INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NO TE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. U niversity M icro film s In te rn atio n al 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 USA St. John's Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR I I 78-10,033 CHAEMCHAENG, Chantavit, 1949A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SCHOOL CLIMATE AS PERCEIVED BY TEAM TEACHERS AND NON-TEAM TEACHERS IN SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1977 Education, administration University Microfilms International, Ann A rbor, M ich ig an 48106 A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SCHOOL CLIMATE AS PERCEIVED BY TEAM TEACHERS AND NON-TEAM TEACHERS IN SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By Chantavit Chaemchaeng A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY School of Education 1977 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE SCHOOL CLIMATE AS PERCEIVED BY TEAM TEACHERS AND NON-TEAM TEACHERS IN SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN By Chantavit Chaemchaeng This study assessed and compared the organizational climate perceptions of middle school teachers between team teachers and non-team teachers from team teaching and n o n ­ team teaching schools. A special concern for this investiga­ tion was to discover any evidence which might lead educational administrators and teachers to be aware of the effect, of team teaching on the teachers' if any, perception of the org a­ nizational climate. The population of the study was composed of three groups of teachers: team teachers, non-team teachers in team teaching schools and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. These teachers were from eight selected middle schools in Michigan. areas They were teachers in the major subject (language arts, social studies, math and science). The perception of organizational climate was measured Chantavit Chaemchaeng by responses of teachers of each school using the Organiza­ tional Climate Description Questionnaire by Halpin and Croft. Multivariate analysis of variance was used to analyze the data. In the test across the three groups differences were statistically significant at the .05 level with 16 and 360 degrees of freedom. Post Hoc comparisons followed to test the specific pairs: team teachers.versus non-team teachers in team teaching schools; team teachers versus non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools; and team teachers and all of the non-team teachers from both types of schools. Each was tested at the .05 level with 8 and 180 degrees of freedom. No statistically significant difference was found for the first pair compared. The tests for the second and third pairs showed statistically significant differences between the two groups being compared in each test. The specific scales which produced the significance in both comparisons were Disengagement, Hindrance and Consideration. Non-team teachers perceived the teachers' behavior aspect of the organizational climate, Disengagement and Hindrance, as more open than did the team teachers. the principals' The team teachers perceived behavior, Consideration, as more open than did the non-team teachers. There was some apparent contra­ diction here between the findings in the scale scores for Chantavit Chaemchaeng both groups. The results do not justify a conclusion as to which group perceived a more open climate on the whole. The profiles of the three groups, however, all resemble the Open profile described by Halpin and Croft. Only the scale scores on Consideration make them a little less than a completely Open profile. Although the statistical analysis turned up significant results for the second and third pair, the charts only show minor differences between all three groups. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS "Correction does much, but encouragement does even more." The author is privileged to receive both from all of the committee members. Although the gratitude felt toward all who have helped is deep, the opportunity for its e x p r e s ­ sion is brief and inadequate. To the following TEACHERS, the deepest appreciation. the author wishes to express Dr. Louis G. Romano, advisor and chairman of the committee, whose patience, understanding and friendship throughout the course of the study will,always be treasured. Dr. Ralph P. Barrett and Dr. Louise Sause have served on the committee in their fullest capacity and very often on short notices. Dr. Archibald B. Shaw has spent countless hours listening and advising on the academic as well as personal problems throughout the years the author stayed in this country. A special thank goes to Suwatana who gave advice p e r ­ tinent to statistics and design and invaluable assistence in designing and carrying out the statistical analyses. Although if is not possible to name individually, many FRIENDS have always provided helps whc^ and have made life-away- from-home at home. ii The most important ingredients of this study are the teachers who participated. Their cooperation is greatly appreciated. The author is very deeply in debt to her parents, Watana and Chawee, for their constant supports, and never-ending love. sacrifice Brothers, Winichai and Wirachat, and sister, Chailaiwan, have provided war mt h and family a t m os ­ phere. The care, tolerance, understanding and love of Dr. Vuti Laosunthorn have helped the author endure the difficult times during her educational undertaking. not have completed the study without them. The author could TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................... vi LIST OF F I G U R E S .............................................viii Chapter I. THE P R O B L E M ......................................... 1 Introduction .................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ........................ 3 Significance of the Study ........................ 6 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . 9 Definition of the T e r m s ............................ 9 O b j e c t i v e s ............................................ 11 O v e r v i e w ............................................ 14 II. III. REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ...........................15 Introduction ..................................... Middle School ..................................... Team T e a c h i n g ........................................ Organizational Climate ........................... 15 15 24 36 RESEARCH PROCEDURES 47 ............................... Introduction ...................................... 47 M e t h o d o l o g y ........................................ 48 Instrumentation ................................. 49 Treatment of D a t a ................................. 53 General Hypotheses ........................ 54 Test Hypotheses A ' s ...................... 55 Test Hypotheses B ' s .......................56 Test Hypotheses C ' s ................. 56 IV. ANALYSIS OF D A T A ................................... 6 0 Introduction ..................................... Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) . . 60 62 Page Chapter Comparison of Climate Profile ................. Summary of Descriptive Information of Demographic Variables ........................ S e x ..................................... A g e ..................................... Teaching Experience .................... Years in Present S c h o o l ............. Experience in Team Teaching . . . . Formal Education of Team Teaching . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . Introduction .................................. Purposes and M e t h o d s ....................... Research Findings ............................... General Hypotheses .................... Hypotheses A ........................... ........................... Hypotheses B Hypotheses C ........................... Summary of the F i n d i n g s ............. Recommendations for Future Study ............. R e f l e c t i o n s ..................................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ A P P E N D I C E S ................................................ v 71 72 76 77 78 78 79 80 82 82 82 83 84 84 85 87 88 89 90 92 99 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 The Participants 4.1 Means and Standard Deviation Reported by School Building 4.2 in the S t u d y .................... 50 61 Means and Standard Deviation Reported by the Grouping: TT, NTT, and NTTN . . . . 63 4.3 Correlations of the Norm Group Between Eight Subtest Scores of the OCDQ, Form IV, 64 Items (N=1151)....................... 64 4.4 Sample Group Correlation Matrix 4.5 Result of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance for the General Hypotheses .............. . . . 65 66 4.6 Result of the Post Hoc Comparison of Group 1 and Group 2 On All Eight S u b t e s t s ........................................ 67 4.7 Result of the Post Hoc Comparison of Group 1 and Group 3 On All Eight S u b t e s t s ........................................ 68 4.8 Results of the Univariable F-test On the Comparisons of Group 1 and Group 3 On Each of the Eight Dependent Variables . . . . 4.9 4.10 69 Results of the Post Hoc Comparison of Group 1 and Average of Group 2 plus Group 3 On All Eight Dependent V a r i a b l e s ........................................ 70 Results of the Univariable F-test On the Comparison of Team Teaching Groups versus the Average of the Two Non-team Teaching Groups On Each of the Eight Dependent V a r i a b l e s ........................ . . . vi 71 Table Page 4.11 Profile Characteristics of Organizational C l i m a t e ......................................... 75 4.12 Composition of the P o p u l a t i o n ......................76 4.13 Sex Composition of the Population 4.14 Age Composition of . . . . the Population . vii . . . 77 77 FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Model for Four Teacher Interdisciplinary T e a m ........................................... 29 2.2 Model for Block Time T e a c h i n g ............... 30 2.3 Model for Single Discipline Teaching 3.1 General Hypotheses of the S t u d y ............59 4.1 Profile Comparison Between TT, NTT, and NTTN 4.2 Halpin and Croft's Open and Closed Climate P r o f i l e ....................................... 74 4.3 Years of Teaching Experience of TT and NT 78 4.4 Years of Experience in Present School 79 4.5 Years of Experience in Team Teaching for TT and N T .................................... 80 4.6 Credit Hours of Team Teaching for TT and NT . . . . 30 . . . 73 80 CHAPTER I BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM Introduction The middle school concept of school organization for preadolescents is designed to meet the challenge by p r e ­ senting the learner with schooling experiences that are relevant to his needs and interests, to his maturity, and to his goals at a particular time in his development. Functional­ ly and structurally different from the organization of the junior high school, the middle school seeks to serve more effectively the intellectual, emotional, social, and physical needs of the child today. To bring about an acceptable degree of success in c a r r y ­ ing out the middle school concept may require involvement not only by the administrators but also by the entire school staff. Somehow, the principal is often expected to maintain a school environment which allows for personal initiative and at the same time fosters the development of a professional attitude toward and commitment to the improvement of teaching methods. Thomas C. Biondolillo, then elementary principal of Byron-Bergen Central School of New York, experienced in his school: 2 . . that one of the best ways to help teachers is through a team approach. When teachers are allowed and encouraged to participate as a team in planning, teaching, and evaluating, they usually become enthusiastic about instructional improvement. Teachers who are involved as part of a grade level or content area team have the support of the team in their commitment to improvement of educational methods. New techniques demand time and energy, and at first the results may be discouraging. It is easier to cope with frustration when there are team members to encourage continuing efforts. Team teaching, a new pattern of school organizationa which has emerged in American education since 1954, has rapid­ ly assumed the dimensions of a major educational movement. Starting with a few pilot projects in 1956 and 1957, the movement had spread out to several hundred communities distributed widely throughout the country, and plans under development suggest increasingly rapid growth. other educational innovations, Unlike some team teaching has gained strong ground and wide acceptance in schools. It is considered one of the eighteen major characteristics of the middle school 3 by Romano, Georgiady and Heald. Nancy F. Sprague, like many ■^Thomas C. Biondolillo, "Principal's Role: Helping Teachers Improve Themselves," Instructor, March, 1972, p. 39. 2 Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr., edited. Team Te a c h i n g . (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 1. O Louis G. Heald, edited. Emerging School Company, 1973), Romano, Nicholas P. Georgiady and James E. The Middle School: Selected Readings on an P r o g r a m . (Chicago, 111.: Nelson-Hall pp. 185-214. 3 other educators, takes her stand in support of team teaching by saying: , implementing the team concept in the middle schools should be a high priority of school administrators. Not only does the team approach have the potential of creating warm and friendly atmosphere, but it also enhances effective c om m u ­ nication, decision-making, and supervision within a school."^ Another believer is Lobb who explains: "The keystone in a rationale for team teaching is the belief that the total accomplishment of the group can be greater than the sum talents of the individual teachers. It is the hope that the cooperative endeavor, the synergy, will produce results that are greater and more far-reaching than isolated individual efforts. Statement of the Problem The problem to be studied here is what effects team teaching may have on middle school teachers' perceptions of their schools' organizational climate. More specifically comparisons will be made among three groups of teachers in selected Michigan middle schools to discover what if any differences in their perceptions of climate are related to whether they are team teachers, non-team teachers in team ^Nancy F. Sprague, "Involving the Assistant Principal on the Administrative Team," N A S S P B u l l e t i n , October, 1973, p. 29. \l. Delbert Lobb. (San Francisco, Calif.: Practical Aspects of Team T e a c h i n g . Fearon Publishers, Inc., 1964), p. 8. 4 teaching schools, and teachers in non-team teaching schools. Research tells us that the teaming of teachers to achieve certain desirable instructional ends has become a highly accepted and perhaps the most compelling and attractive instructional approach to inquiry, matter, use of transmittal of subject teacher talent, and flexible grouping of £ students known. The research dating back to the Norwalk Plan (1960-1961) has centered primarily on the effectiveness of team teaching as a new or alternative instructional method. It has dealt mostly with the effects of team teaching on students' ment, students' attitudes. adjustment, teachers' attitudes, achieve­ and parents' Or otherwise, as pointed out by Anderson,^ it is merely the testimonial evidence from teachers, pupils, and parents, or the observed achievement scores. Another vitally important dimension of team teaching, its effect on the organizational climate of the school, seems to have been neglected. The broad definition of team teaching allows a wide variety of interpretations and practices. Goodlad, Klein and ^William Goldstein, "Problem in Team Teaching," Clearing H o u s e , March, 1967, p. 83. ^Robert H. Anderson. Teaching in a World of C h a n g e . (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966), p. 82. Q Associates, who conducted a study of a sample of 67 schools in the United States, reported, "On occasion, the team teaching label was applied to a practice of turning the class over to specialists for one or more periods of the day," Team teaching was also found to label "a system of exchanging children among teachers for part or all of the da y . "9 Goodlad, Klein and Associates elaborated further that "When teachers moved about from room to room, it was to 'trade' part of a planned activity. subjects, not to work as Although team teaching was claimed by a substantial number of schools, we found only occasional instances of team planning, and evaluating." initiating, teaching XO The description of the many organizational patterns that are called team teaching will be discussed in detail in the review of literature in Chapter II. The wide variety in the definitions leads to difficulty in assessing the findings in a number of studies in team teaching. This fact underlies the decision to conduct research in selected middle schools along the triangular area of Lansing-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor g John I. Goodlad, M. Frances Klein and Associates. Looking Behind the Classroom D o o r . (Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1974), p. 70. 9 Ibid., p. 70. 10 Ib i d . , p. 87. 6 that have the kind of team teaching which meet a more restricted definition of team teaching set for this study. Significance of the Study The administrator is the key person in the school, who clarifies its goals and helps people in the school play effective roles in achieving these goals. He should also provide the opportunity for the type of cooperative group planning that multiplies and enhances individual effort through teamwork and through the stimulation resulting from the interplay of people and ideas. In this way, varying purposes and personalities merge into a unified, creative effort to improve the educational program. One way of providing such an opportunity is through the adoption of team teaching. Team teaching, in essence, reflects the description of the above statement. Its nature is best represented in the following narration by Judson T. Shaplin, a pioneer in the development of team teaching: " . . . that teachers are brought into a close working relationship for the joint instruction of the same group of students. This involves a change in the prevailing personnel structure of most schools. Prior to team teaching the assignment of instructional tasks and student groupings were matters of administrative decision; w i t h team teaching these matters become the joint responsi­ bility of the members of the team. Implicit, if not explicit, in this working relationship is the assumption that the team teachers will share 7 instructional tasks and goals; plan together; assign appropriate tasks to individual team members; see each other teach; have access to each other's classroom; join together in the evaluation of instruction; share information about the students for whom they are jointly responsible; and hold discussions, based upon common observations, of teaching and efforts of teaching. A n individual teacher is no longer assigned proprietary rights over HIS classroom and HIS students.Il^^In the team situation, interaction of the feelings, beliefs, attitudes, and values of the members can be expected. Since such interaction of members within a job setting c o n ­ stitutes the organizational climate of the school, one may ask, then, what type of climate profile a school will have as a result of the employment of team teaching. The primary concern of this study is to discover differences in per ceptions of the organizational climate of the schools that may exist between team teachers and non-team teachers in the same schools, and between team teachers and non-team teachers in the schools with no team teaching. Organizational climate is an important aspect in administrative process that can no longer be ignored. has become a major concern to school administrators. the It As the administrator creates an atmosphere in whi ch faculty members assume increasing responsibility, ^ S h a p l i n , op. cit., pp. 8-9 they may want to know its 8 contribution to school climate. organization, the school, Being the head of the the principal becomes concerned with the kind of organizational climate generated in his school. To vividly explain the importance of such matter, Halpin states: "Analogously, personality is to the individual what Organizational Climate is to the organization. More and more of this kind of study is being done in schools, where it is helpful in developing more penetrating insight into effective administrative practices. "Organiza­ tional climate assessment data can be extremely helpful in a practical way if . . . it is proffered to the school (and administrative staff) as feedback for their analysis, evaluation, and discussion," suggest O w e n s . ^ In addition, this kind of study will aid school personnel administration in the procurement of school professional personnel, principals as well as teachers. It will also provide information for the principal in decision-making concerning initiation of instructional innovations. This study is done wit h the hope that more schools will be encouraged to speed up constructive change in the program. 12 tion. Andrew W. Halpin. Theory and Research in Admin is t ra ­ (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 131. ■ ^ R o b e r t g. Owens (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Organizational Behavior in S c ho ol s. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970), p. 191. 9 Limitations of the Study This study is limited to selected public middle schools in the triangular area of Lansing, in the state of Michigan. Battle Creek and Ann Arbor The findings may be applied only to these schools or other schools whi ch have similar characteristics. The quality of the staff and the students' achievement are not considered in this research. The wide range of training and experience of the teachers may or may not have bearing, but the study does not explore that poss i­ bility. The instrument selected to assess the profile of the organizational climate as perceived by the team teachers and the non-team teachers in these selected middle schools is the Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), prepared by Halpin and Croft and used extensively in research studies. Since the OCDQ was developed prior to the recent rise in teacher power and militancy, some items of the instru­ ment may be responded to with a different frame of reference. No attempt will be made to assess this possibility. Definition of the Terms Organizational C l i m a t e : As used in this study, derives from Halpin's statement, "Analogously, personality is to the individual what Organizational Climate is to the organization." Climate is the result of the complex 10 interaction of feelings, beliefs, attitudes and ^alues, both conscious and unconscious, of members within a job setting. Team T ea c h i n g : A n instructional organization that involves two or more members of the teaching personnel working together and holding responsibility for all or a signi­ ficant part of the instruction of the same group of students assigned to them. Non-team Te a c h i n g : A n instructional organization wherein one teacher works individually in and holds responsibility for the instruction of his special subject area for one or more groups of students. Team T e ac he r s: Full-time teachers who are members of the teaching team in the major subject areas (language arts, social science, mathematics, and science). Non-Team T e a c h e r s : Major subject areas (language arts, social science, mathematics, and science) full-time teachers who are not participating in team teaching. Middle Schoo l: School administrative unit of any combination of grade levels from 5 through 8 providing educational programs to meet the needs of the preadolescent students. Team Teaching S c h o o l : A middle school employing team teaching by at least one team unit. 11 Non-Team Teaching S c h o o l : A middle school employing absolutely no team teaching. Objectives The primary question of interest here is to discover what effects team teaching may have on middle school teachers' perceptions of their schools' organizational climate. More specifically comparisons will be made among three groups of teachers: team teachers, non-team teachers in team teaching schools, and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. General Hypotheses There are no differences in the perceptions of the organizational climate among team teachers, non-team teachers in team teaching schools, and teachers in non-team teaching schools on all of the eight subtests as measured by the OCDQ. Hypothesis A: There are no differences between the perceptions of organizational climate in selected middle schools held by team teachers and by non-team teachers in team teaching schools as measured by the OCDQ. Hypothesis B: There are no differences between the perceptions of organizational climate in selected middle schools held by team teachers and by non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools as measured by the OCDQ. Hypothesis C: There are no differences between the perceptions of organizational climate in selected middle schools held by team teachers and by non-team teachers in 12 both team teaching and non-team teaching schools as measured by the OCDQ. Test Hypotheses A's Al; There is no difference on the Disengagement scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. A2: There is no difference on between the team teachers team teaching s c ho ol s. A3: A4: A5: A6: the Hindrance scale and non-team teachers in There is no difference on the Esprit scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. There is no difference on between the team teachers team teaching schools. the Intimacy scale and non-team teachers in There is no difference on between the team teachers team teaching schools. the Aloofness scale and non-team teachers in There is no difference on the Production Emphasis scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. A7: There is no difference on the Thrust scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. A8: There is no difference on the Consideration scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. Test Hypotheses B's Bl: There is no difference on the Disengagement scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B2: There is no difference on the Hindrance scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. 13 B3: There is no difference on the Esprit scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in n o n ­ team teaching schools. B4: There is no difference on the Intimacy between the team teachers and non-team non-team teaching schools. B5: There is no difference on the Aloofness scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B6: There is no difference on the Production Emphasis scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B7: There is no difference on the Thrust scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in n o n ­ team teaching schools B8: There is no difference on the Consideration scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. scale teachers in Test Hypotheses C's Cl: There is no difference on the Disengagement scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C2: There is no difference on the Hindrance scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C3: There is no difference on the Esprit scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C4: There is no difference on the Intimacy scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C5: There is no difference on the Aloofness scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. 14 C6: There is no difference on the Production Emphasis scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching s c h o o l s . C7: There is no difference on Thrust scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C8: There is no difference on Consideration scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. Overview Chapter I develops study. Introduction, the frame of reference for the entire statement of the problem, significance of the study, basic assumptions, definition of the terms, and general hypotheses and test hypotheses are presented in this chapter. The literature relevant to the study is reviewed in essentially a thematic approach in Chapter II. This includes the related researches in the investigation of the organiza­ tional climate, team teaching, and middle school. Chapter III describes the research methodology, techniques, sampling implementation of survey instrument, and statis­ tical treatment of the data. The presentation of the research findings in tables and charts and analysis of multivariance of the data constitute Chapter IV. The summary of the findings begins Chapter V. The conclusions and implications for further study end the chapter. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduc tion The literature and research reports reviewed here are reported under three subject headings. First is a summary of relevant material about the middle school as an emerging institution. Then follows a section on team teaching as it is variously understood and reported. The last section will deal with the phenomenon widely recognized as organizational climate. Middle School In the nineteenth century the eight-grade elementary school and the four-year secondary school had become the dominant pattern of public school organization. By about 1910, a small but growing number of school districts adopted the six-year elementary and six-year secondary plan. With the extreme age range between grade seven and twelve, it came to seem practical to put half the grades in a junior high and half in a senior high school. At the same time, shocking studies of dropouts called attention to the need for programs which better met the needs of many youngsters in grades seven through nine. 15 A change in 16 the handling of these students was hastened after publication of Hall's classic A d o l e s c e n c e , which looked upon the young adolescent as a "new breed" passing through a period of ferment and u p h e a v a l .^ Changes in educational philosophy, under the leadership of Dewey, demanded reform and reaction against the traditional school, and adoption of the junior high school became a "thing to do," a dramatic and progressive way to demonstrate a determination to eliminate the weakness of schools and the past. However, by the middle of the twentieth century, a r g u ­ ments for the junior high school had begun to lose force. The legal age for children to leave school had been raised to sixteen in most states and to eighteen in others. age of puberty had dropped approximately one year. The mean 15 At the same time, educators began to question whether sixth grade youngsters might relate better to a social atmosphere which embraced seventh and eighth graders. In addition, the junior high school had seemed to many to have become a social copy of the senior high school wit h "excessive emphasis on •^Stanley G. Sanders, "Challenge of the Middle School," in Romano, et al, edited, op. cit., pp. 6-27. ■^Margaret Mead, "Are We Squeezing Out Adolescents?," The Education D i g e s t , Vol. 26: No. 3, November, 1960, pp. 5-8. 17 activities such as varsity athletic teams, pep rallies, marching bands, cheerleaders, class proms, and even graduation exercise.' 1 The curriculum for junior high school also tended to parallel that of the high school. Very few core or interdisciplinary programs existed in these schools, making the opportunity for student exploration very restricted. This view was stated by several educators, Gatewood and Walker, 18 and DeVita. Alexander and associates 20 including Conant, 17 19 sum up that interest in a new middle school stems in part from dissatisfaction with what the junior high school has become, not wit h the original conception of function. However, the junior high school of the early twentieth century was intended to be a "middle" •^Donald E. Overly, et al. The Middle School: Humanizing Education for Y o u t h . (Ohio: Charles A. Jones Publishing Company, 1972), p. 19. 17 James Conant. The Middle S c h o o l . A position paper published by Michigan Association of Middle School Educators, 1975, p. 5. 18 Thomas E. Gatewood and George H. Walker, Jr. A Com­ parative Study of Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of M i c h i g a n . June, 1971, ERIC No. 054-530. iq Joseph C. DeVita, et al. The Effective Middle S c ho ol . (New York: Parker Publishing Company, Inc., 1970), p. 17. Of) William Alexander, et al. The Emergent Middle Sch o ol . (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 4. 18 school. This is evident in Popper's The American Middle S c h oo l, quoting him saying that "what over the years we have come to know as the Junior High School is institutionally America's Middle School." Although Popper 99 21 proposed a grade 7-9 organization as "a revitalization program" for "the middle school of tomorrow," Alexander and associates organization. 23 disagreed and supported the 6-8 The middle school of the second half of the twentieth century has been proposed as an organization of grades 6-7-8. However, derivations can be found, some middle schools are composed of only grades 7 and 8, and others includes grades 5-6-7-8. Is the middle school anything more than a junior high school? This question has been debated, argued, cussed and discussed for more than a decade. While the controversy continues to rage, a body of definitions of the middle school that bear a remarkable amount of similarity to each other has developed. A l e x a n d e r ^ called a middle school: ^^Samuel H. Popper. The American Middle School: Organizational A n a l y s i s . (Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1967), p. xi. 99 23 Ib i d ., p . x i i . Alexander, et al, op. cit., p. 4. ^Ibid., p. 5. An 19 "A school providing a program planned for a range of older children, preadolescents, and early adolescents that builds upon the elementary school program for earlier childhood and in turn is built upon by the high school's program for adolescents." Georgiady and Romano 25 define it as: "An educational unit with a philosophy, structure and program whi ch will realistically and appropriately deal with 11 to 14 year olds as they indeed are and behave. Its commitment is primarily to the youth it seeks to serve." Midjaas 26 describes the middle school in relation to his effort to humanize school curriculum: "The middle school may be a good place to begin for it is the middle school whi ch has recognized the very special needs of young people between the ages 10 and 14 years, it is the middle school which has emphasized the importance of wide exploratory activities as these young people try to understand themselves and others, it is the middle school which encourages a warm and supportive environment for learners who are no longer children and not yet adults, and it is the middle school which has thus far escaped the rigid and stereotyped curriculum which characterizes so much of education." DeVita and o t h e r s ^ give a brief definition of middle school as follows: 25 Louis Romano, guest editor. Michigan Journal of Secondary E d u c a t i o n . (Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Summer 1971). ^^Carl L. Midjaas, "The Middle School: A n Opportunity for Humanized Education." An address delivered to the Northern Michigan University Planning Symposium. (Marquette, Michigan, May 8, 1970), p. 4. 27 DeVita, et al, op. cit., p. 26. 20 "The middle school is a school that tries to structure a child's education for him and around him. It considers who he is, where he is, what his needs are, and what his potential is." The middle school concept rapidly grew in popularity during the I960's. The Research Division of the National Education Association reported in a survey conducted in 1965 of the growing number of middle schools scattered throughout the country. Cuff^ reported in his study that in the 1965- 1966 school year 499 middle schools were operating. Alexander Tyrrell 30 29 reported 1,101 middle schools in his 1968 survey. pointed out an increase in number of middle schools to at least 1,300 by the school year 1969-1970. recent study by Raymer 31 The most in 1974 showed a total of 1,996 middle schools in the United States. A carefully thought out philosophy is essential as a O O William A. Cuff, "Middle Schools on the March," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bu l l e t i n , Vol. 57, February, 1967, pp. 83-86. 29 Willaim M. Alexander. A Survey of Organizational Patterns of Reorganized Middle S c h o o l s . (Washington, D.C.: USOE, Bureau of Research, 1968), p. 10. 90 Ronald W. Tyrrell, "The Open Middle School: A Model for Change," National Association of Secondary School Princi­ pals B u l l e t i n , Vol. 64, April, 1974, pp. 62-66 ^ J o e T. Raymer. A Study to Identify Middle Schools and to Determine the Current Level of Implementation of Eighteen Basic Middle School Characteristics in Selected United States and Michigan Schools. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974), p. 77. 22 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. the preparation for adulthood. Physical Experiences - student involvement in the program as a participant rather than as a spec t at or . Intramural Activities - student involvement in the program as a participant. Team Teaching - opportunity for teacher talents to reach greater number of students and for teacher weakness to be minimized. Planned Gradualism - experiences the middle school provides to assist early adolescents in making the transition from childhood dependence to adult independence, thereby helping them bridge the gap between elementary school and high school. Exploratory and Enrichment Studies - to widen the range of educational training, and enrich the student's concept of himself and world around him. Guidance Services - puberty and its many p r o ­ blems require expert guidance for the youngsters. Both group and individual guidance services for all students are desirable. Independent Study - child's own intellectual curiosity motivates him to carry on independent­ ly of the group, with the teacher serving as a resource person. Basic Skill Repair and Extension - basic e du c a ­ tion program should be extended in the middle school because of individual differences, some youngsters have not entirely mastered the basic skills. Creative Experience - opportunities for students to engage in activities involving divergent thinking, exploration of various avenues to various possible answers and expre s ­ sion of inner personal feelings. Security Factor - need for someone in school that he can be comfortable with: a teacher who knows him well and whom he relates to in a positive manner, and a peer group that meets r e g ul ar ly . Evaluation - should be personal, positive in nature, non-threatening, and strictly indivi­ dualized . Community Relations - develop and maintain programs to inform, to entertain, to educate, 23 17. 18. and to understand the community. Encourage the use of school facilities by community groups. Student Services - such as health services, counseling services, testing, are desirable. Additional services can be derived from community, county and state agencies. Auxiliary Staffing - includes volunteer parents, teacher aides, clerical aides, student v o l u n ­ teers, and the like. Properly interpreted, the middle school movement is more than a mere change in name, another shifting of grades, or different organizational arrangement. According to A/ Atkins, "it is a fundamental bid to reassert its indepen­ dence from both elementary and the secondary school. belongs to neither; It it has an integrity of its own derived from the special needs of the age group it serves." The concept upon which it is built is a complex one. The greatest danger for the middle school is that it will be misinterpreted, oversimplified, and flattened into a p r e ­ packaged format. Another pitfall is that its proponents will become discouraged if it does not bring instantaneous improve­ ments in the quality of learning. It might fall victim to premature evaluation or overselling. There is a chance, too, Neil P. Atkins, "Rethinking Education in the Middle," in James E. Hertling and Howard G. Getz, edited, Education for the Middle School Years: R e a d i n g s . (Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1971), p. 23. 24 that it will become an oasis, however, enlightened, which will increase rather than ameliorate the articulation problems problems between both the lower and the upper school. Team Teaching Being a part of the middle school, likely to have similar pitfalls. team teaching is The precautions given in the case of the middle school can also be applied to the team teaching concept. Team teaching was conceived by Francis Keppel, former Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Judson T. Shaplin, former Assistant Dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. However, Robert H. Anderson has come to be regarded by name as "the father of team teaching," through his years of leadership in implementing this concept. Much of this professional interest has undoubtedly been stimulated by the Committee on Staff Utilization, appointed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals and supported by the Fund for the Advancement of Education, and by its chief spokesman and secretary, J. Lloyd Trump. Each year since 1958 this Committee has issued extensive reports of projects which it has sponsored. In 1958 team teaching was barely mentioned in the annual collection of these reports; only one school system appeared 25 to develop a team teaching project during the 1956-1957 period reported. 35 In contrast, in the 1961 annual Bulletin more than half of the reports specifically mention team teaching. Trump has written pamphlets which encourage e x p e r ­ imentation with staff utilization and which indicate ways by which experiments may be undertaken. Following his lead, many schools have started team teaching. The keystone in a rationale for team teaching is the belief that the total accomplishment of the group can be greater than the sum talents of the individual teachers. It is the hope that the cooperative endeavor will produce results that are greater and more far-reaching than isolated indivi­ dual efforts."^ In insuring the success of the educational enterprise, or any kind of enterprise for that matter, group productivity seems to receive greater emphasis than individual productivity. This notion is supported by Blua's "Cooperation and Competition in a Bureaucracy." 37 A cooperative approach to task 35 Judson T. Shaplin and Henry F. Olds, Jr., edited. Team T e a c h i n g . (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 4. Lobb, op. cit., p. 8. 37 Peter M. Blau, "Cooperation and Competition in a Bureaucracy," The American Journal of S oc i ol og y, Vol. 59: No. 6, May, 1954, pp. 530-535. 26 performance would, on the basis of Blau's study, appear to be advantageous in terms of furthering the total productivity of a group. While the competitive situation promoted in­ creased productivity on the part of the most competitive individual in the group, the total production of the group was less than that of the cooperative group. People become members of groups for many reasons. Verner and Newberry 38 present evidence that people are joiners and like to participate in all type of activities, many for the purpose of improving a situation or their own proficien­ cies. Team teaching brings teachers together to see other types of teaching and allow a more flexible approach to teaching. This joint responsibility, quoting Lobb,^^ "requires more than an informal or occasional involvement of two or more teachers who happen to have coincident plans." In other words, a good deal of planning, good staff relation­ ship, and well balanced and integrated materials are required to provide a continuous vehicle for teacher growth, learning, making, student teacher involvement in key academic decision­ teacher status, sound research, and modern OO Coolie Verner and John S. Newberry, Jr., "Nature of Adult Participation," Adult E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 8: No. 4, summer 1958, pp. 208-222. 39 Lobb, op. cit., p. 12. 27 evaluation. /1 Shaplin has developed a fairly broad definition of team teaching a s : . . a type of instructional organization, in­ volving teaching personnel and the students assigned to them, in which two or more teachers are given responsibility, working together, for all or a significant part of the instruction of the same group of students." Chamberlin 42 calls it: ". . . a method of organizing teachers, children, space, and curriculum which requires several teachers, as a group, to plan, conduct, and e v a ­ luate the educational program for all of the children assigned to them." Romano, like other proponents of team teaching, proposes in a similar definition that team teaching is an instructional organization of "two or more teachers working together, who through planning and communication, jointly implement learning objectives for each individual student." Dean and Witherspoon brought the concept of team teaching into perspective by saying: ^ W i l l i a m Goldstein, "Problems in Team Teaching," The Clearing H o u s e , Vol. 42: No. 2, October, 1967, pp. 86. /1 Shaplin and Olds, op. cit., p. 15. /O Leslie J. Chamberlin. Team Teaching: Organization and A d m i n is t ra ti on . (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Company, 1969), p. 16. /3 Louis G. Romano. Team T e a ch in g. Preliminary draft, 1975, p. 1. 28 "The heart of the concept of team teaching lies not in details of structure and organization but more in the essential spirit of cooperative pl a n ­ ning, constant collaboration, close unity, u n ­ restrained communication, and sincere sharing. It is reflected not in a group of individual articu­ lating together, but rather in a group which is a single, unified team. Inherent in the plan is an increased degree of flexibility for teacher respon­ sibility, grouping policies and practices, and size of the groups, and an invigorating spirit of free­ dom and opportunity to revamp programs to meet the educational needs of c h i l d r e n ."4-4 A1though team teaching takes a variety of formats, Romano^“* offers the following classifications: (1) interdis­ ciplinary teaming, (2) block time teaming, pline teaming, and (4) inter-aged or nongraded teaming. 1. (3) single d i s c i ­ Interdisciplinary Teaming - involves four teachers, one from each subject area (language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science), who share responsibilities over approximately 120 students. There are two approaches to this kind of teaming, the thematic approach and the pre and post testing approach. The first has to do with developing units of study around themes such as "Ecology," "Communication," "Transporta- Stuart E. Dean and Clinnette F. Witherspoon, "Team Teaching in the Elementary School," Education Briefs No. 3 8 , (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, January 1962), p. 4. ^Romano, 1975, op, cit., pp. 1-3. 29 tion," etc. The other requires pretest for all students for the purpose of grouping them according to instruc tional needs. The post test is used to find out if the goal of the unit is met. structional area. All teachers teach each in­ Figure 2.1 shows the layout of the model for interdisciplinary teaming. A B C D CJ 120 STUDENTS Figure 2.1 2. Model for Four Teacher Interdisciplinary Team. Block Time Teaching - involves teachers from two instruc­ tional areas such as math/science or social studies/ language arts. Both teach each subject but one develops the plans for one instructional area. work with two teams of students. 3. Single Discipline Teaming - involves Both teachers (See Figure 2.2) two or more teachers in the same subject area who share responsibilities for that particular subject (see Figure 2.3). 30 TEACHER TEACHER D C SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES 60 STUDENTS 60 STUDENTS Figure 2.2 SCIENCE MATH Model for Block Time Teaching, TEACHER A TEACHER B M ATH MAT H 60 STUDENTS 90 STUDENTS Figure 2.3 Model for Single Discipline Teaming. C 31 4. Inter-aged or Nongraded Teaming - involves placing s t u ­ dents on teams without regard to age or grade level. It can be used with all of the above types of team teaching. Team teaching provides numerous advantages for admi ni s ­ trative purpose, instructional improvement, and student learning experiences. These advantages can be summarized as follow 1. It provides a convenient administrative unit, smaller than department and larger than the individual class, for facilitating flexibility of grouping for instruction. 2. It provides responsibility of the team to take advantage of the opportunities offered to analyze the instruc­ tional needs of students, to provide optimum groupings for instruction, and to adapt curricula and teaching methods to these new arrangements. 3. It provides an organizational vehicle for speciali­ zation (a team of teachers in complementary skills, or a team of teachers in a single subject with various specialties) which may lead to improvements in instruction and to more effective use of teaching talent. 4. It provides a way of organizing for the improvement ^ S h a p l i n and Olds, op. cit., pp. 12-19. 32 of supervision in the schools and supervisors) (lack of time of the principals so that it becomes possible to assign greater responsibility for the curriculum and for the supervision of other teachers to those teachers who are more knowledgeable, more expert, and more willing and able to accept leadership. The outlines of team teaching began to appear at Englewood, Florida and Carson City, Michigan in 1956. There were also team teaching projects being carried out in Norwalk, Connecticut, Flint, Michigan, Evanston Township, Fort Wayne, Illinois, Indiana, Wayland, Massachusetts, Montgomery C o u n ­ ty, Maryland, Palo Alto, California, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Norridge, Illinois. The Harvard-Lexington Program, which included school systems of Concord, Lexington and Newton, Massachusetts joining Harvard University in the School and University Program for Research and Development (SUPRAD), has developed many of the distinguishing features of the team approach, which is now being used with variations throughout the country. The Claremont Graduate School, in Claremont, California, wit h grants from Ford Foundation Fund for the Advancement of Education, instituted teaching teams in many of the schools in Southern California. The Claremont projects represents some of the best team teaching efforts in the nation. Around 1964, research in team teaching conducted by Bair and Woodward^^ showed that the impact of teaming on the teachers was generally positive. They also found that team teachers willingly worked longer hours. Canton's Model School, an ESEA Title III project on team teaching begun in 1971, in Ohio, success. showed considerable Teachers' comments after one-year of participation in the program can be summarized in statements such as "I learn so much more now that I meet w i t h other teachers rather than when I was in a self-contained room"; "Pupils' needs are being met so m uc h better than ever before due to the team teaching and flexible grouping"; and "I have developed a need and desire to change old methods of organization and instruc­ tion, as well as a much keener sensitivity to the problems of other teachers. Other studies such as one by Samuels 49 found that students of junior high school age preferred team teaching, ^ M e d i l l Bair and Richard G. Woodward. Team Teaching in Action. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1964), p. 215. AO Wes Measel and Glen Fincher, "Team Teaching in Canton's Model School," Educational L e a d e r s h i p , Vol. 29:No. 6, March 1972, p. 522. 49 S. Samuels, et al. The Influence of Team Teaching and Flexible Grouping on Attitudes of Junior High School s t u de nt s. Final report. (Albany: Ne w York State E x p e r i ­ mental and Innovation Programs, New York State Board of Education, Division of Research, 1969). 34 while that of Bowering and S p l a i n e ' s ^ revealed that students perceived team teaching as being more effective. Foley 51 discovered a positive relation between the leadership behavior of the team leader and the morale of team members. However, there are studies that indicate the probability of failure of team teaching when there are personality clashes, inability of most teachers to integrate materials and a lack of planning time. Dolan's study 52 of 180 midwestern teachers revealed that an overall measure of openness did not d i s ­ criminate between teachers who had participated in a team teaching project and those who had not. however, It does appear, that innovations such as team teaching do not, either alone or in combination, result in detrimental effects on cognitive or effective outcomes. Overall, the research to date indicates that such 50 D. J. Bowering and J. E. Splaine, "Team Teaching: Student Perceptions of Two Contrasting Models," Paper p r e ­ sented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology convention, March 1974. (ERIC No. ED 086-240). "^Gerald F. Foley. A Study of the Relationships Between Team Leaders' Leadership Behavior and the Morale and Effectiveness of their Team Members. (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1971), p . 62. 52 John Influence in Perceived by (Unpublished pp. 45-55. A. Dolan. An Investigation of ParticipationDecision Making and Organizational Climate as Secondary School Team and Non-Team Teachers. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tulsa, 1969) 35 innovations, when properly interpreted and implemented, may be a step toward educational improvement and are valid alternatives to the traditional mode of teaching. Many educators believe that the self-contained clas s­ room will not fully utilize the current developments in educa­ tional technology and that it cannot completely satisfy the need for greater individualization of the instruction. tionally, Na­ there have been several attempts to change from the self-contained classroom concept to some organizational p a t ­ tern that is more efficient both educationally and economical­ ly. Perhaps the most educationally effective teaching situa­ tion would be a one teacher-one student ratio; however, this pattern would obviously not be workable because of the finan­ cial and human support it would require. Nevertheless, pro­ viding individual attention is a desirable goal, and there are efforts to achieve it in the instructional organizations being investigated. Team teaching is not a universal remedy for all that ails our traditional instructional practices. of organizing teachers, children, It is a method space, and the curriculum which emphasize flexibility and so may provide a teachinglearning climate potential. in which a student can reach his fullest It may be the means of meeting many of the current educational needs of this country, especially the 36 need for greater individualization of instruction and more knowledgeable teachers for the classrooms. Organizational Climate Organizational climate is a very general concept which may involve almost anything that happens in an organization. Climate is related to other terms such as situation, c on d i ­ tions , c i r c u ms t an ce s, and e nv ir on me n t. These terms have been used by various sources to describe or explain the quality of organization-individual interactions or the differences in behavior of individuals and groups when faced with similar problems or tasks. Attempts to measure organizational climate have reflected the generality of the concept by soliciting, through a questionnaire format, the perceptions of members of organizations relative to a wide variety of topics presumed to be relevant to the climate which exists in the particular organization. Although there are many ways of defining climate, in every case it refers to some aspect of the situation which affects the behavior of an individual or a group. Cornell 53 first used the term "organizational climate" and defined it as "a delicate blending of interpretations by persons in the CO Francis G. Cornell, "Socially Perceptive A dministra­ tion," Phi Delta K a p p a n , Vol. 36: No. 6, March, 1955> p. 222. 37 organization of their jobs or roles in relationship to others and their interpretations of the roles of others in the organization." Tagiuri-^ offers the following definition for organizational climate: "Organizational climate is a relatively enduring quality of the internal environment of an organiza­ tion that (a) is experienced by its members, (b) influences their behavior, and (c) can be described in terms of values of a parcicular set of c h ar ac ­ teristics (or attributes) of the organization.:: Halpin and Croft^^ are probably most noted for their use of organizational climate as a concept. H a l p i n 1s definition of organizational climate best sums up an integrated concept of organizational climate. His words are, "Analogously, p e r ­ sonality is to the individual what Organizational Climate is to the organization. Tagiuri 57 states the following difficulties which must be solved before the concept of organizational climate +Renato Tagiuri and George Litwin, edited. Organ iz a ­ tional Climate: Explorations of a C o n c e p t . (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1968), p. 27. 55 Andrew W. Halpin and Don B. Croft. The Organizational Climate of S c h oo ls . (U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Contract No. SAE 543(8639), 1962). ^^Halpin, 1966, op. cit., p. 142. "^Tagiuri and Litwin, op. cit., p. 13. 38 can be used wi t h any degree of agreement on a definition: 1. 2. 3. 4. Distinguishing between the objective and subjective environment. Distinguishing between the person and the situation. Determining what aspects of the environment need to be specified. Identifying the structures and dynamics of the enviro nm en t. This study, however, views organizational climate as a dependent variable; that is, we want to see how team teaching affects organizational climate rather than vice versa. The term organizational climate is used to refer to the idea of perceived environmental quality. 58 Likert says the supervisory act alone does not determine the subordinate’s response. The subordinate's reaction to the supervisor's behavior always depends upon the relationship between the supervisory act as perceived by the subordinate and the expectations, values, and interpersonal skills of the subordinate. Halpin, 59 Obviously, noted each teacher's perception of the school's climate is mediated through his set of personal values and needs. When, for example, a faculty describes the organizational climate of its school as Open, the question "Is it really Open?" is unanswerable and irrelevant. The climate is Open cr o York: Rensis Likert. New Patterns of M a n a g e m e n t . McGraw Hill, Inc., 1961), p. 95. "^Halpin, 1966, op. cit., p. 147. (New if the faculty perceives it as Open. Faber and Shearron propose along the same line that in order, an interaction viewed as supportive, therefore, 60 to have it is essential that this interaction be of such a character that the individual himself in the light of his experience and expectations sees it as supportive. After being involved in leadership behavior research, Halpin and Croft constructed an instrument which would measure certain aspects of the environment or organizational climate of the schools. In the process of completion of the instrument whic h was called Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ), these researchers developed, factor analysis, through eight aspects of organizational climate. The eight subtests 61 are described as follow: Teacher's Behavior 1. Disengagement refers to the teachers' tendency to be "not w i t h it." This dimension describes a group which is "going through the motions," a group that is "not in gear" with respect to the task at hand. 2* Hindrance refers to the teachers' feeling that the principal burdens them wit h routine duties, committee demands, and other requirements which 60 Charles F. Faber and Gilbert F. Shearron Elementary School Administration: Theory and Pr a c t i c e . (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1970), p. 287. 61 Halpin, 1966, op. cit., p. 150-151 40 the teachers construe as unnecessary "busywork." The teachers perceive that the principal is hindering rather than facilitating their work. 3* Esprit refers to morale. The teachers feel that their social needs are being satisfied, and that they are, at the same time, enjoying a sense of accomplishment in their job. Intimacy refers to the teachers' enjoyment of friendly social relations with each other. P r i n c i p a l 's Behavior 5. Aloofness refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized as formal and impersonal. His behavior, in brief, is universalistic rather than particularistic; nomothetic rather than idiosyncratic. 6. Production Emphasis refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by close supervision of the staff. His communication tends to go in only one direction, and he is not sensitive to feedback from the staff. 7* Thrust refers to behavior by the principal which is characterized by his evident effort in trying to "move the organization." Thrust behavior is marked not by close supervision, but by the principal's attempt to motivate the teachers through the example which he personal­ ly sets. 8. Consideration refers to behavior by the princi­ pal whi ch is characterized by an inclination to treat the teachers "humanly," to try to do a little something extra for them in human terms. Using this instrument, Halpin and Croft were able to identify six climates as listed below: 6 2 Ibid., pp. 166-173. The Open Climate depicts a situation in which the members enjoy extremely high Esprit. Its mai n characteristic is the "authenticity" of the behavior that occurs among all the members. The members enjoy friendly relations, obtain considerable job satisfaction, and are motivated to overcome difficulties and frustrations. They are proud of their school, but apparently feel no need of an extremely high degree of Inti ma cy . The principal's behavior can be charac­ terized as genuine. He is flexible and can meet the demands of the situation whether controlling and directing the activities of others or going out of his way to help satisfy the social needs of another. He has confidence in himself and others and does not need to monitor the teachers' activities too closely. He is in control of the situation and clearly provides leadership for the staff. The Autonomous Climate is best characterized as one in whic h leadership acts emerge primarily from the group. The principal gives the teachers almost complete freedom to provide the_ir own structures-for-interaction. There is a relatively high degree of Esprit and Intimacy. Satisfying social needs takes precedence over task-achievement need satisfaction. The principal remains aloof from the teachers and runs the organization in a businesslike and rather impersonal manner. He sets an example by working hard himself. He is genuine and flexible but his range of administrative behavior, as c o m ­ pared to that of the principal in the Open Climate, is more restricted. The Controlled Climate is characterized, above everything else, as highly task-oriented and impersonal. The teachers are there to get the job done and expect directives telling them how to do it. There is an excessive amount of r o u ­ tine reports and busywork, which seems to be accepted as a necessary part of the job. Every­ one is too busy to indulge in social-need satis­ faction; in fact, social isolation is common. Nevertheless, Esprit is slightly above average 42 and is probably the result of task-accomplish­ ment satisfaction. Authentic behavior is lac k ­ ing because the group is disproportionately p r e ­ occupied with task accomplishment. 4. The Familiar Climate is characterized by the conspicuously friendly manner of both the p r i n ­ cipal and the teachers and the lack of control or direction. The principal makes the work as easy as possible for the teachers through p r o ­ cedural help and not burdening them wit h routine reports and busywork. Social-needs satisfaction is extremely high while task-achievement is very low. Esprit is average and stems almost e n t i re ­ ly from social-needs satisfaction. The behavior theme of the principal is, essentially, "Let's all be a happy family." He is reluctant to be anything other than c o n ­ siderate lest he may destroy this "happy fa m i­ ly" feeling. 5. The Paternal Climate is characterized mainly as one in which the principal feels that he must initiate all leadership acts and know every thing about everything that is going on. He does much of the busywork himself, thus reliev­ ing the teachers of these chores. The teachers have given up trying, and let .the principal take care of things as best he can. The tea ­ chers do not work well together and are split into factions. Inadequate social-needs sat is ­ faction and task-accomplishment result in low Esprit. The climate is partly closed. 6. The Closed Climate is the least genuine of all. The principal is ineffective in directing the activities of the teachers; at the same time is not inclined to look out for their personal welfare. He is highly aloof and impersonal. His frequent cry^ is "Let's work harder," and sets up rules and regulations about how to get things done. The teachers view him as a "phony." The teachers do not work well together. Task-accomplishment and social-needs satisfac­ tion are both minimal and are reflected in low Esprit. At the same time the principal seems incapable of doing anything constructive about the situation. 43 Most researches in organizational climate deal p r im a­ rily with the type of school, or the achievement of the students, or the characteristics of the principal. Very little has been done with teachers in relation to a type of instructional organization such as team teaching. In the studies of socioeconomic status of the school in relation to organizational climate using the OCDQ, Sommerville, Gentry and Kenney 64 63 and revealed that high socioeconomic status schools were found to have a significantly more open climate. Guy's study, 65 drawn from nineteen elementary schools, found no relationships between the OCDQ subscale scores and the socioeconomic status of the schools. Bushinger^ found that schools classified as closed on Joseph C. Sommerville. A n Investigation of the R e l a ­ tionship Between the School Organizational Climate and SelfConcept, Level of Aspiration, Attitude and Opinion of Students About School. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1969), pp. 103-123. 64 Harold W. Gentry and James B. Kenney, "The Relation­ ship Between the Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools and School Location, School Size, and the Economic Level of the School Community," Urban E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 3: No. 1, 1967, pp. 19-30. Renzo M. Guy II. The Relationships Between Organiza­ tional Climate, Leadership, and Progress. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, 1970), pp. 108-132. 66 Joseph S. Bushinger. Organizational Climate and Its Relationship to School Dropouts. (Unpublished Ed.D. disserta­ tion, Rutgers University, 1966), pp. 95-135. 44 the basis of OCDQ climate profiles have significantly higher dropout rates. Flagg, 67 in his attempt to establish relation­ ships between the OCDQ scores and student achievement in ten urban schools, found no significant relationships between openness of climate and pupil achievement. M a r c u m ^ and Reynoldson^^ found in their separate studies that the innovativeness of a school is positively correlated with the openness of the school as determined by the OCDQ climate profile. McLeod^ revealed in his study that schools wit h more open climates are administered by principals whose length of service in the system is relatively short. Marcum^ 67 Joseph T. Flagg, Jr. The Organizational Climate of Schools: Its Relation to Pupil Achievement, Size of School, and Teacher Turnover. (Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 1964), p. 84. 68 R. Laverne Marcum. Organizational Climate and the Adoption of Educational Innovation. (USOE Cooperative R e ­ search Program, Grant No. OEG-4-7-078119-2901, Utah State University, Logan, 1968), pp. 71-73. 69 Roger L. Reynoldson. The Interrelationships Between the Decision-Making Process and the Innovativeness of Public S c h o o l s . (USOE Cooperative Research Program, Grant No. OEG8-8-080015-2005(057), Utah State University, Logan, 1969), p p . 20-25 and 36-39. ^ R o n a l d K. McLeod. Relationship of Staff Size and Selected Staff Variables to the Organizational Climate of Elementary Schools. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado, 1969), pp. 52-59. ^Marcum, op. cit., pp. 71-73. 45 encountered the same finding as McLeod's, and also, in ad d i ­ tion, concluded that schools identified as more open through administration of the OCDQ have younger principals. contrary, Bennett 72 On the observed on the basis of his study of 438 teachers and principals that relatively lengthy principal tenure in the system is related to more open climates as indicated by the OCDQ. however, Phillips and Todd, 73 and Laosunthorn, 74 found no significant relationships between climate and the length of the principal service in the school. Carver and Sergiovanni, 75 in addition to many researchers who engaged in studies of organizational climate in the second­ ary schools, have found that no secondary schools fell in 72 Robert E. Bennett. A n Analysis of the Relationship of Organizational Climate to Innovations in Selected Secondary Schools of Pennsylvania and New York. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1968), pp. 87-105. 73 Jerry L. Phillips and Donald F. Todd. The Relation­ ship of Principals' Leadership Training and Personality to the Organizational Climates of Schools. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1969), pp. 66-69. 74 Vuti Laosunthorn. A Comparison of Mobile with NonMobile Elementary School Principals on the Basis of School Climate. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975), p. 78. 75 Fred D. Carver and Thomas J. Sergiovanni, "Some Notes on the OCDQ," Journal of Educational A dm inistration, Vol. 7, M a y 1969, pp. 78-81. 46 the open half of the climate continuum. These studies have raised questions relative to the appropriateness of using the OCDQ, designed for elementary school use, in a secondary school. 76 Andrews concluded that the OCDQ is "...as valid for other kinds of schools as it is for elementary school." From the extensive review of literature in the area of team teaching and organizational climate, this researcher finds that the OCDQ is a suitable means to measure the climate of the selected middle schools. Because of the scarcity of literature on the effects of team teaching on the school climate, the two topics are presented here thematically separate. ^ J o h n H. M. Andrews, "School Organizational Climate: Some Validity Studies," Canadian Education and Research D i g e s t , Vol. 5, December 1965, pp. 317-334. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES Introduction The data for this study were collected from the middle school teachers in eight selected middle schools in the triangular area of Lansing-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor in the state of Michigan. for data collection, ment The selection of population, procedures instrumentation and statistical treat­ utilized to test the relationship hypothesized in Chapter I are presented and discussed in this chapter. Population The subjects intended for this study are teachers, in schools to be selected, in the academic areas - language arts, social studies, mathematics, and science. Population included the middle schools in the vicinity of the triangle of Lansing-Battle Creek-Ann Arbor area during the year 1976. They are the middle schools reporting as having employed team teaching. The middle schools in the following school districts were picked for sampling: Bellevue, Dexter, Eaton Rapids, Grand Ledge, Laingsburg, Marshall, Okemos, Plymouth, Portland, Potterville, Springport, Williamston, and Ypsilanti. Telephone interviews with the principals of the middle schools mentioned above were conducted. 47 They were 48 asked to describe the type of team teaching they have, based on the definition given in Chapter I and in any given form of team teaching described in Chapter II. Only four schools fitted the specification for this study. For the purpose of comparison another four completely non-team teaching schools were selected to match the four chosen team teaching schools in terms of the size of the school, student population, and the type of community. Methodology of the Study A letter (see Appendix A) was sent to each of these eight school principals for permission to conduct the survey. All granted permission. Appointments were made for the r e ­ searcher to administer the questionnaires at the weekly staff meeting day in each school. The questionnaires were d i s tr i­ buted to the academic teachers in a group situation in order to avoid any consultation among teachers; than thirty minutes for administration. it required no more Packets of question­ naires were left wit h the building principals for teachers absent from the staff meeting. Each packet of questionnaires contained the same directions as given at the meeting Appendix B). (see A self-addressed envelope was provided with each packet of questionnaires for teachers to mail directly to the researcher after the completion of the form to ensure their 49 anonymity. The eligible participants in this study were 191 teach­ ers, total return was 190 (see Table 3.1). School buildings numbered 1-4 are schools employing team teaching. of these schools there are two groups: and the non-team teachers (NTT). In each team teachers (TT) School buildings numbered 5-8 are completely non-team teaching schools. There was a total of 46 team teachers, 56 non-team teachers in team teaching schools (TTS), and 88 non-team teachers non-team teaching schools (NTTN) in (NTTS). The method used in choosing subjects for this study imposes limits upon the generalizability of the conclusions to be drawn. Therefore, the population from which this study makes direct inferences include only these eight selected schools. Instrumentation The Organizational Climate Description Questionnaire (OCDQ) was employed to measure the organizational climate of the schools selected for this study. Halpin and Croft 77 con­ structed this instrument by screening and testing over 1000 77 Halpin, op. cit., p. 174-181 50 Table 3.1 The Participants in the Study. Number of NTT** Number of NTTN*** Total Building Number Number of 1 10 9 - 19 2 17 16 - 33 3 11 14 - 25 4 8 17 - 25 5 - - 21 21 6 - - 26 26 7 - - 24 24 8 - - 17 17 88 190 Total 46 56 “Team teachers in team teaching schools. “ “Non-team teachers in team teaching schools. ***Non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. 51 items on elementary school populations until 64 items were finally selected to make up the OCDQ. The population was drawn from 1151 respondents in 71 elementary schools chosen from six different regions of the United States. The responses were grouped for scoring into eight categories each measuring one of the eight dimensions of organizational climate. Four of these dimensions (Disengage­ ment, Hindrance, Esprit, and Intimacy) describe the behavior of teachers and the other four (Aloofness, Production-Emphasis, Thrust, and Consideration) describe the principal's behavior. The descriptions for each of these dimensions were presented earlier in Chapter II. two parts. Part I is the OCDQ which contains Items 1-64 and Part II, Items 65-70, the teacher. The survey form used consisted of include general biographical data of (See Appendix B) Each respondent is asked to indicate the frequency of the indicated behavior in his school according to the 78 following scale ; 1. Rarely occurs 2. Sometimes occurs 3. Often occurs ^Halpin, op. cit., p. 146. 52 4. Very frequently occurs The scoring scheme is set out in Appendix C. The reliability of the OCDQ subtest was measured by three methods, which were the split-half method, the c o m ­ parison of even and odd numbered respondents1s c o re s, and the computation of the test score commonalities from the three factor rotational solution of the eight subtests. third method, since high commonality can only occur when there is equivalence, the commonality was interpreted as a coeffi­ cient of equivalence. reliability, In the Using all these methods for estimating the OCDQ subtests were determined to be suffi- ciently dependable. 79 The validity of the OCDQ has also been tested in several ways. 80 McFadden used the ratings by non-participant observers to compare to the actual subtest scores. approach by Andrews 81 Another was to compare other scales which p u r ­ port to measure similar concepts. The most direct approach to validation of the OCDQ is through replication of the ori- 79 Halpin and Croft, op. cit., p. 65 80 Edward Clayton McFadden, ’’The Non-Participant O b ­ server and Organizational Climate," (Unpublished Ph. D. d i s ­ sertation, Stanford University, 1966), p. 68-74 81 Andrews, op. cit., p. 330. 53 QO original study. All of these students produced no statis­ tically significant differences from the original OCDQ study. All showed that the subtests of the OCDQ are reasonably valid measures of aspects of organizational climate. Treatment of Data The responded frequency of the behavior described in the OCDQ was scored 1, 2, 3, or 4 representing teachers' responses: rarely occurs, sometimes occurs, often occurs, or very frequently occurs, respectively. Negative scoring was required on some items marked by an asterisk (see Appendix C ) . Data from the questionnaires were coded on the computer data coding cards. Using the computer, IBM Model CDC 6500 at the Michigan State University Computer Center, the data were then computed to get the total score of each subtest for each individual teacher and it was used as a new raw score of the study (see Appendix D ) . Therefore, each teacher ended up with eight total scores for the eight subtests. The statistical analysis process of the data employed two Programs: the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences OO Aldona S. Vanderlain. A Validation of Factor II Esprit of the O.C.D.Q. (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1968), p. 59. 54 (SPSS)^^ and the M u l t i v a r i a t e . ^ The means of the total score were grouped by the building and by the type of teaching in the buildings. The means for the three major groups: Team Teachers, Non-Team Teachers in team teaching schools, and NonTeam Teachers in non-team teaching schools were obtained. The analysis was conducted to test the following h y po t h e s e s : General Hypothesis There are no differences in the perceptions of organiza­ tional climate among team teachers, non-team teachers in team teaching schools, and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools on all of the eight subtests as measured by the OCDQ. Hypothesis A: There are no differences between the perceptions of organizational climate in selected middle schools held by team teachers and by non-team teachers in team teaching schools as measured by the OCDQ. Hypothesis B: There are no differences between the perceptions of organizational climate in selected middle schools held by Norman H. Nie, et al. SPSS: for the Social S ci en ce s. (New York: Company, 1975). 84 Statistical Package McGraw-Hill Book Jeremy D. Finn. M u lt iv ar ia ce : Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Covariance and Regression User's Guide Version V , March 1972, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 55 team teachers and by non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools as measured by the OCDQ. Hypothesis C: There are no differences between the perceptions of organizational climate in selected middle schools held by team teachers and by non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools as measured by the OCDQ. Test Hypotheses A's Al. There is no difference on the Disengagement scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching s c ho o ls . A2. There is no difference on the Hindrance scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching s c h oo l s. A3. There is no difference on between the team teachers in team teaching schools. the Esprit scale and non-team teachers A4. There is no difference on between the team teachers in team teaching schools. the Intimacy scale and non-team teachers A5. There is no difference on between the team teachers in team teaching schools. the Aloofness scale and non-team teachers A6. A7. A8. There is no difference on the Production Emphasis scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. There is no difference on the Thrust scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching s c ho ol s. There is no difference on the Consideration scale between theteam teachers and non-team teachers in team teaching schools. 56 Test Hypotheses B's Bl. There is no difference on the Disengagement scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B2. There is no difference on the Hindrance scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B3. There is no difference on the Esprit scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B4. There is no difference on the Intimacy scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B5. There is no difference on the Aloofness scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B6. There is no difference on the Production Emphasis between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B7. There is no difference on the Thrust scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. B8. There is no difference on the Consideration scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools. Test Hypotheses C's Cl. There is no difference on the Disengagement scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools, C2. There is no difference on the Hindrance scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C3. There is no difference on the E sprit scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C4. There is no difference on the Intimacy scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C5. There is no difference on the Aloofness scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C6. There is no difference on the Production Emphasis between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C7. There is no difference on the Thrust scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. C 8 . There is no difference on the Consideration scale between the team teachers and non-team teachers in both team teaching and non-team teaching schools. The four main features of the analysis consist of the f ol l o w i n g : 1. summary data (means, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation coefficients) of all the eight subscales for each individual school and for each grouping 2. (TT, NTT, and NTTN), a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) which is used to test the hypotheses, 3. presentation of the profile comparison, and 4. summary of descriptive information of demographic variables. Since the nature of the hypotheses is the kind which requires mean comparison among groups, analysis of variance is an appropriate procedure to test them. MANOVA was chosen for the analyses because the study is designed to find out differences across three groups on the eight dependent v a r i a ­ bles (the eight dimensions of organizational c l i m a t e ) . Furthermore, in examining the correlation coefficient among the eight subscales of the norm group and of the sampled group, Thus, the relationships among these variables do exist. it is more desirable to compare the three groups sim ul ­ taneously on eight subscales. For this reason, MANO VA is preferred over univariate analysis of variance. can also control the probability of Type I error overall study to be at the specific level Therefore, Moreover, (ot) of it he (oc. = 0.05). it ascertains the inflation of c c . The analysis of data was conducted in the following manner. First of all, the General Hypotheses was tested using multivariate F-test at the oc level of .05. result was found to be significant, exist. When the it means that contransts Therefore, Post Hoc comparison will be employed using a simple method for comparing one group against another and a complex method for one group against the average mean of other two or more groups. The specific contrasts are described as Hypotheses A, B, and C (see Figure 3.1). significant differences resulted in the contrasts are further investigated through the use of a series of The 59 univariate F-tests. The univariate F-tests were employed to examine which of the variables produce the significance. The univariate F-tests compared two independent variables with only one dependent variable at a time. TEAM TEACHING SCHOOLS TEAM TEACHERS NON-TEAM TEACHERS (NTT) (TT) k 4 t NON-TEAM TEACHING SCHOOLS r a NON-TEAM TEACHERS (NTTN) k B A i A\ C A = B = C = Hypothesis A Hypothesis B Hypothesis C Figure 3.1 = population mean for TT = population mea n for NTT = population mean for NTTN General Hypothesis of the Study. CHAPTER IV ANALYSES OF DATA Introduction The presentation in this chapter leads off with the summary data which includes the means, standard deviation, and Pearson correlation coefficients of all the eight subscales for each individual school and for each grouping (TT, NTT, and N T T N ) . (MANOVA) A multivatiate analysis of variance follows to compare across three groups simultaneously on the eight subscales. If this analysis turned out to be statisti­ cally significant at .05 level, Post Hoc comparisons applied to discover were the specific differences between groups. A statistical table will be presented to display the findings. When any significant Post Hoc contrasts exist, a series of univariate F-tests is employed to examine which of the variables produce the significance. Finally, the summary of the d e s ­ criptive information on demographic variables are reported. Summary of Data The descriptive information showing the average p e r ­ formance and dispersion for each individual building is p r e ­ sented in Table 4.1. The mean ranges from the smallest (1.516) for Hindrance of the non-team teaching school numbered 5 to the largest (3.499) for Thrust of the team teaching group in the 60 61 Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviation Reported by School Building. STANDARD DEVIATION MEANS Esprit IntiD i s e n ­ Hinmacy g a g e ­ drance ment A l o o f - Produc-Thrust Consition Emderaness phasis tion IT 2T 3T 4T IN 2N 3N 4N 2.010 2.082 2.327 1.650 1.667 1.925 2.221 1.776 1.934 2.256 2.665 1.856 2.054 2.062 2.203 2.029 3.060 2.541 2.691 3.438 3.044 2.712 2.657 3.035 2.758 2.488 2.584 2.820 2.367 2.607 2.490 2.572 2.234 1.890 2.030 1.736 2.431 1.801 1.786 1.772 2.416 1.781 2.300 1.751 2.682 1.769 2.011 1.798 3.157 2.680 2.283 3.499 2.543 2.924 2.515 2.960 2.366 2.001 1.879 3.250 1.813 2.104 2.024 2.273 5 6 7 8 1.595 2.008 1.779 2.253 1.516 2.059 2.041 2.315 3.267 2.654 2.879 2.. 300 1.860 2.347 2.644 2.312 1.926 2.137 1.880 2.019 2.177 2.247 2.036 1.874 3.312 2.462 2.532 2.365 2.595 1.756 1.812 2.059 IT 2T 3T 4T IN 2N 3N 4N .285 .300 .310 .200 .357 .470 .395 .412 .345 .664 .610 .538 .353 .501 .428 .433 .171 .549 .459 .288 .343 .344 .369 .395 .422 .410 .552 .213 .259 .476 .365 .353 .481 .280 .178 .325 .323 .185 .284 .336 .376 .242 .304 .498 .419 .299 .303 .368 .429 .598 .582 .353 .593 .611 .424 .581 .680 .518 .428 .417 .490 .416 .362 .460 5 6 7 8 .389 .500 .344 .490 .334 .388 .461 .471 .317 .473 .361 .224 .652 .427 .444 .316 .190 .342 .301 .228 .438 .467 .350 .294 .510 .441 .454 .382 .585 .379 .481 .420 T = Team Teaching N = Non-Team Teachers in team teaching schools 62 forth school building. narrowest While the dispersion ranges from the (.171) for Esprit in the team teaching group in school building numbered one to the widest (.680) for Co n s i ­ deration in the team teaching group in the same school build ing. Table 4.2 shows the same kind of information in the three major groupings (TT, NTT and NTTN). Since the eight subscales are dependent variables, relationships among these variables do exist. Tables showing the correlation coefficient among the eight subscales are presented for examination and comparison between that of the norm group (see Table 4.3) and that of the sampled group (see Table 4.4). Multivariate Analysis of Variance General Hypothesis (MANOVA) (H ) stated that there are no difo ferences in the perceptions of the organizational climate among team teachers, non-team teachers in team teaching schools, and non-team teachers in non-team teaching schools on all the eight subtests as measured by the OCDQ. It is represented in statistical notations as ✓ (0 Xt± V, r xtg s. . M.? ,(i) * £ ? • N where is the population mean of Group 1 (TT), Table 4.2 Means and Standard Deviation Reported by the Grouping: MEAN TT, NTT, and NTTN. STANDARD DEVIATION VARIABLES TT NTT NTTN TT NTT NTTN Disengagement 2.050 1.913 1.894 .352 .452 .486 Hindrance 2.214 2.086 1.974 .631 .435 .492 Esprit 2.846 2.85 2.793 .535 .399 .491 Intimacy 2.627 2.529 2.540 .434 .383 .571 Aloofness 1.972 1.890 1.994 .355 .365 294 Production Emphasis 2.038 1.985 2.101 .443 .464 .417 Thrust 2.831 2.772 2.665 .666 .580 .577 Consideration 2.268 2.089 2.030 .702 .446 .571 Table 4.3 Correlations of the Norm Group Between Eight Scale scores of the OCDQ, Form IV, 64 items (N = 1151)“ Variables 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 . 0 0 i 5 i i 2 . 2 7 1 . 0 0 3 - . 3 6 - . 3 2 1 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 - . 0 7 . 3 1 5 00 x— •1 . 1 5 - . 0 9 6 . 1 7 . 0 8 . 1 2 7 - . 2 2 - . 2 5 . 6 0 r—1 8 . 0 4 - . 1 5 . 4 2 . 3 1 1 . 0 0 O 1 1 . 0 0 x • —1 t—( 00 . 1 7 1 . 0 0 . 1 9 1 . 4 9 o - . 0 7 i— 1 1 . 0 0 1 . 1 3 "Halpin and Croft, Organizational Climate of Scho o ls , p. 49. 1 . 0 0 Table 4.4 Sample Group Correlation Matrix. Variables 1.00 .34 1.00 -.42 39 1.00 -.13 .45 1.00 .15 .09 -.00 -.18 .03 -.07 .25 44 50 .60 -.18 -.36 .39 1.00 .35 1.00 1.00 .26 .04 1.00 66 is the population mean of Group 2 (NTT), and is the population mean of Group 3 (NTTN). The upper subscripts indicate the eight sub tests (dependent variables) 1 is for Disengagement 2 is for Hindrance 3 is for Esprit 4 is for Intimacy 5 is for Aloofness 6 is for Production Emphasis 7 is for Thrust 8 is for Consideration Table 4.5 (Scale 1), (Scale 2), (Scale 3), (Scale 4), (Scale 5), (Scale 6), (Scale 7), and (Scale 8). Result of the multivariate analysis of variance for the General Hypothesis. Source of Variation Degree of Freedom 1 16 Degree of Freedom 2 Multivariate F-test P=less than 360 2.0316 0.0109 * (Groups main effect on all the 8 dependent variables) ic The test is significant at .05 level. The null hypothesis is rejected because the value of P of the multivariate F-test is less than .05 which is the OCt level set for this study. This can be interpreted to say that 67 there are differences among the three groups on at least of theeight dependent variables. one The three groups were then to be further tested to find the specific difference among them. Since the General Hypothesis is found to be statisti­ cally significant, the next step in the multivariate analysis is to use Post Hoc comparisons of the three groups as stated in Hypotheses A, B and C in respective order. Hypothesis A : There are no differences in the perceptions of organizational climate in the middle schools between team teachers and non-team teachers in the schools with team teaching on all the eight subtests as measured by the OCDQ. Statistical representation is as follows: s (I) *,:< H ? 7.%** •*■*%'*KV %y-*' * W t % * i%v i*n t,13 -it%/> t%7 %**'?%%%'*?,'! 103111? 104111? 107112? 14 V0 0 1 ,2•: .1 ;/ ■ ~ 1 X. -M 413 4 4 4 5 41 7 8 1 4 3 200 4 0 200 2 •?.?u,) ^4 6V _____ c. 11(111221111 7 4 101112.1. 3 3 3 6 1021123. 2 3 1 0 1003.1.1.1 2 2 3.0513.2': 6 7 1 0 6 Hi/! 1 2 16 201.23 22 r r 20223.8? 6 6 2032112 P. H 2 D4 2.3 221010 204211 21013 210211.7 21221.1.7 214211.2 2.15211 2 2 17<"1 7 ?. 20521:11 77 1 68 712 p4 23 ?an 1 6 6 7 n 5 6 5 5 0 Q 0 0 U 0 ?Q0 ?60 370 1.70 3 70 2j0 ?Q0 ?10 1 00 ?~nTj ?20 20 0 147 133 20 0ir ^ TTo 23.7 2,id 2 ii0 233 350 rO 260 z 4 / 0 6 ?10 702313 2 1 3033122 0 ?00 1 ■3 4 2 0 '7 0 0 291 3043132 4 7 2 ■7053122 8 d £ •1 1 306311.2 3073112 7083112 8 5 1 3 5 30 1 1 0 3 J 9 3 U 2 5 7 l l 3 l ’ 2 4 1 5 4 3 m 3 .t? i 2 3 4,16411? 4 01.4131 4 4 8 4 4 j 8 't 1 1. > P 1 0 4 l7 4 i1 li? 2 8 4 ) 2 4 1 ! ;> 8 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 .2 1 3 IV 1. 1 2 1 7 1 . 5 m r 1.17121.3 7 12 J 1 q1224 6 i n 2 '3 !.9'-> 3 53 3j 0 23 0 5 Or ’ 22 m 213 25 ’ 2 5v 1 1. /. > 2 >3 41 9> T 1 ' „9 4 10 2 '■?> 47o ?n 0 2> 1 21 r~ ■ 56i 2 2 6 2 ? 19 ? 22 72912 2 ' 2 2 K ? T r? ' ! ' 5 4 i 200 11 17 10 1 2 '■ 0 129 51 x57 .16 7 2 n0 2?9 1 'j 7 7 5 ‘j 260 ? 17 ?"3 2 ; *? 2 ~'6 2 3 27 7 514 5 l .1 27, .33 ' 7 4 ... 7 7 1 ' 9“ 52? .■5 6 ?11 >33 67 52? 14 “< 253 2 53 1 7.3 i ° 7 533 1n / 3^u 4(J>. 4 (j 4 4 90 3 ’ >0 30 U 3 i J :>■’ 0 29 1 2 33 5 ( 10 2 8 f. 173 3 &/ ■-'U0 2 13 1 0 l] 0 2 in 2 <3 257 2 Op •’ 2 8 >01 2 /3 371 ■53 3 21 7 7.0 0 53 j 55] ->11 ?89 2 110 l3 o /113 2 33 54 1 2 ' i 2 r>7 2 86 411 1,33 2 10 ~5T ] 147 27 0 24] 273 ?0 0 1.78 217 133 23 7 2'.7 1 On 1} 260 5 0 3 00 2 0 0 170 ?10 4 7 I 57 811 .1 • 5 i'.f) 2 >3 i :’ 7 ./•> 2 1 (' 167 267 1 1 0 0 >> ‘ 11. ■7 2 >7 1 1 TTo" 2 4 311 37°. 3QJ 322 2C0 233 222 ?56 i l l 53 1 52? 1 0 '7 il 8 356 ;$S[j 367 203 280_j33 5» 1 0 2 4 173 117 5.9 0 331 38, /. 2 4,/ 20 J 183 30 u ,33 ^ w 11/ 0 4 2 J 267 256 344 239 r.t r 15 1 16 ) 17 1 15) 19 0 19 1 1 50 219221? ?2?2??2 6 c, -'53 16 J '7 2 2 41.4 21 / ??o 29.) 3 31 2 1 8 2 9 !, 2 2302229 23.1.2222 31 1 2 00 147 0 HTT^ * ? .« 2 r f) 243 229 23.4 1 71 106 179 3.57 2 50 143 4? 7 191 1 4 **7 lft7 2t]9 ^.}3 1>4 .5011 4ji, 3"4 2/257 19 ) 4 0 0 231 6 ■'*20 243 >>6 9 * ____ r. ■< 5 1 /! 0 0 6; 200 42 ] ■3 3 J ?6i 13 0 229 lq9 297 3? 0 ? 7 P. ■r / n 190 1/0 371 2r 0 333 3 0.1 210 49.) 3T i 2 2 3f) n 28* 32v ^ 28* '>r) 3on 3r;r 1e>7 171 767 30 0 237" 2f4 777 ?7C 20r ?U 2.14 756 ?8] 21/ 0 6 2' 0 -’78 TTo 217 ?Y? T^I TIT 24q 22o i£>7 lp6 767 20 0 2 1 / 1^7 1 13 76V /TTo 23571 157 ITT 77T ?7o 24/ J./« 157 722 2 -j ,’ <0 H i 744 2 73 257 2 5 0 2 2 3.1(] 3j 0 26p o?f) 2.20 140 2^0 ?«C 71 1 23 J £ 3 1131932 I 1 61 1 4 4 J 3 4 1. ;l. 2 L f) 1 0 4 0 4 4 1 1. 2 2 4 4 O 5 41 1 ’2 1 5 ! 44 1 0 53 60 211.2123 2 6 2 0 0 2 1 7 51 8 2 3 301.3172 8 7 3,00 310 330 w 310 IU 267 31.0 200 '?') 0 !'>'[) o’1 q 70p 200 T p 2CO 740 2l7 18p 167 5 0 317 ; 377 2 0 740 H o 207211.1 1 1 1 0 190 36 7 2U82 1 2 1 I 1 10 " I'd0 JTT7 2132111 7 2 2 J ?20 H o 216211.1 1 3 3 1 7io 1 67 1. YA'J45a6 * < ^ * 1 YA845&6 n*,,uv. 390 U0 140 H ’7 2.1.0 331 173 2 .l 7 “??0 2 73 167 3p 1 27 n 229 270 220 229 21 4 143 ,5 9 0 2 73 27i 23* 4 1?9 ?4T 4 2? ?14 2? ) 2?9 243 /;> 1^7 3 26 2?9 i-<3 l6 7 lt)3 > i,f 21 4 3(jn 3 78 8 39 0/8 1{)7 18 6 1?6 333 267 ‘1 « 7 ?.: 4 833 1 ? ^ 143 171 17 A I67 278 217 256 233 257 210 ?3n 29 1 25 0 ?8i. 2?o * 11 3 /P 300 24 0 229 3 /8 ■5(ip. 1 2^1 l5 b 167233 2«3 114 ?3????? 3 4 3 n 3 4 7 r> G r 2 2 1 . 2 7 1 3 file ?2 < 2 ?13 514 9 o 1 3 m 2P??? -I 711 0 0 ??n???-t fit4 6 0 3 1 7 J2 2 ? fi'5"2 0 317.5P.1.2 3 3 1 n 31 4321 2 R B 2 4 <; 0 ' " 31P21? 3i73?12 2 5 2 0 311.5??2 3 3 1 0 32.132 1'2”7 7~ 0 0 3223?2? 4 4 2 0 32 3321? 4 5 2 •1 ~"" T2PP2T "3 4 0 0 321 ;5? 11 1. 1 0 0 32r<3?il 2 2 7 0 t\ ac £ > 7 31332-N 714 2 0 4114 2 1.2 3 In 0 1 4lc'A??.)m ? 1 1 41”3••2 12 413 2 0 * 17 4 51 5 4 6 7 1) 42r,4??? 5 >; 0 0 42l'.'?l? 4 4 499 4234??? 1 7 1 G 42 4v 1.?~r ,, 130 41 n4 71 3ins G 0 4144 > 13 ? e 1 n -- ~zrr/74 ?'?TPi? 0 42242 23 7 f: ”* 0 4744? 1.3 7 7 7 3 4 374?2 41*24 2 •1 4 12 42? 1 UJ 0 1 4124 7°. t 4 4 1 0 ...41^4?ri"7I5 ' 1 0 1 4 o; >? 21.2 I .5 0 1 I 5 3 2 -;??•> 3 8 4 35 4 Q S ?i 2 J V 420 ‘30:332.1 2 ? 4 1 i) 4 073 2 i.? s 2 1 0 4 0 321.’ 3 LI 9 1 4 04J■?27 4 4 4 3 4143? t’ 7 7 2 0 *310 >222 'T f> 77.0 4132272 .1. 4 1 0 41 •*. 3 21.2 2 2 13 0 ? 14 .>2l *’10 2 1 4 175? ; ? B 9 2 0 | 4014211 1 1 0 0 4l??27i 7 2 230 514 5? >.1. ? 2 1 0 41 440 ? 1 2 2 2 6 ‘ >iT? ?71~~z~7r 1 0 42142-1 5 9 15 ■< 0 4 044 ? i | 9 28.1 3 0 ? c 4 -32 > 1 r.?7 9 d 4 0l')??2 171? 2 0 40772 32 3 7 1 0 40 4ol 2'3 7 7 0 0 hr )* ■ “#o? )■> 3 3 0 0 " 1>/, >• ; 1 A 1 t 133ti s. 17 730 4 i1 140 17' 17:170 24r, 2C0 17C t ■' 260 ??o 190 240 24 0 ?00 151, 2’00 ?5p 1On 170 10„ 16 301 1 7f: 170 13r. ?1‘ 16r -n ( J5) 171 .I7i?2’i 1o' 1O': 13n pi •-n !. ! ' 17 J inn. 21 ,r, 2P 3<"3 2!, 0 273 2B3 IP IP 10 7 21'0 20 C 2 C' 0 2 '.j 3 2f3 20 7 23 / 21 7 24 D 21 21 7 307 200 2(;9 •233 40 v 1A7 173 2-3 ?' 3 ?'■7 1'■> 2: 0 2’i0 T P 277 21 7 i- lr" I47 ?..?'* ■ . J 217 11 7 17 i . 1o r 13 3 1?1 t‘n 13n J>0 14■’ 1.73 140 18 3 *90 16.7 1‘ 70 1 no 250 137 130 10 0 " JT3 iB0 13 0 220 140 17n lOo ?n0 25 7 1.40 170 ; ?-• P . no 17,3 3 67 21 7 117 2 TO/ 23 3 21]0 3.67 1 03 ' * “7 *<7.1 251, ?4o ?9,o ?5c 30(I ?6r 33c ?5p 26o 7 7i' 21 r 3C 0 o4t ?5f ?3r P 29r ?4f ?5r ?5r 31 r 4 pf 3ir 24r ■*r ?8f 35, ? 6r 7°f :ir ?n r 33r 7 10 3*24 30 r 33r Pf 71 f 37r 34f 3.1r 3 1r 3.1r 3?f 3?r 37 r 3?P 3ir 30036r 34 0 36r 310 36o Po 37r ■Inr 271 26a 2 4;i 257 314 •IBf, 20p 24? 24 7 20 1 2?y 24? 3fin 25v ii •• 2 J7 24 ; 2i",1■ 24 ■ir• ?I 2 7' >S 27c, 2 40 20 p Sir 310 26(1 5 r !■ 7 , 2 1: ? 4r 474 2U0 1 07 397 1*J9 ?ll <-Ur *11 7 11 2 ’J 156 < .1 / ... Q 7 16 7 J /( -T :r-7 ■ >\A ‘ u'■ '2? 67 71.1 ?0. L■( ri a , iS7 2C'-7 9* 27-■ ;4 ‘ 27i P n 2 In .*>7 24 • 11 *I)P 19a 2 A 1 14 2 4.-, j7 ip.- 1.}7 2? ')7 ;Jr 21.- 3 00 8 J1 :4 4 14? ? 0 ;, •1A JL.V 24 257 2?9 2.1a ?.JO .'11n ".(( r' ' ■! U i° i/8 l.'f9 7-11 .vs-, ? JC •i86 ?X1 ?33 •'O r 279 57, 34? 2 'if-. 5?g 1-8A - 14 *57 ' ? j r, '■* u 0 1/8 19.4 ?’’J0 1 /P 199 ? 57 l.?9 1/8 ?/? .’ . 1 4 ll7 '67 267 V 6 r?9 32? If 6 5 no lr7 ?2? If'6 289 2^0 0Qn 214 267 1< 6 ?b9 17 1 32? 2? 5 T78 I'O 169 ?1 A '-'?? 2 7 9 TTa 186 8?? 2r1) 811 l'T ■’j0 ?.f n 7?7 44 2 ■11 1 '3 a 35 2'T ?44 ?' 11 Sn 9 1”1 T1 24 7> .56 1* 4 135 1' 7 ?r;0 2-9 'r *■( 3TP ?U9 4 or, ?lls 333 3?? 7 22 ?89 ?67 267 3 on 217 217 260 <*no J83 233 P 3 ... ?50 233 233 20 0 2 00 167 21 / 16 7 1' 3 Pu 2 j 7 I'11 ?■’0 200 ?43 00 233 j,'I •’ 25o 2 no 2 17 20 0 200 2 33 2 9 ■89 4 17 293 :83 239 ?5o Ifi3 63 359 31 7 23 3 263 ?17 36ij 23 3 233 20 0 ?83 333 3n0 ?6/ 217 30 0 163 ? 17 ?67 l67200 16 7 267 26 7 v7 t • A 1 115 6 i <■ -I i. i 1 9 0 0 6 1 no 2 2 7 6 6 0 0 61162?? 2 8 5 0 6 l ? 6 2 i 2 *i 6 0 0 61-160721910 0 0 6166222 7 7 0 0 6186222 7 8 0 0 610621.2 6 6 0 0 6216272 2 7 0 0 6296212 4 4 0 0 62.10211 1 1 0 0 6 2 <16 2 o 1 9 6 0 0 6 J '16 91.1 1 7 i 2 0 a 60662251113 0 0 6096223 3 4 0 0 6 2 1 5 2 7 3 '4- "4~ Q 0 6266213171? 1 0 6 1 . 3 6 2 2 4 8 18 0 0 616021'.>2 7 3 / 0 0 6 1 7 6 2 1 9 2 8 bo n 0 6 2 r>6 2 2 5 1 1 6 0 0 7 0 2 / 2 1 2 9 b c i.4't 32 / 0 0 7 1 6 7 9 t2nbo 7 0 7 1 n 7 9 > 5 i 122 0 0 U .J 1 />91...’ 6 6 n ) 8 0 23.'! 1.1 3 7 j 0 0 0 4391 1 8 b 0 0 0 .J ■>3 J l 1 7 7 i) 'J 8 0 9 8 3 1 . 1 .3 5 0 0 811 0 2 2 2 3 5 n 0 r.... *31 r?75:2 2 ■> - 3 1 0 " 19r 21C 86 C 29f , 2 9 f. 0.5 f 24 f ?lt 29 29(, 2? 0 29 r 23 r 2 71 29 r 4 4 1. 280 ; t >p 3?,i 85" 2 9 .i 30 4 9 0 ■; .... 1 •V 0 76 j 3 5 -i 32 0 300 2^1 2 o-, 8 9 |i 847T 81n 220 .14 4 220 214 2b 1 244 2 GO 8 0 200 1 9 T - 26.) ■’j s - r 74 0 7 0.1 180 8 0 3 0 2 7 4 l 4 15 1 ?3 8 3:.' 2 1? 2?3 133 807 167 2TT 35 0 217 720 0 0 0 26 7 12 ' ?. l •' 18 J -1 4 1 249 13a 170 31 1 23 J ?Tl ?14 730 1 26 7 210 217 11 7 2 P0 c1/ ? 0- r1 18? f a 18 0 200 1< / c O'" If 7 1 ?r. 1 °r 2f 0 ? j" 14 7 2 i, P. 2 2 1: 21 7 709 2 7c .C V- •< 167 2 n0 231 2.-. 1 2 l7 123 j 3 Ii 0 [1 21.7 9 V. : 6;. " 6,. 1.1 7 1 90 2 J7 1 3i, 2 .. 233 1 41 1 80 2 3? 2 IJ 1 2 11.1 x71 1? 1 7 1 ii-n l .7“ J* * 1.0 1 3-lR 0 0 -J 1 7.' 5 21 7 273 l c 0 167 200 217 217 2 67 2n0 0 0 407322L 1 3 0 3030721 1 1 0 3 1 n 8 i m 7 T ? " 8 1 7 6 77 7 7 8 1 ' l l! ?40 1 6C 37 0 930 2?n 8 00 23 0 267 167 247 22o 230 4 22” ■9 ' 2 .JO 829 I 7 i _ 749 157 82? 8 33 **? . 19° 229 314 23? 811 229 811 27i IS 7 1 26 214 828 2 4;< < 'll 1,4* 1 26 244 <^3 21 cJ0 204, ?3? 2 S ’7 211 l7 i . 26 167 22° 21.4 8 28 1 Ij6 2of 1 «9 2?o 844 82<’ 2H,1/6 21 / J 7° 2,0,167 ^ *3*7 > 11 25 7 : 26 287 126 84 < -■ J o 8 4 J 3? 81.4 0” 2 bt126 314 . / f; JO ." <■29 3 9 1: 3? 3 4-r : 2/ 3 0 ;■ 2?c -■JL 107 257 220 8 -1 4 21.4 i}9 22o IflO 2 8 a -’ X 1. 17 200 167 1? 6 770 36 7 V 7 163 ?44 150 2/1 214 1 63 711 If-7 21 4 811 737 1 16 lb 0 1r 6 ?1 7 ?11 21 4 844 1 63 819 2' 4 .TIT 8 44 233 I'M 05 6 133 171 16/ 1 6 156 2 39 7 1b0 167 1 v6 - ' 11 ii.r 707 8' f. 767 217 2 p (1 2 1- 7 72? 1 ?3 2 '9 844 1 33 356 533 l-’l 800 2 3 ? 2? 253 ? 2? 1 '1 9 33 2 ’9 lb 0 15.7 8 3? 2" 0 2?3 2 '9 <31 133 1-9 80 0 870 i ;<6 I 85 163 28 9 211 744 2b0 2"0 1*7 744 21 4 2.t 7 2"0 711 217 143 ?0 0 167 l3 3 l^ l U 'U tP.Vd 1 0 /2 9 /7 7 167 1<13 167 2 17 200 20 0 ' 1 6 7- 233 333 'i K J 233