INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a m icrofilm copy of the original document. W hile
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have bean used, the quality is heavily dependant 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
paga(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith 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 w ith a large round black m ark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus causa a blurred image. You w ill find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the m aterial being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the m aterial. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
le ft hand corner o f a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections w ith a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The m ajority o f users indicate that the textual content is o f greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if eesential to the undem anding of the dissertation. Silver
prints o f "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by w riting
the Order Departm ent, giving the catalog number, tid e, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5 . PLEASE NO TE: Soma pages may have indistinct print. Filmad as
received.

University Microfilms International
300 North Zeab Road
Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA
St. John's Road, Tyler s Qraan
High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR

77-11,736
WOOD, Paula Christine, 1949A STUDY OF THE COMPETENCY SELF-RATINGS
AND RELATED PROGRAM VARIABLES OF 19741975 GRADUATES IN THE FIELD OF EMOTIONAL
IMPAIRMENT IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1976
Education, special

Xerox University Microfilms, AnnArbor, Michiganwoe

A S T U D Y OF THE C O M P E T E N C Y S E L F - R A T I N G S A N D R E L A T E D
P R O G R A M V A R I A B L E S OF 19 7 4- 1 97 5 G R A D U A T E S
OF E M O T I O N A L I M P A I R M E N T

IN T HE FIELD

IN THE STATE OF M I C H I G A N

By
P aula C h r i s t i n e W o o d

A DISSERTATION

S u b m i t t e d to
M i c h i g a n St a te 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 r e q u i r e m e n t s
for the d e g r e e of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
D e p a r t m e n t of E l e m e n t a r y a nd Sp ecial E d u c a t i o n

1976

ABSTRACT
A ST U DY OF THE C OM P ET E N C Y S E L F - R A T I N G S AND R E L A T E D
P R O G R A M V A R I A B L E S OF 1974-1 97 5 G RA D U A T E S IN THE F IELD
OF E M O T I O N A L I M PA I RM E NT IN THE STATE OF M I C H I G A N
By
Paula C h r i s t i n e Wo o d

This r e s e a r c h was a surv ey of 1974-1975 gr aduates
the field of e mo t ional

impairment

in

in the State of Michigan.

The st u dy was an a t te m pt to d e t e r m i n e c o m p e t e n c y selfrati ngs of the gr a du a te s

in 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas at the time

of gradu ation.

this

Further,

study o b t a i n e d the graduates'

op inions of their four best and four wo r st c o m p e t e n c y areas,
their o p i n i o n of their current w o r k i n g c o nd i t i o n s and their
e v a l u a t i o n of three selected co m p o n e n t s of the c o l l e g e p r o ­
grams fr o m w h i c h they graduated.

An a d di t i o n a l p u r p o s e of

this study was to d e t e r m i n e the a b i l i t y of a d vi s or s
all the i n stitutions

surveyed to p r e d i c t

from

the c o m p e t e n c y self-

rating of their graduates.
The sub jects for this study

in all but one ins tance

w e r e d r a w n from the entire p o p u l a t i o n of teachers wh o g r a d u ­
ated from the teacher p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m s

in em o tional

impairment at C en t r a l M i c h i g a n U ni v er s it y ,

E as t er n M i c h i g a n

University,

Gr a nd V a l l e y State Colleges,

M i c h i g a n State

Univers i ty ,

U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n and W e s t e r n M i c h i g a n

Paula C h r i s t i n e Wood
University.

O nl y one third of the g r ad u at e s

the p r e c e d i n g U n i v e r s i t i e s w e re
ated so m a n y students.
of 168 graduates,

from one of

su rveyed b e c a u s e

it g r a d u ­

R e s p o n s e s w e re r e ce i ve d f r om a total

or 60% of those to w h o m tie q u e s t i o n n a i r e

was mailed.
The s i x t e e n c o m p e t e n c y areas w e r e a na l y z e d for s i g n i f i ­
cant d i f f e r e n c e s using r e p e a t e d m ea s ur e s,
va riance.

Us i ng the same techni que,

among the v a ri o us

institutions'

analysis

of

d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e sought

g r ad u at e s

in their r a tings

of their s e l f - c o m p e t e n c y .
A similar

study, do ne

in 1972, y i e l d e d data that was

c om p ar e d to the p r e s e n t d a t a to a s c e r t a i n if graduates'
ratings of s e l f - c o m p e t e n c y had changed.
of H o m o g e n e i t y was us e d to d e t e r m i n e

The C h i - s q u a r e Test

if si g ni f ic a nt d i f f e r ­

ences e xi s t e d in the c o m p e t e n c y area s el f -r a ti n gs b e t w e e n
1972 g r ad u at e s and 19 74-75 graduates.
c om p ar e total m e a n scores
for 1976 data,
e va l ua t ed

A t-test was u s e d to

for e a ch u n i v e r s i t y for 1972 and

and to c o mp a r e total g ro u p m e a n s for those

in 1972 and those e v a l u a t e d

in 1976.

A o n e - w a y an a ly s is of v a r i a n c e was done on the advisors'
predicting

a b i l i t y for e a ch u n i v e r s i t y to d e t e r m i n e

if d i f ­

ferenc es among the i n s t i t u t i o n s ' p e r s o n n e l existed.
A n a l y s i s of v ar i a n c e was used to d e t e r m i n e
competency self-ratings differed
p o s i t i o n taken.

if ov erall

in r e l a t i o n s h i p to teaching

P aula C h r i s t i n e Wood
C or r e l a t i o n s w e r e do n e b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng s
and scores on w o r k i n g conditions,

b e t w e e n ad v is o r p r e d i c t i o n

scores and ratings on q u a l i t y of a d v i s e m e n t and b e t w e e n
advisors'

scores and total scores of s e l f - c o m p e t e n c y .

Major

Findings

1. The te aching c o m p e t e n c y areas rated h i ghest

in the

study were w o rk i ng w i t h c h i l d r e n on a o n e - t o - o n e basis,
wor k i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n in a group,
instruction,

co n du c ti n g

i nd i vi d u a l i z i n g pr o gr a ms

ac ademic

for ch ildren,

and

setting up c l a s s r o o m procedures.
2. The teachi ng c o m p e t e n c y areas r a t e d the low est by
the g ra d ua t es we r e selecting a p p r o p r i a t e e du c at i on a l m a t e r i ­
als, w o r k i n g e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h a d m i n i st r at o rs ,
student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c t echniques

utilizing

and wo r k i n g w i t h

parents.
3.

In e i gh t instances g ra d ua t es

f r o m one i n s t i t u t i o n

rated t h em s el v es as m o re c om p e t e n t on indiv idual c o m p e t e n c y
areas than g r ad u at e s f ro m another

i n s t i t u t i o n rated t h e m ­

selves .
4. S ig n if i ca n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e re
c om p et e nc y areas

found on ten of the

in c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n 197 2 d a t a and 1976

data.
5. No si g ni f ic a nt d i f f e r e n c e s were found b e t w e e n total
scores for 1972 and 1976.

T w o of the six u n i v e r s i t i e s

Paula C h r i s t i n e Wood
surveyed,

however,

had s ig n i f i c a n t

i m pr o ve m en t s from 1972

to 1976.
6

. A d v i s o r s were able to p redict g r a d u a t e s e l f - ra t in g s

w i t h an a c c u r a c y of no be tt e r than 26%.
univ ersities'

a d visors p r e d i c t e d

All of the v ar i ou s

these s el f -r a ti n gs w i t h

about the same d e gree of success.
7. Graduates did not d i ff e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y in their
re po rts of current w or k i n g condi tions.
8

. The m a j o r i t y of g r a d u a t e s

a d v i s e m e n t was good,

felt that their q u a l i t y of

that they w e r e w e l l p r e p a r e d to teach

e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d children,
was a very v a l u a b l e experience.

and that st ud ent te aching
These r a tings did not

differ s i g n i f i c a n t l y am o ng the univer s it i es .
9. H o w we l l pr e p a r e d g r a d u a t e s
to have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p

felt they w e r e was found

to overall

se lf-ra tings.

10. H o w be n e f i c i a l the students ra ted their student
t ea ching was

found to have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to o v e r ­

all c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
11. The kind of job t ak e n was not r el a te d to c o m p e t e n c y
self-ratings.
12. T h er e was no s i g n i f ic a nt d e g r e e of c o r r e l a t i o n
b et w e e n scores on cu r re n t w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s and c o m p e t e n c y
self-ratings,

b e t w e e n a d visor r a ti n g by gr a du a te s and the

p r e d i c t i n g a b i l i t y of advisors,

a n d b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y self-

ra tings and p r e d i c t i n g a b i l i t y of advisors.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

T he r e are m a n y p e o p l e w h o s e a s s i s t a n c e was
in the p r e p a r a t i o n of this d i ss e rt a ti o n.
was my d i s s e r t a t i o n ch airman,
t ri b ut e d his ef fo rts

ing,

First and foremost

R o n a l d Wo lthuis,

who c o n ­

from the i n ce p t i o n of the o r ig i n a l

to its final completion.
gratitude

Dr.

invalua b le

idea

It is i mpossible to express the

I feel for the h u ndreds of hours he spent d i s c u s s ­

counseling,

advising,

reading,

re-rea di n g,

h an d li n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e elements
A great deal of g r a t i t u d e

of this u n dertaking.

is also owed to the other

m em b er s of m y d o c t o r a l committee.
i nvalua b le asset,

e di t in g and

Dr.

Eugene Pern ell was an

always w i l l i n g to give support and a s s i s ­

tance w h e n ne cessary.

Dr.

E dw a r d Kel ler

in r es e a r c h at m a n y c r i t i c a l points,

lent his ex p er t i s e

and e v i d en c ed a g r e a t l y

a p p r e c i a t e d d e g r e e of f l e x i b i l i t y in m a n y matters.

Dr.

E i l e e n Earha r t' s clear u n d e r s t a n d i n g of r e s e a r c h c o n t r i b u t e d
valuable

insights an d i m p r o ve m en t s to the d e s i g n and p r e ­

s e n t a t i o n of this document.

This was even m o r e a p p r e c i a t e d

b e c a u s e of all her o t he r r es po n si b i l i t i e s .
gave c o n s i d e r a b l e a s s i s t a n c e a nd support
this u n de r ta k in g .

Dr.

F ra n k Bruno

in all p h as e s of

Dr. J o h n S c h w e i t z e r acted as m y s t a t i s t i ­

cal expert and a ss i s t e d w i t h all d at a analyses.

M a n y of my relatives and fr ie nds also we re
in the c o m p l e t i o n of this d i ssertation.

instru m en t al

M y husband,

Michael,

m y m o t h e r and father, L aw re n ce and B a r b a r a Fink, my m ot h e r in-law and father-in-law, M a r i o n and Lena Wood,
husband's

gran dparents, Mr.

and Mrs.

and my

O tt o M a d d a l en a ,

all

gave vital moral and financial support.
A1 and C o n n i e M a d d a l e n a and their c h i l d r e n Lisa,
M ar i an n e,

Steve,

J o h n a nd Daniel ex t e n d e d their gracious h o s p i t a l ­

ity and f u r n i s h e d me w i t h t r a n s p o r t a t i o n as di d Jim P o n s c h e c k
and Ja n Schneider.

W i t h o u t th e m it would have be e n i m p o s s i ­

ble to spend the n e c e s s a r y time

in L a nsing d u r i n g

the last

year.
Two friends,

Gail Boyd and D aniel M a d d a l e n a ,

as my r e s e a r c h as s is t an t s and gave vital

also acted

assistance with

man y of the time c o ns u m i n g and t e d i o u s l y e x ac t i n g parts of
data c o l l e c t i o n and calculations.
Finally,

Br i an C h r i s t o p h e r Boyd helped me r e t a i n m y

ment al h e a l t h by a ll o wi n g m e to sh are in the joyous,
nating,

fasci­

and f u n- f il l ed spring and summer of his second ye ar

of life.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I.

II.

Page

I N T R O D U C T I O N .......................................

1

Pu rpose of the S t u d y .........................
R at i o n a l e and J u s t i f i c a t i o n .................
O v e r v i e w of the S t u d y ........................

1
3

R E V I E W OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ........................
R e l a t e d Pre vious S t u d i e s ....................
Reasons for U s i n g St u de n t P e r c e p t i o n s
Reasons for C o r r e l a t i n g M e as u r e s o f C o m p e ­
ten c y R at i ng w i t h O t he r P r o g r a m V a r i ­
a b l e s .......................................
The D e v e l o p m e n t of Lists of C o m p e t e n c y in
the F i e l d ...................................

III.

IV.

6

7
7
19
21

21

M E T H O D O L O G Y ........................................

30

I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................
S ur v e y I n s t r u m e n t s ............................
Pr o c e d u r e s in the D e v e l o p m e n t of the
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..............................
C o l l e c t i o n of the D a t a .......................
T a r g e t P o p u l a t i o n .............................
S a m p l i n g F r a m e ................................
Sub j ec t s S a m p l e d ..............................
C ur r e n t E m p l o y m e n t S i t u a t i o n of R e s p o n d ­
e n t s .........................................
A ge G r o u p ......................................
P re s en t S e t t i n g ...............................
Present C a p a c i t y ..............................
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s ............................

30
30

P R E S E N T A T I O N OF THE FI N DI N GS A N D SU M M A R Y OF
M A J O R F I N D I N G S ................................
I n t r o d u c t i o n ...................................
S ec t i o n I ......................................

iv

33
35
36
35
37
38
39

40
41

42
47
47

48

TABLE OF CONTENTS--continued
CHAPTER

Page
S ec t i o n
S ection
S ec t i o n
S ec t i o n
Section

V.

I I ......................................
I I I .....................................
I V ......................................
V ........................................
V I ......................................

S UM M A R Y A N D D ISCUSSION, L I M I T A T I O N S A N D R E C O M ­
MENDATIONSFORFURTHER R E S E A R C H

54
60
62
63
66

75

S um m a r y and D i s c u s s i o n ............. .............
L i m i t a t i o n s of the S t u d y ......................
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for F u r t h e r R e s e a r c h .......

75
79
80

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................................................

82

APPENDICES
A.

C O V E R L E T T E R A N D L E T T E R OF E X P L A N A T I O N .........

86

B.

SU R VE Y

I N S T R U M E N T S .................................

89

C.

C O M P E T E N C Y S E L F - R A T I N G S F O R E A CH U N I V E R S I T Y
A N D FOR THE T OT A L G R O U P .......................

96

D.

B E S T - W O R S T C O M P E T E N C Y S E L F - R A T I N G S ..............

J03

E.

I N DI V ID U AL IN STITUTIONS* SC O RE S O N W O R K I N G
C O N D I T I O N S ......................................

108

V

LI ST OF T AB L ES

ige
to Q u e s t i o n s ............

37

C u r r e n t E m p l o y m e n t S i t u a t i o n of Respon de n ts . .. .

38

A ge Group Being T a u g h t by Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
R e s p o n d e n t s ..........................................

39

Pres ent T e a c h i n g S e t t i n g of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
R e s p o n d e n t s ..........................................

40

Pres ent T e a c h i n g C a p a c i t y of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
R e s p o n d e n t s ..........................................

41

R a n k O r d e r of the Means of C o m p e t e n c y Areas on
the C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g s .......................

49

U n i v e r s i t y Scores on In d iv i du a l C o m p e t e n c y
A r e a s o n the C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g s ............

51

D i f f e r e n c e s Be t w e e n the Instit ut i on s on Ea ch
C o m p e t e n c y ...........................................

52

R a n k Order of C o m p e t e n c y A re a s from B e s t - W o r s t
C o m p e t e n c y R a t i n g s ..................................

53

C o m p a r i s o n s for 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 6 C o m p e t e n c y Selfr a tings ...............................................

54

t-Te sts for 1972 C o m p a r e d to 1976 on O ve r al l
C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g s ............................

58

A dv i sors' P r e d i c t i n g A b i l i t y for Each
U n i v e r s i t y ...........................................

60

A v e r a g e T o t a l S co r es on W o r k i n g C o n d i t i o n s for
E a c h U n i v e r s i t y .....................................

62

O p i n i o n s of R e s p o n d e n t s on Q u a l i t y of A d v i s e ­
ment ..................................................

63

I ns t it u ti o na l R e sp o ns e s

vi

LIST OF TABLES--continued
TABLE
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14

Page
O p in i on s of R e s p o n d e n t s on How Well P r e p a r e d
They F e l t ...........................................

64

O p i n i o n s of R e s p o n d e n t s on V a l u e of St udent
T e a c h i n g E x p e r i e n c e ...............................

65

M e a n C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g To t al Scores by
H o w W el l P r e p a r e d G r a d u a t e s Felt T h ey Were....

66

O v e r a l l S e l f - c o m p e t e n c y R at i ng s by H o w B e n e ­
ficial St ud ent T e a c h i n g was R a t e d ...............

67

M e a n C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g by P o s i t i o n Taken.

68

CHAPTER I
I N T R O D U CT I ON

E v a l u a t i o n should be a p r i m a r y c o n c e r n for all of those
in the fie ld of education.

"Perhaps one of the most

impor­

tant and yet most n e g l e c t e d areas of c on c er n in te acher
training is the e v a l u a t i o n of teacher trainees"

(Beck et a l . f

1975, p.

1).

program,

an e v a l u a t i o n of its effect on trainees m us t be o b ­

tained"

"To a s c e r t a i n the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a t r aining

(Johnson,

1971, p.

v oi c ed by teachers,
special e d u c a t i o n

6

).

"A c r i t i c i s m fr e qu e nt l y

a d m i n i st r at o rs ,

and teacher e d uc a to r s

is that teacher p r e p a r a t i o n pr o gr a ms have

not be en e v a l ua t ed a d e q u a t e l y "

( H o e k s e m a , 197 5, p.

1).

This r es e ar c h u n d e r t a k i n g was an atte mpt to c a rr y out
one phase of a m u l t i - p r o n g e d long r an g e e v a l u a t i o n of
tr aining p ro grams

for tea chers

of the e m o t i o n a l l y i m paired

in the S tate of Mi c higan.

P ur p o s e of the Study
This

study was e v a l u a t i v e and c o m p a r a t i v s

It was d e s i g n e d

in

in nature.

to surv ey stu dents who g r a d u a t e d from

Ce nt ral M i c h i g a n U ni v er s it y,

E a s t e r n M i c h i g a n Univer s it y ,

1

2

Grand V a l l e y S t at e Colleges,
U ni v er s i t y of Michigan,

M i c h i g a n State University,

and W e s t e r n M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y d u r ­

ing the 1974-75 school ye a r w i t h de grees

in special e d u c a ­

tion for the e m o t i o n a l l y im p ai r ed in or d er to ascertain:
1

. h o w co m pe t en t the gr a du a te s thought they we r e
at the time o f g r a d u a t i o n in 16 s p ec i fi c c o m p e t e n c y
areas
(Competency Sel f-Ratings)
(Best-Worst
C o m p e t e n c y Ratings)
and to c o mpare the v arious
p a r t i c i p a t i n g instit ut i on s on these me asures.

2. c o m pa r is o ns b e t w e e n 1976 c o m p e t e n c y self-r at i ng s
and s i milar data from a 1972 study.
3. how w el l advisors can p r e d i c t these c o m p e t e n c y
self -ratings.
(Advisor P redictions)
4. graduat es' opinions of cu rr ent w o r k i n g conditions.
(Working Co nditions)
5. graduates' ev a lu a ti o ns of three se lected p r o g r a m
components.
(Program E v a l u a t i o n Questions)
6

. the r e l a t i o ns h ip s b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y self-r at i ng s
and the three p r o g r a m c om p on e nt s evaluated,
current w o r k i n g conditions, a n d a d v i s o r p r e d i c ­
tions .

T hi s study was a u t h o r i z e d by the U n i v e r s i t y A d vi s o r s
the E m o t i o n a l l y

for

Impaired in M i c h i g a n as one component of a

long range list of studies de e m e d n e c e s s a r y for p r o g r a m
e v a l u a t i o n of t e acher p r e p a r a t i o n in e m ot i on a l i mp a ir m en t in
the St a te of Michigan.
September,

1972,

In a p o s i t i o n s t at e me n t a p p r o v e d in

the U A E I M asserted:

... at least some step sh o ul d be t a k e n toward the
goal of de v el o pi n g some type of u n i f o r m p r o d u c t e v a l u ­
ation- -perhaps as o n l y a core upon w h i c h fu rther
i ndividual a s s e s s m e n t m i g h t be made.
If the final
e v a l u a t i o n w er e c o m p e t e n c y oriented, it m ight also
p er m i t g re a t e r traini n g f l e x i b i l i t y r a t h e r than the
c ur r en t lock-step, in f le x i b l e p ro g r a m s w h i c h c u r r e n t l y
h a v e no data to suggest c o n t i n u a t i o n
(Beck et al.,
1975, p. 1).

3

R at i on a le and J u s t i f i c a t i o n
"Generally,

the f ol lo w - u p st udy s ho u ld o b t a i n i n f o r m a ­

tion w h i c h as sists

in d e t e r m i n i n g the ex te nt to w h i c h the

o bjectives of the e d uc a ti o na l s y st e m are being m e t"
et a l . , 1971, p.

6

).

This s tu d y a c c o m p l i s h e d

by taking one type of m e a s u r e

the ab o ve goal

in the c o m p e t e n c y area o u t c o m e s

that c e rtain experts see as being o b j e c t i v e s
training p r o g r a m s

(McK inney

for te acher

in the fi e ld of em o ti o na l impairment.

" A c o mm o n p u r p o s e for w h i c h f o ll o w- u p studies ha v e be e n
used is to m a k e p r o g r a m compar is o ns . .. .
1971, p.

(McKinney et al.,

7).

The p r e s e n t study sh a re d in the c o mm o n p u r p o s e m e n ­
tioned above.
In a d o c u m e n t en t itled " G u i d e l in e s for P e r s o n n e l
E d u c a t i o n of E x c e p t io n al C hi l dr e n"

(1974),

in the

the Co u n c i l for

Exc e pt i on a l C hi l d r e n p l a c e d a h e a v y e mp h as i s on s ys t em a t i c
and r eg u la r input b y the consumers of t e acher p r e p a r a t i o n
programs.
Guideline 2.6.1
P r e p a r a t i o n p r ograms for special e d u c a t i o n p e r s o n n e l
shou ld b e e v a l u a t e d s y s t e m a t i c a l l y an d conti n uo u sl y .
Such e v a l u a t i o n s h o u l d involve r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f
all c o n s t i t u e n c i e s a f f e c t e d by the p r e p a r a t i o n p r o ­
grams, including st udents in the p r o g r a m s (p. 44).
G ui d el i ne 2.6.1
... r ep r es e n t a t i v e s of all p er s o n s a f f e c t e d by p r e p a r a ­
tion p r og r am s s h ou l d be involved in p l a n n i n g the p r e p ­
a ra t i o n ... it is a s s u m e d that t ra inees always will
be i n vo l v e d (p. 44).

4

Guidel ine

2.4,2

The v a l i d a t i o n of o b j e c t i v e s is p a r t l y a r e s e a r c h
problem, but so metimes no m o r e than co nsensus by lead
ing p r a c t i t i o n e r s w il l be possible.
In some m e asure,
each t r ai n ee d e m o n s t r a t e s the v a l i d i t y of the program.
...
Thus, f ol l ow - up data are also r e l e v a n t to the
j u s t i f i c a t i o n p r oc e ss (p. 34).
The ne ed s ta t ed in these g u i d e l i n e s

for consistent,

m u l t i - f a c e t e d e v a l u a t i o n of co l le g e pr o g r a m s was a n sw e r e d
part by this
This

in

study.

re s ea r ch was b a se d on students wh o ha ve had some

"in - th e - f i e l d " e x p e r i e n c e u p o n w h i c h to base their judgmen ts.
A ma jo r value of this study was

that it was

a c o o p e r at i ve ,

sta t ew i de effort to e va l ua t e t ea c he r tr aining
special e d uc a t i o n for the e m o t i o n a l l y
to the total group data and individual
var i ou s colleges a nd u n i v e r s i t i e s

in the area of

impaired.

In a d d i t i o n

i n s t i tu t io n data,

the

w e r e able to c o m p a r e

the ev a lu a ti o ns o f their p r o g r a m to the e v a l u a t i o n s of o t h e r
programs.

Instead of just fi n ding out

p e r c e i v e d s t re n gt h s a n d w e a k n e s s e s ,

their own p r o g r a m ' s

they w e r e able to co n su l t

w it h i n stitutions who ha d d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s o f strengths
and w e a k n e s s e s

and examine

improve the areas

the p r o g r a m v a r i a b l e s

rated less strong.

ships b e t w e e n students'

for ways

Additionally,

For all v ar i a b l e s found

to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to co m pe t en c y

self-r at i ng s ,

institutions can s tr i ve to e n h a n c e these v a ri ab l es
prove

students'

relation­

c o m p e t e n c y rat ings and several key

p r o g r a m v a r i a b l e s w e r e explored.

o p i n i o n s o f their competen cies.

to

to

im­

s

In a dd i t i o n to the ab o ve c it e d reasons,
g ained f ur t he r c re d e n c e b y the fact that
endorsed,

this study-

it was sanctioned,

and p a r t i a l l y f unded by the U n i v e r s i t y A d v i s o r s

for the E m o t i o n a l l y
level p r o f e s s i o n a l

impaired in M ic h ig a n,
e du c at o rs

q u a l i t y ,e ff e c t i v e p r o g r a m s

interested

for teacher

a g r o u p of co l le g e

in m a i n t a i n i n g hi gh
tr aining

in the state

of Michigan.
The de s i g n of this

study was also one that could be

r ea dily d u p l i c a t e d or a d a p t e d for the p u r p o s e s of o t h e r
colleges or u n iversities.
each year 's g r ad u a t e s

A s imilar format m i g h t be used on

for l o n g - r a n g e p r o g r a m e valuation,

the first el ement of a m o r e c o m p l e x e valuation,

as

o r as a

m e t h o d for c o m p a r i n g c o m p e t e n c y ratings b e t w e e n v a ri o us
g r o u p s - -diffe re n t year's g raduates,
graduates,

gr a du a t e s h aving

t r ai n in g p r og rams,

different

s i g n i f ic a nt

institutions'

differences

in their

or s t ud en t s whose p r e p a r a t i o n p ro g r a m s

d e v i a t e d from the typical p r o g r a m format.
The p r e s e n t

r e s e a r c h was a first step in the p ro c e s s of

reviewing and a s s e s s i n g
emo t i o n a l l y

teacher training programs

i m pa i re d in Michi g an .

for the

The remaining process

mig h t entail:
1

. a y e a r l y evalua t io n , s im i la r to this one, to a s c e r ­
tain if any p r o g r a m i mp r o v e m e n t s are ta king pl a ce
from y e ar to year.

2

. some fo r m o f v a l i d a t i o n o f c o m p e t e n c y s el f -ratings.

3. cross v a l i d a t i o n by s u p e r v i s o r y p e r s o n n e l of
c o m p e t e n c y self ratings.

6

4. a m o r e d e ta i l e d an a lysis o f e ac h co u r s e and each
e x p e r i e n c e typical for u n d e r g r a d u a t e s in terms of
the e x p e c t e d c o m p e t e n c i e s or o ut c o m e s of the
s pe c i fi c co ur ses an d experiences.
5. the r e q u i r e m e n t of a s ys te m at i c e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e
of the e m o t i o n a l i m p a ir m en t te a ch e r t r ai n in g p r o ­
grams for all M i c h i g a n colleges and unive r si t ie s .
The p re c e d e n t

set for s t a t e w i d e c o o p e r a t i o n in this

study was an e x ce l le n t one b e c a u s e of the a dv a nt a ge s
o bt a in e d t hr o u gh co m pa r is o ns

among the v a r i o u s

B ecause firm d at a on the best type of p r o g r a m s
teachers

for the e m o t i o n a l l y

institutions.
for trai ning

impaired are lacking,

the u t i l i ­

zation of d i f f e r e n t U n i v e r s i t i e s w i t h e x p e c t e d v a r i a t i o n in
p r o g r a m eleme nt s m i g h t a ll o w for a sh o rt e r time span for
comparing va r ious

types of programs.

O v e r v i e w of the S tu d y
The re m ai n de r of this

thesis

is o r g a n i z e d

in the f o l l o w ­

ing manner;
In C h a p t e r

II, r el evant

l i te r at u re

is reviewed.

In C ha p te r III, the m e t h o d o l o g y of this r e s e a r c h is
presented.
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e is d e s c r i b e d and d at a
c o l l e c t i o n and analysis p r o c e d u r e s are p resented.
The results of the s t a t i s t i c a l an alysis of the da t a
o b t a i n e d are re p o r t e d in C h a p t e r IV, a l on g w i t h the
m a j o r findings.
C ha p t e r V co n ta i ns a d i s c u s s i o n and c o n c l u s i o n s
reached, the li m i t a t i o n s of the s tudy and r e c o m m e n d a ­
tions for further research.

C H A P T E R II
RE V I E W OF THE LI T ER A TU R E

This

review

is d i v i d e d

into four

sections.

In the

first s e c t i o n v re c en t r e l e v a n t studies w h i c h w e r e d e s i g n e d
to eva luate regular and sp ecial e d u c a t i o n c o ll e ge and u n i v e r ­
sity teacher p r e p a r a t i o n pr o gr a ms
relating to a p p r o p r i a t e m e t h o d s

and d o cu m en t s

issued

and c on s id e r a t i o n s

in con-

*

du ct ing f o ll o w- u p studies

are summarized.

In the second section,

l i t e r a t u r e relating reasons

se lecting student p e r c e p t io n s

for

as a v a l i d area for s tu d y is

reviewed.
In the third section,

reasons

for c o r r e l a t i n g m e a s u r e s

of c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - ra t in g w i t h o ther p r o g r a m v ar i a b l e s

are

discussed.
In the f ourth section,

the d e v e l o p m e n t of c o m p e t e n c i e s

for p ro g r a m r e s e a r c h a n d c o m p a r i s o n s of lists of c o m p e ­
tencies will be

p r e s e n t e d and discussed.

R el a te d Pr e vi o us St udies
T he U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h A l a b a m a

(Johnson,

1971)

a tt e mp t ed to a s c e r t a i n the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of its r e g u l a r
e d u c a t io n t ea c h e r t r ai n i n g p r o g r a m by u s i n g two sour ces of
feedback;

h o w the alum ni felt about their own tr a ining

7

8

experience and how the p r i n c i p a l s o f scho ols

in w h i c h the

graduates w e re t e ac h in g felt about their q u a l i f i c a t i o n s
teachers.

All alumni who g r a d u a t e d ov e r a fo u rteen m o n t h

p er i od w e r e sent a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
selves and their p r o f e s s i o n a l

on w h i c h to ev a lu a te t h e m ­

tr a in i ng experience.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e o b t a i n e d job descr i pt i on s ,
ates felt about
graduates'

as

t hemselves

in r e l a t i o n s h i p

how g r a d u ­

to their jobs,

feelings about w ha t skills and k no w l e d g e are

signif i ca n t and graduates'

es t imates o f the a d e q u a c y of the

u ni v er s it y in the d e v e l o p m e n t of these skills and this k n o w l ­
edge.
In the s e c t i o n de a li n g w i t h the i mp o rt a nc e of skills
and abilities

to tea ching a n d their a c q u i s i t i o n in the u n d e r ­

g ra duate p r ogram,
c om p et e nc i es

twelve c o m p e t e n c i e s w e r e listed.

cl o se l y p a ra l le l

the ones

These

in this study.

S tu d en t s were given the op t io n of c he c ki n g yes or no
to having a c q u i r e d e a c h skill

in the u n d e r g r a d u a t e program.

T he re s e a r c h e r s w e r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h b o t h the s t ru c t u r e
of the study a n d the results obtained.
to pr o v i d e f e e d b a c k re g ar d i n g
of u n d e r g r a d u a t e s
Ed ucation,

S in c e one goal w as

the e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i en c es

and g r a d u a t e st u dents

the r es e ar c he r s concluded,

in the C o l l e g e of

" E v a l u a t i o n of

the results of this f e e d b a c k mu s t re su lt

in m o d i f i c a t i o n

both q u a l i t a t i v e a n d q u a n t i t a t i v e o f the e x p e r i e n c e s p r o ­
v i d e d students.

If this

f e e d b a c k is not e x a m i n e d a n d u s e d

9

as a c r i t e ri o n for c u r r i c u l u m chan ge an d teaching emphasis,
the p u r poses
met"

for p e r f o r m i n g

this i n v e s t i g a t i o n have no t be e n

( p . 47 ) .
The fact that the above r e s e a rc h er s felt the d a ta they

o b t a i n e d was useful gave s up p or t to the p r e s e n t study b e ­
cause

the data being sought a nd c o l l e c t i o n me thods and o v e r ­

all purpo s es we r e similar to the p r e s e n t study.
A dams
sity's

(1974),

in e va l ua t in g w e s t e r n K e nt u c k y U n i v e r ­

teacher p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m for r e gu l ar e d uc a ti o n

majors,

u se d the m od e l d e v e l o p e d by S a n d e f u r

(1970) w h i c h

will be d i s c u s s e d later in this chapter.
H e u se d v o lu n t e e r s who m e t ce r ta i n c r i t e r i a of a v a i l ­
ab ility w h i c h

in cluded wo r k i n g

in an area w i t h i n

40 m i l e s of

the u n i v e r s i t y and havi ng a s u p e r v i s o r w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i ­
pate.

The only direct

input by s u bjects was a p e r s o n a l i t y

scale they filled out to m e a s u r e in d iv i du a l p r e j u d i c e s
a n t i - d e m o c r a t i c tendencies.

A d d i t io n al l y,

wer e e v a l u a t e d by p e er s and s u pe r vi s or s
1

. subject m a t t e r co m p e t e n c e

2

. r e l a t i o ns h ip s w i t h students

and

these subjects

in the areas of:

3. a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of as s ig n me n ts
4. ov erall c l a s s r o o m effectiveness.
This e v a l u a t i o n p r o g r a m was "an e ffort to d e m o n s t r a t e
that a sy s te m at i c e v a l u a t i o n of d e m o n s t r a b l e teaching
b eh a viors

can be a c c o m p l i s h e d "

(p.

37).

10

The da ta were o b t a i n e d from v a r i e d sources,

but the

pr imary sources w e r e d i r e c t c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n systems,
(including i n t e r ac t io n analysis)
record,

the c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n

and student evaluations.

One i n teresting o u tc o me of this p a r t i c u l a r s tu d y was
that ratings of subjects by c oo p e r a t i n g

teachers during

student teaching d id not s i g n i f i c a n t l y di f f e r f ro m p e e r and
super vi s or ratings after one y ea r of teaching.
Since some form of e v a l u a t i o n on the g r a d u a t e s by
c ooperating teachers wa s a l r e a d y on record,

a nd since Adams

found these to be no t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t than s u p e r v i s o r
ratings,

this study was not d e s i g n e d to u s e s u p e r v i s o r rat-

ings of gr a du a te s as its m a i n a r ea of investigation.

It was

deemed m o r e ap p ro p ri a te to e x p e n d the time and effort a v a i l ­
able looking at c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g sco res of graduates.
Aye r s

(1974)

i ni t ia t ed an intensive s tu d y of the r e g u ­

lar e d u c a t i o n g r ad u at e s o f T e n n e s s e e T e c h n o l o g i c a l U n i v e r ­
sity.

The study w a s c o n d u c t e d ut i li z in g a m o d i f i e d model

for e v a l u a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y d e v e l o p e d at that same institution.
Ayers'

study i n vo l ve d f o ll o w- u p of 59 ra n d o m l y c h o s e n

gr aduates who e a r n e d b a c h e l o r ' s a n d ma s t e r ' s de g r e e s b e t w e e n
1970 and 1973.
questions,

Da t a c o l l e c t e d in c lu d ed g en eral

a p e r s o n a l i t y scale,

information

se v er a l s t r u c t u r e d i n v e n ­

tories on the t ea c he r p r e p a r a t i o n pr ogram,
o b s e r v a t i o n scales and t r a n s c r i p t data.

d ir e ct c l a s s r o o m

A ls o i n cl u d e d w e re

11

a p rincipal's e v a l u a t i o n a nd students'

ev a lu a ti o ns of t e a c h ­

ing.
One of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
to complete was a s u rv e y a sking
tencies.

the subjects w e r e r e q u e s t e d
them to rate their c o m p e ­

Subjec t s w e r e gi v en a list of n i ne m a j o r

skills

and areas of u n d e r s t a n d i n g and as k ed to rate "the d e g r e e to
w h i c h you feel y o u r co l le g e e x p e r ie n ce s w e r e s a t i s f a c t o r y
in e qu i pping y o u w i t h the n e c e s s a r y skills and u n d e r s t a n d ­
ings."

S t udents w e r e i n st r u c t e d to rate t h em s e l v e s on h ow

c ompetent they felt they w e r e in these skills at the time of
graduation.
Three of the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a d e at the end of this
study ca l le d for:
1

. a r e p l i c a t i o n of this on other y e a r s 1 gr aduates,

2

. a c o n t i n u i n g c on tact w i t h other
pur s ui n g s imilar projects,

instit ut i on s

3. an openness to the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of use o f o th e r
instruments to g a t h e r data as these b ec o me a v a i l ­
able (Ayers, 1974, p. 52).
T he s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s about f ur th e r use o f this f ormat
were all reasons s im i la r to those b e h i n d the cu r r e n t
r es e ar c h undert ak i ng .

T h e fact that A ye r s p e r c e i v e d this

format as u se f ul gave f u rther su pport to the c ur r e n t u n d e r ­
taking.

One

i n t e r e st i ng fi nding wa s that r at i ng s o f v a ri o us

aspects of the teacher p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m o f *he U n i v e r s i t y
by subjects w e r e similar to that of o t h e r g r oups of i n d i ­
viduals.

12

This fi n ding gave f ur t he r support to u sing subjects'
opin ions on p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n qu e st i o n s and c o n s i d e r i n g
them as v a l i d and useful.
C o r r e l a t i o n s of d at a on g r a d u a t e
ings w i t h other v a r i a b l e s

self-competency r a t ­

in the study w e r e computed.

H o w e v e r , the author stated that the re s ul t s w er e i n c o n c l u ­
sive and so the d at a we re o m i t t e d from his report.
quently,

no proof was given either

Conse-

that s el f - r a t i n g s do c o r ­

relate h i g h l y w i t h s u pe r vi s or r at i ng s or that the y do not
cor r el a te highly.

It did prove,

howe ver,

that this was not

a settled area and f ur ther r e s e a r c h ef fo rts

in this ar e a are

needed.
Haberman

(1974)

c o n d u c t e d a f ol l ow - up study of r e gu l ar

edu c a t i o n g r ad u at e s of the School
U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n d u r i n g

of E d u c a t i o n at the

1972.

Subjects w er e sent a q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h listed 44
teacher c o m p e t e n c i e s and w er e asked

(a) w h i c h ones

they n e ed e d in the p e r f o r m a n c e of their jobs and

th e y felt

(b) w h i c h

of these n e c e s s a r y c o m p e t e n c i e s were not a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r e d
in their p r e - s e r v i c e pr e p a r a t i o n .
listed,

Of the 44 c o m p e t e n c i e s

eig ht we re found to be n e c e s s a r y for te achers but

not a d e q u a t e l y taught

in the p r e p a r a t i o n program.

Since H a b e r m a n found the d a t a o b t a i n e d v e r y u s e f u l

in

rev i ew i ng the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n
training program,

it a p pe a rs that

the d a t a o b t a i n e d in the

p re s en t s t ud y will be of s im il a r value.

13

H a r i n g and Fargo
of the teacher's

(1969)

a s se r te d

that

the " e v a l u a t i o n

skills can not be as s es s ed by the c o urses

listed on his co llege t r a n s c r i p t or by the total numb er of
hours completed,
ch ildren"

(p.

but rather by the ef fects of t e ac h in g on

157).

T h e r e are eight o bj e ct i ve s

listed by these au th ors as

being n e c e s s a r y for te a chers of e m o t i o n a l l y i mp a ir e d to
f un c ti o n ef fe ctively.

These c o m p e t e n c y areas w e r e all

c o r p o r a t e d in the instrum e nt used
Several me t ho d s
ra tings are proposed ,
interaction,

for o b t a i n i n g

in the p resent

in­

study.

i nd i vi d ua l subjects'

including v i d e o t a p i n g t e a c h e r / p u p i l

teac her e v a l u a t i o n t h r o u g h d ir e ct observ a ti o n,

and di r e c t as s es s me n t of e n t e r i n g and exiting skills.
The au thors m a k e the f o ll o wi n g s t at e me n t about p r o g r a m
evaluation:
P r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n of t eacher p r e p a r a t i o n s h ou l d be
the major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the d i r e c t o r s of the
spe cific p r o g r a m of p r o f e s s i o n a l t r ai n in g and s h ould
be bui lt in as a r ou t in e p r o c e d u r e of training.
An
e v a l u a t i o n of the training, from the p e r s p e c t i v e of
skills a c q u i r e d by the t r ainee t hr o u g h the p r o g r a m ...
p ro v i d e s r e li a bl e a s s e s s m e n t of p r o g r a m e f f e c t i v e ­
ness ( p . 162).
T he aut hors,
of the subjects'

however,

ins isted that d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n

i n t e r a ct i on s w i t h students mu st be used to

t otally a s se s s the a c q u i s i t i o n of sp ecific skills.
The p r e s e n t

study is d on e f ro m the a s s u m p t i o n that

is not n e c e s s a r y to d i r e c t l y ob serve
with s t ud e nt s

to asse ss

it

subjects'interactions

their a c q u i s i t i o n of skills.

14

A study by H o e k s e m a

(1975), done on graduates

field of mental ret ardation,

in the

p r o p o s e d to " ob tain the p e r ­

ceptions of g ra d ua t es who have tested the e ff i ca c y of their
preparation pragmatically
pr og ram evaluation.

in the field"

(p.

1

) as a tool for

The study c o n s i s t e d of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e

sent to recent gr a d ua t es m a j o r i n g

in Special

E d u c a t i o n for

the M e n t a l l y R e t a r d e d at M i c h i g a n State University.
q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e q u e s t e d f e e d b a c k about graduates'
tions of their d e v e l o p m e n t
Two prime

c on s i d e r a t i o n s

percep­

in r e la t io n to 63 competencies.

investigated

in this study were:

(a) the importance of each c o m p e t e n c y for a p e r s o n
field and

(b)

The

in the

the self d e v e l o p m e n t p r i o r i t y p l a c e d by the

r espondent on ea c h competency.
assume that tea chers

T h e r e s e a r c h e r did not

s h ou l d be t ot a ll y p r e p a r e d at the time

of g r a d u a t i o n f ro m their u n d e r g r a d u a t e p r o g r a m and t h e r e f o r e
a s c e r t a i n e d i n f o r m a t i o n about
ties.

The

one in that

study was

further d e v e l o p m e n t a l p r i o r i ­

significant

in r e l a t i o n to the pr e s e n t

it c o n s i d e r e d the o p i n i o n s of the su bjects

selves as being of sign ificance.
with setting p r i o r i t i e s

them­

H o e k s e m a was c o n c e r n e d

for f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t of teachers

in the field as well as w i t h o b t a i n i n g data for use

in r e ­

v ie w in g the co ntent of the te a ch e r p r e p a r a t i o n program.
As was m e n t i o n e d in C h a p t e r
also e va l ua t i v e

in nature.

1, the p r e s e n t st u dy was

Therefore,

that a format s imilar to the H o e k s e m a
able.

it was d e t e r m i n e d
study w o u l d be a d v i s ­

IS

M c K i n n e y and O g l e s b y
issues, p r o c e d u r e s

(1971) d o cu m e n t and s u m m a r i z e m a n y

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

nique of fo llow-up studies.

s u r r o un d in g the t e c h ­

T h e s e authors state that

the

focus of most e v a l u a t i o n efforts s h ou l d be on the p r o d u c t
or the o ut c om e of e d u c a t i o n a l systems.

"This emphasis on

the output of the e d u c a t i o n a l s ystem means

that w e n ee d to

look at the former students of that syst em to assist
dete rmining

the effects o f the e d uc a ti o na l s y s t e m on the

former students"
study was

in

(p.

5).

Most p e r t i n e n t

to this p r e s e n t

the s ec t i o n de a l i n g w i t h f o ll o w- u p studies us e d to

make pr o g r a m comparisons.

T h e auth ors w a r n e d of the "great

danger of gross er r or in such c o m p a r is o ns be c a u s e of d i f f e r ­
ing ob j ec t iv e s

for d i f f e r e n t p ro g r a m s and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

of the students
study,

in this p ro g r a m " (pp. 7,8). In the p r e s e n t

it could be a r gu e d that,

indeed, we are d e a l i n g w i t h

different p o p u l a t i o n s at e ac h u n i v e r s i t y fr om the p o i n t of
entry of the students.

F r o m that p e r s p e c ti v e,

unless we had

e ntry level m ea s u r e s on the stud ents from the v a r i o u s u n i ­
ve rsities, we cannot c l a i m to h a ve a true comparison.
None theless, w e are c o n c e r n e d w i t h exit
c om p etent our gr a du a te s
the c o mp e te n c ie s
fied in several

in e mo t io n al

level skills

impairment are.

and how
S i nc e

d e v e l o pe d for this st udy have b e en i d e n t i ­
studies as being

of the e m o t i o n a l l y

impaired,

be v i e w e d as of some

import ant for all

teachers

results of this study ca n still

importance.

Even if the en t ry c h a r a c ­

teristics of students mi g h t v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y fr om u n i v e r s i t y

16

to university,

we are c o n c e r n e d w i t h o u t c o m e s , and each u n i ­

versity can b e ne f it

fr om an a ss e ss m e n t of how its gr a duates

felt they we r e fu n c t i o n i n g at the time of graduation.
S an d ef u r

(1970) accuses

teacher e d u c a t i o n of having

"largely ig nored the e v a l u a t i o n of its g r a d u a t e s "

(p.

2

),

and s pe c ul a t e d that this f ai l ur e was largely due "to the p r o ­
f e s s i o n ’s inabil ity to d e t e r m i n e w ha t constitutes

e f f e c t iv e

teaching and to the lack of e v a l u a t i v e tools and techniques
with w h i c h to me a s u r e e f f e c t i v e teachi ng"
argues

(p.

2).

T he author

that the condit i on s w h i c h d i s c o u r a g e d e v a l u a t i o n have

been r e mo v ed t h ro u gh a s i g n i fi c an t body of r e s e a r c h on the
charact e ri s ti c s of go od teaching a nd go o d teachers and
through the d e v e l o p m e n t of " c l a s s r o o m o b s e r va t io n al
and other e v al u at i ve tools

... w h i c h e nable ed ucators to

assess the teaching b eh a vi o r

in a sy st e ma t ic f a shion"

A p r o p o s e d model for e v a l u a t i o n is developed,
i nformation from four categories;
c la s s r o o m observation;
tions;

systems

pupil,

career

peer,

(p.

2

).

deriving

line data;

direct

and s u p e r v i s o r y e v a l u a ­

and s t a n d a r d i z e d measures.

E v a l u a t i o n of t ea c he r e ff e c t i v e n e s s and c o m p e t e n c y
b ased p r i m a r i l y u p o n the c r i t e r i o n of " p u p i l - g a i n "

is w a r n e d

against due to the el u s i v e n a t u r e of these gains.

Also,

is stated that,

" co m b i n a t i o n s of v a r i a b l e s

it

... the school

and hom e s i t u a t i o n of the p u p i l s a n d the d e ci sions of the
t eacher's peers and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
the teacher

in a p o s i t i o n where,

... m ay result

in p l acing

regardless of training

17

received or the c r i t e r i a used,
When dealing w i t h e m o t i o n a l l y
nature of pupil gains
indications
strong
tion,

he

... c a nn o t s u cc e ed "

impaired students,

is even m or e pronounced.

(p.

11

).

the e l usive
T h e r e are

that c e r t a i n types of school settings have a

influence on e m o t i o n a l l y i m paired students.
a ca d em i c and s o c i a l - e m o t i o n a l gains

In a d d i ­

in e m o t i o n a l l y i m ­

p aired c hi l d r e n are v e r y s p o r a d i c and u n pr e d i c t a b l e ,

so any

gain m e a s u r e s w o u l d have to be a ss es s ed over p r o h i b i t i v e l y
long peri ods of time.

For this reason,

pupil-gain measures

were not de e m e d a p p r o p r i a t e for use in this

f ol l ow - up study.

The study most d i r e c t l y r e la t ed to this c ur r en t r e ­
search,

and from w h i c h this u n d e r t a k i n g develo p ed , was c o n ­

d ucted in 1972.

Entitled,

U n i v e r s i t y T ra i n i n g "
teachers

in

"Teachers'

Perceptions

( S c h a f t e n a a r , 1972),

the S ta t e of M i c h i g a n

of Their

this survey asked

to report their p e r c e p ­

tions of their u n i v e r s i t y t r ai ni n g to teach e m o t i o n a l l y d i s ­
turbed children.
T he s ur v ey was c o n d u c t e d w i t h teachers w h o v o l u n t e e r e d
to a ss i st the State D e p a r t m e n t w i t h their v i e w s on
"areas of concern".
T h e v o l u n t e e r s c o m p r i s e d 69% of
M i c h i g a n ' s p u b l i c school teachers of the e m o t i o n a l l y
d i s t u r b e d (329 teachers).
E i g h t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f the
s am p le d teachers r e t u r n e d their s u rv e y forms.
The results w e r e c o mp i l e d first on a s t at e w i d e basis to
gi ve an o verall p i c t u r e of the p e r s p e c t i v e s that
M i c h i g a n teac hers ha ve of their t ra i ni n g in the a r e a o f
t ea c hi n g e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d children.
They were
then t a b u l a t e d on a u n i v e r s i t y - b y - u n i v e r s i t y basis to
e nable each u n i v e r s i t y to o b t a i n group data, not i n d i ­
v id u al data, about its o w n g r a d u a t e s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of
competence,
(p. 1 )

18

T ea c he r s w e r e a sk e d to d e s c r i b e how c o m p e t e n t they felt
in the f ol l ow i ng 14 areas, i m m e d i a t e l y af t er c o m p l e t i n g
their training:
Dealing and r el at i ng w i t h o t h e r teache rs
Student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c techniq u es
W o r k i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n on a o n e - t o - o n e basis
W o r k i n g w i t h c hi l d r e n in a group
Dealing and r el at i ng w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
U n d e r s t a n d i n g the dy n a m i c s o f st u de n t b e h a v i o r
I n d i v i du a li z in g p r o g r a m s for ch i l d r e n
C o n d u c t i n g ac ademic i n s t r u c t i o n
D ea l in g and re l at i ng w i t h s u p p o r t i v e p e r s o n n e l
C h o o s i n g a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a ti o na l m a t e r i a l s
Setting up c l a s s r o o m p r o c e d u r e s (rules, routines,
etc.)
E f f e c t i v e gr o up i ng of c h i l d r e n
Classroom management
W or k i n g w i t h pa r en t s (pp. 1,2),
Te achers w er e also asked to select from the 14 areas
the four areas
four areas

in w h i c h they felt most c om p et e nt and the

in w h i c h they felt

least competent.

Ot h er areas

included in the study were:
1. O n a f ive-point scale from "very well p r e p a r e d " to
" very un p re p ar e d ", te a ch e rs w e r e asked to indicate
how p r e p a r e d to t each e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n
they w e r e at the c o m p l e t i o n of their c ol l eg e training.
2. Teachers w e r e a s k e d about the four following me t ho d s
of i n s t r u c t i o n - - w h a t they had "too m u c h o f ," "too
little of," a n d h o w m u c h they "had" of eac h an d how
m u c h they "s h o u l d h av e had" of each:
a. class d i s c u s s i o n
b. d e m o n s t r a t i o n
c. lecture
d. e x p e r i e n c e w i t h children.
3. Teachers w e r e also g i v e n q u e s t i o n s asking for
d e s c r i p t i v e a n d d e m o g r a p h i c data a nd w h at type of
u n i v e r s i t y - p r o v i d e d e x p e r i e n c e the students had
d ur i ng training, i nc l ud i ng q u e s t i o n s o f an e v a l u a ­
tive n a t u r e about all i n - t h e - f i e l d e x p e r i e n c e (p. 3).
It is this b a si c format of q ue s t i o n s

about c o m p e t e n c i e s

plus some d e s c r i p t i v e data and e v a l u a t i v e data that

fo rm the

19

basis for the p re s en t research.
The s i g n i f i c a n c e of this study wa s e m p h a s i z e d by M o rs e
et al.

(1971).

A f t e r giving a r e vi e w of the S c h a f t e n a a r

study and its results,

the authors

state,

r emembered that these are p e r c e p t i o n s
still i n f o r m a t i o n of c o n s i d e r a b l e
the w ar n i n g

107).

o f c o mpetency,

import

..."

(p.

it is

107) w i t h

that "until we have p e r f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n tied

to the f o ur t ee n dimens io n s,
(p.

"While it m us t be

we have only part

of the p i c t u r e "

It is f ur t he r r e c o m m e n d e d that "this p r o c e d u r e

m ight be u s e d in va r io u s
as well as a sp e ci f ic

states as a ge n er a l overall check

f e e d b a c k pr o c e s s

to each p r o g r a m "

(p.

108) .
Reasons

for U si n g St u de n t P er c ep t io n s

The l i t e r a t u r e contains

several p r e c e d e n t s

for p r o g r a m

e va l ua t io n th r ou g h s t u d e n t pe rceptions.
Johnson

(1971)

lists " h o w alumni feel about

training e x p e r i e n c e "

(p.

may p ro v e s i g n i f i ca n t
ing techniques.
listing

12

6

their own

) as a so urce of f e e d b a c k w h i c h

in the d e v e l o p m e n t of i m p r o v e d t r a i n ­

T h e s t ud y by J o h n s o n g a t h e r e d f e e d b a c k by

c o m p e t e n c i e s and a sk i ng g r a d ua t es

p er c ep t io n s of ho w well

to rat e their

they ac q u i r e d eac h skill

in the

u n d e r g r a d u a t e program.
In the i n t r o d u c t i o n to "An A p p r o a c h to O b t a i n i n g S t u ­
dent E v a l u a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y T e a c h i n g , " H a r i n g and Fargo
(1969)

assert,

"This repo rt

is a d d r e s s e d to the p ro b l e m s of

20

how s y s t e m a t i c a l l y to o b t a i n student op i n i o n

... n o w h e r e do

we cons ider the very important m a t t e r of how to interpret
such

'uneducated'

opinion

... but

is it any more

than most other forms of teach in g e v a l u a t i o n ? "
In the s u mmary of p r o g r a m resu lts
academic year

'uneducated'

(p.

51).

at the end of the

in "An Innovative G r ad u at e T ea c he r T r a i n i n g

Program in the A r e a of E m o t i o n a l l y D i s t u r b e d Ch i ldren"
(District of C o l u m b i a M en t al H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
it is stated:

"Self e v a l u a t i o n data we r e

indeed w o r t h w h i l e

and p r o v i d e d v a l u a b l e f ee d b a c k to the system"
Teachers " r e v e al e d d i f f e r e n t i a l
so doing,
the least,

(p.

51).

a tt a in m en t of goals and,

d e s c r i b e d p r o g r a m strengths and w e a k n e s s e s
p r o g r a m em phasis

..."

(p.

52).

or,

in
at

"Our feeling has

been that self- ra t in g s are e xt re m e l y useful
scheme of research.

1973),

in the o v erall

A l t h o u g h they are c e r t a i n l y not

the

total answer to e va l ua t in g a c o m p e t e n c y - b a s e d p r o g r a m and
its trainees,
(p.

53).

they pr o v i d e a great deal of i n f o r m a t i o n

"The graduates,

after a y ea r or two away f r om the

t ra ining i n st i tu t io n are a s i g n i fi c an t
b ot h thems e lv e s and the p r og r am "
In his study,
gr aduates

Baer

..."

(1974)

on their p re paration.

(p.

sour ce of data about

59).

looked at f e ed b a c k from
After examining a r e p r e s e n ­

tative sample of e v a l u a t i v e st udies of te ac her e d u c a t i o n
programs,

he c o n c l u d e d that f e ed b a c k from g ra d ua t es

used w i t h incre a si n g f r e q u e nc y as a m a j o r

source of

is b eing

21

information and that n e a r l y all studies r e c o m m e n d that
pr og ram e va l ua t io n s ut i li z e

i n f o r ma t io n g a t h e r e d from

graduates.

Reasons for C o r r e l a t i n g M e a s u r e s of C o m p e t e n c y
R at i ng w i t h O th e r Pr o g r a m V a r i a b l e s
In a study by Baer

(1974), p e r c e p ti o ns of u n d e r g r a d u a t e s

on the e f fe c ti v en e ss o f their p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n w e r e
measured.

S t ud e nt te aching was rat ed as the c ourse or e x p e r ­

ience of g r e at e st value.

San ders

(1972),

in r e v i e w i n g w h at

graduates h a d to say about their e d u c a t i o n pr ograms,
many reasons

found

to support i n - t h e - f i e l d e x p e r i e n c e as the m o st

sig nificant elem ent of tr a in in g programs.
For these reasons,

the r e s e a r c h e r de c i d e d to a s c e r t a i n

if s t u d e n t s 1 feeli ngs a bout their s tu d en t t ea c hi n g we r e
direc tl y r e l a t e d to their c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
tempt w a s also m a d e to see if s t u d e n t s 1 o v erall

An a t ­

fe e lings

of p r e p a r e d n e s s a n d fee lings about a d v i s e m e n t w e r e r e l a t e d
to their c o m p e t e n c y self-ra tings.

T h e D e v e l o p m e n t of Lists of C o m p e t e n c i e s

in the FielcT
The l i te r at u re abo unds

---------

in re c en t r e s e a r c h d e a l i n g w i t h

c ompetencies n e c e s s a r y f o r teaching.

T h e fo l lo w i n g s e ct i on

cont ains a r e i v e w of ni n e of th e se studies w h i c h are m o s t

22

closely r e l a t e d to the p resent
tencies

study by d e s c r i b i n g the c o m p e ­

from each and c o m p a r i n g th e m to the list of 16

comp etencies u s ed

in this study.

In " T e a c h e r s ’ Pe r c e p t i o n s of Their U n i v e r s i t y T r a i n i n g "
( Sc h a f t e n a a r , 1972)
developed.

a list of fo u rt e en c o m p e t e n c y areas was

Since these c o m p e t en c ie s were we l l r e s e a r c h e d

during the d e s i g n i n g of S c h a f t e n a a r 's r e s e a r c h and d eemed
useful

in that study,

minor rewording,

those f o ur t ee n compet e nc i es ,

co m pr i s e d the first

for the pr e se n t study.

with

list of c o m p e t e n c i e s

These f o ur t ee n were:

D ea l i ng and r e la t in g w i t h other teachers
Student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c t echniques
Wor k in g w i t h c h i l d r e n on a o n e - t o - o n e basis
W o r k i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n in a group
Dea l in g and r el ating w i t h a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
U n d e r s t a n d i n g the d y n a m i c s of st udent b eh avior
Ind iv i d u a l i z i n g p ro grams for c hi l d r e n
C on d uc t in g academic in s tr u ct i on
D ea l in g and r el a ti n g w i t h su p po r ti v e pe r so n n e l
C hoosing a p p r o p r i a t e ed u ca t io n al m a t e r i a l s
Se tting up c l a s s r o o m p r o c e d u r e s (rules, routines,
e t c .)
E ff e ct i ve g r o u p i n g of c h i l d r e n
Classroom management
W or k in g w i t h p arents (pp. 1,2).
One c o m p e t e n c y area was added in later use of the
Sc haftenaar
and it,

instrument.

too, was

included

It was "Using E d u c a t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s "
in the present

study.

Since the fields of me n ta l r e t a r d a t i o n and e mo t io n al
im pairment are c l o s e l y related,
ates from a p r o g r a m

one similar study on g r a d u ­

in m e n t a l r e t a r d a t i o n was examined.

23

Hoeksema

(1975) d i v i d e d c o mp e t e n c i e s

m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d students

for te a ching

into se ven catego ri e s,

further d iv i d e d the ca t eg o ri e s

and

into 63 c o m p e t e n c y statements.

The seven major c a te g or i es were:
A) Pl a nn i ng

Instruction

B) A s s e s s i n g and E v a l u a t i n g Be h avior
C) C o n d u c t i n g

I n s t r uc t io n

D) C l a s s r o o m Ma n a g e m e n t
E) F ac i l i t a t i n g S o c i a l - E m o t i o n a l M a t u r i t y
F) De a li n g and R e l a t i n g w i t h Ot h er P r o f e s s i o n a l s
G) W o r k i n g w i t h Parents
The areas

included in the pr e se n t

areas not on H o e k s e m a * s

list were:

list of c o m p e t e n c y

" E f f e c t i v e G r o u p i n g of

C hi l dr e n" and "W o rk i ng w i t h C h i l d r e n on a O n e - t o - O n e Ba s i s , "
a lt h o u g h b ot h of these areas were to u ch e d u p o n p e ri pherally.
A l t h o u g h his

list went

m aj o r c o m p e t e n c i e s

into fu r th e r d e tail on his

than the list

onl y one m a j o r he a d i n g not

in this study,

seven

it c o n t a i n e d

in cl u de d in the p r e s e n t study:

" F a c i l i t a t i n g Social and E m o t i o n a l M a t u r i t y . "
tency ar ea was a d d e d to the or iginal

list.

This c o m p e ­

24
C o m p e t e nc i es used by J o h n s o n

(1971)

in an e v a l u a t i o n of

the U n i v e r s i t y of S ou t h A l a b a m a ' s C ollege of E d u c a t i o n
Teacher T ra i n i n g P r o g r a m included:
1

. skill in p l an n i n g for e ff e c t i v e use of l i mited time
in h a nd l in g d i sc u s s i o n s , in m a k i n g d e mo n s t r a t i o n s
or using charts, m o dels, slides and i l l u s tr a ti v e
devices, in a d v i s i n g students, in doing r e s e a r c h in
the field of s pe ci a li z at i on , in u si n g s t a n d a r d i z e d
tests, an d in lecturing.
A l s o listed w e r e the a b i l ­
ity to outline o b j e c t i v e s and o r ga n iz e courses, to
d irect others in the p r o p e r use of l ib rary resources,
and to w o r k w i t h gr o up s of students.

2.

a b r o a d kn o wl e d g e of A m e r i c a n educat ion, its o r g a n i ­
zation, develop m en t , pu rposes, and problems.

3.

skill and p r a c t i c e

in d oi n g research.

This list was not as inclusive as the p r e s e n t one and
did not list:
1

.

w or k i n g w i t h pa rents

2

.

w or k i n g w i t h d i f f e r e n t size groups

3.

wo r k i n g w i t h other teachers

4. u n d e r s t a n d i n g the dyn amics of st udent behavior.
Components of Johnson's
list were:

(1 ) skill a n d p r a c t i c e in do i ng r e s e a r c h in the

field o f special i za t io n ,
can education,
problems.

list no t co vered on the p r e s e n t

and

(2) a b r o a d k n o w l e d g e of A m e r i ­

its o r ga n iz at i on , d e ve l o p m e n t ,

p u r p o s e s and

T h es e o mi s si o ns w e r e not c o n s i d e r e d to b e i m p o r ­

tant as they we r e not g oals s t re s s e d b y t ea c he r tr a ining p r o ­
grams for the e m o t i o n a l l y

impai r ed t ea ching -p r og r a m s

in

Michigan.
In a study do n e b y H a r i n g a nd Fargo

(1969),

ing o b j e c t i v e s w e re p r o p o s e d for c o m p e t e n c i e s

the f o l l o w ­

in t r a i n i n g

25

programs for te a chers of the e m o t i o n a l l y impaired.
1. To e s t a b l i s h p r o c e d u r e s of observing, recordi ng,
and an a ly z i n g b eh a vi or s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y .
2. To assess child p e r f o r m a n c e in four areas:
academic,
v e r b a l , social and p h y s i c a l re q u i r e m e n t s of the
classroom.
3. To ac q u ir e f u n c t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n from the assessm e n t of the c hi l dr e n' s skills in or d er to select
p r e s e n t l y a v ai l ab l e in s t r u c t i o n a l ma t er i a l s w i t h i n
e a c h a c ad e m i c area, for the p u r p o s e of p r o g r a m
p l a n n i n g for s eq u en c e and b r e a d t h o f skill d e v e l o p ­
ment .
4. To e s t a b l i s h d u r i n g a s s e s s m e n t the child's p r e f e r ­
ence for a c ti v it i es w h i c h m i g h t m o t i v a t e a c a d e m i c
perf ormance.
5. To use a s s e s s m e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to e s t a b l i s h task
i ni t ia t i o n in the child.
6

. To d ev e lo p s y s t e m a t i c p r o c e d u r e s for m a i n t a i n i n g
t as k performance.

7. T o e s t a b l i s h e f fi c i e n t p e r f o r m a n c e on i n s t r u c ti o na l
pro g r a m s t h r o u g h sy s t e m a t i c c o n t i n g e n c y m a n a g e m e n t ,
w i t h the use of c o n t i n u o u s r e s p o n s e da t a o n the
acc u ra c y and e f f i c i e n c y of c h il d p e r f o r m a n c e to
g u i d e further i n s t r u ct i on a l decisions.
8

. To d e m o n s t r a t e the a c q u i s i t i o n of these skills w i t h
individ u al s and w i t h groups of children.

The p r e s e n t st u dy includes ea c h of the above c o m p e t e n c y
areas and adds the areas of:

w o r k i n g w i t h par ents, w o r k i n g

eff e c t i v e l y w i t h support p er so n ne l , w or k i n g e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h
administrators,

and w o r k i n g e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h o t h e r teachers.

T h e e v a l u a t i o n d on e by A y er s

(1974) on r eg u la r e d u c a ­

tion g r a d u at e s from T e n n e s s e e T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y listed
nine m aj o r are as of c o m p e t e n c y d ee m e d n e c e s s a r y for e f f e c ­
tive teaching.

T h e s e were:

26

1

. Te a c h i n g pe r s o n a l i t y , w h i c h included the a b i l i t y to
w o r k w i t h children, pa r en t s, c o ll e ag u es a nd m e mb e rs
of the commun it y , the a b i l i t y to m a i n t a i n a f r i e n d ­
ly d i s p o s i t i o n and lead a w e l l - r o u n d e d life.

2. G e ne r al k n o w l e d g e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of p h y s i c a l and
b io l og i c a l sciences, A m e r i c a n c u l t u r e a nd i n s t i t u ­
tions, art, music, liter ature, p h il o so p hy , and
mathematics.
3. A b i l i t y to use the E n g l i s h language effectively.
4. K n o w l e d g e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the su bjects w h i c h
y ou teach.
5. U n d e r s t a n d i n g of c h i l d r e n a nd youth, i nc l ud i ng i n ­
sight into causes of behavior, skill in w o r k i n g w i t h
e xc e pt i on a l c h i l d r e n (the bright, the dull, the
h andica p pe d ), in gr o up work, in m a i n t a i n i n g d i s ­
c ip l i ne and in g u i d a n c e o f children.
6

. U n d e r s t a n d i n g of the na t u r e of the learning process,
including skill in h e l p i n g stud ents d e t e r m i n e
o b je c ti v es , in m o t i v a t i n g students, in p u p i l - t e a c h e r
p lanning, in using a v a r i e t y of t e ac h i n g me t ho d s, in
e va l ua t in g p up i l g r o w t h a nd class p r o c e d u r e s w i t h
pupils, a b ility to c o n s t r u c t a p p r o p r i a t e tests and
learning m a t e r i a l s , in a p p l i c a t i o n of le a rn i ng theory
in the c l a s s r o o m and in p r o v i d i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t e d
learning experiences.

7. K n o w l e d g e of sources of t e ac h in g materials.
8

. A b i l i t y to use teaching m a t e r i a l s

9.

effectively.

Kn o wl e d g e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the p ur p o s e s o f the
scho ol in r e l a t i o n to the o v e r a l l p u r p o s e of society,
the social s t r u c t u r e of the c o m m u n i t y and its m e a n ­
ing for education, the i nstitutions of the communi t y,
the d i f f e r e n t va l ue p a tt e r n s of s o c i a l - e c o n o m i c
classes, the e c o n o m i c life of the community, a n d
a p p r o p r i a t e e t hical b e h a v i o r of the teacher.

Inc l ud e d h er e but not on the p r e s e n t study's li s ti n g of
c o m p e t e n c y areas were:
the E n g l i s h language,

ge n er a l

knowledge,

e f f e c t i v e use of

soc ietal c on s id e r a t i o n s ,

ing a f r i e n d l y dispo si t io n .

and m a i n t a i n ­

T he au t ho r d i d not c o n s i d e r

27

these to be of p r i m a r y s i g n i f i c a n c e for teachers of the emo
tionally impaired,

so they w e r e not

included in the p r e s e n t

study.
The g e n e r a l areas of c o m p e t e n c i e s used by S a n d e f u r in
"An I l l u s t ra t ed M o d e l for the E v a l u a t i o n of T ea c h e r E d u c a ­
tion G ra d ua t es "

(1970) were:

1. S ub j e ct m a t t e r c o m p e t e n c e
2. R e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h students
3. A p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of a ss i gn m en t s
4. O v e r a l l c l a s s r o o m effect iv e ne s s.
The c u r r e n t list c on t ai n ed m or e areas than this and in cluded
all of the above.
C o m p e t e n c i e s w e r e d i v i d e d into cl usters
by Gi o rd and S c h a b o c k

(197S)

on r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n gradu at e s

of O re g o n C ol l eg e of Edu cation.
I. Pl a nn i ng a nd P r e p a r i n g
social.
II.

Performing
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

in a s t u d y done

T h e s e c l us t er s were:
for

Instruction--general

and

I ns t r u c t i o n a l Functions:

c o nv e y i n g learning ou t co m es d e s i r e d from
instruction
a d a p t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n to context
b u il d i n g m o t i v a t i o n an d interes t in learning
p r o v i d i n g for v a r i e t y in in s tr u c t i o n a l a c t i v i ­
ties and levels of thin king
d e al i n g w i t h s u b j e c t m a t t e r
m a n a g i n g the use of i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s ,
p r o c e d u r e s and activit i es
m a n a g i n g p o t e n t i a l l y d i s r u p t i v e events
m a n a g i n g t r a n s i t i o n s and t e r m i na t io n s
a s s e s s i n g l e ar n in g o ut comes
p l an n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n on the basis of learn in g
outcomes.

28

III.

S u m m a r i z i n g and I nt e r p r e t i n g Le a rn i ng O u t c o m e Data,
w h i c h i nc l ud e d s u m m a r i z i n g data, i n t e r p re t in g data
and u s in g d a ta to plan.

IV.

Relati n g I n t e r p e r s o n a l l y to pupils on i n s t r uc t io n al
m a t t e r s and on p e r s o n a l ma t t e r s a nd to supervisors,
p rincipals, c u r r i c u l u m specia l is t s, etc.

V. P e r f o r m i n g R e l a t e d P r o f e s s i o n a l Respon s ib i li t ie s .
E le m en t s not inc luded on this list but in cluded o n the
pr es ent one were:

w o r k i n g w i t h parents,

w o r k i n g w i t h p upils

on a o n e - t o - o n e basis,

and w o r k i n g e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h other

teachers.

list

The current

c ompetencies

did

n ot c o n t a i n the f o ll o w i n g

listed by G i o r d et a l .:

tion a n d in terest in learning and
demands.

(1) bu i l d i n g m o t i v a ­

(2 ) m e e t i n g w o r k schedu l e

T h es e w e r e not c o n s i d e r e d to be s i g n i f i c a n t o m i s ­

sions as the first

is im p li e d in " c o n d u c t i n g a c a d e m i c i n ­

struction" and the se c o n d is a s s u m e d in a tea cher p e r f o r m ­
ing adequately.
A f t e r re v ie w in g the c o m p e t e n c i e s
others

in the 1957-71 time period,

Ment al H e a l t h A d m i n i s t r a t i o n

listed by se veral

the D i s t r i c t of C ol u mb i a

(1973)

a r r i v e d at s e ve n skills

d eemed n e c e s s a r y and a p p r o p r i a t e for s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n by the
students.
1. S ys t em A w a r e n e s s
2. P e rsonal S e n s i t i v i t y
3. C hi l d D e v e l o p m e n t and S p ec i al E d u c a t i o n Co n cepts
4. P s y c h o e d u c a t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t
5. C u r r i c u l u m and M et h od s

29

6

. Re m e di a l E d u c a t i o n and R e ading

7. Be h av i or Mana gement.
T he p r e s e n t study c o n t a i n e d all of these and a l so in eluded the following c o m p e t e n c y areas:

working with p a r e n t s ,

wo rk ing e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h support pe r so n ne l ,
e ff e ct i ve l y w i t h other teachers.

and w o r k i n g

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

I n t r o d uc t io n
Thi s c ha p te r contains a d e s c r i p t i o n of the m e t h o d o l o g y
and r es e a r c h d e s i g n u s ed in this study.
cluded w h i c h s p ecify target popula ti o n,
survey instruments,

procedures

of the qu e st i on n ai r e,
sampled,

S ec t io n s are i n ­
sampling frame,

f ol l o w e d for the d e v e l o p m e n t

data c o l l e c t i o n p rocedures,

subjects

s pe c if i c re s ea r ch q u e s t i o n s and da t a a na l ys i s p r o ­

cedures .

S urvey Instru m en t s
The Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e being d i s c u s s e d can be found in
A pp e n d i x B.
Demographic data
naire).

(questions 1-4, p a ge

1 of the q u e s t i o n ­

This section was d e s i g n e d to ob t a i n data r eg a rd i ng

the p r e s e n t e mp l oy m e n t s i t u a t i o n of subject,
type of stu dents n o w be ing ta ught,

including the

their age group,

school s e t t i n g and service capacity.

their

This se rved as b a c k ­

grou nd i n f o r m a t i o n on each s tu d e n t to be g i v e n to advis o rs

30

31

prior to their p r e d i c t i n g the students'
c om p et e nc y
sought

(explained on page 33).

o p in i on s of their

In addition,

the study

to e xa m i n e the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n

taken and c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
P ro g r a m e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s .
que s tions are the three q u e s ti o ns

numbered

the s ec t io n labe led E v a l u a t i v e Da ta
91) .

The p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n
5t

and 7 under

6

(see A p p e n d i x B, page

T he s e q u e s t i o n s a s c e r t a i n e d how stu dents felt about

the q ua l i t y of advisem e nt ,

their own o v er a ll

level of p r e ­

p ar e dn e ss and their fe e lings a bo u t their student

te a ch i ng e x ­

perience.

if

dents

These da ta we r e a n a l y z e d to d e t e r m i n e

(a) s t u ­

from d i f f e r e n t u n i v e r s i t i e s had d i f f e r e n t ev a l u a t i o n s

of these three areas and
related to students'

(b) e v a l u a t i o n s

opinions

in t hese areas were

of their ow n c o m p e t e n c i e s

in

the 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas of the c o m p e t e n c y s el f-ratings.
Pres ent w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s .

T h e p re s e n t w o r k i n g c o n d i ­

tions q u e s t i o n s are the seven questi o ns ,
7 on page
This

2 of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

list of subjects'

numbered

1

th r ou g h

(see A p p e n d i x B, p ag e 92 ).

p e r c e p t i o n s of c o n d i t i o n s was d e v e l ­

oped b y S c h a f t e n a a r for an u n p u b l i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n
in 1973.

In this study,

g round d a t a for a dv i so r s

these s e ve n q u e s t i o n s
in a t t e m p t i n g

to p re d i c t

o pi nions of their c o m p e t e n c y s el f-ratings.
tions w er e also u s e d to d e t e r m i n e
ences

in w or k i n g c o n d it i on s

institutions.

The r es ults

served as b a c k ­
st udent

T he s ev e n q u e s ­

if there we r e any d i f f e r ­

for g r a d u a t e s of the v ar i ou s
in this w e r e al so u s e d by the

32

partici p at i ng

i n st i tu t io n s for c o m p a r i s o n w i t h results o b ­

tained in the 1972 study.
C o m p e t e n c y s e lf - ra t in gs

(see p a g e 93

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

These c o n s i s t e d of a list of 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas.

Graduates

were asked to rate each of these as to h o w co m pe t e n t they
were the d a y after g r a d u a t i o n from t ea c he r training.
three c at e go r ie s
competent*

for r e s p o n s e were:

and m i n i m a l l y competent.

part were c o m p i l e d and c o m p a r e d
across u n iv e rs i ti e s *

compet en t *

The

s om ewhat

The r e sults of this

for e a c h u n i v e r s i t y and

and c om p a r e d

to the r e su l ts of the

three p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n questions.
B es t -w o r st
cies as

competencies.

Using the same

in the c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g

16 c o m p e t e n ­

(see a b o v e ) , the

subjects w e re a s ke d to rate their four areas of mo s t c o m p e ­
tence and their four ar eas of least competence.

Thi s was for

use in the c o m p a r is o ns b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s and
advisors p r e d i c t i o n s of c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s

(see below).

Adv i so r F o l l o w - u p Form
The A d v i s o r F o l l o w - u p fo r m was d e v i s e d to o b t a i n p r e ­
d ic tions f r om the fa c u l t y m e m b e r

listed by e a c h g r a d u a t e on

the cover sheet of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e as his or her p r i m a r y
contact p e r s o n d u r i n g the t eacher tr a i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e
A pp e n d i x B, p a g e 94 ).

(see

The first p a ge of this f o rm c o n t a i n e d

33

the data c o m p i l e d in the sec tions on d e m o g r a p h i c d a t a and
present w o r k i n g
student.

conditions,

r e p o r t e d s e p a r a t e l y for each

This was p r e s e n t e d to g iv e the ad v i s o r some data

on the st u de n t' s cu rrent w or k i n g
wer e a s ke d to p r e d i c t students'

co n di t io n s b e f o r e a d visors
o p i n i o n s of t h ei r ow n

competencies.
T he s ec o n d page
the advisors

lists the 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas and asks

to p r e d i c t w h i c h four areas w o u l d be i n di c a t e d

as mo st and least c o mp e te n t areas by e ac h indivi d ua l student.
A total of 18 a dv i so r s were used;

two from u n i v e r s i t y 1,

three fr o m u n i v e r s i t y 2, four from u n i v e r s i t y 3, two from
u n i v e r si t y 4, two f r o m u n i v e r s i t y 5, and four f r om u n i v e r ­
sity

6

.

P ro c ed u r e s in the D e v e l o p m e n t of
the Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e u s e d in this r e s e a r c h has h a d a m u l t i p ha s e d de velopment.
The first 14 areas of c o m p e t e n c y we r e first c o m p i l e d
in 1972 by a pr o c e s s

involving various professionals

in the

field of S pe c ia l E d u c a t i o n for the E m o t i o n a l l y Impaired.
A list of c o m p e t e n c i e s ju d g e d
emotionally
releva nt

i mp o rt a nt

for te a ch e rs of the

i mp aired was c o m p i l e d t h r o u g h e x a m i n a t i o n of

literature,

input f r o m f a c u l t y in s pe c ia l e d u c a t i o n

at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r si t y,

a nd input from p e r s o n n e l

in

34

The State D e p a r t m e n t of Education,
in Michigan.

At that time,

Special E d u c a t i o n Se r vices

14 areas w e r e

i d e n ti f ie d by these

persons as being n e c e s s a r y for the e f f e c t iv e f u n c t i o n i n g of
teachers of the e m o t i o n a l l y

impaired.

The 15th c o m p e t e n c y

was added w h e n a s ta t e- w i d e r e s e a r c h c o m m i t t e e was a l te r i n g
the 1972

i ns t ru m en t used

purposes.

in the first

The 16th competency,

Emotional D e v e l o p m e n t " was added

study for

their own

" F a c i l i t a t i n g Social and
in 1976 af ter an e x t e n s i v e

revi ew of the li t er a tu r e of lists of t ea c he r c om petencies.
It was

felt that this was a s i g n i f i c a n t area for te achers of

the e m o t i o n a l l y

impaired and that it was not su b su m e d un d e r

any of the ot her areas.

The

three r a ti n gs

for the c o m p e ­

tencies w e re a lt e r e d from their o ri g in a l h ea d in g s
Originally,

in 1973.

the r a ti n g o p ti o ns w e re s u f f i c i e n t l y competent,

somewhat c om p et e nt a nd not s u f f i c i e n t l y competent.

B ec a us e

of c on c er n s by the r e s e a r c h e r as to w h e t h e r or not su b jects
would p er c e i v e a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n s o me w ha t c o m p e te n t and
not s u f f i c ie n tl y c o m p e t e n t
m u t u a l l y exclusive)

(they were not c o n s i d e r e d to be

the h e ad i ng s we re c h a n g e d w i t h the

advice of the r e s e a r c h e r ' s g u i d a n c e committee.
The w o r k i n g co n d i t i o n s
Sch a ft e na a r

s e c t i o n was d e v e l o p e d by

in 1973.

The d e m o g r a p h i c d a ta s e c t i o n was d e r i v e d by the w r i t e r
from sa mp les of f o l l o w - u p stu dies us e d w i t h M i c h i g a n State
U n i v e r s i t y special e d u c a t i o n g r a d u a t e s and from input
the U n i v e r s i t y A d v i s o r s

for the E m o t i o n a l l y

Im paired

from
in

3S
Michigan.

The advi sor fo l lo w -u p form was d e v e l o p e d by the

writer and her d i s s e r t a t i o n chairman.
The entire q u e s t i o n n a i r e was f i e l d - t e s t e d on three
teachers from local school programs.
not included

These

individuals w er e

in the target p o p u l a t i o n of recent

and their answers were not

gr aduates

included in the total data.

three r e sp o nd e nt s co m pl e t e d the s urvey as teachers
actual study w o u l d receive
directions,
instrument.

it.

The

in the

In a d di t i o n to the regular

they w e re as k ed to re spond to the c l ar i t y of the
All re s po n s e s w er e s c r u t i n i z e d to d et e r m i n e

if

the d i r e c t i o n s had b e e n f ol lowed and the pr o pe r type of r e ­
sponse made.

No d ir e ct i o n s or p r o c e d ur e s we re c o n s i d e r e d as

unclear by the pilot

subjects,

so no further changes were

deem ed n e c e s s a r y after the field test.

C o l l e c t i o n of the Data
D ur i ng J a n u a r y and F e b r u a r y of 197 6 , a m a i l i n g was sent
by each individual

i ns t it u ti o n to the subjects w ho met the

criteria for i nc l us i on in this study.
letters of en d or s em e nt

E nc l o s e d were two

(in A p p e n d i x A ) , one q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(Appen dix B) , a letter of e x p l a n a t i o n and a s t am p ed a d d r e s s e d
e nv elope for the re turn of the q ue s ti o nn a ir e .
after the initial mailing,

post cards were

Six weeks

sent to all n o n ­

r es p on d en t s .
A total of 280 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e sent out.
dred sixty-eight,

One h u n ­

or 601 we re c o m p l e t e d and returned.

Seven

que s ti o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d be c a u s e of incorrect addresses.

36

T ar g et P o p u l a t i o n
The target p o p u l a t i o n c o n s i s t e d of 1974-75 gr a du a t e s
earning B.A.

degrees

in Special E d u c a t i o n for the E m o t i o n ­

ally I m paired or receiving ap p ro v al

in that are a f r om one of

the va r io u s M i c h i g a n co l le g es and universities.
also the s am p le d population,
below.
1976.

T he s u rv e y was

This

is

exce pt for the e x c e p t i o n no t ed

sent out during J a n u a r y and Feb ruary,

These p e rs o ns had not been su r ve y e d b ef o re and by

January, 1976, w o u l d h a ve ha d a m i n i m u m of at least one
semester's

t e ac h in g e xp e ri e n c e u p o n w h i c h to ba se their

opinions.

Sampling Frame
To o b ta i n an a c c u r a t e and c o m p l e t e list of students
rec e iving B.A.
the E m o t i o n a l l y

degrees or approv al
Impaired,

in Sp ecial E d u c a t i o n for

an ind ividual p r o f e s s o r f r om e a c h

co llege or u n i v e r s i t y r e s p o n s i b l e for ce r t i f y i n g the s t u ­
dents from that c o ll e ge or u n i v e r s i t y was contacted,
records of c e r t i f i c a t i o n w e r e consulted.

or

M a s t e r lists c o n ­

sisting of each student's name and home address w e r e p r e p a r e d
for ea ch institution.
tion was received.

The u p d a t e d lists w e r e g i v e n to the

r esearcher in January,
ducted.

The lists w e r e u p d a t e d as n e w i n f o r m a ­

s ho r t l y b e fo r e the s t u d y was c o n ­

37

B ecause five of the six u n i v e r s i t i e s
graduate o n the av e ra g e of

20*75 st udents

Special E d u c a t i o n for the E m o t i o n a l l y

a nd c o lleges
in the a r e a of

I mp aired e ac h year,

it was d ec i d e d to sample all the in di v id u al s from these
universities.

At

the sixth univers i ty ,

there w e r e a p p r o x i ­

m a t e l y 160 gr a duates d uring the 1974-75 school year.
economy of time and effort,
ly from the

For

a s ample of 60 was c h o s e n r a n d o m ­

total p o p u l a t i o n and these 60 w e r e sent the

questionnaire.

Sub jects S a m p l e d
A total of 168 g r ad u at e s r e s p o n d e d to the d e m o g r a p h i c
and v o c a t i o n a l

items on p ag e

1 of the questio n na i re .

T a bl e

3.1 breaks these d o w n a c c o r d i n g to institutions.
Table 3.1.

I ns t it u ti o na l R e s p o n se s

University

N

to Q u e s t i o n s

% of T o ta l
Sample

1

40

23.8

2

24

14.3

3

29

17.3

4

13

7.7

5

41

24.4

6

21

12. 5

Total

168*

•This c o n s t i t u t e d

100.0

60% of those r e c e i v i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

38

Cur r en t E m p l o y m e n t S i t u a t i o n
of Respondent's
As can be seen from the data in T a b l e 3.2 the m a j o r i t y
of graduates r e s p o n d i n g

(83 or 49.4%)

teachers of the e m o t i o n a l l y impaired.
r e s p o n d e n t s , 48

(28.6%)

are tea ching

are e m pl o y e d as
O f the r em a i n i n g
in a n o t h e r a r e a of

special education.

Table 3.2.

Current E mp l oy m en t S i t u a t i o n of R es p on d en t s

Category Label

N

T eaching r e g u l a r e d u c a t i o n

14

8.3

Te aching e m o t i o n a l l y

83

49.4

Teaching o t he r special e d u c a t i o n

48

28.6

Not teaching

21

12.5

imp aired

%

Other

2

Total

168

1 .2

100. 0

39

A ge Group
O f the 168

g r a d u a t e s r e s p o n d i n g , the m a j o r i t y

(45.8%)

were t e ac h in g e l e m e n t a r y age pupils f o ll o w e d in f r e q u e n c y
by those t e a c h i n g s e c o n d a r y

Table 3.3.

(251).

A g e G r o u p Being T a ug h t by Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
R e s p o n de n ts

N

t

Pr e-school

5

3.0

E le m en t a r y

76

45.2

S ec o ndary

40

23.8

3

1.8

15

8 .9

E l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d a r y
Pre -school,
No r e sp o n s e

Total

e l e m e n t a r y and s e c o n d ar y
(to this

item)

8

•

P re - sc h oo l and e l e m e n t a r y

4*
00

C a t e g o r y Label

21

12.5

168

100.0

40

P r esent S etting
As can be seen in T a b l e 3.4 the v as t m a j o r i t y of
r es p on d e n t s - - 1 1 7 or 6 9 . 9 l - - w e r e t ea c hi n g in p u b l i c schools.

Table

3.4.

P re s en t T e a c h i n g Se t t i n g o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
R e s p o n d en t s

Ca tegory
Public Schools
Institution

N

1

117

69.6

11

6.5

Day treatment cent ers

7

4.2

J uv e n i l e d e t e n t i o n f a cility

3

1 .8

Other

13

No response

17

Total

168

7.7
1 0.1

100.0

41

P re s en t Ca p acity
Of the g r a d u a t e s re s po n di n g,
in s e l f - c o n t a i n e d rooms and

38 or

60 or 35.7% w e r e
22.6% w er e teachi n g in

reso urce rooms.
Table 3.5.

P re s en t T ea c h i n g C a p a c i t y of Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Respondents

Ca tegory Label

N

%

S e l f - c o n t a i n e d e.i.

class

60

Self-contained

class

10

l.d.

R es o ur c e room

38

35.7
6

.0

2 2.6

5

3.0

Consu lt a nt

4

2.4

EMI or TMI

5

3.0

Other

26

15.5

No respo n se

20

11. 9

168

100.0

Crisis or h e l p i n g

Total

teacher

42

R e s e a r c h Q u es t i o n s
This s ec t i o n is d iv i d e d
tion c o n t a i n i n g

into six areas, w i t h each s e c ­

the r e se a r c h q u e s t i o n s p er t ai n i n g

to one of

the six m a j o r pu r po s es of the study as d e l i n e a t e d in Ch a pt e r
I (see pa g e 2) .
A) C om p et e n c y s el f -r a ti n gs of 1976 gr a du a te s
s pe c if i c c o m p e t e n c y areas.

in the 16

1. For the total g ro u p and for each university, what
are the c o m p e t e n c y se l f- r at i ng s o f the graduates
in the 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas?
The p e r c e n t a g e o f su bjects r e s p o n d i n g

in each of the

rating c at e g or i es was r ep o r t e d for the total group and for
each university.
2. Ar e there s i g n i f ic a nt d i f f e re n ce s in the c o m p e t e n c y
sel f - r a t i n g s of students for the total gr o up for
ea ch c o m p e t e n c y area?
To a na l yz e this,
measures,

the st at i st i ca l p r o c e d u r e of r ep e at e d

an a ly s is of v a r i a n c e was used,

looking for m a i n

effect for competencies.
3. a) A r e there s i g n i f i c a n t di f f e r e n c e s in the c o m p e ­
t ency s e l f - r a ti n gs a s s i g n e d each c o m p e t e n c y w i t h ­
in e a c h u n i v e r s i t y that d i f f e r f r om the total
group?
b) A r e there di f f e r e n c e s in c o m p e t e n c y se l f- r at i ng s
b e t w e e n the i n st i tu t io n s on ea c h c om p e t e n c y ?
The an alysis

for q u e s t i o n 3 - - r e pe a te d m ea s ur e s,

sis of v a r i a n c e - - w a s u s ed for this question.
among the va r io u s

Inter a ct i on

in s t i t u t i o n s wa s u s e d for part

Main effect for i ns t i t u t i o n was u s e d for p ar t

analy­

(a).

(b) *

43

4. W h i c h of the 16 c o mp et e nc i es are listed as m o s t
com pe t e nt and least c o mp e te n t for the total group?
For e ac h un i v e r s i t y ?
To a ns w er the first and se c o n d part o f this question,
p ercentages of r es p on d en t s r a ti n g each c o m p e t e n c y as m o s t or
least c om p etent w e r e reported.
B) Co m pa r is o ns be t w e e n 1976 g ra d ua t e self-ra t in g s and 1972
data.
5. H av e the ratings of the 16 indiv idual c o m p e t e n c y
areas (on the c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings) c hanged
since the 1972 study?
For this question,

a chi square test w i t h the o l d r e ­

sults as e x p e c t e d fr e qu e nc i es and the n e w results as o b s e r v e d
frequency was done.

To t al group data was us e d for this

part of the study.
6

. H a v e total scores on c o m p e t e n c y se l f - r a t i n g s
since 1972 for the total gro up?

To d e t e r m i n e

this,

c ha n g e d

a t-test was used on m e a n scores

for

the c o m p e t e n c y s e lf - ra t in g s for 1972 and for 1976.
7. H a v e total scores on c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s
since 1972 for each u n i v e r s i t y ?

ch a n g e d

A t -test was u s e d on m e a n scores for ea ch c o m p e t e n c y
area for each u n i v e r s i t y for 1972 and for 1976.

C) A d v i s o r p r e d i c t i o n s of b e s t - w o r s t c o m p e t e n c y selfratings.
8

. Wh at is the a d vi s or e f f e c t i v e n e s s in p r e d i c t i n g the
b e s t - w o r s t c o m p e t e n c y s e lf - ra t in g s of their students
for each each institu t io n ?

A score was o b t a i n e d for e a c h ad vi sor o n e a c h student
of the n u m b e r of ma t ch e s b et w ee n his p r e d i c t i o n s a nd student

44

o pi n io n of their be s t- w o r s t
scored as a

1

compe tency areas.

, a n o n - m a t c h was scored as a

was scored as a -1.
was possible.

score for that

, and a m i s m a t c h

A range of scores b e t w e e n

For individual

all a d visors at that

0

inst itutions,

A m a t c h was

+8

and

-8

ra w scores from

i n s t i t ut i on we re summed and a m e a n

i n s t i t u t i o n was derived.

9. a)

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e b e tween u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n ­
nel in their a b i l i t y to p re d ic t students' most
and least c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - ra t in g s?

b)

If there is a d i f f e r e n c e , is this r el a te d to any
v ar i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d in this study?

To o b t a i n

(a),

a o n e - w a y analys i s of v a r i a n c e was

done on the a c c u r a c y scores f r o m all the institutions.
For

( b ) , institutions'

scores w e re di v i d e d

into s u b ­

groups a c c o r di n g to the sp e ci f i e d c r i t e r i a of size and
numb er of p u pi l s per advisor.
D) Gr a du a te s op i ni o ns of cu r re n t w o rk i ng co nditions.
10.

Do gr a du a te s from d i f f e r e n t instit u ti o ns differ
their report of w o r k i n g co n di t io n s?

To o b t a i n this
ing c o n d i t io n s

information,

a total

score on the w o r k ­

for each s tu dent was obtained,

r es p on s e having a d i f f e r e n t n u m e r i c a l value.
scores,

in

w i t h each
Ta k i n g

these

a m e a n score was d e t e r m i n e d for e a ch u n i v e r s i t y and

then a na l ys i s of v a r i a n c e was used to c o mpare

the me a ns of

the scores of the v a rious

institutions.

E) Graduates'
p on e nt s .

of three s el ected p r o g r a m c o m ­

e v a l u at i on s

45

11. H o w do students feel about the q u a l i t y of a d v i s e ­
ment, their o w n o v e r a l l p re p a r e d n e s s , a nd their
student teaching e x p e r i e n c e s (evaluative q u e s t i o n s
5, 6 and 7)?
Does this d i f f e r across u n i v e r s i t i e s ?
For the first part of the q u es tion,
subjects r es p on d in g
reported.

the p e r c e n t a g e of

in e ac h of the r a ti n g c a t e g o r i e s was

For the second part of the q u es tion,

an a n a l y s i s

of v a r i a n c e was d on e for ea ch question.
F) R e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y se l f - r a t i n g s
o th e r v a r i a b l e s measured.
1 2

and all

. Is there i n d e p e n d e n c e b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y selfr at ings a nd r at i ng s g i v e n e v a l u a t i v e q u e s t i o n s
6 and 7 ?

To a s c e r t a i n this a na l ys i s o f v a r i a n c e was used,

the

5,

using

total score on c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
13.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t ea c hi ng p o s i t i o n
taken (question n u m b e r 1 on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) and
competency self-ratings?

To o b t a i n this

information,

an ov er all score for e ac h

student on the c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s was o b t a i n e d b a s e d
on a score of 3 for e a c h ti me he or she c h e c k e d the s u f f i c i ­
ently c om p e t e n t category,
com p et e nt

a

2

for every time the s om e wh a t

c a t e g o r y was c h e c k e d and a

1

for e v e r y time the

m i n i m a l l y c om p e t e n t c a t e g o r y wa s checked.

U s i n g this score,

an a na l ys i s of v a r i a n c e w a s done.
14.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n scores o n c u r r e n t
w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s and c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s ?

For this analysis,
tions s e ct i on

total

scores

on the w o r k i n g c o n d i ­

(as o b t a i n e d for q u e s t i o n

10

) w e r e u s e d for

46

each student.

A c o r r e l a t i o n was done b e t w e e n these and

total scor es of p er s o n a l

self c o m p e t e n c y as u se d in q u e s t i o n

13.
15. Does the q u a l i t y of ad v i s o r rating by g r ad u at e s
(eva luative q u e s t i o n 5) relate to the p r e d i c t i n g
a b i l i t y o f a dv i s o r s ?
A c o r r e l a t i o n was done be t w e e n the total
a dv i so r p r e d i c t i o n

scores of

scores a n d the ratings g i v e n to the

q u e s t i o n on q u a l i t y of advisement.
16.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y selfr at i n g scores a n d a b i l i t y of ad visors to p r e d i c t
g r a d u a t e op i nions of c o m p e t e n c y s el f - r a t i n g s ?

To test for this a c o r r e l a t i o n was
scores and the s um o f e a ch subject's
te ncies as d e s c r i b e d in q u e s t i o n 13.

done b e t w e e n a d v i s o r

scores on the 16 c o m p e ­

CHAPTER IV
P R E S E N T A T I O N OF TH E F IN D I N G S AND
SU MMARY OF M A J O R FI N DI N GS

I nt r o d u c t i o n
The focus of this c h a p t e r

is on the data o b t a i n e d

from

the surv ey i n s t r um e nt s and on the resu lts of the s ta t is t ic a l
an alyses w h i c h w er e us ed to study the data.
section of the chapter,
of the 1976 g r a d u at e s
sen ted

(questions

p a r i s o n s be tween
q ue s ti o ns

5,

6

1,

In the first

d a ta on the c o m p e t e n c y se l f- r at i ng s

in the 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas are p r e ­
2, 3 and 4).

1976 c o m p e t e n c y

In the second s e c t i o n c o m ­
s e lf - r a t i n g s

(research

and 7) and 1972 c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng s

are

reported.
In the third s ec t io n scor es on ad v i s o r p r e d i c t i o n s of
student s m o s t - l e a s t co m pe t e n t r a t i n g s of the 16 c o m p e t e n c y
areas

(research q u e s t i o n s

8

and 9) and the c o m p a r i s o n s among

i ns t it u ti o ns on these are p resented.
data on the s ev e n q u e s t i o n s
(r esearch q u e s t i o n
Unive rs i ti e s.

10

In the f o u r t h s e ction

on c ur r e n t w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s

) are r e p o r t e d and c o m p a r e d acro ss

In the fifth s e c t i o n graduates'

of the three se l ec t ed p r o g r a m c o m p o n e n t s
(r esearch q u e s t i o n 11).

e va l u a t i o n s

are r ep o r t e d

In s e ct i on six , r e l a t i o n s h i p s

47

48

betw een 1976 c o m p e t e n c y
m ea s ur e d are p re s e n t e d

se l f- r at i ng s

anti other variables

(research qu e st i on s

12,

13,

14,

15

and 16).
S ec t i o n

I

1. For the total group and for each univer s it y , what
are the c o m p e t e n c y s el f - r a t i n g s of the g ra d u a t e s
on the 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas?
The o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s
gory rati ngs of the 16 c o m p e t e nc i es
group can be found in A p p e n d i x D.
length in q u e s t i o n s
2.

areas for the total
This will be d i s c u s s e d at

2, 3 and 4.

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e in the c o m p e t e n c y se l f - r a t i n g s
of stude nt s for the total group of each c o m p e t e n c y
area?

To d e t e r m i n e

if there we re d i f f e r e n c e s

given the c o m p e t e n c y areas,
v ar i an c e was used.
results

for the 3 c a t e ­

r e pe a t e d measur e,

a na l y s i s of

Due to the small N for U n i v e r s i t y 4,

fr om it plus two other

answers w e r e not

in the r a tings

i n cluded

i nc o mp l et e r espondents'

in this analysis.

Significant

d i f f e r e n c e s we re found.

Post hoc p r o c e d u r e s w e r e done,

using the T u k e y method.

M eans of the m e as ures,

order,

are as follows

(see T a bl e

Significant differences

4.1 on the f o l l o wi n g page).

at the 0.1

level w e re

exist b e t w e e n A and the r e m a i n i n g c o mp e t e n c i e s ;
C, D, E and those remai ning;
remaining;

in r a n k

b e t w e e n F, G, H,

b e t w e e n K, L and those remaining;

and those r e m a i n i n g and b e t w e e n 0 and P.

found to

b e t w e e n B,

I, J and those
b e t w e e n M, N

49

Table 4.1.

R a n k O r d e r of the M ea n s of C o m p e t e n c y Areas on
the C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r at i ng s

Ra nk

Competency

M ea n

SD

Work ing w i t h c h il d r e n on a
o n e - t o - o n e basis

A

(13)

1.071

.285

W or k in g w i t h c h i l d r e n in a
group

B

(1 2 )

1.351

.512

C o n d u c t i n g ac a de m ic
tion.

instruc­

C

(8 )

1.364

. 571

I nd i vi d u a l i z i n g p r og r a m s for
children

D

(9)

1.429

.592

Setting up c l a s s r o o m p r o c e ­
dures (rules, routines, etc.)

E

(6 )

1.442

.640

Working effectively with
other teachers

F

(15)

1. 513

.619

Behavioral m a n a g e m e n t

G

(2 )

1. 552

. 568

Using e d u c a t i o n a l
m at e r i a l s

H

(4)

1. 565

.620

W or k i n g e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h
support p er s o n n e l

I

(7)

1.604

.659

U n d e r s t a n d i n g the d y namics
of student b e h a v i o r

J

(1 0 )

1.623

.610

F a c i l i t a t i n g social e m o ­
tional m a t u r i t y

K

(16)

1.643

. 594

E f f e c t i v e " g r o u p i n g " of
c hi l d r e n

L

(3)

1.695

.668

Sel e c t i n g a p p r o p r i a t e
e d u c a t io n al m a t e r i a l s

M

(5)

1.812

.671

Working effectively with
a d m i n i st r at o rs

N

(1 1 )

1.844

.720

S tudent a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c
techni q ue s

0

(14)

1.961

.707

W or k i n g w i t h pa r en t s

P

(1 )

2.097

. 744

50

3. a)

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e in the c o m p e t e n c y selfratings a s s i g n e d e a ch c o m p e t e n c y area w i t h i n
e a c h u n i v e r s i t y that d if f er s from the total
group?

T he r e w e r e no differences.
b) Are there s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in c o m p e t e n c y
s el f - r a t i n g s for each c o m p e t e n c y area among the
ins t it u ti o ns ?
Sig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s wer e
A post hoc test was done,
are s u m m a r i z e d
Due
were not

in T ab l es

found at the 0.01 level.

u si n g the Tu k ey method.

Results

4.2 and 4.3 on the fo l lo w in g pages.

to the small N for U n i v e r s i t y

4, results

from it

i nc luded in this analysis.

4. W h i c h of the 16 c om p e t e n c i e s are listed as mo st
c om p e te n t and least co m petent for the total group?
For ea c h u n i v e r s i t y ?
The o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s

for the m o s t and

least c o m p e t e n t areas can be found in A p p e n d i x F.
As w o u l d be ex pected,

rank order for these was r o u g h l y

c om p ar a bl e to rank o r d e r for co m p e t e n c y
Table 4.4).

s e lf - ra t in g s

The m a j o r p ur p o s e of these ratings was

ut il ize them for co m p a r i s o n s

to a d v i s o r p re dictions.

(see
to

Table 4.2.

Competency

University Scores on Individual Competency Areas on the Competency
Self-ratings

University 1
_ N-40
X
SD

University 2
N=24
X
SD

University 3
_ N=29
X
SD

University 5
N*40
X
SD

University 6
_ N-21
X
SD

1

2.100

(.810)

1.625* (.576)

2.207* (.726)

2.175* (. 742)

2.333* (.796)

2

1.5

(.555)

1.417

(.584)

1.345

(. 553)

1.7

(.564)

1.81

(.602)

3

1.6

(.672)

1.417

(.584)

1.690

(.712)

1.85

(.662)

1.905

(.7

4

1.45

(.597)

1.417

(.584)

1.621

(.561)

1.75

(.707)

1.524

(.602)

5

1.65

(.7

1.5*

(.590)

1.966

(. 580)

2.125* (.723)

1.667

(.577)

6

1.375

(5.89)

1.417

(.584)

1.379

(.622)

1.475

(.716)

1.619

(.669)

7

1. 475

(.679)

1.625

(.770)

1.793

(.620)

1.650

(.622)

1.476

(.602)

8

1.175

(.385)

1.292

(.550)

1.414

(.682)

1.425

(.594)

1.619

(.669)

9

1.40

(.545)

1.333

(.482)

1.310

(.541)

1.575

(.675)

1.476

(.68 )

10

1.725

(.599)

1.625

(.647)

1.517

(.574)

1.625

(.628)

1.571

(.598)

11

1.85

(.7

)

1.708

(.751)

1.966

(.626)

1.975

(.850)

1.571

(.676)

12

1.225

(.423)

1.250

(.442)

1.414

(.628)

1.375

(.54 )

1.517

(. 507)

13

1.075

(.267)

1.042

(.204)

1.103

(.409)

1.050

(.221)

1.095

(.301)

14

2.1*

(.744)

1.375* (.576)

1.621* (.677)

15

1.475

(.554)

1.333

(.565)

1.759

(.786)

1.575

(.594)

1.333

(.577)

16

1.60

(.632)

1.542

(.588)

1.621

(.561)

1.750

(.588)

1.667

(.577)

)

2.375* (.628)

)

2.048* (.921)

Indicates significant differences between two universities (see Table 43, p. 51).

52

Table 4.3.

D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n the In s t i t u t i o n s on E ac h
Competency Area

Graduates fr o m U n i v e r s i t y 2 rated t h e m s e l v e s as m o r e c o m p e ­
tent than g r a d u a t e s from U n i v e r s i t i e s 3, 5 a n d 6 rated
themselves on c o m p e t e n c y 1 (working w i t h p a r e n t s ) .
C om p et e n c y A r e a

1

U^ M e a n = 1.625
SD
U3
SD

s

. 567

M e a n = 2.207
.726

U5
SD
U6

SD

M e a n ** 2.17S
.742
M e a n *= 2.333
s

.796

Gr aduates from U n i v e r s i t y 2 rated t h em s el v es as mo re c o m p e ­
tent than gr a du a te s from U n i v e r s i t y 5 rated t h e m s e l v e s on
c o m p e t e n c y 5 (selecting a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a t i o n a l materi a ls ) .
C om p et e nc y A r e a

5

M e a n * 1.5
SD

-

.590

Ug M e a n « 2.125
SD

-

.723

Gradua tes f r om U n i v e r s i t y 2 r at e d t he m se l v e s as more c o m p e ­
tent than g r a d u a t e s f r om U n i v e r s i t i e s 1, 5 and 6 rated
th emselves on c o m p e t e n c y 14 (student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c
techniques).
C o m p e t en c y A r e a

14 U^ M e a n = 1.375
=
SD
.576

us
SD

M e a n « 2.375
.

.628

ui
SD
U6

SD

Mean X

2 .1 0 0

.744

M e a n * 2.048
x

.921

Graduates fr om U n i v e r s i t y 3 rated t h e m s el v es as m o r e c o m p e ­
tent than g ra d u a t e s from U n i v e r s i t y 5 ra t ed t h e m s e lv e s on
c o m p e t e n c y 14 (student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c t e c h n i q u e s ) .
C o m p e t e n c y A r e a 14

Ug M e a n ■ 1.621

Ug M e a n w 2.375

SD

SD

-

.677

*

.628

Table 4.4.

Rank

Rank Order of Competency Areas from Best-Worst Competency Ratings

Competency Area

Competency
Number

1

Individualizing Programs for Children

9

2

Setting Up Classroom Procedures

6

3

Behavioral Management

2

4

Working with Children in a Group

12

S

Working with Children on a One-to-one Basis

13

6

Conducting Academic Instruction

7

Understanding the Dynamics of Student Behavior

10

8

Working Effectively with Other Teachers

IS

9

Facilitating Social-Emotional Maturity

16

10

Using Educational Materials

11

Student Assessment/Diagnostic Techniques

12

Selecting Appropriate Educational Materials

13

■ Effective "Grouping" of Children

14

Working Effectively with Support Personnel

15

Working Effectively with Administrators

16

Working with Parents

8

4
14
5
3
7
11
1

54

Section II
S. Have c o m p e t e n c y s el f - r a t i n g s for e a c h c o m p e t e n c y
ar e a c h an g ed since the 197 2 study?
S i g n i f i ca n t d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e found in 10 of the c o m p e ­
tencies

(see T ab l e 4.5).

Table 4.5.

C o m p a r i s o n s for 1 97 2 - 1 9 7 6 C o m p e t e n c y Selfrati ngs that We re S i g n i f i c a n t at the .01 Level

E ff e ctive Gr o uping
of Ch i ld r e n
1972 m e a n - 2.0
1976 m e a n * 1.695
Chi sq ua re K 25.58

Competency
R atings
C at e g o r y *

1972

1
2

,
Tota ls

Ye ar
1975

T ot a ls

57

72

129

152

74

226

59

20

79

268

166

434

_

S electing A p p r o p r i a t e
E du c at i on a l M a t e r i a l s

1

71

59

130

m

2

85

78

163

3

119

30

149

275

167

442

1972 m e a n

2.2

4
Chi square - 29.9
1 9 /v

IllwAll

A •PI

Tota ls

*

The ca t e g o r i e s for 1972 were:
1 - -s u ff i c i e n t l y compe t en t ;
2--so me w ha t co mpetent; 3--not s u f f i c i e n t l y competent.
For
1976 the c a t e g o r i e s were:
1 - - c o m p e t e n t ; 2- - so m ew h at c o m p e ­
tent; 3 - -minimally competent.
ta b le c o n t i n u e d

55

Table 4.5--continued

Competency
R at i ng s
Ca t eg o r y *
Setting Up C l a s s r o o m
P rocedures
1972 m e a n » 1.7
1976 m e a n « 1.429
Chi s quare » 12.36

1972 m e a n * 1.8
1976 m e a n * 1.6
Chi square * 6.006

127

105

232

2

105

48

153

3

44

14

58

276

167

443

1

104

85

189

2

126

65

191

3

38

17

55

268

167

435

1

139

113

252

2

107

43

150

3

31

11

42

277

167

444

1

112

104

216

2

103

53

156

3

59

10

69

274

167

441

Totals
C on d uc t in g A c a d e m i c
I ns t ru c ti o n
1972 m e a n = 1 . 6
1976 m e a n * 1.364
Chi square » 11.57

Totals
Indi viduali zing
Programs for C h i l d r e n
1972 m e a n - 1.8
1976 m e a n - 1.43
Chi sq uare * 26.28

To t al s

1

T otals
Wo rking W i t h Support
Pe rsonnel

Y e a r ____
1972
1976

T ot a ls

table continued

56

Table 4.5--continued

Competency
Ra tings
Ca t eg o ry *

Ye ar
1972

1^76

T o tals

115

79

194

U n d e r s t a n d i n g the
Dynamics o f Student
Be havior

1
2

121

76

197

1972 m e a n * 1 . 7

3

44

10

54

280

165

445

120

111

231

130

51

181

22

5

27

272

167

439

.- ■

Chi square - 6.676

Totals

Working w i t h C h i l d r e n
in a Group

------------------

1
2

1 ? / fa

illviill

'■‘

1 « U

1976 m e a n - 1.351
Vu<lai

I v

al i

t

3
/

11

T otals
Working w i t h C h i l d r e n

1

229

158

387

Basis

2

44

7

51

3

1

4

276

166

442

42

47

44

104

49

153

129

70

199

275

166

396

1972 m e a n - 1 . 2
x «r r o

m e oil

3

x *u /x

Chi square « 14.21

■

T otals

Student A s s e s s m e n t

x?/a

me a h

»•j

™

1976 m e a n * 1.96
wiix

ae

iUi

1

3
/tj

Tota ls

57

The follow ing s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s we re found:
1) C o m p e t e n c y A r e a 3 (effective g r o u p i n g of children)
high er

in 1976 than in 1972.

2) C o m p e t e n c y A r e a
material)

higher in 1976 than in 1972.

3) C om p et e n c y A r e a
higher

6

(setting up c l a s s r o o m p rocedures)

7 (working w i t h support personnel)

in 1976 than in 1972.

5) C o m p e t e n c y A r e a
higher

6

in 1976 than in 1972.

4) C o m p e t e n c y A r e a
higher

5 (selecting a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a ti o na l

8

(conducting a ca d em i c instruction)

in 1976 than in 1972.

) C o m p e t e n c y Ar e a 9 (i ndividualizing programs)

higher

in 1976 than in 1972.
7) C o m p e t e n c y A r ea

10

student behavior)
8

) C o m p e t e n c y A r e a 12
group)

(understanding the dy n am i cs
higher

in 1976 than

of

in 1972.

(working w i t h c h i l d r e n

in a

higher in 1976 tha n in 1972.

9) C o m p e t e n c y A r ea
to-one basis)

(working w i t h c h i l d r e n on a one-

higher

10) C o m p e t e n c y A r e a
techniques)

13

14

higher

in 1976 than in 1972.

(student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c
in 1976 than in 1972.

58

6

. Ha ve student o pi n io n s of a b il i ty as m e a s u r e d by
c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s ch a ng e d since 1972 for the
total group?

U si n g a t-test no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found
be tween s ta t e- w id e m e an s for 1972 and for 1976 on the
c o m p e t e n c y areas

Table 4.6.

(see Ta b l e 4.6).

t-Tests for 1972 Co mp a r e d to 1976 on O v e r a l l
Competency Self-ratings

1972
X

University
State average

*

1976

t

X

1.814

1.59

1.34

1

1.9

1. 53

1.28

3

1. 71

1.58

3.5*

4

1 .8

1.57

2.5*

5

1

.8 6

1.71

1

6

1. 78

1.69

Sig n i f i c a n t at the

.01

on the c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - ra t in gs

co mp etency,

.73

level.

A l t h o u g h o ve r al l there a p p e a r e d

d i f f e r e n c e was not

.26

to be a b etter score

in 1976 than in 1972 , this

significant.

On total

th ere has b ee n no s i g n i f i c a n t

scores of sel f i m p r o v e m e n t from

1972 to 1976.
B ec a us e U n i v e r s i t y 2 was not
study,

inc luded

in the 1972

results co u ld not be co m pa r e d for that

institution.

59

7. H a v e s tudent o p i n i o n s of a bi l i t y as m e a s u r e d by
c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s c hanged s ince 1972 for
e ac h u n i v e r s i t y ?
O n l y 2 u n i v e r s i t i e s c h a n g e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y in their
ratings

fr om 1972

to 1976.

U n i v e r s i t y 4 (see T a b l e
u ni v er s it i es

T h e s e two w e r e U n i v e r s i t y 3 and

4.6 above).

s c o r e d t h e ms el v es

in 1976 t ha n in 1972.

Graduates

fr o m b o th

significantly more competent

60

Section III
8

. W h at is the advisors' e f f e c t i v e n e s s in p r e d i c t i n g
the b e s t - w o r s t c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s of their
g ra d u a t e s for e a c h i n s t i tu t io n ?

T o an a l y z e the a d v i s o r s ' p r e d i c t i n g abilit y,
score for e ac h i n s t i t u t i o n ' s
C ha p te r III, p a g e

Table 4.7.

43).

A d vi sors'
sity

University

a mean

advisors w as d e t e r m i n e d

Re s ul t s w e r e as fo llows

(see

(Table 4.7).

P r e d i c t i n g A b i l i t y for E a c h Un i ve r -

N u m b e r of
S tu d en t s

A v e r a g e S c or e
o f A d v i s o r s on
Predicting

1

36

+1

2

15

+ 1 .5 3 3

3

27

+ .407

4

7

5

31

+ 2.03

6

17

+2

+2

Due to f a ilure of some st u de n ts

to put their names on

their q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a nd i n a b i l i t y on the part of the r e ­
s ea r ch e r to re a ch two of the a dv isors
dic tions w e r e a v a i l a b l e for o n l y

listed,

advisor p r e ­

133 graduates.

61

9.

a)

Is there a d i f f e r e n c e b et w e e n u n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n ­
nel in their a b i l i t y to pr e di c t students'
o p i n i o n s of mo st and least c o m p e t e n t s e lf - r a t i n g s ?

b)

If there is a d if fe r en c e, is this r e l a t e d to any
v a r i a b l e s i d en t if i ed in this study?

T h er e was no si g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n univers i ti e s'
p er s on n el

in their a b i l i t y to p r edict

students'

most and least c o m p e t e n c y se l f-ratings.
from

+8

to

- 8 , actual

o p i n i o n s of

Of a p o s s i b l e range

scores r a n g e d from a +.4 07 to a +2.03

or a p e r c e n t a g e of a c c u r a c y no g re a t e r than 261 for any
institution.
A l t h o u g h there we re
ity of ad v is o rs

some ap p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s

to pr e d i c t

st u de n t s e l f - c o m p e t e n c y ratings ,

these w e r e not real di f fe r en c es .

All of the v a ri o us u n i ­

ve rsities a d v i s o r s p r e d i c t e d b e s t - w o r s t c o m p e t e n c y
ratings w i t h about the same d e g r e e of success.
were no d i f f e r e n c e s

in a b i l ­

the se d a t a we r e not e x p l o r e d

self-

Since

there

further.

62

Section IV
10.

Do g ra d ua t es fr om d i f f e r e n t i ns titutions differ
in their report of current w o r k i n g co n di t io n s?

Scores o n current w or k i n g c o nd i t i o n s are r e p o r t e d

in full in

A pp e n d i x E.
A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e was u se d to a n al y ze total
of w o r k i n g c on d it i on s by institutions.
nificant d i f f e r e n c e s at the
G ra d ua t es

.01

fr om the v ar i ou s

any real d i f f e r e n c e s

scores

There were no s i g ­

level.
instit u ti o ns did not report

in the c o n d i t i o n s u nd e r w h i c h they

were working.
A v e r a g e total scores of w o r k i n g c o n d i t io n s are r e p o r t e d
for each i n s t i t u t i o n in Ta b le

Table 4.8.

University

4.8.

A v e r a g e Total Scores of Wo r k i n g C on d it i on s

A v e r a g e S tu d en t 's Total Score on Current
W or k in g C o n d i t i o n s

1

2 0.21

2

19.69

3

20.60

4

19.36

5

21.67

6

18.78

A n av e ra g e score of 21 wo u ld
of "good" wo r ki n g conditions.

indicate an ov erall r a t i n g

63

Section V
11. H o w do students feel about the qu a li t y of advise
ment, their own ov erall pr e paredness, and their
student te a ch i ng e x p e r i e n c e s ?
Does this differ
acros s u ni v e r s i t i e s ?
Q u a l i t y of a dv i se m en t ratings

can be fo und in

Table 4.9.

Table 4.9.

Opini on s

of Re s p o n d e n t s

Score
Value

1

2

Excellent

1

7

9

5

Very good

2

17

4

Good

3

9

Fair

4

Poor
No response

C at egory

Total

on Q u a l i t y of A d v i s e m e n t

University
3
4

Total
Group

5

6

1

10

6

38

6

4

10

5

46

7

12

7

16

6

57

6

4

5

0

5

2

22

5

1

0

1

1

0

1

4

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

40

24

29

13

41

21

168

M e a n ■ 2 .449

SD - 1.057

As can be seen in Ta b le 4.9 the m a j o r i t y o f gradu at e s
(57 or 33.9%)

felt the q u a l i t y of ad vi s i n g was g oo d and 46

felt it was v e r y good.
R at i ng s of o v e r a l l p r e p a r e d n e s s ca n be found in T a b l e
4.10 o n the f ol l ow i ng page.

64

Table 4.10.

Category

O p i n i o n s of R e s p o n d e n t s
T h e y Felt

S core
V al u e

on H o w Well P r ep a r e d

__________
U n i v e r s i t y ___________
_T ..
3
2
4
S
6

T otal
G ro u p

Very well
p re p ar e d

1

9

4

4

1

2

4

24

Well p r e ­
pared

2

17

9

12

9

17

8

72

Somewhat
p re p ar e d

3

11

10

12

3

22

9

67

U np r ep a r e d

4

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

V er y u n p r e ­
pared

5

2

1

0

0

0

0

3

40

24

29

13

41

21

168

Total

M e a n - 2.333

It can be seen that

72

SD » .802

(42. 9%)

felt well p r e p a r e d to

teach e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n w h i l e

67

(39.9%)

felt

somewha t prepared.
R at i ng s on the v a l u e of the S tudent T e a c h i n g E xp e r i e n c e s
can be found in T a b l e 4.11 on the fo l lo w in g page.

65

Table 4.11.

Cate gory

Op i ni o ns of Re s p o n d e n t s
Teaching Experience

Score
Va l ue

1

2

on V a l u e of S t ud e n t

University
3
4

5

6

T otal
Group

Ve ry b e n e ­
ficial

1

23

16

22

11

19

13

104

Beneficial

2

8

5

6

1

13

3

36

Somewhat
beneficial

3

8

2

1

1

8

5

25

Not b e n e ­
ficial

4

1

1

0

0

1

0

3

40

24

29

13

41

21

168

SD -

.809

Total

M e a n = 1. 565

The m a j o r i t y of g r ad u a t e s

(104 or 61.9%)

r a te d their

student te aching e x p e r i e n c e as a v e ry b e n e fi c ia l e x p e r i e n c e
wh ile o n l y 3 g r ad u at e s

(1.8%)

felt the e x p e r i e n c e was not

beneficial.
To d e t e r m i n e if any of these three e v a l u a t i v e q u e s t i o n s
vari ed among the u n i v e rs i ti e s,
done on each question.
of advising,

an an a lysis of v a r i a n c e was

R e s p o n d e n t s ' o p i n i o n s on the q u a l i t y

overall p r e p a r e d n e s s ,

and v a l u e of the s tu dent

teaching e x p e r i e n c e did n ot di f fe r s i g n i f i c a n t l y among the
uni versities.

T h e s e e x p e r i e n c e s are a p p a r e n t l y v i e w e d as

being v e r y similar by g ra d u a t e s of the six institutions.

66

Section VI
12.

Is there i n d e p en d en c e b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y selfrat i ng s an d ra t in g s given the e v a l u a t i v e q u e s t i o n s
on q u a l i t y of advising, ov e ra l l p r e p a r e d n e s s , and
v a l u e of student t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ?

To d e t e r m i n e

if any of these th ree q u e s t i o n s we r e

related to overall c o m p e t e n c y of the st udents as c o m p u t e d by
their c o m p e t e n c y
used.

self-ratings,

a na l ys i s of v a r i a n c e was

Two of these an a ly s es w e re
H o w well p r e p a r e d g r a d u a t e s

found

to be si gnificant.

felt they were was

to have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to ov e ra l l
the

.01 level

Table 4.12.

(see Ta b le

found

se l f - r a t i n g s

at

4.12).

M e a n C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g T ot a l Scor es by
H o w We l l P r e p a r e d Gr a du a t e s Felt T h e y Were

Mean Competency
Self-rating
Total Score

H o w Well P re p a r e d
V e r y well p r e p a r e d

41.82

W el l p r e p a r e d

39.257

Somewhat prepared

36.591

Unprepared

31.0

Very unprepared

32.667

U s i n g post hoc p r o c e du r es ,
the d i f f e r e n c e s but the

last one

it was d e t e r m i n e d that all
(between u n p r e p a r e d and

67

very u nprepared)
level.

are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t at the

This suggests that

these two m e a s u r e s

.001

are hi g hl y

correlated.
H o w b en e fi c ia l
ing was

the students rat ed their st ud ent

found to have a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p

c o m p e t e n c y se l f- r at i n gs
Table 4.13.

to ov erall

(see T ab l e 4.13).

O ve r al l S e l f - c o m p e t e n c y R atings by H o w Bene
ficial St u d e n t T e a c h i n g was Ra t ed

Mean Competency
Self- rati ng
Score

O v e r a l l Student T e a c h i n g
Experience
Very beneficial

40.921

Beneficial

38.591

S om e wh a t b e n e f ic i al

37.375

Not b e ne f i c i a l

3 6.818

U s i n g post hoc procedures,
rating their

it was d e t e r m i n e d

that

those

student t e ac h in g e x p e r i e n c e s as ve r y b e n e f i c i a l

had s i g n i f i c a n t l y hi g he r c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g
the .01

teach­

level than all the o t he r graduat es.

Those rating

their student t e ac h in g e x p e r i e n c e as b e n e f i c i a l
c an t ly hi g he r c o m p e t e n c y

s el f -r a ti n g

than all those ra t in g their

student

scores at

had s i g n i f i ­

scores at the

.05 level

te a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e as

so mewhat b e n e f i c i a l or not beneficial.

68

This

suggests that

students who r e p o r t e d t he y had e x c e l ­

lent or v e r y good s tu dent t ea c hi n g e x p e r i e nc e s
on c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g

scores

scored higher

than those w ho did not

benefit as m u c h from their s t udent t e ac h in g experience.
13.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t ea ching p o s i t i o n
taken (question nu m be r 1 on the q ue s ti o nn a ir e )
and c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - ra t in g s?

The t e ch n iq u e ana lysis of v a r i a n c e was u s ed to a na l yz e
overall c o m p e t e n c y se l f - r a t i n g
(see T a b l e

Table 4.14.

scores by p o s i t i o n taken

4.14) .

M e a n C o m p e t e n c y S e l f - r a t i n g by P o s i t i o n T a k e n

Mean Competency
Self-rating
Score

P os i t i o n T a k e n
T e a c h i n g R eg u la r E d u c a t i o n

38.08

T ea c h i n g E m o t i o n a l l y

38.04

Impaired

T ea c h i n g Ot h er S pe c ia l E d u c a t i o n

38. 04

Not T e a c h i n g

37.3

Other

37

T he a n al y si s was not s ig ni f ic a nt
Kind o f job taken was not re la t ed

at the

.01 level.

to c o m p e t e n c y

self-ratings.

H ow g r a d u a te s p e r c e i v e d their own c o m p e t e n c y did not
ence the type of job

h e /she

took.

influ­

69

14.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n scores on c urrent
w or k i n g c o n d i t i o n s and c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s ?

A c o r r e l a t i o n was don e b e t w e e n total scores of w o r k i n g
c onditions

and c o m p e t e n c y sel f-ratings.

lation v a l u e was
correlation.

-.082.

is an i n s i g n i f i c a n t a mount of

C o m p e t e n c y s el f - r a t i n g s did not seem to be

re lated to the w o r k i n g
take jobs.

This

The c o mp u te d c o r r e ­

c on d it i on s

at the places gr a duates

T h e r e was no s i g n i f ic a nt

r e l a t i o n s h i p b et w e e n a

graduate's o p i n i o n of his or her own c o m p e t e n c y and the
wo rk ing c o n d i t io n s at the p la c e w h e r e he or she found a job.
15.

Does the q u a l i t y of a dv i so r rating by g r ad uates
( evaluative q u e s t i o n 5) r el a te to the p r e d i c t i n g
a bility of advisors?

T he c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n q u a l i t y of ad v i s o r rating by
gr aduates

and p r e d i c t i n g a b i l i t y of advisors was

.184

This did not a ppear to be a large e n o u g h amount of c o r r e l a ­
tion to be important.
T h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n how well
the g ra d u a t e s

rated the q u a l i t y of a d vi s in g and h o w well

the ad v isors could p r ed i ct

the g r ad u a t e s

competency

self-

ratings .
16.

Is there a r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y selfr at i ng scores a n d a b i l i t y of ad v isors to predict
g ra d u a t e op i n i o n s of c o m p e t e n c y se l f - r a t i n g s ?

A c o r r e l a t i o n was done b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y
scores and the a b i l i t y of ad v is o rs
s el f -r a ti n g scores.

self-rating

to p r e d i c t c o m p e t e n c y

T h e c o r r e l a t i o n v a l u e was

This is an i ns i gn i fi c an t a m ou n t of co r re l at i on .

-.536.
H o w high

70

or low a g r a d u a t e ra t ed his or her own c o m p e t e n c y was not
re lated to h o w well the ad v is o r cou ld pr e di c t g r ad u a t e ' s
c o m p e t e n c y self-rating.

Gradu at e s w h o s e ad visors c o ul d p r e ­

dict their c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s well scored no high er on
the c o m p e t e n c y s el f -r a ti n gs

than gr aduates w h o s e advis or s

could not pr e d i c t their c o m p e t e n c y se lf - ra t in g s well.

S um m a r y of the M a j o r Fi n dings
1) T he c o m p e t e n c y areas r a t e d the hi g he s t by the g ra d ua t es
in 1976 on the c o m p e t e n c y s el f -r a ti n gs were:
- Wo r k i n g w i t h c h i l d r e n on a o ne - to - o n e basis
- Wo r ki n g w i t h c h i l d r e n
- C o n d u c t i n g a c ad e mi c

in a group

i ns t ru c ti o n

- I n di v id u a l i z i n g p ro g ra m s

for ch i ld r en

- Setting up c l a s s r o o m pr ocedures.
2) The c o m p e t e n c y areas rated the lowest by the g r ad u at e s
in 1976 on the c o m p e t e n c y

self-ra t in g s were:

- S e le c ti n g a p p r o p r i a t e ed u ca t io n al m a t e r i a l s
- W o rk i ng e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h ad m in i s t r a t o r s
- St ud ent a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c t e ch n i q u e s
- W o r k i n g w i t h parents.
3) There was c l os e a g re e m e n t
areas on b es t - wo r st

b e t w e e n r a nk i ng s of c o m p e t e n c y

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

r an k in g s of c o m p e t e n c y ar eas on c o m p e t e n c y se l f-ratings.

71
4) The scores o n the co m pe t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng s w er e h i g h e r
for some

institutions'

gradua tes

- C o m p e t e n c y s el f -r a ti n gs
e rs i ty

2 w e re h i g h e r

than for others:

of g r a d u a t e s

from U n i v ­

than c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng s

of g ra d ua t e s fro m U n i v e r s i t i e s

3,

5, and 6 on

W or k i n g W i t h Parents.
- C o m p e te n cy s el f - r a t i n g s of gr aduates
e rs i ty

from U n i v ­

2 we ;o h i g h e r than c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng s

of g r ad u at e s

from U n i v e r s i t y 5 on S e l e ct i ng

A p p r o p r i a t e E d u c a t i o n a l Materi al s .
- C o m p e t e n c y s el f -r a ti n gs of g ra d ua t es
e r si t y 2 were h i g h e r

from U n i v ­

than c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng s

of g r ad u at e s f ro m U n i v e r s i t i e s

1,

5 and 6 on

S tu d en t A s s e s s m e n t / D i a g n o s t i c Te ch niques.
- C o m p e t e n c y s el f -r a ti n gs
ers it y

of gr aduates

from U n i v ­

3 we re h i g h e r than c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - ra t in g s

of g r a d u a t e s from U n i v e r s i t y

5 on Stu dent A s s e s s ­

m e n t / D i a g n o s t i c Techniques.
5)

The m a j o r i t y of g r ad u at e s

felt that the q ua l i t y of

a d v i s e m e n t was good,

they we r e very well

prepared

to teach e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n and

that s tudent
ence.

that

t e ac h in g was a v e r y b e n e f i c i a l

N on e of these

three v ar i a b l e s

experi­

a p p e a r e d to be

s i g n i f i c a n t l y d if f e r e n t among the v ar i ou s u n i v e r s i ­
ties .

72
6) Using a n al y si s of v a ri ance,
(.01 level)

a s ignificant

relationship

was found b e t w e e n st udent's op i ni o ns of

their o v er a ll p r e p a r e d n e s s and their total

scores on the

competency self-ratings.
7) U s in g a n a l y s i s of va r ia n ce ,

a signifi c an t r e l a t i o n s h i p

(.01 level) was found b e t w e e n r at ings on the value of
student t e ac h in g e x p e r i e n c e and total scores on the
c o m p e t en c y self-ratings.
8) A l t h o u g h no s i g n i f ic a nt d i f f e r e n c e was found
scores on the c o m p e t e n c y s el f - r a t i n g s
1976,
some

s i gn i fi c an t d i f f e r e n c e s

in total

b e t w e e n 1972 and

(.01 level)

w er e found on

individual c o m p e t e n c y a r e a s :

a) C o m p e t e n c y ar e a 3 (effective g r ouping of children)
was hi g he r in 1976 than in 1972.
b) C o m p e t e n c y area
material)

5 (selecting a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a t i o n a l

was higher

in 1976 than in 1972.

c) C o m p e t e n c y area 6 (setting up c l a s s r o o m proced u re s )
was high er
d)

in 1976 than in 1972.

C o m p e t e n c y area 7 (working w i t h support pe rsonnel)
was higher

in 1976 tha n in 1972.

e) C o m p e t e n c y a re a 8 (con ducting a ca d e m i c
was higher

instruction)

in 1976 than in 1972.

f) C o m p e t e n c y area 9 ( i nd i vi d u a l i z i n g programs)
hi gh er

in 1976 than in 1972.

was

73

g) C o m p e t e n c y a r ea 10

h)

( un d er s t a n d i n g the d yn a mi c s of

s t u d e n t behav i or ) wa s h i g h e r in 1976

t h an in 1972.

C o m p e t e n c y a r e a 12 (working w i t h

d r en in a group)

chi

w a s h i g h e r in 1976 than in 1972.
i)

C o m p e t e n c y a r e a 13 (working w i t h

children

on a one-

to-o ne b a s i s ) w a s h i g h e r in 1976 than in 1972.
j) C o m p e t e n c y a r e a 14

(student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c

tech niques) w a s h i g h e r in 1976 th an in 1972.
9) O n l y two u n i v e r s i t i e s

(3 and 6) had c ha n g e d

o ve r al l coirpetency s e l f - r a t i n g s
total scores

i nd i ca t in g hi g he r

since 1972.

in their
B o t h had

levels of c o m p e t e n c y

in

1976 than in 1972.
10) A c o r r e l a t i o n of on l y

.184 was found b e t w e e n q u a l i t y of

a dv i so r r at i ng s by g r a d u a t e s

and the p r e d i c t i n g a b i l i t y

of advisors.
11) U si n g a n a l y s i s of va r ia n ce ,
was

found

no s i g n i f i c a n t

relationship

to exist b e t w e e n cu r re nt w o r k i n g co n d i t i o n s

and c o m p e t e n c y self-r at in g s.
12) U s in g an a ly s is of va r ia n ce ,

no s i g n i f i ca n t

relationship

was found to exist b e t w e e n te a ching p o s i t i o n t a ke n and
c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
13) G r a d u a t e s

fr om d i f f e r e n t

i n s t i t u t i o n s did not d i f f e r

n i f i c a n t l y in their r ep or t of w o r k i n g condi t io n s.

sig­

74

14) T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e among u n i v e r s i t y
personnel

in their a b i l i t y to p r e d i c t students*

of their b e s t - w o r s t

opinions

c o m p e t e n c y areas.

15) The c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r at i ng scores
a nd a b i l i t y of a dv isors
r ating scores was o n l y

to p r e d i c t th ese c o m p e t e n c y self-.536.

16) The c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n scor es on current w or k i n g c o n d i ­
tions an d c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a t i n g s was onl y

-.082.

CHAPTER V
S UM M A R Y A N D DI S CU S SI O N, L I M I T A T I O N S A N D
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

S u m m a r y and D i s c u s s i o n
Th is study was a s urvey o f 1 9 7 4 - 19 7 5 M i c h i g a n C o l l e g e
and U n i v e r s i t y gr a du a t es
tionally impaired.

in special e d u c a t i o n for the e m o ­

T h e st u dy a s c e r t a i n e d c o m p e t e n c y self-

ratings of the g ra d u a t e s

in 16 c o m p e t e n c y areas at the time

of gra duation.

this

opinions

Further,

s t ud y o b t a i n e d the gradua tes'

of their four best a n d four w o r s t c o m p e t e n c y areas,

their o p i n i o n of their c u r r e n t w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s and their
e va l ua t i o n of th ree s e l e c t e d c o m p o n e n t s
grams

of the c ol l e g e p r o ­

from w h i c h they graduated.
A n a d d i t i o n a l p u r p o s e o f this study was

the a b i l i t y of a dv i s o r s
to p r e d i c t

to d e t e r m i n e

from all the i n s t i t u t i o n s

the c o m p e t e n c y s e l f -r a ti n gs

su r ve y ed

of the ir graduates.

T h e study w as e v a l u a t i v e a nd c o m p a r a t i v e

in nature.

It s u r v e y e d s t udents wh o had g r a d u a t e d fr o m C en t ra l M i c h i g a n
U niversity,

Ea s t e r n M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y ,

Co lleges, M i c h i g a n St ate U ni v er s it y ,
and W e s t e r n M i c h i g a n U niversity.
we re m a i l e d qu e st i o n n a i r e s .

U n i v e r s i t y of Mi c higan,

A total of 280 g r a d u a t e s

O f those,

the questi on n a ir e s.

75

Gr a nd V a l l e y S t a t e

168 or 60% r e t u r n e d

76
The study had six m a j o r r e s e a r c h ob jectives:
1. To a s c e r t a i n how c o mp e t e n t the gr aduates thought
they were at the time o f g r a d u a t i o n in 16 specific
c o m p e t e n c y areas, and to c o m p a r e the v a rious
p a r t i c i p a t i n g insti tu t io n s on these measures.
2. To m a k e c o mp a ri s on s b e t w e e n 1976 c o m p e t e n c y selfratings and similar data fro m a 1972 study.
3. To a s c e r t a i n h o w w el l a dv i so r s could p re d ic t these
c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
4. To o b t a i n gradua t es
ing conditions.

opinions of their cu r re n t w o r k ­

5. To o b t a i n g ra d uates e v a l u at i on s of three se l ected
p r o g r a m c o m p o n e n t s (student teaching, q ua l i t y of
advi sement, ov erall p re paredness).
6 . To a s c e r t a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n c o m p e t e n c y
s el f -r a ti n gs and the three p r o g r a m compone n ts
evaluated, current w o r k i n g conditions, and a dv isor
predictions.
The t e aching co m pe t e n c y areas
study i nd i ca t ed that the graduates

rated h i gh e st

felt most c o n f i d e n t about

their direct de alings w i t h the students
dren on a o n e - t o - o n e basis,
c on d uc t in g a ca d em i c
grams

in the

(working w i t h c h i l ­

w or k i n g w it h c h il d re n in a group,

instruction,

and in d iv i d u a l i z i n g p r o ­

for children).
U n d e r g r a d u a t e tr a in i ng programs

a de q ua t e job

appe ar

in p r e p a r i n g their gr a du a te s

to be doing an

for the pr i ma r y

task of i n te r ac t in g w i t h their students on a d a y - t o - d a y basis.
The

t ea ching co m pe t e n c y

areas

rated the lowest by the

g ra d ua t es w e r e s el e ct i ng a p p r o p r i a t e e d u c a ti o na l m at e ri a l s ,
student a s s e s s m e n t / d i a g n o s t i c
w i t h ad m in i s t r a t o r s ,

techniques,

working effectively

and w o r k i n g w i t h parents.

of these m ig h t p o s s i b l y be r e l a t e d

The

last

in that they are bo th

two

77

areas of i n te r pe r so n al relationships.
Assuming

that o b ta i ni ng

s e l f - ra t in g from gradu a te s

gives an a c c u r a t e m e a s u r e of their compet e nc i es ,

there is a

need to deal d i f f e r e n t l y w i t h these areas of p e r c e i ve d lower
competency

in the u n d e r g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l u m o f the various

in stitutions.

Either they are not being c o ve r ed

training programs,

not being c overed enough,

cove red approp ri a te l y.

in the

or not being

These four areas of gr eatest w e a k ­

ness for the graduates are the areas that

sho uld be examined

in c u rr e nt

Decisions

teacher p r e p a r a t i o n pr ograms.

be m a d e c o n c e r n i n g p os s i b l e r e asons
they result

from a lack of i nc l usion

for the weaknes s es .
in the p r o g r a m ?

they o n l y c o v e r e d m i n i m a l l y ?

If they are covered,

be lacking

in that c o ve r ag e ?

Whatever

d et e rm i n e d

to be,

In a d d i t i o n to a t t e m p t i n g
grams

state.

these areas

should

too,

s h ou l d be made aware of the
for the u n d e r g ra d ua t es .

should be s t r e s s e d and fu rt her d e v e l o p e d at the

level.

T he r e
operation

take

to improve u n d e r g r a d u a t e p r o ­

areas o f g r eatest p e r c e i v e d w e a k n e s s

gr a d ua t e

should

is

for in-ser vi c e and institutes w i t h i n the

G ra d u a t e programs,

These areas

wha t can

in these areas.

in the w ea k e s t c o m p e t e n c y areas,

also be ta r ge t ed

Do

Are

the p r i m a r y cause

teacher p r e p a r a t i o n pr o gr a ms

a ction to e nh a nc e their p r og r a m s

should

is a p p a r e n t l y a gr eat nee d for U n i v e r s i t y c o ­
in d e c i d i n g u p o n a ction to be taken a bo u t p e r ­

c e i v e d low c o m p e t e n c y areas.

In ei g h t s p e c i f i c i ns t ances

78

com p et e n c y s e lf - r a t i n g s
ates were

from one of the in s ti t ut i on ' s g r a d u ­

s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher than the c o m p e t e n c y self-

ratings of another

in s ti t ut i on ' s graduates.

s ignificant d i f f e r e n c e s exist,
com p et e n c y areas
there

they ex i sted

Not o nl y did
in the same

that o ve r al l were the weakest.

Apparently

is a great need for d i a l o g u e among the v a r i o u s

tions about ho w each c o m p e t e n c y area

institu­

is being taught.

The i mp o rt a nc e of the student te a ch i ng e x p e r i e n c e
e mp h as i ze d by the re s ul t s of this

survey.

is

S t ud e nt s ra ting

their student t ea c hi n g as v e r y b e n e f ic i al or b e n e f i c i a l had
s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher c o m p e t e n c y s e l f - r a ti n g scores
those who r at e d their

student te aching e x p e r i e n c e as s o m e ­

what be n e f i c i a l or not beneficial.

A p p a r e n t l y the st udent

teaching ex p er i e n c e has a v e r y strong, di r e c t
how competent

the g ra d ua t es p er c e i v e

in f luence on

th e ms e lv e s

to be.

time and effort e x pe n d e d to e nh a nc e this e x p e r i e n c e
p r o b a b l y j u s t i f i e d at the u n d e r g r a d u a t e
Since there was
c o m p e t e nc i es
measured

than

im p ro v em e nt

since 1972,

Any

is

level.

in ten of the sixteen

the q u a l i t y of the p r o g r a m as

through student o pi n io n s of their o w n c o m p e t e n c y

self- ra t in g s has e v i d e n t l y b e e n improving.
The r e wer e no si g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among u n i v e r s i t y
personnel

in their a b i l i t y to pr e d i c t

their b e s t - w o r s t c o m p e t e n c y areas.

o p i n i o n s of

A p p a r e n t l y this a b i l i t y

is not r e l a t e d to a ny of the factors
uni v ersities,

students'

such as size of stud ent

that d i f f e r among the
load for the faculty.

79

Gra duates

fr om d i f f e r e n t

in st i tu t io n s did not d iffer

in their re p or t of w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , nor did gr a du a t e
self-ra t in g s have a s ig n if i ca n t r e l a t i o n s h i p
work ing c onditions.

to cu r rent

The c o n d i t i o n s under w h i c h g r ad u a t e s

find t he m se l v es w o r k i n g a p p a r e n t l y are not in f lu e n c e d by
the p r o g r a m that the g r a d u a t e at t e n d e d or how c o n f i d e n t

the

g ra duate feels about his or her own c om p et e nc i es .
The m a j o r i t y of the g r a d ua t es
a dv i se m e n t was good,

felt that the q u a l i t y of

that they we re ve r y well p r e p a r e d

teach e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d children,
teaching was a very be n ef i ci al

and that

to

student

experience.

L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study
Seve ral

limita ti o ns

1.

In c o m p a r i n g 1972 results

were several
a) The
the
b) The

of this

study need to be deline a te d .
to 1976 result s,

there

intervening factors.
1972 s ur v ey included BA and M A gradua t es ,
1976 s u rv e y only

wh i le

included BA gr aduates.

1976 q u e s t i o n n a i r e had an a d di t i o n a l

two c o m p e ­

tencies .
c) The headings of the three r a nk i ng s of the co m pe t en cie s were changed.
1972
sufficiently competent
some what c om p et e nt
not s u f f i c i e n t l y c o m p e t e n t

1976
c om p etent
s om ewhat c o m p e t e n t
minimally competent

80

2.

On

the ra n kings of the

co m pe t e n c i e s ,

o pi n io n s about t h e m s e l v e s w e r e

used.

students'

For this reason, s el f -

conc ept may have had an e f fect on the ratings.
this m e t h o d had m a n y p r e c e d e n t s

However,

in the c o m p e t e n c y r e s e a r c h

literature.
3. The p e r c e n t a g e of r e s p o n d e n t s was on ly 60% of those
i ni t ia l ly m a i l e d the s u rv e y questi o nn a ir e .
4.
be m a d e

On

the advisor p r e d i c t i o n section,

on on l y 133 of the 168

Recommendations

predictions

c o ul d

r es pondents.

for F u rther R e s e a r c h

A d e q u a t e p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n is a c o m p l e x pr ocess of
w h i c h this stu dy is only a small part.
is n e e d e d

Additional

research

in the fo l lo w in g a r e a s :

1 . S i milar f ol l o w - u p

studies should be do ne across

state on a r e gu l ar b a si s to a s se s s w h e t h e r

the

student o p i n i o n s

of p r o g r a m s are changing.
2. To fu r th e r v a l i d a t e
in this

study,

an o u t s i d e

student

opinions,

as a s s e s s e d

futu re s t ud e nt s s hould also be e v a l u a t e d by

s ource

and these results c o m p a r e d

to student

opinions.
3.
jects,

Longitudinal

stud ies

an d future subjects,

i m m e d i a t e l y after

are needed.

should be a s s e s s e d at

graduation,

two years a ft e r gradua ti o n,

T h e s e same s u b ­

six m o n t h s

intervals--

after gr a du a ti o n,

and five years

a fter graduat i on .

81

4. F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h s hould test the effects of level of
c o m p e t e n c y in the si x t e e n s el e ct e d areas use d
u po n pu p il behavior,

growth,

in this study

and change.

5. A f o l l o w - u p to this s ur v ey could be d o ne by u t i l i z ­
ing the same su bjects stu died and o b t a i n i n g
ratings

su pervisor

for the m on the c o m p e t e n c y areas and co m pa r in g these

to the g r a d u a t e s c o m p e t e n c y self-ratings.
6 . The

student

t ea c hi n g e x p e r i e n c e wa r r a n t s m u c h further

study to d e t e r m i n e w here the c r ucial
can be done to en h an c e them.

el e ments exist and what

BI B L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, R on a l d D. , Fo l lo w -u p a n d E v a l u a t i o n of T e a c h e r
Education G r a d u a t e s . Western- Kentucky U n i v e r s i t y ,
Bow l i n g Green, K e n t u c k y . 1974.
Adams, R. D . , W e s t e r n K en t u c k y U n i v e r s i t y ' s T e a c h e r P r e p a ­
r at i on E v a l u a t i o n M o d e l , O f f i c e o f E d u c a ti o na l R e s e a r c h ,
W e s t e r n Kentuclcy U n i v e rs i ty , B ow l in g Green, Kentucky.
1972.
Ayers, J. B . , T e n n e s s e e T e c h n o l o g i c a l U n i v e r s i t y T e a c h e r
E v a l u a t i o n M o d e l . Co ok e vi l le , T e n n e s s e e T e c h n o l o g i c a l
U n i v e r s i t y ’, 1974.
Baer,

G. T . , N o r t h e r n Illin ois U n i v e r s i t y U n d e r g r a d u a t e
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 B a se d on the O p i n i o n s of
a S e l e c t e d Group of its Gra duates^
Unpublished disse rtation, N o r t h e r n Illin ois Un i v e r s i t y , 1973.

Baer,

G, T . , and Foster,
G r ad uates Tell Us.
T T l T h o i s , 197T.—

W. S., T e a c h e r P r e p a r a t i o n - - W h a t
Illinois- ’
State" Un i v e r s i t y . Normal,

Beck, M it c hell, Wolthuis. R. M. , and S c haftenaar, L., D i r e c ­
tions for E v a l u a t i o n of T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g in the Field
of Em o ti o n a l Impairment in the State o'f-Mi'chigan,
u n p u b l i s h e d p o s i t i o n p a pe r for Univtffsity A d v i s o r s for
the E m o t i o n a l l y Impaired, Lansing, M i ch i ga n , 1975.
Bullock, L. M . , C o m p e t e n c i e s N e e d e d for T e a c h i n g E m o t i o n a l l y
D i s t u r b e d a n d S oc i a l l y M a l a d j u s t e d Ch i l d r e n and Y o u t h :
T m p l i c a t i o n s for St a ff D e v e l o p m e n t . F lo r id a E d u c a t i o n ­
al R es e a r c h and d e v e l o p m e n t Council, Gaines v il l e,
Florida. 1973.
Calista, D o n a l d J., A R e a s s e s s m e n t of C ol l eg e S t u d e n t s *
I ns t ru c ti o na l E x p e c t a t i o n s and E va l ua t io n s, Be n ne t
Colleg e, N e w York.
T57TI
Cole,

R i c h a r d T., The T r a i n i n g of M i c h i g a n T e a c h e r s ,
M i c h i g a n S ta t e Legislature", L a n s i n g , Michigan.
1972

82

83

Cook,

F. S., A Working Model of:
A C o m p e t e n c y - B a s e d T eacher
E d u c a t i o n S y s t e m I W a y n e State Univer si t y, Detroit,
Michigan.
1973.

Craig, J. S., Proceedings of the C o n f e r e n c e on Fo l low-up
Studies in E du c at i on a l R e s e a r c h ^ Center for St udies
in Vocat^ional and "technical Education, U n i v e r s i t y of
Wisconsin, Madison.
1965.
District of Co l u m b i a Me n ta l He a l t h Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n ,
An Innovative G ra d u a t e T e ac h er T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m in the
A re a o Y E m o t i o n a l l y B i s t u r h e d Pupils.
American Univer­
sity, Washin g to n , D. CTI
1 $ 7 3.
Doyle, Walter, Parad ig m s in T e a c h e r E f fe c t i v e n e s s R e s e a r c h ,
N o r t h Texas State U n i v e r s i t y . Pap er at A n nu a l M e e t i n g
A m e r i c a n E ducational R e s e a r c h A ss o ci a ti o n, Washington,
D. C.
1975.
Fram, J., A n A p p r o a c h to O b t a i n i n g S tu dent E v a l u a t i o n of
U n i v e r s i t y Teaching:
Part II--A P u l T O p e r a t i o n a l
Model, M a r y l a n d Un i ve r si t y. C ol l eg e Park. Maryland.
1972.
Gilmore, G. M . , Ev a lu a ti o ns by Stude nt s for U n i v e r s i t y - W i d e
C o r p o r a t i v e Purposes^
Paper p r e s e n t e d at A m e r i c a n
Edu c a t i o n R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s Con vention, N e w Orleans,
Louisiana.
1973.
Giord, G. R. and Schalock, H. D . , P a r a d i g m for R e s e a r c h on
T e a c h e r P r e p a r a t i o n . T ra i n i n g R e s e a r c h Division,
bregon Co l le g e oi: Education, Eugene, Oregon.
1975.
Guidelines for Personnel in the E d u c a t i o n of E xc e pt i on a l
Children^
Th e Council for Ex c ep t io n al Children,
P ro f es s io n al S ta n da r ds and G ui d el i ne s Project, Reston,
Virginia.
1974.
Haberman, Martin, What Te a ch e rs W i s h T h ey Ha d Been T a u g h t :
A Fo l lo w - u p Study of1 G r ad u at e s of the School oT
E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of W i sc o ns i n, Mi l wa u ke e , 1974.
Haring, N. C. and Fargo, G. A., " E v a l u a t i n g Programs for
Pre p ar i ng T e ac h er s of E m o t i o n a l l y D i s t u r b e d Ch i l d r e n . "
Exc e pt i on a l C h i l d r e n , Vol. 36, No. 4, November, 1969.
Harste, J. C . , P r o g r a m E v a l u a t i o n in T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n ,
T ea c he r E d u c a t i o n P o r u m S e r i e s , Schoo l o f E d u c a t i o n ,
Indiana University, B l o o m i n g t o n , Vol. 1, No. 4, 1973.

84

Haynes, B. J., P e r f o r m a n c e Based T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n in the
U n i t e d States of America:
A Re p or t to the tioard,
Cla r e m o n t Teachers' College.
1974.
Hoeksema. T. B. , A Stu dy of T ea c h e r s of the M e n t a l l y Impaired
Rel a t i n g Their P e r c e p t i o n s of the D e v e l o p m e n t of
C o m p e t e n c i e s to T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d d i s s e r ­
tation, M i c h i g a n fctate Un i ve r si t y, 1975.
Johnson, G. B . , E v a l u a t i o n of the U n i v e r s i t y of South
A l a b a m a C ol l e g e o f E d u c a t i o n 1‘e a cher T ra i ni n g P r o g r a m .
U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h A l ab a ma , 1^71.
Mackie, R. P., Kvaraceus, W . , and Williams, H . , Te a chers
of C hi l dr e n Who are S o c i a l l y and E m o t i o n a l l y " H a n d i ­
c a p p e d . Wa s h i n g t o n , D. C.
USflPo.
T5T7T
Manual for D e ve l op i ng , E v a l u a t i n g and A p p r o v i n g P r o f e s s io n al
P r e p a r a t i o n P r og r a m s Plans for M u l t i p l e and S ingTe
Credential's. C a l i f o r n i a State C o m m i t t e e for T ea c h e r
P r e p a r a t i o n an d Licensing, Sacramento, 1973.
McKinney, F. and Oglesby, C., D e v e l o p i n g and C o n d u c t i n g
Fol l ow - up S tudies of F ormer S t u d e n t s . K e nt u c k y R e s e a r c h
U n i t , Lexington, K e n t u c k y . 1971.
M i c h i g a n S t at e Un iv ersity.
Pl anning and C o n d u c t i n g F o l l o w up S t u d i e s . M u l t i - S t a t e E v a l u a t i o n Workshop, East
Lansing, Michigan.
1970.
Morse, C. W. , Bruno, F. B. and Morgan, S. R., T r a i n i n g
T ea c he r s for the E m o t i o n ally D i sturbed.
A nn Arbor,
U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan.
1971.
O 'Connor, T. J . , F o l l o w - u p Studies in Ju n i o r C o l l e g e s :
A Tool for I n s t r u ct i on a l I m p r o v e m e n t . A m e r i c a n A s s o c i ation o T J u n i o r Colleges, W a s h i n g t o n , D. C.
1965.
Popham, W. J . , D e s i g n i n g T e a c h e r E v a l u a t i o n Sy st ems I n s t r u c ti on al O b j e c t i v e s Exchange, Los A n g e l e s , California.
T57T. ----- *---~ ----------- *“
S andefur, J. T . , A n I l l u s t r a t e d Model for the E v a l u a t i o n of
T ea c h e r Education' Gradu ates^
A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n of
C ol l e g e s for T e a c h e r Educa t io n , W as h i n g t o n , D. C . » 1970.
Sanders, J o h n W.
T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Gr a du a te s S p ea k O u t :
A s s e s s m e n t a n d ''Impligaiiiohs. , U. 3*1 D e p t . of Heal th,
E d u c a t i o n a n d W e l f a ^ b , ’A u g u s t 1972.

85

Scha ftenaar, L . , " A Study of M i c h i g a n P u b l i c School C l a s s ­
rooms for E m o t i o n a l l y D i s t u r b e d C h i l d r e n Re l ating
S p e c i f i c P r o g r a m V a r i a b l e s to T e a c h e r J u d g m e n t s of
Program Adequacy."
U n p u b l i s h e d di s se r ta t io n , M i c h i g a n
State Univer si t y, East Lansing, M i ch i ga n , 1975.
Sc ha ftenaar, L . , Teache rs* P e r c e p t i o n o f T h e i r U n i v e r s i t y
T r a i n i n g , M i c h i g a n D e p a r t m e n t of Educat io n , Spe cial
E du c a t i o n S e rv i ce s Division, Lansing, Michig an.
1972.
Sharp, L. M . , St udent F o l l o w - u p Study P ro c ed u re s as a
T e c h n i q u e for Ev a l u a t i n g V o c a t i o n a l and T e c h n i c a l
E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m s . W as h i n g t o n , D. Cl B u r e a u of
Social Sc i en c e Research, Inc.
1960.
Sharp, L. M. and Krashe gor, R . , The Us e of F o l l o w - u p S t ud i es
in the E v a l u a t i o n of V o c a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n
151 fc".', Bu r e a u of Social S c i e n c e Re search, Inc.
1966.
Shores, R. E . , Cegelka, P. T. and Ne ls on, C. M . , " C o m p e t e n c y
B ased Spec ial E du c a t i o n T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g , " E x c e p t i o n a l
C h i l d r e n . Vol. 40, No. 3, November, 1973.
Singh, J. S., Pr o ce e di n gs of the C o n f e r e n c e on F ol l o w - u p
Studies in E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . C e n t e r for Studies
in V o c a t i o n a l and T e c h n i c a l E ducation, U n i v e r s i t y of
W isconsin, Madison.
1965.
Stuffl ebeam, D. E . , E v a l u a t i o n as E n l i g h t e n m e n t for D e c i s i o n
M a k i n g , Columbus^ b h i o : C ol l e g e of E d u c a t i o n Evaluation Center.
1968.
Swan,

L. M. and De Vries, Jim.
A n E v a l u a t i o n of the Great
Lakes A p p r e n t i s e s h i p Center:
Some I n s i g h t s T n t o
E du c at i on a l P r o g r a m m i n g for D i s a d v a n t a g e d A d u l t s ,
W i s c o n s i n U ni v e r s i t y , M ad i so n , Wi s co n si n , 1973.

The E v a l u a t i o n of T e a c h e r s , N at 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 ,
W as h i n g t o n , D. C . , P T v i s i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n and
P r o f e s s i o n a l D e ve l op m en t , 1974.
The We st V i r g i n i a State Pl a n for T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n Progra m s
In Spe cial E d u c a t i o n , W e s t V i r g i n i a feoard of Regents,
C ha r le s to w n, West Virginia.
1973.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
COVER LETTER AND LETTER
OF EXPLANATION

86

STATE O f MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STAIR ROAM O f RO0CA11OM

Lam ing, M ichigan 41902

MARILYN IRAN KELLY
DR. OORTON RUTHM ILLE*
ID M W D F . VANDOTTK
ANNRTTA MILLER

January 26, 1976

RARRARA A. DUMOUCHRLU
DR. RAUL R. HRNRY
RARRARA J. RORRRTR
NORMAN OTTO STOCKMRYRR.
OOV. WILLIAM O. M IL U m

Dear Teacher:
A p e r s i s t e n t concern o f a l l those in th e f i e l d of emotional
impairment in th e S t a t e o f Michigan i s the continual evalua­
t i o n , m o d ific atio n and improvement o f the t r a i n i n g programs
a t th e c o l le g e and u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l . In o rd e r to make
informed d e c i s i o n s , a l l persons a f f e c t e d by a t r a i n i n g
program must be involved in the e v a lu atio n o f t h a t program.
Simply s t a t e d , th e r e is a need to know what your perceptions
a r e in o rd e r to j u s t i f y and v a l i d a t e what i s being done and
to make d e c is io n s about what should be done to improve
te a c h e r t r a i n i n g programs.
Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h i s research should c o n t r i b u t e to
the improvement of te ach e r t r a i n i n g in emotional impairment
in the s t a t e .
S in c e r e ly ,

Bert Donaldson, Ph.D.
Instructional S p e c ia lis t for
Emotionally Impaired
Special Education Services
BD:mf

87

.

.

MICHIGAN Tlw Great Lake Slata

&

88
January 2 6 ,

1976

Dear G r a d u a t e ,
Y o u a r e b e i n g a s k e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a r e s e a r c h s t u d y o f 1 9 7 4 - 1 9 7 5
school y e a r g r a d u a t e s in e m o t i o n a l i m p a i r m e n t by f i l l i n g out the e n c l o s e d
four-page q u e stionnaire.
T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e is s e l f - e x p l a n a t o r y a n d c a n
be f i l l e d o u t i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y t e n m i n u t e s .
All responses are confidential,
so f e e l f r e e t o e x p r e s s y o u r h o n e s t o p i n i o n s .
In o r d e r t o k e e p t r a c k of
those w h o h a v e r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , y o u r n a m e is a s k e d f o r o n t h e
cover sheet .
W h e n y o u r r e s p o n s e is r e c e i v e d , y o u r n a m e w i l l b e r e m o v e d
so t h a t p e r s o n a l r e s p o n s e s c a n n o t b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e t o t a l g r o u p
of r e s p o n s e s .
T h i s s t u d y is e n d o r s e d b y f a c u l t y m e m b e r s f r o m C e n t r a l
M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , T h e U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n ,
Grand Valley State Colleges, Eastern M i c h i g a n University, W e stern M i c h i g a n
Uni v e r s i t y and the S p e c i a l E d u c a t i o n S e r v i c e s of the M i c h i g a n S t a t e
D e p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n .
R e t u r n o f t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e b y M a r c h 15, 1 9 7 6 w o u l d b e v e r y h e l p f u l .
A s t a m p e d , a d d r e s s e d e n v e l o p e is e n c l o s e d f o r y o u r c o n v e n i e n c e .
A summary
of the r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e to y o u u p o n r e q u e s t .
Thank
you v e r y m u c h f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n .

Sincerely,

C. UotnL_
P a u l a C.
Doctoral
Michigan

Wood
Student
State University

APPENDIX B
SU RV EY

INSTRUMENTS

89

90

NAME

FROM WHICH COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY

DATE

OF

DID

YOU

RECEIVE

YOUR DEGREE

GRADUATION

P L E A S E L I S T A N Y A P P R O V A L S O T H E R T H A N E.I.
T H A T Y O U H A V E _____________________________________

WHO WAS Y O U R PRIMARY CONTACT PERSON A M O N G THE FACULTY IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
D U R I N G Y O U R T E A C H E R T R A I N I N G _____________ _________ _________________________________

(This s h e e t w i l l b e d e t a c h e d u p o n r e c e i p t of
so that you r answers w i l l be confidential.)

your

filled

out

questionnaire

91
DEMOGRAPHIC D A T A
I.

What baat describes your present situation?
I.
2.
3.
4.

Teaching regular education
^ p l o y e d as a teacher of the emotionally impaired
Teaching another area of special education:__ _____
Not teaching.
Reason: _____________________________

(If you are NOT presently teaching, please skip to question 5.)
2.

3.

What best describes the age group y ou are working with?
1.
2.

Pre-school
Elementary

3.

Secondary____________ y r s . - youngest student

yrs. ■ oldest student

What best describes your present setting?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

4.

If you answered more then one of the above, or
could not answer, please indicate ages:

Public School
Institution
Day Treatment Center
Juvenile Detention Facility
Other (Please Describe) ___________________________________________________

What best describes the present capacity in which you are serving?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Self-contained
El classroom
Self-contained
LD classroom
Resource Room
Crisis or Helping Teacher
Consultant
Oil or TMI
Other _____________________________________________________ _____

EVALUATIVE DATA

5.

What best describes the quality of advisement you received from the
Special Education Department?
1.
2.
____ 3.

6.

4.
3.

Fair
Poor

How well prepared to teach emotionally disturbed children did you feel
at the completion of your college training?
1.
2.
3.

7.

Excellent
Very Good
Good

Very well prepared
Well prepared
Somewhat prepared

4.

5.

Unprepared
Very unprepared

What best describes y o u r feelings about your student teaching experience
in Special Education?
1.
2.

Very beneficial experience
Beneficial experience

____ 3.
4.

Somewhat beneficial
experience
Not abeneficial experience

92

The f o l l o w i n g question* s e e k your p e r c e p t i o n of the Impact of the conditions
you
a r e w o r k i n g un d e r and h o w these conditions
affect h o w well you a re able
to meet
the n e e d s of the c h i ldren y o u serve.
1.

H o w w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the A V A I L A B I L I T Y O F
r u n y o u r program?
1.
2.
3.

2.

4. Fair
5. Poor

H o w w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the INSERVICE and P R O F E S S I O N A L IMPROVEMENT
O P P O R T U N I T I E S av a i l a b l e to you?
1.
2.
3.

3.

E x c ellent
V e r y Good
Good

INSTRUCTIONAL M A T E R I A L S to

Excellent
Very Good
Good

4. Fair
5. Poor

H o w w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the A D M I N I S T R A T I V E D I R ECTION and L E A DERSHIP you
h a v e r e c e i v e d In the op e r ation of y o u r p r o g r a m for emotionally dis turbed
c h i ldren?
1.
2.
3.

Excellent
Very Good
Good

4. Fair
5. Poor

4.H o w w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the A T T I T U D I N A L CLIMATE r e g a rding your program?
(i.e., H o w suitable are the attitudes of the parents, teachers,
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and m a i n t e n a n c e staff w i t h w h o m y ou work?)
1.
2.
3.
5.

E x c ellent
V e r y Good
Good

4. Fair
5. Poor

H o w w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the "WORKABILITY" of the gr o u p of children you serve?
(I.e., To w h a t extent Is their variability, compatibility, type and degree
of d i f f i c u l t y appr o p r l a t a for the services y o u provide?)
1.
2.
3.

7.

4. Fair
5. Poor

How w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the S U PPORTIVE PROVISIONS A N D PE R S O N N E L available
to y o u In m e e t i n g the personal and emotional needs of your students?
1.
2.
3.

6.

Excellent
Very Good
Good

Excellent
Very G o o d
Good

4. Fair
5. Poor

H o w w o u l d y o u d e s c r i b e the EDUCAT I O N A L P L A N N I N G a n d / o r P L A C E M E N T
PR O V I S I O N S y o u f u n c t i o n under?
1.
2.
3.

Excellent
Very Good
Good

_ _ _ 5.

4. Fair
Poor

93

A.

USING THE E XPERIENCE YOU NOW HAVE, RATE EACH O F
HOW COMPETENT YOU WERE THE DAY AFTER GRADUATION
Check
tency

B.

the o p t i o n for e a c h skill a r e a that bes t d e s c r i b e d
the d a y after graduation from teacher training.

IN T H E B L A N K S A T THE LEFT, P L E A S E P L A C E A
FOUR AREAS YOU WERE MOST COMPETENT IN AND
F O U R A R E A S Y O U W E R E L E A S T C O M P E T E N T IN.

1.

Working with parents

2.

Behavioral

3.

Effective
dren

4.

Using

5.

Selecting appropriate
tional materials

6.

Setting
(rules,

7.

Working effectively with
port personnel

8.

Conducting

9.

Individualizing programs
children

_11.

management
"grouping"

of

chil­

educational materials
educa­

up classroom procedures
routines, etc.)

academic

U n d e r s t a n d i n g the
student behavior

sup­

instruction
for

dynamics

of

Working effectively with
administrators

_12. W o r k i n g
group

with

children

in a

13.

Working with children
one-to-one basis

14.

Student assessment/diagnostic
techniques

15.

Working effectively
other teachers

16.

Facilitating
maturity

on

a

with

social-emotional

your

compe­

P L U S (+) I N E A C H O F T H E
P L A C E A M I N U S (-) I N T H E

Competent

10.

THE FOLLOWING AS TO
FROM TEACHER TRAINING.

Somewhat
Competent

Minimally
Competent

94
ADVISOR

FOLLOW-UP

FORM

T h e f o l l o w i n g s t u d e n t , ________________________________________
graduate from your Special E d u c a t i o n training program,
t a k e n a job In the f o llowi ng position:

, was a recent
This per s o n has

Regular Education
E.I. Teacher
Other Special Education
T e a c h i n g P o s i t i o n _______
Not Teaching
Age

Level

Currently Working W i t h :

Setting:
Public School
Institution
Day Treatment
Juvenile Delinquency Facility
Other
___
___

Pre-school
Elementary
Secondary
____
Other

Present

Capacity:

Self-Contained E.I.
Self-Contained L.D.
Resource Room

Crisis Room
Consultant
O t h e r ______

This student has the following
w h i c h h e / s h e is w o r k i n g :

perceptions

of

D

E

the

present

c o n d i t i o n tinder

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
A

B

C

F

A = Availability of Instructional Material
B = In-service and Professional Improvement Opportunities
C = Administrative Direction and Leadership
D = Attitudinal Climate
E = Supportive Provisions and Personnel
F = Workability of Group
G = Educational Planning and/or Placement Provisions

G

95

For

this

student,

indicate

the

most

least

you

and

believe

next

to

the

with

an awareness

four areas whi ch
competent

they will

areas.

rate

four areas

you

you

as

of

the

believe
Place

a

information,

they would
plus

their most

believe

previous

(+)

competent

they will

rate

indicate

next

to

areas
as

the
and

their

as

1.

Working with

2.

Behavioral management

3.

Effective "grouping"

a minus

least

parents

4.

Using

5.

Selecting

______

6.

Setting

up

______

7.

Working

effectively with

_ _ _

8.

Conducting

______

9.

Individualizing

10.

Understanding

_____

11.

Working

_____

12. W o r k i n g w i t h

of

children

educational materials
appropriate
classroom

academic

educational
procedures

supportive

programs

for

the dynamics

effectively with

personnel

children

student

behavior

administrators

in a

children on

children

of

group

Working with

_ _ _ _ _ 14.

Student

assessment/diagnostic

_ _ _ _ _ 15.

Working

effectively with

Facilitating

routines,

instruction

______ 1 3 .

16.

materials

(rules,

a one-to-one

other

basis

techniques
teachers

social-emotional maturity

their

four areas

areas.

_ _ _ _

please

etc.)

(-)

competent

APPENDIX C
C O M P E T E N C Y S E L F - R A T I N G S FOR EACH
U N I V E R S I T Y A N D FOR THE
TO T AL GROUP

96

APPENDIX C

C o m p e t e n c y I--Work i ng w i t h Parents
University
Area
1
2
3
4
5

6

Total

C om p etent

11

10

5

3

8

4

41

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

13

13

13

6

17

5

67

Minimally compe­
tent
No data

15

1

11

3

15

11

56

1

0

0

1

1

1

4

C o m p e t e n c y 2 --Beha v io r al M a n a g e m e n t
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5

6

Total

Competent

21

15

20

10

14

6

86

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

18

8

8

3

24

12

73

Minimally comp e­
tent

1

1

1

0

2

2

7

No data

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

Competency
Area

3 - -Effective " g r o u p i n g " of C h i l d r e n
University
1
2
3
4
5
6

Total

C o m p e t en t

20

15

13

6

12

6

72

S om e w h a t c o m p e ­
tent

16

8

12

6

21

11

74

Minimally compe­
tent

4

1

4

1

6

4

20

No d at a

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

97

98

Competency 4--Using Educational Materials
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5

6

Total

C om p etent

24

15

12

8

16

11

86

S om e w h a t c o m p e ­
tent

13

8

16

2

18

9

66

Minimally compe­
tent

2

1

1

3

6

1

14

No data

1

0

0

0

1

0

2

Competency
Area

5--Sel ec t in g A p p r o p r i a t e E d u c a t i o n a l M a t e r
University
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6

C o m p e t en t

19

13

7

4

8

8

59

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

16

10

16

5

19

12

78

Minimally compe­
tent

5

1

6

4

13

1

30

No data

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

C o m p e t e n c y 6 - -Setting -up Class roo m P r oc e du r es
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6

T otal

C om p e t e n t

27

15

20

7

26

10

105

S om e w h a t c o m p e ­
tent

11

8

7

4

9

9

48

Minimally c o mp e­
tent

2

1

2

2

5

2

14

No data

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

99

C o m p e t e n c y 7 - -Working E f f e c t i v e l y w i t h S u pp o rt
Area
University
1
2
3
4
3
6

Perso n ne l
Total

Competent

25

13

9

9

17

12

85

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

11

7

17

2

20

8

65

Minimally comp e­
tent

4

4

3

2

3

1

17

No da ta

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

C o m p e t e n c y 8 - -Conducting A c a d e m i c Instru c ti o n
Area
University
1
2
3
4
3
6
Competent

Total

33

18

20

7

25

10

113

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

7

5

6

3

13

9

43

Minimally compe­
tent

0

1

3

3

2

2

11

No da ta

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

C o m p e t e n c y 9 - -Indiv i du a li z in g Pro g r a m s for C h i l d r e n
Area
University
1
2
3
4
3
6
T otal
Competent

25

16

21

8

21

13

104

Somewhat c o m p e ­
tent

14

8

7

3

15

6

53

Minimally compe­
tent

1

0

1

2

4

2

10

N o data

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

100

C o m p e t e n c y 1 0 - - U n d e r st a nd in g the D y na m i c s of St u dent
Area
Behavior
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Com p etent

14

11

15

11

18

10

79

Som e w h a t c o m p e ­
tent

23

10

13

1

19

10

76

Minimally compe­
tent

3

2

1

0

3

1

10

No data

0

1

0

1

1

0

3

C o m p e t e n c y 1 1 --Working E f f e c t i v e l y w i t h Administrator!
University
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tot al
Competent

13

11

6

4

13

11

58

Somewhat compe­
tent

20

9

18

6

15

8

76

Minimally compe­
tent

7

4

5

3

12

*>

33

No data

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

C o m p e t e n c y 1 2 --Working w it h C h i l d r e n in a G roup
Are a
University
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
Competent

31

18

19

8

26

9

111

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

9

6

8

3

13

12

51

Minimally compe­
tent

0

0

2

2

1

0

5

No da ta

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

101

Competency 13--Working with Children on a One-to-one Basis
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
37

24

27

13

38

19

158

Som ewhat c o m p e ­
tent

3

0

1

0

1

2

7

Minimally compe­
tent

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

N o data

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

Com p e t e n t

C o m p e t e n c y 1 4 -- Student A s s e s s m e n t / D i a g n o s t i c T e c h n i q u e
University
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Com p etent
Somewhat
tent

compe­

Minimally compe­
tent
No data

9

16

14

2

3

5

47

18

7

12

7

19

7

49

13

1

3

4

18

8

70

0

0

0

0

1

1

2

C o m p e t e n c y 1 5 - -Working E f f e c t i v e l y w i t h Ot h er Te achers
University
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
C om p e t e n t

22

17

13

9

19

15

95

S om e wh a t c o m p e ­
tent

17

6

10

3

19

5

60

Minimally compe­
tent

1

1

6

1

2

1

12

No data

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

102

C o m p e t e n c y 1 6- - F a c i l i t a t i n g S o c i a l - E m o t i o n a l M a t u r i t y
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
C o m p e t en t

19

12

12

9

13

8

73

S om e wh a t competent

18

11

16

3

24

12

84

M i n i m a l l y competent

2

1

1

.9

No d at a

0

0

1

1
0

3
0

1

0

1

APPENDIX D
BEST-WORST COMPETENCY SELF-RATINGS

103

APPENDIX D
B e s t - W o r s t C o m p e t e n c y Ratings
C o m p e t e n c y 1 - -Working w i t h Parents
Area
University
4
1
2
3
5
Best

6

Total

1

2

1

0

3

2

9

Worst

20

9

20

5

14

13

81

N o t listed

19

13

8

8

24

6

78

2 --Behavioral M a n a g e m e n t
University
1
2
3
4
5

6

Competency
Area
Best
W or s t
Not

listed

Total

13

8

14

5

12

6

58

8

3

4

0

6

4

25

19

13

11

8

23

11

85

C o m p e t e n c y 3 - - E f fe c ti v e " g r o u p i n g " of c h i l d r e n
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6

Total

Best

4

1

4

2

4

1

16

W or s t

8

2

8

2

9

5

34

28

21

17

9

28

15

118

C o m p e t e n c y 4--Us i ng E d u c a t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5

6

Not

listed

Total

Best

7

2

1

1

9

2

22

W or s t

4

4

2

3

9

2

24

29

18

26

9

23

17

122

Not

listed

104

105

Competency 5--Selecting Appropriate Educational Materials
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Best

5

5

1

2

3

1

17

Worst

12

9

10

7

23

3

64

N ot l isted

23

10

18

4

15

17

87

C o m p e t e n c y 6--Setting- ■up C l a s s r o o m P r o c e du r es
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Best
Worst
N ot

listed

Competency
A re a

Total

11

2

14

1

19

13

60

6

3

6

2

4

5

26

23

19

9

10

18

3

82

7 - -Working E f f e c t i v e l y w i t h S up port P er s on n e
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

Best

6

0

2

2

1

4

15

Wo rst

8

6

8

2

8

2

34

26

18

19

9

32

IS

119

Not

li st ed

Competency
Area

8 - -Condu c ti n g A c a d e m i c I n s t r u c t i o n
University
1
2
3
4
5
6

Best
Worst
N ot

listed

T otal

16

5

7

2

10

4

44

1

5

4

4

4

5

23

23

14

18

7

27

12

101

106

Competency
Area

9 - - I n d i v i d u a l i z i n g P r og r am s for C h il d r e n
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total

Best
Worst
N o t listed

16

12

15

5

14

8

70

9

1

1

3

8

4

26

15

11

13

5

19

9

72

C o m p e t e n c y 1 0 - -U n de r s t a n d i n g the Dynamics of S t udent
Area
Behavior
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Best

4

5

5

8

11

8

41

W or s t

11

6

7

0

5

3

32

Not

25

13

17

5

25

10

95

listed

C o m p e t e n c y 1 1 --Working E f f e c t i v e l y w i t h A d m i n i s t r a t o r s
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
1

0

1

0

5

3

10

W orst

16

9

16

4

15

5

65

Not

23

IS

12

9

21

13

93

Best

listed

C o m p e t e n c y 1 2 --Working w i t h C h i l d r e n in a Group
University
Area
1
2
3
4
5
Total
6
Best
Worst
Not

listed

14

4

8

3

12

5

46

0

1

1

3

2

2

9

26

19

20

7

27

14

113

107

Competency 13--Working with Children on a One-to-one Basis
Area
University
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Best
Worst
Not list ed
Competency
Are a

14

4

8

3

12

5

46

0

1

1

3

2

2

9

26

19

20

7

27

14

113

1 4 --Student A s s e s s m e n t / D i a g n o s t i c 'rec hnique
University
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6

Best

1

9

8

0

2

1

21

W or s t

22

7

5

7

25

14

80

Not

17

8

16

6

14

6

67

listed

C o m p e t e n c y 1 5 - -Working E f f e c t i v e l y w i t h O th e r T ea chers
A re a
University
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
Best

5

5

2

2

8

7

29

Worst

5

2

10

1

6

2

26

30

17

17

10

27

12

113

N ot

listed

Competency 16--Facilitating Social-Emotional Maturity
University
A re a
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total
Best

9

3

5

5

5

2

29

Worst

4

5

4

0

8

4

25

27

16

20

8

28

15

114

Not

listed

APPENDIX E
I ND I VI D UA L I N S T I T U T I O N S ’ S CO R ES O N
W O R K I N G CO N D I T I O N S

108

APPENDIX E
I ND I VI D UA L INSTITUTIONS' SC O RE S ON
WORKING CONDITIONS

A v a i l a b i l i t y of Inst ructi onal M a t e r i a l s
University
1
2
3
4

5

6

To tal

Excellent

7

4

6

1

7

7

32

V e r y Good

7

7

8

5

6

1

34

Good

10

2

8

1

11

6

38

Fair

8

9

4

4

3

4

32

Poor

2

1

3

0

7

1

14

I ns e rv i ce and Pr o f e s s i o n a 1 I mp r ov e me n t O p p o r t u n i t i e s
University
2
3
4
5
6
Total
1
Excellent

4

3

4

2

1

3

17

Very

6

2

2

2

6

2

20

Good

8

6

13

5

6

7

45

Fair

9

9

6

1

13

5

43

Poor

7

3

4

1

8

2

25

5

6

Good

3. A d m i n i s t r a t i v e D i r e c t i o n and L ea d er s hi p
University
1
2
3
4

Total

E xc e ll e nt

4

2

4

2

3

3

18

Very

9

4

5

4

5

5

32

Good

13

7

5

3

10

3

41

Fair

4

8

9

0

9

3

33

Poor

4

1

5

2

5

4

21

Good

109

110

A t t i t u d i n a l C li m a t e
University
3
4

1

2

E xc e l l e n t

6

4

2

V e r y Good

12

6

Good

12

Fair
Poor

5

6

1

5

5

23

7

4

8

5

42

10

11

2

15

3

53

4

2

8

3

5

6

28

0

1

1

1

1

0

4

5

6

S u p p o r t i v e 1Provisionsi and P ersonnel
University
1
2
3
4

Total

Total

E xc e l l e n t

6

6

2

1

1

4

20

V e r y Good

9

1

7

4

10

5

36

Good

6

8

12

3

11

5

45

Fair

11

6

7

1

8

4

37

Poor

2

2

1

2

3

1

11

5

6

W o r k a b i l i t y of Group of C h i l d r e n
University
2
1
3
4

Total

E xc e llent

2

4

2

3

2

5

18

V e r y Good

15

5

6

3

4

8

41

Good

9

14

15

4

18

4

64

Fair

7

0

5

0

8

2

22

Poor

1

0

1

1

2

0

5

Educational

P la nning a nd/or Pl a cement Pr o vi s i o n s
University
1
3
6
2
4
5

To tal

Excel le n t

4

3

3

0

1

1

12

Very Good

2

4

6

2

6

4

24

Good

13

13

8

5

9

8

56

Fair

9

2

10

3

12

5

41

Poor

6

1

2

1

5

1

16