INFO RM ATIO N 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 the 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 Page(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 greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made 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, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE:
received.

Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

75-27,282

KAML, Jerry Michael, 1936A COMPARISON OF SELECTED MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY ELEMENTARY TEACHER PREPARATION
PROGRAMS BASED UPON THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT
TEACHERS, SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
OF COOPERATING SCHOOLS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975
Education, elementary

Xerox University Microfilms,

Ann Arbor, M ich igan 4 8 106

A COMPARISON OF SELECTED MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ELEMENTARY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS
BASED UPON THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT
TEACHERS, SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS OF
COOPERATING SCHOOLS

By

J e r r y M. Kami

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements
f o r t h e d e g r ee o f

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

C olle ge o f Education

1975

ABSTRACT

A COMPARISON OF SELECTED MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY ELEMENTARY TEACHER PREPARATION
PROGRAMS BASED UPON THE PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENT
TEACHERS, SUPERVISING TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS OF
COOPERATING SCHOOLS
By
J e r r y M. Kami

Purpose o f t h e Study
The purpose o f t h i s

s t u dy was t o compare t h e impact o f s e l e c t e d

M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs on
c o o p e r a t i n g s choo ls

i n t he f o l l o w i n g a r e a s :

a.

Individualized

in stru ctio n .

b.

Instructional

a c tiv itie s .

c.

Contributions

t o t h e c o o p e r a t i n g school

d.

A dditional

professional

a ctiv itie s

by s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r .

e.

A dditional

professional

a c tiv itie s

by o t h e r s t a f f members.

program.

The comparisons were based on t he responses t o s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s by
student teachers,
s chools.

supervising teachers,

and p r i n c i p a l s o f c o o p e r a t i n g

The f o l l o w i n g M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r

p r e p a r a t i o n programs were compared:
a.

Conventional

E l e m e n t a r y Program.

b.

C l u s t e r E l e m e n t a r y Program.

c.

Elementary

d.

Experimental

e.

T e a c h e r Corps Program.

I n t e r n Program.
E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n Program.

J e r r y M. Kami

Methodol oqy
The d a t a w e r e c o l l e c t e d
Deans and D i r e c t o r s
a 1969 s t u d y .
teachers,
during

o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P ro gr ams

in M ichigan f o r

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d

s u pe rvising

the

u s in g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s deve lo p ed by t h e

la s t

teachers

t w o weeks o f

S tate U n iv e rs ity

and p r i n c i p a l s

to student

o f c o o p e ra tin g schools

the W in te r q u a r t e r o f

1975-

The M i c h i g a n

r e s i d e n t c e n t e r d i r e c t o r s were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

a d m in is tra tio n

and c o l l e c t i o n

752 members o f

th is

o f the survey

p o p u la tio n

instrum ents.

the

Of t h e

599 r e s p o n d e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

F o r each r e s p o n s e c h o i c e

to a q u e stio n n a ire

respondents,

r e s p o n d e n t s , mean, and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

per cent o f

was t a b u l a t e d
determ ine

if

fo r

each p r o g r a m .

m eaningful

Cohen's

d iffe re n c e s

d

item ,

t h e number o f

f o r m u l a was used t o

e x i s t e d b e t we e n t h e s e l e c t e d

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
in g fu l

d i f f e r e n c e o f 20 p e r c e n t was a r b i t r a r i l y

program.

A mean­

e s ta b lis h e d f o r

th is

study.

F indings o f
The m a j o r f i n d i n g s

of

the study

R e se a r c h H y p o t h e s i s # 1 :
the s u p e rv is in g

teachers

P r o g r a m as c omp ar ed t o

th e Study

in

included:

Meaningful

the Experim ental

the s u p e rv is in g

p r o g r a m i n t h e amount o f

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e iv e d by
Elem entary E ducation

teachers

tim e p u p i l s were

in

invo lved

the C onventional
in

in d iv id u a liz e d

i n s tru c tio n .
Research H y p o th e s is # 2 :
the student
programs,

teachers

M eaningful

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e iv e d by

in both the E lem entary I n t e r n

and t h e p r i n c i p a l s

and T e a c h e r Co rp s

i n t h e T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o g r a m b as ed on

J e r r y M. Kami
changes

in

in s tru c tio n a l

the C o nventional

a c tiv itie s

three

groups o f

Meaningful

respondents

in

E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m and t h e s t u d e n t
gram when compared t o
tio n s

Research H y p o th e s is # 4 :
between th e s e l e c t e d

in

due t o

t h e T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o ­

p r o g r a m b a se d on t h e c o n t r i b u ­

No m e a n i n g f u l

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d

s u p e rvisin g

M eaningful

and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l

t e a c h e r m u st spend on

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d by

Experim ental

p r o g r a m when c ompar ed t o t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f
p r o g r a m i n t h e amount o f

spend on p r o f e s s i o n a l

teacher.

the presence o f a s tu d e n t te a c h e r.

teachers from the

in the C onventional

E lem entary

p r o g r a m by t h e s t u d e n t

tim e the

Re s e ar c h H y p o t h e s i s # 5 :
the s u p e r v i s i n g

teachers

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs

p r o g r a m i n t h e amount o f
dutie s

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d by

the E xp e rim e n ta l

the Conventional

t o the c o o p e ra tin g school

p ro fe ssio n a l

t h e p u p i l s when c ompar ed t o

program.

R e se a r c h H y p o t h e s i s # 3 :
a ll

fo r

d u tie s

Elem entary Education

the s u p e rv is in g

teachers

tim e o th e r s t a f f

due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f

members

the s tu d e n t

teacher.
The g e n e r a l

co nclusio n s

1) s i n c e no m e a n i n g f u l

reached in

th is

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d

t h e C l u s t e r p r o g r a m and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l ,
in t h e areas
d iffe re n ce s
C onventional
the

in v e s tig a te d ;

in te rn s h ip

it

experience

t o th e C onventional
and 3)

2) s i n c e

the fo u r- y e a r

t o e x i s t between

t h e s e programs are co m p arab le

i n o n l y one i n s t a n c e w e r e m e a n i n g f u l

p e r c e i v e d b e t w ee n t h e E l e m e n t a r y
program,

s t u d y were t h a t :

Inte rn

p r o g r a m and t h e

seems r e a s o n a b l e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t p r i o r
the E lem entary

program in th e f i v e
fie ld -c e n te re d

I n t e r n pro gram
areas under

e xperience o f

to

is comparable

in v e s tig a tio n ;

the E xperim ental

J e r r y M. Kami
E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n program and t h e t w o - y e a r i n t e r n s h i p o f t he
T e a c h e r Corps program seems t o r e s u l t
compared t o t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l

i n m e an i ng f ul

program i n t h e a re as

d i f f e r e n c e s when

investigated.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The c o o p e r a t i o n o f o t h e r s has been e s s e n t i a l
th is

study.

tio n

committee Dr.

Dr.

Carl

The w r i t e r w i s h e s

to

t h a n k t h e members o f

th e ir

in te re s ts

t h e f o r m u l a t i o n and c o m p l e t i o n o f t h i s

teachers,

is

the d is s e r t a ­

J a n e t A 1 1e m a n - B r o o k s , D r . K e n n e t h H a r d i n g ,

Brautigam f o r

The w r i t e r

t o th e success o f

indebted

p rin c ip a ls ,

and e f f o r t s

and

on my b e h a l f

study.

t o t h e many s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,

su pe rvising

Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y c e n t e r d i r e c t o r s ,

e s p e c i a l l y D r . W. H e n r y Kennedy who made t h i s

D o n a l d Fre ema n,

and

study p o s s ib le .

I n v a l u a b l e h e l p on t h e d e s i g n and c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m m i n g o f
s t u d y was g i v e n b y D r .

in

Janet T illm a n ,

the

Bob W i l s o n ,

and

J e f f Danes.
D r . Howard H i c k e y has been my a d v i s o r ,
and v a l u e d f r i e n d
U n iv e rs ity .
patie n ce.

Thank y o u ,

endeavor.

for

h is guidance,

encouragement,

and

Howard.

re c o g n itio n

unwavering f a i t h

chairm an,

t h r o u g h o u t my g r a d u a t e e x p e r i e n c e a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e

I am g r a t e f u l

Special

d is s e rta tio n

is

given

t o M r s . Mae McQuaid whose l o v e and

i n me has been an i n s p i r a t i o n

throughout t h i s

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................
L I S T OF T A B L E S ..............................................................
L I S T OF A P P E N D I C E S ...............................

.

i ii

.

vi

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

v ii i

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................

1

Need f o r t h e S t u d y ........................................................................» . .
S t a t e m e n t o f t h e P r o b l e m ...................... . .........................................
Hypotheses. .
.......................................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n s o f T e r m s ..............................................................................
L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y ...........................................
O r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e S t u d y ...............................................................

4
8
9
11
15
16

SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ..................................

17

In tro d u ctio n . .
.....................................................
Normal S c h o o l s . . . . . . .
..........................................................
T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e s , C o l l e g e s and U n i v e r s i t i e s . . . . .
S tu d e n t Teaching a t M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y . . . .
C o n v e n t i o n a l P r o g r a m ................................................
C l u s t e r Program .
..............................................................................
E l e m e n t a r y I n t e r n P r o gr a m .................... .
T e a c h e r Co r p s P r o g r a m ................................ ........................................
E x p e r i m e n t a l E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n P ro gr a m . . . . . .
S u m m a r y ...........................................................................................................

17
19
23
26
36
37
39
42
45
4-7

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ..............................................................................

49

I n t r o d u c t i o n ................................................ ..... ...........................................
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ................................ . . . . .
P o p u l a t i o n ......................................................................................................
M e t h o d o l o g y ........................................................ ...... .................................
S u m m a r y .................................................... .....................................................

49
50
57
59
60

iv

Chapter
IV.

Page
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSISOF THE D A T A .....................................
I n t r o d u c t i o n .................................................................................................
Research H y p o t h e s i s # 1 .........................................................................
Research H y p o t h e s i s # 2 .........................................................................
Research H y p o t h e s i s # 3 .
......................................
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s # k .........................................................................
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s # 5 . . . ............................................................
S u m m a r y .......................................„ ..........................................

V.

SUMMARY, CONSLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

. . . . . .

61
61

6k
65
67
69
70
72
75

Summary .
.................................
F i n d i n g s and C o n c l u s i o n s ....................................................
Recomme nd at ion s .......................................................................................

75
79
82

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................................

85

APPENDICES . . . . .

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

. . . . . .

A p p e n d i x A .....................................................................................................
A p p e n d i x B .....................................................................................................

88
88
121

Page

Table
4.6 .

4 .7 .

4.8 .

4 .9 .

4 .10.

5.1 .

Per c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r
p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
r e l a t i n g t o H y p o t h e s i s # 3 ...........................................................

68

Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s
t o responses
t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e it e m s r e l a t i n g t o Research
H y p o t h e s i s # 4 ............................

69

P er c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b et we e n s e l e c t e d
p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l
r e l a t i n g to H ypothesis # 4

teacher
program
.

.

70

• •

•

71

P er c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b et we e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r
p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l
program
r e l a t i n g t o H y p o t h e s i s # 5 ...........................................................

71

Summary o f f i n d i n g s

78

Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s
t o responses
t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t e m s r e l a t i n g t o Re s ea rc h
H y p o t h e s i s # 5 ........................................................................

f o r R e se a r c h

vi i

Hypotheses

„

. . . .

L I S T OF APPENDICES

Appendi x
A.

B.

Page
Co v er l e t t e r and q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r m s f o r
Study o f S tu d e n t T e ach in g i n M ich ig a n . . . . . .
Response

d a ta c o l l e c t e d by s u rv e y in s t r u m e n t s

vi i i

.

88
.

121

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A l t h o u g h M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was f o u n d e d
reveal

it

was n o t u n t i l

to e s ta b lis h

a student

e a rly

1900 t h a t

in

te a c h in g program.

Since th e n ,

has been made i n a c o m p a r a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d

fie ld

teacher

e n tire

fa c u lty

state ,

N o ll

tra in in g .

In

in E du ca tion .

re p orts

that

tio n

ongoing,

school.^

I n an e f f o r t

to serve

from the b e g in n in g

cla ssro om s i t u a t i o n

N oll

remarkable
o f tim e

in the

1908, one p r o f e s s o r c o m p r i s e d t h e

the

the people o f the

in s titu tio n

a s t r o n g e m p h a s i s on s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g w h e r e e x p e r i e n c e
a re a l,

records

t h e r e a p p e a r e d t o be a move

progress
of

185 5,

-

never

has p l a c e d

is obtained

in

i n a campus o r d e m o n s t r a ­

co ntin u es:

I t i s t h i s b e l i e f i n t h e v a l u e and i m p o r t a n c e o f l e a r n i n g
to teach by g o in g i n t o a r e g u la r cla s s ro o m , o b s e r v in g ,
c o n s u l t i n g , a c t u a l l y t e a c h i n g ; l i v i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n
a l l a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s c h o o l and t h e c o m m u n i t y ; and s t a y i n g
i n t h e s i t u a t i o n l o n g enough t o a c h i e v e a f e e l i n g o f s e c u r i t y
and b e l o n g i n g i n i t - t h i s k i n d o f e x p e r i e n c e f o r a l l u n d e r ­
g r a d u a t e s p r e p a r i n g t o t e a c h has p r o b a b l y been t h e s i n g l e
most i m p o r t a n t e le m e n t o f s t r e n g t h in t h e M ic h ig a n S t a t e
program o f te a c h e r e d u c a t i o n . 2
Even c r i t i c s
tea ching

of

is e s s e n tia l

im p o rta nt p a r t o f

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n seem t o a g r e e t h a t
to

the p re p a ra tio n o f

the p ro fe s s io n a l

teachers,

if

e d u c a t i o n s e q u e nc e o f

student
not

t h e most

course work

^ V i c t o r H. N o l l , The P r e p a r a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y , (E ast Lansing:
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1968) p . 231 —

^ I b i d . , p.

231
1

2
which a f u t u r e

teacher

re ce ives.

In

T959» A d m i r a l

R icko ve r s ta te d :

A l l t e a c h e r s need some s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n i n p e d a go g y
and a good d e a l o f p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g .
We m i g h t c o n s i d e r
c o p y i n g t h e i n t e r n s h i p i n e d u c a t i o n w h i c h i s common
abroad - t e a c h e r c a n d id a t e s p r a c t i c i n g u nd e r th e s u p e r ­
v i s i o n o f e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s b e f o r e t h e y t a k e on a
c l a s s a l l by t h e m s e l v e s . 3
Most e d u c a t o r s s h a r e C o n a n t ' s v i e w t h a t
o f supervised p r a c tic e
p utable,

teachin g f o r

the va lu e o f a p e rio d

the a s p ir in g

teachers

and t h a t b o t h t h e s t u d e n t and p u b l i c s c h o o l

from the r e l a t i o n s h i p . ^

fo r

p ro spe ctive teachers,

re la tiv e

to d eterm ining

but

the s p e c i f i c

do have d e m o n s t r a b l y p o s i t i v e
J a c k s o n when he s t a t e s
modes o f o p e r a t i o n ,
however,

little

than another

research

is

research

to

non e xisten t

T h is view

is

s u p p o r t e d by

programs e x i s t

and p r o g r a m p a t t e r n s .

in d ic a te

in the p r e p a r a t io n o f

a good t h i n g

kin d s o f p r a c t i c e which a c t u a l l y

e ffe c ts .

types,

t h e r e was w i d e ­

is

p ra c tic a lly

t h a t stud e nt teaching

s ty le ,

in d is ­

could b e n e fit

Denemark and M a c d o n a l d n o t e d

s p r e a d a gr e e m e n t t h a t s u p e r v i s e d c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e

is

i n many

There

is ,

t h a t o ne mode i s more e f f e c t i v e

teachers.^

The c o m m i t t e e on

3 G. K. H o d e n f i e l d
( E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , New

and T . M. S t i n n e t t , The E d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s ,
Jersey: P re n tic e H a l l ,
1961), p. )b.

^James B. C o n a n t ,
M c G r a w - H i l l ) , 1963, p .

The E d u c a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n T e a c h e r s ,
1^2.

(New Y o r k :

5G. W. Denemark and J . B. M a c d o n a l d , " P r e s e r v i c e and I n s e r v i c e
E d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s " , The J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , 3 7: 233-21+7,
1967.
^ C h a r le s L o u is J a c k s o n , "A S tudy o f S e l e c t e d S t u d e n t T e ach in g
E x p e r i e n c e s R e p o r t e d by M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C l u s t e r P r o g r a m and
C o n v e n t io n a l Program S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s " ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n ,
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971, P- 8 .

research

in s tudent te aching o f

t h e A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t u d e n t Te ac h in g

stresses

t h e need t o o b s e r v e e x p e r i m e n t a l l y t h e e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n t

t y p e s o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o gr a m s. ^
An i n v e s t i g a t i o n
p r e p a r a t i o n programs
It
of

is

i s n e c e s s a r y t o e v a l u a t e t he q u a l i t y o f programs.

in teresting

the N a tio n a l

t o n o t e t h a t t h e De pa rt ment o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e

E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f t he U n i t e d S t a t e s

N i n t h Yearbook l i s t e d
cation .

i n t o t he n a t u r e and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t e a c h e r

in i t s

s i x main f u n c t i o n s o f a program o f t e a c h e r edu­

They were b r i e f l y

d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s :

a.

The f i r s t f u n c t i o n o f a program o f t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n is t o
p r o v i d e a r e a s o n a b l e m a s t e r y o f the s u b j e c t t a u g h t and o f
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r r e l a t e d to i t .

b.

The second f u n c t i o n o f t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n i s t o a s s i s t each
p ro s p e c tiv e teacher in the fo r m u la tio n o f a d e f i n i t e
philosophy of education.

c.

The t h i r d f u n c t i o n o f t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n
t hor ough u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f c h i l d n a t u r e .

is to provide a

d.

The f o u r t h f u n c t i o n o f t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n
o f powers o f e v a l u a t i o n .

i s development

e.

The f i f t h f u n c t i o n o f t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n
professional e th ic s .

f.

The s i x t h f u n c t i o n o f t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n
l i f e o u ts id e the classroom.

is t r a i n i n g

in

is education f o r

These s i x f u n c t i o n s o f a program o f t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n were
published

in

1931.

T h i s e a r l y s t u d y a l s o suggests t h a t programs o f

^ A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g , Research on S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g ,
B u l l e t i n No. 5 (Dubuque, Iowa:
W i l l i a m C. Brown Co. 1 9 6 5 ) , p . 2 7 .

g
D e p a r t m e n t o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e , N i n t h Y e a r b o o k , F i v e U n i f y i nq
F a c t o r s i n A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n ; The D e p a r t m e n t o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e o f
the N a tio n a l E du ca tion A s s o c ia t io n o f the U n ite d S ta te s ; Washington,
D. C . , 1931, p p . 2 6 7 - 2 6 8 .

k
t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n must r e c o g n i z e d i f f e r i n g needs o f
as i n d i v i d u a l
and money is

needs o f p u p i l s .

Further,

t he economy o f e f f o r t ,

9

Need f o r

t h e Study

A c c o r d i n g t o E b e l , t he e v a l u a t i o n o f e n t i r e
pr ogr ams, o r even o f segments o f pr ogr ams,
it

teacher education

i s s p o t t y and i n a d e q u a t e . ^

is assumed t h a t t h e de si gn o f each c u r r i c u l u m f o r

p r e p a r a tio n o f teachers

adopted by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n

ment o f a p p r o p r i a t e members o f
graduates,

tim e,

i m p o r t a n t i n p l a n n i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g a program o f

teacher education.

Ideally,

t e a c h e r s as w e l l

t he f a c u l t y and s t a f f ,

and o f t he p r o f e s s i o n as a w h o l e .

th e se c u r r i c u l a

re flec t

reflects

an awareness o f

It

is

the

the ju d g ­

of students,

of

a l s o assumed t h a t

r e s e a r c h and d e ve l o pm e nt

in

teacher e d u c a t i o n . ^

9

De par tment o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e , N i n t h Y ea rbook , F i v e U n i f y i n g
F a c t o r s in American E d u c a t i o n ; The Depar tment o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e o f
the N a tio n a l Education A s s o c ia tio n o f the U nited S t a t e s ; Washington,
D . C . , 1931, pp. 2 7 0 - 2 7 1 .
^ R o b e r t L. E b e l , e d . , E n c y c l o p e d i a o f E d u c a t i o n a l
(London:
M a c m i l l a n C o . , 1969) , p» 1^18.

Re search

^ " S t a n d a r d s f o r the A c c r e d i t a t i o n o f Teacher E d u c a t io n " ,
N a t i o n a l C o u n c il f o r A c c r e d i t a t i o n o f Teacher E d u c a t i o n ; W a s h in g t o n ,
D . C . , 1970, p . 3 .

6
I n December o f

1968,

o f Michigan i n s tr u c t e d

t h e Counc il o f S t a t e C o l l e g e P r e s i d e n t s

the Deans and D i r e c t o r s o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n

Programs t o i n v e s t i g a t e t he i mpact o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g programs
upon t h e p u b l i c schools c o o p e r a t i n g
d a t a were g a t h e r e d
a tin g teachers,

i n t he F a l l

in t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p ro gr a ms .

Q u a r t e r and Seme st er o f

student te a che rs ,

and p r i n c i p a l s

The

1969 f r om c oope r

o f c o o p e r a t i n g s c h oo l s

These d a t a were t o be used t o measure t he e f f e c t o f s t u d e n t

teaching

on t he school

in whi ch s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s were p l a c e d and t o p r o v i d e a

b a s i s f o r t he

improvement o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g and t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n

programs

in M i c h i g a n .

This study,

T ea ch i ng

Impact S t u d y ,

i n v o l v e d more t ha n 1 0 , 0 0 0 t e a c h e r s ,

teachers,

and school

commonly r e f e r r e d

adm inistrators

t o as t h e S t u d e n t
student

I n t h e most compr ehe ns ive s t u d y

o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g e v e r conducted i n M i c h i g a n .
The Deans and D i r e c t o r s o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Programs
incorporated

i n t o the s u r v e y i n s t r u m e n t s

s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g programs.

response w i t h i n

defined

namel y,

topic;

t h e means f o r e v a l u a t i n g

This p a r t i c u l a r study w i l l

t hose items o f

t he s u r ve y whi ch a r e

comparing t he

in Michigan

u tilize

only

re le v a n t to the

i mpact o f s e l e c t e d M i c h i g a n S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs on c o o p e r a t i n g
s choo ls based on t he p e r c e p t i o n s o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,
teachers,

and p r i n c i p a l s o f c o o p e r a t i n g s choo ls

supervising

i n w hi ch s t u d e n t

teachers are placed.
Each t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n program i s an e n d ea v or t o p r e p a r e a
more c om pe t ent ,

a n alytical,

innovative,

h e l p m ast er t h e s e r i o u s e d u c a t i o n a l

J ac kson, o p .

c i t . , p.

2.

and c r i t i c a l

probl ems

t e a c h e r who can

in our s o c i e t y .

18

Changes

7
in e x i s t i n g

programs

are necessary

if

and t h e o r e t i c a l
continuous

and t h e

they are to

in itia tio n
in c lu d e

in n o v a tio n s .

re -e xa m in atio n o f

conventional

the

la te s t

Host, c e r t a i n l y

student

r e s u l t o f d ecades o f

s o c ia l,

there

is

student

a d d itio n s

tech n olog ica l

a need f o r

19

t e a c h e r s who a r e a s s i g n e d

tea ch er are considered

program o f

i n n o v a t i v e programs

s tu d e n t te a c h in g programs.

A t Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
t o o ne s u p e r v i s i n g

o f new,

t o be p a r t i c i p a n t s

tea ch in g.

T h is

of

p a r e n t program

and m o d i f i c a t i o n s

the
is

o f educational

prac­

tic e s ,

and

mental

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

H o we v e r ,

i s a b a s i c " p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e " f o r o t h e r new and e x p e r i ­

any new p r o g r a m ,

as w e l l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n must, " . . . b e
to

its

m erits

and w o r t h

In a d d i t i o n

to

in

several

have been c o n d u c t e d

o f each o f

the s e le c te d

e v i d e n c e as

20

teacher p re p a ra tio n

teachers

th e s e programs

t h e p r o p o n e n t s o f each o f

of

program a t

o t h e r programs a re c u r r e n t l y

the process o f p r e p a r in g

no s t u d i e s

program,

s u p p o r t e d by e m p i r i c a l

the c o n v e n tio n a l

A complete d e s c r i p t i o n o f
Although

as t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

to the p a r t i c i p a n t s " .

M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y ,
in volved

the

is

at

g iven

the e le m entary
in Chapter

th e s e programs p r a i s e

to a c tu a lly

its

le ve l

II.
m e rits ,

c o mp ar e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

tea ch er p r e p a r a tio n programs.

1g

P a t r i c k D. D a u n t , " A F o l l o w - u p S t u d y o f t h e M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y - L a n s i n g S c h o o l D i s t r i c t SERL P r o j e c t and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l
Program o f S t u d e n t T e a c h in g in t h e L a n s in g P u b l i c S ch o o ls w i t h
C o m p a r i s o n s o f T e a c h e r A t t i t u d e s , R a t i n g s , and C a r e e r P r o g r e s s ,
( Un p ub . P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ) p . 172.
p.

5.

8
The w r i t i n g s

thus f a r p o i n t o u t t h a t

it

is necessary t h a t data

be o b t a i n e d t o s u p p o r t e m p i r i c a l l y t h e c l a i m s o f t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s
o f t h e s e l e c t e d e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs a t M i c h i g a n
S tate Universi ty .
Statement o f
The purpose o f t h i s

the Problem

s t u dy i s t o compare t h e i mpact o f s e l e c t e d

M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs on
c o o p e r a t i n g schools

in the f o l l o w i n g areas:

a.

Individualized

instruction

b.

Instructional

a c tiv itie s

c.

Contributions

t o t h e c o o p e r a t i n g school

d.

A dditional

professional

a c tiv itie s

by s u p e r v i s i n g

e.

Additional

professional

a c tiv itie s

by o t h e r s t a f f members

The comparisons w i l l

teacher

be based on t h e responses t o s p e c i f i c

q u e s t i o n s by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,
o f c o o p e ra tin g schools.

program

supervising teachers,

and p r i n c i p a l s

The f o l l o w i n g M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs w i l l
a.

Conventional

b.

C l u s t e r E l e m e n t a r y Program

c.

Elementary

d.

T e a c h e r Corps Program

e.

Experimental

be compared:

E l e m e n t a r y Program

I n t e r n Program

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n Program

10
R e se a r c h H y p o t h e s i s 3
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l

d iffe re n ce s

between the s e l e c t e d

p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
the c o o p e ra tin g school

teacher

program in c o n t r i b u t i o n s

p r o g r a m by t h e s t u d e n t

teacher

to

in the f o l lo w in g

areas:
a.

S u p e rv is in g youth groups.

b.

T a lkin g

c.

P erform ing

to p are n t groups.
recess,

lunch,

d.

Chaperoning s o c ia l

e.

S u p e rvis in g study h a l l s .

f.

gymnas iu m,

a c tiv itie s

Coaching o r a s s i s t i n g
act i v i t i e s.

in

playground o r h a l l

fo r p u p ils .

in te rs c h o la s tic or

in h a n d lin g d i s c i p l i n e

e x tra c u rric u la r

g.

A ssis tin g

h.

D e v e l o p i n g , p r o v i d i n g , o r s u g g e s t i n g new o r d i f f e r e n t
m a te r ia ls to the teachers o f the c o o p e ra tin g s ch oo l.

i.

P ro vid ing

aids or

j.

Amount o f

tim e ta u g h t f o r s u p e rv is in g

k.

A ffe cts

1.

Change i n w o r k

on s t a f f

d utie s .

problems.

ideas.
teacher,

m orale.

load o f a d m i n i s t r a t o r .

Research H y p o th e s is k
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l
p r e p a r a t i o n programs
tim e

the

d u tie s

d iffe re n ce s

b e t we e n t h e s e l e c t e d

and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

program in

teacher

t h e amount o f

s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r mu st spend on t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l

due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f a s t u d e n t
s u pe rvising

teacher:

a.

Frequency o f

teacher v i s i t s

to o th e r classroom s.

b.

Amount o f c o m m i t t e e w o r k c o n d u c t e d by s u p e r v i s i n g
w i t h s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .

c.

Amount o f

r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d by s u p e r v i s i n g

teacher

teacher.

11
d.

Amount o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
teacher.

e.

Amount o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r i n s t u d e n t
t e a c h e r sem in ars o r i n - s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s d e a l i n g w i t h
student teaching.

R e s e ar c h H y p o t h e s i s

5

T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l
p re pa ra tio n

r e a d i n g p e r f o r m e d by t h e s u p e r v i s i n g

d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d

p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

tim e o th e r s t a f f

members spend on t h e f o l l o w i n g

t o th e presence o f

the student

Teach i n g .

b.

Chaperoni n g .

c.

Supervi s in g .

d.

Fre quency o f v i s i t s

e.

Amount o f c o m m i t t e e w o r k .

.

9*

Amount o f

done by a s t u d e n t p r e p a r i n g

o f Terms

fo r

tea c h e r o r general

p a rtic ip a tio n ,

su p e rv is o r;

2 , C a r t e r V. Good, e d . ,
M c G r a w - H i l l Book C o . , I n c . ,
22I b i d . , p.

563 .

part of

in s titu tio n .

t e a c h e r . - - A person e n r o ll e d
to a s s is t

and a c t u a l

te a c h in g under the d i r e c t i o n

by a t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n

has been a s s i g n e d

due

reading o r w r i t i n g .

Student te a c h in g . — O b s e rv a tio n ,

Student

d u tie s

research.

D e fin itio n s

program o f f e r e d

p ro fe ssio n a l

to o th e r cla sse s.

Amount o f p r o f e s s i o n a l

s u pe rvisin g

t h e amount o f

teacher:

a.

f

program in

teacher

21

o f e d u c a t i o n who

in a re a l

D ic t io n a r y o f E ducation
1 959), p. 563.

a

the p r e - s e r v ic e

in a school

a re g u la r teacher

of

tea ch in g

school

(New Y o r k :

s itu a tio n .

12
S up e rvisin g

t e a c h e r . — An e x p e r i e n c e d

school

system t o work w i t h

d u rin g

th e ir

student

p u p ils

t e a c h e r e m p l oy e d

teach in g experien ce.

d iv is io n or u n it.

23

25

co nfusion
F ie ld

it

be a v o i d e d

referred

edu cational

problem s;

in s titu tio n ,

under the d i r e c t

schools o r t h e i r
part of

u su a lly
control

in t h i s

to student

la b o ra to ry e x p e rie n c e . — A ctual

c o l l e g e c ampus , w i t h i n

tio n

a k in d e r g a r te n o r a school

The t e r m " s t u d e n t " w i l l
as t o w h e t h e r

conducted

p ra ctice

of or a ffilia te d

u s u a l l y more l i m i t e d ,

co ncentrated

than the extended

in te rn s h ip .

by a t e a c h e r e d u c a ­

the te a c h e r e d u c a tio n
and l e s s

the F a ll

23

of

C a r t e r V. Good, e d . ,
M c G r a w - H i l l Book C o . , I n c . ,

1969.

formal

and

26

Impact s t u d y . - - T h e M ic h ig a n " S t u d e n t Teach in g
in

in d e a lin g w ith

t h a t are not f o r m a l l y

w ith ,

in c id e n ta l,

study to pre ven t

away f r o m t h e

environm ent,

in schools

o f elem entary

teachers o r p u p ils .

t h e program o f f e r e d

in s titu tio n ;

adm iniste re d

leader o f a

2k

P u p i 1 . — One who a t t e n d s
le v e l.

local

and t o s u p e r v i s e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s

Pr i n c i p a l , — The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e head and p r o f e s s i o n a l
school

in the

A d e s c rip tio n

is

D ic t io n a r y o f Education
1 959), p. 572.

Impact S tu d y "
given

27

in Chapter

III.

(New Y o r k :

^ I b i d . , p. 436.
I b i d . , p. 461.
26l b i d . , p.
27

227.

The I m p a c t o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r og ra ms Upon t h e C o o p e r a t i n g
P u b l i c Schools in M ich ig a n (L a n s in g :
M ichigan Council o f S ta te C o lle g e
P r e s i d e n t s , 1970) .

Conventional
students

program . — A tea ch e r p r e p a r a t io n program in w hich

are p laced

i n d i v i d u a l l y o r w i t h one s u p e r v i s i n g

spend a s u b s t a n t i a l

part of

For the purposes o f

th is

conventional

the q u a rte r w ith

study,

an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d
in

and f l e x i b l y

and c o m m u n i t y .

the b u ild in g

sta ff

provides f o r
perform ance.

to plan

A c lin ic a l

in d ivid u a l

ing te a c h e r f o r

The c l i n i c a l

competency

teachers

schedules
and h e l p s

c o n s u lta n t w i l l

the purposes o f

th is

is

assigned f o r

the s tu d e n t

them n e c e s s a r y i n s t r u c t i o n

29

c o n s u lta n t

t e a c h e r s and i s

the

in a s in g le b u i l d i n g

o th e r educational

f o r h is or her special

h is o r her tim e to work w it h
He o r she h e l p s

the

le v e l.

pla nn e d e x p e r ie n c e w i t h

and w i t h

the d i s t r i c t

student

in

tea c h e r p r e p a r a t io n program w hich p ro v id e s

tha t b u ild in g

in w orking w it h

teacher.

stud e nt teachers p a r t i c i p a t i n g

f o r p la c in g groups o f 8-12 s t u d e n t te a c h e rs

teachers

that p a rtic u la r

program a re t e a c h i n g a t t h e e l e m e n t a r y

C lu s te r program. - - A

t e a c h e r and

in
fo r

a v a rie ty

resources

fo r
of

in

s e le c te d from
in

t e a c h i n g and

a p o rtio n of
the b u ild in g .
stud e nt teachers

to e v a lu a te

be c o n s i d e r e d

th e ir

a su pe rvis

study.

28

Hugo D a v i d , e d . , Toward E x c e l l e n c e i n S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g ,
3 r d e d i t i o n . (Du b uq u e, I owa:
K en d al 1 - H u n t P u b l i s h i n g Co. 1 9 7 3 ) ,

p.

1

]h
E le m e n ta ry I n t e r n p ro g r a m . — A t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n program where
a f t e r extensive p re p a ra tio n ,
d uring his
in tern
tin g

fou rth

the s tu d e n t

calendar year o f

is

study,,

a s a la rie d
He i s

c o n s u l t a n t s e l e c t e d f r o m t h e mo st a b l e

school

s u pe rvisin g

d is tric ts .

30

teacher f o r

The i n t e r n

th is

teacher

s u p e r v i s e d b y an

teachers

c o n s u lta n t w i l l

the p urp o se s,o f

in te rn

in

the coopera-

be c o n s i d e r e d a

study.

T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o g r a m . — A t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m i n v o l v i n g
a p re -s e rv ic e p eriod o f
c h ild re n

tra in in g

from m u l t i e t h n i c

Experim ental

and a s s i g n m e n t t o s p e c i f i c a l l y

and m u l t i r a c i a l

backgrounds.

serve

31

Elem entary E du ca tion p rogram . — A te a c h e r p r e p a r a t io n

program c o m b ining p u b l i c

sch oo ls,

a competency-based program .
d u r i n g an i n t e r n s h i p

t h e com m unity,

A p u p il

in the f o u r t h

and t h e u n i v e r s i t y

management model

year.

is

in

stressed

32

30

B e r n a r d R. Corman and Ann G. O l m s t e d , The I n t e r n s h i p i n t h e
P r e p a r a t i o n o f E le m e n ta ry School Teachers (E a s t L a n s in g :
M ichigan
S ta te U n i v e r s i t y C ollege o f E d u c a tio n , 196^).
31
"Teacher C orps",
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C„

b r o c h u r e by U.

S. O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n ,

^ " E x p e r im e n t a l E lem entary E du c a tion Program ", b ro c h u re f o r
Placement S e r v i c e s , M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E ast L a n s in g , M i c h i g a n .

15
L im ita tio n s

The l i m i t a t i o n s o f
1.

o f th e Study

th is

s t u d y a r e as f o l l o w s :

The 1975 d a t a c o l l e c t e d

in t h i s

o f elem entary education

s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s and t h o s e p u b l i c

s u p e rvisin g

teachers

study

and p r i n c i p a l s

is

lim ite d

in volved

in

to

the

re sponses

the f i e l d

school
la b o ra ­

t o r y e x p e rie n c e o f Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y e le m e n ta ry e d u c a tio n
student
2.

teachers d u rin g

The s t u d y u t i l i z e s
lim ita tio n s

3.

the W in te r Q u a rte r o f

the q u e s t io n n a ir e which

th is

in s titu tio n s

in M ich ig a n .

not p a r tic ip a te

in

from t h i r t y - o n e
The w r i t e r o f

the c o n s t r u c t io n

T h es e i n s t r u m e n t s

the p e r t i n e n t

w ill

in fo rm a tio n

Only s e le c te d

teacher e ducation

the p re s e n t stud y d id

or v a lid a tio n o f

the q u e s tio n ­

are p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l - s u i t e d
id e n tifie d

in

fo r p ro vid in g

t h e p r o b l e m s t a t e m e n t on

response item s f ro m th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

be used i n c o m p a r i n g t h e

U n iv e rs ity

to the

s t u d y w e r e g a t h e r e d by a r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e

d e s i g n e d by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

page 8 .

su b je ct

imposed by s u c h a t e c h n i q u e .

The d a t a f o r

n aire.

is

1975.

impact o f

s e le c te d M ichigan S ta te

e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s on c o o p e r a t i n g

s c h o o ls.
k.

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s s e m i n a t e d ,
M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
cooperating

adm iniste re d

co o rd in a to rs o f

s c h o o l s and among t h e s t u d e n t

t e a c h e r s w i t h whom t h e y w o r k .

It

is

and c o l l e c t e d

stud e nt tea ch in g
teachers

assumed t h a t

in

by
the

and s u p e r v i s i n g
th is

was don e i n

a c o m p l e t e l y o b j e c t i v e manner.
5.

No g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s

are

intended

to fu tu r e

programs a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
o th e r

lo c a tio n s .

teacher p re p a ra tio n

in o th e r c o n te x ts ,

or

in

CHAPTER I I

SELECTED REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

I n t r o d u c t i on
The l i t e r a t u r e
as an i n t e g r a l
of

se le cte d

w ill

of

part of

student

be r e v i e w e d

p re p a ra tio n
the

the p r e p a r a tio n o f teachers

th is

chapter.

is

be p r e s e n t e d .

W h i l e s c h o o l s h ave e x i s t e d

thousand y e a r s ,

than

t h r e e hundred y e a r s .

formal

T h i s was p r o b a b l y d u e ,
received

c o n s e q u e n t l y few te a c h e r s were needed;

and t h i r d ,
the

during

re s p o n s ib ility

a re lig io u s

fo r

tra in in g

When t h e e m i g r a n t s
World

second,

know s o m e t h i n g a b o u t

the f i r s t

a formal

a summary

they b ro ug h t w it h

fo r

app ro xim a te ly

few c e n t u r i e s A . D . ,

education.

rather

it

la rg e ly ,

D uring t h i s

than s p e c ia l

to

less
three

e d u c a t i o n and
was f e l t

th a t a

t h e c h u r c h assumed
tim e ,

e d u c a t i o n had

on by t h e c l e r g y who
teacher

tra in in g .^

f r o m E u r o p e came t o t h e s h o r e s o f
them c e r t a i n

fo r

t h a t w h i c h was t o be t a u g h t ;

m o t i v e and t e a c h i n g was c a r r i e d

had r e l i g i o u s

F in a lly ,

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n has e x i s t e d

v e r y few people

t e a c h e r o n l y had t o

each t e a c h e r

presented.

Background

firs t,

and t h e d e v e l o p m e n t

The u n i q u e n e s s o f

program under s t u d y w i l l

four

facto rs;

t o the development o f s tu d e n t te a c h in g

t e a c h i n g programs a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

in

lite ra tu re

H is to ric a l

re la tin g

id eas

and i d e a l s .

t h e New

Among them

*James A. J o h n s o n , A B r i e f H i s t o r y o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g . (De K a l b ,
Illin o is :
C r e a t i v e E d u c a t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s ) 196 8, p . 1.

17

18
was t h e system o f t r a i n i n g

th ro ug h a p p r e n t i c e s h i p where a y out h was

re spon s ible to a master f o r t r a i n i n g
t h a t most o f t h e f o r m a l
clergymen,
livelih o o d .

in a t r a d e .

teaching during t h is

2

. . i t.

While

is t r u e

t i m e was c a r r i e d on by

some laymen d i d conduc t p r i v a t e s ch oo l s as a means o f
These p r i v a t e school

t e a c h e r s u s u a l l y became t e a c h e r s

by s e r v i n g a l e n g t h y a p p r e n t i c e s h i p w i t h m a s t e r t e a c h e r s .
o f t h e a p p r e n t i c e s h i p as a method o f p r e p a r i n g t e a c h e r s ,

3

W riting

Fristoe

p o in ts out:
The f i r s t a t t e m p t t o g i v e t h i s p r a c t i c a l ( t e a c h e r )
t r a i n i n g i n an o r g a n i z e d and s y s t e m a t i c manner on
whi ch we have a u t h e n t i c i n f o r m a t i o n was t h e o u t g r o w t h
o f t h e g u i l d system whi ch f l o u r i s h e d i n Europe d u r i n g
t h e l a t t e r c e n t u r i e s o f t h e M i d d l e Ages.
At a time
when merchants and a r t i s t s and workmen wer e a l l
o r g a n i z i n g and s e t t i n g up d e f i n i t e l i m i t a t i o n s and
p r e r e q u i s i t e s t o membership i n t h e i r u n i o n s , i t was
o n l y n a t u r a l t h a t t e a c h e r s shoul d for m s i m i l a r o r g a n i ­
zations.
I n o r d e r t o become a m a s t e r , t h e b e g i n n e r
was r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e a r a t h e r l ong p e r i o d o f a p p r e n ­
ticeship.
D u r i n g t h i s t i m e he r e c e i v e d l i t t l e o r no
c ompensati on and s er v ed as an a s s i s t a n t and s u b s t i t u t e
and, f i n a l l y , t a u g h t a c l a s s o f h i s own under t h e
^
s u p e r v i s i o n o f t h e m a st e r t o whom he had been a s s i g n e d .
The a p p r e n t i c e s h i p embodied t h e c on ce p t o f
and because o f t h i s

s im ila rity ,

of p ra c tic e teaching.

Also,

l e a r n i n g by d o i n g ,

i t m i g h t be c o n s i d e r e d a f o r e r u n n e r

in the

lAOO's

i t was common i n t h e e a r l y

^ G e o r ge R. Cressman and H a r o l d W. B en d a, P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n i n
A m e r i c a , (New Y o r k :
A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r a f t s , I n c . , 1956), p p . 2 1 - 2 2 .
^James A. J o h n s o n , Op. C i t . ,

p.

2.

^ J i m J o h n s o n and F l o y d P e r r y , R e a d i n g s i n S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g
(Dubuque:
Wm. C. Brown Book C o . , 1967) p . 1*

19
European t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g

s chools t o g i v e t h e s t u d e n t s p r a c t i c e

t e a c h i n g by ha vi n g them te ach d e m o n s t r a t i o n

in

l essons t o t h e i r f e l l o w

stu dents."’
Normal

Schools
Most a u t h o r i t i e s

established

in

a g r ee t h a t

the f i r s t

real

normal

school was

1685 by Jean B a p t i s t e de l a S a l l e a t Rheims, F r a n c e .

Cubberley gives

t h e f o l l o w i n g a cc o un t o f de l a S a l l e ' s work:

The f i r s t n or m al s c h o o l t o be e s t a b l i s h e d a n y w h e r e
was t h a t f o u n d e d a t R he ims, i n n o r t h e r n F r a n c e , i n
168 5, by Abbe de l a S a l l e .
He had f o u n d e d t h e
Order o f "The B r o th e r s o f th e C h r i s t i a n S c h o o ls "
the p receding y e a r, to p ro v id e f r e e r e l i g i o u s i n s t r u c ­
t i o n f o r c h i l d r e n o f the w o rk in g c la s s e s in France,
and he c o n c e i v e d t h e new i d e a o f c r e a t i n g a s p e c i a l
school t o t r a i n h is p r o s p e c t iv e tea ch e rs f o r the
te a c h in g work o f h is O rd er.
S h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d he
e s t a b l i s h e d two s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s in P a r i s .
Each
i n s t i t u t i o n he c a l l e d a " S e m i n a r y f o r S c h o o l m a s t e r s . "
In a d d i t i o n to im p a rtin g a general e d u c a tio n o f the
t y p e o f t h e t i m e , and a t h o r o u g h g r o u n d i n g i n r e l i g i o n ,
h i s s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s were t r a i n e d t o tea ch in p r a c t i c e
s c h o o ls , under the d i r e c t i o n o f e xp e rie n ce d t e a c h e r s . ^
If

student

preservice
ence

teaching

is e s s e n t i a l l y d e f i n e d as t h a t p a r t o f

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n whi ch p r o v i d e s p r a c t i c a l

te aching e x p e r i ­

under t h e c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n o f an e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r , then t h e r e

can be l i t t l e

doubt t h a t Jean B a p t i s t e

" F a th e r o f Student T e a c h in g ."

de l a S a l l e d e s er v es t he t i t l e ,

7

5

Dewey F r i s t o e , " E a r l y B e g i n ni n g s o f L a b o r a t o r y S c h o o l s , "
E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n . V o l . 28 (March 1 9 ^ 2 ) ,
*^E 1 1wood P. C u b b e r l e y , The H i s t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n .
Hought on, M i f f l i n Co . , 1 9 2 0 ) , p. I 8 5 .
7

James A. J ohnson, Op. C i t . ,

p.

12.

(New York:

p.

219.

20
P ru ssia ,
to e s ta b lis h
The l e a d e r s

e a rly

in

the n in e te e n th

a s ta te -c o n tro lle d

system f o r

adopted t h e p e d a g o g ic a l

( 17^ 6 - 1827) ,

who b as ed h i s

c e n t u r y , was t h e f i r s t

p rin c ip le s

in s tru c tio n a l

n a t u r e and o b s e r v i n g how p u p i l s
T e a c h i n g had been a f a i r l y

the t r a i n i n g

It

teachers.

o f J o ha nn P e s t a l o z z i

me tho ds upon k n o w i n g c h i l d

react to c e rta in

s i m p l e m a t t e r when i t

t o know t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r .

of

n a tio n

increased

le a rn in g

s itu a tio n s .

was o n l y n e c e s s a r y

tremendously

in

te ch n ica l

g
c o m p l e x i t y when t h e t e a c h e r a l s o had t o know t h e c h i l d .
P estalozzi

defin e d

e d u c a t i o n as t h e " n a t u r a l ,

harmonio us develo pment o f

a ll

b e in g ."

d e fin itio n ,

ment o f

In

the c h ild

in s tin c ts ,
re je c te d

lig h t of

and

in te re s ts ,

c a p a c itie s ,

knowledge o f

and a c t i v i t i e s

replace

p ra ctice s

adapt p o rtio n s
The f i r s t
school,

of

the

the

le arne r.

He

th e emphasis fro m t h e

re su lted

in

the educational

normal

school

e sta b lish e d

Observa­

r e p l a c e m e m o r i z a t i o n and c l a s s

re c itin g .

d eve lo p ­
to

e x p e r i e n c e s and i m m e d i a t e e n v i r o n m e n t .

i n v e s t i g a t i o n were t o

P esta lo zzia n

the n a tu ra l

of

and

t h e human

He recommended a t t e n t i o n

t h e t e a c h i n g o f mere w o r d s and s h i f t e d

t h i n k i n g was t o

p riv a te

t h e p o w er s and c a p a c i t i e s o f

became e s s e n t i a l .

book t o the c h i l d ' s
tio n

th is

p ro gressive

W idely p u b lic iz e d

d is c u s s io n ;

im p re ssio n s o f

recommendations t h a t A m e rica n s c h o o ls
p ra ctice s

o f Europe.

t o be e s t a b l i s h e d

by Samuel

H all

in

in

9

th is

c o u n t r y was a

1823 a t C o n c o r d , V e r m o n t .

g
C a r r o l l A t k i n s o n and Eugene T . M a l e s k a , The S t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n ,
(New Y o r k :
C h i l t o n B o o k s , 1965) p . 3 5 1 .
^Emma R e i n h a r d t , A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n ,
P u b l i s h e r s , I 9 6 0 ) p . 2 51 .

(New Y o r k :

Harper & B r o th e r s ,

21
T h is

s c h o o l was e s t a b l i s h e d o n e - h u n d r e d and f i f t y

de l a S a l l e had e s t a b l i s h e d

the f i r s t

W h i l e t h e r e had been p r e v i o u s
in the U n ite d S ta te s ,
of p ra ctice
adm itted

teaching

to H a ll's

H a ll's
in

th is

normal

normal

school

country.

in Europe.

to t r a in

sig n ale d

teachers

the b e g in n in g

A f e w town c h i l d r e n w e r e

from the ve ry b eg in n in g f o r

tea ch in g p u r p o s e s .^

Speaking o f a few d e d ic a t e d
J o h n s o n and P e r r y

school

sp orad ic attem pts

school

d e m o n s t r a t i o n and p r a c t i c e

normal

years a f t e r

educators

in the e a r l y

19th c e n t u r y ,

re la te ,

" . . . t h e s e men had v i s i t e d t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s
i n E u r o p e and r e t u r n e d f u l l o f e n t h u s i a s m f o r t h e
e s ta b lis h m e n t o f s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s in the U nited
States.
I t became c l e a r t o t h e s e e d u c a t i o n a l p i o n e e r s
t h a t t h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f e d u c a t i o n was d e p e n d e n t upon
t h e improvement o f t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n .
Almost a l l o f
t h e s e men a d v o c a t e d t h e use o f p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g i n t h e
normal school p r o g r a m . " ^
In

1839 M a s s a c h u s e t t s e s t a b l i s h e d

teachers f o r
persuaded
in J u l y ,

the Massachusetts
1839.

New Y o r k ,
Jersey,
1865.

t h e common s c h o o l s .

In

^ J im

the

le g is la tu re

M innesota,

lis t

s u p p o r t e d normal

num berin g

127.

J o h n s o n and F l o y d P e r r y ,

' ^ 1b i d . , p „

to s ta r t

C a lifo rn ia ,

3.

Maine,
school

f o r p reparing

by a p r i v a t e
a school

and M i c h i g a n had one e a c h ;

By 1900 t h e s t a t e

every s ta te ,

A $10,000 g i f t

school

I 8 5 O M a s s a c h u s e t t s had t h r e e n o r m a l

C o n n e cticu t,

Illin o is ,

the f i r s t

a t Lexington

schools;

Rhode I s l a n d ,

New

and Kansas f o l l o w e d by
had s p r e a d

i n t o most

The g r o w t h o f t h e n o r m a l

Op. Ci t . , p .

c itiz e n

3.

school

22
was a r e s u l t o f
system,

the e s ta b lis h m e n t o r the

b eg inning

The f i r s t
in

in the e a r l y p a r t o f the n in e te e n th

n or m al

school

and t h e f i r s t

th e Mid west developed a t Y p s i l a n t i ,

e s ta b lis h e d

in

1849 and opened i n

t o be e s t a b l i s h e d
operated

in

vised

te a c h e r s were r e q u i r e d

and w e r e
D uring

off-cam pus

term .

re q uired

the

t h e r e was an i n c r e a s e o f

school

the growth

was a f e e l i n g
teaching

tha t

s itu a tio n

the p u b l i c
fo r

te a c h in g program

A model

at Y p s ila n ti
in

in

te a ch in g.

tea ch in g.

re su lted

increase

T h is

in

in

school

Johnson,

1917 t o

teacher.

9.

5.

13

1927

schools
the

the f a c t

that

schools being
A ls o ,

there

c o u l d p r o v i d e a more t y p i c a l

Op. Ci t . , p .

Op. Ci t . , p .

super-

t h e use o f

due t o

teachers.

d a ily

t h e i r w ork.

14

C h a r l e s W. Hunt , Te ac he r E d u c a t i o n f o r a F r e e P e o p l e ,
New Yor k:
The American A s s o c i a t i o n o^ C o l l e g e s f o r T e a c h e r
Education, 1958).

14

T h es e

i n c r e a s e d use o f

t h e i r model

the p r a c tic e

the p r a c tic e

Johnson and P e r r y ,

was

t e a c h e r s were c l o s e l y
re p orts o f

school

to g ive

t h e number o f n o r m a l

12

13

Normal,

normal

school

One s u r v e y showed t h a t f r o m

in c a p a b le o f accommodating a l l

12

century.

The Y p s i l a n t ?

t e a c h i n g was p a r t i a l l y

schools

school

t o t a k e c h a r g e o f one r e c i t a t i o n

27 p e r c e n t

fo r p ra ctice

i n n or ma l

p ra ctice

t h e r e was a marked

using o n ly off-cam pus p r a c t i c e
p u b lic

school

school

The p r a c t i c e

tea ch in g.

the p u b lic

1850, was o n l y t h e s i x t h

t o make d e t a i l e d w e e k l y

1920's,

p ra ctice

M ichigan.

t h e n or ma l

i n t h e n or mal

t h r o u g h o u t an e n t i r e

p ra ctice

the e n t i r e U nited S ta te s .

in c o n ju n c tio n w ith

a d v a n ce d s t u d e n t s
p ra c tic e

re visio n o f

(Oneonta,

2k
In th e t r a n s i t i o n

to the teachers c o lle g e ,

these c r u c ia l

p r o b l e m s had

t o be f a c e d .
H a r p e r sums-up t h e t r a n s i t i o n o f

t h e normal

schools

to the

teachers c o lle g e :
The s t a t e t e a c h e r - e d u c a t i o n s c h o o l s s p r e a d t o a l m o s t e v e r y
s t a t e i n t h e U n i o n and e s t a b l i s h e d t h e m s e l v e s as an i n d i s ­
pensable p a r t o f th e p u b l i c school system.
T h e y made
t e a c h i n g a p r o f e s s i o n and e d u c a t i o n a s c i e n c e .
Th ey f a c e d
t h e p u b l i c s c h o o l s and s t r o v e t o r a i s e t h e g e n e r a l l e v e l
o f e d u c a t i o n f o r th e masses.
In t h e p a s t t h i r t y y e a rs
t h e y h av e been g e n e r a l l y known as t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s , n o t
b e c a u s e t h e y ch an g ed t h e i r f u n d a m e n t a l n a t u r e , b u t b e c a u s e
s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n and t h e r e s u l t i n g p r o m i n e n c e o f t h e d e g r e e
f o r h ig h school t e a c h e r s f o r c e d th e normal s c h o o ls t o s e c u re
the d e g re e -g ra n tin g p r i v i l e g e , conform ing in c e r t a i n p a r t i c ­
u l a r s t o t h e e s t a b l i s h e d c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y s t a n d a r d s . 17
In F ebruary o f
Education

1922,

a committee o f

reached th e f o l l o w i n g

the N a tio na l

Council

of

conclusions:

1.

In the o p in io n o f t h i s committee the te a c h e rs c o lle g e
movement i s a s ound o n e .
The n o r m a l s c h o o l s b egan as
secondary schools w it h a p r o fe s s io n a l purpose.
As p u b l i c
e d u c a t i o n p r o g r e s s e d , t h e y a d v a n ce d t o t h e r a n k o f j u n i o r
c o l l e g e s and w i t h t h e f u r t h e r p r o g r e s s o f p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n
i t is p e r f e c t l y n a t u r a l t h a t th e y should develop i n t o
p ro fe ssio n al c o lle g e s .
T h is developm ent is in com plete
h ar mo ny w i t h t h e g e n e r a l a d v a n c e m e n t o f o r g a n i z e d e d u c a t i o n .
M o r e o v e r , i t i s a n e c e s s i t y i f we a r e t o h ave a b o d y o f
t r a in e d teachers w it h a p r o fe s s io n a l a t t i t u d e toward t h e i r
work.
E s p e c i a l l y i s i t i m p o r t a n t t h a t we s h o u l d have
tea ch ers c o lle g e s in vie w o f the d i s p o s i t i o n o f te a c h e rs in
s e rv ic e to co n tin u e t h is e du ca tion .
T h o u s a n d s o f such
t e a c h e r s f i n d t h e w o r k o f f e r e d by t h e t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s
d u r i n g t h e summer s e s s i o n t h e i r g r e a t e s t s i n g l e o p p o r t u n i t y
f o r a c a d e m i c and p r o f e s s i o n a l a d v a n c e m e n t .

2.

The t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e movement i s s t i l l i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l
state .
I t w i l l t a k e a number o f y e a r s f o r t he m t o e s t a b l i s h
t h e i r c o u r s e s , i n c r e a s e t h e i r a t t e n d a n c e , and s t a n d a r d i z e
t h e i r w o r k on a c o l l e g e b a s i s .

^H arper,

Op. C i t . ,

p.

171.

25
3.

The movement s h o u l d r e c e i v e e n c o u r a g e m e n t f r o m a l l
o f p u b lic edu cation .

k.

The u n i v e r s i t i e s s h o u l d e v i n c e a c o o p e r a t i v e s p i r i t t o w a r d
t h e t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e movement .
In the g re a t work o f educa­
t i o n t h e r e i s room and g l o r y f o r a l l .
The u n i v e r s i t i e s w i l l
f i n d t h e i r resources taxed t o th e l i m i t t o ca re f o r th o se
who d e s i r e t o e n t e r t h e i r d o o r s .
The u n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e
t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s s h o u l d be c o l l e a g u e s and f i r m f r i e n d s i n
advancing the i n t e r e s t s o f e d u c a tio n w i t h i n t h e i r r e s p e c t iv e
states.

5.

The n or m al s c h o o l s w h i c h a d v a n c e t o t h e r a n k
c o l l e g e s s h o u l d t a k e t h e name o f c o l l e g e .

6.

The t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s s h o u l d a d d r e s s t h e m s e l v e s t o t h e t a s k
o f sta n d a rd iz a tio n .
I f t h e y a r e t o be c o l l e g e s i n name,
t h e y s h o u l d be c o l l e g e s i n f a c t .
T h i s means t h a t f o r e n t r a n c e
r e q u ir e m e n t s , s t u d e n t ' s lo a d , c o n t e n t o f c o u r s e s , academic
p r e p a r a t i o n o f f a c u l t y , f a c u l t y l o a d , number o f weeks t e a c h i n g
a y e a r, e t c e t e r a , the y should " s q u a r e " w i t h c o l l e g e s ta n d a r d s .
T e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s may n e v e r hope t o have t h e r e s p e c t and
r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e p u b l i c
in general u n t i l t h i s ta s k o f s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n is a c h ie v e d .

7.

And as an a i d t o t h i s s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n , t h e c o m m i t t e e s u g g e s t s
t h a t a more d e t a i l e d s t u d y be made o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s c o l l e g e s and o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e
c o u r s e o f s t u d y , such r e p o r t t o be made b y t h e p r e s e n t
c o m m i t t e e s o r by some o t h e r c o m m i t t e e a u t h o r i z e d f o r t h a t
p a rtic u la r p u rp o s e .^

W h i l e t h e movement f r o m n or m al
ta k in g p la ce,

new d e p a r t u r e s

being undertaken.

of

state

and s t a t e

u n iv e rs itie s

were

between c o l l e g e s

and u n i v e r s i t i e s

at

The
the tu rn

c e n t u r y can be seen by t h e f a c t t h a t e v e r y w h e r e t h e

u n iv e rs itie s

standards f o r

c o l l e g e s was

i n g r e a t e r numbers and a s s u m i n g new r o l e s .

of d is tin c tio n

the tw e n tie th

to teachers

teachers

in American h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n were a l s o

Land g r a n t c o l l e g e s

coming i n t o b e in g
b lu rrin g

schools

of

frie n d s

became t h e m a j o r t e a c h e r - t r a i n i n g

the p u b lic

schools.

agencies,

s e ttin g

19

^ A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e s , Y e a r b o o k 192 2,
( O n e o n t a , New Y o r k :
The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1922) p p . 2 9 - 3 0 .
^Jackson,

Op.

Ci t . , p.

22

26
D u rin g the

la s t q u a rte r century

t h e r e has been an i n c r e a s e d

a wa ren es s on t h e p a r t o f mo st members o f
t h e need f o r b e t t e r and more r e a l i s t i c
tia l

teachers.

Since th e o r i g i n a l

e d u c a t o r s have been s t r i v i n g
would o f f e r a p r o s p e c t i v e
and be a c t i v e l y engaged
th a t o f w orking w it h

th is

throughout

i n one o f

a system w hich

o p p o rtu n ity

t h e most e s s e n t i a l

poten­

teacher t r a i n i n g ,

the e s ta b lis h m e n t o f

lik e

the c o u n try ,

By v i r t u e

of

to observe

phases o f

te a ch in g —

many o t h e r

s ig n ific a n t

to those

C o lle g e,

o f h ig h e r

in

c ha ng es

tra in in g

in

fo r

the type o f
the

teacher

t h a t M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
the problem o f

tural

t e a c h e r s a r o s e as e a r l y

as 1 91 0.

u tin g

facto r

s trid e s

toward the e a r l y

in s titu tio n s

has a l w a y s been v e r y much a w a r e o f

the f a c t

as an A g r i c u l t u r a l

h is t o r y o f student

tra in in g

c h ild re n .

la b o r a to r y experiences o ff e r e d

started

in

schools f o r

teacher the f u l l e s t

p r o b l e m and has made s e v e r a l

p ro fe s s io n .

fa c ilitie s

normal

toward

Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y ,
le a rn in g

the te a ch in g p ro fe s s io n o f

tra in in g

Undoubtedly
forw ard

th is

is

as c a n be seen

te a c h in g a t M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .

a g ric u l­
a c o n trib ­
in

the

20

S tudent Teaching a t M ic h ig a n S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
There

is

U nited S ta te s ,

no m e n t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n
and a c c o r d i n g l y ,

a fu n c tio n o f

the s ta te s

evidence th a t

th e Congress f e l t

encouragement.

In

In the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f

e d u c a t i o n has come t o be c o n s i d e r e d

in d iv id u a lly .

There

a concern f o r

the O r d in a n c e o f

173 5,

is ,

however, e a r l y

g iv in g

e du cation

real

p r o v i s i o n was made t o

r e s e r v e one s q u a r e m i l e o f e v e r y t o w n s h i p f o r

20

the

the m aintenance o f

the

Paul N. Clem, " A S t u d y o f t h e M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y F u l l ­
tim e R e sid en t S tud e nt Teachin g Program" ( u n p u b lis h e d d i s s e r t a t i o n
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1958) p . 2 .

27
p u b lic

schools o f the to w n s h ip .

im p o rta nt p r i n c i p l e :

The O r d i n a n c e o f

"R e lig io n ,

m o ra lity ,

1787 l a i d

down t h e

and k n o w l e d g e b e i n g n e c e s ­

s a r y t o good g o v e r n m e n t and t h e h a p p i n e s s o f m a n k i n d ,

s c h o o l s and

t h e means o f e d u c a t i o n

T hese p i e c e s

of

le g is la tio n

fo r

sh all

gave r i s e

to the fe d e ra l

p o lic y of

rese rving

la nds

e d u ca tio n .^
The M o r r i l l

Land-Grant A c t,

p r o v i d e d money t h r o u g h
ment o f a t
of

be f o r e v e r e n c o u r a g e d . "

the s a le o f fe d e r a l

l e a s t one c o l l e g e

l e a r n i n g as a r e

re la te d

M ichigan A g r i c u l t u r a l
U n iv e rs ity ,

e s ta b lis h e d

s t a t e d p u r p o s e was t o
a g ric u ltu re .

that

N oll

lik e ly

tra in in g

of

21

its

fu n c tio n s .

t o t e a c h such b r a n c h e s

and t h e m e c h a n i c a r t s

A ct.

teachers

teachers.

land-grarit

The C o l l e g e ' s

i n t h e minds o f

as a f u n c t i o n

of

Nor i s

recognized

there

the

a ny c l e a r e v i d e n c e

teacher p re p a ra tio n

22

Cressman and H a r o l d W. Ben da, Op. Ci t . , p p .

N o ll,

Ci t . , p .

19.

stu­

C o l l e g e had no o r g a n i z e d p r o ­

George R.
Op.

...

t h e s c i e n c e and p r a c t i c e o f

no t h o u g h t

re p orts " . . . t h e

the p r e p a r a tio n o f

1862,

t o become M i c h i g a n S t a t e

under the M o r r i l l

the f a c u l t y o r a d m in is t r a t io n

one o f

...

in

the e s t a b l i s h ­

1855 and was t h e p r o t o t y p e f o r

T h e r e was v e r y

new i n s t i t u t i o n .

la te r

i m p r o v e and t e a c h

dents o r f a c u l t y o f the

gram f o r

to a g r ic u ltu r e

in

la nds f o r

in every s ta te

C o lle g e,

was f o u n d e d

in s titu tio n s

signed by P r e s id e n t L in c o ln

as

28
The f i r s t

r e co r d o f any p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g done by s t u d e n t s o f

t h e C o l l e g e was b y s e n i o r g i r l s

begun i n

190 3.

C o o k i n g was t a u g h t

by them i n n i g h t c l a s s e s b o t h on t h e campus and
of

th e v i c i ni t y .

for

the

in

tra in in g

government o f

of

teachers

in

the f i e l d s

and i n d u s t r i a l

vocational

s u b j e c t s was r e q u i r e d by t h i s

re q uired

e s t a b l i shed.

in

teaching

tha t

and a r t s

the v o c a t io n a l

t h e C o l l e g e had s t u d e n t s
the o v e r a ll

school

l aw.

Also,

student

home

in these

t h e S mi th-Hughe s

t e a c h i n g be

tra n s itio n ,

Op. C i t . ,

C h a rle s L.

fo r

fie ld s .

The e a r l y

E n ro ll­

1930's w it n e s s e d

fo r
the

s c h o o ls where

a day t e a c h i n g and p a r t i c i p a t i n g

teachers.

AO- 41 .
pp.

F urther,

t h e Board o f

t he D epa rt ment o f E d u c a t i o n ,

18.

J a c k s o n , Op. C i t . ,

growth, o f

those p r e p a r in g

to co op e ra ting p u b lic

the p re p a ra tio n o f

pp.

of

the C o lle g e .

soon o u t n u m b e r e d

spend h a l f

23N o l 1, Op. C i t . , p .

25

teaching

and c o m m u n i t y p r o g r a m s .

w o u l d be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r

N o ll,

a g ric u ltu re ,

P ractice

A g r i c u l t u r e d e c l a r e d t h a t one d e p a r t m e n t ,

2k

of

s co p e and s t r u c t u r e

c o n t i n u e d movement o f f - c a m p u s

in

Vocational

t h e p o s t W o r l d War I e r a a t M i c h i g a n

C o l l e g e was a p e r i o d o f

the sciences
in

the N a tio n a l

2k

searching f o r b re a d th ,
men ts

education.

t h a t a r e g u l a r program f o r

Jackson w r i t e s
A g ric u ltu ra l

schoo ls

1917 p r o v i d e d f u n d s , when m a t c h e d b y s t a t e mo ney,

economi cs,

Act

the p u b l i c

23

The passage by t h e f e d e r a l
Education A ct

in

2^-25.

25

29
In

1928,

student

t e a c h i n g was a p p r o x i m a t e l y a h a l f - t i m e

f o r w h i c h e i g h t c r e d i t s was e a r n e d .

G e n e ra lly ,

t o have t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r o b s e r v e f o r
would p r e p a r e a le s s o n p la n

fo r

reviewed w i t h

the s u p e rv is in g

m o d ific a tio n s

seemed n e c e s s a r y ,

o f the c la s s .

If

t h e p r a c t i c e was

a f e w weeks a f t e r w h i c h he

a d ay o r m o r e .

A fte r

th is

the stu d e n t

the s u p e r v is i n g

te a c h e r would take charge

t e a c h e r had s e v e r a l

each s t u d e n t

to teach

student teachers,

fo r

be q u i t e

lim ite d .

Where t h e r e w e r e t w o s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

a c la s s ,

the

oth e r.

had been

t e a c h e r and a p p r o v e d , w i t h w h a t e v e r

the time a v a i la b le

v is in g

load

i n a t e n weeks t e r m w o u l d
assigned to

i n s t r u c t i o n w o u l d be g i v e n a b o u t e q u a l l y b y t h e s u p e r ­

t e a c h e r on t h e one hand and t h e t w o s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s on t h e
The m a j o r p o r t i o n o f

a student

te a c h e r's

e xperience u s u a lly

ry^
would c o n s i s t o f o b s e r v a t i o n
Speakin g o f

the e a r l y

rather

student

than a c tu a l

tea ch in g.

t e a c h i n g pro gram a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e ,

N o l1 re la te s :
T y p i c a l l y , each g r o u p o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s - a g r i c u l t u r e ,
home e c o n o m i c s , s c i e n c e and a r t s - had a r e s i d e n t s u p e r ­
v i s o r o r c o o r d i n a t o r who was a r e g u l a r member o f t h e
C o lle g e f a c u l t y in the Department o f E d u c a tio n .
In the
v o c a t i o n a l f i e l d s th e s e were t h e " r e s i d e n t t e a c h e r
tra in e rs ."
I n t h e s c i e n c e and a r t s i t was t h e head o f
the department in the e a r l y y e a r s .
Good r e l a t i o n s h i p s
b e t w e e n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n and c o o p e r a t i n g
s c h o o l s depended t o a g r e a t e x t e n t on t h e s e s u p e r v i s o r s .
Th ey c o n s t i t u t e d a l i n k b e t w e e n t h e t w o a g e n c i e s t h a t
c o u l d make s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g a s u c c e s s o r a f a i l u r e . . .
. . . S t u d e n t t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t t h e y were b e i n g g iv e n
an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be a p a r t o f t h e s c h o o l and o f t e n even
o f t h e c o m m u n i t y t o w h i c h t h e y had been a s s i g n e d .
S u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s f e l t t h a t t h e y had more t i m e t o
spend w i t h t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s , t o g e t t o know them

^ N o ll,

Op. Ci t . , p .

77.

31
T h i s a r r a n g e m e n t made p o s s i b l e p a r t i c i p a t i o n
teacher

in p r a c t i c a l l y

the t y p ic a l
v is its ,

a ll

a c tiv itie s

teacher of vo c a tio n a l

p re p a ra tio n o f

by e v e r y s t u d e n t

and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s

a g ric u ltu re ,

in s tru ctio n a l

m a te ria ls ,

of

i n c l u d i n g home
and p a r t - t i m e

and e v e n i n g c lia s s e s . 30
Student teachers
fin a n c ia lly

i n home e c o n o m i c s and a g r i c u l t u r e w e r e

s u p p o r t e d by s t a t e and f e d e r a l

were n o t a v a i l a b l e

to

in itia te

p r o g r a m i n s c i e n c e and a r t s .
o ffe re d

t o s ponsor a small

student teachers

small

fo r

E a rly

in

experim ental

i n s c i e n c e and a r t s

have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y
school

a fu ll-tim e

a term.

fo r

fu ll-tim e

funds.

However,

re sid en t

funds

student

teaching

19^-1 t h e K e l l o g g F o u n d a t i o n
program in w hich a few

(who w i s h e d t o do so)

experience

would

in a community h ig h

The F o u n d a t i o n a g r e e d t o pay each v o l u n t e e r a

honorarium .

Most o f
in vo lved

these v o lu n t e e r s

a d d itio n a l

costs

the term .

The F o u n d a t i o n a l s o p a i d

used i t

i n m o v i n g and l i v i n g

o ff

the s a la r y o f

to defray

t h e campus f o r
a replacem ent f o r

a s t a f f member whose t i m e was r e l e a s e d f r o m campus t e a c h i n g
co ordin ate
from

and s u p e r v i s e

19^1-19^5,

68 s t u d e n t s

fo r

Foundation pro vide d

s ix

t o t w e lv e weeks.

some f u n d s f o r

31

3 ° N o l 1, Op.
31N o l l ,

fu ll-tim e

C it.,

Op . C i t . ,

p.

9 6.

pp. 97-98.

to

D uring the p e rio d

t h e K e l l o g g F o u n d a t i o n gave f i n a n c i a l

from the C o lle g e f o r

s c i e n c e and a r t s

ca mp us .

the o ff-cam pus program.

the

support

student teaching
In a d d i t i o n ,

to

in

the

su p e rviso ry a c t i v i t i e s

from the

32
A c c o r d i n g t o Clem,

t h e pro gram o f f u l l - t i m e

te a c h in g a t Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
Plan

in the f a l l

of

19*+6.

had i t s

The M a r s h a l l

of
but

the M a rs h a ll
re a lis tic

adu lts

P lan were n o t

liv in g

student

in the M arshall

Creek, M ic h ig a n ,

and M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

in a t o t a l

fu ll-tim e

b irth

The g e n e r a l

te a ch in g,

By t h e f a l l

c h ild re n
of

so s u c c e s s f u l

majors

take

th e ir

re sid en t ce n te r.
Clem l i s t s

tha t

it

was r e q u i r e d

p ro fe ssio n al

tha t

purposes

a ll

and

1956 t h e

r e s i d e n t s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m had bee n t r i e d

cla re d

the

n o t community s t u d y ,

i n a c o m m u n i t y and w o r k i n g w i t h

community s i t u a t i o n .

student

P l a n was a c o o p e r a t i v e

ve n tu re o f the K e llo g g Foundation o f B a t t l e
t own o f M a r s h a l l

re s id e n t

and d e ­

teacher education

la b o r a to r y e xperience

in a f u l l - t i m e

32
the f o l l o w i n g

basic p r in c ip le s

upon w h i c h

the

M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y F u l l - T i m e R e s i d e n t P r o g r a m was f o u n d e d :
1.

R e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r m u s t be w e l l
p r e p a r e d i n t h e s u b j e c t s he i s t e a c h i n g .

2.

E mp ha si ze t h e s t u d y o f
t o t a l envi ronment.

3.

Give p r e s t i g e

k.

S t r e s s i n d i v i d u a l needs o f t h e s t u d e n t
r a t h e r t h a n r i g i d mass r e q u i r e m e n t s .

5.

P r o v i d e s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e s t u d e n t can f i n d
h i s own c o m p e t e n c i e s and i n a d e q u a c i e s .

6.

P r o v i d e an a t m o s p h e r e f o r s e l f - c r i t i c i s m
p a r t o f the s tu d e n t te a c h e r.

^ C le m ,

Op.

C i t .,

to

pp.

the whole c h i l d

the methodology o f

1A--16.

in h is

te a ch in g .
teacher

on t h e

33
7.

P rovide the p r i v i l e g e o f e x p e rim e n tin g w it h
t e c h n i q u e s and m a t e r i a l s t h a t t h e s u p e r v i s i n g
t e a c h e r may n o t h av e t r i e d .

8.

P r o v i d e e x c e l l e n t s u p e r v i s i o n and g u i d a n c e
f o r student teachers.
T h is is accomplished
through the e f f o r t s o f the f o l l o w i n g people:
the r e s i d e n t s t u d e n t t e a c h in g c o o r d i n a t o r ,
the s u p e r v is in g te a c h e r , the school p r i n c i p a l ,
the d i r e c t o r o f e le m e n ta ry o r secondary educa­
t i o n in the c o o p e ra tin g school system, the
d ir e c to r o f a u d io -v is u a l a id s , sp e cial co n su l­
t a n t s i n t h e s y s t e m , t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , and
s u b je c t-m a tte r s p e c i a l i s t s from the c o lle g e .

9.

A s s i g n o n l y one s t u d e n t t e a c h e r a t a t i m e t o
a su p e rvisin g teacher.

10.

P ro vid e a wide v a r i e t y o f e x p e rie n c e s f o r
student teachers.

11.

P r o v i d e o r i e n t a t i o n and v i s i t a t i o n t o s c h o o l s
p r i o r to the a ctu a l stu d e n t te a ch in g e x p e rie n ce .

12.

E mp ha si ze c o m m u n i t y s t u d y and t h e i m p o r t a n c e
o f s c h o o l - c o m m u n i t y r e s o u r c e s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

13.

P rovide d ir e c te d o p p o r t u n i t i e s
plann in g in te a c h in g .

1^.

Make e x t e n d e d p r o v i s i o n s f o r s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s
t o u n d e r s t a n d and t o be o f s e r v i c e i n m e e t i n g
t h e needs o f c h i l d r e n .

15.

P r o v i d e s u p e r v i s i o n and h e l p t o s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s
i n m e e t i n g p r o b l e m s o f c l a s s management and
p u p i 1 behav i o r .

16.

P r o v i d e f a v o r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s
t o meet p a r e n t s and w o r k wi t h t he m.

17.

R e c o g n i z e no s i n g l e

18.

Give s u p e r v is e d p r a c t i c e
o f p u p i 1s . 33

33

Clem, Op. C i t . ,

pp.

best

21-23.

fo r

long-term

technique o f
in e v a lu a tin g

te a c h in g .
the work

3b
Kennedy,

in

the

Teachi n q , a s s e r ts
program im p li e s

in tro d u c tio n

t o Toward E x c e l l e n c e

t h a t by d e f i n i t i o n ,

the f u l l - t i m e

in Student

stud e nt teaching

these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :

The s t u d e n t l i v e s i n t h e c o m m u n i t y f o r a f u l l c o l l e g e
t e r m and i s a s s i g n e d t o t e a c h w i t h one o r more c l a s s r o o m
teachers.
H i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e v i e w e d b r o a d l y and
may i n c l u d e i n v o l v e m e n t i n some c o m m u n i t y - c i v i c u n d e r ­
t a k i n g as w e l l as a f t e r s c h o o l o r o u t - o f - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s
w i t h b oys and g i r l s .
He l e a r n s t o l o c a t e and t o us e
c o m m u n i t y and s c h o o l r e s o u r c e s i n h i s t e a c h i n g .
He
s t u d i e s t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e d u c a t i o n t o community v a l u e s .
He f i n d s o u t , b y l i v i n g t h e l i f e o f a t e a c h e r , j u s t w h a t
the jo b o f a te a ch er i s .
The p r o g r a m a l s o i m p l i e s c a r e ­
f u l s u p e r v i s i o n and d i r e c t i o n i n t h a t t h e u n i v e r s i t y
s t a f f member who c o o r d i n a t e s and s u p e r v i s e s t h e s t u d e n t
t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e l i v e s in th e community t o o .
Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y i n i t i a t e d f u l l - t i m e s tu d e n t
t e a c h i n g i n 1955, and s i n c e t h a t t i m e a b o u t 3 0 , 0 0 0
s t u d e n t s have c o m p l e t e d t h i s e x p e r i e n c e .
C u rre n tly,
the U n i v e r s i t y p la c e s s tu d e n ts in f o u r t e e n o ff-c a m p u s
c e n t e r s i n v o l v i n g a b o u t 130 c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s
and e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s .
S i n c e 1955, h u n d r e d s o f
c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s h av e s h a r e d t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l e x p e r ­
t i s e by h e l p i n g t o g u i d e s t u d e n t s t h r o u g h t h i s i m p o r t a n t
e x p e r i e n c e . 3b
E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r P r e p a r a t i o n P r o gr a m s a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
The p r o g r a m f o r t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f
was a new v e n t u r e f o r M i c h i g a n S t a t e .
sion o f s t a f f

and c o u r s e o f f e r i n g s ,

e d u c a t i o n were a c cep ted
unusual

t o be t o l d

in the F a ll

by a g i r l

teachers f o r elem entary schools
A f t e r much p l a n n i n g and e x p a n ­

the f i r s t

e n r o l le es

of

N o ll

19^2.

3b-

the f i r s t

t i m e she c o u l d do b o t h .

Hugo D a v i d ,

^ N o l 1 , Op.

Op. C i t . ,

C it.,

pp.

reports

it

was n o t

t h a t she had a l w a y s w a n t e d t o come t o

M i c h i g a n S t a t e and a l s o become an e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l
now f o r

in e le m en ta ry

p.

xi

105-106.

35

t e a c h e r and t h a t

35
Since the e a r l y
for

tra in in g

n in e t e e n hundreds

t e a c h e r s o f home e c o n o m i c s and a g r i c u l t u r e

the tw e n tie s ,

fo r

o f vo catio n a l

subjects

teachers o f a rts

m i g h t have p u p i l s
e ls ,

t h e r e had bee n p r o v i s i o n s

and s c i e n c e s .

( and m u s i c ,

and c l a s s e s

a rt,

as t h e f u n c t i o n

and p h y s i c a l

of

t h e n or ma l

t u r e from the general

school.

e ducation)
le v ­

p ra ctice of

in c lu d in g

teacher education

the p u b lic

is

a jo in t
In

school

schools.

36
acceptance o f

students,

In f a c t ,

it

r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f both

in

fa c u lty
is

e vid e n t

the p u b lic

th a t,

"One

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n has been

i n v o l v e m e n t o f e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y t e a c h e r s ,
a d m in istra to rs,

p l a n n i n g and c o n d u c t i n g

^ N o l 1 , Op.
T7

the g eneral

1965 S h a r p e r e p o r t e d

t h e most p r o m i s i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s

p u b lic

in tro d u c tio n o f

la n d -g ra n t c o lle g e s .

p r o g r a m by U n i v e r s i t y

s c h o o l s and t h e u n i v e r s i t y .

in c re a s in g

the

T h i s was r e g a r d e d

t e a c h e r s f o r e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l s was a d e p a r -

the elem entary p r e p a ra tio n
or the p u b lic ,

le v e l.

A lso ,

T h e r e has n e v e r been a ny d o u b t as t o

the

teachers

a t b o t h e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y

a t the elem entary

a program f o r p r e p a r i n g

of

A lthough

since

no a t t e m p t had been made by t h e C o l l e g e t o o f f e r p r e p a r a t i o n

f o r classroom teachers

tha t

and,

and e ven

la y boards o f

e ducation

the s tu d e n t te a c h in g p ro g ra m ."

Ci t o , p .

106.

P a t r i c k D. D a u n t , Op.

C it.,

p.

32.

37

in

36

McGeoch and Olson m a i n t a i n , " I t
the t i t l e

'teach er educator'

fa c u lty e xclusively.
p articip ate

of

student

is t h e

rig h tfu l

teaching

33

as f u l l - t i m e

re sid e n ts

The o n l y e x c e p t i o n s w e r e m a r r i e d s t u d e n t s o r
o f f - c a m p u s wo u ld have c r e a t e d h a r d s h i p s .

and c o n t i n u e t o b e ,

and f r o m w h i c h t h e y can commute.
Conventional

who

in e lem entary e d u c a tio n d id

in approved c e n t e r s

f o r whom l i v i n g

Such cases w e r e ,

possession o f a l l

preparation of teachers."

s tu d e n t teachers

th e co mmunity.

o thers

no l o n g e r b e l o ng s t o t h e c o l l e g e

in the p r o fe s s io n a l

From 1956 a l l
th e ir

It

i s now p a t e n t l y c l e a r t h a t

assigned to loc al

s ch oo l s

to

39

Program - The c o n v e n t i o n a l

program f o r

o f teachers a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

the p re p a ra tio n

is e s s e n t i a l l y

the b a s ic

program which e v o l v e d t o meet t he tremendous demand f o r q u a l i f i e d
teachers.

E ss e n tia lly ,

students are placed

i n d i v i d u a l l y or w ith

one s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r and spend a s u b s t a n t i a l
w ith

that p a rtic u la r

teacher.

The u n i v e r s i t y

part of

the q u a r t e r

s u p e r v i s o r meets w i t h

t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s about o n e - h a l f day p e r week and makes f r e q u e n t
v is its

t o t h e c l as sr oo m t o h e l p p l a n ,

provide

instru ctio n ,

and

e v a l u a t e t h e work o f t he s t u d e n t t e a c h e r .

^ D o r o t h y M. McGeoch and Hans O l s o n , " T h e C h a r g e t o A c t i o n " ,
Teacher E ducation:
F u t u r e D i r e c t i o n s , ( W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . : N a t i o n a l
Education A s s o c ia tio n ,

1970)

p.

1^3.

Ci t . ,

p.

1•

OQ
Hugo D a v i d ,

AO., . ,
I b i d . , p.

,

1.

Op.

37
C l u s t e r Program fie ld
in

I n an e f f o r t

e xperiences f o r

the

la te

ing t h i s

1 9 6 0 1s .

student

t o d e v e lo p Improved programs o f
teachers,

t h e C l u s t e r P r o gr a m e v o l v e d

Four main p r i n c i p l e s were c o n s i d e r e d

in design ­

s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g program:

1.

The p r o g r a m f o r s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s s h o u l d p r o v i d e
g r e a t f l e x i b i l i t y so t h a t s t r e n g t h s and w e a k ­
nesses o f i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t s w i l l d e t e r m i n e th e
s p e c i f i c p r o g r a m each w i l l f o l l o w . ,

2.

The s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s h o u l d be i n v o l v e d i n a p r o g r a m
w hich is designed to p r o v id e c o n t a c t w i t h se veral
t e a c h e r s and v a r i o u s t e a c h i n g s t y l e s .

3.

The p r o g r a m s h o u l d be s t r u c t u r e d t o p r o v i d e many
o th e r kin d s o f school e xpe rie n c es f o r the s tu d e n t
te a ch er in a d d it io n to classroom te a c h in g .

k.

E f f e c t i v e means s h o u l d be d e v e l o p e d t o b r i n g
p r a c t i c i n g t e a c h e r s and t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n i n s t i ­
t u t i o n s i n t o t r u e p a r t n e r s h i p i n t h e d e s i g n and
im p le m e n ta tio n o f tea c h er e d u c a tio n programs. 1

Under t h i s
teaching

A h ig h ly

f r o m each o f

th e host school
co n su lta n t
e ach s c h o o l

in

b u ild in g s

c o m p e t e n t member o f

d is tric t

day in

re g u la r

in c lu s te r s

the
is

and t h e u n i v e r s i t y

that b u ild in g .

pro gram o f

b u ild in g .

spend a t e r m f u l l - t i m e

these c l u s t e r b u i l d i n g s

devotes e x c l u s i v e l y
a liz e d

students

and a r e a s s i g n e d t o s c h o o l

tw e lv e each.
sta ff

concept,

of

ten to

re g u la r teaching
se le cte d j o i n t l y

by

t o s e r v e as c l i n i c a l

T h i s c o n s u l t a n t sp en ds o n e - h a l f o f

teaching d u tie s

to p la n n in g

and t h e o t h e r h a l f

and i n s t r u c t i n g

academic

in te re s ts ,

he

in a h ig h ly person­

s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g f o r e ac h s t u d e n t

The m a t u r i t y ,

in s tu d e n t

teacher

and n a t u r a l

in

tha t

a p titu d e

L e i and Dean and W. H e n r y K en n ed y i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Deans
and D i r e c t o r s o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n o f M i c h i g a n i n M i c h i g a n C o l l e g e s .
" A P o s i t i o n P ap e r on S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s , " i n Howard E. B o s l e y ,
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n i n T r a n s i t i o n . An E x p e r i m e n t i n C h a n g e , V o l . 1
( B a l t i m o r e , M a r y l a n d : M u l t i - S t a t e T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o j e c t , May 1 9 6 9 ) ,
pp.

165_ 1 66 o

38
f o r t e a c h i n g can a l l

be t a k e n i n t o a ccount

i n d i v i d u a l i z e d program f o r each s t u d e n t
s tu d e n t-t e a c h in g term.

in d e v e l o p i n g an

t e a c h e r each week o f t h e

I n s t e a d o f becoming l ocked

room under one s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r ,

i n t o one c l a s s ­

t h e s t u d e n t moves f r e e l y , w o r k i n g

i n d i f f e r e n t cl assrooms under a v a r i e t y o f t e a c h i n g s t y l e s
able

l e a r n i n g fr om s e v e r a l

t h a t en­

t e a c h e r s as t h e s t u d e n t seeks t o d e v e l o p

te aching techniques.
A uni que f e a t u r e c l a i m e d f o r t h e c l u s t e r concept
t e a c h e r s may not spend a l l
some t i m e
school
w ith

is

th a t student

o f each day i n t h e c l as sr oo m b u t can spend

l e a r n i n g about a c t i v i t i e s

t h a t go on in t h e

and i n t h e o u t s i d e community.

By p l a c i n g

r e s t o f the

the s tu d n t te a che r

t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a f f member f o r c la s sr oo m e x p e r i e n c e ,

the c l u s ­

t e r program a l s o p r o v i d e s a c a r e f u l l y pl anned sequence o f a c t i v i t i e s
t h a t enable the student to gain experience a t d i f f e r e n t
in stru ctio n .
be l i m i t e d

S t u d e n t t e a c h e r s who de ve l op more s l o w l y may need t o

t o w o r ki n g p r i m a r i l y w i t h one s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r f o r

more e x t e nd e d p e r i o d s

in t h e same c l a s s r o o m s .

master e a r l y teaching s i t u a t i o n s

One a dva nt age c l a i m e d f o r
coordinator's

O t h e r s who r e a d i l y

may move a t a r a t e t h a t more

n e a r l y matches t h e i r needs and s p e c i a l

a b ilitie s .

t h e c l u s t e r program is t h a t t h e c o l l e g e

t i m e can be more e f f e c t i v e l y

and more e f f i c i e n t l y

I n s t e a d o f spending many hours t r a v e l i n g f rom school
c o o r d i n a t o r may now c e n t e r h i s e f f o r t s
whi ch s e v e r a l
special

levels of

on s p e c i f i c b u i l d i n g s

student teachers are assigned.

h e l p and i n - s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s

to school,

us ed.
the

to

He can a l s o p r o v i d e

f o r the b u i l d i n g c o n s u lta n ts

40
o rig in a lly

named t h e S t u d e n t T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m (STEP)

and was s u p p o r t e d b y a g r a n t o f
fro m t h e Ford F o u n d a t io n .
jo in t

e f f o r t by s e v e r a l

State U n iv e r s ity
program f o r

44

$585,000 o v e r a f i v e - y e a r

The p r o g r a m was c o n c e i v e d

M ic h ig a n community c o l l e g e s

graduates.

I t was l e a r n e d

lege g raduates c o uld gain s t a t e c e r t i f i c a t i o n
if

and M i c h i g a n

t h a t community c o l ­
to

two c o n d i t i o n s were f u l f i l l e d .

s h i p had t o be c o m b i ne d w i t h
in

in a

t o d e v e l o p an e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n

th e ir

an i n t e r n s h i p

span

re sid en t ce nte rs.

t e a c h and c o m p l e t e
F irs t,

the

p e d a g o g y t a u g h t by U n i v e r s i t y

S ec o n d ,

students

to a tte n d M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y

in

fo r

in te rn ­
fa c u lty

t h e p r o g r a m w o u l d have

three

t e n - w e e k summer

se s s i o n s .
The o r i g i n a l
but

in

to one.

1964,

the

program too k f i v e
in te rn sh ip

years

a s tu d e n t to com plete;

r e q u i r e m e n t was r e d u c e d f r o m t w o y e a r s

T h i s was t h e y e a r t h e E l e m e n t a r y

re g u la r p a rt o f

fo r

the C o lle g e o f E d u c a t io n 's

Inte rn

P r o g r a m became a

elem entary edu ca tion

c u rric u lu m .
The e s s e n t i a l

c h a ra c te ris tic s

of

the E lem entary

Inte rn

Program

a r e as f o l l o w s :
F irs t

Two Y e a r s :

The s t u d e n t

completes

the f i r s t

t wo y e a r s

a t any a c c r e d i t e d c o m m u n i t y c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y .

44
45

N o ll,

Op. C i t . ,

p.

175.

E l e m e n t a r y I n t e r n P r o g r a m / A n o t h e r Way o f L e a r n i n g t o T e a c h ,
( E a s t Lans ing”
Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y ) F in a l Report to the
For d F o u n d a t i o n .

Summer Ses si on F o l l o w i n g Sophomore Y e ar :

The s t u d e n t a t t e n d s

a t e n - w e e k summer s e s s i o n a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y wor k c o n s i s t s m a i n l y o f s t u dy i n t h e l i b e r a l
T h i r d C a l e n d a r Y ea r:
campus i n one o f t he
school

t e a c h i n g methods, which a r e

teaching.

arts.

D u r i n g two q u a r t e r s ,

internship centers.

The c o u r s e

the student

is o f f -

He s t u d i e s e l e m e n t a r y

i n t e g r a t e d w i t h the student

The cour se work is t a u g h t by M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

f a c u l t y a ss i gn e d t o t h e c e n t e r .
and a M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
student teaching.

One q u a r t e r

campus s t u d y i n g t h e l i b e r a l
Second Summer S e s si o n :

An o u t s t a n d i n g c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r
r e s i d e n t s t a f f member s u p e r v i s e t h e
i s s p en t on t h e M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

arts.
The s t u d e n t a t t e n d s a f i v e - w e e k summer

s e s s i o n on t he M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y campus f o r a d d i t i o n a l
i n the

1iberal

wor k

arts.

F o u r t h C a l e n d a r Year:
r e sp o n s ib le f o r a classroom.

The s t u d e n t

is now an i n t e r n

teacher,

He i s s u p e r v i s e d by an i n t e r n c o n s u l ­

tant,

t h e r e s i d e n t U n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y member, and t h e school

pal.

The i n t e r n

teacher is paid a stip en d f o r

the y e a r .

p rin c i­

Course

work c o n s i s t s o f one e v e n i n g c l a s s a week s t u d y i n g t h e f o u n d a t i o n s
of education.

At t he end o f t h e y e a r ,

the student q u a l i f i e s

b o t h t h e b a c h e l o r ' s d e g r ee and t he t e a c h i n g c e r t i f i c a t e .

Ibid.

for

kz
When a new i n t e r n
classroom ,

he has c o m p l e t e d

t w o - t h i rds o f
m ost o f

t e a c h e r assumes t h e

the

the usual

re s p o n s ib ility

fo r

t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f more t h a n t h r e e and

f o u r - y e a r degree program.

re q uired p ro fe s s io n a l

courses,

He has t a k e n

in c lu d in g

He a l r e a d y has had s i x mo n th s o f e x p e r i e n c e

student

q ue stio nn a ire
but p r io r

in

the Elem entary

in t h i s

to t h e i r

study d id

Inte rn

so d u r i n g

1*7

th e ir

student

tea ch in g

in te rn s h ip .
e s t a b l i s h e d by Congress

1965, was i m p l e m e n t e d a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y b y t h e C o l l e g e s

o f E d u c a t i o n and U r b a n D e v e l o p m e n t
cooperation w ith
This

dren from

low-income f a m i l i e s

program i s

improve th e q u a l i t y

c e rtifie d

e n te rin g

t h e end o f

is

a two-year

U n iv e rs ity .

E ffo rts

T h i s was done i n
and t h e Model

p a rt o f a n a tio n w id e e f f o r t
b e t t e r e du ca tion a l

g ive c h i l ­

o p p o rtu n itie s

and

te a c h e r-in te rn s „

an u n d e r g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m w i t h
in

tra in in g

th e ir ju n io r
cyc le ,

and a b a c h e l o r ' s
a r e made t o

"Teacher C orps",
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.

to

C itie s

t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n programs f o r b o t h

the program

teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n

AS

of

1971.

D is tric t

t e a c h e r s and i n e x p e r i e n c e d

T e a c h e r Co r ps
in te rn

in

the L a n s in g School

Program.

to

teachers.

Program re s p o n d in g t o t h e

T e a c h e r Co rp s P r o gr a m - The T e a c h e r C o r p s ,
in

te a ch in g.

i n an e l e m e n t a r y c l a s s -

room u n d e r t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f one o r more h i g h l y q u a l i f i e d
Those s t u d e n t s

a

the

year o f c o lle g e .

in te rn

is

At

graduated w it h

degree from M ic h ig a n S ta te

re c ru it

brochure o f

the s tu d e n t-

in te rn s

the U.S.

re p re se n ta tiv e of

O ffic e

of

E ducation,

43
the major e t h n i c groups found

i n M ic h ig a n - American

M exican-Am ericans, A fro -A m e ric a n s ,

and C a u c a s i a n s .

Ind ia n ,

49

The T e a c h e r Co r p s p r o g r a m i n c l u d e s c o m p on e n t s d e s i g n e d t o
a c c o m p l i s h u n d e r s t a n d i n g and a c c e p t a n c e o f t h o s e f r o m d i v e r s e
c u ltu ra l

backgrounds.

tra in in g ,

so cia l

T hes e c o m p o n e n t s a r e b i - 1 i n g u a l / b i - c u l t u r a l

and e m o t i o n a l

education,

and u r b a n - e t h n i c s t u d i e s .

M cIntyre p o in ts out:
The b i - 1 i n g u a l / b i - c u 1t u r a l c o m p on e n t i s e s p e c i a l l y
n o t e w o r t h y when one c o n s i d e r s t h a t L a n s i n g has a
m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t o f 22 p e r c e n t , and more
than 2 ,5 0 0, o r about e i g h t p e r c e n t , are S panish­
speaking s t u d e n t s .
On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a p p r o x i m a t e l y
one p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h i n g s t a f f i n t h e L a n s i n g
S c ho o l D i s t r i c t h av e S p a n i s h s u r n a m e s .
T h e s e t wo
f a c t o r s p o i n t up t h e e x i g e n c y f a c e d by t h e L a n s i n g
School D i s t r i c t t o h i r e t e a c h e r s w i t h b i - l i n g u a l /
b i-c u ltu ra l tra in in g .
In v o lv e m e n t w i t h Teacher
Co r p s i s one e f f o r t on t h e p a r t o f t h e L a n s i n g
S c h o o l D i s t r i c t t o a m e l i o r a t e t h i s c o n d i t i o n . 50
C o n tin u in g ,
interns

M cIntyre

to accom plish

lis ts

the o b je c t iv e s

t o be met b y t h e

the b i - 1 i n g u a l / b i - c u l t u r a l

c o m p on e nt o f

program:
1.

The i n t e r n w i l l have a w o r k i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f
a b i- li n g u a l education p h iloso p hy.

2.

The i n t e r n w i l l d e v e l o p o r a l l a n g u a g e s k i l l s i n
S p a n i s h a t a minimum r a t i n g o f FSI I ( F o r e i g n
S ervice I n s t i t u t e S c a le ).

3.

The i n t e r n w i l l have an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
h i s t o r i c a l background o f the S p a n is h -s p e a k in g
people in the U n ite d S t a t e s .

La

L o n n i e D„ M c I n t y r e , The U n i q u e V a r i a b l e s o f t h e L a n s i n g
T e a c h e r C o r p s , m i m e o g r a p h , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , March 4,

1974, p. 7c
~*^l b i d . ,

p.

9.

the

kk
kc

The i n t e r n w i l l be a b l e t o t r a n s l a t e k n o w l e d g e
o f the S pa n ish -sp e a kin g c u l t u r e i n t o m eaningful
classroom e xpe rie n ces f o r c h i l d r e n .

5.

The i n t e r n s w i l l be a b l e t o t e a c h E n g l i s h as a
second l a n g u a g e t o b o t h c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s .

6.

The ( b i - l i n g u a l ) i n t e r n s w i l l
S p a n i s h as a se con d l a n g u a g e .

be a b l e t o

teach

7.

The i n t e r n s w i l l be f a m i l i a r w i t h m a t e r i a l s and
resources a v a ila b le in b i - l i n g u a l e d u c a tio n .

8.

The i n t e r n w i l l be a b l e t o d e s i g n and d e v e l o p
b i - l i n g u a l c u r r i c u l u m t o meet t h e i n d i v i d u a l
needs o f t h e s t u d e n t s .

9.

The i n t e r n w i l l d e v e l o p d i a g n o s t i c s k i l l s f o r
d e t e r m i n i n g language dominance ( E n g l i s h - S p a n i s h )
o f S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g c h i l d r e n and w i l l be a b l e t o
d i a g n o s e and d e v e l o p a s t r a t e g y f o r w o r k i n g w i t h
language i n t e r f e r e n c e p ro b le m s .

10.

The i n t e r n w i l l be a b l e t o c o m b i n e t h e s k i l l s
o b t a i n e d i n t h e b i - l i n g u a l c omp on e nt w i t h t h e
general pedagogical s k i l l s o b ta in e d in the o t h e r
t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g c o mp on e nt s t o c r e a t e a h a r m o n i o u s
l e a r n i n g a t m o s p h e r e f o r a l l c h i l d r e n . 51

The p l a n f o r
co mp on ent

is

achieving

spread o v e r

emphasizes o b t a i n i n g

teaching at

t wo y e a r

in

in te rn s

from m u l t i e t h n i c

"^M cIntyre,

in

the b i - l i n g u a l

The f i r s t

year

t h e needs o f

the

t h e s c h o o l s and t h e s e con d y e a r
as i t

a p p lie s

to b i- li n g u a l

and team l e a d e r s

the e le m e n ta ry school

in vo lved

of

in te rn s h ip .

a w orking u nderstanding o f

com bination o f f i e l d / t h e o r y
T e a c h e r Corps

the s ta te d o b j e c t i v e s

the

S panish-speaking c h ild r e n

schools

a

level

are

a

e du ca tion .

in vo lved

i ri L a n s i n g ,

is

in

team

M ichigan.

The

t h e p r o g r a m s e r v e c h i l d r e n who a r e p r e d o m i n a t e l y

and m u l t i r a c i a l

ib id .,

pp.

9-10.

backgrounds.

In itia lly ,

the

in te rn s

b5
are

in vo lved

w ith

in a p e rio d o f p r e s e r v ic e

the Lansing s c h o o ls ,

tra in in g

the com m unity,

through Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity ,,

and t h e

The i n t e r n s

p hases o f c o m p e t e n c y b ased e d u c a t i o n w h i c h
s k ills

i n t h e a r e a s o f human r e l a t i o n s ,

ment and p l a n n i n g as w e l l

t o become a c q u a i n t e d
resources a v a ila b le
are

in clu de s

reading,

as t h e h i s t o r i c a l

tra in e d

in a l l

development o f

c l a s s r o o m manage­

and c u l t u r a l

values o f

d i f f e r e n t e th n ic groups.
The p r o g r a m pays f o r
tu itio n

is provided

travel

and t h e

to

in te rn

th e program s i t e
receives

fo r

the

a stip e n d o f

$120.00 per

week and $ 1 5 . 0 0 p e r d e p e n d e n t .

The p a r t i c i p a n t s

program are

d uring

t h e ir f i r s t year f o r

D uring

th is

i n an u r b a n

school

m a t e l y o n e - h a l f day e v e r y d a y .
is

re quired

year

is

the

to dem onstrate
in te rn s h ip

h a l f o f each s c h o o l
year

is

s e ttin g .

a p p ro x i­

t i m e , e ach p a r t i c i p a n t
and b e h a v i o r s .

i n an u r b a n s e t t i n g .

the year or h a l f

of

The s e c o n d

A pp ro xim a te ly

t h e d ay s o f

T hese e x p e r i e n c e s a r e w i t h i n

(TTT)

i s an o u t g r o w t h o f

p ro je c t.

t h e e l e m e n t a r y c o mp on ent o f

52

two y e a r

the school

a t eam t e a c h i n g

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n Program - The E x p e r i m e n t a l

E d u c a tio n program

1.

a lso

th is

52

Experimental

T ra in e rs

year,

day f o r

spent tea ch in g.

teaching s k i l l s

of

in te rn ,

the n a tio n a l

T ra in e rs

Elementary

o f Teacher

The g r a n t p r o p o s a l l i s t s t h r e e m a j o r g o a l s

of

t h e TTT p r o j e c t :

D e v e l o p m e n t o f a new k i n d o f e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l
t e a c h e r who i s b a s i c a l l y w e l l - e d u c a t e d , e n g a ge s
i n t e a c h i n g as c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e , i s an e f f e c t i v e
s t u d e n t o f t h e c a p a c i t i e s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f human l e a r n i n g , and f u n c t i o n s
as a r e s p o n s i b l e a g e n t o f s o c i a l c h a n g e .

" D e a r T e a c h e r Co r ps A p p l i c a n t " , m i m eo g ra ph o f D e p a r t m e n t o f
E l e m e n t a r y and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n ( E a s t L a n s i n g :
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1973), p p . l - i +.

kG
2.

S y s t e m a t i c use o f r e s e a r c h and c l i n i c a l e x p e r i e n c e
in d e c is io n -m a k in g processes a t a l l le v e ls .

3.

A new l a b o r a t o r y and c l i n i c a l b a s e , f r o m t h e
b e h a v i o r a l s c i e n c e s , on w h i c h t o f o u n d u n d e r g r a d ­
u a t e and i n - s e r v i c e t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m s , and
r e - c y c l e e v a l u a t i o n s o f t e a c h i n g t o o l s and p e r f o r m a n c e .

The E x p e r i m e n t a l
program whic h
p a rtic ip a n ts

is f i e l d
are

An o v e r v i e w o f

sessions
vided

to

th e ir

a p p lica n ts

from a l i s t i n g

are

group a p p l i c a n t s .

a ll

in c lu d in g

the program.

in te re s te d

c o n s id e ra tio n

in p u b lic

personal

s k ill

school

in p a r t i c i p a t i n g
to f i l l

is

given

to a ll

State U n iv e r s ity w ith
E d u c a t i o n TTT P r o j e c t .

tea ch in g,

of

fin a n c ia l

p o sitio n s;

ma le and m i n o r i t y

developing

course work.

The c o u r s e s p r o v i d e

processes o f

are c o n t i n u a l l y

D is tric t

s u p p o r t f r o m t h e U.

supervised

p r o g r a m e m p h a s i z e s c o n s i s t e n t use o f

1971-72

Q u a lifie d

community a c t i v i t i e s ,

th e L a n s in g School

t e a c h i n g me tho ds and u n i v e r s i t y

54

are p r o ­

i n EEE.

the a v a ila b le

d e v e l o p m e n t and i n t e g r a t e d

a cooperative e f f o r t

o b je c tiv e s ,

a response c a r d ,

54

in vo lved

in s tru c tio n a l

education.

In fo rm a tio n packets

D u r in g th e f o u r y e a r pro gram t h e s t u d e n t s

is

accepted freshmen

Those r e s p o n d i n g a t t e n d o r i e n t a t i o n

randomly s e l e c t e d

special

of

Freshmen

m a j o r as e l e m e n t a r y o r s p e c i a l

these s t u d e n t s .

th a t d escribe

a fo u r year

and c o m p e t e n c y b a s e d .

t h e p l a n n e d EEE p r o g r a m ,

those s tu d e n ts

however,

centered

re c ru ite d

who have d e c l a r e d

is m ailed

E lem enta ry E d u c a tio n program is

goal

teaching s t r a t e g ie s

and M i c h i g a n

S. O f f i c e o f
of content,

e xperience.

in s tru c tio n a l

assessment,

The p r o g r a m

an i n t e g r a t i o n
fie ld

in te r­

The

d e s i g n and t h e

s e ttin g ,

d ete rm inin g

and e v a l u a t i n g .

" T T T 11, T r a i n e r s o f T e a c h e r T r a i n e r s P r o j e c t , A n n u a l R e p o r t
(East Lansing:
M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ) pp. 52-53.

b7
The f o u r t h y e a r c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y o f an i n t e r n s h i p ,
by t h e program s t a f f ,

supervised

i n whi ch t h e t e a c h i n g mode l, management p r o c e d ­

ur es and methodology a r e a p p l i e d c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y f o r an e xt e nd e d
p e rio d of tim e.'*'’
Summary
The " l e a r n by d o i n g " c oncept has permeated t e a c h e r e d u c a t i o n
programs s i n c e t h e i r e a r l y d e v e l o p m e n t .

D u r i n g t h e m i d d l e ages t h e

a p p r e n t i c e s h i p embodied t h i s c o n ce p t and, because o f t h i s

s im ila rity ,

can be c o n s i d e r e d a f o r e r u n n e r o f p r a c t i c e t e a c h i n g .
The h i s t o r i c a l
European s chools

devel opment o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

in the e a r l y

i s summarized and e v e n t u a l l y t r a c e d t o c o l o n i a l

Ame ri ca where programs grew and were m o d i f i e d t o keep pace w i t h

the

needs o f a r a p i d l y e xpa n di n g A me r i c a .
The m aj or emphasis o f

t he devel opment o f t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n

programs a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y has been l e a r n i n g
experiences

Various

teacher

p r e p a r a t i o n programs have been d e s c r i b e d and t h e i r uni queness

id e n ti­

fied .

i n the most r e a l i s t i c

setting a va ilab le .

th r ou gh

Le land Dean b e s t summarizes t he a v a i l a b l e

l i t e r a t u r e when he

states:
" . . . w e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e r e a r e no panaceas i n e d u c a t i o n ,
e s p e c i a l l y in the area of te a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n .
A ll v a r ia ­
t i o n s i n t he p r e p a r a t i o n o f t e a c h e r s have t h e i r u ni que
^
adva nt age s and d i s a d v a n t a g e s , and a l l have t h e i r p r o b l e m s . "

55
56

M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Pl ac eme nt S e r v i c e s b r o c h u r e , Op. Ci t .

Le l an d W. Dean in Foreword o f E l e m e n t a r y
b r o c h u r e , Op. Ci t .

I n t e r n Program

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Introduction

The purpose o f

this

s t u d y was t o compare t h e i mp ac t o f s e l e c t e d

M i c h i g a n .S.tate U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs on
c o o p e r a t i n g s chools

in t h e f o l l o w i n g a r e a s :

a.

In d ivid u alized

in stru ctio n .

b.

Instructional

a c tiv itie s .

c.

Contributions

t o t h e c o o p e r a t i n g school

d.

Additional

professional

a c tiv itie s

by s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r .

e.

Additional

professional

a c tiv itie s

by o t h e r s t a f f members.

The comparisons were based on t h e
student tea che rs,
schools.

pr ogr am.

r esponses t o s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s by

supervising teachers,

and p r i n c i p a l s o f c o o p e r a t i n g

The f o l l o w i n g M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r

p r e p a r a t i o n programs were compared:
a.

Conventional

E l e m e n t a r y Program ( C o n v . )

b.

C l u s t e r E l e m e n t a r y Program ( C l u s . )

c.

Elementary I n t e r n

d.

Experimental

e.

T e a c h e r Corps Program (TCP)

Program ( E I P )

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n Program (EEE)

These compari sons w er e t o d e t e r m i n e
differences

among t h e s e l e c t e d
k9

if

t h e r e wer e m e a n i n g f u l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs

in the

50
areas

id e n tifie d

s u p e rvisin g
se le cte d

b a s e d on t h e

teachers,

responses o f s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,

and p r i n c i p a l s

o f c o o p e ra tin g schools

to

i t e m s on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
I n s t r u m e n t a t i on

The o r i g i n a l
the Council

schools

the e f f e c t o f s tu d e n t
in M ichigan.

l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s

in

came t o be known as t h e

A ll

te a c h e rs assigned f o r
the F a ll

U n iv e rs ity
in

the e n t i r e

p o p u la tio n o f

1 96 9,

these s tu d e n t te a c h e r s ,

o f M ichigan,

by c o n s u l t a n t s

the stu d y which

Impact S tud y.^

t o which s tu d e n t

researchers

the p la n n in g o f

in

s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g by M i c h i g a n

o f b u ild in g s

E duca tion al

t e a c h i n g p r o g r a m s on t h e

the teacher p r e p a r a tio n c o l ­

Q u a r t e r o r Semester o f

teachers w orking w ith
p rin c ip a ls

of

in M ich ig a n to conduct a

the s t a t e cooperated

The I m p a c t S t u d y s u r v e y e d

during

r e s u l t o f a re q u e s t by

o f S ta te C olle ge P re sid e n ts

study ana lyzin g
p u b lic

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t h e

from C e n tral

a ll

student

in s titu tio n s

the s u p e rv is in g

and a l l

of

the

t e a c h e r s were a s s ig n e d .
M ichigan U n i v e r s i t y ,

the

and M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y w e r e i n v o l v e d

the s tu d y , w it h

research advice being provide d

from M ich ig a n S ta te U n i v e r s i t y

C o llege o f E du ca tion .

The i n s t r u m e n t s w e r e d e v e l o p e d and r e v i e w e d by t h e p a r e n t g r o u p ,
as w e l l

as b y o t h e r e d u c a t o r s

and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s

of

the

teacher

" T h e I m p a c t o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o gr a m s upon t h e C o o p e r a t i n g
P u b l i c Schools in M ic h ig a n , A Survey o f O pinion s o f S u p e r v is in g
T e a c h e r s , S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s and S c ho o l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s " , C o n d u c t e d by
Deans and D i r e c t o r s o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n i n M i c h i g a n , J u n e 1970.

51
p re p a ra tio n
in s titu tio n s

in s titu tio n s .
p a rtic ip a te d

and p r o c e d u r e s .
re fin e d .

in

L im ita tio n s

C o n trib u tio n s

Committee o f

D uring

the S p rin g

a p ilo t

study

the D e t r o it

to te s t

were c o r r e c t e d

and s u g g e s t i o n s

term o f

1 96 9,

the

e ig h t

instrum ents

and p r o c e d u r e s w e r e

from the S tud e nt Teaching

F e d e r a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s and t h e M i c h i g a n

E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n w e r e s o u g h t and i n c o r p o r a t e d

in to

the

i nstrum ents.
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d
of fa ll
v is in g

to

the

q u a r t e r o r semester s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,
t e a c h e r s and b u i l d i n g

p riv a te

coop e ra ting sch oo ls.

published

i n June o f

1970,

p rin c ip a ls

in c o rp o ra tin g

of
the

p o p u la tio n

corre sp on d ing

in a l l

The r e s u l t s

to ta l

super­

M ichigan p u b lic

th is

and

s t u d y were

re sponses o f

n e a rly

10,000 i n d i v i d u a l s .
The Deans and D i r e c t o r s
M ichigan

in co rp o ra te d

means f o r e v a l u a t i n g

in to

the o r i g i n a l

student

h ave been used by Ma rc us

2

o f T e ac h e r E d u c a t io n Programs
survey

te a c h in g programs.

, and B r a d y

3

in

in s tru m e n ts

in
the

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

stu d ie s o f

a s im ila r

nature.

2

C l i f f o r d M. M a r c u s , " C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s
t o M i c h i g a n C o o p e r a t i n g S c h o o l s as P e r c e i v e d by S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s ,
S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r s and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s " ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . d i s s e r t a ­
t i o n , M ichiga n S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1970).
3

Hugh P. B r a d y , " A C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g E x p e r i e n c e
o f M ich ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y S tu d e n t Teachers A ssigned t o Overseas
American S chools w i t h t h a t o f M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t
Teachers A ss ig ne d t o P u b l i c S cho o ls in M i c h i g a n " ( u n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , 1971).

52
In the c u r r e n t s tu d y ,
devised f o r
e xp la in in g

the

the

r e s e a r c h e r used t h e same q u e s t i o n n a i r e

1969 I m p a c t S t u d y .

the purpose o f

the c u rre n t study.

l e t t e r and t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

and p r i n c i p a l s

A copy o f

the cover

a r e a t t a c h e d as A p p e n d i x A.

The s e p a r a t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
teachers

A c o v e r p ag e was added

fo r

student

o f co op e ra ting

i t e m s and w e r e d e s i g n e d so t h a t

the

s u p e rv is in g

s c h o o l s e a c h c o n t a i n e d 80

r e s p o n d e n t s m a rk e d o n l y

response t h e y c o n s i d e r e d a p p l i c a b l e .
p r o v i d e d w i t h e ac h q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

teachers,

t h e one

An IBM a ns w e r s h e e t was

T h es e a n s w e r s h e e t s w e r e m a c h i n e

s c o r e d a t t h e M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y T e s t i n g C e n t e r and t a b u l a t e d
by t h e Data P r o c e s s i n g C e n t e r .
The o r i g i n a l
o f the survey
fo r

th is

q u e stio n n a ire s

instrum ent.

study, o n ly

hypotheses o f
id e n tify

th is

those

study,

these s p e c i f i c

c o n t a i n e d 80 i t e m s on e ach f o r m

A lthough

respondents com pleted a l l

it e m s w h ic h

re la te d

were a n a ly z e d .

i t e m s used t o

te st

d ire c tly

T a b l e s 3 .1

item s

to the

through 3.5

the s p e c i f i c

hypotheses.

I terns n o t a n a l y z e d p r o v i d e d d e m o g r a p h i c and o t h e r d a t a n o t p e r t i n e n t
to th is

study.

w e re asked o f
groups o f

From t h e s e
a ll

tab le s ,

th r e e groups o f

it

ca n be seen t h a t some q u e s t i o n s

r e s p o n d e n t s , w h i l e o n l y one o r

r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k ed o t h e r s .

two

53
TABLE 3 . 1 . — Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

i t e m s used t o t e s t

HYPOTHESIS #1 - T h e r e a r e no
m e a n in g fu l d i f f e r e n c e s between
the s e le c te d tea ch er p r e p a r a tio n
p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
p r o g r a m b a se d on c h a n g e s i n
in d iv id u a liz e d in s tru c tio n fo r
the p u p ils in the f o l lo w in g
areas:

Research H y p o t h e s is # 1 .

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM NO.
St. Tchr.

Supv. T c h r .

a.

I n s t r u c t i n g , c o u n s e l i n g , and
t u t o r i n g i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l s by
the s tu d e n t te a c h e r.

14

14

b.

I n s t r u c t i n g , c o u n s e l i n g , and
t u t o r i n g i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l s by
the s u p e rv is in g te a ch e r.

15

15

c.

Amount o f i n d i v i d u a l h e l p o r
c o un se lin g f o r p u p ils d u rin g
n on -cla ss hours.

16

16

d.

R e-teaching o f p u p ils
s u p e rv is in g teacher.

19

19

by

HYPOTHESIS ft 2 - T h e r e a r e no
m e a n in g fu l d i f f e r e n c e s between
the s e le c te d tea ch er p r e p a r a tio n
p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
p r o g r a m b as ed on c h a n g es i n
i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r the
p u p ils in the f o l lo w i n g areas:

P rin .

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM NO.
St.

Tchr.

Supv.

Tchr.

P rin .

20

20

27

21

21

28

22

22

29

23

23

38

24

24

31

S u p e rv is io n o f playgrounds
and ha 11 w a y s .

25

25

32

g.

Amount o f m a t e r i a l

26

26

h.

D i s c i p i i n e.

27

27

34

i.

M o tiva tio n o f p u p ils .

28

28

35

a.

Amount o f

small

group

in s tru c tio n .

b.

P ro v is io n

f o r m ak e- up w o r k .

c.

F o l l o w - u p exams.

d.

In d iv id u a l a tte n tio n to ,
tu to rin g o f, p u p ils .

e.

S up e rvisio n o f

f.

or

study p e rio d s .

covered.

5k
TABLE 3 . 3 . — Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

items used t o t e s t Re sear ch H y p o t h e s i s # 3 *

HYPOTHESIS #3 - T h e r e a r e no
m e a n in g fu l d i f f e r e n c e s between
the s e le c te d teacher p re p a ra tio n
p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
program in c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the
c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l p r o g r a m by
the s tu d e n t te a c h e r in the
f o l 1owi ng a r e a s :

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM NO.
S t.

Tchr.

Supv. T c h r .

P rin .

a.

S u p e rv is in g youth groups.

29

29

15

b.

T a lkin g

to p aren t groups.

30

30

16

c.

P erform ing recess, lu n ch ,
g ymn as iu m, p l a y g r o u n d o r
h a l1 duti e s .

31

31

17

d.

Chaperoning s o c ia l
f o r p u p i 1s .

e.

S u p e rv is in g study h a l l s .

19

f.

Coaching o r a s s i s t i n g in
in te rs c h o la s tic or e x tra ­
c u rric u la r a c tiv itie s .

20

g.

A s s is tin g in handling
d i s c i p l i n e problem s.

21

h.

D eveloping, p r o v id in g , o r
s u g g e s t i n g new o r d i f f e r e n t
m a te r ia ls to the te a c h e rs .

32

32

22

i.

P ro vid ing

33

33

23

j.

Amount o f t i m e t a u g h t f o r
s u p e rv is in g teacher.

35

35

25

k.

A ffe cts

I.

Change i n w o r k l o a d o f
admi n i s t r a t o r .

aids or

on s t a f f

18

a c tiv itie s

ideas.

m orale.

57
61

55
TABLE 3 * b . — Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

item s used t o

HYPOTHESIS # b - T h e r e a r e no
m e a n in g fu l d i f f e r e n c e s between
the s e le cte d teacher p re p a ra tio n
p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
p r o g r a m i n t h e amount o f t i m e
t h e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r m u st
spend on t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l
d u t i e s due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f a
stud e nt teacher:

test

Research H y p o t h e s is # 4 .

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM NO.
St.

Tchr.

Supv. T c h r .

P rin .

a.

Fre quency o f s u p e r v i s i n g
teacher v i s i t s to o th e r
cl assrooms.

37

37

51

b.

Amount o f c o m m i t t e e w o r k
c o n d u c t e d by s u p e r v i s i n g
t e a c h e r w i t h s t u d e n t s and
fa c u lty .

38

38

52

c.

Amount o f r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d
by s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r .

39

39

53

d.

Amount o f p r o f e s s i o n a l r e a d i n g
p e rfo rm e d by t h e s u p e r v i s i n g
teacher.

bo

bo

5b

e.

Amount o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by
s u p e rv is in g teacher in
s tu d e n t te a c h e r seminars o r
in -s e rv ic e a c t i v i t i e s d ea lin g
w ith student tea ch in g.

b2

bl

56
TABLE 3 . 5 - — Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

i t e m s used t o t e s t

HYPOTHESIS # 5 - T h e r e a r e no
m e a n in g fu l d i f f e r e n c e s between
the se le cte d teacher p re p a ra tio n
p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
p r o g r a m i n t h e amount o f t i m e
o t h e r s t a f f members s pend on
the f o l lo w in g p r o fe s s io n a l d u tie s
due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e
student teacher:

Research H y p o th e s is # 5 .

QUESTIONNAIRE ITEM NO.
S t. Tchr.

Supv. T c h r .

a.

Teaching.

^5

^5

b.

Chaperoning.

kS

A6

c.

S up e rvisin g .

k9

^9

d.

Fre quency
cl asses.

50

50

e.

Amount

o f committee w ork.

51

51

f.

Amount

of research.

52

52

g.

Amount
of p ro fe ssio n a l
reading o r w r i t i n g .

53

53

of v i s i t s too th e r

P rin .

57
Population
The p o p u l a t i o n o f

t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y was composed o f

a ll

M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s who w e r e
s tud e nt teaching d u rin g
v is in g

t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s

in the p re p a ra tio n o f
center
current

the W in te r Q ua rte r o f

lo ca tion

study are d e t a i l e d

99 s t u d e n t

teachers,

and

to

respond

p o p u la tio n .

is

teacher

teacher

(c lu s te r

The p o t e n t i a l

than

p r o g r a m was

and 61 p r i n c i p a l s .

teachers,

18 s u p e r v i s i n g

is

several

teachers are expected

i n d i c a t e d by t h e p o t e n t i a l
s u p e rvisin g

in a d d it io n

teachers

t o the assigned s u p e r­

fo r

the E lem entary

67 s u p e r v i s i n g

teachers

Inte rn

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m (EEE)

25 s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,

10 s u p e r v i s i n g

t h e T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o g r a m i t

v is in g
teacher

r e s p o n d e n t s was 3 2 2 , f o r

and f o r p r i n c i p a l s

660 .

it

was 126.

it

was

t e a c h e r s and 3 p r i n c i p a l s ,

was 21 s t u d e n t

t e a c h e r s and 5 p r i n c i p a l s .

pro gram

and k k p r i n c i p a l s .

For the Experim ental

fo r

to

c o n s u lta n t).

p o p u la tio n

was 67 s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s ,

the

the n a tu re o f th e C lu s te r

more s u p e r v i s i n g

p o ssib le fo r

w o r k w i t h one s t u d e n t
v is in g

11),

teachers

Due t o

to the q u e s t io n n a ir e
It

the C onventional

was 110 s t u d e n t

13 p r i n c i p a l s .

program (see C h a pte r

The s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g

in Table 3 .6 .

99 s u p e r v i s i n g

For the C lu s t e r program i t

p a rtic ip a tin g

p o p u l a t i o n f r o m e ach c e n t e r f o r

p o p u la tion f o r

teachers,

and t h e s u p e r ­

o f c o o p e ra tin g schools

these s tu d e n t te a c h e rs .

and p o t e n t i a l

The p o t e n t i a l

1 97 5,

The t o t a l
su pe rvising

The t o t a l

teachers,

p o te n tia l
teachers

p o te n tia l

and

18 s u p e r ­

student
it

was 2 1 2 ,

r e s p o n d e n t s was

TABLE 3 . 6 . — CENTER LOCATION AND POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.
Center
L ocation

Convent i onal
S t u . Sup v. P r i n .

Stu.
6

C1u s t e r
Sup v. P r i n .
1

11

11

3

Detroi t

23

23

20

F lin t

2

2

1

12

1

1

Grand R a pi d s

3

3

2

11

1

1

25

25

17

37

5

5

L ivo ni a
Macomb/
W a l 1ed Lake

3

3

1

P o n t i ac
Sag in aw

20

20

7

Southwest

12

12

10

Traverse C ity
TOTALS

99

99

61

Experimental
S t u . Sup v. P r i n .

T e a c h e r Corps
S t u . Supv. P r i n

1

B a t t l e Creek

Lans i ng

E l e m e n t a r y 1n t e r n
S t u . Supv. P r i n .

15

2

2

23

2

2

6

6

1

110

18

13

26

26

18

27

27

17

14

14

9

67

67

44

25

10

25

10

3

3

21

18

5

21

18

5

60
Summary
Chapter I I I

d escribed

the

me th od s u sed t o c o m pa r e t h e

in s tru m e n ta tio n ,

p o p u la tio n ,

and

im p a ct o f s e l e c t e d M ic h ig a n S t a t e

U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s upon c o o p e r a t ­
ing s c h o o ls .

I terns f o r

c om parison were s e l e c t e d f ro m t h e

Impact Study q u e s t io n n a ir e s .
to the stud e nt
cooperating

teachers,

The i n s t r u m e n t s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d

su pe rvising

schools p a r t i c i p a t i n g

teachers d urin g

and a n a l y z e d .

in

the W in te r Q uarter o f

The d a t a f r o m t h e

1969

returned

t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s
the p re p a ra tio n o f

of

student

1975-

IBM a n s w e r s h e e t s w e r e c o m p i l e d

Comparisons o f s e l e c t e d e le m e n t a r y t e a c h e r s p r e p ­

a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y w e r e made f r o m t h e s e
data.

An a n a l y s i s o f

the data c o l l e c t e d

is

d escribed

in Chapter

IV.

CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Intro d u ct!o n

The d a t a c o l l e c t e d
th is

chapter.

by t h e s u r v e y

instru m e n ts are presented

T hese d a t a compar ed t h e

im p a ct o f

in

s e le c te d M ichigan

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s on c o o p e r a ­
tin g

p u b lic

schools

in the f o l l o w i n g

areas:

a.

In d iv id u a liz e d

in s tru c tio n .

b.

In s tru c tio n a l

a c tiv itie s .

c.

C o n trib u tio n s

to the c o o p e ra tin g school

d.

A d d itio n a l

p ro fe ssio n a l

a c tiv itie s

by s u p e r v i s i n g

teacher.

e.

A d d itio n a l

p ro fe ssio n a l

a c tiv itie s

by o t h e r

members.

The c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e b as ed on t h e
by s t u d e n t
tin g

p u b lic

teachers,

su pe rvisin g

schools.

responses

teachers,

program.

sta ff

to s p e c if ic

and p r i n c i p a l s

o f coopera­

The f o l l o w i n g M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

elem entary teacher p re p a ra tio n

p r o g r a m s w e r e c o mp a r e d :

a.

C onventional

E l e m e n t a r y P r o gr a m ( C o n v . ) .

b.

C l u s t e r E le m e n ta ry Program ( C l u s . ) .

c.

E lem entary

d.

Experim ental

e.

T e a c h e r Co rp s P r o gr a m (TCP)

Inte rn

P r o gr a m ( E I P ) .

E le m e n ta ry E d u c a t io n Program (EEE).

61

q ue stio ns

62

Table ^ .0

lis ts

t h e number o f

respondents

to the q u e s tio n n a ire

b y g r o u p and b y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m .
A tota l

of

599 r e s p o n d e d t o t h e s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

represents 79.6 per cent o f

the p o t e n t i a l

d iffe re n c e

respondents o f s u p e r v is in g

in the p o t e n t i a l

th e c l u s t e r program (18)
teachers

in

and t h e a c t u a l

t h e c l u s t e r program (100)

The d a t a c o l l e c t e d
A p p e n d i x B.

F o r each

by t h e s u r v e y

respondents,

d e v ia tio n

has been t a b u l a t e d f o r
of

of

per ce nt o f

these d a ta

s t a t e m e n t o f each

instru m e nts

respondents,

research hypo the sis

t h e d a t a and t h e a c c e p t a n c e o r

in t h i s

is

re je c tio n

it

and t h e o t h e r

if

is

in
the

program.
The r e ­

the h y p o th e s is .
the

to ta l

teacher p re p a ra tio n
d iffe re n ce s

e x is te d

d iffe re n c e

between

as f o l l o w s :

m = means o f c l u s t e r
D

( o r EIP,

CF = t h e s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f

are q u i t e

ite m ,

chapter.

the m eaningful

mB
or
m = means o f c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m

form ula

are p re sen ted

teacher p r e p a r a tio n programs.

d = mA

This

III.

mean, and s t a n d a r d

(20%) o f

m eaningful

The f o r m u l a used t o c a l c u l a t e
programs

of

from the c o n v e n tio n a l

p r o g r a m was used t o d e t e r m i n e
between

in c h a p te r

f o l l o w e d by a p r e s e n t a t i o n

A mean d i f f e r e n c e o f t w e n t y p e r c e n t
re sponse d i s t r i b u t i o n

in

s u p e rv is in g

e ach t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n

is presented

The

teachers

respondents o f

was d i s c u s s e d

752.

re sponse c h o i c e t o a q u e s t i o n n a i r e

number o r

The a n a l y s i s

p o p u la tio n o f

T h is

is

where

EEE, TCP)
the e n t i r e

recommended by Cohen w h e r e

a rb itra ry or

program,

l a c k meaning o u t s i d e

and

p o p u la tion

raw u n i t s
the

a r e u sed w h i c h

in v e s tig a tio n or

TABLE i f . O . — T o t a l

number and p e r c e n t r e s p o n d e n t s t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

Student
Teachers

»—
CD
•—
+J
C
CD
■M

o

(/I
4->
C
(1)

l/l
+J
c
0)

~o

c

o

CL
l/l
cd

D . oc

r—

c

CD o
3
D.
+J l/l
u CD

<

dc

S up e rvisin g
Teachers

+J
c
<d

ID
l/l
c

.—
fD

i/i
+J
c
CD

•—

~o

1- i/i
<D <u
D . DC

4-1 c .
c o
0) Q .
+-> l/l
o 0)
a . DC

o o

a .

P rin cip a ls

l/l
+J
11)
“D
—
C
ID O
3
D.
+J i/l
U ID
< DC

CL
l/l
<u <d
0 - DC

l/l
+J
c
ID CD
•—> TJ
+J C
C o
CD CL
4-i l/l
o CD
o . DC

c

+J <d
C l/l
CD c

o o

l/l
+J
c
CD
“D
•— C
CD o
3 CL
+J l/l
O CD
< DC

Q.
L. l/l
(D CD
CL C£

c
ID
O

<D
1/1
C

o

Program
Conventi onal
C1u s t e r
El em.
E x p.

Inte rn
Elem.

Ed.

T e a c h e r Corps
T otals

99

77

78

99

100

101*

61

27

if if

110

102

93

110

100

91

13

12

92

67

^5

67

67

k7

70

kk

21

i+8

25

22

88

10

10

100

3

1

33

21

16

76

18

15

83

5

4

80

322

262

81

3 0k

272

89

126

65

52

* M o r e t h a n one s u p e r v i s i n g

t e a c h e r may be a s s i g n e d t o a s t u d e n t t e a c h e r .

64
both.^

The d i f f e r e n c e

d e via tio n

(d)

is

then m u l t i p l i e d

f r o m t h e mean i n a n or m al

percentage score.

d is trib u tio n )

T his percentage score

between th e s e l e c t e d

to o b ta in

represents

a

the d if fe r e n c e

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

p r o g r a m and mu st e x c e e d t w e n t y p e r c e n t
d iffe re n c e

by . 3 4 (one s t a n d a r d

(20%)

f o r a m eaningful

t o e x i s t between p ro g ra m s.
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s #1

T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
b as ed on c h a n g e s i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n f o r p u p i l s
in the f o l l o w i n g areas:
a.

In s tr u c tin g , co un se lin g,
by t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r .

and t u t o r i n g

in d iv id u a l

p u p ils

b.

I n s t r u c t i n g , c o u n s e l i n g , and t u t o r i n g
by t h e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r .

in d iv id u a l

p u p ils

c.

Amount o f i n d i v i d u a l h e l p o r c o u n s e l i n g f o r p u p i l s
d u rin g n on -cla ss hours.

d.

R e-teaching o f

p u p ils

by s u p e r v i s i n g

teacher.

TABLE 4 . 1 . — Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e ite m s r e l a t i n g t o Research H y p o th e s is # 1 .
Student
Teachers
Program

Mean

Std.

S uperv? s i ng
Teachers
Dev.

Mean

Std.

De v.

C onventional

7 .7 0 1

2.666

5.270

1 .841

C1u s t e r

6.618

2.894

5.500

1.767

El P

6.622

2.516

5.106

1 .658

EEE

6.455

2.198

4.100

1 . 66 3

T e a c h e r Co rp s

6.375

2.527

4.400

1.957

6.908

2. 72 1

5.235

1 . 80 3

E n t i r e P o p u 1a t i on
T o ta ls

^ Ja cob Cohen, S t a t i s t i c a l Power A n a l y s i s f o r t h e B e h a v i o r a l
Academi c P r e s s ) 1 9 6 9 , pp . 1 8 - 1 9 .
S c i e n c e s , (New Y o r k :

65
Table k . 1 l i s t s

t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f

to the q u e s tio n n a ire
Table k .2

items

re la tin g

to

responses

research h ypo the sis #1.

shows t h e p e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s

between t h e s e l e c t e d

p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

teacher

program.

TABLE k . 2 . — P e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n
p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m r e l a t i n g t o H y p o t h e s i s # 1 .
Student
Teachers

Supervi s in g
Teachers

C1u s t e r

13.26%

U.08%

EIP

13-26%

3.06%

EEE

15.30%

2 1 . 7 6% *

T e a c h e r Co rp s

16.32%

16.32%

' -' denot es m e a n i n g f u l
It

d iffe re n c e .

was i n d i c a t e d

no m e a n i n g f u l

i n T a b l e ^- .2 ,

d iffe re n c e s

vis in g

in t h i s

between th e s e l e c t e d

p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
in s tru c tio n

that

program in

respondents

in

the area o f

the Experim ental

p r o g r a m d i d e x c e e d t h e 20% m e a n i n g f u l
in d iv id u a liz e d

in s tru c tio n .

in d iv id u a liz e d

However,

the super­

Elementary Education

d iffe re n c e

A c c o rd in g ly ,

t h e r e were

teacher p re p a ra tio n

as p e r c e i v e d by t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s .

teacher

study,

level

in th e area o f

H y p o t h e s i s #1

is

re je c te d .

Research H y p o th e s is #2
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
b a s e d on c ha ng es i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r t h e
p u p ils in the f o l l o w i n g areas:
a.

Amount o f

small

group

b.

P ro visio n

f o r m ake -u p w o r k .

c.

F o l l o w - u p exams.

d.

In d ivid u a l

e.

S u p e rv is io n o f study p e rio d s .

a tte n tio n

in s tru c tio n .

to,

or tu to rin g

o f,

p u p ils .

66
f.

S u p e r v i s i o n o f p l a y g r o u n d s and h a l l w a y s .

g.

Amount o f m a t e r i a l

h.

Di s c i p i i n e.

i.

M o tiva tio n o f p u p ils .

Table 4.3

covered.

shows t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f

to the q u e s tio n n a ire

item s

re la tin g

to

research

responses

hypothesis # 2 .

TABLE b . 3 . — Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e items r e l a t i n g t o Research H y p o t h e s is # 2 .
S u p e r v i s i ng
Teachers

Student
Teachers

P ri nci p als

Program

Mean

Std.Dev.

Mean

Std.Dev.

Mean

Convent i onal

18.195

7.327

14.850

5.493

9.296

3.688

C1u s t e r

16.824

6.443

15.810

5.193

9.667

4.397

El P

1 2. 733

5.557

14.681

5.843

8.333

3.812

EEE

15.545

8.727

15.500

7.792

10.000

0.000

T e a c h e r Corps

11.688

4.438

11.600

6.185

12.250

6.185

P o p u 1a t i o n
T o tals

16.103

6.988

15.018

5.619

9.246

4.008

U s i n g Cohen 1s
c a lc u la te d

and a r e

d

f o r m u la , the per cent d if fe r e n c e s

lis te d

Std.

Dev .

were

in Table b .b .

TABLE b . b . — P er c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n
p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m r e l a t i n g t o H y p o t h e s i s # 2 .
Student
Teachers

S u p e r v i s i ng
Teachers

Pri nci pals

6.46

5.78

3.06

EIP

26.52*

1.02

8.16

EEE

12.58

3.74

5.78

T e a c h e r Corps

31.62*

19.38

24.82*

C1u s t e r

* d e n o te s meaningful

di f f e r e n c e .

67
Table b .b

in d ic a te s

su pe rvising

d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d

t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e d no m e a n i n g f u l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e

co nve ntion a l

p r o g r a m b a s e d on c h a n g e s

the p u p i l s .

M eaningful

in both

is

in

in s tru c tio n a l

a c tiv itie s

fo r

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e iv e d by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

the Elem entary I n t e r n

p rin c ip a ls

in

and T e a c h e r Co r ps p r o g r a m s ,

t h e T e a c h e r Co r p s p r o g r a m .

Therefore,

and f o r

H y p o th e s is #2

re je c te d .
Research H y p o t h e s is #3
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
i n c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e c o o p e r a t i n g s c h o o l p r o g r a m by t h e
stu d e n t tea ch er in the f o l l o w i n g areas:
a.

S u p e rv is in g youth groups.

b.

T a lkin g

c.

P erform ing recess,
h all d u tie s .

lu n ch,

d.

Chaperoning s o c ia l

a c tiv itie s

e.

S up e rvisin g

f.

Coachin g o r a s s i s t i n g in
c u rric u la r a c tiv itie s .

g.

A s s is tin g

h.

D e v e l o p i n g , p r o v i d i n g , o r s u g g e s t i n g new o r d i f f e r e n t
m a t e r ia ls to the teachers o f the c o o p e ra tin g s c h o o l.

i.

P ro v id in g aids o r

j.

Amount o f

k.

A ffe cts

1.

Change i n w o r k l o a d o f

Table 4 .5

to p a re n t groups.
g ymn asi um,

fo r

playground o r

p u p ils .

study h a l ls .
in te rs c h o la s tic or

in h a n d lin g d i s c i p l i n e

problem s.

ideas.

tim e ta u g h t f o r

on s t a f f

e xtra ­

s u p e rvisin g

teacher,

m orale.
a d m in is tra to r.

shows t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f

to the q u e s tio n n a ire

items

re la tin g

to

responses

research h ypothe sis #3.

68
TABLE 4 . 5 . — Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e ite m s r e l a t i n g t o Research H y p o th e s is # 3 .
Student
Teachers

Supervi sin g
Teachers

P r o gr a m

Mean

Std.Dev.

Conventional

10.143

2.252

C lu s te r

9.833

El P

Std.Dev.

Mean

Std.Dev.

9.700

1 .8 8 3

20.889

4.136

1 .8 73

10.100

1 . 883

18.750

3.137

9.178

2.103

9.617

1 .871

19.762

3.767

EEE

8.727

1.804

3.200

2.044

18.000

0.000

T e a c h e r Co rp s

7.938

1.340

8.800

2.366

20.250

1.708

P opulation
T o tals

9.603

2.078

9.728

1.949

20.046

3 . 73 1

U s i n g Cohen 1s
ca lcu la te d

d

form ula,

Mean

Pri n c ip a ls

t h e p e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s were

and a r e shown i n T a b l e 4 . 6 .

TABLE 4 . 6 . — P e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n
p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m r e l a t i n g t o H y p o t h e s i s # 3 .
S u p e r v i s i ng
Teachers

Student
Teachers

Pri nci pals

4.76

6.80

19.38

EI P

15.64

1.36

10.20

EEE

23.12*

25.84*

26.18*

T e a c h e r Co rp s

36.04*

15.64

5.78

C lu s te r

■■''denotes m e a n i n g f u l
Table 4 .6
t h r e e groups o f

d iffe re n ce .

in d ic a te s

m eaningful

respondents

p r o g r a m and by t h e s t u d e n t

in

school

the E xperim ental

teachers

Based on t h e s e p e r c e p t i o n s o f

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d by a l l

in

t h e T e a c h e r Co r ps p r o g r a m .

the c o n t r ib u t io n s

p r o g r a m by t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r ,

Elem entary E du c a tion

to the cooperating

H y p o t h e s i s #3

is

re je c te d .

69
Research H y p o th e s is #4
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
i n t h e amount o f t i m e t h e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r m u st spend
on t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d u t i e s due t o t h e p r e s e n c e
o f a stud e nt teacher:
a.

Fre quency o f
classroom s.

b.

Amount o f c o m m i t t e e w o r k c o n d u c t e d b y s u p e r v i s i n g
t e a c h e r w i t h s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .

c.

Amount o f

d.

Amount o f p r o f e s s i o n a l
s u p e rv is in g teacher.

e.

Amount o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n by s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r i n
s tu d e n t te a c h e r seminars o r i n - s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s
d e a lin g w ith student tea ch in g.

Table 4.7

s u p e rvisin g teacher v i s i t s

to o th e r

r e s e a r c h c o n d u c t e d by s u p e r v i s i n g

reports

to the q u e s tio n n a ire

r e a d in g p e rfo rm e d by th e

t h e means and s t a n d a r d

item s

teacher.

re la tin g

to

d e v ia tio n s o f

responses

research h y p o th e sis #4.

TABLE 4 . 7 . — Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s t o r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e ite m s r e l a t i n g t o Research H y p o th e s is # 4 .
Student
Teachers

S up e rvisin g
Teachers

P rin c ip a ls

Mean

Program

Mean

Std.Dev.

Mean

Std.Dev.

Convent i onal

7.325

2.844

6.170

2.137

6.000

2.094

C lu s te r

7 -9 ^1

2 .735

6.940

1.705

5.833

1.749

EI P

7.044

2.696

6.979

1.775

5.500

1.732

EEE

7 .545

3.609

5.900

2.514

5.000

0.000

T e a c h e r Corps

8.125

3.594

5.000

2.035

5.500

1 .732

P op u la tion
T o ta ls

7.584

2.899

6.518

1.994

5.862

1.903

Std.Dev.

70
A gain,
d

t h e p e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e c a l c u l a t e d u s i n g t h e Cohen

f o r m u l a and a r e

lis te d

in Table 4 .8 .

TABLE 4 . 8 . — P e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r p r e p a r a ­
t i o n p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m r e l a t i n g t o
Hypothesis #4.
Student
Te ac he r s

S u pe rv i si ng
Teachers

P r i nci p a l s

C luster

7.14

12.92

2.72

EIP

3.06

1 3- 6 0

8.84

EEE

2.33

4.42

19.38

T e a c he r Corps

9 .18

19.72

8.84

T a b l e 4 . 8 shows no m e a n i n g f u l
the s e le c te d
in

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

t h e amount o f

d u tie s

due t o

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d between

tim e

the s u p e rv is in g

the presence o f

Hypothesis #4 is

t e a c h e r sp en d s on p r o f e s s i o n a l

a student teacher.

A c c o rd in g ly ,

accepted.
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s #5

T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
i n t h e amount o f t i m e o t h e r s t a f f members s pend on t h e
f o l l o w i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l d u t i e s due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e
stud e nt teacher:
a.

Teaching.

b.

Chaperoning.

c.

S u pervising .

d.

Frequency o f v i s i t s

e.

Amount o f c o m m i t t e e w o r k .

f.

Amount o f

g.

Amount o f p r o f e s s i o n a l

to

program

o th e r classes.

research.
rea din g o r w r i t i n g .

71

Table 4 .9
to

shows t h e means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o f

the q u e s tio n n a ire

items

re la tin g

to

responses

research hypo the sis #5.

TABLE 4 . 9 . — Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s t o r e s p o n s e s t o q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e ite m s r e l a t i n g t o Research H y p o t h e s is # 5 .
Student
Teachers
Program

Mean

Std.

Supervi s ing
Teachers
Dev.

Mean

Std.

Dev .

Convent io n a l

12.818

3.382

12.910

2.756

C lu s te r

12.745

3.155

12.350

3.195

EI P

13.822

3.582

12.979

2.13.

EEE

13. 091

4.482

10.500

4.649

T e a c h e r Co rp s

13.063

3.214

11.800

3.950

P o p u la tio n T o ta ls

13.000

3.422

12.566

3.013

The Cohen
d iffe re n ce s

d

which

f o r m u l a was u sed t o c a l c u l a t e
are

lis te d

the per cent

in Table 4 .1 0 .

TABLE 4 . 1 0 . - - P e r c e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n s e l e c t e d t e a c h e r p r e p a r a ­
t i o n p r o g r a m s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m r e l a t i n g t o
H y p o t h e s is //5.
Student
Teachers

S u p e r v i s i ng
Teachers

C lu ste r

0.68

6.12

EI P

9.86

0.68

EEE

2.38

2 6 . 86*

T e a c h e r Co r ps

1.70

12.24

■''denotes m e a n i n g f u l
Table 4.10
d iffe re n c e s

d iffe re n c e .

in d ic a te s

between t h e s e l e c t e d

the co nve n tion a l

program

s pend on p r o f e s s i o n a l
teacher.

student

M eaningful

in

d u tie s

t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e d no m e a n i n g f u l
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and

t h e a mount o f

t i m e o t h e r s t a f f members

due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f

the stud ent

d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e p e r c e i v e d by s u p e r v i s i n g

72
teachers

in

the E xp e rim e n ta l

A c c o rd in g ly ,

H y p o th e s is #5

E lem entary E d u ca tion program.

is

re je c te d .

Summary
Chapter
c o lle c te d

IV p r e s e n t e d

f r o m 262 s t u d e n t

65 p r i n c i p a l s
of

the a n a ly s is
teachers,

teachers,
ta ry

s u p e rvisin g

from th e data

272 s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s

from c o o p e ra tin g s c h o o ls .

79*6 per cent fro m the p o t e n t i a l

and f i n d i n g s

This

represents

p o p u la tion o f

t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l s

and

a return

those s tu d e n t

in vo lved

i n elemen­

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs f r o m M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

du rin g

the W in te r q u a r t e r o f

Five

research

1975.

h y p o t h e s e s w e r e a n a l y z e d and t h e f i n d i n g s

ca n

be s u m m a r i z e d as f o l l o w s :
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s if 1
Research H y p o th e s is $ 1 :

R ejected.

F i ndi n g s :
a.

Based on c h an g e s
no m e a n i n g f u l
i n a ny o f

in

in d iv id u a liz e d

in s tru c tio n

fo r p u p ils ,

d i f f e r e n c e s were p e r c e i v e d by s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

the M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y e le m en ta ry tea ch er

p r e p a r a t io n programs.
b.

The s u p e r v i s i n g

teachers

in vo lved

in

the Experim ental

E le m e nta ry E d u c a tio n program p e r c e iv e d m e anin g ful
e nc e s b e t w e e n t h e i r p r o g r a m and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l
the area o f

in d iv id u a liz e d

in s tru c tio n

d iffe r­
program in

fo r p u p ils .

73
Research H y p o th e s is #2
Research H y p o th e s is # 2 :

R e je cted.

F i nd i n g s :
a.

S tudent teachers from the Elem entary

Inte rn

p r o g r a m and

t h e T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o g r a m p e r c e i v e d m e a n i n g f u l

b.

b e t w e e n t h e i r p r o g r a m s and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l

program in

a r e a o f c h an g e s

fo r p u p ils .

No m e a n i n g f u l
teachers

in

i n any o f

P rin c ip a ls

in s tru c tio n a l

d iffe re n c e s

in s tru c tio n a l
c.

d iffe re n ce s

were p e r c e i v e d by s u p e r v i s i n g

the programs

a c tiv itie s

a c tiv itie s

the

fo r

in t h e a rea o f changes

p u p ils .

p e rce ive d m eaningful

d iffe re n ce s

between th e

C onventional

p r o g r a m and t h e T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o g r a m

area r e l a t e d

t o c h an g e s

in

in

in s tru c tio n a l

a c tiv itie s

in the
fo r

p u p i 1s .
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s #3
Research H y p o th e s is # 3 :

R ejected.

F i nd i n g s :
a.

Student teachers

from the E xperim ental

Elementary E ducation

and T e a c h e r Co rp s p r o g r a m s p e r c e i v e d m e a n i n g f u l
between t h e i r
area o f
school
b.

p r o g r a m s and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l

student teacher c o n trib u tio n s

d iffe re n c e s

program

in

to the c o o p e ra tin g

program.

Both t h e s u p e r v i s i n g
Experim ental
d iffe re n c e s

teachers

and p r i n c i p a l s

in

the

E lem entary E d u c a tio n p e rc e iv e d m eaningful
in

th is

area.

the

7h
Research H y p o th e s is

#k

Research H y p o th e s is # k :

Accepted.

F i rid in gs:
a.

No m e a n i n g f u l
groups

d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e p e r c e i v e d b y a ny o f

i n any o f t h e p r o g r a m s

su p e rvisin g

in

t h e amount o f

t e a c h e r m u s t spend on p r o f e s s i o n a l

to th e presence o f

the

tim e the
d u tie s

due

a stud e nt teacher.

Research H y p o th e s is #5
Research H y p o th e s is / / 5 :

R ejected.

F i ndi n g s :
a.

S t u d e n t t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e d no d i f f e r e n c e s
of

tim e o th e r s t a f f

The s u p e r v i s i n g

t h e amount

members s pend on p r o f e s s i o n a l

due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f
b.

in

d utie s

a student teacher.

teachers

in vo lved

in

the Experim ental

E lem e ntary E d u c a tio n program p e r c e iv e d m eanin gful
e nc e s b e t w e e n t h e i r p r o g r a m and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l
in

t h e amount o f

p ro fe ssio n a l

tim e o t h e r s t a f f

d u tie s

due t o

d iffe r­
program

members s pend on

the presence o f a s tu d e n t

teacher.
Chapter V p re s e n ts
of

the f i n d i n g s

fu rth e r

study.

a summary o f

and c o n c l u s i o n s .

th is

stud y along w it h

the

R e c omme nd a ti on s a r e made f o r

report

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The p u r p o s e o f

th is

s t u d y was t o co mp ar e t h e

M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
co op e ra ting

schools

in

se le cte d

e l e m e n t a r y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s on

the f o llo w in g

areas:

a.

In d iv id u a liz e d

in s tru c tio n .

b.

In s tru c tio n a l

a c tiv itie s .

c.

C o n trib u tio n s

to the c o o p e ra tin g

d.

A d d itio n a l

p ro fe ssio n a l

a c tiv itie s

by s u p e r v i s i n g

teacher.

e.

A d d itio n a l

p ro fe ssio n al

a c tiv itie s

by o t h e r s t a f f

members.

The c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e b as ed on t h e
by s t u d e n t
tin g

impact o f

teachers,

schools.

su pe rvising

responses

teachers,

program.

to s p e c i f i c q u e s tio n s

and p r i n c i p a l s

of

coopera­

The f o l l o w i n g M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e l e m e n t a r y

teacher p re p a ra tio n

p r o g r a m s w e r e c o m p ar e d :

a.

C onventional

b.

C l u s t e r E le m e n ta ry Program.

c.

Elem entary

d.

Experim ental

e.

T e a c h e r Co r ps P r o g r a m .

A review o f
presented.

school

E le m e n ta ry Program.

Inte rn

E le m e n ta ry E d u c a t io n Program.

re la te d

A h is to ric a l

t e a c h i n g and s t u d e n t

Program.

lite ra tu re

re le va n t

background o f

to

t h e s t u d y was

the development o f s tu d e n t

t e a c h i n g programs a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
75

76
was d e s c r i b e d and a d e s c r i p t i o n was p r e s e n t e d o f
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs u t i l i z e d
To c ompar e t h e

impact o f

grams upon t h e c o o p e r a t i n g

in t h i s

the s e le c te d

sch oo ls,

the f i v e

elem entary

study.

teacher p re p a ra tio n

the f o l l o w i n g

pro­

research hypotheses

were f o r m u l a t e d :
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s #1
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
b as e d on c h an g e s i n i n d i v i d u a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n f o r p u p i l s .
Research H y p o th e s is #2
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
b as ed on c h a n g es i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s f o r t h e
p up iIs ,
R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s #3
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
in c o n t r i b u t i o n s to th e c o o p e r a ti n g school program by the
student teacher.
Research H y p o th e s is # k
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
i n t h e amount o f t i m e t h e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r m u s t spend
on p r o f e s s i o n a l d u t i e s due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f a s t u d e n t
teacher.
Research H y p o th e s is #5
T h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s e l e c t e d
t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l p r o g r a m
i n t h e amount o f t i m e o t h e r s t a f f members s p en d on
p r o f e s s i o n a l d u t i e s due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e s t u d e n t
teacher.
The s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e d e v e l o p e d by t h e Deans and
D ire c to rs
study
was

in

o f Teacher E d u c a t io n Programs
1969,

incorporated

The means f o r e v a l u a t i n g
in to

the s u rv e y

in M ich ig a n f o r
student

in stru m e nts.

a p rio r

t e a c h i n g pro grams

Among t h e 80 i t e m s

77
on e ach f o r m o f
which

t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e were

re la te d d ir e c t ly

to the

of

a ll

The p o p u l a t i o n o f

su p e rvisin g

cent o f

in

teachers

the a d m in is tr a t io n o f

the c u r r e n t

the p o t e n t i a l

1975* and t h e

o f c o o p e ra tin g schools p a r t i c i ­
A l m o s t 80 p e r

responded t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

d i f f e r e n c e s wer e s a i d t o e x i s t

the t o t a l

t e a c h e r s who

these s tu d e n t te a c h e rs .

p o p u la tio n

the

s t u d y was composed

the W in te r q u a rte r o f

and p r i n c i p a l s

the p r e p a r a tio n o f

Meaningful
ence o f

M ichigan S ta te

M ich ig a n S ta te U n i v e r s i t y e le m en ta ry s tu d e n t

were s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g d u r i n g

p a tin g

s p e c if ic q uestions

research hypotheses.

U n i v e r s i t y s t a f f were r e s p o n s i b l e f o r
q u e stio n n a ire s.

in clu de d

if

t h e mean d i f f e r ­

response d i s t r i b u t i o n f rom t he c o n v e n t i o n a l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n program exceeded t we n t y p e r c e n t

(20%).

Means

and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r each i t e m response on t he s u r v e y q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e were c o m pi l e d by t h e CDC 6500 computer a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U niversity.

These d a t a were c o l l a p s e d and compari sons made f o r each

research hypothesis using the

d

f o r m u l a s ugge ste d by Cohen.^

The f i n d i n g s a r e summarized i n T a b l e 5 . 1 .

^Cohen, Op. C i t .

78
TABLE 5 . 1 . — Summary o f f i n d i n g s f o r
(per cent d if fe r e n c e s ) .
Student
Teachers

R e se a r c h H y p o t h e s e s ,

S u p e r v i s i ng
Teachers

P ri nci pals

H y p o t h e s i s #1
C1u s t e r

13.26

4.08

-

-

EIP

13.26

3.08

-

-

EEE

15.30

21.76*

-

-

T e a c h e r Corps

16.32

16.32

-

-

6.46

5.78

3.06

EIP

2 6 . 52*

1.02

8.16

EEE

12.58

3.78

5.78

T e a c h e r Corps

31.62*

19.38

24.82*

4.76

6.80

19.38

EIP

15.64

1.36

10.20

EEE

23.12*

25.84*

26.18*

T e a c h e r Corps

36.04*

15.64

5.78

C1u s t e r

7.14

12.92

2.72

EIP

3.06

13.60

8.84

EEE

2.38

4.42

19.38

T e a c h e r Corps

9.18

19.72

8.84

C1u s t e r

0.68

6.12

_

-

EIP

9.86

0 .68

-

-

EEE

2.38

26.86*

-

-

T e a c h e r Corps

1.70

12.24

-

-

H y p o t h e s i s #2
C lu ste r

H y p o t h e s i s #3
C lu s te r

H y p o th e s is #4

H y p o t h e s i s #5

-'denotes m e a n in g fu l

d iffe re n c e .

79
F i n d i n g s and C on c l u s i o n s
Research H y p o t he s is #1 p o s t u l a t e d
d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s e l e c t e d
t he c o n v e n t i o n a l
tion fo r pupils.

t h a t t h e r e were no m ea n i n g f u l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs and

program based on changes

in

ind ivid u alized

in s tru c ­

The d a t a d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s .

response d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s

The t o t a l

in the Experimental

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n program exceeded t h e 20 p e r c e n t m ea n i n g f u l
difference

level

fr om t he C o n v e n t i o n a l

pr ogr am.

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n program s u p e r v i s i n g
the amount o f

t ime p u p i l s were i n v o l v e d

The E x p e r i m e n t a l

t e a c h e r s p e r c e i v e d as g r e a t e r
in

ind ivid u alized

compared t o t he p e r c e p t i o n s o f s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r s

instruction

in the Conventional

program i n t h i s a r e a .
Research H y p o t h e s i s //2 p o s t u l a t e d
differences

between t he s e l e c t e d

that

t h e r e wer e no m ea n i n g f u l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs and

t he c o n v e n t i o n a l

program based on changes

for

The d a t a d i d not s u p p o r t t h e h y p o t h e s i s .

the p u p i l s .

pe r c e n t me ani ngf ul
teachers

d ifference

i n the E l e m e n t a r y

and p r i n c i p a l s

level

in

instructional

a ctiv itie s
The 20

was exceeded by t h e s t u d e n t

I n t e r n program and t he s t u d e n t

i n t h e T e a ch e r Corps pr ogr am.

The s t u d e n t

teachers
teachers

i n t he E l e m e n t a r y I n t e r n program and the T e a c h e r Corps program
p e r c e i v e d as g r e a t e r
itie s

t he amount o f changes

when compared t o the

conventional

program.

Program p e r c e i v e d

r esponses o f

However,

t he changes

in

the s t u d e n t t e a c h e r s

t he p r i n c i p a l s

in i n s t r u c t i o n a l

as not as g r e a t when compared t o t he

instructional

a c tiv ­
in t he

i n t h e T e a c h e r Corps
a c tiv itie s

responses o f

for pupils

the p r i n c i p a l s

in

80
the c o n v e n tio n a l

program.

The s m a l l

number o f p r i n c i p a l

f r o m t h e T e a c h e r Co r ps p r o g r a m (N = h)
co n clu sio n s.

respondents

mu st be c o n s i d e r e d when d r a w i n g

The p e r c e p t i o n s by t h e s t u d e n t

teachers o f

t h e EI P and

T e a c h e r Co r p s p r o g r a m s c a n n o t be a c c o u n t e d f o r b as ed on t h e
of

the s u p e rv is in g

teachers o f

t h e same p r o g r a m s .

d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e p e r c e i v e d b ased on t h e
it

m u s t be c o n c l u d e d

two programs
a c tiv itie s

re s u lts

fo r

tha t

the

in te rn s h ip

school

between t h e s e l e c t e d

p r o g r a m based on t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s

p r o g r a m by t h e s t u d e n t t e a c h e r .

on t h e s e p e r c e p t i o n s ,
cooperating

school

are g r e a t e r

than

the c o o p e ra tin g

m ust s e r v e a t

three

teachers

it

is concluded

tha t

the c o n v e n tio n a l
school

program.

length o f

tim e

the c o o p e ra tin g

This

school

respondents

t h e T e a c h e r Co rp s

d iffe re n c e

le v e l.

the c o n t r i b u t i o n s

Based
to

the

is

program

th e ir

c o n trib u tio n s

to

n o t s u r p r i s i n g when one
teachers

(see C h a p te r
th a t there

fro m the se programs
ll).
a r e no m e a n i n g f u l

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and

i n t h e amount o f

t e a c h e r m u s t spend on p r o f e s s i o n a l
student teacher.

to the coopera­

groups o f

in

program in

the s t u d e n t

between th e s e l e c t e d

the c o n v e n tio n a l

p r o g r a m s and

p r o g r a m by t h e EEE and T e a c h e r Co r ps p r o g r a m s

R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s ffh p o s t u l a t e s
d iffe re n c e s

in s tru c tio n a l

The h y p o t h e s i s was

p r o g r a m e x c e e d e d t h e 20 p e r c e n t m e a n i n g f u l

the

in

these

t h e r e w e r e no m e a n i n g f u l

teacher p re p a ra tio n

t h e EEE p r o g r a m and t h e s t u d e n t

considers

s t u d y and

p r e p a r a t i o n common t o

tha t

r e j e c t e d because th e p e r c e p t i o n s o f a l l
in

s e t by t h i s

the p u p i l s .

the co nventional
tin g

H o we v e r , m e a n i n g f u l

i n p e r c e p t i o n s o f g r e a t e r c han ges

R e s e a r c h H y p o t h e s i s i-t3 p o s t u l a t e d
d iffe re n c e s

lim its

responses

d utie s

tim e

the s u p e r v i s i n g

due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f

The h y p o t h e s i s was a c c e p t e d .

None o f

a

the teacher

p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s e x c e e de d t h e 20 p e r c e n t m e a n i n g f u l
level

when compared t o t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

from t h i s

study,

b e t w e e n any o f
v is in g

it

appears

tha t

th e programs

program.

d iffe re n c e

Based on t h e d a t a

t h e r e a r e no m e a n i n g f u l

tested

in

t h e amount o f

t e a c h e r must spend on p r o f e s s i o n a l

d u tie s

d iffe re n ce s

tim e

due t o

the super­
the presence

o f a student teacher.
Research H y p o th e s is #5 p o s t u l a t e d
d iffe re n c e s

b et we e n t h e s e l e c t e d

the c o n v e n tio n a l

program

spend on p r o f e s s i o n a l
teacher.

d iffe re n c e
sio n al

in

d u tie s

It

is

programs

d u tie s

due t o

to note

re s p o n d e n ts between t h e c l u s t e r

d iffe re n ce s

the major d i f f e r e n c e s

in te rn sh ip

year f o r

the s tu d e n t

EIP

th is

study.

a greater

d i f f e r e n c e s were
and c o n v e n t i o n a l

I n o n l y one i n s t a n c e

H o we v er ,

it

Inte rn

s h o u l d be p o i n t e d

b e t w e e n t h e t wo p r o g r a m s o c c u r d u r i n g

(see C h a p te r

II).

teaching e xperience,

th e advantages c la im e d f o r

from

teacher.

found between t h e E le m e n t a r y
program.

teachers

members s pend on p r o f e s ­

the stud e nt

areas.

members

the s tud e nt

The s u p e r v i s i n g

t h a t no m e a n i n g f u l

i n any o f t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d

comes a f t e r

in

re je c te d .

tim e o th e r s t a f f

P r o g r a m and t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l

the

due t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f

the presence o f

in te re s tin g

were m e a n in g fu l

out tha t

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s and

E le m e n ta ry E d u c a t io n program p e r c e i v e d

t h e amount o f

p e r c e i v e d by t h e

t h e r e w e r e no m e a n i n g f u l

i n t h e amount o f t i m e o t h e r s t a f f

The h y p o t h e s i s was

the Experimental

tha t

the Elem entary

Since the

in te rn s h ip

one w o u l d n o t e x p e c t

Inte rn

Because t h e s e t h r e e p r o g r a m s o f

pro gram t o appear
teacher p re p a ra tio n

82
r e p r e s e n t 88 p e r c e n t o f
it

the t o t a l

respondents

to

the q u e s t io n n a ir e ,

would appear:
1.

2.

The r e s e a r c h h y p o t h e s e s a r e g e n e r a l l y s u p p o r t e d as t h e y
re la te

to the c o n v e n tio n a l,

Intern

Program.

Due t o t h e s m a l l
E xperim ental

c lu s te r,

p o p u la tio n s o f

and E l e m e n t a r y

the p a r t i c i p a n t s

E l e m e n t a r y E d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m and t h e T e a c h e r

Corps p r o g r a m ,

the p e rc e p tio n s o f

be w e i g h e d c a r e f u l l y .

these

re s p o n d e n ts must

Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s

can be m i s l e a d i n g when r e s p o n s e s a r e o b t a i n e d
small

in the

p o p u la tion

and co mp ar ed w i t h

from a

a large p o p u la tio n .

Recommendat i ons
The f o l l o w i n g
of

th is
1.

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d b ase d on t h e

in v e s tig a tio n :
Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y
e va lu a tio n o f
o b je c tiv e of

its

should m a in ta in

im proving e x i s t i n g

be a d m i n i s t e r e d each q u a r t e r
a ra tio n
tio ns

programs.

in itia te d

educational
Experim ental
tio n
to

an o n - g o i n g

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n programs w i t h
programs.

the survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e u t i l i z e d

2.

re s u lts

in

th is

to m o n itor

the

For example,
study could

teacher prep­

T r e n d s c o u l d be n o t e d and m o d i f i c a ­

t o meet

t h e c h a n g i n g needs o f

the

e n te rp ris e .
and i n n o v a t i v e p r o g r a m s o f

teacher prepara­

s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d and r e s o u r c e s made a v a i l a b l e

implement

them.

9.

A d m in is tra to rs
w ith

and t e a c h e r s

in the p u b lic

schools

in vo lve d

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s s h o u l d c o n s t a n t l y be

encouraged t o assess th e p r o c e d u r e s ,

o p e ra tio n s,

and

e ff e c t iv e n e s s o f the programs.
10.

More v a l i d

instrum ents

t o m ea sur e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of

t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s a r e n eeded and w a r r a n t
e xte n sive
11.

research.

The C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d t o d e v e l o p
a model

te a c h e r p r e p a r a t io n program w hich would

t h e mo st p r o m i s i n g , e f f i c i e n t ,
each o f

the e x i s t i n g

programs.

and e f f e c t i v e

in c o rp o ra te

aspects o f

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Am erican A s s o c i a t i o n o f Teachers C o l l e g e s .
New Y o r k :
The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1922.

Yearbook 1922.

Oneonta,

A s s o c ia t io n f o r S tud e nt Teaching.
R e s e a r c h on S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g ,
B u l l e t i n No. 5 .
Dubuque, I ow a:
W i l l i a m C. Brown C o . , 1 96 5 .
A t k i n s o n , C a r r o l l , and M a l e s k a ,
C h i l t o n B o o k s , 1965-

Eugene T .

The S t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n .

B r a d y , Hugh P.
"A Comparison o f th e S tu d e n t T e a c h in g E x p e r i e n c e o f
M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t Teachers A s s ig n e d t o Overseas
American S chools w i t h t h a t o f M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t
Teachers Assigned t o P u b l ic Schools in M ic h i g a n . "
U npublished
P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.
Cl em, Pau l N.
"A S tud y o f th e M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y F u l l t i m e
R esident S tudent Teaching P ro gram ."
U n p u b lis h e d Ed.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1958.
Cohen, J a c o b .
New Y o r k :

S t a t i s t i c a l Power A n a l y s i s
A c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1969.

C o n a n t , James B.
M cG raw -H ill,

fo r

the B eh a vio ra l

The E d u c a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n T e a c h e r s .
1963.

S cie nce s.

New Y o r k :

Corman, B e r n a r d R . , and O l m s t e d , Ann G.
The I n t e r n s h i p i n t h e
P r e p a r a t i o n o f E le m e n ta ry School T e a c h e r s .
East L a n sin g :
M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C o lle g e o f E d u c a t i o n , 196^.
Cragun, John, e t a l .
C l u s t e r C o n s u l t a n t Monograph.
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972.

East Lansin g :

C re ssma n, George R . , and Benda, H a r o l d W.
P u b lic E ducation in
America.
New Y o r k :
A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r a f t s , I n c . , 1956.
C u b b e r l e y , E l l w o o d P.
The H i s t o r y o f E d u c a t i o n .
Mi f f 1 i n C o . , 1920.

New Y o r k :

Houghton-

C y p h e r t , F r e d e r i c k R.
"An A n a l y s i s o f Research in T eacher E d u c a t i o n . "
The J o u r n a l o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , V o l . X X I I I , No. 2 , Summer 1972.
D a u n t , P a t r i c k D.
"A F o l l o w - u p S tud y o f th e M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y L a n s i n g S c ho o l D i s t r i c t SERL P r o j e c t and t h e C o n v e n t i o n a l P r o g r a m
o f S t u d e n t T e a ch in g in th e L a n s in g P u b l i c S c h o o ls w i t h Comparisons
o f T e a c h e r A t t i t u d e s , R a t i n g s , and C a r e e r P r o g r e s s .
U npublished
P h. D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
85

86
D a v i d , Hugo, ( e d . ) .
Dubuq ue, I owa:

Toward E x c e l l e n c e i n S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g , 3 r d e d i t i o n .
K e n d a l 1 - H u n t P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1 97 3.

Dean, L e l a n d , and K e n n e d y , W. H e n r y i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h Deans and
D ir e c t o r s o f Teacher E du ca tio n o f M ichigan in M ichigan C o lle g e s .
" A P o s i t i o n P ap e r on S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g P r o g r a m s , " i n Howard E.
B o s l e y , T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n i n T r a n s i t i o n , An E x p e r i m e n t i n
Ch ang e, V o l . 1.
B a ltim o r e , M aryland:
M u l t i - S t a t e Teacher
E d u c a t i o n P r o j e c t , May 19&9.
" D e a r T e a c h e r Co rp s A p p l i c a n t . "
Mi m eo g r a p h o f D e p a r t m e n t o f
E l e m e n t a r y and S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n , C o l l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n ,
East Lansing:
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1973.
Denemark , G. W . , and M a c d o n a l d , J . B.
" P r e s e r v i c e and I n s e r v i c e
E ducation o f T e a c h e rs ."
The J o u r n a l o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h ,
V o l . 3 7 , 1967.
Department o f S u p e rin te n d e n c e , N in t h Yearbook.
F ive U n ify in g F actors
i n A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n ; The D e p a r t m e n t o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n c e o f t h e
N a tio n a l E ducation A s s o c ia tio n o f the U n ite d S ta te s .
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . , 1931 E b e l , Robert L . , ( e d . ) .
E ncyclopedia o f E du ca tiona l
L on d on :
M a c m i l l a n C o . , 1969.

Research.

E l e m e n t a r y I n t e r n P r o g r a m / A n o t h e r Way o f L e a r n i n g t o T e a c h .
East Lansing:
M ich ig a n S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .
F in a l Report
Ford F o u n d a t io n .

to the

"E xp e rim e n ta l Elem entary E d u ca tio n P ro g ra m ."
Bro chu re f o r Placement
S e rv ic e s , Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y , East L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n .
F r i s t o e , Dewey.
E ducational

" E a r ly B eginnings o f L a b o ra to ry S c h o o ls ."
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n , V o l . 2 8 , Ma rc h 1 9 ^ 2 .

Good, C a r t e r V . , ( e d . ) .
D ic tio n a r y o f E du cation .
H i l l Book C o . , I n c . , 1959.

New Y o r k :

McGraw-

H a r p e r , C h a r l e s A.
A Century o f P u b lic Teacher E d u c a tio n .
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C . :
N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1939.
H o d e n f i e l d , G. K . , and S t i n n e t t , T .
En gl e wo od C l i f f s , New J e r s e y :
Hunt,

M.
The E d u c a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s .
P r e n t i c e Hal 1 , TsBV.

C h a r l e s W.
Teacher E d u c a tio n f o r a Free P e o p le .
Oneonta,
New Y o r k :
The A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f C o l l e g e s f o r T e a c h e r
E d u c a t i o n , 1956.

Jackson, Charles L o u is .
"A Study o f S e le c te d S tu d e n t Teaching
E x p e rie n c e s Rep orte d by M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y C l u s t e r
P r o g r a m and C o n v e n t i o n a l P r o g r a m S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s . "
U npublished
P h . D . d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1971.

APPENDIX A

J o h n s o n , James A.
A B r i e f H is t o r y o f Student T e ach in g .
Illin o is :
C r e a t i v e E d u c a t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s , 1 96 8.
Johnson, J i m ,
Dubugue:

and P e r r y , F l o y d .
Readings
W i l l i a m C. Brown Book C o . ,

De K a l b ,

in Student T e a c h in g .
1967.

K o e r n e r , James D.
The M i s e d u c a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n T e a c h e r s .
H o u g h t o n - M i f f 1 i n , 1963.

Boston:

M a r c u s , C l i f f o r d M.
" C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f S t u d e n t T e a c h in g Programs
t o M i c h i g a n C o o p e r a t i n g S c h o o l s as P e r c e i v e d b y S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s ,
S u p e r v i s i n g T e a c h e r s and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . "
U n p u b lis h e d Ph.D.
d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
M a y o r , John R.
" A c c r e d i t a t i o n in Teacher E d u c a tio n :
Its In flu e n c e
on H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . "
N a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n on A c c r e d i t i n g , 196 5.
McGeoch, D o r o t h y M . , and O l s o n , Hans.
"The Charge t o A c t i o n . "
Teacher E d u c a tio n :
Future D ir e c t io n s .
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. :
N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 97 0.
M c I n t y r e , L o n n i e D.
The U n i g u e V a r i a b l e s o f t h e L a n s i n g T e a c h e r
Corps.
M i m e o g r a p h , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , March k , 197^+ N o l l , V i c t o r H.
The P r e p a r a t i o n o f T e ac h e r s a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U niversi t y .
East Lansing:
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1968.
P r i c e , W i l l i a m J.
" T h e S t u d e n t T e a c h e r as I n d e n t u r e d S e r v a n t . "
The J o u r n a l o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , V o l . X X I I I , No. 3, F a l l ,
R e i n h a r d t , Emma.
Pub 1i s h e r s ,

American E d u c a t io n .
1960.

New Y o r k :

S m i t h , B. O t h a n e l .
Research in T e ach e r E d u c a t i o n .
New J e r s e y :
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, I n c . , 1971.

1 97 2 .

H a r p e r and B r o t h e r s ,

Englewood C l i f f s ,

"S ta nd a rd s f o r the A c c r e d i t a t i o n o f Teacher E d u c a t io n . "
N ational
Council f o r A c c r e d i t a t i o n o f Teacher E d u c a tio n :
W ashington,
D. C . , 1970.
S t i l e s , L in d le y J.
" A t t i t u d e s T o w ar d E d u c a t i o n C o u r s e s . "
o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , V o l . 10, 1959.

Journal

"Teacher C o rp s."
B r o c h u r e b y U. S. O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n ,
W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.
The I mpact o f S t u d e n t T e a c h i n g Programs Upon t h e C o o p e r a t i n g P u b l i c
Schools i n M i c h i g a n .
Lansing:
Michigan Council o f S t a t e C o lle g e
P r e s i d e n t s , 1970.
"T T T ."
T r a in e r s o f Teacher T r a in e r s P r o j e c t .
East Lansing:
M ichigan S ta te U n i v e r s i t y .

Annual

Report

1 97 1 “ 72

APPENDIX A

STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING

The attached questionnaire was administered statewide in 1969 to
investigate the impact of student teachers upon the public schools
cooperating in teacher education programs.
>ver 1300 student teachers,
supervising teachers, and administrators of cooperating schools
responded to the Michigan State University segment of the Impact
Study. The instrument was developed by educators, parent groups,
and teacher preparation institutions.
It incorporated suggestions
and contributions from the Detroit Federation of Teachers and the
Michigan Education Association.
The data were used to measure the
effect of student teaching upon the school in which student teachers
were placed and provided a basis for the improvement of student
teaching and teacher education programs.
'n an effort to update these data, the same instrument is again being
administered to the teacher candidates in the various teacher preparation
programs at Michigan State University. All student teachers, supervising
teachers, and principals of cooperating schools involved in the field
laboratory experience with Michigan State University during the Winter
Quarter of 1975 will be asked to respond to the questionnaire. Your
participation is vital to the success of this survey and your cooperation
is greatly appreciated.
The directions to respondents on the next page is the same except the
IBM answer sheets are not pre-coded and any lead pencil may be used to
mark your response. Your identity will remain unknown, however, y o u
will be asked to identify on the answer sheet the center and teacher
preparation program in which you are participating. The person
administering this survey will give you specific instructions on how
to do this and will answer any questions you may have regarding the
survey.

STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
This study is being conducted at the request of the Council of State College Presidents for the purpose of
analyzing the effect of student teaching programs on the schools of Michigan. The study is being conducted
by all the teacher preparation institutions in Michigan and will involve all student teachers, supervising
teachers, and building principals working with student teachers during the fall quarter or semester of 1969.
The instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of three Michigan
institutions, and have been reviewed by Michigan Education Association officials, and the Student Teaching
Committee of the Detroit Federation of Teachers. Both groups have made contributions to the items in the
instrument and have expressed interest in the findings.
It is expected that the results of this study will be given wide distribution and no doubt will provide a basis
for the improvement of student teaching and teacher education programs in Michigan over the next decade.

DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS
1. Use the IBM answer sheet provided. The pre-coding in the upper right block in the answer sheet
identifies the teacher education institution and the instrument number for purposes of statistical
analysis. There will be no way for your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The
responses will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment. Since your
responses will be combined with those from other institutions it is essential that all respondents use the
same procedure.
2. Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to indicate your answer to each item. Blacken the
space completely. Be careful not to put any other marks on the answer sheet.
3.

Mark no more than one answer for each item. Please answer every item unless instructed otherwise on
the instrument.

4.

In the instrument "University" means either "college" or "university" as appropriate. "Supervising
teacher" also means "cooperating teacher," "sponsoring teacher," or "critic teacher." Student teacher
also means "associate teacher."

Teacher Questionnaire
DADS-HK-MSU

11-69

STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN

Teacher Questionnaire

1.

Which of the following are you now?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

2.

Three or less years
Four to seven years

3.
4.

Eight to twelve years
More than twelve years

Only one
Two
Three

4.
5.

Four to six
More than six

One
Two
Three
Four

5.
6.
7.

Five
Six to ten
More than ten

How well do you feel your present student teacher was prepared to enter student teaching?
1.
2.
3.

8.

Large central city (e.g., Detroit, Grand Rapids)
Large suburban community (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen)
Small suburban community (e.g., Okemos, Essexville)
Medium sized city (e.g., Battle Creek, Kalamazoo)
Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles, Ithaca)

With how many student teachers have you worked in the last 5 years?
(I nclude your current student teacher)
1.
2.
3.
4.

7.

Female

How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the student teachers with whom you
have worked?
1.
2.
3.

6.

2.

How many years of teaching have you completed including this year?
1.
2.

5.

Male

Which statement below best describes the community in which you teach?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

4.

single student teacher
married student teacher
supervising (cooperating, sponsoring) teacher
supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment in addition to teaching
school administrator

What is your sex?
1.

3.

A
A
A
A
A

Extremely well prepared
Well prepared
Adequately prepared

4.
5.

Minimally prepared
Inadequately prepared

In this assignment (contact), how was your student teacher scheduled in student teaching?
1.
2.

Full-time
Full-time except he was also enrolled
in a non-student teaching credit course

3.
4.

1

Half-days
Less than half-days

9.

In this assignment (contact) how was your student teacher placed?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

With you as the single supervising teacher.
In a team-teaching situation (two or more team members).
With two or three different teachers (but not team-teaching).
In a flexible cluster arrangement.
In a campus laboratory school.
In a special program or project different from any of the above.

How many weeks is your student teacher scheduled in this assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.

5 weeks or less
6 or 7 weeks
8 or 9 weeks

4.
5.
6.

10 or 11 weeks
12 to 14 weeks
More than 14 weeks

5.
6.
7.
8.

Middle School
Junior High School
Senior High School
All grades l< - 12

What is your own current teaching assignment?
1.
2.
3.
4.
12.

Grades K, 1 ,2
Grades 3, 4
Grades 5, 6
All elementary grades

To what subject area or teaching field are you primarily assigned? (Check one answer only from item
12 and 13.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

All elementary subjects K-5 or K-6
Art
Business Education
English
Elementary departmental or
block program

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Elementary ungraded program
Foreign Language
Home Economics
Mathematics
Music

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Physical Education (Elementary)
Physical Education (Secondary)
Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics)
Science (General, Natural, Earth)
Social Studies (including History)

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Social Science — English combination
Special Education
Speech
Vocational or Industrial Arts Education
Other

QUESTIONS 14 THROUGH 18 deal with any changes in individualized instruction for the pupils which may have
resulted from your student teacher's presence.
14.

To what extent did your student teacher work with (instruct, counsel, tutor) individual pupils?
1.
2.

15.

3.
4.

A little bit
Not at all

To what extent did you work with individual pupils as compared to when you do not have a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.

16.

A great deal
To some extent

Much more than usual
Somewhat more than usual
About the same as usual

4.
5.

Somewhat less than usual
Much less than usual

To what extent was individual help or counseling provided your pupils during non-class hours as compared to
what would have been possible if you had not had a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.

Much more than usual
Somewhat more than usual
About the same as usual

4.
5.

2

Somewhat less than usual
Much less than usual

26.

Amount of material covered
1.
2.
3.

27.

4.
5.

Somewhat less
Much less

4.
5.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

4.
5.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer

Discipline
1.
2.
3.

28.

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

Much better
Somewhat better
No change

Motivation of pupils
1.
2.
3.

Much better
Somewhat better
No change

QUESTIONS 29 THROUGH 31 deal with the contributions your student teacher may have made to the school
program. Did your student teacher make any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as
29.

Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.?
1.
2.

30.

No
Don't know

Often
Sometimes

3.
4.

No
Don't know

A great many

2.

Some

3.

No

A great many

2.

Some

3.

No

What use were you able to make of the contributions (32 & 33) of your student teacher?
1.
2.

35.

3.
4.

Did your student teacher suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas?
1.

34.

Often
Sometimes

Did your student teacher bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or different instructional materials?
1.

33.

No
Don't know

Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground or hall duty?
1.
2.

32.

3.
4.

Give talk to parent's group?
1.
2.

31.

Often
Sometimes

I used them.
I did not use them.

3.
4.

I had to discourage him from contributing too freely.
My student teacher really did not have much to offer.

How many hours per week on the average did your student teacher teach your assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than an hour a week.
One to five hours per week.
Six to ten hours per week.

4.
5.
6.

Eleven to fifteen hours per week.
Sixteen to twenty hours per week.
More than twenty hours per week.

How many hours per week on the average were you able to be away from the classroom while your student
teacher was teaching your assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than one
1- 5
6-10

4.
5.
6.

4

11 - 15
16-20
More than 20

To what extent did you engage in any of the following additional activities during the time your student teacher
was teaching?
37.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1.

38.

3.

Not at all

A great deal

2.

To some extent

3.

Not at all

A great deal

2.

To some extent

3.

Not at all

A great deal

2.

To some extent

3.

Not at all

A great deal

2.

To some extent

3.

Not at all

2.

To some extent

3.

Not at all

2.

To some extent

3.

Not at all

Assisting the principal or other teachers
1.

44.

To some extent

A great deal

Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching.
1.

43.

Not at all

Work with staff of school or department
1.

42.

3.

Professional reading or writing
1.

41.

To some extent

Research.
1.

40.

2.

Committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff.
1.

39.

A great deal

A great deal

Social or recreational activities
1.

A great deal

QUESTION 45 THROUGH 49
To what extent did your student teacher relieve other regular staff members who did not have student teachers of
the following activities?
45.

Teaching
1.
2.

46.

Not at all
Don't know

Many times
Once or a few times

3.
4.

Not at all
Don’t know

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

Supervision of lunch duty
1.
2.

48.

3.
4.

Chaperoning
1.
2.

47.

Many times
Once or a few times

Many times
Once or a few times

Supervision of study hall
1.
2.

Many times
Once or a few times

5

49.

Supervision of playground
1.
2.

Many times
Once or a few times

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

QUESTION 50 THROUGH 53
To what extent were other staff members able to engage in any of the following activities because of the presence
of student teachers in the building?
50.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools
1.
2.

51.

Not at all
Don't know

A great deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

A great deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

Less than
10 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25

10

5.
6.
7.
8.

26 to 30
31 to 35
36 to 40
More than 40

How did the presence of a student teacher affect the average number of hours per week you spent at school as
compared to when you do not have a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

56.

3.
4.

How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the physical presence (close enough to
see or talk with)of your student teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.

55.

A great deal
To some extent

Professional reading or writing
1.
2.

54.

Not at all
Don't know

Research
1.
2.

53.

3.
4.

Committee work in the school
1.
2.

52.

Many times
To some extent

Added more than six hours per week
Added three to six hours per week
Added one to three hours per week
Added up to one extra hour per week
Had no effect

6.
7.
8.
9.

Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced

by up to one hour per week
by one to three hours per week
by three to six hours per week
more than six hours per week

How did your student teacher's presence affect the average number of hours per week you worked on jobrelated activities away from school?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Added more than six hours per week
Added three to six hours per week
Added one to three hours per week
Added up to one hour per week
Had no effect

6.
7.
8.
9.

6

Reduced
Reduced
Reduced
Reduced

by up to one hour per week
by one to three hours per week
by three to six hours per week
more than six hours per week

QUESTION 57 THROUGH 60
To what extent was the time you spent on any of the following activities changed because of your student teacher's
presence?
57.

Teaching
1.
2.
3.

58.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal

Increased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

4.
5.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal

4.
5.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal

4.
5.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal

Paper Grading
1.
2.
3.

60.

4.
5.

Lesson Planning
1.
2.
3.

59.

I ncreased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

I ncreased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

Help to individual students
1.
2.
3.

I ncreased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

QUESTION 61 THROUGH 69
To what extent did you engage in the following activities because of the presence of the student teacher?
61.

Planning with or for your student teacher
1.
2.

62.

3.

No extra hours

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.

No extra hours

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.

No extra hours

3.

No extra hours

3.

No extra hours

Finding housing for your student teacher.
1.
2.

66.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

Fulfilling the social obligations resulting from your student teacher's presence.
1.
2.

65.

No extra hours

Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really a part of student teaching.
1.
2.

64.

3.

Evaluating your student teacher's progress or activities
1.
2.

63.

A yeat many extra hours
Some extra hours

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

Preparing additional reports.
1.
2.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

7

67.

Making additional preparation for teaching.
1.
2.

68.

Less than one
One to three
Four to six

4.
5.

Seven to nine
Ten or more

None
Less than one
One to three

4.
5.
6.

Four to seven
Eight to ten
More than ten

None
One or less
Two to four

4.
5.
6.

Five to seven
Eight to ten
More than ten

4.
5.

None at ail
One to five hours
Six to fifteen hours

Sixteen to thirty hours
More than thirty hours

What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on your own teaching performance?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

74.

No extra hours

How many hours do you estimate your student teacher spent doing volunteer work in the community where
he was assigned for student teaching (youth groups, home service, church work and the like) during his student
teaching period?
1.
2.
3.

73.

3.

During student teaching how many days did your student teacher handle classes for any teacher other than
yourself while that teacher was away from his class?
1.
2.
3.

72.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

How many days during student teaching did your student teacher handle classes for you while you were away
for reasons other than student teaching business (professional work, request of principal or other people,
personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute would have had to be hired if the student
teacher had not been there?
1.
2.
3.

71.

No extra hours

How many times per week on the average did you have contact with your student teacher outside of regular
working hours at school? (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc.)
1.
2.
3.

70.

3.

Holding telephone conversations or other conferences with your student teacher.
1.
2.

69.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

Has made me a much more effective teacher
Has made me a more effective teacher
Has had no effect on my teaching
Has made me a less effective teacher
Has made me a much less effective teacher

What do you think should be the attitude of the administrators and teachers in your school about working with
student teachers?
1.
2.
3.

Should aggressively seek student teachers
Should seek student teachers
Should accept student teachers

4.
5.

8

Should resist having student teachers inthe school
Should refuse to have student teachers inthe school

75.

If you were starting over, would you accept another student teacher with similar credentials from the same
institution under the same general circumstances?
1.
2.
3.

76.

6.
7.
8.
9.

Nine to ten times
Eleven to twelve times
Thirteen to fifteen times
Sixteen or more times

All the help I felt was necessary
Most of the help I felt was needed
Some of the help I felt I needed

4.
5.

Little of the help I felt was needed.
No help at all

He has gone out of his way to be helpful
He has helped when asked

3.
4.

He has not helped
No such help was needed

Would you want your student to teach in your building or system next year?
1.
2.
3.

80.

Not at all
One to two times
Three to four times
Five to six times
Seven to eight times

Has the university coordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly concerned with student
teaching?
1.
2.

79.

I would probably decline
I would refuse

How much help has the university coordinator (supervisor) provided you?
1.
2.
3.

78.

4.
5.

How many times has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during
this student teaching contact?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

77.

I would accept with enthusiasm
I would accept
I feel neutral about it

Yes
No, but would recommend him in a different system or building
No

Why was this student teacher assigned to you?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I volunteered since I feel a professional obligation to help prepare future teachers.
I volunteered but only because I felt pressure from an administrator to do so.
I volunteered because I thought a student teacher would be helpful to me in performing my
school duties.
I did not volunteer but was requested by an administrator to take the student teacher.
I was forced to work with the student teacher against my will.

9

STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
This study is being conducted at the request of the Council of State College Presidents for the purpose of
analyzing the effect of student teaching programs on trie schools of Michigan. The study is being conducted
by all the teacher preparation institutions in Michigan and will involve all student teachers, supervising
teachers, and building principals working with student teachers during the fall quarter or semester of 1969.
The instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of three Michigan
institutions, and have been reviewed by Michigan Education Association officials, and the Student Teaching
Committee of the D etroit Federation of Teachers. Both groups have made contributions to the items in the
instrument and have expressed interest in the findings.
i t is expected that the results of this study will be given wide distribution and no doubt will provide a basis
for the improvement of student teaching and teacher education programs in Michigan over the next decade.

DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS
1. Use the IBM answer sheet provided. The pre-coding in the upper right block in the answer sheet
identifies the teacher education institution and the instrument number for purposes of statistical
analysis. There w ill be no way for your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The
responses will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment. Since your
responses will be combined with those from other institutions it is essential that all respondents use the
same procedure.
2. Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to indicate your answer to each item. Blacken the
space completely. Be careful not to put any other marks on the answer sheet.
3. Mark no more than one answer for each item. Please answer every item unless instructed otherwise on
the instrument.
4. In the instrument "University" means either "college" or "university" as appropriate. "Supervising
teacher" also means "cooperating teacher," "sponsoring teacher," or "critic teacher." Student teacher
also means "associate teacher."

S tudent Teacher Questionnaire
DADS-HK-MSU

11-69

STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
Student Teacher Questionnaire

1.

Which of the following are you now?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

2.

Had junior standing
Had senior standing
Had the BA or BS degree

Below 2.0
2.0 — 2.5
2.5 - 3.0

4.
5.

3.0 - 3.5
Above 3.5

21 years or under
21 to 21% years
2114 to 22 years

4.
5.

22 to 23 years
Over 23 years

How many times have you student taught including the current assignment (contact)?
1.

8.

Large central city (e.g., Detroit, Grand Rapids)
Large suburban community (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen)
Small suburban community (e.g., Okemos, Essexville)
Medium sized city (e.g., Battle Creek, Kalamazoo)
Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles, Ithaca)

How old were you at the beginning of thisstudent teaching assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.

7.

Female

What is your all-college grade point average?
(Scale: A=4, B=3, C=2. D=1, F=0)
1.
2.
3.

6.

2.

What was your status as a student in your college or university when you began this student teaching
assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.

5.

Male

Which statement below best describes the community in which you are doing student teaching?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

4.

single student teacher
married student teacher
supervising (cooperating, sponsoring) teacher
supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment in addition to teaching
school administrator

What is your sex?
1.

3.

A
A
A
A
A

One

2.

Two

3.

Three

In this assignment (contact), how much time were you scheduled in student teaching?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Full-time
Full-time except was also enrolled in a non-student teaching credit course
Half-days
Less than half-days

1

17.

To what extent did conferring with you take tim e o f the teacher so he had iess tim e fo r individual work with
pupils?
1.
2.
3.

18.

4.
5.

Meyer
D on't know

To what extent did planning with you take the time of the teacher so he had less time for individual work with
pupils?
1.
2.
3.

19.

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

4.
5.

Never
Don't know

To what extent was re-teaching necessary after you taught?
1.
2.
3.

Frequently
Sometimes
Seldom

4.
5.

Never
Don't know

QUESTIONS 20 THROUGH 28
To what extent were any o f the following instructional activities for the pupils in your supervising teachers assigned
classes changed because of your presence?
20.

A m ount of small group instruction.
1.
2.
3.

21.

Much greater
Somewhat greater
No change

6.

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know

4.
5.
6.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer
Don't know

4.
5.

6.

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know

5.
6.
7.

Much poorer
Does not apply
Don't know

4.
5.

Much better
Somewhat better
No change

Individual attention to, or tutoring of, pupils.
1.
2.
3.

24.

6.

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know

Follow-up of exams.
1.
2.
3.

23.

4.
5.

Provision for make-up work.
1.
2.
3.

22.

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

Supervision of study periods.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Much better
Somewhat better
No change
Somewhat poorer

2

9.

In this assignment (contact), how were you placed?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

10.

With a single supervising teacher
In a team-teaching situation (two or more team members)
With two or three different teachers (but not team-teaching)
In a flexible cluster arrangement
In a campus laboratory school
In a special program or project different from any of the above

How many weeks long is your current assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.

5weeks or less
6or 7 weeks
8 or 9 weeks

4.
5.
6.

10 or 11 weeks
12 to 14 weeks
More than 14 weeks

What is your primary current student teaching assignment (contact)?
1.
2.
3.
4.

Grades K, 1,2
Grades 3 ,4
Grades 5, 6
All elementary grades

5.
6.
7.
8.

Middle School
Junior High School
Senior High School
All grades K - 12

To what subject area or teaching field were you primarily assigned for student teaching
(check one answer only from item 12 and 13)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

All elementary subjects (K-5 or K-6)
Art
Business Education
English
Elementary departmental or
block program

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Elementary ungraded program
Foreign language
Home Economics
Mathematics
Music

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Physical Education (Elementary)
Physical Education (Secondary)
Science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics)
Science (General, Natural, Earth)
Social Studies (including History)

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Social Science — English combination
Special Education
Speech
Vocational or Industrial Arts Education
Other

QUESTIONS 14 THROUGH 18 deal with any changes in individualized instruction provided for the pupils which
may have resulted from your presence.
14.

To what extent did you work with (e.g., instruct, counsel, tutor) individual pupils?
1.
2.

15.

3.
4.

A little bit
Not et r.l!

To what extent did your supervising teacher work with individual pupils as compared to when he does not have
a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.

16.

A great deal
To some extent

Much more than usual
Somewhat more than usual
About the same as usual

4.
5.
6.

Somewhat less than usual
Much less than usual
Don't know

To what extent was individual help or counseling provided the pupils during non-class hours as compared
to what would have been possible if you had not been present?
1.
2.
3.

Much more than usual
Somewhat more than usual
About the same as usual

4.
5.
6.

3

Somewhat less than usual
Much less than usual
Don't know

25.

Supervision of playgrounds, hallways, etc.
1.
2.
3.
4.

26.

Much poorer
Does not apply
Don't know

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

4.
5.
6.

Somewhat less
Much less
Don't know

4.
5.
6.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer
Don't know

4.
5.
6.

Somewhat poorer
Much poorer
Don't know

Discipline.
1.
2.
3.

28.

5.
6.
7.

Amount of material covered.
1.
2.
3.

27.

Much better
Somewhat better
No change
Somewhat poorer

Much better
Somewhat better
No change

Motivation of pupils.
1.
2.
3.

Much better
Somewhat better
No change

QUESTIONS 29 THROUGH 33 deal with the contributions you may have made to the school program. Did you
make any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as:
29.

Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.?
1.

30.

Often

2.

Sometimes

3.

No

Often

3.

No

2.

Sometimes

A great many
Some

3.
4.

No
I am not sure

A great many
Some

3.
4.

No
I am not sure

How do you feel your contributions (32 and 33) were received?
1.
2.

35.

No

Did you suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas?
1.
2.

34.

3.

Did you bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or different instructional materials?
1.
2.

33.

Sometimes

Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground, or hall duty?
1.

32.

2.

Give talks to parent's group?
1.

31.

Often

They were used
They were not used

3.
4.

I was discouraged from making such contributions
I really did not have much to offer

How many hours per week on the average did you teach your supervising teacher's assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than an hour a week
One to five hours per week
Six to ten hours per week

4.
5.
6.

4

Eleven to fifteen hours per week
Sixteen to twenty hours per week
More than twenty hours per week

36.

How many hours per week on the average was your supervising teacher able to be away from the classroom
while you were teaching his assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than 1
1- 5
6-10

4.
5.
6.

11-15
16-20
More than 20

QUESTION 37 THROUGH 44
To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in any of the following additional activities during the time you
were teaching his assigned classes?
37.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1.
2.

38.

A great deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

A g-eat deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

A great deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

A great deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

Assisting the principal or other teachers.
1.
2.

44.

Not at all
Don't know

Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching.
1.
2.

43.

3.
4.

Work with staff of school or department.
1.
2.

42.

A great deal
To some extent

Professional reading or writing.
1.
2.

41.

Not at all
Don't know

Research.
1.
2.

40.

3.
4.

Committee work in the school with pupils and/or staff.
1.
2.

39.

A great deal
To some extent

A great deal
To some extent

Social or recreational activities.
1.
2.

A great deal
To some extent

QUESTION 45 THROUGH 49
To what extent did \ j relieve other regular staff members who did not have student teachers of the following
activities?
45.

Teaching.
1.

Many times

2.

Once ora few times

5

3.

Not at all

46.

Chaperoning.
1.

47.

Once or a few times

Many times

2.

Once or a few times

3.

Not at all

2.

Once ora few times

3.

Not at all

2.

Once or a few times

3.

Not at all

Supervision of study hall.
1.

49.

Not at all

2.

Supervision of lunch duty.
1.

48.

Many times

Many times

Supervision of playground.
1.

Many times

QUESTION 50 THROUGH 53
To what extent were other staff members able to engage in any of the following activities because of your presence
in the building?
50.

Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1.
2.

51.

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

A great deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

A yeat deal
To some extent

3.
4.

Not at all
Don't know

How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the physical presence (close enough to
see or talk with) of your supervising teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.

55.

A great deal
To some extent

Professional reading or writing.
1.
2.

54.

Not at all
Don't know

Research.
1.
2.

53.

3.
4.

Committee work in the school.
1.
2.

52.

Many times
To some extent

Less than 10
10 to 15
16 to 20
21 to 25

5.
6.
7.
8.

26 to 30
31 to 35
36 to 40
More than 40

How did your presence as a student teacher affect the average number of hours per week your supervising
teacher spent at school as compared to when he does not have a student teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Added more than six hours per week.
Added three to six hours per week.
Added one to three hours per week.
Added up to one hour per week.
Had no effect.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

6

Reduced by up to one hour per week.
Reduced by one to three hours per week.
Reduced by three to six hours per week.
Reduced by more than six hours per week
I am unable to judge.

56.

How did your presence affect the average number of hours per week your supervising teacher worked on job
related activities away from school?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Added more than six hours per week.
Added three to six hours per week.
Added one to three hours per week.
Added up to one hour per week.
Had no effect.

Reduced by up to one hour per week.
Reduced by one to three hours per week.
Reduced by three to six hours per week.
Reduced by more than six hours per week.
I am unable to judge.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

QUESTION 57 THROUGH 60
To what extent was the time your supervising teacher spent on the following activities changed because of your
presence?
57.

Teaching
1.
2.
3.

58.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal
Don't know

I ncreased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

4.
5.
6.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a great deal
Don't know

4.
5.
6.

Reduced to some extent
Reduced a yeat deal
Don't know

4.
5.
6.

R educed to some extent
Reduced a great deal
Don't know

Paper grading
1.
2.
3.

60.

4.
5.
6.

Lesson Planning
1.
2.
3.

59.

I ncreased a great deal
I ncreased to some extent
Remained about the same

Increased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

Help to individual students
1.
2.
3.

I ncreased a great deal
Increased to some extent
Remained about the same

QUESTION 61 THROUGH 68
To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in the following activities because of your presence?
61.

Planning with you
1.
2.

62.

No extra hours

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.

No extra hours

Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really a part of student teaching.
1.
2.

64.

3.

Evaluating your progress and activities
1.
2.

63.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.

No extra hours

Fulfilling social obligations resulting from your presence
1.
2.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.
4.

7

No extra hours
Don't know

65.

Finding housing for you
1.
2.

66.

3.
4.

No extra hours
Don't know

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

3.
4.

No extra hours
Don't know

Less than one
One to three
Four to six

4.
5.

Seven to nine
Ten or more

None
Less than one
One to three

4.
5.
6.

Four to seven
Eight to ten
More than ten

None
One or less
Two to four

4.
5.
6.

Five to seven
Eight to ten
More than ten

How many hours do you estimate you spent doing volunteer work in the community where you were assigned
for student teaching (youth groups, home service, church work and the like) during your student teaching
period?
1.
2.
3.

73.

A g-eat many extra hours
Some extra hours

During student teaching how many days did you handle classes for any teacher(s) other than your supervising
teacher, while that teacher was away from class?
1.
2.
3.

72.

No extra hours
Don't know

How many days during student teaching did you handle classes for your supervising teacher while he was away
for reasons other than student teaching business (professional work, request of principal or other people,
personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute teacher would have had to be hired if you
had not been there?
1.
2.
3.

71.

3.
4.

How many times per week on the average did you have contact with your supervising teacher outside of regular
working hours at school? (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc.)
1.
2.
3.

70.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

Holding telephone conversations or other conferences with you
1.
2.

69.

No extra hours
Don't know

Making additional preparations for teaching
1.
2.

68.

3.
4.

Preparing additional reports
1.
2.

67.

A great many extra hours
Some extra hours

None at all
One to five hours
Six to fifteen hours

4.
5.

Sixteen to thirty hours
More than thirty hours

What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the performance of your supervising teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Has made him a much more effective teacher
Has made him a more effective teacher
Has had no effect on his teaching
Has made him a less effective teacher
Has made him a much less effective teacher
I am unable to judge

8

74.

What do you think should be the attitude of the administration and teachers in the school to which you were
assigned about working with student teachers?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

75.

What recommendation would you give your friends about accepting a student teaching assignment in the same
school with the same supervising teacher (or in the same project)?
1.
2.
3.

76.

Try for a different assignment
Reject the assignment

Not at all
1 to 2 times
3 to 4 times
5 to 6 times
7 to 8 times

6.
7.
8.
9.

9 to 10 times
11 to 12 times
13 to 15 times
16 times or more

All the help I felt was necessary
Most of the help I felt was needed
Some of the help I felt I needed

4.
5.

Little of the help I felt was needed
No help at all

To what extent have your supervising teacher and/or other school personnel been helpful to you on matters
not directly concerned with student teaching?
1.
2.
3.
4.

79.

4.
5.

How much help has the university coordinator (supervisor) provided you?
1.
2.
3.

78.

Accept with enthusiasm
Accept
Be neutral

How many times has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during
your student teaching contact?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

77.

Should aggressively seek student teachers
Should seek student teachers
Should accept student teachers if asked
Should resist having student teachers in the school
Should refuse to have student teachers in the school
I am unable to judge

They have gone out of their way to be helpful
They have helped when asked
They have not helped
No such help was needed

Would you accept a teaching position if offered for next year in the building or system in which you did your
student teaching?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Yes
No, because I intend to go to graduate school
No, because 1 plan to live in another geographic area
No, for personal reasons
No, for professional reasons
No, because 1 have decided not to teach

Why were you assigned to this particular student teaching station?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

1 requested this school or area.
1 requested this kind of program or project.
1 had no particular preference and was placed in this assignment by my college or university.
! really preferred a different assignment but was placed in this one by my college or
university.
1 was required to accept this assignment even though 1 expressed a strong preference for
a different one.

9

STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
Administrator Questionnaire

This study is being conducted at the request of the Council of State College
Presidents for the purpose of analyzing the effect of student teaching pro­
grams on the schools of Michigan. The study is being conducted by all the
teacher preparation institutions in Michigan and will Involve all student
teachers, supervising teachers, and building principals working with student
teachers during the fall quarter or semester of 1969.
The instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of
three Michigan institutions, and have been reviewed by Michigan Education Asso­
ciation officials and the Student Teaching Committee of the Detroit Federation
of Teachers. Both groups have made contributions to the items in the instrument
and have expressed interest in the findings.
It is expected that the results of this study will be given wide distribution
and no doubt will provide a basis for the improvement of student teaching and
teacher education programs in Michigan over the next decade.

DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS
1. Use the IBM answer sheet provided. Do not write anything in the name or
student number spaces at the top of the sheet. Thus, there will be no way for
your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The responses
will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment.
Since your responses will be combined with those from other institutions it
i s e s s e n t i a l that all respondents use the same procedure.
2.

Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to indicate your answer
to each item.
Blacken the space completely.
Be careful not to put any other
marks on the answer sheet.
3. Note that the answer spaces alternate to the left and right columns of the
answer sheet.
4.

Mark no more than one answer for each item.

Please answer every item.

5. In the instrument "University" me a'
either "college" or "university" as
appropriate. "Supervising teacher" also means "cooperating teacher," " sponsoring
teacher," or "critic teacher." Student teacher also means "associate teacher."

STUDENT TEACHING IN MICHIGAN
Administrator Questionnaire

1.

Which of the following are you now?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

A single student teacher
A married student teacher
A supervising (cooperating, sponsoring) teacher
A supervising teacher but with a part-time administrative assignment
in addition to teaching
A single school adminisfcr*ator
A married school administrator

What is your sex?
1.
2.

Male
Female

What is your present administrative assignment?
1,
2.
3,
4.

5.
6.

Building Principal - elementary school
Building Principal - middle school
Building Principal - junior high school
Building Principal - combined joaiei: “-senior high school
Building Principal ~ senior high school
Other

Which statement below best describes the community i n which your school
is located?
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Large central city (e.g., Detroit, Grand Rapids)
Large suburban community (e.g., Livonia, Flint Carmen)
Small suburban community (e.g., Okemos, Essexville)
Medium sized city (e.g., Battle Creek, Kalamazoo)
Small city or rural area (e.g., Niles, Ithaca)

For how many years have you been a school administrator?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Two or less
Three to five
Six to nine
Ten to twelve
More than twelve

For how many y e a rs have you been an administrator in your present building?
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

Two or l e s s
Three to five
Six to nine
Ten t o t w e l v e
More than tw e l v e

-

2

-

How many pupils are assigned to your building?

1.

0 - 300

2.
3.
4.
5.

301
501
701
901

-

500
700
900
1100

6„
7.

1101 - 1300
1301 - 1500
1501 - 1700

9.
10.

1701 - 1900

£
?»
O

1901 or more

How many teachers are assigned in your building?

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

10
11
21
31
41.

or
to
to
to
to

less
20
30 '
40
50

6.

7.
8.
9.
10.

51
61
71
81
91

to 60
to 70
to 80
to 90
to more

For how many years have student teacher s been assigned in the building in
which you are presently the administrator?

1.
2.
3.

10,

11.

12.

Three or less
Four to six
Seven to nine

4.
5.

6.

Ten to twelve
Thirteen to fifteen
More than fifteen

How many student teachers are assigned to your building at the present tline?

1.

One

2.
3.
4.
5.

Two
Three
Four
Five

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Ten or more

What is the optimum number of student teachers you can accommodate in your
building each year?
1.

None

2.

One to three

3.
4.
5.

Four to six
Seven to nine
Ten to twelve

6.
7.
8.

9.
10.

Thirteen to fifteen
Sixteen to eighteen
Nineteen to twenty-one
Twenty-two to twenty-five
More than twenty-five

How many different colleges or universities have been represented by the
student teachers assigned to your building in the last two years?

1.
2.
3.

One
Two
Three

4.

Four to six

5.

More than six

13.

How well do you feel the student teacher(s) presently assigned to your
building were prepared to enter student teaching?
1.
2.
3.

14.

3 -

Extremely wellprepared
Very well prepared
Adequately prepared

4. Minimally prepared
5. Inadequately p r e p a r e d

For what p r o p o r t i o n o f their tim e a r e th e majority o f th e s tu d e n t teachers
ass ig n e d t o y o u r b u i l d i n g sch e d u le d by t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n t o student teaching?
1.
2.
3.

F u l l days
H a l f days
Less th a n h a l f

days

Question 15 through 26 deal w i t h t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s s t u d e n t te a c h e r s may have made
to the school program in your b u i l d i n g .
Use the f o l l o w i n g code f o r q u e s t i o n 15
through 21:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

O fte n
Sometimes
No
Does not a p p ly
D o n ' t know

Have s tu d e n t te a c h e r s made any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or
t e a c h e r s , such as:
15.

S u p e rv is e y o u th groups i n m e e t in g s , pro g ra m s,

16.

G ive

17.

P e rfo rm recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground or hall duty?

18.

Chaperone s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s

19.

S u p e rv is e study h a l l s ?

20.

Coach o r assist in interscholastic or extracurricular activities?

21.

Assist i n h a n d l i n g discipline problems?

ta lk s

t o p a r e n t s group?

t'r

22.

trips , t o u r s , e t c . ?

k

fo r p u p ils ?

k

k

k

How many new or different instructional materials have student teachers brought,
d e v e lo p e d , p r o v i d e d , o r suggested to the school teachers?
1.
2.
3.
/
H- «
5.

A g r e a t many
Q u i t e a few
Some
A v e r y few
None

_ 4 -

23.

24.

To what extent have student teachers suggested or provided any other kinds
of aids or ideas?
1.
2.

Often
Sometimes

3.
4.

Seldom
N e v er

What use have your teachers been able to make of the contributions (22 & 23)
of student teachers?
1.

They always use them

2.

They sometimes use them

3.
4.

They do not use them
They discourage student teachers from contributing too freely
Student teachers really do not have much to o f f e r

5.

25.

26.

How many hours per week on the average do student teachers
teach their supervising teachers assigned
classes?
1.
2.

Less than an houra week
One to five hours perweek

3.
4.
5.
6.

S i x to t e n hours p e r week
E le v e n t o f i f t e e n hours per week
Sixteen to twenty hours per week
More than twenty hours per week

in yourbuilding

How many hours per week on the averageare your teachers able
to be away
from their classroom while student teachers teach their assigned classes?
1.
2.
3.

Less than one
One to five
Six to ten

4.
5.
6.

Eleven to

fifteen

S i x t e e n to twenty

More than

twenty

Questions 27 through 39 - To what extent are any of the following instructional
activities for pupils changed because of the presence of the student teachers in
your building?
27.

28.

Amount of small group instruction.
1.
2.

Much more
Somewhat more

3.

No change

4.
5.

Somewhat less
Much less

4.
5.

Somewhat less
Much less

Provision for make-up work.
1.
2.
3.

Much greater
Somewhat greater
No change

- 6 3 8-

In d iv id u a l in s tr u c tio n or tu to r in g o f p u p ils .
1.
2.
3.

39.

Much more
Somewhat more
No change

O v e ra ll q u a lity
1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

Somewhat le s s
Much le s s

4.
5.

Somewhat p o o r e r
Much p o o r e r

of in s tru c tio n .

Much b e t t e r
Somewhat b e t t e r
No change

Q u e s tio n s 40 through 50 - How do you f e e l th e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g
u n i v e r s i t y s e r v i c e s has i n f l u e n c e d th e a t t i t u d e o f y o u r s t a f f c o n c e r n in g w o r k in g
w i t h s tu d e n t te a c h e r s ?
Use th e f o l l o w i n g code f o r q u e s t io n s 40 th ro u g h 50:
1.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Has had a v e r y p o s i t i v e e f f e c t
Has had a p o s i t i v e e f f e c t
Has had no e f f e c t
Has had a n e g a t i v e e f f e c t
Has had a v e r y n e g a t i v e e f f e c t
T h i s s e r v i c e has not been a v a i l a b l e and would have had no e f f e c t
i f a v a ila b le
T h i s s e r v i c e has not been a v a i l a b l e bu t would have had a p o s i t i v e
e f f e c t i f a v a ila b le
T h i s s e r v i c e has not been a v a i l a b l e but would have had a v e r y p o s i t i v e
e f f e c t i f a v a ila b le
a v a ila b le
1 do not know w h e th e r o r n o t t h i s s e r v i c e i s ■

40.

T u itio n

fre e u n i v e r s i t y c r e d i t courses.

41.

U n i v e r s i t y library p r i v i l e g e s .

42.

F a c u l t y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n cards.

43.

R e c o g n itio n c e r t i f i c a t e

from t h e U n i v e r s i t y .

44.

C o n s u lta n t s e rv ic e s

45.

In s tr u c tio n a l m a te ria ls

46.

T ic k e ts

47.

H o s p ita liz a tio n s e rv ic e s .

from th e U n i v e r s i t y .
from th e U n i v e r s i t y .

t o u n i v e r s i t y e v e n ts - a t h l e t i c s ,

c u ltu ra l e vents,

48.

Cash s tip e n d s t o th e s u p e r v i s i n g t e a c h e r .

49.

S e m in a rs , workshops or m e e tin g s

50.

S e m in a rs , workshops o r m e e tin g s on th e U n i v e r s i t y campus.

e tc.

i n y o u r s c h o o l o r s c h o o l area.

- 9 7 4.

To what extent has the university coordinator or supervisor of student
teaching been available to you and your staff during the student teacher
contact?
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
75.

76.

extent do your supervising teachers encourage student teachers
classroom?

a variety of experiences outsidethe assigned

1.

A great deal

2.
3.

To some extent
To a limited d e g ree

4.

Not at all

What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the
teaching performance of your teachers?
1.

Has made them
Has made them
Has had no e f f e c t
Has made them
Has made them

much
more
le s s

much

more effective
e ffe c tiv e
e ffe c tiv e
l e s s effective

What is the maximum number of student teachers a supervising teacher
should have in one year?
1.
2.
3.
4.

78.

Has been a v a i l a b l e on c a l l when needed

Has been generally unavailable
Has never been available

To what
to have

2.
3.
4.
5.
77.

Has always been a v a i l a b l e
Has usually been available

One
Two
Three
Four or more

Which of the following do you consider to be the most important contribu­
tion of supervising teachers to student teachers?
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

Providing cognitive information in the psychology and sociology of
teaching and learning.
Sharing the classroom and pupi1s to provide teaching experiences for
the student teachers.
Providing instruction and experience in lesson planning and methods
of teaching.
Providing a climate for developing a wholesome professional attitude.
Providing i n f o r m a l counseling and advice in one-to-one conference sessions.

79.

What is your reaction to assigning student teachers on a very flexible
basis to get experience in the total school program rather than with one
supervising teacher?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

80.

Very positive
Somewhnt posit ive
Neutral
Somewhat negative
Very negative

How representative of the teachers in your building are those who serve
as supervising teachers?
1. They are
2. They are
3. They are
4. They are
5. They are

among my most outstanding teachers
above average for my staff
about average
below average for my staff
among my least effective teachers

Question 81 to 86. Important:
Please go to the reverse side of your answer
sheet and provide the information requested.