and a real
liking and respect for teaching.
-Be able to establish a feeling of security on the part
of student teachers by clarifying his responsibilities
throughout the student teaching period.
-Be able to demonstrate and understand the basic principles
of effective teaching and learning.
-Be able to exhibit a cooperative attitude in relationships
with other members of the staff.
-Have worked with student teachers and acquired a basic
understanding of the responsibilities of a supervising
teacher.
-Be enthusiastic regarding the role of clinical consultant.
-Be able to consider new and different teaching techniques
in an open-minded manner.

100
-Be able to help student teachers to develop understand­
ing of their strengths and weaknesses and foster In them
a healthy self-concept.
-Be able to utilize conferences with student teachers as
a form of teaching and learning through discussion.
-Be capable of working with the student teachers and
building staff in developing individual participatory
schedules based on diagnosed needs of the student
teachers in the building.
-Shows willingness in providing classroom supervision of
student teachers in the building in cooperation with
regular classroom teachers.
-Be able to help the student teachers in the building on
such matters as lesson planning, discipline, and human
relationships, which are called for by the objectives of
the courses they teach.
-Be capable of taking corrective measures which will
improve difficult situations.
-Be able to demonstrate an acquaintance with the liter­
ature of his or her professional field.
-Have developed an appreciation for people who are dif­
ferent in culture, racial, religious, economic, and
national background, and is willing to accord them full
equality of opportunity.
-Set positive example for student teachers in personal
appearance and hygiene, grooming, speech, and habits.
-Be able to utilize recent developments and trends in
the teaching profession.
-Have an understanding of the program, personnel, and
problems of cooperating schools, especially at the
level where he or she is the clinical consultant.