INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us fo r microfilming. While the most advanced technologicat means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material subm itted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Pagc(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing pagc(s) or section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you o f com plete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black m ark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because o f m ovem ent during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we m eant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing o r chart, etc., is part o f the material being ph o to ­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until com plete. 4. F or any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services D epartm ent. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University MicnSilms International 3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D . ANN A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW. L O ND ON WC1R 4 E J . E N G L A N D 7907381 PA TA N 1C I E K * DENNIS A t A D E S C R I P T I V E STUDY OF THE CONCERNS OF F I R S T - Y E A R TEACHERS WHO ARE GRADUATES OF THE SECONDARY EDUCATI ON P I L O T PROGRAM AT M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY* PH .D .* Unfvcrsrty Mlcroiims IntcmAtlOnAl x » n / k b i i o a o . a n n a h b o i '. m m h i o g © 1978 DENNIS AL PATAN ICZEK ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1978 A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE CONCERNS OF FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS WHO ARE GRADUATES OF THE SECONDARY EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Dennis Pataniczek A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of > DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1978 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE CONCERNS OF FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS WHO ARE GRADUATES OF THE SECONDARY EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Dennis Pataniczek This was a descriptive study of the concerns of first-year teachers who were graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Program (SEPP) at Michigan State University. SEPP is a four-year alternative undergraduate secondary teacher education program. purposes: The study had four 1) to identify and describe the concerns of the subjects, 2) to relate those concerns to the subjects' undergraduate teacher preparation program, 3) to relate the findings to the developmental conceptualization of teacher concerns are posited by Frances Fuller, et al., and 4) to gather feedback and evaluative data about SEPP. Literature was reviewed in the areas of current and historical trends in teacher education, conceptualizations of follow-up studies, and the concerns of beginning teachers. A separate chapter provided information about SEPP, including a program descrptlon, an historical framework, prior research, studies of the program and a description of program features which led the researcher to hypothesize the differences in the first-year teaching concerns of its graduates. Data were gathered through survey questionnaires to all subjects and interviews were conducted with a randomly selected sample of the subjects. Data gathered included demographic Dennis Patanlczek information, the degree of concerns held by subjects in fifty-five areas (early and late in the school year) perceived sources of help in resolving concerns, evaluative data about SEPP, and reactions to the Fuller developmental conceptualization. Major findings included: 1. The subjects beginning of the year concerns were largely self concerns about adequacy, adjustment, and acceptance, but subjects also held a high degree of concern for having an impact on students, for meeting the needs of individual needs of students, for organizing instruction, and for improving their own teaching. 2. The subjects maintained their relative degree of concern for having Impact on students and for dealing with troublesome students throughout the year, but were also concerned with individualizing instruction, with meeting the special needs of students and with student learning by the end of the year. Concerns about being liked, respected, and accepted, and concerns about discipline lessened by the end of the year. 3. When the concerns were examined by level of concern, there was less absolute concern for all levels, but the relative concern for teacher-student relationships dropped, and concern for meeting the needs of individual students rose. Concern about the improvement of Instruction maintained its relatively high ranking. 4. Individuals' concerns varied greatly, and movement from the beginning to the end of the year also varied. Dennis Patanlc2ek 5. No statistically significant: variances were found between groups of subjects when categorized on the basis of several variables. 6. The subjects* undergraduate education program and fellow teachers were most helpful in resolving the subjects' firstyear concerns. 7. SEPP provided strengths to the subjects in relating to students, in self-evaluation skills, in problem solving, and through personal growth. 8. Field experiences were cited as the single most useful portion of SEPP. 9. The subjects believed their concerns to be of a cyclical nature, that many levels of concern occurred simultaneously, and that they returned to early concerns even when those concerns were felt to be largely resolved. 10. The vast majority of the subjects were extremely satisfied with their undergraduate teacher preparation. Reflections and recommendations were made in the areas of preservice teacher education, inservice teacher education, follow-up studies, and the study of teacher concerns. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation Is a product, not only of my own, but of the significant others who share In parts of my life. Without their encouragement, assistance, and support, the project would have been impossible. Dr. Richard Gardner, as dissertation director and guidance committee chairman, provided support, Insight, challenge, and standard of excellence. Dick was there when needed, and he often provided perspective which kept this study within manageable limits. Dick Is a caring, supportive, and humane educator whose balance between Idealism and realism are a model for others to emulate. Dr. Sam Corl was also chairman of my guidance committee, and was alBo my employer, and friend. word 'community' real to me. Sam Corl made the meaning of the All of us who have had contact with Sam have become aware of our own uniquenesses as well as those commonalities which bind us together In community. He is a creative, caring, and brilliant teacher-scholar, whose standards of excellence in teacher education have Inspired confidence and a drive toward personal and professional growth. Dr. Howard Hickey, Dr. Lou Romano, and Dr. Tim Little, as members of my guidance committee, have been supportive and have contributed insights and offered suggestions that have made this dissertation more than it would have been otherwise. 11 Dr. Dale Alara also served otn this guidance committee before departing MSU for George Peabody College. His support and the life space he provided and encouraged for reflection were important in my own growth. His influence will be with me for many years. Gini Brown gave me more than she will ever know, from the first day I stepped into her classroom as a student intern more than ten years ago. Our relationship has flourished, and she has given me love, support, encouragement, and challenge. finest person She is one of the and teachers I have known. Paula Stein has been my friend, my colleague, and in many ways my mentor. growth. She has challenged me and has supported my endeavors and Her concepts of "purpose" and "focus" will remain permanent parts of my life. I will always treasure her companionship in our adventure in the sharing, caring, learning and belonging that is SEPP. There are a group of people, each of whom has given me some­ thing unique, whom I acknowledge with the greatest sincerity. Their contributions have been varied and many, and I treasure the special relationship X share with them all. Thom Negri, Cass Book, Monte Blair, Carol Norris, Nancy Corl, Sue Rekittke, Dan Jarrad, Jan Runyan, and Gall McCarthy are all a part of this dissertation. Special thanks go to Gary Clark as an individual as well as a representative of a special group who have contributed immeasurably to my life. Two special people deserve separate mention: Barbara Bowman has given me encouragement to be myself and to do the best I can do. With her love, support, and friendship, I ill have grown and will continue to do so. She has been Instrumental In the course of my life. Bruce Grant Williams gave me faith and confidence In myself as a person, and rescued me In many times of crisis. Through him, 1 have learned to relax, to try new things, and to begin to accept what Is while still striving for what can be. I cherish his friend­ ship and I cherish him. My parents have always given me love, support, and the encour­ agement that made all of this possible. I hope they know what they have given me. Finally, this dissertation Is dedicated with gratitude to the students of the Secondary Education Pilot Program, past and present, who have shared with me an adventure In personal and professional growth. I wish them all success and happiness In the years ahead. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page LIST OF T A B L E S ......................................... vili I II LIST OF F I G U R E S ........................................ lx THE NATURE OF THE S T U D Y ................................. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ....................................... . . Statement of the P r o b l e m ............................. Overview of the S t u d y .................................. Purpose of the S t u d y .................................. Assumptions on Which Study IsBased . ’. '............... Need for the S t u d y .................................... Limitations of the S t u d y ............................. Definition of Terms . .. ............................. Overview of Succeeding Chapters ....................... 1 2 2 4 5 S 8 9 10 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ............................. 11 Part I: III IV Historical and Current Trends In Teacher E d u c a t i o n .................................... Part II: Conceptualizations ofFollow-up Studies . . . Part III: Concerns ofBeginning T e a c h e r s .............. S u m m a r y ................................................ 11 22 27 37 THE SECONDARY EDUCATION PILOT P R O G R A M ................. 39 Part I: Program D e s c r i p t i o n ......................... Part II: Historical F r a m e w o r k ....................... Part III: Prior Research andStudies of the Program . Part IV: Program F e a t u r e s ............................ S u m m a r y ................................................ 39 42 44 51 55 DESIGN AND P R O C E D U R E S ................................... 57 Selection of Subjects ................................. Instrumentation ........................................ The Survey Questionnaire . . . . . ................. The I n t e r v i e w s...................................... 57 59 59 62 v Chapter V Page Collection of D a t a ...................................... Compilation of D a t a .................................... 63 64 PRESENTATION OF THE F I N D I N G S ........................... 67 Introduction ............................................ 67 Part I: the Survey Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..................... 67 Demographic Information ............................. 68 Teaching Level and Satisfaction with First-Year 68 Teaching Level ............................... Extent of Teaching Assignment in Major Field . . . . 69 Average Class S i z e ................................. 69 69 Attendance at In-Service Meetings ................... Enrollment In College Graduate Courses, 1977-78 . . . 70 Average Age of Building F a c u l t y ..................... 70 Satisfaction with Undergraduate Teacher Education P r o g r a m ...................................... 71 Amount of Experience with School-Age Youngsters During Undergraduate Years ................... 71 Commitment to Teaching ............................. 72 Desire to Return to Teaching Next Year . ........ 72 73 Expressed Concerns of First-Year Teachers .......... Levels of C o n c e r n .................................... 80 Differences among Groups of Subjects ............... 82 87 Examination of Individual Concerns ................. Sources of Help in Resolving C o n c e r n s ............... 88 Responses to Open-Ended Question . . ............... 88 Part II: the In t e r v i e w s............................... 98 Beginning of the Year C o n c e r n s ..................... 98 End of the Year C o n c e r n s .......... 100 101 "Crucial" Concerns ................................. Unresolved or Recurring Concerns ........ . . . . . 102 Change in C o n c e r n s .................................... 102 Concerns about the Coming School Y e a r .......... 103 Rating the First Year of T e a c h i n g ..................... 105 Self-Evaluation Process Used by Subjects .......... 106 Strengths Provided by Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Program ......................... 107 Program Components Cited as Useful ................. 109 Weaknesses in Undergraduate Teacher Preparation P r o g r a m ........................................ 110 Reactions to Fuller's Conceptualization of Teacher Concerns ............................. Ill Summary of F i n d i n g s ............................. 114 VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, REFLECTIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 119 Summary of F i n d i n g s ...................................... 119 C o n c l u s i o n s .............................................. 127 vi Chapter Page Re f l e c t i o n s ............................................ 129 Recommendations for Further Research ................. 135 APPENDIX A ....................................................... 137 APPENDIX B ....................................................... 147 APPENDIX C ....................................................... 148 APPENDIX D ....................................................... 156 APPENDIX E ....................................................... 158 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................. vil 162 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Students entering and exiting SEPP by reason ............. 41 2 First-year teaching levels of respondents ............... 68 3 Satisfaction with first-year teaching level ............. 68 4 Average class sizes reported by respondents ............. 69 5 Attendance at lnservlce meetings by subjects ............. 70 6 Enrollment In college graduate courses ................... 70 7 Average age of building faculty .......................... 70 8 General satisfaction with undergraduate teacher education program .................................. 71 9 Experience with youngsters while an undergraduate s t u d e n t ...............................................72 10 Commitment to t e a c h i n g ....................................... 72 11 Desire to return to teaching next y e a r ...................... 73 12 Professional concerns expressed by first-year teachers . . 13 Mean scores for levels of concern 14 Summary of multivariate analyses of variance for the Independent variables ............................. 83 1.5 Levels of concern expressed by Individual subjects . . . . 89 16 Sources of help in resolving concerns of first-year t e a c h e r s ............................................ 91 17 Level of concern expressed on open-ended concerns q u e s t i o n ............................................ 93 viii 74 .................... 81 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Page Components of Secondary Education Pilot Program ........ ix 41 CHAPTER ONE THE NATURE OF THE STUDY Introduction Much research has been conducted in the last fifteen years in the area of teacher concerns. Frances Fuller and her associates at the Uni­ versity of Texas have been instrumental in much of this activity and have posited a developmental conceptualization of teacher concerns. Furthermore, Fuller and others, notably Hall and Jones, believe that the concerns of teachers can change through preparation. (Fuller, 1969; Fuller and Bown, 1975; Hall and Jones, 1976.) According to Fuller, most beginning teachers, either student teach­ ers or first and second year in-service teachers, have as their main concern issues of self adequacy and survival in the school setting. Moreover, only when these concerns have been largely resolved can teach­ ers move on to concerns about the tasks of teaching, and only after these task concerns have been for the most part resolved can teachers have as their major concern the Impact they may have on student learn­ ing (Fuller, 1969). Most pre-service secondary teacher education students follow a pro­ fessional studies curriculum which encompasses four major areas: edu­ cational psychology, teaching methods, student teaching, and social/ philosophical foundations of education (Conant, 1963; AACTE, 1976). This is also the case for most secondary education majors at Michigan State University. 1 2 There does exist at Michigan State University, however, an alterna­ tive to the "regular" secondary teacher education program. This is the Secondary Education Pilot Program, which has completed its fifth year of existence. The first graduates of this program were currently In their first year of teaching in public and private school classrooms in Michigan as well as several other states at the time of this study. This alternative program differs from other teacher education pro­ grams in several respects, and at this writing no attempt has been made to survey the graduates of this program who are currently teaching as to their perceptions about their professional preparation In light of their experiences. Statement of the Problem The intent of this study was to identify and describe the perceived concerns of a group of beginning teachers whose pre-service preparation occurred in Michigan State University's Secondary Education Pilot Pro­ gram. Additionally, selected beginning teachers of this group were in­ terviewed to determine if possible relationships existed between their major foci of concern and the role of pre-service professional prepara­ tion. Overview of the Study This study surveyed graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Pro­ gram who were engaged in their first year of teaching in a public or private school. Graduates who were enrolled in graduate programs as full-time students, those graduates who were substitute teaching, and those graduates in field other than teaching were not Included in the study. Additionally, selected first year teachers were interviewed to 3 obtain additional information about their pre-service preparation, their major concerns, and their perceptions about changes in concerns during their first year of teaching. The study included subjects' perceptions of the degree of concern they held regarding fifty-five areas at the time of the study, as well as the degree of concern they had at the beginning of their teaching year. Additional Information was gathered about various sources of help in resolving concerns and about their pre-service preparation. Subjects interviewed were surveyed as to the role of their pre-service prepara­ tion as it related to resolving concerns, and were also surveyed as to their reactions to the Fuller developmental conceptualization as it related to individual teaching situations. The study concentrated on a description of the concerns held by subjects who graduated from Michigan State University in 1976 and whose pre-service professional preparation occurred in the Secondary Educa­ tion Pilot Program. These subjects are described by utilizing data drawn from a four-part survey questionnaire. Additionally, subjects are described utilizing data from interviews. The Intent of the study was to describe the concerns of these be­ ginning teachers to the extent that the information could be utilized to determine if their concerns are congruent with concerns that might be expected from beginning teachers according to the developmental con­ ceptualization formulated by Fuller, and additionally to determine if possible relationships existed between the nature of their pre-service preparation and the major concerns as beginning teachers. The study design builds on a prior study (Norris, 1976) in which an evaluation model based on that described by Stake (1967) was 4 proposed. Data relevant to the descriptive portion of the Stake model was collected, especially to identify and describe certain outcomes of the program. The Fuller conceptualization of teacher concerns and re­ search conducted by Briscoe (1972) were also utilized to build an organ­ izing conceptual framework for this study. Purpose of the Study One purpose of the study was to describe the perceived concerns of graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Program who were currently engaged in the first year of full time teaching. Descriptions of the perceived concerns could serve to answer such questions as: 1. What were the perceived concerns of SEPP graduates who were completing their first year of teaching? 2. What were the changes in perceived conoerns that took place since the beginning of the teaching year? 3. What resources were perceived to have been most helpful In identifying and resolving such concerns? 4. What were the relationships between the perceived degree of concern and selected variables, namely: a. Satisfaction with present teaching level b. Extent of teaching assignment in major field of study c. Average class size d. Attendance at in-servicemeetings (1977-78) e. Enrollment in college graduatecourses f. Average age of building faculty g. General satisfaction with undergraduate teaching preparation h. Amount of pre-service experience with school age students 1. Commitment to teaching' (1977-78) 5 Interviews with selected beginning teachers were conducted to serve the following purposes: 1. To Identify the role of pre-service professional prepara­ tion In resolving concerns 2. To Identify the role of specific components of pre-service professional preparation which were most helpful In (1) above 3. To gain additional information about perceived changes In concerns 4. To provide evaluative data about the effectiveness of the Secondary Education Pilot Program 5. To gather perceptions about and reactions to Fuller's conceptualization 6. To provide data which suggests further research on Fuller's theory of teacher concern Assumptions on Which Study Is Based The basic assumptions underlying this study were (1) graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Program who were currently employed as full time classroom teachers would be able and willing to offer their perceptions of their major concerns, (2) such perceptions may offer in­ sight about the role of teacher preparation and the development of con­ cerns, (3) such perceptions may offer data which may be utilized in evaluating the program, (4) Information from the study may suggest fur­ ther areas of inquiry about the effectiveness of the program as well as about the developmental conceptualization posited by Fuller. Need for the Study Norris (1976) provided baseline data about the students currently enrolled in the Secondary Education Pilot Program. tions, she stated: In her recommenda­ 6 As In any new enterprise, one must walk before running. Thus, through a carefully constructed evaluation plan, the step by step process can be followed, validated, modified, and ex­ panded. It is recommended that such a process be implmented, that evaluation components be identified, and that data col­ lection efforts begin in an orderly, sequential manner. In­ formation gathered from evaluation and monitoring reports may be of use to the program administrators and staff, the univer­ sity Curriculum Committee, and the participating students as well. One such model reviewed in the literature, the Stake model, appears to be appropriate to the process. It is recom­ mended that remaining components within the model be identi­ fied and that evaluative research begin. Especially important among Norris* recommendations was: Given certain predetermined program components, how do stu­ dents perceive the contribution of those components to the development of themselves as professionals? Additional research needs to be completed to determine the degree to which the program functions to enhance professional develop­ ment as well as personal development (Norris, 1976). The study proposed here clearly fits the need outlined by Norris. Fegues (Peer and Pegues, 1978) surveyed teacher training institu­ tions to determine current practices in teacher education follow-up evaluation in the United States. Over eighty percent of respondents to a national survey attributed value to the follow-up process, but only slightly over fifty percent actually were Involved in follow-up prac­ tices. It is noted that this is despite the NCATE accrediting process standards, in particular, standard 5.1 which requires systematic followup evaluation of program graduated in education. Fuller listed several implications for further research. Among those "unanswered questions" were several which this study addressed. These are: 1. First are questions about the sequence itself. Is it correct qnd complete? Are there phases even "lower" and "higher" than those suggested here? 2. Second is concern phase a function of person, of the situation or of both? If concerns are related to 7 characteristics o£ the person and/or the situation, what are these characteristics? Must situations, for example, be interpersonal, stressful and novel? 3. Third, do individuals as well as groups go through these phases? So far the findings come only from data about groups. Can some individuals skip a phase, be in more than one phase at a time, regress to an earlier phase? (Fuller, 1969.) Data from this study were utilized to begin to provide some answers to these questions, as the study surveyed situational aspects relative to concerns and examined individual as well as group concerns. Thus, it can be seen that this study could serve to meet the needs outlined by Norris, Fuller, and NCATE. Learning about the concerns that beginning teachers have holds im­ portant implications for both pre-service and in-service teacher educa­ tion. If, as Fuller states, teacher education courses often answer questions that are incongruent with the major concerns of teacher educa­ tion students, then it may be possible to develop curricula which aim at either the current concern of teacher candidates (at the pre-service level) or of beginning teachers (at the in-service level). Another pos­ sible implication is to develop strategies to move teachers or teacher candidates to higher or different concern levels, thus making course objectives and curricula or in-service training programs more congruent with concerns. The study was an attempt to add to the general body of knowledge about teacher concerns and, in particular, to Fuller's developmental conceptualization. Fuller's specific "unanswered questions" were partly answered, or at least the questions themselves were made more clear or more refined. The study also served to: 8 1. Point directions for professional growth of present teachers and teacher candidates, 2. Add to the body of knowledge about how teachers change, learn, and grow at critical points In their teaching careers, and In particular during the first year of teaching, 3. Suggest strengths and weaknesses In the Secondary Education Pilot Program, 4. Suggest areas for further research, and 5. Serve to provide baseline data for future studies of teacher concerns with this population. IX 1 2 3 -.75 2.30 1.70 -.60 2.50 2.50 same 1.63 1.63 same 1.80 2.50 +.70 3.00 2.50 -.50 2.60 2.40 - .20 2.00 2.00 same 1.80 2.20 +.40 2.50 2.50 same 2.00 1.60 - .40 2.80 2.40 - .40 2.13 1.75 -.38 2.30 2.20 -.10 2.50 2.50 same 1.65 1.25 -.40 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 same 1.88 2.00 +.12 2.00 2.10 +.10 2.00 1.50 -.50 6 1.35 1.10 -.25 1.90 2.00 + .10 2.00 1.40 - .60 1.75 2.00 +.25 1.70 1.90 +.20 1.50 1.50 same 7 2.00 1.90 -.10 2.20 2.00 - .20 2.60 2.00 - .60 2.13 1.88 -.25 2.30 2.50 +.20 2.50 2.00 -.50 8 1.75 1.20 -.55 2.20 2.00 - .20 2.60 2.00 - .60 2.25 1.88 -.37 2.60 2.50 -.10 3.00 2.50 -.50 9 2.15 1.50 -.65 2.40 1.30 -1.10 3.00 3.00 same 1.88 1.57 -.13 1.90 1.90 same 2.00 1.50 -.50 10 1.80 1.85 +.05 1.30 1.20 » .10 2.00 2.00 same 1.13 1.13 same 1.70 1.90 +.20 2.00 2.00 same 11 1.75 1.40 -.35 2.00 1.80 - .20 2.40 2.00 - .40 1.38 1.38 same 2.60 2.40 -.20 2.50 2.50 same 12 2.65 1.70 -.95 2.70 1.90 - .80 3.00 2.40 - .60 2.13 1.50 -.63 2.60 2.10 -.50 2.50 2.50 same 13 2.15 1.35 -.80 2.30 1.70 - .60 2.40 1.20 -1.20 2.63 1.63 -.50 2.10 2.00 -.10 2.50 2.50 same 14 2.35 2.10 -.25 2.50 2.10 - .40 3.00 2.80 - .20 2.13 2.13 same 2.80 2.90 +.10 3.00 2.50 -.50 15 1.40 1.40 same 1.70 1.70 2.00 1.40 - .60 1.50 1.38 -.12 2.30 2.30 same 2.50 2.50 same same same Table 15„ cont. U £VEL DNE 1 2 3 U JVEL rwo 2 1 3 LE\/EL TI[REE 1 2 3 LEVEL F01JR 1 2 3 LEVIZL FI]m 1 2 3 LE]/EL SI[X 2 1 3 same 1.50 1.50 same 2.70 2.20 -.50 3.00 2.00 -1.0 17 1.90 2.50 +.60 2.30 2.80 + .50 2.80 2.80 same 1.88 1.88 same 2.50 2.80 +.20 2.50 3.00 _.50 18 1.85 1.65 o 2.30 1.90 2.80 2.20 - .60 1.75 1.63 -.12 2.50 2.20 -.30 2.50 2.00 -.50 19 2.55 2.50 -.05 2.40 2.40 same 2.80 2.60 - .20 2.25 2.25 same 2.50 2.50 same 3.00 3.00 same m i 2.60 2.60 • 2.50 1.60 - .90 o 2.10 1.35 -.75 CM 16 o Subject Number 1 = Beginning of the year mean score 2 a End of the year mean score 3 « Change Table 16 Sources of Help In Resolving Concerns of First Year Teachers Area of Concern School Admin. NEXT MOST MOST HELP HELP -FUL -FUL Fellow Teacher NEXT MOST MOST HELP HELP -FUL -FUL Secondary Student NEXT MOST MOST HELP HELP -FUL -FUL Inservice Program NEXT MOST MOST HELP HELP -FUL -FUL Undergrad Courses Education Taken 77-78 NEXT NEXT MOST MOST MOST MOST HELP HELP HELP HELP -FUL -FUL -FUL -FUL Other NEXT MOST MOST HELP HELP -FUL -FUL Classroom management 5 6 6 7 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 0 1 1 Evaluating what my students are learning 2 0 5 3 1 1 0 0 7 3 1 0 1 1 Planning for Instruetioi 1 2 5 2 0 1 0 0 12 1 0 0 1 1 Grading students 0 1 8 3 0 2 0 0 8 1 0 0 2 2 Adjusting to the job 3 7 10 4 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 1 Evaluating my own teaching 5 4 1 4 2 4 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 0 Dealing with parents 7 2 9 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Teaching my subject 0 0 3 6 0 1 0 0 12 3 1 1 2 0 Finding Instructional materials 1 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 9 2 1 0 0 1 5 29 4 26 4 58 6 46 2 7 3 13 0 0 0 0 5 74 2 17 1 4 0 1 2 13 1 8 Improving my own teaching 55 114 20 9 91 5 21 92 Question one of the open-ended section esked subjects to list "con­ cerns I have had this year that have not been mentioned In this question­ naire." Twenty different concerns were mentioned by the respondents. Of those concerns listed were below, most were mentioned more than once were In the mentioned once. Items which area of concerns about stu­ dents (five mentions) and discipline (three mentions). While It Is noted that there may have been Items on the checklist that reflected these same concerns, they apparently were Important enough to the teach­ ers Involved to mention them again here. It Is also noted chat the time during the year at which these Items were concerns was not specified. Among those mentioned were: Dealing with budgeting in departments Concerns about other teachers being "Inhuman" or "Incompetent" Not fitting into an older faculty social group Being "plnk-sllpped" Concerns about students: "ungratefulness," "Immature behavior," "rotten home life," "disrespectful," "apathetic" Teaching a course I was not prepared for Mainstreaming and how to deal with it Overconcern with subject area to the loss of affective goals School philosophy and practices are incongruent Dealing with parents who are "always right" Making lessons relevant, interesting Being able to help kids with personal problems Coping with paperwork and administrative details as well as teaching Concern about the issue of merit pay Concern that "I didn't realize the situation I was getting into In the fall: programmed materials in a military situation" 93 When the concerns above are grouped according to level of concern using the Fuller and Case scheme, the range of levels Is represented. A more precise breakdown of the concerns by level Is found in Table 17. Table 17 Level of Concern Expressed on Open-Ended Concerns Question Number of Concerns at This Level Level 1 — Concern about self adjustment 2 — 5 Concern about self adequacy (classroom management and subject area) 5 3 — Concern about pupil-teacher relationship 3 4 -- Concern about students' learning what is taught 0 5 — Concern about meeting real needs of students 2 6 — Concern about the improvement of instruction 5 The second open-ended question stated: "Please specify any compo­ nents (parts) of your undergraduate teacher preparation program that have been especially useful to you as a teacher in either identifying or resolving concerns or problems in teaching." All respondents answered this question in some way, and a summary of responses follows, along with the number of mentions the item received. From the listing, one notes that there were many components of the program which were useful to different subjects. The single most useful part of the program was the variety of experiences with students, both in formal classroom settings and out of the classroom as well. Experience with kids in and outside of classrooms (10 mentions) Self analysis and self evaluation (5) Force field analysis and problem solving techniques (3) 94 Work with minorities and those In different Income brackets (2) Ideas of being myself, accepting others, being honest with students (2) Evaluation techniques (2) Planning (2) Leadership laboratory (2) Diagnosing reading levels and working with special students (2) Understanding the adolescent (2) Knowing about student groupings (2) Knowing and understanding myself and my goals and ideas about teaching Student teaching in my junior year — work on" "I knew what I wanted to School visitations Sharing experiences with other-perspective teachers every term Individual help from everyone In the program Observation techniques — "X liked the emphasis on observation of students and their behavior" Developing classroom climate Discipline Knowing that there were several ways to teach Other comments by respondents Included: "The association with competent staff members who had much to teach about teaching" "The program helped to make me a strong person" "I rely little on my teacher education program, but rather on fellow teachers and students" The third open-ended question asked respondents to "comment on the effectiveness of (their) entire undergraduate teacher preparation 95 program in preparing (them) for teaching." A listing of responses fol­ lows* with quotes from subjects included as indicated. Several areas of the program were cited as being helpful in pre­ paring the subjects for their first year of teaching. Among those items mentioned were: Exposure to a lot of "real" situations (5 mentions) Concern of SEPP for the individual (3) Developed my confidence in my own abilities (2) Knowing legal aspects of teaching Self-analysis and evaluation Use of student records* test data* sodograms Interpersonal communication and relations with others "SEPP gave us as much experience as seemed to be possible" Getting me Into schools early enough as to make a decision about teaching Leadership roles were an important part "I learned to accept responsibility and criticism for my mistakes" Change In attitude toward myself — SEPP" "I grew up a lot* thanks to "My first year of teaching has been very successful, so my teach­ ing program must have prepared me well" "It gave me a pretty good idea of what to expect when 1 got a classroom of my own" "On the whole I am quite satisfied with my teacher preparation pro­ gram; there is only so much you can learn in the college classroom. There is no substitute for classroom experience" SEPP was "very time consuming, but it paid off" "Quite effective. I feel so much better prepared than other first year teachers a t ______ . I gained some very important insights into myself as a teacher. I also developed in the program an ability to objectively evaluate classroom situations and examine all of the alternative actions I could take" 96 Philosophy is the key — "Experience plays a part of it, but a teacher's philosophy rules it all; and I feel that my under­ graduate courses gave me a strong sense of exactly what my philosophy is. In other words, the philosophy brings out the methods of instruction, and the undergrad program brought out the philosophy." "I have forgotten many of the things I learned and have gone back to use 'old methods' for discipline and classroom regu­ lations — because they are easier to use." "The SEPP curriculum helps one look at himself as well as the schools in a realistic and knowledgeable way. It teaches you to look at the people in the schools and focus on the students. The SEPP program helped me to understand myself, situations, the school, and others more clearly." "Very effective. Many areas that I'm involved in were covered. The skills I needed were well-taught, and I refer to the ma­ terials I kept from my classes a lot." Comments in this section were generally positive, and again, re­ spondents indicated that much of the effectiveness was due to exposure to "real" situations. The fourth open-ended question aBked respondents for suggestions for improving teacher education programs. Twenty-eight different com­ ments were made, with over a third of the suggestions dealing with che need for more actual experiences with students. Among responses were: More actual experience with students (5 reponses) More courses on discipline (2) Continue giving actual experiences Broaden horizon of experiences to include both junior and senior high "My administrator were amazed at the list of experiences I had, and hired me over 110 other applicants." "What is real needs to be stressed more." Another cluster of suggestions dealt with student behavior and disci­ pline. Sample comments were: 97 Include a course on kids' behavior and methods to combat these problems. "Make sure that teachers realize their rights and responsibilities in the classroom — they do have the power to prevent or stop disruption*" Other suggestions were not easily clustered* but covered a broad range of topics. Sample suggestions Included: 4 Teach different methods of grading and evaluation More training on slow learners or students "who quietly struggle by themselves" More concern for impaired kids (mainstreaming) More interaction with students' subject area and department Ordering materials for next school year i How to create materials if the district is poor "Teacher ed is far too positive — place more emphasis on the 'not so attractive' areas of teaching." Alert students to problems in parochial as well as public edu­ cation* especially ACE (Accelerated Christian Education). Keep student* subject and administration in priority order "Incorporate contact with professional people trained to work with problem young people (i.e., social workers* psychologists* drug treatment counselors* etc.)." Keep offering job-hunting skills Philosophy couse was valuable. Include some sort of general career ed information* so it can be passed on to students Give student teachers more "complete control" of their classrooms "SEPP should be available to all entering education students *' It is not known from the context of these comments whether they are in­ tended as criticisms of the program or are offered as suggestions for any teacher education program. 98 Part Two: the Interviews Interviews were conducted with eight subjects, selected at random. Beginning of the Year Concerns One question, "What were your major concerns when you started teaching?" yielded responses that were congruent with Items rated "of much concern" on the checklist. In fact, all of the responses to this Interview question were rated "of much concern" In the beginning of the year category of the survey. The number of major concerns at the beginning of the year reported to the Interviewer ranged from two for one subject to eight concerns for two others. A total .of eighteen concerns were reported, and all can be categorized Into several major headings. The major concern at the beginning of the year centered on respon­ dents' establishing themselves In their new teaching situation. Five of the eight subjects Interviewed expressed this concern directly, and the three others Indicated that this was a major concern also by their listing of specific concerns which seem to fit this heading. Two other major concerns were reported by a majority of those in­ terviewed. Both dealt with concerns about one's adequacy, specifically with concern about discipline and about subject area adequacy. was mentioned by five respondents directly. Each Sample responses which In­ dicated a concern for discipline were: (Concern about "whether I'd have a strong enough personality to avoid being taken advantage of." Establishing discipline "What they (the administration) would expect from me in terms of discipline." 99 Responses indicating concerns about subject matter adequacy were stated directly* Other beginning of the year concerns for establishing oneself in che school setting were dealing with racial problems, following rules and administrative procedures and details, finding appropriate materials, getting along with fauculty, being observed and evaluated, dealing with parents, and concern about status as a first-year teacher. Three subjects indicated concern with students and developing rela­ tionships with students. The specific concerns mentioned were: Concern about teaching ninth graders ("I had always wanted to teach high school, which meant grades ten, eleven, and twelve.") "Building trust with new students" (subject had done her full­ time clinical internship in that same school) Having kids respect me Only one subject reported a concern for student learning. sponse was Interesting: Her re­ "I was concerned about making sure they learned everything about my subject, and I completely forgot about my own person­ al reasons for being a teacher." When questioned about those reasons, she stated that being a model for students and helping them to under­ stand themselves were areas she neglected at the beginning of the year. It is noted that of the items on the fifty-five item checklist, "Having Impact on my students" was ranked first in terms of mean level of con­ cern for the entire group at the beginning of the year. Yet no subject interviewed mentioned this as one of his/her major concerns. Thus, nearly all of the major concerns expressed by those subjects interviewed fell into the first three categories of Fuller's conceptual­ ization; namely, concern about adjustment, self-adequacy, and relation­ ships with students. 100 End of the Year Concerns The second Interview question dealt with concerns at the end of the school year. In general, the responses were more in the area of trying to meet the real needs of kids, concerns about teaching effec­ tiveness, and improving one's own teaching. Host of the concerns which had mentioned for the beginning of the year were no longer concerns. Seven of the eight subjects Interviewed expressed concerns which dealt with the areas noted above. Sample responses were: (My main concern is) "My program — seeking feedback" constantly analyzing it and Wondering about meeting kids' needs: "I wonder how I can be up there teaching what a noun and verb are to a girl who comes into school and tells me about how her father beats up on her and how her mother tells her that she doesn't care about her kids. You know, I wonder how I can justify what I'm doing up here when what the kid needs is to learn how to survive in her own home." "I guess I worry about my effectiveness with the kids -- my effectiveness as a teacher, and how much they are learning." How relevant my subject is and how I can make it more interesting. Classroom organization — "I want to do better next year." Concerned about "how much they were actually learning — I was really coming through or not." whether The eighth subject responded slightly differently, in that she was searching for a new job, as her old position was eliminated by budget cuts. She mentioned that at the end of the year, her major concern was finding a new job, but that she also was concerned about tying things together before she left her former position. Other concerns mentioned which were important at the end of the school year included concerns about student^ "preoccupation" with grades; lack of parental Involvement and support for the educational 101 needs of studentSr"making them see that it's Important to know how to read and write well," what was going to happen to the "open" concept at a school, and some concern with discipline "because of the way kids acted during the last few weeks of school." "Crucial" Concerns Subjects were asked to identify the "most crucial" concern of.all those mentioned, including both beginning and end of year concerns. The responses generally indicated that while the concerns expressed at the end of the year were more crucial overall, the resolving of early concerns was a necessary ingredient in that process. Three respondents indicated that the "discipline" concern had to be resolved before they could really begin to work on meeting students' needs. Three respondents indicated that "how much they're actually learning" was the most cru­ cial concern. One of those stated that her greatest concern, and the most crucial one, was "the way my program comes across to the kids, the interest they have in it, and the amount they learn from it." One subject, indicating that she behaved very differently at the beginning of the year than at the end, stated: For a first year teacher, just getting along with the admin­ istration and facility (was most important).. .you've got to make yourself comfortable with a group before you can do anything on your own. Otherwise they're all going to be looking at you, waiting for you to make a wrong move. Identifying at what point crucial concerns arose was difficult for the subjects interviewed. One mentioned that her concern about her sub­ ject area and the curriculum was one which had bothered her all year: "I'm always thinking about what I can do to make it a little more in­ teresting, another way to approach a problem that a student may be 102 having." Another subject* however* responded that she was "fairly obli­ vious (to things) up until about Christmas." Before that* she Indicated that she was just trying to "make It through." Unresolved or Recurring Concerns Concerns that were recurring or unresolved at the end of the first year of teaching were fewer In number for all subjects Interviewed. There were minor concerns about discipline with half of those Inter­ viewed* but in all cases this was stated to be only a minor concern. One subject discussed the recurring concern of an overemphasis on her subject area* on form rather than content In a writing class. She added that she was concerned that she was not putting the proper emphasis on "what they've done right." Subject area preparation was a minor recurring concern for one subject, who stated* "I muddled through this year learning things on my own." She added that she wanted to Improve the situation for next year. Another recurring concern dealt with dissatisfaction with the ad­ ministration. She said that dealing with the administration had become more of a concern only because she would have a new administrator next year* and she was not very optimistic about working harmoniously with him. She added* however* chat it might not be that important: "I have a tendency to make a big deal out of things that really aren't." ChanRe in Concerns The Interviewer asked subjects to try to describe the change In concerns that they had experienced. for the subjects. This* too, seemed to be difficult Three stated that the change was a slow process* a sort of "gradual unfolding." One stated that the process was "slow... 103 it dawned on me one day that I've changed." The change was a process that involved "falling down and standing up again." One subject indicated that for her, the awareness of new concerns * came at least partially as a result of "spending time in the teachers' lounge, and listening to the concerns of other teachers." She said, "Then I would start seeing some of the things they were talking about... and would start seeing them happen to me." The same subject also com­ mented that at the beginning of the year she was concerned about her own self*.adequacy, and at the end about concerns for pupils and their needs. But, she added, "I don't think I could have anticipated those things (needs of kids) until I actually got into the school to see the kids I was working with." Another subject described what happened to her: "When I started to get feedback and reinforcement (for what I was doing), I became more confident, and then I began to be concerned about other things (than myself)." Concerns about the Coming School Year Subjects were asked to describe their major concerns about the coming school year. Half of the subjects indicated that they were con­ cerned about curriculum. One subject Indicated that her major concern was trying "to maintain a level of quality instruction when other teachers aren't doing that." She also Indicated that she was "trying to Increase (students') positive feelings about that (quality instruc­ tion)." Another Indicated that he was concerned about better organi­ zation in his classroom, but felt confident that he would be doing a better job. Another Indicated that her concern was "remotivating 104 (herself) for the year...I'11 be doing something for the second time, and I don't want to be stale." Other concerns mentioned by those returning to the same school in­ cluded an impending administrative change, concern about working largely with "underachievers," content "to some extent" (as her exact assignment was still in doubt), and the future of the open philosophy of the school. One of the subjects was changing jobs — to a new district, and another was changing to a different building within the same district. The subject who was moving to a new district Indicated that she had many of the same "adjustment" concerns that she had the previous fall, including "meeting people, dealing with new community expectations, and relating to high school students (she had taught in a junior high school last year)." The one moving to a new building indicated con­ cerns about "getting along with the faculty there," but indicated: "You know, as a first-year teacher, you have so many things to be con­ cerned with, other than just teaching, like getting along with others, getting established, etc. Next year, I won't be as concerned about that." Subjects were also asked to speculate about what their probable concerns would be next year if they changed jobs. All but one indi­ cated that they would probably have many of the same concerns they had last fall in their first year of teaching. Some of their sample com­ ments included: "If I changed jobs, I'd be starting out all over again. I'd be feeling out the school again...I now feel a part of things, but I would have to prove myself all over again...I'd have to start right from the beginning. 105 "Establishing myself at first; getting to know people." "1 think I would have the same concerns just because I'd know what to look for now...there are a lot of things that you have to do, or overcome, before you can really get down to teaching." Sure that she would start by establishing herself, but "I don't know whether It would take so long to get over that." "Probably the same thing over again, fitting Into the school." Rating the First Year of Teaching Subjects were asked to evaluate their first year of teaching by rating themselves on a five-point scale, with five being high. The responses ranged from three to five, with the mean for the group being 4.03 for the eight subjects. Subjects were asked to comment on their self-ratings, giving any reasons for their rating. One subject rated herself on two dimensions — ject matter, and rapport with students. three, the second a five. getting across sub­ She rated che first area a She indicated that the area she wanted to work on was finding better ways to get her subject across. Another subject rated herself three to four, citing her "super self critical nature?'as part of the explanation. "I'm not satisfied with methodology, classroom organization, and routine, but I'll pro­ bably always be changing." Rating herself a three, this subject stated that "I don't feel that I did as good a job as I heard the kids telling me I did." She cited Instances where she "should have been" more patient and under­ standing, and "should have" made more efforts to get to know certain kids, and thought that she should have "stopped and listened to what 106 they were saying, and dealt with that." She also believed that no first-year teacher should rate a five. A fourth subject rated herself A.5 because she had "done every­ thing I knew how to do." When asked why she didn't rate herself a five, she commented that there "probably was something I don't know yet." Rating himself a four, another subject Indicated that "organiza­ tion was probably (his) sty biggest drawback," adding that next year he wanted to be "more Inventive." Also rating herself a four, another sub­ ject said that she had received much positive feedback from parents, adding, "I can always improve." Another subject who rated herself four said that she, too, could always improve, commenting, "I wasn't perfect." The last subject gave herself a five rating. Self-Evaluation Process Used by Subjects Subjects were asked about their own personal self-evaluation pro­ cess, including the kinds of data they used to evaluate themselves. Seven of the eight subjects Indicated that they used either formal or Informal feedback from students as a major indicator of how they were doing. The eighth said that she relied heavily on comments from par­ ents and administrators. Other data sources mentioned included other teachers' comments, supervisory ratings (although two subjects spoke disparagingly of the usefulness of such supervisory ratings), and com­ parison to one's own capabilities and expectations. One subject spoke at length about this topic. evaluation, she said: Concerning self- 107 I'm glad you asked me chat. It's something I always felt that SEPP did that the other program didn't. The other program...would give you all these methods.*.but they never really made you chink critically about yourself. SEPP has always Impressed on me that the human being Is so fragile, especially the teenager or junior high kid — you have to be so critical of yourself. In that re­ spect, I think It has been very helpful as far as making me very self-critical. I'm constantly evaluating myself. Strengths Provided by Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Program Another major portion of the interviews dealt with the subjects' undergraduate teacher preparation program. Respondents were asked to cite special strengths they had as a result of SEPP and to identify portions of the program which were especially valuable to them. were also asked to identify areas where they wished that had done more or had done something differently, as well They the program as tomake any general comments about the program. Special strengths attributed to being a part of the Secondary Edu­ cation Pilot Program seemed to cluster into three major areas: strengths associated to relating well to students, strengths associated with personal growth while In the program, and strengths associated with being able to "handle situations." Being able to relate well to students was mentioned as a special strength by six of chose subjects interviewed. One subject said that SEPP made her "more able to sense moods in people, to see how students are feeling from day to day." One subject felt that the relationship she was able to have with kids was due to SEPP, at least In part. An­ other cited individual relationships with students, and yet another cited both individual and small group Interactions as special strengths attributable to SEPP. 108 Four subjects indicated that the personal growth they experienced as a part of SEPP was a valuable strength in the classroom. One cited her self-concept as a strength; another the confidence she now had in herself. Two subjects said that SEPP helped them to overcome their shyness. The comments of one subject were particularly revealing on this topic: "I never really sat down and thought about myself until then (in SEPP)...I think I learned more personal-type things that I did actual information. I grew a lot as a person; before you can help other people who are still I think you have to growing." Five subjects indicated that they were better able to handle situa­ tions that they encountered as a result of their participation in SEPP. One described this as " b e i n g quick on my feet.. .nothing seems to rattle me." Another said that she was really comfortable with teaching be­ cause of the amount of practical experience she had with students. Two subjects indicated that they had a clear idea of what to expect in teaching, and the year proved that this was the case. Yet another said: "I knew how to react to a lot of the situations chat came up." Another said that because of her experience in SEPP, she realized that the prob­ lems and situations she encountered were not unique to her, and that many teachers face these same situations. Other strengths which were cited by the subjects as attributable to SEPP included self evaluation and analysis, knowing a variety of problem'solving techniques, having a good knowledge of how small groups work, and goal'.settlng and planning for Instruction. 109 Program Components Cited as Useful A variety of program components were cited as having been parti­ cularly useful. The most often mentioned, and seemingly most important, * were the field experiences which were undertaken under the auspices of the program. Five subjects cited this as valuable. One commenced that the part of the program that was most valuable was "just being in the field so long — having so many different field experiences ... it's hard to pinpoint any special one." me because of SEPP. Another commented that "they hired People couldn't believe that I had all this ex­ perience for someone my age...they said It was incredible. I was hired because of my experience." Other program components that were cited as especially useful were the spring camping weekend ("It was good for me, both as a participant and as a leader; it was good getting to know the good qualities of many people."), the leadership training laboratory, microteaching, the "mlcrolab" (Ed 102B), the teaching skills laboratory, and the "philo­ sophy course" (Ed 402C). One subject spoke about the philosophy course as especially important, but realized that the course in Itself was not enough: "Without the four years of experiences, the philosophies and ideas (we had been exposed to) would have been lost...the idea of 'celebration of self,' especially that one." There was some indication that subjects could not "compartmenta­ lize" the program and identify the source of many strengths. One stu­ dent commented, "I don't know whether a lot of the things I do are a result of SEPP, or if I do them because I'm me." Another stated that she couldn't recall a lot of the content of the program, but, "I'm sure 110 I must have drawn on that without realizing I do...I must use it (the program) but I can't say exactly how." Weaknesses in Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Program When asked what SEPP might have done that it didn't, four of the subjects said that they were basically satisfied. Two of those four said that SEPP did all that it possibly could, and indicated that there were limits to how much a teacher education program could be expected to do. Their comments are revealing: "Nothing can fully prepare you for that first day of class...if anyone in SEPP was prepared, I was; but I was not prepared...it blew my mind...I walked into class and here was this sea of kids, just all staring at me." Another commented, "The main thing is just getting out there and doing it — to learn things. And SEPP can't do that for you. it's the best way Nothing outside of yourself can." The other four respondents, however, made several suggestions for improvement of the program. These Included: — more realism — what it's really like. Have first-year teachers come in and share their experiences* — spend less time on theories. — I had so much information, it was hard to apply in the classroom. — I think one of the biggest faults was that no one every told us our faults, and what we need to build up, to Improve on." — more subject area methods. — I wish they would have forced me into a high school ex­ perience. Final, general comments about SEPP included: Ill It (SEPP) is four years of talking and being a part of edu­ cation before you get out there, discussing problems that you're going to encounter in an atmosphere that's very per­ sonal. I don't think that you get that in the regular pro­ gram. ..there's no one (in the regular program) to talk to about your problems. (Citing the personalized nature of the program) I think that education should be personal...(the kids) need people who can understand them...they need someone they can identify with, that will understand them and (who) wants to be there. I really enjoyed the program. I got a lot out of it. was really glad that I got into it. I The most important thing is that I grew a lot from it. Personally, I think it helped me a lot. People who can't have SEPP are really losing out. It was a really good program. People helped us in SEPP all the way through. Reactions to Fuller's Conceptualization of Teacher Concerns In the last portion of the interviews, the Fuller developmental conceptualization of teacher concerns was described to the subjects, and their general reactions were solicited. A series of other ques­ tions was also asked. All of the subjects interviewed agreed that Fuller's conceptuali­ zation was applicable to their first year of teaching. General com­ ments ranged from "it makes perfect sense to me" to "pretty precise" and "perfect." Many thought that all of the stages appeared "at some time during the year." All but one of the subjects saw concern for "survival" as being present during the beginning of their first year of teaching. One subject commented that at the beginning, "I was worrying about myself, my survival," but that at the end of the year,"I'm worry­ ing more about my subject's relevance to my students." Another stated, "A lot of it is gaining a sense of security...then you can look at your 112 program, at the kids and their learning." Yet another stated, "Know­ ing that I can survive, now I'm more concerned with the actual teaching part of it...what kind of difference can I make?" Some subjects saw variations to the sequence as presented by Fuller. None of the subjects thought Chat they necessarily resolved the concerns of one stage before moving on to another. One subject said, But I don't think I ever went through one and resolved one, and went on to another one. I think I may have started out with one. I've kept all of them, like I have gone through all of them. ..maybe two of them hit me at once. I'm still concerned probably about all of those things together. Another subject said that she saw herself as having gone through the stages, "...and I still go back to pieces of that, because I'm teaching new classes all the time. I have a new class." I go through all of those stages every time Another subject felt that the first stage was being resolved all during the year, but that it wasn't "a big concern." Another perception was that "After the year started, the first five stages came quickly together and overlapped. The sixth came more toward the end of the year as I looked back and ahead." Most subjects saw themselves in more than one stage at once. There were several different perceptions of which stages overlapped. The most frequent mention of overlapping stages seemed to be of the last three stages. Others felt that the third stage seemed to be pre­ sent and overlapping with the others. One subject said that even while she was in the "adjustment" phase, she was at the same time con­ cerned about student learning and the impact of her program. To another subject, stages three and four always seemed to be present. Most of the subjects felt that the stages were "a cycle," and that most of them would be repeated if they went to a new teaching job. 113 The only major differences In perceptions about this aspect was which of the stages might not be present, or the degree to which certain stage concerns would be of importance. this aspect were noted: Several pertinent comments about one subject said that If she changed jobs, she would not be as concerned with acceptance by the students and the knowl­ edge of her subject matter due to Increased confidence. One other sub­ ject thought that he would not go through all of the stages, or that he might go through stages one and two very briefly, depending on the new teaching assignment. Another subject believed that she would pro­ bably go through all the stages, but that the emphasis might be on the later stages. Another subject said, "I'm sure I would probably go through most of them again. as much. I think the middle stages won't stand out They're kind of always there, I think." There was disagreement as to whether the rate of resolving the concerns would be different in a new teaching situation. While two of the subjects thought that passing through the stages would take the same amount of time In a new situation, others felt that they would move through the first two or three stages more rapidly because "they knew what to look for" and because of increased confidence in self. Others felt that they might be in the first two stages only briefly, and then move on. Several specific comments are worthy of reporting. Several of those interviewed indicated that the questions posed by each stage should be reconsidered from time to time. One subject distinguished between two kinds of survival. "In the first year, it's survival — am I going to make it? the 'am I right for the job?' kind of survival." * She said, Later, it's The same subject also 114 commented that the concern for self Is actually a part of all of the stages, in that your perceptions are present in all of the stages. Summary of Findings The subjects, all graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Pro­ gram, in their first year of teaching in high schools and junior high schools, were generally well satisfied with their teacher preparation and had an average of about one thousand hours of experience with school age youngsters before their first year of teaching. Most had attended one or two inservlce meetings, and only one-fourth had enrolled in col­ lege graduate course. Two-thirds were strongly committed to teaching; the remainder were mildly committed. All of the subjects desired to return to teaching next year. As a group, their initial concerns were higher in the areas of gaining student respect, handling discipline problems, and maintaining order. A major finding of significant Interest was that the group's highest concern (as measured by mean score) at the beginning of the year was "having impact on my students." Other concerns ranked high by the group included concerns in the areas of knowing students as indi­ viduals and meeting lndivudal needs, organizing their classrooms, and concern for student learning. The degree of concern at the end of the year was lower overall In most categories, although there were major shifts in the ranking of concerns by the group. Generally speaking, the ranking shifts generally encompassed higher relative concern for meeting students' needs, pro­ viding individualized instruction and evaluation, finding and utilizing appropriate instructional materials, and concerns about student 115 learning. It is noted that "dealing with troublesome students" ranked second at the beginning of the year, moved Into the first place ranking at the end of the year. This shift could be described as moving away from concerns about self adequacy to concerns about student learning and meeting students' needs. When the concerns were anlayzed in terms of the level of concern, according to the Fuller-Case scheme, several conclusions are warranted. While all levels of concern made downward movement in terms of other scores; levels one, two, and three showed the most downward movement (from greater to lesser concern); and level five made the least down­ ward movement, leaving it as the highest ranked level at the end of the year (replacing level three). Two Interesting facts emerged: level six remained in second place ranking from beginning to end; levels one and four occupied the last two rankings at both the begin­ ning and end of the year, although they reversed rankings. When the data were analyzed for differences in expressed level of concern among the subjects on the basis of ten variables, no signifi­ cant differences emerged. This may Indicate that the similarities among the subjects at the beginning of the year outweighed any differ­ ences their teaching situations may have produced. There appeared to be differences in the manner in which individuals' concerns changed from the beginning of the year to the end. When in­ dividual mean scores were examined by level of concern, a number of dif­ ferences emerged. Movement toward lesser concerns from the beginning of the year to the end occurred for most subjects, with a notable ex­ ception: one subject showed no movement toward lesser concerns. 116 Individuals moved toward greater concern from the beginning to the end of the year In as many as four levels. The most helpful resources In resolving concerns during the sub­ jects' first year of teaching were their undergraduate teacher prepara­ tion and fellow teachers. It Is Interesting to note that lnservlce meetings were not ranked as especially helpful by the subjects. The open-ended questions on the survey questionnaire yielded ad­ ditional data. Concerns about students, student-teacher relationships, and about discipline were most frequently mentioned as concerns that were not mentioned elsewhere. When analyzed by level of concern, there appeared five concerns each at levels one, two and six; fewer concerns were added to the other levels. Experiences with youngsters was the most valuable component of SEPP, as measured by the number of times it was mentioned. Other com­ ponents of the program deemed useful by the subjects were self analysis and self evaluation, and problem solving techniques. Many could not Isolate specific program components, but indicated that the program as a whole was useful. Exposure to "real" situations, concern for the individual, and per­ sonal growth experiences were among the many positive aspects of the entire program cited by subjects. Suggestions for improving teacher education programs cited the need for as much preservice experience with youngsters as possible, and "more" courses on discipline and the behavior of students, as well as many specific suggestions. The interviews confirmed that early concerns (at the beginning of the year) centered around the areas of self adequacy and adjustment to 117 the job. Late concerns dealt with students and their learning and teacher effectiveness. Gaining a sense of security and confidence was important before subjects became involved with concerns for students. Subjects indicated that they believed that concerns are cyclical; i.e., they would once again be concerned about adjustment if they changed jobs. The subjects Interviewed felt generally positive about their first year of teaching, rating themselves with a mean 4.0 out of a high of 5.0. Areas cited as "needing improvement" dealt with classroom organi­ zation, making the subject area relevant, and meeting the real needs of students. Subjects generally utilized feedback from students and self-evaluative skills obtained in their teacher education program for evaluating themselves. SEPP was cited as providing a variety of strengths to the subjects. Most Important were strengths associated with relating to students, being able to "handle" a variety of real classroom situations, and per­ sonal growth which occurred in the program. Field experiences were by far the most useful portion of the program for the first-year teachers Interviewed. Half of the respondents saw no major weaknesses in the program, stating that SEPP "did all it could." The other half made a variety of suggestions for improvement, including providing direct feedback, ex- . perience with different grade levels of Instruction, and providing more realism and emphasizing negative as well as positive aspects of teach­ ing. All of the subjects interviewed agreed that Fuller's conceptuali­ zation was generally applicable to their first year of teaching. Some subjects saw variations to the sequence as' presented by Fuller. subjects saw themselves In more than one stage at once. Most Most of the subjects felt that the stages represented a "cycle," and that most of the stages would be repeated In a new teaching situation. There were disagreements about the rate at which subjects saw themselves moving through the stages in a new teaching situation. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY* CONCLUSIONS* REFLECTIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purposes of this study were to 'identify and describe the con­ cerns of first-year teachers who were graduates of Michigan State Unlverlsty's Secondary Education Pilot Program* to relate those concerns to the pre-service teacher preparation* to relate those concerns to their developmental conceptualization of teacher concerns as posited by the late Frances Fuller* and to gather evaluative data and feedback about the Secondary Education Pilot Program. This chapter will present a summary of findings as they apply to those purposes, will present con­ clusions based on the data* reflections of the Investigator about the area of teacher concerns and pre-service teacher preparation* and recom­ mendations for further research. Summary of Findings Data about concerns of first-year teachers who were graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Program at Michigan State University were gathered through a four-part, eight-page survey questionnaire as well as through interviews conducted with a random sample of eight subjects. The data revealed that the Initial major concerns of the subjects were concerns about gaining and maintaining student respect* handling disci­ pline problems* maintaining order* and having Impact on students. concerns ranked high by the group included concerns in the areas of knowing students as individuals* meeting the needs of individual 119 Other 120 students, organizing classroom Instruction, and concern about student learning. It is noted that the concern about having impact on students was ranked high by the group as a whole, but when subjects were interviewed, that particular concern appeared to be either a concern that was important before the school year began or one that appeared concurrently with the other above-mentioned concerns. By the end of the year, subjects had maintained their relatively higher degree of concern for having impact on students, for dealing with "troublesome students," for meeting the needs of individual students, and for having adequate instructional materials available. There were several concerns, however, that were ranked relatively high at the begin­ ning of the year that became less Important at the end of the year. Those concerns that lost at least seven places in the ranking by the group included concerns in the area of gaining and maintaining student respect, getting to know students as individuals, discipline problems, and having students like them. These were replaced in relative impor­ tance by concerns in the areas of individualizing instruction and evalu­ ation, concern for students with special needs, concern for student learning, and determining the academic needs of students. There was less relative concern at the end of the year for issues involving accep­ tance and adjustment to the school, and there was higher relative con­ cern at; the end of the year for Issues of meeting students' individual needs, and knowing that students are learning. The degree of concern was lower in nearly all areas at the end of the year, as measured by mean scores, despite the shifts In relative concern as reflected in the ranking of concerns. Only four items showed a gain in their mean scores from the beginning to the end of the 121 year (arranging furniture to facilitate instruction, evaluating students with special needs, Individualizing instruction, and knowing what tenure evaluation criteria are). Items which showed a substantial drop in degree of concern from the beginning to the end of the year, again measured by mean scores, Included being accepted as a full-fledged staff member, maintaining student respect, having students like me, knowing the principal’s expectations for me as a classroom teacher, and handling racially mixed classes. Concerns of Individual subjects were examined by level of concern, according to the Fuller and Case Manual for Scoring the Teacher Conc e m s Statement (Fuller and Case, 1972). This revealed that there were great variances in changes for the different levels from the beginning to the end of the year. Some subjects had lower mean scores for all levels of concerns at the end of the year than at the beginning of the year; only one subject showed a gain in mean scores for all levels of cocnem. In addition, it was found that there were differences in the number of individuals whose mean scores were higher and lower for begin­ ning of the year concerns and for end of the year concerns at the vari­ ous levels. The mean scores of fourteen individuals dropped in level one concerns (concerns about self-adjustment) from the beginning of the end of the year, for example, while only nine individuals showed a drop in mean score for level six (concerns about improving instruction) at the end of the year. The data were analyzed for differences in expressed level of con­ cern among the subjects on the basis of nine variables. The one-way multivariate analyses of variance of the nine stated hypotheses 122 Indicated that no significant differences in expressed level of concern were found among the subjects: 1. With varying degrees of satisfaction with their firstyear teaching levelt 2. Teaching to varying extents in their major fields of study, 3. With varying average class sizes, 4. With varying frequencies of attendance atin-service meetings, 5* With varying enrollments in college graduate courses, 6.. Teaching in buildings with varying average faculty ages, 7. With varying degrees of satisfaction with their under­ graduate teacher preparation program, 8. With varying amounts of pre-service experience with school-age youngsters, and 9. With varying degrees of commitment to teaching. A tenth hypothesis dealing with differences based on varying decisions to return to teaching next year was not tested, as all of the subjects indicated a desire to return to teaching next year. Relating the concerns of theBe first-year teachers to their under­ graduate teacher preparation program (SEPP) involved examining several sources of data. It has already been noted that no significant differ­ ences among the subjects was found with varying degrees of satisfaction with their undergraduate teacher preparation program or with varying amounts of experience with school-age youngsters while an undergraduate student. It was found, however, that pre-service teacher preparation has an important role in resolving the concerns of first-year teachers in several areas. Beginning teachers also bring to their first teaching positions several strengths which they consider important and useful in 123 their first year of teaching. Both of these areas were examined in this study. The subjects rated sources of help to them in resolving their first year teaching concerns. When examining frequencies of responses, it was found that the subjects rated their undergraduate education program high­ er than any other source of help as being "most helpful" in the follow­ ing areas: 1. Teaching my subject, 2. Planning for instruction 3. Evaluating my own teaching, 4. Finding instructional materials. S. Grading students, 6. Classroom management. 7. Evaluating what my students are learning, and 8. Improving my own teaching. The subjects' undergraduate teacher education program was not rated as being particularly helpful in the areas of: 1. Adjusting the job and 2. Dealing with parents. It is noted that fellow teachers were rated as "most helpful" or "next most helpful" in a number of areas, and must be considered as an equally valuable source of help in resolving the concerns of first-year teachera Subjects identified several components of their undergraduate teacher preparation program as especially useful in their first year of teaching. Experience with youngsters in a variety of settings was iden­ tified as especially useful by most of the subjects. Other components 124 * identified as especially useful were self-evaluation skills and problem­ solving techniques. The subjects believed that they were especially strong in several areas due to their undergraduate teacher preparation program. Exposure to "real" situations (and thus developing a larger repertoire of re­ sponses to such situations) was cited as a major strength, as were skills in relating to students on both an Individual and small group basis. The subjects also indicated that the personal growth which had occurred in or as a result of the program was another major strength. The subjects of this study were most concerned with level three concerns (concerns aobut students and student-teacher relationships) at the beginning of the year, as measured.by mean scores. By the end of the year, however, there was less absolute and relative concern for this area. Yet the subjects also indicated that one of the major strengths they had acquired as a result of SEPP was precisely in the area of being able to relate well with students. Reflections on this finding will be discussed in a later section of this chapter. An Important finding which relates teacher concerns to pre-service teacher preparation deals with the perception of many of the subjects that any pre-service teacher preparation program is limited in what it can do to prepare students of education to resolve concerns. One sub­ ject who felt especially well-prepared as a result of SEPP commented that she did not feel prepared at all when she encountered the "sea of faces" that first day of teaching. Another subject, commenting that there were limits to what teacher education could do said, The main thing is just getting out there and doing it — it's the best way to learn things. And SEPP cau't do that for you. Nothing outside of yourself can. 125 Relating the concerns of these first-year teachers to the develop­ mental conceptualization of teacher concerns posited by Fuller required that the concerns be analyzed by level of concern. When the levels of concern were examined at the beginning of the year, level three (concern about students and teacher-student relationships) was highest In ranking as well as mean score. By the end of the year, this level of concern fell to third In the rankings, being replaced by level five (concern about whether students are learning what they need). Mean scores for all levels of concern showed downward movement from the beginning to the end of the year. Levels one, two, and three made the most downward movement toward less concern, and level five made the least downward movement. The differences in the amount of downward movement caused shifts In relative concern as measured by the ranking of the levels of concern. In the beginning of the year, level three (concern about students and teacher-student relationships) was of most relative concern, followed by, in order, level six (Improving my own teaching), level five (concern about whether students are learning what they need), level two (concern about self-adequacy), level one (concern about self-adjustment In the school), and level four (concern about whether students are learning what Is taught). By the end of the year, however, level five was of most relative concern, followed, In order, by levels six, three, two, four, and one. It is interesting to note that level six, supposedly the highest level in terms of teacher growth, remained in second place ranking from the beginning to the end of the year. Individuals showed both higher and lower mean scores for all of the levels of concern. It Is apparent that individuals move at 126 different rates In terms of their concerns. Some individuals showed greater concern at most or all of the levels from the beginning to the end of the year; most subjects, however, showed less concern at most or all of the levels. Those subjects who were interviewed were asked their reaction to the Fuller conceptualization of teacher concerns, after hearing a brief description of the levels. All agreed that each of the six levels had been a concern at some time during the year, and that the first two levels were of primary concern at the beginning of the year. The other levels quickly followed, and all of the subjects agreed that there was overlap among at least two or more of the levels at some point during the year. Most of the subjects believed that if they were to move to a new school district next year, levels one and two would probably reap­ pear as major concerns, indicating a cyclical nature of concerns. There was disagreement as to the rate that they would resolve the concerns in a new teaching situation. Feedback and evaluative data about the Secondary Education Pilot Program were solicited and received in the course of this study. It can be said that subjects were generally well-satisfied with the prepa­ ration they received for their first year of teaching. Many subjects stated that there was little, if anything, that SEPP could have offered that it did not. Field experiences with youngsters in a variety of settings was cited as the single most valuable part of the subjects' experience with­ in the Secondary Education Pilot Program. Subjects in this study cited several ways in which this field experience was valuable — in relating to students, in developing a repertoire of responses to a variety of 127 situations, In becoming a stronger person, in making a career decision, in being hired for a job. Other particularly positive aspects of the program for the sub­ jects were personal growth experiences, the acquisition of Interpersonal communication skills, problem-solving techniques, self-evaluation tech­ niques, and developing a coherent personal philosophy of education. Concern for individuals was also rated as a positive outcome of the pro­ gram by many of the subjects. First-year teachers who were graduates of SEFP generally felt posi­ tive about their first year of teaching, and gave themselves an average of 4.00 on a 5.00 rating scale. The subjects cited several areas for self-imrovement, including better classroom organization, making their subject more interesting and/or relevant, and trying to meet the real needs of students. When asked for suggestions to Improve the program, half of the subjects stated that the program had done "all that any program could do." Others cited the need for even more experience with youngsters. Other suggestions mentioned by one or two subjects Included providing more direct feedback and suggestions for Improvement, more courses dealing with discipline, emphasizing the negative as well as positive aspects of teaching, and some work on mainstreaming. Conclusions From the analysis of the perceptions expressed by the graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Program who were in their first year of teaching, it seems reasonable to conclude that: 1. While the subjects were primarily cocnerned with issues of self-adequacy and adjustment to their new school 128 settings at the beginning of the year, they were also concerned about having an Impact on students as well as Improving their own Instruction. 2. It appears that participation in the Secondary Educa­ tion Pilot Program aroused a higher degree of concern for Individual students and their needs, and also that participation In SEPP provided the necessary skills and attitudes to deal with such courses. 3. Concerns at the end of the first year of teaching moved away from concerns with self-adequacy and adjust­ ment and toward an even higher degree of concern for meeting the needs of Individual students. A. Pre-service teacher preparation Is an Important and valued resource for resolving the concerns of firstyear teachers. 5. No single situational or Individual factor has been Identified to account for statistically significant dif­ ferences In either the level or degree of concern held by first-year teachers. 6. Overall satisfaction with pre-service teacher prepara­ tion and the amount of experience that first-year teach­ ers had with school-age youngsters appear to be of great value and importance to the first-year teachers who were subjects of this study. 7. The Secondary Education Pilot Program provided pre-service teacher preparation experiences which prepared the sub­ jects very well for their first year of teaching. 8. Field experiences were cited as the most Important con­ tribution to resolving concerns during the first year of teaching. 9. First-year teachers have difficulty isolating specific components of their pre-service teacher preparation as having Impact on their first-year teaching performance. 10. Graduates of teacher preparation programs who have had teaching experience may have a more clear perception of the limits of pre-service teacher preparation programs than do teacher educators. 11. The Secondary Education Pilot Program may be strengthened by encouraging students to embark on as many field exper­ iences as possible at differing levels, by providing its students with more direct feedback, and by encouraging dialogue between Its students and those who are currently engaged in their first year of teaching. 129 12. Any conceptualization of teacher concerns may be more cyclical than developmental In nature. 13. The degree of concern for relating to students as In­ dividuals* for meeting the needs of Individual students* and for Improving one's own instruction may be raised through pre-service teacher preparation. 14. Self concerns about adjusting to a school setting and self-adequacy in both subject area and discipline areas may be generic to the first teaching assignment and to changes In teaching assignments thereafter. 15. Concerns do not occur In an Invariant sequence* but rather differ for groups as well as for Individuals. 16. There Is an overlapping of several levels of concern* but no perceptible pattern appears at this time. 17. No single situational factor can be attributed to dif­ ferences in level of concern. Reflections The first-year teachers who were the subjects of this study were graduates of the Secondary Education Pilot Program at Michigan State University. Their pre-service teacher preparation experiences were composed of a set of features that have been described elsewhere In this study. Those experiences were unique In many respects* and may have contributed to the concerns that these subjects had as first-year teachers. In the literature and studies of teacher concerns, only one study appears which Indicates that beginning teachers have any major concerns about studens and their learning. Most of this research was either conducted by Frances Fuller and her associates* or compiled by them. The data compiled here would seem to Indicate differences between the subjects of this study and the subjects of other studies in several areas. 130 Subjects of this study, while being concerned with self-adjustment, self-adequacy and acceptance, were also concerned with students, their needs, and their learning at the beginning of their first year of teach­ ing. These concerns for students and their growth increased during the year for the subjects of this study. The subjects also showed concern for the improvement of their own instruction at the beginning of the year, and this concern was maintained throughout their first year of teaching. These results would not be expected from studying the con­ cerns of other first-year teachers in other studies. The subjects of this study also differed from the subjects studied by Briscoe (1972) in several respects. Subjects who were SEPP gradu­ ates had much less relative concern at the end of the year for gaining and maintaining student respect, having students like them, for handl­ ing discipline problems, and similar concerns than did the subjects of Briscoe's research. On the other hand, first-year teachers who were graduates of SEPP had greater relative concern for "dealing with troublesome students" than did Briscoe's subjects, as well as more re­ lative concern for having impact on students and meeting their indivi­ dual needs. It is not possible from this study to definitely conclude that the pre-service teacher preparation program of the subjects was the cause of these differences. However, there would seem.to be indications that the program of pre-service teacher preparation, or at least portions of it, were Instrumental in arousing and resolving the concerns of the subjects of this study. The number of individuals who commented on their concern for relating to students, for example, can be coupled with nearly unanimous agreement among those interviewed that one of 131 their greatest strength arising from SEPP was the ability "to relate to kids as Individuals and In small groups." It Is the belief of this Investigator that there were experiences within SEPP that aroused this area as an initial concern and further, that SEPP also provided skills and attitudes that were Instrumental In the first-year teachers' at­ tempts to resolve such concerns. Field experiences were cited as particularly Important by the sub­ jects who were surveyed, and those who were Interviewed confirmed the importance of such experiences. It is not possible from this study to cite particular experiences or events which happened during field ex­ periences as causing a particular concern, or a means for resolving a particular concern. The subjects themselves commented that it was dif­ ficult to Isolate components of SEPP that were valuable. Another sub­ ject commented at length that no one experience was, In Isolation, In­ valuable. It was, rather, the combination and Integration of all of the portions of the program which must be viewed as a whole In looking at effects. In this study, the developmental conceptualization of teacher con­ cerns was examined, and a group of first-year teachers was studied to ascertain if such a developmental conceptualization applied In this case. From the data It must be concluded that teacher concerns would appear to be more cyclical in nature, rather than developmental. Sev­ eral features of what are considered criteria for developmental pro­ cesses were absent from the concerns expressed by the subjects of this study. Two of these criteria were that the phases or levels were not irreversible for the subjects of this study, and that the phases did not occur In an invariant sequence. Concern for levels five and six, 132 for example, often seemed to occur concurrently with or even before levels three and four. Several subjects commented that they repeatedly went back to prior stages and dealt with recurring concerns. The sub­ jects indicated that they believed the levels of concern to be cyclical, in that "they were sure" they would return to the first two stages if they left their present teaching assignments for different ones. In the mind of the Investigator, this study raised the question of appropriate methodology for the study of teacher concerns. It would seem Important to know reasons why subjects Indicated that an Item was of "great concern" or one of the other categories. This would be es­ pecially Important for assigning the Items to levels of concern. For this reason, the interviews seemed to yield much more valuable Insight, if not more valuable information, into understanding the concerns of first-year teachers. This was in spite of the fact that the reliabil­ ity between raters for assigning Items to levels of concern exceeded eighty percent. Such assignment of Items to levels may have been more of "consistent speculation" dividuals. than of understanding the concern of In­ An example may clarify this point. "Dealing with troublesome students" was a major concern for the subjects of this study at the beginning and at the end of the year. If one followed the criteria for assigning concerns to levels as outlined by Fuller and Case, that particular item would be placed Into level twc* concern about one's adequacy in the area of student discipline. How­ ever, comments In response to the open-ended questions on the survey, and also comments by subjects interviewed, indicated that the real con­ cern in this instance, at least for those subjects, was more with the frustration of feeling helpless to aid an individual student who was 133 being a discipline problem, when they as teachers knew that the stu­ dent's home life was much less than desirable. The concern for "deal­ ing with troublesome students" then may have taken on a different mean­ ing than as a concern for discipline. The experience of teaching may also cause one to define concerns differently. For example, one subject commented that before she began teaching last fall, her major concerns were in the areas of "being ac­ cepted" by the staff at her new school and with "making a difference with kids." It is likely, in the opinion of this investigator, that the meaning of "making a difference" changed as a result of the teach­ ing experience. From examining and analyzing responses to a checklist, such differences in interpretation and meaning are not clear. Another example of differing meanings was offered by a different subject, who said that "survival," for example, meant different things at different times. It would seem that further research efforts in the area of teacher concerns must center around defining concerns more precisely, and attempting to get at the reasons for such concerns, rather than at applying concern "labels" to events or phenomena which may have dif­ fering meanings and interpretations. Many of the subjects commented on their own processes of selfevaluation and self-analysis as being a strength they had gained as a result of SEPP. In the opinion of this investigator, those skills appeared to be very highly developed, as many were able to point out their own strengths, weaknesses, and proposed remedies "on the spot." The subjects of this study showed, by the manner in which they thought aloud and then answered the questions of the interviewer, that this 134 process of self-evaluation is one which is on-going, important, and highly valued. Comments by the subjects about their pre-service teacher prepara­ tion speak for themselves, for the most part. However, it is the re­ flection of this researcher chat many of the comments made by those Interviewed seemed to reflect very much the features that were described as unique elsewhere in this study. Comments about the personal nature of education and the learning process, about meeting the real needs of students, about individualizing Instruction, about the importance of Interpersonal relationships — all of these seem to reflect much of what the Secondary Education Pilot Program seems to value and tries to model for its students. The purpose of this study has not been to study concerns in at at­ tempt to eliminate them. Concerns from a valuable piece of the growth process for teachers as well as for others. One of the subjects of this study commented that one should be continually concerned about is­ sues, and that one should continually reexamine him/herself "for all of that is part of growing." Studying teacher concerns has implications for both in-service and pre-service teacher education. Many of these implications were de­ tailed by Briscoe in his 1972 study, and need not be repeated here. One Implication, however, having its roots in this particular study, is that pre-service teacher preparation experiences such as the Secondary Education Pilot Program provided for the subjects of this study, seem to have special value, and are regarded highly by its graduates after a year of teaching experience. 135 Based on the perceptions of the subjects of this study, pre-service preparation programs are effective and valued when: 1. They not only raise, but also help to resolve, Issues of personal growth. 2. Field experiences with youngsters In a variety of settings are provided and supervised. 3. They provide a forum for the dicussslon of both personal and professional concerns with both University and public school staff and fellow students on a continuing basis. A. They contain a degree of personalization and Individuali­ zation which Is often absent In other quarters of a large university setting. 5. They provide for the development of Individual teaching styles and accompanying behaviors appropriate to those styles. 6. They provide for the development of self-analysis, selfevaluation, and problem solving skills. 7. They provide experiences with youngsters early enough that students can make appropriate career decisions. 8. The focus of the program Is on the personal and profes­ sional growth and development of Individuals within the program. The Secondary Education Pilot Program at Michigan State University ap­ pears to satisfy Its students well In these areas, based on subjects' perceptions after a year of teaching. Recommendations for Further Research 1. Study the concerns of teachers who move from one school district to another, In an attempt to verify the recur­ ring nature of concerns about adequacy, acceptance, and adjustment, and to determine If teachers will resolve these concerns at a faster rate In a new situation. 2. Continue to follow the subjects of this study to deter­ mine what changes, if any, occur In their concerns over time. The data presented in this study can be utilized as baseline data for such a longitudinal study. 136 3. Replicate this study with a non-SEPP sample or population to examine possible differences. 4. Examine various research methodological approaches to determine if there may be different and better ways to assess concerns and the meanings and Importance that teachers attach to them. 5. Continue to seek feedback and evaluative data from these subjects about the continuing value of their pre-service teacher preparation program, and to seek whatever new perceptions the subjects may offer in light of their continuing teaching experience. 6. Develop methodological approaches to try to pinpoint the value of specific program components in the growth of teachers. 7. Study samples from both SEPP and non-SEPP populations at Michigan State University to provide comparative data about the strengths and weaknesses of the two programs. Such data can be used for program development purposes, as well as for decision making-purposes. 8. Continue to study teacher concerns in attempts to relate teaching practices and performance to teacher concern. APPENDICES APPENDIX A STUDENT HANDBOOK SECONDARY EDUCATION PILOT PROGRAM Secondary ‘E ducation E ilo t jPiroaram MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1855 137 138 A F orward When one p erso n 's l i f t touches, and t h i t en rich es, tha U fa o f enothar, both achieve tha moat oompleta hunan exaallsn ce. Our aahoola ahould bring paopla togathar in txcya which allow ub to touoh and anriah aaoh oth a r. But any *u oh product o f our e o o ie ty — our in s titu tio n s , our lo u t, our pronouncements o f p r in c ip le and purpoaa — dapand on tha paopla who uaa tham fo r th a ir oun b a n a fit, ecid fo r tha b a n a fit o f thoaa who coma a f ta r than. Our aahoola m a t dapand on tha axoattenoa o f tha human bainga who an tar tham f o r whatavar purpoaaa, n ot on tha atvuotura o f tha in a titu tio n , tha curriculum, or tha prin o ip la a which gov arm th m and g ive tham prem ise, We raoogniaa th ia fundamental t r u t h in a ta a rtin g th a t good taoohara ora e f fa o tiv e paraona; bafora anything alaa, b o th e f f e c tiv e ly human and in ta r human. Thia ia a program which foouaaa on tha paraon. I t oalabrataa tha uniquenesses and tha sxoellenoaa o f t h s human a p i r i t . Tha a p i r i t o f humanity ia fom ad o f q u a litie s o f U fa which giva maaning to our baingt tha d a rh tsss o f fr u s tr a tio n , lo n a lin a tt, aodnaaa and daapair on tha ona hand; tha lig h t o f Joy, goodnaaa, a a tia fo o tio n and worthinaaa on tha oth ar. Wa aaak n e ith e r aida o f U fa by i t a a l f . Wa aooapt both aa having tha p o te n tia l to anriah u t whan aoaompaniad by four naeaaaary q u a litie s o f tha interhuman: oaring, aharing, tea m in g and belonging. Va welcome anyone who ohooeea to be a p e r t o f th ia program. A t tha acme time, wa anoouraga honaat exploration o f the s e l f and o f tha teaching p r o fe ttio n . I f auoh an exploration ia honaat, i t w ill lead soma to a deoieion n ot to sta y w ith ua. We aooapt auoh a deoieion a t a p o s itiv e affirm ation o f personal q u a litie s leadin g to oth er areas o f heron endeavor w ith equal v a l i d i ty , v i t a l i t y and worth. I t ie n ot nsaeseary o r d ee ire a b le th a t a l l thoaa who ooma togeth er in th ia program be a lik e — e ith e r i n th * beginning o r a t the end o f our time to g eth er. What i s naoeeeary and d esirea b la ie th a t aharing, o a rin g , learning and belonging o f unique persona be tha aouroa o f anriofmant and fu lfillm e n t fo r a l l o f u s . We o o m it ou rselves to thoaa prooeaaaa. Va in v ite you to look through t h is daaoription o f our program. Then i f you would lik e to be a p a r t o f auoh on adventure, o r would lik e to xnow more about STPP, p lea se g e t i n touoh, and l e t us g e t to know eaoh oth er. S. S. c . September, 1973 L39 The S eco n d a ry E d u c a tio n P i l o t Program The S eco n d a ry E d u c a tio n P i l o t P rogram (SEPP) i a o n a o f a n u a b e r o f e f f o r t s o f th a C o lle g e o f E d u c a tio n a t M ic h ig a n S t a t a U n i v e r s i t y t o p r o v id e q u a l i t y t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r i t s s tu d e n ts . D esig n ed f o r s t u d e n ts p r e p a r in g t o te a c h in h ig h s c h o o ls and J u n i o r h ig h o r a i d d l a s c h o o l s , t h e p r o g r a a f e a t u r e s a se q u e n c e o f e x p e r ie n c e s f o r s tu d e n ts b e g in n in g i n th e f a l l o f t h e f r e s h a a n y e a r f o r many, and en d in g w ith t h e r e c e i p t o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n and d e g r e e . The p r o g r a a i s in te n d e d t o p r o v id e a way o f t a s t i n g c a r e e r d e c i s i o n s e a r l y , w ith t h e r e s u l t a n t a l i a i n a t i o n o f te a c h in g a s a c a r e e r f o r so a e v e r y e a r l y in t h e i r c o l l e g e c a r e e r s ; o t h e r s , who c o n firm a c a r e e r c h o ic e i n e d u c a t io n , ca n g a in r e a l f i e l d e x p e r ie n c e l a a e d i a t e l y , an d b e g in t o c o o r d in a te t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l p r e p a r a t i o n w ith t h e i r a c a d e a ic p ro g ra m s. U n lik e t h e u s u a l f o u r - c o u r s e se q u en c e fo llo w e d In v i r t u a l l y a l l o f th e se c o n d a ry t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p ro g ram s i n t h i s c o u n tr y ( E d u c a tio n a l P sy c h o lo g y , T e a c h in g M eth o d s, S o c ia l F o u n d a tio n s and S tu d e n t T e a c h in g ) , s t u d e n ts i n SEPP p a r t i c i p a t e in p r o f e s s i o n a l d ev e lo p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s d u r in g e v e ry t e n s i n w hich th e y a r e in r e s id e n c e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y . The p r o g ra a o f f e r s th e f o llo w in g a d v a n ta g e s t o t h e s t u d e n t : 1. A c o n tin u o u s b le n d in g o f p r o f e s s i o n a l d e v e lo p n e n t, s u b j e c t a r e a s tu d y , and v i a b l e f i e l d e x p e r ie n c e . 2. E x te n s iv e f i e l d e x p e r ie n c e ( a t l e a s t tw ic e t h a t o f a o s t o t h e r p ro g ra m s ), and w id e r v a r i e t y o f c o n t a c t s w ith young p e o p le . S. D e li b e r a te e x p e r ie n c e w ith a d o l e s c e n ts i n in f o rm a l and n o n -s c h o o l s e t t i n g s . 4. A r e g u l a r s t a f f o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e d u c a to r s w o rk in g w ith s t u d e n ts in a l l p h a s e s o f t h e p r o g r a a , in c lu d in g t h e c l i n i c a l e x p e r ie n c e n o d u le s . The s a a e s t a f f who w ork w ith s tu d e n ts e a r l y in t h e program c o n tin u e w ith th e n th r o u g h o u t, and s u p e r v is e th e s e s tu d e n ts i n f i e l d co m p o n en ts. 5. S y s te m a tic p r o f e s s i o n a l and p e r s o n a l a d v is e m e n t, su p p le m e n tin g t h a t o f f e r e d by th e s t u d e n t 's a c a d e a ic m a jo r d e p a rtm e n t and r e s id e n c e h a l l s t a f f . 6. A c o h e r e n t p r o g r a a , sp a n n in g f o u r y e a r s (12 te rm s) o f g ro w th and d ev elo p m en t aim ed a t e x c e l le n c e i n c a r e e r p r e p a r a t i o n . SEPP d i s t i n g u i s h e s b etw een e x p e r ie n c e b a s e d l e a r n i n g and p e r /o m o n o e b a s e d l e a r n i n g . In d e s c r i b i n g t h i s p r o g r a a a s e x p e r fe n o e b a s e d wo a r e a l s o d e s c r i b i n g a n i n d u c tiv e a o d e l o f te a c h e r p r e p a ra tio n . s tu d e n ts . WE do n o t , a s a r u l e , s e t p e rfo rm a n c e o b j e c t i v e s FOR o u r We a s k s t u d e n ts to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own p e rfo rm a n c e s ta n d a r d s a s an o u tg ro w th o f t h e i r own e x p e r ie n c e s , and c o n s t a n t l y e n c o u ra g e s t u d e n ts t o r e v i s e th o s e g o a ls in l i g h t o f f u r t h e r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f e x p e r ie n c e . Of c o u r s e n o t a l l e x p e r ie n c e s a r e e q u a lly s i g n i f i c a n t o r e q u a lly e d u c a t iv e . b e l ie v e o th e r w is e i s t o a b d i c a t e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r g u id in g l e a r n i n g . To Dewey d e f i n e s e x p e r ie n c e in a way t h a t e m p h a sise s b o th th e p e r s o n and th e en v iro n m e n t » a s e x p e r ie n c e 140 r e s u l t s In i n t e r n a l p e r s o n a l c h a n g e . I t a l s o r e s u l t s i n c h a n g e s i n th e o b j e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n s i n w hich th e e x p e r ie n c e o c c u r s . Me b e l i e v e t h a t e d u c a tiv e e x p e r ie n c e i s t h a t w hich le a d s s t u d e n ts t o a f f e c t t h e i r w o rld i n I m p o rta n t r e a l w ays. th e * t o a c t o n th e ir cun i n i t i a t i v e su ch t h a t t h e i r w o rld r e s p o n d s . We want I t i s th ro u g h an e x a m in a tio n o f th o s e a c t i o n s and r e s p o n s e s t h a t s t u d e n t s , w ith g u id a n c e f r o a SEPP s t a f f n a b e r e , e n g a g e i n a c o n t i n u a l p r o c e s s o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f e x p e r ie n c e . If b o th t h e e x p e r ie n c e and t h e p r o c e s s in g o f i t a r e d e te rm in e d by s tu d e n t p e r c e p t i o n s , s tu d e n t n e e d s , an d s t u d e n t d e v e lo p e d g o a ls an d o b j e c t i v e s ( a s th e s e a r e p la y e d o u t i n t h e r e a l a r e n a o f p u b lic e d u c a t i o n ) , th e r e s u l t a n t " p r o d u c ts " s h o u ld b e a s d i v e r s e a s t h e n u a b e r o f s tu d e n ts in v o lv e d . SEPP c h e r i s h e s th o s e d i f f e r e n c e s , and b u i l d s on th e a to w ard th e d ev e lo p m e n t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l e x c e l le n c e in i t s g r a d u a te s . We u n d e r s ta n d th e p r o c e s s j u s t d e s c r ib e d t o b e v e r y d i f f e r e n t f r o a w hat i s u s u a l l y d e s c r ib e d In th e l i t e r a t u r e on performance bated i n s t r u c t i o n . We do n o t c l a l a t h a t t h e way we have c h o s e n i s b e s t f o r a l l s tu d e n ts — i t i s an a l t e r n a t i v e , open t o th o s e who ch o o se to p u rs u e t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l gro w th i n t h i s w ay. In th e p u r s u i t o f p r o f e s s i o n a l g ro w th , wo a s k t h a t s t u d e n ts r e f l e c t , th r o u g h t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e v a r io u s p a r t s o f th e p r o g r a a : nilSIAIIVS — th e y s h o u ld s e e k o u t o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r o f e s s i o n a l g ro w th th ro u g h f i e l d e x p e r ie n c e , th ro u g h e n ric h m e n t e x p e r ie n c e s on c a a p u s , and th ro u g h le a d e r s h i p and s e r v i c e w ith in th e s t r u c t u r e o f th e p r o g r a a i t s e l f . RESPONSIBHITI — th e y s h o u ld a s a u a e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s u c h o f t h e i r own le a r n in g an d grow th a s th e y c a n . I t i s assum ed t h a t t h e r e s o u r c e s o f th e p r o g r a a w i l l c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o i n d i v i d u a l e x c e l l e n c e , b u t o n ly w ith in th e c o n t e x t o f i n d iv i d u a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and e f f o r t . A g e n e r a l c o a a l t a o n t t o e x c e l l e n c e , im p lie d by a e a b e r s h ip lit th e p r o g r a a , c a r r i e s w ith i t th e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a e e t i n g o b l i g a t i o n s o f e f f o r t , a t te n d a n c e , and r ig o r o u s in q u i r y . com raam - - th e y s h o u ld e x p e c t t h a t in v o lv e a e n t in SEPP r e p r e s e n t s a c o a a i t a e n t t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n w e ll beyond th e l e v e l e x p e c te d o f s tu d e n ts in soao o t h e r te a c h e r e d u c a tio n p ro g ra m s, in ex ch an g e f o r t h a t c o n s titu e n t, s t u d e n ts s h o u ld e x p e c t g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y w ith in th e p r o g r a a , a h ig h e r l e v e l o f e x c e lle n c e in p r e p a r a t i o n f o r a p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r , and a b ac k g ro u n d o f e x p e r ie n c e and le a r n in g w hich i s u n iq u e and e x e a p la r y w ith in t h e f i e l d . U n d e rly in g P r o f e s s i o n a l A s s u a o tio n s S p e c i f i c co a ao n o b j e c t i v e s f o r a l l s tu d e n ts a r e a n t i t h e t i c a l t o th e n a t u r e o f a • p r o g ra a w h ich f o c u s e s on u n iq u e n e s s e s i n i n d iv i d u a l s t y l e and i n d i v i d u a l g o a ls and o b je c tiv e s . s te rility . B ut c o m p le te n e u t r a l i t y a s t o p u rp o s e i s a l s o syno n o ao u s w ith i n t e l l e c t u a l The f o llo w in g a s s u m p tio n s a b o u t t e a c h e r s and e d u c a tio n a a k e up an u a b r e l l a u n d e r w hich in d i v i d u a l s t r e n g t h s a a y b e d e v e lo p e d an d n u r tu r e d . T hese s t a t e a e n t s r e f l e c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f h e a l t h y p e r s o n a l g ro w th , and s h o u ld alw a y s b e view ed a s " i n p r o c e s s " , not a t ebatm tents o f fin a l con dition s or term inal r e s u l t s . Each c a n be c o n v e r te d to 1*1 on* o r n o r* s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e * a p p l i c a b l e t o an I n d iv id u a l s t u d e n t , aa su ch a p p l i c a t i o n b eco ae* a p p r o p r i a t e . W* e n c o u ra g e s t u d e n ts to make su ch a p p l i c a t i o n d i r e c t l y t o them ­ s e l v e s , r a t h e r th a n e x t e r n a l l y s p e c if y in g su ch a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r th e n . 1. Me need t e a c h e r s Mho a r e e f f e c t i v e p e r s o n s . o a b r a c ln g th e f o llo w in g c o n d i t i o n s - - W* d e f i n e “ e f f e c t i v e " a s a . a w e ll d e v e lo p e d s y s t e a o f p e r s o n a l b e l i e f s an d v a l u e s ; a p h ilo s o p h y o f l i f e . b. p e r s o n a l b e h a v io r c o n s i s t e n t w ith th o s e b e l i e f s and v a l u e s . 2. He n e e d t e a c h e r s who u n d e r s ta n d how young p e o p le l e a r n , how th e y grow and d e v e lo p a s p e r s o n s , and who a r e aw are o f young p e o p l e 's n e e d s and s o c i a l co n c ern s. I. We n ee d t e a c h e r s who c a n re s p o n d e f f e c t i v e l y t o young p e o p l e 's n e e d s , who r e s p e c t and v a lu e i n d i v i d u a l i t y an d d i v e r s i t y , and who a r e r e c e p t i v e to young p e o p l e 's c o n c e r n s , s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s an d p ro b le m s . 4. We n eed t e a c h e r s who u n d e r s ta n d th e f u n d a a e n ta l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e i r s u b j e c t n a t t e r , and who a r e a b le to s e l e c t an d im plem ent a p p r o p r i a t e ways o f h e lp in g young p e o p le u n d e r s ta n d an d u s * t h a t s t r u c t u r e in t h e i r l i v e s . 5. W* need t e a c h e r s who u n d e r s ta n d th e o r g a n i s a t i o n and p r o c e s s o f e d u c a t io n , t h e r o l e o f s c h o o lin g i n m odem s o c i e t y , an d c a n c r i t i c a l l y e v a lu a te t h a t r o l e , a s w e ll a s w orking e f f e c t i v e l y w ith i t . 6. We n eed t e a c h e r s who c a n i d e n t i f y t h e i r own s t r e n g t h s and w e a k n e sse s, and u s in g a s c r i t e r i a t h e i r own b e l i e f s , v a lu e s a n d g o a l s , th e n e e d s and e x p e c t a ti o n s o f t h e i r s t u d e n t s , and th e e x p e c t a ti o n s o f t h e s o c i a l s y s t e a , a c t t o c a p i t a l i s e on t h e i r s t r e n g t h s and c o r r e c t t h e i r w e a k n e sse s. 7. W* n e e d t e a c h e r s who c a n d ia g n o s e an d a c t t o r e a e d l a t o s t u d e n t s ' d e f f i e i e n c i e s in b a s ic s k i l l s , i n t e r p e r s o n a l s o c i a l s k i l l s , and s e l f - c o n c e p t s , a s w e ll a s h e lp in g young p e o p le t o b u ild on t h e i r s t r e n g t h s and p e r s o n a l s k i l l s . 8. We need t e a c h e r s who c a n p r o v id e r e l e v a n t and a p p r o p r i a t e fe e d b a c k to s tu d e n ts and p a r e n t s . 9. We need t e a c h e r s who a r e s e n s i t i v e to th e in h e r e n t c o n f l i c t s b etw een h e l p in g , on one h a n d , and i n t r u s i o n on t h e o t h e r ; b etw een a c t i n g a s an a b j e c t i v e a g e n t o f c h a n g e on one h a n d , an d a p u b l i c s e r v a n t on t h e o t h e r ; an d b etw een th e e x a m in a tio n o f p e r s o n a l v a l u e s a s a p a r t o f th e e d u c a tio n a l p r o c e s s on on* h a n d , and t h e i n t r u s i o n upon f a m ily and p r iv a c y on th e o t h e r . S e n s i t i v i t y t o th e s e c o n f l i c t s sh o u ld b e r e f l e c t e d i n e f f e c t i v e ’ p r o f e s s i o n a l b e h a v io r . 10. W* need t e a c h e r s who f u n c ti o n a s a c t i v e , e f f e c t i v e n e a b e r s o f a p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a f f . T h a t e f f e c t i v e n e s s in c lu d e s th e u t i l i s a t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l and human r e s o u r c e s , t h e s h a r in g o f s c h o la r s h ip and i d e a s , and th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s k i l l and u n d e r s ta n d in g t o th e s o lv in g o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l p ro b le m s. 142 11. We n e e d t e a c h e r s who a r e k n o w le d g e a b le a b o u t r e s t a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n a l a r e a s an d c a n u t i l i s e t h a t r e s e a r c h , a s w e ll a s o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e s k i l l s , t o c o n t r i b u t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y to p r o g r a a d e v e lo p m e n t an d im p le m e n ta tio n . 12. ITe n e e d t e a c h e r s who d e a l w ith c o n f l i c t c r e a t i v e l y an d a f f e c t i v e l y in t h e i r own l i v e s , i n t h e i r c la s s r o o m s , an d i n t h e s c h o o l an d com m unity i n w h ich th e y w ork. 13. ITe n e e d t e a c h e r s who a r e th o r o u g h ly p r o f e s s i o n a l ; who r e c o g n is e t h e i r re sp o n * s i b i l l t i e s w ith in th e I n s t i t u t i o n I n w h ich th e y w o rk , a n d i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i s a t i o n s , apd who b e h a v e i n su c h a way a s t o b e e x e m p la rs f o r t h e i r s t u d e n t s , b r i n g i n g c r e d i t to t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n an d t o th e m s e lv e s . The P roaram The S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n P i l o t P ro g r a a s u b s t i t u t e s t o t a l l y f o r th e r e g u l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n s e q u e n c e a t M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . I t d o e s n o t a f f e c t a t a l l th e ac ad e m ic p ro g ra m s r e q u i r e d b y d e p a r tm e n ts o f m a jo r o u t s i d e o f t h e t h i r t y c r e d i t s o f p r o f e s s i o n a l c o u r s e work r e q u i r e d f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n i n M ic h ig a n . In b u i l d i n g t h i s p ro g ram w i t h i n t h e fram ew ork o f an e x p e r i e n t i a l m o d e l, we h av e a l s o fo u n d i t n e c e s s a r y t o co n fo rm t o many I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u ir e m e n ts s u c h a s " c o u r s e s " an d " c r e d i t s . " W hile th e f o llo w in g o u t l i n e o f o u r c u r r ic u lu m a p p e a r s to b e v e r y s i m i l a r to d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t e n fo u n d i n u n i v e r s i t y c a t a l o g u e s , i t s h o u ld b e u n d e r s to o d t h a t seldom i n t h e se q u e n c e o f " c o u r s e s " a r e s t u d e n t s in v o lv e d i n w hat c o u ld t r a d i t i o n a l l y b e c a l l e d " s c h o o l w o rk ". L e a rn in g e n v iro n m e n ts a r e c a r e f u l l y an d u n iq u e ly d e v e lo p e d to d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t th e p h i l o s o p h i c a l m odel w hich u n d e r l i e s t h i s p ro g ra m , a lw a y s p r o v id in g tim e f o r r e f l e c t i o n and fe e d b a c k among s t u d e n t s an d s t a f f . The f o llo w in g " c o u r s e s " make u p th e p r o g r a a o f e x p e r ie n c e s f o r members o f 5EPP. m e et th e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o r p r o v i s i o n a l c e r t i f i c a t i o n in M ic h ig a n . They Q u e s tio n s a b o u t s p e c i f i c r e q u ir e m e n ts in o t h e r s t a t e s s h o u ld be d i r e c t e d t o th e U n d e rg ra d u a te A dvisem ent C e n t e r , 134 E ric k s o n H a l l , M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 4 6 8 2 4 . ED 102A I n t r o d u c t i o n t o S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n F a ll 1 c r. W in te r 2 cr. S e r i e s o f s e m in a rs on s e c o n d a ry s c h o o l p ro b lem s and i s s u e s . ED 102B P e r s o n a l D im e n sio n s o f S e c o n d a ry T e a c h in g L a b o r a t o r y . s e t t i n g e m p h a s is in g p e r s o n a l v a l u e s , b e l i e f s an d b e h a v io r s r e l a t e d t o t e a c h in g in s e c o n d a ry s c h o o l s . I n c lu d e s m ie r o > te a c h in g , s m a ll g ro u p p r o c e s s e s an d i n d i v i d u a l a s s e s s m e n t a c t i v i t i e s . ED 102C S e c o n d a ry S ch o o l Y outh C u l t u r e S p rin g 2 cr. L a b o r a to r y s e t t i n g e m p h a s is in g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a d o l e s c e n t s o c i a l s y s t a a s i n and o u t o f s c h o o l. P a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l in c lu d e s t u d e n t s f r o a l o c a l s c h o o ls , SEPP m em bers, an d u p p e rc la s s m e n i n s e c o n d a ry e d u c a t io n . 143 ED 202A E d u c a tio n a l P sy c h o lo g y ; A d o le s c e n c e F a ll 2 cr. E m phasizes c o g n i t i v e , a f f e c t i v e an d p h y s i c a l g ro w th o f a d o l e s c e n t s ; t h e o r i e s o f l e a r n i n g a s a p p l i e d to s e c o n d a ry e d u c a t io n ; p r o b l e u o f e a r l y a d o le s c e n c e . ED 2028 W orkshops In S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n W in te r 2 cr. S tu d e n ts s e l e c t f r o a a v a r i e t y o f s i n g l e s e s s i o n w o rk sh o p s f o c u s in g on p s y c h o lo g ic a l an d s o c i o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f te a c h i n g i n s e c o n d a ry s c h o o ls . ED 202C A l t e r n a t i v e S e c o n d a ry S ch o o l S t r u c t u r e s S p r in g 1 c r. O n * s ite e x a m in a tio n o f a v a r i e t y o f s e c o n d a ry s c h o o l o r g a n i s a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s , t o g e t h e r w ith o n -c a a p u s a n a l y s i s o f u n d e r ly i n g t h e o r i e s o f s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n an d c u r r l c u l u a c o n s t r u c t i o n . ED 302A T e a c h in g S k i l l s L a b o r a to r y F a ll 2 cr. I n s t r u c t i o n and f i e l d e x p e r ie n c e In s e l e c t e d g e n e r ic te a c h in g s k i l l s , I n c lu d i n g c la s s r o o m m anagem ent, s e c o n d a ry r e a d i n g , d a t a a n a l y s i s , g ro u p in g and s o c l o a e t r l e t e c h n i q u e s , I n s t r u c t i o n a l p la n n in g , a s s e s s m e n t and e v a l u a t i o n . ED 3028 l a b o r a t o r y In E th n ic V a lu e s o f A d o le s c e n ts W in te r 1 cr. L a b o r a to r y s e t t i n g f o c u s in g on e t h n i c v a l u e s , b e l i e f s an d a t t i t u d e s , an d t h e i r Im p act o n p u b l i c s e c o n d a ry s c h o o l s . P a r t i c i p a n t s w i l l in c lu d e SEPP s t u d e n t s , h ig h s c h o o l an d m id d le sc h o o l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f r a c i a l and e t h n i c m i n o r i t i e s . ED 302C C l i n i c a l F i e l d E x p e rie n c e In S e c o n d a ry T ea ch in g * S p r in g 12 c r . C l i n i c a l e x p e r ie n c e In s e c o n d a ry t e a c h i n g . S u p e r v is e d b y s u b j e c t s p e c i a l i s t s , SEPP p r o g r a a s t a f f , an d s e l e c t e d p u b l i c s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l. C ou p led w ith 302A an d 3028 I n to a on e y e a r i n t e g r a t e d se q u en c e o f e x p e r ie n c e s u n d e r common s u p e r v i s i o n . ED 4Q2A A dvanced W orkshops I n S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n F a ll 2 cr. W orkshops on a v a r i e t y o f e d u c a t io n a l I s s u e s and p ro b le m s , su ch a s f i n a n c e , c u r r ic u lu m c o n s t r u c t i o n , ad v a n ce d e v a l u a t i o n a n d a s s e s s m e n t te c h n iq u e s , ad v an ced te a c h in g m e th o d o lo g y , e t c . Agenda I s d e te r m in e d by s t a f f and s t u d e n t s j o i n t l y , g ro w in g o u t o f th e 300 se q u en c e a n d s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e iv e d n e e d s an d c o n c e r n s . • M ost s t u d e n t s , by t h e tim e t h e y b e g in 302C, w i l l h av e c o m p le te d a t l e a s t 400 h o u r s o f c l i n i c a l e x p e r ie n c e i n th e f i e l d . S tu d e n ts s h o u ld g u a rd a g a i n s t t h e a s s u m p tio n t h a t t h e e x te n d e d e x p e r ie n c e In 302C i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f s t u d e n t t e a c h i n g . We s e e t h i s a s o n ly o n e o f a n u a b e r o f c l i n i c a l e x p e r ie n c e s , some o f w h ich may f o llo w t h i s te r m . We e n c o u ra g e e x p e r im e n ta tio n an d r e f in e m e n t o f p e r s o n a l te a c h i n g s t y l e d u r in g t h i s te rm , a s w e ll a s th e d e v e lo p m e n t an d r e f in e m e n t o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l s k i l l s . We e n c o u r a g e , a l s o , o b j e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n and fe e d b a c k by s t u d e n t s , c o o p e r a tin g s t a f f In t h e f i e l d s e t t i n g , and SEPP s t a f f . P la c e m e n t c r e d e n t i a l s f o r s t u d e n t s I n SEPP r e f l e c t t h e i r p e rfo rm a n c e o v e r t h e f o u r y e a r s o f th e p r o g r a a , n o t o n ly t h e o n e te rm o f s t u d e n t te a c h in g w hich i s u s u a l l y r e p o r t e d to p r o s p e c t i v e e m p lo y e rs . 144 ED 402B S em in ar In T •a c h in g S eco n d ary D i s c i p l i n e s W in te r 2 cr. f o c u s on l n s t x u c t l o n s l and c u r r l c u l u a p r o b I r a s I n s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s o f s t u d e n t 's m a jo r f i e l d o f s tu d y . SEPP s t a f f w i l l work i n l i s s o n w ith v a r io u s U n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l in h e lp in g s t u d e n t s e x p lo r e m a t e r i a l s , s t r a t e g i e s and p a t t e r n s o f c u r r l c u l u a o r g a n i z a t i o n in m a jo r f i e l d s . ED 402C S e n io r S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n P r o s r a l n a r S p rin g 1 cr. F ocus i s on s t u d e n t 's p e r s o n a l r e f i n e a e n t o f e d u c a t io n a l p h ilo s o p h y . R ead in g s on c u r r e n t h i s t o r i c a l an d p h il o s o p h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s w i l l f o r a t h e c o r e o f p r o g r a a , and s e r v e a s a n i n t r o d u c t i o n to g r a d u a te s tu d y in e d u c a t io n . In a d d i t i o n to th e above p r o g r a a o f s tu d y an d e x p e r ie n c e , s t u d e n ts a r e e x p e c te d to ta k e p a r t In s e v e r a l o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s w h ich , b e c a u s e th e y r e c u r ea ch t e n , f o n th e i n t e g r a t i n g th r e a d o f th e SEPP p r o g r a a . HIND-BENDERS Me f in d t h a t u n d e r g r a d u a te s a r e n o t u n i f o n l y e x c i t e d a b o u t r e a d in g t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s by Jo h n Dewey, H a rry B roudy, e t c . But th e y c a n (and s h o u ld ) h av e a f a m i l i a r i t y w ith th e “ s t a r s o f th e e d u c a t io n a l w o r l d ." Lay p e o p le an d te a c h e r s In th e s c h o o ls , a s w e ll a s many s t u d e n t s , r e a d Jo h n H o lt, J o n a th a n K o zo l, e t c . , an d e x p e c t o u r s t u d e n t s to h av e in f o m e d o p in io n s a b o u t t h e a . T h u s, e a c h t e n , s tu d e n ts a r e e x p e c te d t o r e a d and d i s c u s s a t l e a s t one book o r i t s e q u iv a le n t o u t s i d e th e r e g u l a r p r o g r a a r e q u ir e m e n ts . The book i s c h o s e n from a b ib li o g r a p h y w hich i s r e v i s e d y e a r l y , and w hich p r o v id e s f o r s tu d e n t c h o ic e a s w e ll a s s t a f f d i r e c t i o n and g u id a n c e , FIELD EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT D u rin g th e seco n d y e a r o f th e p r o g r a a ( o c c a s i o n a l l y e a r l i e r , f o r th o s e who a r e re a d y ) SEPP r e q u i r e s s t u d e n ts to c o m p le te th e e q u i v a le n t o f 120 h o u rs o f c l i n i c a l e x p e r ie n c e w ith young p e o p le i n a f i e l d s e t t i n g o v e r an d above t h a t w hich may be in c lu d e d in th e r e g u l a r p r o g ra a r e q u ir e m e n ts . I t I s s t r o n g l y recommended t h a t t h i s r e q u ir e m e n t be m et th ro u g h summer camp work o r r e c r e a t i o n and p a r k s u p e r v is io n d u r in g th e f i r s t o r seco n d summer i n th e p r o g r a a . I f co m p le te d d u r in g sc h o o l tim e , t h i s r e q u ir e m e n t c o u ld ta k e th e f o r a o f tw o, 2 -h o u r b lo c k s o f tim e e a c h w eek, s p e n t a s a t e a c h e r 's a i d e in a l o c a l s c h o o l. Such p o s i t i o n s a r e c o n s id e r e d v o lu n ta r y , and a r e seldom a s o u r c e o f p a y f o r s t u d e n t s . Done t h i s way, th e r e q u ire m e n t c a n be m et i n one acad em ic y e a r . LEADERSHIP TRAINING LABORATORY J u n i o r s tu d e n ts spend one week in S e p te m b e r, p r i o r to t h e b e g in n in g o f th e te rm , in a c o n c e n t r a te d , l i v e - i n w orkshop s e t t i n g d e s ig n e d t o f o c u s on i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s , g ro u p p r o c e s s e s , and t h e d y n a a ic s o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l g r o u p s , a s w e ll a s p ro b lem s o lv in g an d r e s e a r c h u t i l i s a t i o n s k i l l s . M inim al c o s t s f o r t h i s m odulo o f th e p r o g r a a a r e b o rn e by s t u d e n t s ; no a c a d e a ic c r e d i t i s g iv e n . One o u te o a o o f t h i s l a b o r a t o r y i s t h e g u id in g ag e n d a f o r th e 3 0 0 - le v e l se q u en c e o f e x p e r ie n c e s . 144 ED 402B S em in a r In T e a c h in g S e c o n d * rr D i s c i p l i n e s W in te r 2 cr. Focus on I n s t r u c t i o n a l and c u r r l c u l u a p r o b l s a s In s p e c i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s o f s t u d e n t ’ s a s ) o r f i e l d o f s tu d y . SEPP s t a f f w i l l work i n l i s s o n w ith v a r i o u s U n i v e r s i t y p e r s o n n e l In h e lp in g s t u d e n t s e x p lo r e m a t e r i a l s , s t r a t e g i e s and p a t t e r n s o f c u r r l c u l u a o r g a n i s a t i o n in a a j o r f i e l d s . ED 402C S e n io r S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n P r o s e a in a r S p rin g 1 cr. F ocu s i s o n s t u d e n t 's p e r s o n a l r e f in e m e n t o f e d u c a t io n a l p h ilo s o p h y . R e a d in g s on c u r r e n t h i s t o r i c a l an d p h i l o s o p h i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e s w i l l f o r a t h e c o r e o f p r o g r a a , and s e rv e a s an I n t r o d u c t i o n to g r a d u a te stu d y In e d u c a t io n . In a d d i t i o n to th e above p r o g r a a o f s tu d y an d e x p e r ie n c e , s t u d e n ts a r e e x p e c te d to ta k e p a r t In s e v e r a l o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s w h ich , b e c a u s e th e y r e c u r ea c h t e n s , f o n s th e I n t e g r a t i n g th r e a d o f th e SEPP p r o g r a a . HIND-BEMDERS We f in d t h a t u n d e r g r a d u a te s a r e n o t u n l f o r a l y e x c i t e d a b o u t r e a d in g t h e o r e t i c a l t r e a t i s e s by J o h n Dewey, H a rry B roudy, e t e . But th e y c a n (and s h o u ld ) have a f a a l l l a r i t y w ith th e " s t a r s o f th e e d u c a tio n a l w o r l d ." Lay p e o p le and te a c h e r s in th e s c h o o ls , a s w e ll a s many s t u d e n t s , r e a d Jo h n H o lt, J o n a th a n K o so l, e t c . , and e x p e c t o u r s t u d e n t s t o h av e In fo n s e d o p in io n s a b o u t t h e n . T h u s, ea c h t e r n , s tu d e n ts a r e e x p e c te d to r e a d and d i s c u s s a t l e a s t one book o r I t s e q u iv a le n t o u t s i d e th e r e g u l a r p r o g r a a r e q u l r e u e n t s . The book i s c h o s e n f r o a a b ib lio g r a p h y w hich i s r e v i s e d y e a r l y , and w hich p r o v id e s f o r s tu d e n t c h o ic e a s w e ll a s s t a f f d i r e c t i o n and g u id a n c e , FIELD EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENT D uring th e seco n d y e a r o f th e p r o g r a a ( o c c a s i o n a l l y e a r l i e r , f o r th o s e who a r e re a d y ) SEPP r e q u i r e s s t u d e n ts to c o n p l e te t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f 120 h o u rs o f c l i n i c a l e x p e r ie n c e w ith young p e o p le in a f i e l d s e t t i n g o v e r and above t h a t w hich may be in c lu d e d i n th e r e g u l a r p r o g r a a r e q u i r e a e n t s . I t i s s t r o n g l y re c o m o n d e d t h a t t h i s r e q u l r e a e n t be n e t th ro u g h s u a a s r c a a p work o r r e c r e a t i o n and p a r k s u p e r v is io n d u r in g th e f i r s t o r second s u a a a r in th e p r o g r a a . I f c o a p le te d d u r in g ic h o o l t l a e , t h i s r e q u l r e a e n t c o u ld ta k e th e f o r a o f tw o, 2•h o u r b lo c k s o f t l a e e a c h week, s p e n t a s a t e a c h e r 's a i d e In a l o c a l s c h o o l. Such p o s i t i o n s a r e c o n s id e r e d v o lu n ta r y , and a r e s e ld o a a s o u rc e o f p ay f o r s t u d e n t s . Done t h i s way, th e r e q u l r e a e n t c a n be n e t In o n e a c a d e a ic y e a r . LEADERSHIP TRAINING LABORATORY J u n i o r s t u d e n ts spend one week in S e p te a b e r , p r i o r to th e b e g in n in g o f th e t o r a , in a c o n c e n t r a te d , l i v e - i n w orkshop s e t t i n g d e s ig n e d t o f o c u s on i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s , gro u p p r o c e s s e s , and t h e d y n a a ic s o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l g r o u p s , a s w e ll a s p ro b lem s o lv in g and r e s e a r c h u t i l i s a t i o n s k i l l s . M inim al c o s t s f o r t h i s a o d u le o f th e p r o g r a a a r e b o rn e by s t u d e n t s ; no a c a d e a ic c r e d i t i s g iv e n . One outcom e o f t h i s l a b o r a t o r y i s th e g u id in g a g e n d a f o r th e 3 0 0 - le v e l se q u en c e o f e x p e r ie n c e s . 145 ADVISEMENT GROUPS The s a a l l g ro u p s w h ich b e g in w ith th a s e m in a r g ro u p in 102A c o n t in u e t o m e t r e g u l a r l y e a c h t a n th r o u g h o u t t h a t a n u r a o f t h a p r o g r a a . Tha p u r p o s e s o f th a s a g ro u p s a r a t o p r o v id e s t u d e n t s t l a e an d s e t t i n g f o r t h a d i s c u s s i o n o f i s s u e s an d c o n c e r n s a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n SEPP a n d o t h e r U n i v e r s i t y a c t i v i t i e s ; th a g r o u p s a l s o p r o v id e a way o f r e g u l a r l y f e e d in g b a c k i n t o th e p la n n in g p r o c e s s s t u d e n t n e e d s an d c o n c e r n s . S tu d e n t L e a d e r s h ip i n SEPP One o f th e u n iq u e o p p o r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d to s t u d e n t s beyond th e f i r s t y e a r i s t h a t o f p a r t i c i p a t i n g In t h e l e a d e r s h i p (a n d , o c c a s i o n a l l y , t h e i n s t r u c t i o n ) o f o t h e r s i n th e p ro g ra a . S a a l l g ro u p l e a d e r s h i p , s e a i n a r l e a d e r s h i p , an d t h e s p o n s o r in g o f s p e c i a l e v e n ts a l l g iv e s t u d e n t s th e a d d i t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e x p e r ie n c e w hich b o th p r e p a r e th e a f o r c l a s s r o o a work a s a p r o f e s s i o n a l , an d a d d s t o t h e i r m a r k e t a b i l i t y u p o n r e c e i p t o f d e g r e e and c e r t i f i c a t i o n . C o s ts o f S tu d e n t M e n b e rsh lp in SEPP SEPP in v o lv e s t h i r t y c r e d i t s o f I n s t r u c t i o n , f o r w hich s tu d e n e s p ay r e g u l a r f o e s a s s t i p u l a t e d by th e U n i v e r s i t y 's t u i t i o n p o l i c y . s e t o f c o u r s e s ta k e n by te a c h in g c a n d i d a t e s . T hose t h i r t y h o u r s r e p l a c e t h e u s u a l B ecause s t u d e n t s n eed n o t c o u n t on te x tb o o k e x p e n s e s f o r t h i s p r o g r a a e v e r y t e n s , a s a a n y o f t h e c o a p o n e n ts o f th e p r o g r a a a r e r o o te d i n e x p e r i e n t i a l a o d e s , m a t e r i a l c o s t s s h o u ld b e somewhat r e d u c e d . F o r th o s e co m ponents o f th a p r o g r a a w hich in v o lv e t r a v e l , h o u s in g and m e a ls away f r o a cam pus, r e a s o n a b l e c h a r g e s a r e made t o c o v e r th o s e e x p e n s e s . In e v e r y e a s e , f i n a n c e s a r e an open t o p i c f o r d i s c u s s i o n , and w i l l b e c a r e f u l l y e x p la in e d t o a n y s tu d e n t who w is h e s to d i s c u s s t h e a . In no c a s e w i l l a s t u d e n t who c a n n o t a f f o r d e x p e n s e s above and beyond r e g u l a r t u i t i o n b e p r e v e n te d f r o a p a r t i c i p a t i n g f u l l y in th e p r o g r a a on t h a t a c c o u n t. A d d itio n a l I n fo r m a tio n A d d itio n a l in f o r m a tio n may b e o b ta in e d by c o n t a c t i n g t h e S e c o n d a ry E d u c a tio n P i l o c P ro g ram ; 324 E ric k s o n H a ll ; M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ; E a s t L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n 48 8 2 4 , o r by e a l l i n g (517) 3 5 5 -1 7 8 6 . A Comparison of SEPP and Typical Secondary Teacher Education Pragmas SEPP Typical Prograas Year s I • N «i» h g Tern Course or Prograa Nodule P N None I S None Uua Suaaer None Term F • u Q % None V None -s. s Educ Psych (T) Suaaer F Course or Prograa Module Clinical Hours Intro to Sec Ed N Pers Oia of Sec Tchg 22 S Sec Sch Youth Cult 4* Sun Field Experience F Educ Psych Ado1esc «» F 120* N Kkshp Sec Ed 11) S Alt Sec Sch Strue 40 None Sub Field Experience 120* Educ Psych (7) F Ldr Tr Lab Tch Skills lab 100 N Lab Eth Val Adot S Clin Fid Exp Sec Tch F Adv Nkshp Sec Ed var N Sea Tch Sec Oise var S Senior Sec Prosea N -H S T N O S Social Found V) Year c a None i c a Clinical Hours •i 7 >■ S Methods (T) F Methods M Student Tch • ■g S •H 5 d T 7 400 h O 40 4S 400 ft Total • ia 400 (♦) Total Total represents a ainiaua figure, counting the field experience in suaaer only once. In actuality, aost of the graduates in 1977 (the first class to coaplete tlie prograa) show well over 2000 hours of field experience in a variety of activities aaJe available through the prograa. 828 APPENDIX B LETTER TO FIRST-YEAR TEACHERS Secondary Education !Pilot ! P r o g r a m 3 2 4 Erickson Hall M ichigan S ta te University May 19, 1978 Dear . We need your help! We are attempting an evaluation of SEPP, and need your help In providing certain Information and perceptions about your first years of teaching as well as your perceptions of SEPP's contribution to your professional growth. One purpose of this study is to examine the concerns of SEPP first year teachers and look at the possible relationship between those concerns and a number of other variables. Your help can make a valuable addition to this study, which Is a part of my doctoral dissertation. It is especially Important that you answer candidly and honestly, as we need to know exactly what you think and feel. The questions In this study will help you think about concerns that you may have had or may still have as a first year teacher. The questions should take no more than thirty (.30) minutes to complete. Background information is requested on the first two pages which will help In the interpretation of the responses. We realize that it Is getting toward the end of the school year, and that you may be feeling many pressures. If at all possible, could you take the time now to respond to this questionnaire, and drop It In the mail today in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope. In any case we would appreciate having you return the questionnaire by May 30. Thank you for your cooperation. Dennis Pataniczek, Instructor Secondary Education Pilot Program cs 147 APPENDIX C THE QUESTIONNAIRE USED TO GATHER DATA FOR THE STUDY A STUDY TO IDENTITY THE CONCERNS OF FUST-TEAR TEACHERS P le a s e r e s p o n d eo che f o llo w in g q u e s t i o n * . T hey a r a d e s ig n e d co p r o v id e I n f o r m a tio n w hich w i l l h e lp l a cha l a c a r p r a e a c l o n o f y o u r r e s p o n s e s La P a r t ZZ. Va w ould a p p r e c i a t e l e 11 you d id n o t d la c u a a t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i r t t h f a ll o w t e a c h e r s . Va t e a k YOUR o p in io n s . F ro a c h la i n f o r m a ti o n wa h opa t o b a a b l a to n ak a s u g g e s tio n s f o r c a a c h a r a d u e a t lo a p ro g ra m s an d I n - s e n r l c e p ro g ra m s. 1. V hat g r a d a ( a ) do you c a ac h now? K 2. 2 3 4 3 6 - 7 3 L 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 1 2 3 1 3 6 7 0 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 11 12 3 6 7 c a a c h l a y o u r MINOR f l a l d o f acudy? ( C l r e l a y o u r ao aw ar) 20-24 23*29 ( C l r e l a y o u r an aw ar) 30 -3 4 13-39 3 4 3 6 7 3 3 4 9 10 o r n o ra ta k e n c h la y a a r ? (C lr e la cha an aw ar) 3 o r n o ra 30-39 4 0 -4 9 S n a i l town ( C l r e l a cha an aw ar) O var 30 In w hat cypa o f conrm inlcy i s y o u r s c h o o l lo c a c a d ? R u ral O v ar 40 ( C l r e l a y o u r an aw ar) V hat l a cha a v a r a g a ag a o f cha f a c u l t y l a y o u r b u i l d i n g ? U ndar 30 10. 4 How nan y e o l l a g a c o u r s a a h av a you 0 9. 10 How nan y o f cha l n - s e r v l c a p r o g r a a a h av a you a c ta n d a d ? 0 3. ( C l r e l a a l l cha a p p ly ) Uhac l a cha a v e r a g e s l r a o f y o u r c l a a a a a ? U ndar 20 7. 9 U 1 2 ( C l r e l a y o u r a n sw a r) A. How n a n y c l a a a a a ( p a r lo d a ) do you 6. 10 How s a a y e l a a a a s ( p a r lo d a ) do you c a a c h l a y o u r MAJOR f l a l d o f acudy? 0 3. 9 V hat g r a d a ( s ) w ould you ch o o aa to ca ac h ? K 3. 1 ( C l r e l a a l l t h a t a p p ly ) C i ty S u b u rb an ( C l r e l a cha an sw a r) l u n a r C lcy C s a a r a l l y j p t a k i n g , how a a c i a f l a d a r a you w lch y o u r u n d a rg ra d u a c a c a a c h a r e d u c a tio n p r o g r a a ; E x tre m e ly s a t i s f i e d M ild ly s a t i s f i e d M ild ly d i s s a t i s f i e d E x tre m e ly d i s s a t i s f i e d 149 149 11. A bout how a u c h e x p e r ie n c e d i d you h av a w ith s c h o o l ag e y o u n g s c s rs d id you h a v a d u r in g y o u r u a d a r g ra d u a c a y e a r s ? _ _ _ o v a r 1300 h o u rs _ _ 1000*1499 h o u rs 730*999 h o u rs _____ u n d a r 730 h o u r s 12. Where d i d t h i s e x p a r le n e a ta k a p la c e ? P u t cha a p p r o x l a a t a u m b e r o f h o u r s , l a s c h o o ls _ _ _ _ _ _ h o u rs I n camps o r r o c r a s c l o n a l s e t t i n g s _ _ _ _ o t h a r C p la a sa s p e c i f y ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h o u rs h o u rs _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ h o u rs 13. h o u rs Ac cha p r a a s n c t l a a , how w ould you d a s c r l b a y o u r e o o m lta e n e co c o a c h in g ? S tr o n g . I p r o b a b ly w i l l r a a a l n a c a a c h a r f o r 3 y e a r s . M ild , t ' l l p r o b a b ly co ach f o r a n o t h e r y a a r o r ewo Weak. I ' L l p r o b a b ly la a v a c o a c h in g w i t h i n a y a a r . 14. Do you w an t eo r e t u r n co t e a c h in g n e x t y a a r? _ _ _ T ea, d e f in i te ly t a s , d e p e n d in g on cha a v a i l a b i l i t y o f aJo b . So U n d ec id ed ?LZASE GO ON TO THE NEXT PACE 150 A ll b e g in n in g t e a c h e r s e x p e r ie n c e many c a n c a n * . T h ese c o n e a n * f a l l Lace many c a t e g o r i e s . l i s t e d b elo w a r e to o * a te u a e lo n * you may b a n th o u g h t a b o u t t b l a y a a r . ? l a a a a L a d lc a c a (b y c h e e k in g th a a p p r o p r i a t e b o x ) t h a e x t a n t to w hich t h i s s i t u a t i o n ha* b a a n a c o n c e r n to you BOTH (1 ) a t th a 8ECZHNZHG o f th a y a a r an d (2 ) HOW. (1 ) AT THE SSCXHHXHG OF TBS TZAH or MUCH COHCSBH OF SOME COHCSBH OF HO COHCSBH (2 ) HOW OF MUCH COHCSBH OF HO COHCSBH OF SOME COHCSBH C o n * tr u e tin g te a c a P r o v id in g L a * c ru e tI o n f o r slo w le a rn e r* ------ K eep in g o r d e r I n ay c l a s s * * W r itin g b a h a v l o r a l l y s t a t a d I n s t r u c t i o n a l o b je c tiv e * D e a lin g w ith " tr o u b le s o m e " s tu d e n t* | 11 D e te rm in in g s t u d e n t s ' a c ad e m ic need* D e a lin g w ith n o n > I n s t r u c t i o n a l p e rso n n e l (c u s to d ia n s , s a c r a c a r te a ) I Knowing t h a t a y s t u d e n t s a r a l e a r n i n g whae I 'm te a c h in g 1 C o n d u c tin g I n d i v i d u a l p a r e n t c o n fe re n c e s iJ H a n d lin g s i n g l e d i s c i p l i n e problem * w ith o u t i n t e r r u p t i n g I n s t r u c t i o n 1 1 1 D e s ig n in g e v a l u a t i o n I n s tr u m e n ts co m e asu re i n d i v i d u a l i s e d i n s t r u c t i o n H a n d lin g r a c i a l l y m ixed c l a s s e s E v a l u a tin g s tu d e n t* w ith s p e c i a l n ee d s A c h ie v in g t e n u r e D e te rm in in g G ra d es Im p le m e n tin g th e s c h o o l 1* g r a d in g sy ste m U sin g e v a l u a t i o n te c h n iq u e * o c h e r th a n t e s t s • 1 LSI (1) AT TBS BEGOTrxsG or tst TEAS or or or Moca SOKE NO amenta COKCESB coNCStn I n t e r p r e t i n g th e r e s u l t s o f c o m m e rc ia lly p r e p a r e d c u c i Knowing whee t e n u r e e v a l u a t i o n c rite ria a n S a v in g Im p ac t o s a y s t u d e n t s In d iv id u a liz in g I n s tr u c tio n H a n d lin g c r i t i c i s m te a c h e r s fro a o th a r H a n d lin g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ' o b s e r ­ v a t i o n s o f a y te a c h in g B ein g a c c e p te d a s a f u l l - f l e d g e d ■ c a f f member D oing l e s s o n p la n a f o r cha a d m in is tra tio n M a in ta in in g s t u d e n t ra a p a e c C a t t i n g co know a c u d a n c s a s In d iv id u a ls A sk in g q u e s tio n s a e f a c u l t y m e e tin g s C a t t i n g a lo n g w ith t b s p r i n c i p a l F in d in g s u p p o r tiv e c o l le a g u e s Knowing t h a p r i n c i p a l ' s e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a a a s a c la s s r o o m c a a c h a r H aving a d e q u a te I n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te ria ls a v a ila b le A sk in g f o r fe e d b a c k to Im prove In s tru c tio n E s t a b l i s h i n g c la s s r o o m o p e r a t i n g p r o c e d u re s F in d in g a p p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a te ria ls U sing b u l l s t i n . b o a r d s D e a lin g w ith g ro u p s o f s t u d e n t s (2) or NOW or MUCH SOME CONCZJW concsw or NO CONCZSf (1 ) AT THE a E c n w iy c or t h e t e a r OF MUCH COWCEHH OF SOME CONCEHH OF xo COKCEStl U n d a r s ta n d in g eh* s c h o o l 's u n v r ltta n ru la a ( 2) OF mow OF MO COSCEB OF SOKE COWCEHS xuch comcesm • H aving s t u d e n t s r a a p a c t a a aa a caachar O p a ra e ln g a u d i o - v i s u a l eq u ip m en t A sking o c h a r e a a c h a n i I f o r h e lp E ao v ln g cha s c h o o l 's e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r a a o u t a l d a cha c la s s r o o m | D e a lin g w tch p a r a a c c r i t i c i s m s ! U n d e r s ta n d in g to d foL lovrlng a d m in is tra tiv e d ir e c tiv e s I | K eep in g r a c o r d s ( a t t e n d a n c e , a c c ) M aaclng cha n aad a o f I n d i v i d u a l sc u d a a c a I ! S a v in g a c u d a a e a l i k e a * A rra n g in g f u r a l e u r a co f a c i l l c a c a la a ra ln g C a t t i n g co k a o v o c h a r e a a c h a ra A v o id in g s h o v in g f a v o r i t i s m I n c a r p r a c l n g cha r a a u l e a o f c a a c h a r * a a d a ca ac a P r o v id in g I n s t r u c t i o n a l v a r i e t y v i t h i n I n d i v i d u a l la a a o n a O r g a n is in g I n s t r u c t i o n f o r cha yaar P r o v id in g I n s t r u c t i o n f o r g l f t a d sc u d a a c a O a a lln g v i c h p ro b lem s o f d r u g u s a 1 I t 153 As you lo o k b a c k on t h i a y a a r , c o n s id e r w h at p a r s o n s v a r a a o s t h e l p f u l a s you d a a l t w ith e o n c a rn s In cha a r a a s l l a c a d b a l o v . I f s o r t th a n o n a p a r s o n was h e l p f u l I n a p a r t i c u l a r a r a a , p la c a a ’’I'* balo w th a MOST h a l p f u l , a " 2 " b elo w th a NEXT a o sc h a l p f u l , a t e . I f you c h a c k " o c h a r " , p l a a s a I n d lc a c a who th a c I s l a eha s p a c a p r o v id e d . /> Tir y O th a r C la a a r o o a M anatam ant E v a lu a tin g w h at ay se u d a n c a a ra le a rn in g P la n n in g f o r I n s t r u c t i o n G ra d in g a c u d a n ts A d ju s tin g eo ch a Job E v a l u a tin g s y own te a c h in g D a a lln g w ith p a ra n c s T e a c h in g sy s u b je c t F in d in g i n s t r u c t i o n a l n a c a rla la Im p ro v in g a y own c o a c h in g 15* I a cha f i n e p a r e s o f c h la q u e s t i o n n a i r e you w ere a s k e d eo r e s p o n d eo a n u a b e r of s p e c ific le s a s . t a t h i s f i n a l p o r t i o n you a r e a s k e d eo r e s p o n d co q u e s tio n s o f a a o r e g e n e r a l n a tu re * You n ay r e i n f o r c e p o s i t i o n s you h a r e ta k e n e a r l i e r * a s w e l l a s r a i s e I s s u e s t h a t o ay noe h av a b e e n I n c lu d e d I n th e f i r s t p a r t s . B e ca u se a l l o f u s h a v e v a r i e d b a c k g ro u n d s and e x p e r i e n c e s , we w i l l r e s p o n d d i f f e r ­ e n t l y eo th e s e q u e s t i o n s . T h is I s q u i t e n o rm al and co b e e x p e c te d . Ve s e e k y o u r c a n d id r e s p o n s e s . 1. Some c o n c e r n s t h a v e had t h i s y e a r th e e h av a n o t b e a n tsa n c lo n e d i n t h i s q u e s tio n n a ire a r a t 2. P le a s e s p e c i f y any co m p o n en ts ( p a r t s ) o f y o u r u n d e r g r a d u a te c a a c h a r p r e p a r a t i o n p ro g ra m t h a t h av e b e a n e s p e c i a l l y u a e f u l co you aa a t e a c h e r i n e i t h e r I d e n t i f y i n g o r r e s o l v i n g c o n c e r n s o r p ro b lem s I n e s s c h ln g . 153 3. P le a a e c o n s e n t on th e e f f a c c lv e n e a * o f y o u r e n t i r e u n d e r g r a d u a te c a a c h a r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a a In p r e p a r in g you f o r te a c h i n g . 4. What a u g g a a c lo n a v o u ld you s a k e f o r l a p r o v i n g c a a c h a r e d u c a tio n p ro g ra a a ? THANK TOU AGAIN FOR TOUR SUPPORT\ F o ld e d In h a l f , c h la q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l f i c l a eh* s t a s p e d , a d d ra a a a d a n v a lo p a f o r s a i l i n g Co : T e a c h e r C on carn a Scudy C o lle g e o f E d u c a tio n 311 E rlc k a o n R a il M ic h ig a n S caca U n i v e r s i t y S e a t L a n s in g , H I 4RC24 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE What were your major concerns when you started teaching last fall? What are your major concerns now (at the end of the school year)? Which of all of the concerns that you've mentioned seems most crucial to you7 Why? Are there still some unresolved concerns, or concerns that seem to be recurring ones? At what points in the year did crucial concerns come up? Can you describe how your concerns have changed since the beginning of the year? On a 5-point scale, with 5 being high, rate your success as a firstyear teacher. (If not 5, why not? What would you wnat to Improve on?) What special strengths did you have as a result of SEPP? Can you identify from what parts of the program these strengths came? What might SEPP have done that it didn't? Improving the program? How do you evaluate yourself? Any suggestions for What kinds of data do you utilize? What are your major concerns about teaching next fall? changed school districts? What if you Brief explanation of Fuller's levels of concern; 1. Where do I stand? 2. How adequate am I? 3. What do pupils think of me? Why are they like they are? A. Are my pupils learning what I'm teaching? 5. Are my students learning what they need? 6. How can I improve myself as a teacher? What is your general reaction to this theory. fall? Where are you now? 156 Where were you last 157 Haw do you account for the differences? Were you ever in nore than one stage at once? Which levels seemed to overlap, if any? If you changed positions, where do you think you would be in terms of concern level? Would you go through the level(s) at a faster rate? Any final comments about this study or about SEPP? APPENDIX E ASSIGNMENT OF CONCERNS TO LEVEL OF CONCERN APPENDIX E * ASSIGNMENT OF CONCERNS TO LEVEL OF CONCERN The assignment of items from the checklist of 55 items contained in the survey questionnaire (See Appendix C) to levels of concern was accomplished in accordance with instructions and cerlterla found in A Manual for Scoring the Teacher Concerns Statement (Fuller and Case, 1972). Assignment was made Independently by three scorers, and then consensus was reached on each item. Inter-rater agreement before the meeting to reach consensus was found to be .80. Level one concerns serve to answer the question "Where do I stand?" Accordingly, the following items are considered to be level one concerns for the purposes of this study? Dealing with non-instructional personnel (custodians, secretaries) Conducting individual parent conferences Achieving tenure Implementing the school's grading system Knowing what tenure evaluation criteria are Handling criticism from other teachers Handling administrators' observations of my teaching Being accepted as a full-fledged staff member Doing lesson plans for the administration Asking questions at faculty meetings Getting along with the principal 158 ... Finding supportive colleagues Knowing the principal's expectations for me as a classroom teacher Understanding the school's unwritten rules Asking other teachers for help Knowing the school's expectations for me outside the classroom Dealing with parent criticisms Understanding and following administrative directives Keeping records (attendance, etc.) Getting to know other teachers Level two concerns serve to answer the question "How adequate am I?" Accordingly, the following items are considered to be level two concerns for the purposes of this study? Keeping order in my classes Dealing with "troublesome students" Handling single discipline problems without interrupting instruction Handling racially mixed classes Establishing classroom operating procedures Finding appropriate Instructional materials Using bulletin boards Operating audio-visual equipment Organizing instruction for the year Dealing with problems of drug use Level three concerns serve to answer the questions "How do pupils feel about me?" and "What are pupils like?" Accordingly, the following items are considered to be level three concerns for the purposes of this study: Maintaining student respect Getting to know students as individuals Having students respect me as a teacher Having students like me Avoiding showing favoritism Level four concerns serve to answer the question "Are pupils learning what I'm teaching?" Accordingly, the following items are considered to be level four concerns for the purposes of this study: Constructing tests Writing behavlorally stated objectives Knowing that my students are learning what I'm teaching Designing evaluation instruments to measure individualized Instruction Determining grades Using evaluation techniques other than tests Interpreting the results of commercially prepared tests Interpreting the results of teacher-made tests Level five concerns serve to answer the question "Are pupils learning what they need?" Accordingly, the following items are considered to be level five concerns for the purposes of this study: Providing Instruction for slow learners Determining students' academic needs Evaluating students with special needs Having impact on my students Individualizing instruction Dealing with groups of students 161 Meeting the needs of individual students Arranging furniture to facilitate learning Providing Instructional variety within individual lessons Providing instruction for gifted students Level six concerns serve to answer the question "How can I Improve my own teaching?" Accordingly, the following items are considered to be level six concerns for the purposes of this study: Having adequate instructional materials available Asking for feedback to improve instruction BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Educating, a profession: report of the Bicentennial Commission on Education for the Profession of Teaching of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Washington, D. C.: AACTE, 1976. Arth, A. A. University of Wyoming: middle school teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education. 1977, ^28, 32-37. Borlch, G. D. Three school based models for conducting follow-up studies of teacher education and training. Austin, Texas: Re­ search and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin, 1978. Briscoe, F. G. The professional concerns of first year secondary teachers In selected Michigan public schools: a pilot study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Burnell, J. B. The preparation of secondary teachers: nosis. Teacher Educator.1975, 11, 10-16. Conant, J. B. The education of American teachers. Hill, 1963. Copeland, E. cation. future New York: prog­ McGraw- P. & Febinger, G. A personalized approach to teacher edu­ Colorado Journal of Educational Research. 1976, _16, 23-27. Corl, S. S. The professional education of high school and junior high school teachers at Michigan State University. Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1971. Corl, S. S. Secondary Education Pilot Program (handbook). ing: Michigan State University, 1975. Cruickshand, D. R. Evaluation (follow-up of graduates). Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1978. EaBt Lans­ Columbus, Dean, D. H. A comparative study of graduates of the Michigan State University College of Education Mott Institute for Community Improvement level IV program and the regular teacher preparation program. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer­ sity, 1971. Dickson, G. E. IGE as a focus for reorganizing pre-service and Inservice teacher education In Ohio. Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 27, 244-249. 162 163 Dickson, G. E. & Saxe, R. W . , et al. Partners for educational reform and renewal. Berkeley, California: McCtttchan Publishing, 1973. Ducharme, E. R. & Nash, R. J. Humanizing teacher education for the last quarter of the twentieth century. Journal of Teacher Education, 1975, 26, 222-228. Erickson, J. R. & Ruud, J. B. Concerns of home economics students pre­ ceding their student teaching. Journal of Home Economics. 1967, 59, 732-734. Fuller, F. F. Concerns of teachers: a developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal. 1969, j5, 207-226. Fuller, F. F. & Bown, 0. H. Becoming a teacher in K. Ryan, ed., Teacher education, part II, The 74th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1975. Fuller, F. F. & Case, C. A manual for scoring the teacher concerns statement. Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin, 1972. Gabriel, J. An analysis of the emotional problems of the teacher in the classroom. London: Angus and Robertson, Ltd., 1957. Gilroy, J. J. & Moody, F. E. Lessening anxiety associated with student teaching. Teacher Educator. 1976, 12, 11-15. Gordon, I. J., et al. The Florida experiment in undergraduate teacher education. Changes in Teacher Education. Washington, D. C . : National Education Association, 1964. Haberman, M. & Stinnett, T. M. Teacher education and the new profes­ sion of teaching. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1973. Hall, G. E. The study of individual teacher and professor concerns about innovations. Journal of Teacher Education. 1976, _27, 22-23. Hall. G. E. & Jones, H. L. Competency-based education. Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentlce-Hall, 1976. Harper, C. A. A century of public teacher education. National Education Association, 1939. Englewood Washington, D.C. Hazard, W. R. The tutorial and clinical program of teacher education. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 1967. Hodenfleld, G. K. & Stinnett, T. M. The education of teachers. wood Cliffs, Ner Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1961 Engle­ Irvine, W. L. Project I: an experiemental program for the preparation of secondary school teachers. Changes in teacher education. Washington, D. C . : Nati nal Education Association, 1964. 164 Jackson, P. W. Life In classrooms. Winston, 1968. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Little, T. , Wagner, J. & Schewit2er, J. SEPP evaluation committee re­ port. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1976. Michigan State University. The report on Interviews conducted with students In the Secondary Education Pilot Program. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1976. Michigan State University. Interviewers' Informal evaluation and In­ terpretation of Interviews with students In the Secondary Educa­ tion Pilot Program. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1976. Norris, C. A. An alternative secondary teacher education program at Michigan State University: preliminary study. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. O'Donnell, R. M. The Ohio state plan for evaluating Its graduates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, 1978. Peer, G. & Pegues, W. A national survey of teacher education follow-up practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, 1978. Phillips, M. Some problems of adjustment In the early years of a teacher's life. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 1932, 2, 237-56. Robinson, E. & Berry, C. A. An Investigation of certain variables related to student anxieties before and during student teaching. Grambling, Louisiana: Grambllng College, 1965. Sandefur, J. T. A model for the evaluation of teacher education gradu­ ates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Asso­ ciation of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, 1978. Sandefur, J. T. & Adams, R. D. Teacher preparation evaluation program (TPEP). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, 1978. Stake, R. E. The countenance of educational evaluation. (Teachers' College), 1967, .5, 523-540. The record Ryan, K. My teacher education program? well... First year teachers reflect and react. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Chicago, 1978. Thompson, M. L. Identifying anxieties experienced by student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 1969, 14, 435-439. 165 Travers, R. M. W . , et al. The anxieties of a group of student teach** era. Educational Administration and Supervision, 1952, 38, 368375. Welch, I. D., et al. The teacher year alternative: an option to tradi­ tional teacher education. Colorado Journal of Educational Re­ search, 1976, L6, 6-12. York, J. L. Problems of beginning teachers. Austin, Texas: Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas at Austin, 1968.