INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of 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 complete. 4. For 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 Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEE B R D . A N N A R B O R , M l 4 8 1 0 6 8212405 JAY, JOYCE DEAN WILLIAMS AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SELECTED GENERIC TEACHING SKILLS AND INSERVICE EDUCATION AS PERCEIVED BY CLINICAL AND NONCLINICAL INSTRUCTORS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN LANSING, MICHIGAN Michigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ana Arbor, M I 48106 PH.D. 1981 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______ 3. Photographs with dark background______ 4. Illustrations are poor copy______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 6. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______ . copy_ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______ 11. Page(s)___________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Other_____________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SELECTED GENERIC TEACHING SKILLS AND INSERVICE EDUCATION AS PERCEIVED BY CLINICAL AND NON-CLINICAL INSTRUCTORS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN LANSING, MICHIGAN by Joyce Williams Jay A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State U niversity in p a rtia l fu lfillm e n t of the requirements fo r the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1981 ABSTRACT AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SELECTED GENERIC TEACHING SKILLS AND INSERVICE EDUCATION AS PERCEIVED BY CLINICAL AND NON-CLINICAL INSTRUCTORS IN SELECTED SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN LANSING, MICHIGAN by Joyce Williams Jay Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to determine whether teachers receiving specialized preparation perceived the use of generic teaching s k ills d iffe re n tly from teachers who had not received such tra in in g . Methodology The population studied included a selected group o f 128 teachers in three secondary schools in Lansing, Michigan. were divided into two groups: Teacher p articipants 45 teachers who received inservice tr a in ­ ing, and 83 teachers who did not receive inservice tra in in g . A sample o f 24 teachers was observed with regard to th e ir use o f generic teach­ ing s k ills . Four c lin ic a l and four n o n -clin ical instructors were included. Findings o f the Study Descriptive Analysis The follow ing conclusions have been drawn regarding the respondents: (1) the population included more male than female teachers; (2) the ages of the teachers were concentrated in the 36-45 age group and the 26-35 age group; (3) the academic degrees o f most o f Joyce Williams Jay the teachers did not go beyond the master's le v e l; (4) more teachers had 11-15 years of teaching experience; and (5) more teachers taught mathematics and language a rts. Primary Hypotheses The following are findings regarding the primary hypotheses of the study: (1) inservice education offered by the Michigan State University and Lansing School D is tr ic t "POINTE" Program influenced the use of generic teaching s k ills of classroom reachers; (2) both groups were sim ilar in th e ir perception of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills to the teaching process; (3) there was s ig n ifica n t agreement between teacher and observer ratings regarding the use of generic teaching s k ills in maintaining attending behavior; and (4) there was disagreement between instructor and observer ratings regard­ ing the use of communication s k ills . Mean scores suggest that the observer ratings are more lik e ly than instructor ratings to indicate that inservice train in g had a positive e ffe c t. Secondary Hypotheses The following are findings regarding the secondary hypotheses of the study: (1) the school in which the teachers taught did not make a sig n ifica n t difference in th e ir use o f generic teaching s k ills ; and (2) a ll respondents perceived generic teaching s k ills as being important to the teaching process. DEDICATION To my mother, Eola, and s is te r, Bernice Williams "I no longer need your approval, but I w ill forever need your love." Alex Haley Roots ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I t is most g ra tify in g and pleasing for the author to acknowl­ edge those individuals who contributed to the success o f th is academic endeavor. However, i t is d if f ic u lt to express in words the tremendous encouragement and support which they provided from the beginning to the completion of th is study. Thanks to Dr. George Myers, Chairman of the doctoral guidance committee, who was academically and humanistically sincere in his assistance. Never a moment of discouragement, always positive and supportive. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Van Johnson, whose support gave the whole process meaning and c la r ity ; Dr. Roger Niemeyer, fo r his great a ttitu d e , understanding, patience and kindness; Dr. John Cragun, fo r his encouragement and helpful assistance; Dr. Robert Chamberlain, Deputy Superintendent of the Lansing School D is tr ic t, fo r his guidance in helping to d ire c t the collectio n of data. The w rite r extends her deep appreciation to the individuals in the Lansing School D is tr ic t fo r th e ir cooperation in the planning process, and collectio n of data. A special thanks to Rob Young, Research Assistant, fo r sharing his expertise in the data analysis; Dr. Frank Throop, Principal of Everett High School, fo r his encourage­ ment and advice; and the Student Teaching Cluster Consultants, fo r th e ir cooperation and assistance in the collectio n o f data and also iii to the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in the participating schools who devoted th e ir time and e ffo rt by participating in the study. The time and moment of truth has arrived. These individuals are special to this accomplishment and I cannot omit the opportunity to say thank you to my J.J. supporters: Dr. James E. Jay, husband; Jonathan Keith, son; and Joye Monique, daughter; who gave th e ir love, inspiration , kindness, strength, support and meaning to pursue and complete th is tremendous task. F in a lly , to my mom, Eola Williams and oldest s is te r, Bernice, thank you for your unselfishness, love, encouragement and c la rific a tio n of the value of education at a very early stage of development in my 1ife . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... v ii LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. ix Chapters I. II. III. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 Statement of the Problem ........................................................ Purpose of the Study ................................................................ Importance o f the Study .......................................................... G en eraliza b ility ........................................................................ Limitations .................................................................................. D efin itio n of Terms .................................................................. Organization of the Presentation ........................................ Summary .......................................................................................... 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 21 A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................ 23 Introduction ................................................................................ Inservice Education .................................................................. Teacher Assessment .................................................................... Competency-Based Teacher Education .................................... Supervision of Student Teachers .......................................... Summary .......................................................................................... 23 36 47 61 70 PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY ................................................ 73 Development o f the Instrument ............................................... Rationale fo r Development .................................................. Selection o f Competencies ................................................. Selection of Observer ..................................................... Validation o f the Observer ................................................ Pretest of the Instrument .................................................. Procedures fo r Data Collection ............................................ The Population Used in the S tu d y .................................... Sample Selection .................................................................... Data Collection ...................................................................... 73 73 75 76 76 77 78 78 79 79 v Chapter Page Data Processing and C lassificatio n .................................... P articipation in Inservice Education ............................ Knowledge and Skill-A ttending Behavior ........................ Knowledge and Ski 11-Communication Questions .............. Observed Attending Behavior S k ills ................................ Observed Communication/Questioning S k ills .................. Hypothesis of the Study ...................................................... S ta tis tic a l Analysis of the Hypotheses ........................ Summary .......................................................................................... 81 81 81 82 83 83 84 85 86 ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA ...................................... 88 Composition of the Study ........................................................ Descriptive Analysis of the Population ............................ C lin ic a l and Non-clinical Instructors by Sex ............. C lin ical and Non-clinical Instructors by Age ............. C lin ica l and Non-clinical Instructors by Highest Academic Degree Earned .................................... C lin ic a l and Non-clinical Instructors by Number o f Years Taught .................................................... C lin ical and Non-clinical Instructors by Subjects Taught .................................................................. Test of Hypotheses .................................................................... Primary Hypotheses ................................................................ Secondary Hypotheses ............................................................ Summary .......................................................................................... 88 89 89 90 93 95 95 102 107 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 108 Summary .......................................................................................... Descriptive Analysis of the Population ........................ Primary Hypotheses ................................................................ Secondary Hypotheses ............................................................ Conclusions .................................................................................. Population ................................................................................ Primary Hypotheses ................................................................ Secondary Hypotheses ............................................................ Recommendations fo r Further Research ................................ 108 110 110 112 113 113 114 114 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................. 117 APPENDICES .................................................................................................. 125 IV. V. vi 91 92 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Total Population by Sex (C lin ic a l and Non-clinical In stru cto rs) ............................................................................. 90 Total Population by Age (C lin ic a l and N on-clinical Instru cto rs) ............................................................................. 91 Total Population by Highest Academic Degree Earned (C lin ic a l and Non-clinical Instructors) ....................... 92 Total Population by Number of Years Taught (C lin ic a l and N on-clinical Instructors) ....................... 93 Total Population by Subjects Taught (C lin ic a l and Non-clinical Instructors) ................................................... 94 Total Group Mean Scores on Maintaining Attending Behavior ...................................................................................... 96 7. Total Group Mean Scores on Communication S k ills ........... 97 8. Total Group Mean Scores fo r Importance Ratings of Attending Behavior S k ills ...................................................... 98 Total Group Mean Scores fo r the Rating o f the Importance of Communication S k ills ................................. 99 Total Group Mean Scores on Maintaining Attending Behavior fo r the Randomly Selected Population .......... 100 Total Group Mean Scores on Communication S k ills from the Randomly Selected Population ........................... 101 Total Group Mean Scores on Maintaining Attending Behavior from the Entire Population o f the Three Secondary Schools ................................................................... 103 Total Group Mean Scores on Communication S k ills from the Entire Population of the Three Secondary Schools ........................................................................................ 104 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. vi i Table 14. 15. Page Total Group Mean Scores fo r the Rating of the Importance Given to Attending Behavior o f the Entire Population .................................................................. 105 Total Group Mean Scores fo r the Rating of the Importance Given to Communication S k ills of the Entire Population .................................................................. 107 vi 1 i LIST OF APPENDIXES Appendix Page A. Research Study Request ..................................................... 126 B. Survey L etter ....................................................................... 130 C. Survey Questionnaires ....................................................... 132 D. C rite ria fo r Selection of the Observer ..................... 139 E. Instruments ........................................................................... 141 F. Tables of M u ltivariate Analysis of Variance ........... 145 G. Median Ratings Given to Each Item in the Four Instruments by Group .............................................. 156 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The generic competencies, q u a lities and characteristics that a student possesses regarding potential effectiveness as a future teacher are usually based on data about the freshman available to the in s titu tio n of higher education. According to Arnold and others, the data fo r entering freshmen include high school graduation, c e rtific a tio n , student s e lf-re p o rts , college entrance tests and aptitude/personality te s ts J The completeness of the information requested by the in s titu tio n of higher learning in many cases is not adequate in describing entering freshmen. Many in s titu tio n s main­ tain programs o f personality, aptitude, vocational, a ttitu d e and in te re s t testing at the point o f entry. Although the relationship of the many types o f tests used to measure the student's potential fo r teaching performance is well documented, few teacher education in s titu tio n s have managed to ju s tify th e ir use to the public. Howsam and others commented on the selection c r ite r ia tra d itio n a lly used by in s titu tio n s o f higher learning and suggested that teacher education also has the resp o nsib ility o f ju s tify in g ^Daniel S. Arnold, e t a l . , Quality Control in Teacher Education: Some Policy Issues (Washington D.C.: AACTE, 1977), pp. 17-27.-------------- -------------- 1 2 each student’ s admission by ve rifyin g each student's a b ilit y to o succeed in the teaching profession. The act o f a student choosing to become a teacher does not confer the automatic rig h t to become a teacher. Candidates must demonstrate the potential to become success­ fu l teachers at a number of sp ecific points p rio r to actual pro­ fessional en try. They must show th at they possess the necessary s k ills , knowledge and values fo r successful professional practice. In view of selection admission p o lic ie s , most researchers on th is p a rtic u la r topic or issue seem to agree th at there are some selective systems of admission to the teacher profession fo r a ll in s titu tio n s o f higher learning preparing teachers a t the perservice le v e l. According to Brubacher, 95 percent o f a ll in s titu tio n s u t il i z e selective admission p o lic ie s , although the average l i s t of a ll selective c r it e r ia being used is only s ix . Two observations made by Brubacher regarding the c r ite r ia now commonly being used and th e ir application are: (1) college grades are used most frequently and least used of the top six c r ite r ia are those correlated with academic a b ilit y ; (2) Most of the schools th at were questioned refused admission to fewer than ten percent of the applicants fo r teacher 3 preparation. Cruickshank suggested that in s titu tio n s , regarding i n i t i a l admission to teacher preparation programs at the preservice le v e l, 2 R.B. Howsam, e t a l . , Educating a Profession: Report o f the Bicentennial Commission on Education fo r the Profession o f teaching" (Washington, D.C.: AACTE, 1976), pp. 93-94. 3 H.A. Brubacher and D.C. Patton, "Selection and Retention in Teacher Education: Does I t Exist?" Teacher Education 10 (1975): 2-7. 3 are largely re stric ted to those pre-existing characteristics of teachers associated with individual personality, rather than process variables which teacher preparation programs concentrate on producing. 4 There would appear to be s u ffic ie n t evidence to ju s tify in s titu tio n a l design, implementation and evaluation o f admission programs which include at least three variables: academic a b i l i t y , character tr a its and a ttitu d e s , and personal interests related to major areas of study. This seems to suggest that teachers in preservice train ing are most lik e ly to be successful i f they are above average in academic a b ilit y and preparation in th e ir teaching fie ld . There are other researchers who seem to support Cruickshank's position that teachers who demonstrate f l e x ib i li t y and emotional s ta b ility and who have favorable attitu des toward children are more lik e ly to be successful in the profession. Hamacheck found that teachers who tend to be able to range across a continuum o f styles, in contrast to less e ffe c tiv e teachers who always use the same in te rc action s ty le ,a re more successful teachers. Many researchers support the variables o f personal interests and academic majors. These authors seem to agree th at there are differences among students in various teacher education majors which influence future teachers' performance. Lien concluded that ^D.R. Cruickshank, "Synthesis of Selected Recent Research on Teacher E ffects." Journal o f Teacher Education 27 (1976): 57-60. 5D. Hamacheck, "Characteristics o f Good Teachers and the Implications fo r Teacher Education," Phi Beta Kappan (February 1969): 341-44. 4 differences existed between teacher education students relatin g to the various curricula studied. He found differences in interests and personal q u a litie s as well as a b i l i t y . 6 A possible conclusion is that specific kinds o f people are more e ffe c tiv e teachers of p a r ti­ cular types o f subject m atter, with teacher effectiveness d ire c tly related to personality type, in te re st and subject matter i t s e lf . Fields reported that many o f the personal q u a lities and s k ills that educators have believed to be valuable in the past are not adequately defined or systematically linked to professional performance; rather they have been based solely on academic success. She fu rther stated that several professional organizations have begun research projects aimed at improving the admissions process by trying more systematically to id e n tify personal q u a litie s and tr a its that can be linked with competence in various professional careers.7 A number of existing programs are doing outstanding work in th e ir selection and admissions procedures. One such program is the Norwegian teacher education program which appears to u t iliz e more e ffe c tiv e teacher education selection and admissions c r ite r ia than does the United States. D ullaert reported that Norwegians do a superior job of selecting and preparing elementary school teachers. Factors that 6A.J. Lien, "A Comparative-Predictive Study o f Students in the Four Curricula of Teacher Education In s titu tio n s ," Journal of Experimental Education 21 (1952): 81-219. 7Cheryl M. Fields, "The Q ualities Admissions Tests Don't Id e n tify ," The Chronicle of Higher Education 22 (1978): 1-9. 5 contribute to the success o f Norwegian teacher education admissions processes are: 1. There are teacher education colleges designed especially to prepare teachers. 2. A ll applications are processed by a central admissions o ffic e , which is responsible fo r a ll education in the country. 3. The central admissions o ffic e has schedules fo r the quan­ t ific a tio n as a part of the data contained in each a p p li­ cant's f i l e . Each applicant may accumulate a maximum of sixteen points. 4. The nature o f the factors considered in allocating points d ire c tly influences how the candidate spends time a fte r graduation from the gymnasium (secondary school) and p rio r to applying fo r admission to college. 5. Point values assigned to data in the teacher education f ile s are as follows: Examen Artium (Gymnasium Examination) o f acceptable q u a lity , generally the two top grades (two points may be assigned). Practical work experiences since the Examen Artium (two to fiv e points). Working a minimum o f 500 hours per year in a school (two to eight points). Studies in education (one to fiv e points). Social/community service; working with the church, p o litic a l p a rtie s , etc. (one to two points). 6. Older, more mature individuals tend to enter the college. The m ajority are between 23 and 27 years of age. 7. Evaluation includes academic grades; medical reports; and le tte rs o f recommendation.8 Q John D u lla e rt, "Norwegian Elementary School Teacher Pre­ paration," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1978): 462-63. 6 D ullaert writes that he is convinced from his study and experiences in Norway's teacher education program fo r elementary teachers that the selection process is successful because of the positive consequences of the program. He found that 97 percent of those admitted to the colleges complete th e ir programs successfully. Only one percent are expelled fo r academic reasons and two percent v o lu n tarily withdraw from tra in in g . Among the teachers interviewed, overall job satisfaction was quite high and many were proud to be g teachers. Many researchers charge th at tra d itio n a l teacher education programs are not meeting the needs of the particip an ts. Teacher education has been c ritic iz e d fo r its content, conduct and product. The tra d itio n a l program assumes that i f a student, planning to teach, experiences a specified number o f courses in certain areas o f study and undergoes some kind of student teaching experience, he/she is ready to begin teaching. The claim is that tra d itio n a l teacher education programs are not producing teachers equipped to teach youth e ffe c ­ tiv e ly . However, Full reminds us that the United States is the most open, most mobile, most dynamic society in the world and is also a society th at is characterized by the greatest frequency o f co n flicts and controversies. Controversy, whether in teacher education or in other areas of social l i f e , has its basis in the contradictory yet in te rre late d needs, ideas, b e lie fs , and values o f men. By being involved in the wealth o f current educational controversy, some ^D u llaert, Ib id , 7 educators are led to believe th a t contemporary c o n flic ts are the f i r s t , or at lea st the g reatest, the schools have ever faced; they f a i l to re a liz e that disputes o f the past were many and long and b it t e r ju s t as they are today.10 C riticism o f the content of teacher education comes from the participants in teacher education who are dedicated in th e ir support o f education, as well as from a m inority who seek to subvert the goal o f education fo r a ll American youth. Too often some educators c r i t i c a l ly evaluate sources of c ritic is m and th is , unfortunately, is re fle cte d in th e ir opposing argu­ ments, and implies that an apology is in order fo r the unsettled state o f a ffa ir s in education today. The previous statement is supported by a study conducted by S pillane and Levenson on Teacher Training which suggests th at teacher education is the form o f professional tra in in g lea st respected by professionals and the general public. tra in in g courses is debatable. la te s t debate. The content o f teacher Competency is the catch word in the In almost h a lf the sta tes , leg is latu res and depart­ ments o f education have in s titu te d programs o f competency-based teacher education while the profession argues over whether we konw the competencies a teacher needs and whether we know how to judge these competencies. Competency-based teacher education w ill not revo lution ize the schools, because we are, as usual, arguing about the content o f the courses, not about the essential issue, which is 10Harold F u ll, Controversy in American Education (New York: MacMillan Company, 1970), pp. 1-8. 8 control of the courses. All the competency-based teacher education courses leave the control o f teacher education with the colleges and state departments o f education which have created our present in to le ra b le s itu atio n . The two groups which have the greatest stake in the resu lt o f teacher tra in in g , teachers and school d is tr ic ts , are l e f t powerless. Without a s h ift in power, teacher education w ill never achieve in te lle c tu a l re s p e c ta b ility .^ The tra d itio n a l teacher education programs are not alone in being c r itic iz e d . Various teacher educators have made comments, proposals and critiq ues relevant to teacher education programs c r itic iz in g the "competency" approach to developing teacher education programs. Travers proposes, in his paper on "Role Development in Teachers," a d iffe re n t approach to the problem o f improving teacher education. He claims that the problems are not how to manage teacher education programs but how to design them. There is no need of advanced management techniques, which is what Competency Based Teacher Education (CBTE) attempts to employ. One place to begin the design of teacher education programs is a search of what is known about behavior of teachers who produce high gains in pupils in measures of learning. Whatever can be learned from such research can indicate only the general teacher characteristics of the e ffe c tiv e teacher in the presence o f certain broad tr a its that characterize behavior. C o lle ctive ly these constitute a classroom ^Robert R. Spillane and Dorothy Levenson, "Teacher Train­ ing: A Question of Control, Not Content," Phi Delta Kappan (March 1976): 435-42. 9 ro le. He argues that the overall role o f the teacher in the class­ room is the central crucial condition related to learning on the part of the pupils. Therefore, teacher training must open up to the student of education a range of techniques through which the class­ room role can become e ffe c tiv e for promoting learning in the class­ room.^ In 1954, the courts began to establish rules on rights and education. During the 1960s the nation's social problems erupted into c iv il rights movements. From that time on the federal govern­ ment has given attention to teacher education by developing and funding such programs as Trainers of Teachers of Teachers (T rip le T ), Teacher Corps, The Comprehensive Elementary Teacher Education Models (CETEM) p ro ject, Teacher Centers, the National In s titu te of Educa­ tion and bilingual education. One program, fo r example, is the Competency-Based Teacher Education (CBTE) program, which concen­ trates on id entifyin g and specifying the knowledges, behaviors and s k ills necessary fo r e ffe c tiv e teaching. Competency-Based Teacher Education has become engulfed in controversies not of its own making, such as mandates to use CBTE in a ll teacher education programs. Many leaders have suggested that CBTE would have been more e ffe c tiv e i f i t was purely educational instead o f p o litic a l. Out of many research and development e ffo rts in teaching education over the la s t decade have come both a commitment to q uality teacher education and an emphasis on new programs and implementation 17 Robert M. W. Travers, "Role Development in Teachers," paper presented a t the MATE Conference, Western Michigan U niversity, 1977. 10 strategies. The use of protocols, laboratory approaches and microteaching has added to instructional c a p a b ilitie s in many in s t i­ tutions of higher learning. Also, much e ffo r t and research have been devoted to fie ld -o rig in a te d programs. Teacher centers have been established and c lin ic a l supervision o f student teachers has been promising. In most states, teacher c e rtific a tio n in a specific teaching area is required before an individual can be employed as a teacher. Local school systems depend on the state c e rtific a tio n o ffic e to evaluate college transcripts and/or other credentials o f applicants who may wish to pursue employment with a p a rtic u la r state. Teacher preservice education, and other degree programs in teacher education, usually take place at the college or university le v e l. These pro­ grams are designed to assist preservice and inservice teachers in developing expertise which w ill have a d ire c t influence on public school instruction and student achievement. Colleges and universities providing Teacher Education attempt to produce teachers who make a maximum contribution to th e ir pupils at a ll lev els. The schools e x is t prim arily to have an e ffe c t on the behavior and achievement o f th e ir students. 13 Consequently, the way fo r colleges of education to a ffe c t school instruction is through preservice and inservice education o f teachers. Educators seem to agree that inservice education is essential in order fo r teachers to continue to develop the expertise needed to cope with the vast demands placed on classroom teachers. Therefore, 13R. Baker Bousell and William B. Moody, "Are Teacher Prepara­ tion In s titu tio n s Necessary?" Phi Delta Kappan 54 (January 1973): 289. 11 the lite ra tu r e suggests that many school d is tric ts have increased th e ir inservice a c tiv itie s fo r teachers and have explored a variety of methods to implement these programs. Both product and process evaluation seem essential in order to provide the necessary informa­ tion on which to judge the effectiveness of such train ing programs. The ultim ate goal o f most inservice programs may be viewed as a change in the product. 14 In this study the product is a change in teacher behavior as a re su lt of inservice education in regard to the use of selected generic teaching s k ills . The more immediate objective may be viewed as a process change in which the teacher demonstrates a perceived cognitive, a ffe c tiv e or behavioral develop­ ment as a re s u lt of the inservice tra in in g . L it t le e ffo rt has been made to evaluate inservice education programs. When an evaluation has been made, i t has often taken the form o f a series o f questions asking the participants to indicate the perceived degree of enjoyment, in te re s t, or value in the inservice a c tiv ity . Few programs have used product evaluation in order to lin k student achievement to teacher tra in in g . 15 When inservice programs are subjected to e ith e r a product or process evaluation, teacher effectiveness must be measured in terms of changes in pupil behavior that are a ttrib u ta b le to the teacher's assistance. However, th is can be accomplished only i f i t is th e o re tic a lly possible to assess a teacher's effectiveness by ^Thomas P. Fitzgerald and Richard M. Clark, "Process Evalua­ tion fo r Inservice Training," Reading Improvement 12 (Winter 1976): 194-98. 15Ib id ., pp. 194-98. 12 measuring how pupils learn from the teacher, and at the same time, make allowances fo r other influences on pupil learning. In a practical s itu a tio n , however, such measures of teacher effectiveness lack both r e lia b ilit y and v a lid ity to a degree that probably makes them le g a lly indefensible as indicators of an individual teacher's competence. The only feasible approach to the assess­ ment o f individual teachers seems to be to assess th e ir mastery of ways of behaving on the job which e ffe c tiv e teachers have been shown to use. This presents a problem, and Coker suggests three basic approaches to a solution to the problem: (1) research on teacher effectiveness, (2) theory, and (3) teacher wisdom.^ Teacher wisdom appears to o ffe r a l i t t l e more promise than the other a lte rn ative s. This involves asking the teachers what behaviors are needed to make them e ffe c tiv e . While most teachers cannot apply the breadth of knowledge o f the researcher to the creative ingenuity of the th eo retician , they are in immediate contact with a ll aspects of the problems as they occur, and may be less lik e ly to overlook or incorrectly weight the importance of a single aspect. The teacher, moreover, has a stake in the problem; not only professional advancement, but s u rv iva l, depends on how successfully the problem is s o lv e d .^ Fitzgerald and Clark con­ cluded that the use of teacher s e lf-ra tin g s appears to be a ^Homer Coker, "Id entifying and Measuring Teacher Compe­ tencies: The Carroll County Project," Journal of Teacher Educa­ tion 27 (Spring 1976): 54-56. 171bid. , pp 54-56. 13 reasonable approach to determine behavioral changes generated through inservice programs. 18 Therefore, teacher perception (s e lf- ratin g ) of the use o f generic teaching s k ills and observed behavior w ill be used in this study to determine teacher behavior in regard to inservice education. Inservice teacher education is indeed a multifaceted enter­ prise. The considerable amount of attention i t has currently generated might suggest i t is a new phenomenon. not the case. However, this is Considerable resources have been given over to this a c tiv ity fo r some time, and i f anything, these are being retrenched. Some e ffo rts suggest that inservice a c tiv ity should or could be a re la tiv e ly ind ividu alized , even a personalized, a c tiv ity . There are countless self-improvement a c tiv itie s which teachers can engage in d aily i f they desire. as i t is . Collegial sharing need not be as uncommon There are also numerous p o s s ib ilitie s fo r fu rther develop­ ment by teachers who continue to cycle preservice student teachers through th e ir classroom. The paraprofessional can be a rich source , .1 9 of- learning. In recent years, American education has witnessed the advent of a large number o f retrain in g e ffo rts fo r teachers. These retrain ing programs have also been id e n tifie d as s ta ff development, ^ F itz g e ra ld and Clark, 1976. 1Q Kenneth R. Howey, "Putting Inservice Teacher Education Into Perspective," Journal o f Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1976): 101-5. 14 continuing education, professional development, and inservice. 20 However, one o f the most perplexing and persistent questions in American education is : Why do teachers, who almost universally appear eager to improve th e ir professional performance in the classroom and community, frequently respond with outright h o s tility to local e ffo rts to inservice them? 21 There seems to be a continuous e ffo rt through inservice training to assist teachers in improving th e ir work with students. Recognizing many problems and approaches related to this type of professional development, i t appears that there is a vast need for fu rth e r research in th is area. Statement of the Problem The problem in th is study was concerned with evaluating the inservice component o f the Michigan State University Performance Oriented Instruction in Teacher Education Program (POINTE), which is an outgrowth of the Competency-Based Teacher Education Program developed and implemented in cooperation with the Lansing School D is tr ic t, Lansing, Michigan, Another aspect of the problem was to determine i f those teachers who were trained by the POINTE Inservice Program (C lin ic a l Instructors) use and assess the importance of generic teaching s k ills any d iffe re n tly from those teachers who were not inserviced by POINTE. I t is obvious th at generic teaching on John N. Mangleri and David R. McWilliams, "Designing an E ffective Inservice Program," Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1976): 110-12. 21 James C. King, e t a ! . , "Some Requirements fo r Successful Inservice Education," Phi Delta Kappan 58 (May 1977): 686-87. 15 s k ills are basic s k ills necessary fo r excellent teaching. Research indicates that much has been done in the areas o f "Inservice Educa­ tio n ," "Teaching S k ills ," "Competency Based Teacher Education Programs." However, research concerning the use and importance of generic teaching s k ills by C linical and Non-Clinical instructors is very scarce. Purpose of the Study I t is expected that the use of selected generic teaching s k ills by secondary c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors w ill be d iffe re n t, and th erefore, the differences w ill be of s ig n ific a n t benefit to inservice planners, school adm inistrators, teachers, con­ sultants, teacher educators, and competency-based education advo­ cates. Therefore, i t is the purpose of this study to investigate the perceived use of selected generic teaching s k ills , and observe classroom behavior o f secondary c lin ic a l and non-clinical instruc­ tors in the Lansing school d is t r ic t , and determine the influence of inservice education on teacher behavior in regards to generic teaching s k ills . S p e c ific a lly , the purposes o f th is study are to determine: 1. I f there is a relationship between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching skills of maintaining attending behavior. 2. I f there is a relationship between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills in communication. 3. I f there is a relationship between the ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills o f maintaining attending behavior. 16 4. I f there is a relationship between ratings by c lin ic a l and n on-clinical instructors o f the importance o f the generic teaching s k ills in communication. 5- I f there is a relationship between observer ratings and s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill o f maintaining attending behavior. 6. I f there is a relationship between observer ratings and s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills in communication. 7. I f there is a relationship between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. 8. I f there is a relationship between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills in communication from the three secondary schools. 9. I f there is a relationship between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills o f maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. 10. I f there is a relationship between rating by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills in communication from the three secondary schools. Importance of the Study As a re s u lt o f the demand fo r accountability in education in the past few years, Competency-Based Teacher Education has become almost a household phrase in education. Optional teacher education programs are being designed and Implemented almost d a ily . program at Michigan State University is an example. The POINTE Many of these programs require the p articip atio n o f university fa c u lty , preservice and inservice teachers, local school adm inistrators, students, and community people. 17 The design of these programs requires id e n tific a tio n of teacher competencies fo r preservice and inservice teachers. Many of the inservice teachers supervise the a c tiv itie s o f student teachers a t th e ir local schools. The inservice component o f the POINTE pro­ gram seems to suggest improved classroom teacher performance in the areas o f generic teaching s k ills , observation, and evaluation of teacher competencies. There seems to be l i t t l e or no empirical research to support this notion. Therefore, th is study is important fo r the following reasons: 1. L it t le emphasis has been placed on the importance of generic teaching s k ills and how they are u tiliz e d by c lin ic a l instructors in the Lansing School D is tr ic t. 2. There is a need to determine how c lin ic a l and nonc lin ic a l instructors use generic teaching s k ills . 3. There is a need to determine whether c lin ic a l instructors experience s ig n ific a n t professional growth and develop­ ment as a re su lt of the inservice education received from p a rtic ip a tio n in the POINTE program. 4. There is a need to determine i f the POINTE inservice education component provides c lin ic a l instructors with the c a p a b ilitie s to appraise th e ir own teaching s k ills . G e n e ra liza b ility I t is worth recognizing that the findings o f th is study may have impact fa r beyond the lim its of the study i t s e l f . F ir s t, since the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors involved are from a normal population o f secondary classroom teachers, i t can be concluded that the findings w ill hold fo r a larg er population o f normal secondary classroom teachers, and may be implemented in th e ir school d is tr ic ts . Second, there is no reason to believe th at the inservice education 18 on the u tiliz a tio n of generic teaching s k ills is only workable for secondary c lin ic a l instructors. Rather, i t may appropriately be used on other teacher populations. And f in a lly , the concept of generic teaching s k ills is applicable in a ll teaching content areas o f education and train ing where the transmission of knowledge and a change in behavior is the objective. Limitations The lim ita tio n factors of this study were as follows: 1. This study was lim ited to the assessment of the perceived and observed use o f the generic teaching s k ills o f attend­ ing behavior and communication. 2. Measurement o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills were lim ited to a s e lf reporting paper and pencil instrument. 3. The population o f this study was lim ited to three selected secondary schools in the Lansing school d is t r ic t , which prevented equal d is trib u tio n of subjects in various c e lls . 4. The population of this study was lim ited to a selected group of trained and non-trained classroom instructors. 5. The assessment of the perceived and observed use of generic teaching s k ills were lim ited to secondary schools. D efin itio n of Terms D efin itio n fo r key terms used in the study w ill follow to provide a common basis fo r understanding. 1. Inservice Education - A ll a c tiv itie s engaged in by the professional personnel during th e ir service and designed to contribute to improvement on the job. 2. Generic Teaching S k ills - Pertains to a class of teaching s k ills related to secondary c lin ic a l instructors and super­ vising teachers which is common and essential to the teaching process. 19 3. C linical Instructor - A classroom teacher with whom the student teacher works d ire c tly during the f i r s t and second terms of the POINTE program at Michigan State U niversity. The c lin ic a l instructor receives 12 to 18 clock hours of special inservice instruction in the POINTE program. This instruction is planned by a team of public school and university teachers and is supplemented in the schools by c lin ic a l consultants. 4. C linical Consultants - Classroom teacher relieved from a portion of his/her teaching load to provide supervision fo r both terms o f fie ld experience to the student teacher and the c lin ic a l instructor p articip atin g in the POINTE program. 5. Non-Clinical Instructor - Classroom teachers who have not received T2 to 18 clock hours of special inservice instruc­ tion in the POINTE program. 6. Competency-Based Education - A concept with primary emphasis on output or demonstrated product. Performance goals are specified in d etail in advance o f instruction. The student must e ith e r be able to demonstrate his a b ilit y to promote desirable learning or exh ib it behaviors known to promote i t . The student is held accountable, not fo r receiving grades, but fo r attain ing a given level o f competency, whereas the teacher and the in s titu tio n are also held accountable fo r fostering the specified outcome behaviors. 7. Attending Behavior S k ills - To use selected techniques fo r securing and maintaining the attending behavior and in te r­ action o f students so that desired learning a c tiv itie s are a c tive ly pursued as indicated by observations o f students and teacher behavior. 8. Communication Ski 11s/Questioning - The a b ility to develop and demonstrate the use o f questions which provide fo r diverse levels o f thinking. 9. POINTE - Performance Oriented Instruction in Teacher Education. 10. CBTE - Competency Based Teacher Education. 11. Competency - A behavioral objective type statement which is derived from a c le a rly defined task o f teaching and can provide a means to measure the behavior o f a teacher's performance during a teaching situ atio n . 20 12. Enabling Objectives - An objective which describes those kn o w led g es.skills, and attitudes which a learner must a tta in at some intermediate point i f he is to a tta in the terminal objective competency. 13. Objective - Is an intent communicated by a statement describing a proposed change in a learner—a statement of what the learner is to be lik e when he has successfully completed a learning experience. A description o f a pattern o f behavior the learner w ill be able to demonstrate. 14. Assessment - An evaluation procedure which provides inform­ ation on the level o f performance of a student at the beginning, during, or at the conclusion o f study. 15. Instructional A c tiv itie s - Procedures whereby students are engaged in learning experiences and interacting with materials/communications resulting in the fu lfillm e n t o f some type of learning. 16. Assessment A c tiv ity - Process o f describing a person's work without placing a value judgment on i t or indicating the level of q u a lity needed to be successful. 17. 18. Evaluation - A value judgment is made about the q u ality of work. IDT - Instructional Development Team. Organization of the Presentation The investigation is organized and presented in fiv e chap­ te rs . Chapter I has presented an introduction to the study. This section contains a b rie f h is to ric al background o f many researchers' and authors' views on the characteristics of a successful inservice or o rientation program fo r teachers. A statement of the problem under investig atio n , the purpose, importance, g e n e ra liz a b ility , and d e fin itio n o f terms, has been given. F in a lly , the organization o f the study and summary are presented. Chapter I I presents a review o f related and pertinent lite ra tu re to the problem under investigation. This chapter is 21 organized in four parts: (1) Inservice Education, (2) Assessing Teaching S k ills , (3) Competency Based Teacher Education, and (4) Supervision of Student Teaching. Chapter I I I outlines the methodological procedures used in the study. I t deals prim arily with development o f the instrument, collection o f data, procedures fo r data processing, procedures fo r analyzing the data, and the interp retation of the data. Chapter IV presents an analysis and interp retation of data, and is organized in three major sections: composition o f the study; descriptive analysis of the population; tests of stated hypotheses; and summary of findings. Chapter V presents the summary, conclusions, and recom­ mendations fo r fu rth er research. Summary The f i r s t section o f th is chapter presented an introduction to the problem being studied by giving a b rie f overview of selection and admission policies into teacher education programs, CBTE move­ ment and inservice education and, in addition, a theoretical basis and developments that seem to be s ig n ific a n t to the improvement of preservice and inservice teacher education programs were presented. The second section o f the chapter contained a statement of the problem under investigation. The purpose o f the study and the importance o f the study, the g e n e ra liz a b ility , d efin itio n s of terms were given. lim ita tio n s , and 22 In the th ird and fin a l section o f this chapter an overview was presented of the remaining chapters and the organizational format followed in the report. CHAPTER I I A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The review of related lite ra tu re dealing s p e c ific a lly with the problem of th is study w ill be made by exploring several sources, such as the DATRIX system. DATRIX is a computerized information re trie v a l system that addresses i t s e lf to academic and non-academic research. I t is a vast storehouse of knowledge; thousands of doctoral dissertations w ritten in a ll f ie ld s .1 Other sources which w ill be explored are: Education Index, books, s o c ia l, psychologial and educational journals, and the ERIC system. The review of related lite ra tu r e w ill be organized under four major headings: (1) Inservice Education, {2) Teacher Assess­ ment, (3) Competency-Based Teacher Education, and (4) Supervision of Student Teaching. Research findings in these areas w ill provide the basis fo r the research questions and hypotheses of the study. Inservice Education This section of the review of related lite ra tu r e w ill deal with information in the areas of importance and needs of inservice education. M a t r ix , "Direct Access to Reference Information: A Xerox Service" (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University M icrofilm s), 48106. 23 Those closely involved in preparing teachers have recognized fo r years th at the four year preservice program can only provide the new p ra c titio n e r with competencies necessary fo r beginning teachers. Those competencies w ill s u ffice only i f the beginner is appropriately assigned, adequately supervised, and in d iv id u a lly assisted. This seems to suggest th at inservice education, which is not only important fo r the beginning teacher but fo r the continued effectiveness and competence of the professional who has acquired good and bad habits, basic ch aracteristics o f teaching sty le s , b e lie fs and a ttitu d e s . E d e lfe lt and Lawrence suggested th at the missing dimensions of inservice education are well illu s tra te d by contrasting inservice education with preservice teacher education. education has an established framework. is fixe d . tro l i t . Preservice teacher The re s p o n s ib ility fo r i t In s titu tio n s of higher education plan, operate, and con­ There are statewide regulations to guide i t , and state and federal funds to finance i t . Perhaps most important, undergraduate preparations are based on h o lis tic concepts of the product. D iffe r ­ ent versions o f such concepts are im p lic it in the standards of the National Council fo r Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and National Association o f State Directors o f Teacher Education and C e rtific a tio n (NASDTEC). e x p lic it . In competency based programs, they are By contrast, neither the college or u niversity nor the school d is t r ic t has embraced Inservice education as a basic commit­ ment. State approval programs fo r inservice education are weak or nonexistent. National A ccreditation o f Inservice Education is largely re s tric te d to programs in colleges and u n iv e rs itie s , and at 25 th is level i t is skimpy and p a r tia l. E d elfelt and Lawrence also pointed out that teachers must a rrive at th e ir own synthesis of university and school d is tr ic t o fferin g s, which ty p ic a lly deal with ju s t segments o f teaching competence, often unrelated to a whole. In summary, inservice education programs neither extend preservice frameworks nor have frameworks o f th e ir own except in rare instances. 2 Rubin states that the absence of systematic school-university collaboration in teacher education preparation suggests that neither in s titu tio n understands its proper ro le , and most studies on resis­ tance of schools to change show that teachers are wary of innovations th at require a ra d ic a lly d iffe re n t instructional technique and the e ffo rt to discover why promising new practices work in one situation and f a i l in another provides grim testimony to the capacity of the ill- t r a in e d teacher to imperil educational effectiveness. As these d iff ic u ltie s manifested themselves, i t became e v i­ dent that they could not be overcome by the then prevailing system of inservice education. A m ajority of the programs were e ith e r so prescriptive that they insulted the teachers' in te llig e n c e , ignoring the need to f ix teaching to one's own style and to the p e c u lia ritie s of the p a rtic u la r classroom, or they were too vague to be useful. With rare exceptions, retrain in g or inservice a c tiv itie s dealt with lo fty conceptions rather than with the fundamental s k ills of teaching. 2 Roy The State o f E d e lfe lt and Association, 3 A. E d e lfe lt and Gordon Lawrence, "In-Service Education: the A rt," Rethinking In-Service Education, ed. Roy A. Margo Johnson (Washington, C.O.: National Education 1975), pp. 9-23. Louis Rubin, The In-Service Education of Teachers (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1978), pp. 5-6. 3 26 The a v a ila b ility of new technology now permits an approach to inservice education that promises greater efficien cy and pre­ cision » and there is much research to suggest th at teachers are more responsive to professional development a fte r they have actually worked rather than before they have had an opportunity to work in a classroom s itu atio n . Halik concluded that the f i r s t two years of a teacher's experience are most cru c ia l. During the early period attitu des and b elie fs are shaped and other characteristics of teaching are well established. Beyond this point in the teacher's career, inservice education becomes a matter o f unlearning as well as of learning. This seems to suggest that teachers cannot learn to teach u n til they begin to work with children in a classroom s itu atio n . 4 Most educators continue to believe th at inservice education of good q u a lity can lead to improvement in classroom performance, or provide guidelines fo r innovations in the curriculum, or prepare the teacher fo r promotion. There is a great range in depth and length of provision, and no consistent correlation between the q u ality of courses and awards to which they lead. I t is important to remember that inservice covers a variety of a c tiv itie s , from reading in an in s titu te lib ra ry to p artic ip atin g in a school-based working-party, from classroom experimentation to workshop in a teachers' center. 4 Richard J. H a lik , "Teacher In-Service Education in the A ffective Domain: Outcomes fo r Teachers and Students" (Ph.D. d is se rta tio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1973), p. 24. 27 D ifferen t objectives have th e ir individual routes to accomplish­ ment.^ Fiske states th at few people doubt the wisdom of giving p rio r ity to a substantiating expansion of inservice train ing in the next decade. When we begin to consider the methods of achieving the objectives, however, things are not as easy as they appear at f i r s t sight. Indeed, the more one examines possible strategies for improving and expanding the provision of inservice tra in in g , the more d if f ic u lt the task appears.** Rubin suggests that teachers' professional development via inservice education has not been taken seriously and that we have fa ile d to develop an appropriate scheme, or methodology fo r monitor­ ing inservice education. Decisions as to content, form and arrange­ ment fo r inservice train in g have ty p ic a lly been handled at an adm inistrative level with l i t t l e input from the teaching fac u lty . Rubin also notes that teachers feel to ta lly l e f t out of a decision­ making process that has d ire c t impact on th e ir professional w e lfa re .7 5 Kay Burton, "More Must be Made to Mean B etter," Trends in Education 33 (May 1974): 4-8. ^Dudley Fiske, "Inservice Training: Trends in Education 33 (May 1974): 8-12. An LEA Appraisal," 7Louis J. Rubin, "Teacher Growth in Perspective," in Improving Inservice Education: Proposal and Procedures fo r Change, ed. Louis J. Rubin (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971). 28 Mead implied that we have fa ile d to avail ourselves o f what may serve as the single most important source of information a v a ilQ able fo r inservice tra in in g , the teacher. Brim and T o lle tt presented evidence to suggest that teacher attitudes re fle c t a general feeling that most inservice train in g is g not responsive to th e ir own needs. Ingersoll states that to f a i l to include the teacher in the decision-making process lacks sense for a variety of reasons: (1) when teachers are involved at the choice point, they are more lik e ly to carry th e ir in te re st into actual tra in in g ; (2) i t f a ils to make fin ancial sense to o ffe r something that has l i t t l e relevance to teachers' needs; and (3) to make a ll the decisions at an administra­ tiv e level is l i t t l e more than p a tro n iz in g .^ Cruickshank, Kennedy, and Myers presented evidence support­ ing the use of teacher input in identifyin g problem domains. They provided secondary teachers with a problem inventory on which respondents were asked to rate the severity of the problem and its frequency of occurrence. Their analysis suggested that clusters of problem areas are dominated by factors labeled "invigoration" and o E. J. Mead, "No Health in US," in Improving Inservice Education: Proposal and Procedures fo r Change, ed. Louis J. Rubin (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971). g J. L. Brim and D. J. T o lle t t, "How Do Teachers Feel About Inservice Education?" Educational Leadership 31 (1972): 251-52. *®Gary M. In g erso ll, "Assessing Inservice Training Needs Throuqh Teacher Responses," Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1976): 69-76. 29 "control" which appeared on both analyses fo r severity of problem and frequency.11 Inservice education is receiving increasing atten tio n , according to many researchers, which seems promising to the continu­ ing education of teachers. Because of its potential as a means to help the pressures on colleges and u n iv e rs itie s , inservice education is certain to become an increasingly important consideration of teacher education in s titu tio n s in setting p r io r itie s . This seems to suggest that in s titu tio n s of higher education w ill take more in it ia t iv e in working closely with school d is tric ts to provide more services fo r teachers. Wilen and Kindsvatter summarized a set of guidelines synthesized from fiv e studies which suggested s ig n ific a n t ways by which inservice education can be improved: 1. School d is tric ts must allocate specific funds for inservice education s u ffic ie n t to maintain compre­ hensive and continuous programs. 2. The need o f teachers must d ire c tly influence the nature and design of inservice education programs. 3. Teachers need to be d ire c tly involved in planning the goals, content, and Instructional approach of inservice education programs. 4. Objectives of inservice education programs must be w ritten and specified. 5. Area colleges and u n iversities should serve as a major source fo r program d irec to r and consultants. D. R. Cruickshank, J. J. Kennedy, and B. ftyers, "Perceived Problems of Secondary School Teachers," Journal o f Educational Research 68 (1974): 154-59. 30 6. Inservice programs should be held during the regular school day when possible and when not, teachers should be fin a n c ia lly compensated fo r th e ir p a rtic ip a tio n . 7. Inservice education program evaluations must be assessed immediately upon completion based on objectives to determine the extent to which objectives have been translated into teacher behaviors in the cla ssro om . 12 Zigarmi and others conducted a study to determine teachers' preferences in and perceptions of inservice education in order to help them improve th e ir work with students. Questionnaires were sent to a random sampling of teachers representing every school system in the state of South Dakota. A representative sampling of 1,239 teachers responded to one of the three questionnaires. The researchers reported on the responses of teachers to only one part o f the three questionnaires: the part containing questions dealing with the types and usefulness o f various kinds of inservice a c tiv itie s . Conclusions based on the study suggested that planners of inservice experiences fo r teachers can learn types and usefulness of various approaches to s ta ff development. The authors concluded th at: 1. D iffe re n t types o f inservice a c tiv itie s demonstrate that there are many approaches to s ta ff development and that some less-frequently-used approaches (observation and assistance from other teachers, current trends, and summer workshops designed around local needs and held in the local school) should be included in s ta ff development program planning. ^Richard Kindsvatter and William W. Wilen, "Implications of Research fo r E ffective In-service Education," The Clearinq House 51 (April 1978): 392-96. 31 2. Useful inservice education programs are planned in response to the assessed needs o f teachers and build on the in te re s t and strengths o f the teachers fo r whom they have been designed. 3. Teachers should be provided with choices about whether to attend, what to focus on, when to s ta rt and which persons should be used as resources. 4. More time has to be set aside fo r development—time fo r planning and carrying out planned a c tiv itie s and fo r planning follow-up to help teachers extend and apply what they have learned. 5. Teachers are more committed to s ta ff development i f they have been involved in planning and have some control over the inservice experience. These observations suggest to planners of inservice a c tiv itie s that there is a need to reassess the purpose of inservice education, which should be to support teachers in learning how to improve on what they are doing with students. Teachers themselves need to become involved in planning, organizing, and carrying out th e ir own s ta ff development programs. 13 The U.S. O ffice of Education recognizes the crucial need fo r more e ffe c tiv e continued tra in in g . However, inservice education is ill-fin a n c e d in most i f not a ll states. Although educators at a ll levels of education enterprise give lip service to the importance of inservice education in helping school personnel cope with changes in curriculum, methodology, m aterials, organizational structure, and student needs, there is l i t t l e evidence th at adequate financial resources are available to enable school s ta ffs to organize inservice programs. 13 P a tric ia Zigarmi, Loren Betz, and D arrell Jensen, "Teachers' Preferences in and Perceptions of In-Service Education," Educational Leadership 24, No. 7 (April 1977): 545-51. 32 Any discussion of inservice education w ill remain ju s t a discussion unless several essential factors e x is t. Control of a system has tra d itio n a lly rested with the funding agent. The present evolutionary process that inservice education appears to be following implies a nontraditional track. I t is no longer appropriate to assume that money means f u ll control. Teacher organizations are in sisting upon involvement in every aspect o f program development and implementation. The ultimate success of th e ir position w ill depend on th e ir a b ilit y to e n lis t other agencies as working partners 14 in a jo in t e ffo r t for future change. Howey and Joyce pointed out some future directions in in service education. They drew upon the data from th e ir recent studies and concluded that well intentioned e ffo rts such as needs assessments or on-site tra in in g in and o f themselves do not adequately address the major structural and organizational changes needed in many situations to make the d aily r e lit y of the teacher's work world one more conducive to a style of learning that could be characterized as natural and continuing. Improvements in inservice education are also d ire c tly related to whether improvements in how schools are ty p ic a lly organized are made. For many teachers i t is hardly a situ ation of more inservice but a need fo r a more conducive environment fo r th e ir students and themselves to liv e in . The resolution to th is problem then c a lls fo r a more r e a lis tic conceptualization o f teacher roles 14 P a tric ia A. Orrange and Mike Van Ryn, "Agency Roles and Responsibilities in In-Service Education," in Rethinking In-Service Education, ed. Roy E d e lfe lt and Margo Johnson (Washington, O.C.: National Education Association, 1975), pp. 47-55. 33 and structural organizational changes in schools which extend beyond the common practice of asking an individual what he/she needs, especially when the problem in many situations lie s not so much with the individual teacher but elsewhere. 15 The new movement fo r the establishment o f teacher education centers w ill help strengthen communication between local school systems and teacher education in s titu tio n s , which can be defined as an arrangement to promote collaboration in teacher education, both preservice and inservice. The centers involve teachers, school d is tr ic ts , and teacher education in s titu tio n s . I t draws resources from existing teacher education programs and is concerned with aspects o f teacher education requiring mutual involvement of concerned in s titu tio n s o f teacher education. The program of a teacher education center includes among many a c tiv itie s those which are designed: 1. To assess inservice train in g needs as perceived by classroom teachers, school d is t r ic t , college or university and other concerned agencies. 2. To provide jo in t planning by school d is tric ts and colleges or u n iversities and to develop programs, including long term tra in in g a c tiv itie s based on inservice needs. 3. To provide resources fo r inservice train in g by whichever agents are best prepared to d eliver services. 4. To assess needs and provide the resources and experience fo r c lin ic a l preservice teacher tra in in g . 15 Kenneth Howey and Bruce Joyce, "A Data Base fo r Future Directions 1n In-service Education," Theory Into Practice 17, No. 3 (1978): 206-11. 34 5. To include career-long teacher education to help teachers keep pace with the changing and d iv e rs ifie d systems o f instruction. 6. To fo ster cooperation and collaboration among teachers, school d is tr ic ts , and teacher education in s titu tio n s which w ill allow fo r the emergence of new train in g strategies and procedures. 7. To place broader focus on inservice train ing to maintain s k ills fo r present roles and prepare for new roles and re s p o n s ib ilitie s . With the development of teacher education centers more inservice education a c tiv itie s which have been conducted on the campuses of teacher education in s titu tio n s w ill move to the regions served by the teacher education centers. The centers w ill provide experiences in real schools with children and youth. I f the teacher education centers now developing throughout the country liv e up to th e ir expectations, a new and promising wave of realism w ill be injected into the preparation o f prospective teachers and into the inservice tra in in g programs.1** A research and development agenda fo r the future must, of necessity, take p a rtia l direction from the unfinished business of the present. I t is evident that many of the existing problems do not lend themselves to Instant r e l ie f of the concerns and issues of inservice education. However, research and development can serve many purposes, and the present scene suggests th at there is a place fo r most of these in the quest to upgrade inservice. Specific weak­ ness must be analyzed, p o te n tia lly promising solutions must be 16 Peter F. O liva, Supervision fo r Today*s School (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, In c ., 1976), pp. 395-400. 35 explored, and the results of these must be trie d out in a variety of real-world s itu a tio n s .*7 Shearron points out that Competency Based Teacher Education is a data based system fo r train ing teachers. CBTE precisely speci­ fie s that teachers must exh ib it those competencies assumed to promote pupil learning, and/or demonstrate th e ir a b ility to promote desirable pupil learning. Instruction in CBTE focuses d ire c tly on the develop­ ment of those competencies thought to promote pupil learning. I t is the opinion of Shearron that CBTE is a viable approach to bringing needs assessment and inservice a c tiv itie s together fo r continuous updating of teaching s k ills . The systematic data-based approach u tiliz e d in CBTE provides a means to the needs assessment and inservice education together with other parts of the school program. 18 The systematic nature of CBTE with emphasis on objectives instead of courses substantially elim inate the problem of teacher education programs not providing a systematic approach to the pro­ fessional development o f teachers. As a resu lt of the inservice a c tiv itie s offered by the Michigan State University POINTE program, i t is evident that a great deal of in terest and need fo r much of the work in CBTE programs is helpful to c e rtifie d teachers. As the greatest number o f persons who w ill be teaching during the next ten years are already c e r tifie d , the opportunity and need fo r extending 17Rubin, 1978, p. 35. 18 G ilb ert F. Shearron, "Inservice-Needs Assessment: Competency Based Teacher Education," National Conference on Compe­ tency Assessment, Research and Evaluation (Houston: University of Houston, March 1974), pp. 112-2Y. 36 such inservice a c tiv itie s to th at level is needed. Host teachers perceive th is general approach as adding to th e ir teaching an a b ilit y to b e tte r describe and analyze th e ir behavior and to subsequently bring about improvements in th e ir own teaching. I t has also been suggested th at emphasis on instru ction al s k ills has been ben eficial to teachers in providing a d iffe re n t o rien tatio n to th e ir overall teaching and leads to a greater focus on individual student assistance 19 and resu ltan t student growth. Teacher Assessment For many years, the behavior o f students and teachers in the classroom has been a focus of research. The related lite r a tu r e sug­ gests th at the problem has been how to obtain re lia b le objectives data on behavioral variables. Methods frequently used to study what goes on in classrooms and groups have been reviewed by Perkins. He describes methods used as follows: (1) verbatim recording of verbal behavior by machine or stenographer; (2) the use o f anecdotal or n arrative descriptions to obtain behavioral data th a t were less q u a n tifia b le but greater in scope; (3) LSCAR (observation schedules and records), a technique fo r measuring a teacher's behavior in the classroom; and (4) trained observers to judge and categorize class­ room behaviors on the spot. A most recent advance method is the use 19 School o f Teacher Education, Michigan State U niversity and Lansing School D is t r ic t, "Development o f a Competency Based Teacher Education Program Focusing on the D irect Teaching Experience,'* Final Report, Competency Based Teacher Education Grant (Michigan Depart­ ment o f Education, 1976), pp. 64-65. 37 of Kinscope recorder and television cameras mounted in classroom 20 walls and operated by remote control. H atfield pointed out that most of the research on teaching which shows promise in describing e ffe c tiv e teaching has not been translated into a form which is useful in teacher assessment or teacher education procedures and instruments used in research studies are frequently used in situations which do not demand the rig o r and d e ta il o f research materials and these instruments d ictate the kind of data to c o lle c t about teachers because of th e ir a v a il­ a b ilit y to the researcher. However, beginning where we are now and teaching competencies generally being suggested by researchers, i t is possible to l i s t a few of those student behaviors in order to in it ia t e fu rther study and research. He refers to th is l i s t of competencies as generic competencies which are considered to be important to most types of teaching situations and fo r most teachers to learn. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. They are: Students being supportive and cooperative. Students being atte n tive to class a c tiv itie s . Students p artic ip atin g in verbal interaction . Students following specific a c tiv itie s to completion. Students using media and resources fo r study. Such behaviors can be influenced by the teacher, and are accepted by some researchers as the type o f behaviors which aid 21 students in learning. 20 H. U. Perkins, "A Procedure fo r Assessing the Classroom Behavior o f Students and Teachers," American Educational Research Journal 1 (1964): 249-60. ^Robert H a tfie ld , "Teacher Responsibilities and Areas fo r Teacher Assessment." College o f Education, Michigan State U niversity, 1977. (Mimeographed.) 38 Continuing e ffo rts have been made over the years to describe the attitu des and performances of an e ffe c tiv e teacher, to delineate the teaching ac t, or to id e n tify the s k ills which e ffe c tiv e teachers must possess. E a rlie r e ffo rts consisted of attempts to describe e ffe c tiv e teachers' behavior or performance, as opposed to the com­ petencies teachers were expected to demonstrate. Educators probably w ill agree with most lis ts that researchers have created to describe an e ffe c tiv e teacher. However, some w ill point out that several o f the characteristics are descriptions of a teacher as a professional person rather than statements of s k ills which teachers should be able to demonstrate. Current e ffo rts to describe e ffe c tiv e teaching focus on specification of performance or competencies which teachers may be expected to demonstrate. When teachers' behaviors are specified, the teacher can then begin to work to prepare to perform in the desired manner. 22 Efforts are being made through CBTE and other sim ilar pro­ grams to specify teaching s k ills which are generic or common to teaching at a ll levels. Henson and Oliva cited fourteen such s k ills suggested by Allen and Ryan. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 22 They are as follows: Stimulus variation Set induction Closure Silence and nonverbal cues Reinforcement of student p articip atio n Fluency in asking questions Probing questions Higher-order questions Kenneth T. Henson and Peter F. O liv a, "What are the Essential Generic Teaching Competencies?" Theory Into Practice 19, No. 2 (Spring 1980): 117-21. 39 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Divergent questions Recognizing attending behavior Illu s tra tin g and using examples Lecturing Planning rep etitio n Completeness of communication A feelin g of anxiety is running through the teaching pro­ fession today and members of the profession are increasingly account­ a b ilit y minded and more concerned with real and Imagined deficiencies o f the public schools. State legislatures reviewing studies on stu­ dent achievement which show youngsters below norms in basic s k ills and pressure from citizen s fo r improvements in public education are adopting means such as competency testing fo r teachers. 23 Henry and Beasley l i s t three major areas o f concern with specifics under each area. The three areas are: professional q u a litie s and teacher s k ills . personal q u a litie s , 24 Combs' extensive l i s t of teacher s k ills include following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Know much about related subjects Be adaptable to new knowledge Understand the process of becoming Recognize individual differences Be a good communicator Develop an inquiring mind Be available Be committed Be enthusiastic Have a sense of humor Have hum ility Cherish his own in d iv id u a lity Have convictions 23I b id ., pp. 117-21. 24 Marvin A. Henry and W. Wayne Beasley, Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way (Terre Haute: Sycamore Press, 1972), p. 160. 40 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Be sincere and honest Act with in te g rity Show tolerance and understanding Be caring Have compassion Have courage Have personal security Be creative Be v e rs a tile Be w illin g to try Be adaptable Believe in God Combs defines the e ffe c tiv e teacher as "a unique human being who has learned to use him /herself e ffe c tiv e ly and e ffic ie n tly to carry out his own and society's purposes in the education of others." 25 Crow and Crow suggest that the e ffe c tiv e teacher is one who: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Guides students in the mastery o f subject matter Helps students improve needed s k ills Assists young people in the solution of th e ir personal problems Organizes and conducts e ffic ie n tly a ll of the many a c tiv itie s th at constitute classroom management Develops satisfactory relationships with administrators Participates in out-of-class experiences Cooperates with the administration Becomes acquainted with and cooperates with community Learns to meet and work with parents Gives evidence of a love of teaching and professional a ttitu d e toward teaching. Throughout the review of related lite ra tu r e on teaching there are repeated basic areas. 1. 2. 3. 4. They include: classroom management rapport with students knowledge of subject m atter, methods of teaching personal and professionalch aracteristics2^ 25 Arthur C. Combs, The Professional Education o f Teachers (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1965), pp. 2-3. 26 Lester Crow and A lice Crow, The Student Teacher in Secondary Schools (New York: David McKay Company, In c ., 1964), p. 3. 41 Freeman and McMillan reviewed several studies on character­ is tic s or behaviors dealing with pupil cognitive achievement and found that research does suggest th at certain teacher behaviors or characteristics w ill influence student achievement. These include: (1) an in d ire c t, interaction sty le; (2) structure or organization; (3) c la r ity ; (4) emphasis on in te lle c tu a l outcomes; and (5) variety of instruction. Two general personality t r a it s , warmth and enthusi- asm, also seem to influence student achievement. 27 Weigand states that too often in education we hear that some­ one is a "born" teacher or that he has mastered the "art" of teach­ ing. Actually teaching should become a science and an individual who possesses certain needed competencies is one who has mastered the following teaching competencies: (1) knowing in te lle c tu a l developmental stages, (2) formulating performance objectives, (3) developing questioning s k ills , (4) sequencing in stru ctio n , (5) evaluating progress, and (6) developing c r e a tiv ity . competencies are not s u ffic ie n t by themselves. The six The teacher must also learn positive behavioral s k ills so that he or she may engage in human interaction with students. High interpersonal tru s t must permeate the classroom. Positive human interaction is necessary i f 28 high interpersonal tru s t is to develop. 27 Don Freeman and Jim McMillan, "Review of Research Relating Teacher Characteristics or Behaviors to Pupil Cognitive Achievement" (CBTE P roject, Michigan State U niversity, 1974), p. 10. 28 James Weigand, e d ., Developing Teacher Competencies (Englewood C lif f s , N .J .: P re n tlc e-H a ll, In c ., 1971), p. 11. 42 The purpose of the study by Harvey and others was to assess the relationship between students' performance and teachers' resourcefulness, dictatorialness and punitiveness. In addition, the study provided a test of the re p lic a b ility of e a rlie r findings that "concrete” and "abstract" teachers d iffe r in the kinds of classroom behavior they manifest. By rep licatin g the findings of an e a rlie r study these results made i t clear that concreteness-abstractness of teachers' b e lie f systems a ffe c t th e ir overt resourcefulness, d icta­ torialness and punitiveness in the classroom. In addition, the results show that classroom behavior of the teacher and the behavior of the students are s ig n ific a n tly related. T h eoretically, the teacher's behavior could determine the children's behavior, the reverse could be tru e , both could be determined by a th ird fa c to r, such as the organizational clim ate, or the effects could be produced 29 by the interactions among a ll of these factors. Medley and Mitzel investigated fiv e measures of effectiveness of three dimensions of classroom behaviors on 49 beginning teachers in New York City public elementary schools, and analyzed with s ta tis tic a l controls on differences between schools and classes w ithin schools. The fiv e measures of effectiveness were found to center around two d is tin c t aspects of effectiveness. Supervisors' ratings and pupils' reactions to th e ir teachers appeared to re fle c t the teacher's a b ilit y to get along with children. 29 However, teachers' 0. J. Harvey, e t a l . , "Teacher's B e lie fs , Classroom Atmosphere and Student Behavior," American Educational Research Journal 5, No. 2 (March 1968): 151-66. 43 s e lf-ra tin g s and measures of pupil gains (in reading and social s k ills ) appeared to re fle c t effectiveness in stimulating pupils to learn to read. An attempt was made to find out what kind of class­ room behaviors were associated with each type of effectiveness. Neither gains in group problem solving s k ill were found to be related to emotional climate and to verbal emphasis in classroom behavior. Supervisors rated those teachers who had the frie n d lie s t classrooms as most effective.'*® M ille r and M ille r conducted a study to determine the degree o f importance o f selected personal q u a litie s and professional com­ petencies that s ix ty -s ix administrators in the Louisiana public school system believed contributed most to the success of classroom teachers. Results o f this study support personal q u a lities such as z e a l, lo y a lty and cooperation contributed more to success o f a classroom teacher than any of the other factors. They also suggest that professional competencies, classroom management and d ic ip lin e , and knowledge of the subject matter are most important fo r a successfu l classroom teacher. 31 This study was concerned with dependent-prone eighth grade students who were exposed to consistently d ire c t versus in d irec t styles o f teaching while learning geometry. A specially trained Don Medley and Harold M itz e l, "Some Behavioral Correlates o f Teacher Effectiveness," Journal o f Educational Psychology 50, No. 6 (December 1959): 239-751 C lin t M ille r and Dorothy M ille r , "The Importance of Certain Personal Q ualities and Professional Competencies in Success­ ful Classroom Teaching," Journal o f Teacher Education 22, No. 1 (Spring 1971): 37-39. 44 teacher played both a very d irec t and a very in d irec t teacher role in a laboratory situation involving 140 students. Students in the various classificatio n s were then compared on the basis of pre- and past achievement tests in geometry. No differences were found between the clear goal and unclear goal treatments, indicating that in this study, a t le a s t, achievement of dependent-prone students was not affected by perceptions of the learning goal although an analysis of the d ire c t and in d irec t treatments indicated that children taught by the in d ire c t teacher learned more than did the children by the d ire c t teacher. 32 Two data sets were used to assess the re la tio n o f teaching performance to pupil learning—the measures o f teaching performances to pupil learning—the measures o f teaching performance obtained from d ire c t observations of teaching and from the teachers' report on th e ir teaching a c tiv itie s and the measures o f pupil achievement. A ll of the analyses on teaching performance suggested th at what pupils had learned plus the presence or absence of certain teaching performances in the teacher's sty le accounted almost e n tire ly for 33 the pupil achievement by the end o f the year. Domino reported th at there 1s an interaction between a student's achievement and the teaching style he/she is exposed to 32 Edmund Amidon and Ned A. Flanders, "The Effects of Direct and In d ire c t Teachers Influences on Dependent Prone Students Learn­ ing Geometry," Journal o f Educational Psychology 52, No. 5 (1961): 286-91. ^F rederick J. McDonald, "Effects o f Teaching Performance on Pupil Learning, Journal o f Teacher Education 27, No. 4 (Winter 1976): 317-19. 45 which d if f e r e n t ia lly a ffe c t both the amount o f learning th at takes place and the degree o f expressed sa tis fa c tio n with the scholastic environment. One hundred students were selected based on th e ir extreme scores on the achievement-via-conformance and achievementvia-independence scales o f the CPI, were assigned to introductory psychology sections taught in e ith e r a conforming or an independent manner. An analysis o f th e ir scores on a fin a l examination, as well as th e ir ratings o f teacher effectiveness and course evaluation, indicated a clear interactio n e ffe c t. Students taught in a manner consonant with th e ir achievement o rien tatio n obtained s ig n ific a n tly higher means on the m ultiple choice items, on factual knowledge ratings o f th e ir essay answers, and on th e ir ratings o f teacher effectiveness and course evaluation, than th e ir peers taught in a dissonant manner.^ Hamacheck suggested that research on the teacher in teraction styles suggest th at some of the ways o f in te ra ctin g with students in the classroom are b etter than others. For example, Flanders studied teacher influence s ty le s , pupil a ttitu d e s and resu ltin g achievements in seventh grade social studies and eighth grade mathematics. Flanders uncovered four essential elements o f teaching influence 1n the classroom In which m otivation, learning and attitu d e s were superior. The four essential elements were: (1) the teacher provided a range o f roles th at varied from a c tiv e , dominative 34 George Domino, "In te ra c tiv e Affects o f Achlvement Orienta­ tio n and Teaching Styles in Academic Achievement," Journal o f Educational Psychology 62, No. 5 (1971). 46 supervision to more re fle c tiv e , discrim inating support; ( 2 ) the teacher switches roles rather than pursue a single interaction style; (3) the teacher bridged the gap between his/her diagnosis o f a given situ ation and the course o f action he/she should take; and (4) the teacher combined s e n s itiv ity and c r itic a l awareness so th a t, as the classroom’ s master observer, the teacher was able to make reasonable diagnoses o f current conditions. Hamacheck also suggested that those teachers who were not successful were those who were inclined to use the same in s tru c tio n a l, teaching and interaction styles in a more rig id fashion. That is , there seemed to be l i t t l e variatio n from one classroom day or situation to the next. 35 Carl R. Rogers describes some evidence that the in itia tio n of learning rests not only upon the teaching s k ills o f the teacher, not upon the teacher's scholarly knowledge o f the subject matter, not upon h is/h er c u rricu la r planning, not upon the use of audio­ visual aids, not upon the programmed learning u tiliz e d , not upon lectures and presentation, not upon an abundance o f books, though each o f these are not excluded and might be u tiliz e d as an important resource. He suggests that the fa c ilit a t io n of s ig n ific a n t learning rests upon certain a ttitu d in a l q u a litie s which e x is t 1 n the personal relationship between the f a c ilit a t o r and the learner. 36 35 Don E. Hamacheck, e d ., "Toward More Effective Teaching," in Selected Readings: Human Dimensions in Psychology and Education 2 nd ed. (boston: Allyn & bacon in c ., 1972), pp. 231-45. 36Carl R. Rogers, "The Interpersonal Relationship in the F a c ilita tio n o f Learning," 1n Selected Readings: Human Dimensions In Psychology and Education, ed. £)on t . Hamacheclc, 2 nd ed. Boston: Allyn- )! Bacon In c ., 197?}, pp. 48-65. 47 Cruickshank and Kennedy attempted to id e n tify measures of teacher effectiveness from four studies on the reaction between teacher and pupil change and teacher effectiveness. They described what seems to be a "universal prescription" fo r increasing teacher effectiveness: ( 1 ) teachers should use conditioning principles and programmed learning to increase pupil achievement; ( 2 ) open class­ rooms by elim inating "mindless" teacher re s tric tio n s on pupils; and (3) teachers should spend more time working a t higher cognitive le v e ls .3^ Whether teachers are aware o f i t or not, say Combs and Snygg, th e ir behavior and th e ir effectiveness as teachers depends upon th e ir perceptions about themselves and the situations w ithin which they are involved; p a rtic u la rly upon th e ir b e lie fs , values, and convictions. E ffective teaching depends upon teacher perceptions. In p a rtic u la r, i t depends upon the kinds o f perceptions they possess about the following: ( 1 ) what people are; ( 2 ) the goals and purposes o f education in our society; (3) the adequacy o f the teacher's own 38 personality; and (4) e ffe c tiv e methods of encouraging learning. Competency-Based Teacher Education Since the C ivil War, most American teachers have been given increasingly specialized tra in in g , and presently, approximately 37 Donald R. Cruickshank and John J. Kennedy, "An Attempt to Id e n tify Measures o f Teacher Effectiveness from Four Studies," Journal o f Teacher Education 22, No. 3 (F a ll 1976): 261-67. 38Arthur W. Combs and Donald Snygg, Individual Behavior (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, In c ., 1959), pp. 399-400. 48 two m illio n p ractitioners are c e rtifie d as having had professional tra in in g . The education o f teachers has been examined and almost always found d e fic ie n t. Therefore, i t seems evident that educators and researchers should examine a ll aspects o f teacher education programs i f we wish to improve teacher candidates. 39 Research on teacher education and the careful rethinking about preparation of teachers are perhaps at th e ir highest point in history, and should remain under c r itic a l study fo r some time. The w ritin g and research o f many authors has prompted professional teacher educators to think c r it ic a lly about programs that prepare young people fo r a career in teaching. The tra d itio n a l teacher education program, i f i t were analyzed, would reveal th a t, ty p ic a lly , undergraduate programs fo r teachers consist o f foundation courses, methods courses, and some form o f practicum. The question is , does this program produce the kind o f c r i t i c a l , decision-making person needed for teaching in our schools now and in the future? 40 Howsam and others point out that our society has reached the end o f an era when severe shortages o f teachers on a nationwide basis resulted in nearly open admission to teacher education programs and minimal academic performance expectations. Parents and other con­ cerned citizen s remain troubled by the fa ilu re o f th e ir children's schools and teachers to teach adequate levels o f s k ills and 3 ®W. W. Wayson, "Developing the Teachers o f Teachers," Theory Into Practice 13, No. 3 {June 1974): 177-86. ^John R. Verduin, J r . , Conceptual Models in Teacher Educa­ tion (Washington, D.C.: AACTE, 196^), pp. 1-2. 49 understanding in such basic areas as reading and mathematics. Public school administrators s t i l l complain that beginning teachers are often incapable o f dealing with real problems o f instruction and classroom management. Teacher education graduates frequently reg ister th e ir own disaffection with the preparation they received. 41 H atfield stated that we have been encouraged to examine the teacher education program and chart its fu tu re, because of declining enrollments, public concern about educational accountability, and the population of teachers becoming stable. A readjustment o f some type appears necessary, and because o f many questions raised both inside and outside the profession, teacher education in s titu tio n s need to respond; need to think through the consequences and to do an Intensive analysis o f teacher education and look o bjectively a t what teacher educators have to o ffe r society. 42 McDaniels implies that the task of teacher education is to help children; however, as unreasonable as i t may seem, the quantity o f research lin kin g teacher train ing and teacher performance with children performance is lim ited or nonexistent. The National In s titu te of Education plans to ask questions re la tin g to teacher R. B. Howsam, e t a l . , Educating a Profession: Report o f the Bicentennial Commission on Education fo r the^rofess'ton of Teaching (Washington, D.C.: AACTE, 1976), pp. 6-7. ^R obert C. H a tfie ld , "A Dynamic Future fo r Colleges of Education?" (College o f Education, Michigan State U n ive rsity ), pp. 1 - 6 . 50 performance and learning repeatedly over the next several years on 43 its program on teaching and curriculum. Oestreich suggested that the nature o f tra d itio n al student teaching programs provided experiences which leave much to be desired. The weakest lin k lie s w ithin the supervision component, whether i t is on the part o f the classroom or college supervisor or the subject area, learning theory and methods professors. There is l i t t l e or no common thrust fo r professional growth and development o f student teachers due to the lack o f documented research or r e a lis tic assessment. For this reason a number o f student teaching programs should be examined to determine whether there is defensible 44 ratio n ale fo r its continuation in its present form. In view of the claim by educators, the federal bureaucracy, public school o ffic ia ls and classroom teachers, parents and concerned citizen s that teacher education in s titu tio n s are not doing the job they set out to do over 200 years ago, a movement has developed toward making improvements in the teacher education profession throughout the United States. This movement is toward competency-based teacher education, a concept that developed over a number o f years and has been spurred on by increasing demands fo r accountability, relevance, and cost ^ G a rry L. McDaniels, "National In s titu te o f Education and Research in C/PBE," National Conference on Competency Assessment, Research and Evaluation ( Houston, March 1974), pp. 22-23. ^ A rth u r H. Oestreich, "The Professional Growth o f the Student Teacher," Phi Delta Kappan 55, No. 5 (January 1974): 335-37. 51 e ffe c tiv e schooling. The most important fa c to r in the development o f the movement has been the technological readiness o f the educa­ tio n community—a readiness th a t advanced rapid ly during the s ix tie s . The recent advances may be due to the investment o f federal funds in research and development e ffo r ts , the w illingness o f practicing educators to address themselves more closely to the problems o f the classroom, Teacher Corps p ro jects, coupled with support o f the proto­ col and tra in in g m aterials e ffo r ts , and the fe d e ra lly sponsored T rip le T (Training fo r the Teachers o f Teachers) projects which have focused atten tio n on developing and conducting educational programs th at are the c o lle c tiv e , undertaking o f classroom teachers, school adm inistrators, teacher educators, community representatives, and students. 45 The Compentency-Based Teacher Education movement has gained much atten tio n in teacher education as possibly being superior to tra d itio n a l ways o f developing teacher knowledge, s k ills and a t t i ­ tudes necessary to f a c i li t a t e pupil learning. CBTE aims a t q u a lity , using the la te s t research and technology, with performance goals to prepare students to demonstrate a b ilit y to promote desirable learn ­ ing. However, the CBTE approach to improving teacher education is not without c ritic is m and controversy o f it s effectiveness. Competency-based teacher education is a strategy fo r centering teacher education on the acquisition o f a pre-determined ^Benjamin Rosner and P a tric ia M. Kay," W ill the Promise o f C/PBTE be F u lfille d ," Phi Delta Kappan 55, No. 5 (January 1974): 290-95. 52 l i s t o f specific* demonstrable and measurable teacher competencies which are assumed to be related to desired pupil performance. This statement* in one form or another, seems to be the underlying premise fo r a ll CBTE or PBTE programs. Each program has developed competen­ cies, procedures to reach these competencies, and some type o f performance measure to ascertain whether the student has reached the expected level o f performance. In many colleges'and universities' P/CBTE programs competen­ cies deal with s k ills , a ttitu d e s , and interpersonal relationships combined in such a way that when a teacher completes the learning process, he/she should have the desirable teaching behavior. However, there are questions that need to be addressed. F ir s t, is i t possible to determine teaching s k ills and can these s k ills be learned? Is i t possible to determine classroom dynamics, to deter­ mine why i t "comes together" one time and not another? Secondly, are those s k ills common to a ll teaching a t a ll le v e ls , in a ll subject content, or are they content specific? The f i r s t question must be addressed for any competency program to e x is t. The direction the program takes is determined by the choice made on the second question . 46 Quirk c a lls attention to the emphasis the CBTE program concept places on what the teacher can do rather than what the teacher knows or says, what he/she w ill do in certain teaching situ atio n s. CBTE 46Charles W. Ford, "M irror on the W all, Who is the Best Teacher o f Them All?" Educational Technology 15, No. 3 (March 1975): 43-46. 53 programs advocate and create long lis t s o f performances as proof that the program is competency based. with such a l i s t o f objectives. However, there is a problem The problem o f measurement lie s in the r e l ia b i l it y o f individual measures. Quirk does not advocate that a ll competency-based programs should w ait u n til the measurement experts catch up with the promoters, however a solution to the prob­ lems of lin kin g teacher behavior to student outcomes which depends on the adequate r e l ia b i l it y and v a lid ity o f preservice measures of 47 teacher competencies. B erliner warns advocates o f competency-based teacher educa­ tio n , statewide mandated evaluation programs, against a common disease often a ffe ctin g education, that is , educational movement which is inducting the current epidemic of competency training and evaluation without the existence o f empirical evidence o f lin kin g teacher behavior to student outcomes in classroom settings. Exten­ sive construct validation must take place or the impreciseness of our language fo r describing the phenomena o f in te re s t w ill keep the 48 empirical study o f teaching a t its p rim itive le v e l. Ainsworth claims that the concept o f competency attainment and the supportive behavioral methodology has lim ited use and fo r many disciplines the concept has done nothing to c la r ify educational 47Thomas J. Quirk, "Some Measurement Issues in CompetencyBased Teacher Education," Phi Delta Kappan 55, No. 5 (January 1974): 316-19. ^®David C. B e rlin e r, "Impediments to the Study o f Teacher Effectiveness," Journal o f Teacher Education 27, No. 1 (Spring 1976): 5-13. 54 objectives and has not proved useful as a tool fo r determining c u rric u la r content, and has debased educational standards. He claims th a t the focus o f CBTE programs has been on achievement as opposed to in s tru c tio n , and in order to Implement CBTE programs successfully, an in s titu tio n 's assessment or accreditation function must be disestablished from Its teaching function and th is can be done e n tire ly w ithin the framework o f se ttin g standards o f desirable achievement exclusive o f the concept o f competency attainment and behavioral philosophy. 49 Gage defends the search fo r the kind o f relation sh ip that w ill make competency-based teacher education tru ly advantageous. He supports the search against logical or conceptual attacks, against methodological c ritic is m s , against premature discouragement, and against complacency about current approaches. Competency-based teacher education should go on, even before the research successes th at we seek have been won, because without the fr u its o f such research i t provides a tremendous h e u ris tic advance over conventional teacher education. CBTE exposes the questions we need to ask, and i t proceeds 1 n an optional way on the basis o f what knowledge about teacher competencies is now a v a ila b le . 50 49 David Ainsworth, "Examining the Basis fo r CompetencyBased Education," Journal o f Higher Education 6 8 , No. 3 (May/June 1977): 321-29. 50 N. L. Gage, "Evaluating Ways to Help Teachers to Behave Desirably," National Conference on Competency Assessment, Research and Evaluation (Houston: UniversTty o f Houston, March 1374), ppTH77-S5\------ 55 Flanders states that the continuing evaluation of teacher performance could and should lead to program changes. However, he warns against discarding old ideas as new ones come along. Such changes would again lead to s h ifts in p rio ritie s o f the performancebased teacher education program. Educators and researchers, designers of CBTE or PBTE programs must remain sensitive to the p o s s ib ilitie s that the way s k ills are learned may turn out to have more impact on beginning teachers than what is learned. Therefore, emphasis should be on helping teachers to reassign p rio ritie s within th e ir own repertoire o f s k ills . Problem areas in research on teach­ ing where considerable progress can be expected in the next decade are measuring educational outcomes, analyzing the in te ra ctive patterns o f teaching and learning, and inventing more e ffe c tiv e tra in in g procedures fo r adults who want to learn teaching s k ills . 51 Joyce proposes a six stage model fo r id entifyin g and v a lid a t­ ing competencies as follows: 1. The process begins with the p artitio n in g of the teacher's ro le. 2. The specification o f role outcomes should be defined and how i t Is expected to function. 3. Developing appropriate settings in the role can be played and specifying the kinds o f support systems available to the teacher. 4. Id e n tific a tio n o f which model o f teaching enables the teacher to f u l f i l l the ro le. *^Ned A. Flanders, "The Changing Base o f Performance-Based Teaching," Phi Delta Kappan (January 1974): 312-14. 56 5. 6. Id e n tific a tio n of the patterns o f behavior used and behavioral analysis of the model. 52 Laboratory and train ing systems. Since performance in student teaching is the single most important c rite rio n fo r predicting success 1n preservice teachers, i t deserves close analysis by a ll parties involved in its planning and d irectio n . Attempts to define teacher behaviors have blossomed into a revamping or remodeling of many teacher education programs to encompass competency-based concepts. Major features o f the competency-based approach to teacher education are: 1. Specification of competencies (objectives or expected performances) which are observable and measurable. 2. Self-pacing students, a t least in theory, may proceed through the train in g program at th e ir own speed, although time lim its have been Imposed. 3. C riterion-referenced measurements. Students pass on the basis of whether they achieve mastery of stated standards. 4. Field-based experiences. Real problems drawn from the school systems are incorporated into the tra in ­ ing program. 5. Mediated Instru ction . The w ritten word is supple­ mented with aural and visual material s. “ Bruce R. Joyce, "Listening to D iffe re n t Drummers: Evaluat­ ing A ltern a tiv e-In stru c tio n a l Models," National Conference on Compe­ tency Assessment, Research and Eva!uation (Houston: University of Houston, March 1974), pp. 61-80. ^Kenneth T. Hensen and Peter F. O liva, "What are the Essential Generic Teaching Competencies?" Theory in Practice 17, No. 2 (Spring 1980): 110-21. 57 The state of Florida has been a leader in the id e n tific a tio n o f generic teaching competencies. In 1975 the Council on Teacher Education spearheaded a search to id e n tify those competencies which are essential to a ll teachers. Forty-eight generic competencies consistently appeared in the search were selected for a fin a l survey instrument. A random sample o f fiv e percent o f a ll c e rtifie d per­ sonnel in the state were asked to rate the competencies. Twenty- three generic competencies met the specified acceptance c r ite r ia . The 23 generic competencies are grouped around fiv e major categories: (1) communication s k ills ; (2) basic knowledge; (3) technical s k ills ; (4) adm inistrative s k ills ; and (5) interpersonal s k ills . 54 address both cognitive and a ffe c tiv e domains. They Parker conducted an evaluation on the effectiveness o f the individualized performance based teacher education (IPTE) programs a t Weber State College, one o f the f i r s t teacher preparatory in s t i­ tutions to make a to ta l commitment to PBTE. The major focus of the study was to determine whether the program components actually met fie ld requirements, that is , whether program participants could actually perform on the job. phases. The evaluation consisted o f several Careful and conservative examination o f the evaluation results support th at weaknesses e x is t in the program. F ir s t, there is the major decision to be made by program operators about whether to promote a r b itr a r ily paced operation e a r lie r in the quarter to re lie v e the pressures o f the crunch, to change the policy and liv e 58 with a larger number o f incompletes or try to teach students the attitu des and s k ills necessary to the competent self-pacers. second problem surrounds student teaching and internship. A A contra­ diction exists between desiring more d ire c t instruction and more evaluation. The students desired more d ire c t relevance to student teaching tasks. There was also a fa ilu r e in coordination between Weber State and the public school personnel. A th ird problem involved establishing r e l ia b i l it y and v a lid ity in measures used to assess student performances. A fourth weakness in the competencies was the fa ilu re to enable graduates to deal e ffe c tiv e ly with students from m inority ethnic groups and socioeconomic levels d iffe re n t from th e ir own. And, f in a lly , there was the need fo r informed interaction with facu lty and a greater variety o f learning experiences. The major strengths o f the program included: (1) general program structure in providing fo r satisfactio n o f most f e l t needs o f students; ( 2 ) students can apply the competencies taught in the program as firs t-y e a r teachers; (3) public school personnel judge program graduates to be more se lf-c o n fid e n t, adaptable, studentcentered, and b e tte r able to f u l f i l l leadership roles as f i r s t year teachers than graduates of the other program; and (4) the evaluation process employed In specifying expected student outcomes and stated outcomes themselves provided a means o f program development and a 55 frame of reference fo r judging its progress. ^®Reese Parker, "Weber State College Evaluates IPTE A fter Three Years, Phi Delta Kappan (January 1974): 320-24. 59 Weber State has been recognized by the AACTE fo r d is tin ­ guished achievement award fo r a to tal commitment to PBTE. P ublicity concerning this award caused the program to be perceived as the most comprehensive application of the performance-based concept in the country. Over 550 in s titu tio n a l representatives have observed the program and th e ir reactions have been overwhelmingly positive. C£ Recently, the Florida Council on Teacher Education (COTE) completed a comprehensive study designed to id e n tify competencies essential to teachers. The research was selected for one of the two national awards given in 1977 by the Association o f Teacher Educators. Approximately fiv e percent o f a ll c e rtifie d educators in the state of Florida were selected to represent the s ta te ’ s 67 county d is tric ts . The consensus c rite rio n was met with 87 percent of the educators responding to a competency as "always" or "frequently" necessary in th e ir jobs, a majority using the "always" category. yielded 23 competencies with an "essential" la b e l. The c rite rio n They were called "the knowledge and s k ills necessary fo r teaching, irrespective of subject matter or pupil ages." A validation study to reassess the judgment o f the teachers regarding the 23 behaviors was conducted. The conclusion was that the sample of the group o f elementary, jun ior high and high schools provided some in fe re n tia l results demonstrating th at teachers view the competencies as essen tial. 5 6 Ib id ., 57 p. 320. 5^Charles D. Dzluban and Timothy J. S u llivan, "Teaching Competencies: An Investigation o f Emphasis," Phi Delta Kappan 59 (F a ll 1978): 422-24. 60 I llin o is State University was another one o f the f i r s t major teacher preparatory in s titu tio n s to in s ta ll a fu ll-s c a le CBTE pro­ gram. Since that program was described six years ago, ISU leaders have been forced to make drastic changes. An analysis of the program evaluations led to the conclusion that the single-form at, self-paced competency-based program did not adequately meet the varying instruc­ tional needs o f students. About 25 percent of the students were unable or unwilling to pace th e ir own learning e ffe c tiv e ly , but another 25 percent (p rim arily the older and/or married students) used self-pacing e ffe c tiv e ly . Faculty discontent stems from lim i­ tations (both real and imagined) on academic freedom, from honest differences o f opinion concerning basic Instructional content and strateg ies, and from the v irtu a l im possibility o f reaching consensus on standards fo r evaluation of s k ills at the higher cognitive level called fo r in teaching and evaluation of lessons. ISU has not found the solution to a ll o f these problems, but work is continuing. It is lik e ly that the teacher education program w ill continue to grow and change as attempts are made to make teacher education more 58 e f fic ie n t and satisfying fo r a ll concerned. During the summer of 1977 a follow-up study was conducted to determine i f any changes were evident in the involvement o f AACTE in s titu tio n s in competency-based programs. The following statements summarize the findings: CO M. A. Lorber, "From Traditional to Competency-Based Teacher Education and Back Again: An Eight-Year Experiment," Phi Delta Kappan 60 (March 1979): 523-24. 61 1. Fewer AACTE In s titu tio n s were making plans to I n it ia t e CBTE programs in 1977 than 1975. 2. More AACTE in s titu tio n s were operating CBTE programs in 1977 than in 1975. 3. In s titu tio n s th at had CBTE programs in operation in 1975 had enlarged th e ir programs to include more areas by 1977. 4. The areas most frequently involved in CBTE by AACTE in s titu tio n s remained the same in 1977 as in 1975: elementary and secondary education, special education, and educational psychology. 5. Although 50 percent o f the in s titu tio n s th at in itia te d th e ir CBTE programs with outside funding had th e ir funds discontinued by 1977, the CBTE program remained stable or continued to increase in 72 percent o f them. 6. Of the 398 in s titu tio n s th at were operating CBTE programs in 1977, 50 percent planned to continue with th e ir existin g programs, 31 percent planned to increase th e ir programs, while only six per­ cent planned to decrease th e ir programs. 7. I t appears th a t CBTE programs have not declined in AACTE in s titu tio n s between 1975 and 1977, and in many instances, they have expanded. 59 Supervision o f Student Teachers Today supervision o f student teaching is being challenged both from w ithin and outside the profession. The continued existence o f the u n iversity supervisor and cooperating teacher as the in stru c­ tio n al leaders is an issue. However, i t seems th at the ro le o f the supervisor 1 s promising due to the tremendous amount o f recent research th at has contributed to new supervision processes which ®®Walter Sandefur and Douglas Westbrook, "Involvement of AACTE In s titu tio n in CBTE: A Follow-Up Study," Phi Delta Kappan 59 (May 1978): 633-34. 62 w ill provide new insight and b etter ways o f improving supervision o f student teachers. The goal o f supervision seems to be modification o f behavior, however, few administrators or college professors o f teacher educa­ tion think o f supervision in th is way or admit that they do. Never­ theless, as a resu lt of supervision the pre or inservice teacher is expected to do or say something d iffe re n tly than he/she did p rio r to the supervision experience. Therefore, the w rite r w ill attempt in this section o f the review o f related lite ra tu re to report what is being done at the university or college level in providing super­ visors with appropriate competencies to become e ffe c tiv e supervisors o f student teachers and to improve th e ir own classroom teaching. Spanjer contends that to assume that student teaching behavior can be improved by sporadic v is its from a university super­ visor is one o f the long standing myths to be found in most schools of education. To be e ffe c tiv e , supervision must be a continuous process which attempts a lte rn a tiv e behaviors and requires constant feedback. The classroom supervising teacher is the one who makes the difference fo r good or bad. not mutually inclusive. Good teachers and good supervisors are I t makes no s ig n ific a n t difference in the number of years taught, degree earned, or whether the teacher is superior. The difference as to h is/her effectiveness as a competent supervisor depends on whether the supervising teacher has learned the professional competencies o f supervision 1 n a c a re fu lly planned and extended program o f teacher preparation. I f supervision 1s to be e ffe c tiv e and beneficial to supervising teachers, student teachers, 63 public schools and colleges o f teacher education, i t must be based upon a theo retical ratio n ale and take place in the context of a well planned program with e x p lic it objectives, procedures, and assessment measures. 60 Cornish comments on the notion th a t teachers o f tomorrow tend to teach by principles observed in the classroom o f th e ir supervising teacher. The student teacher tends to behave in the same manner he sees the teacher behave and to operate on values and to take with him/her many a ttitu d e s sensed while observing. Therefore, there is a need to o ffe r proper tra in in g to those key personnel. There is a need fo r w ell-organized educational programs fo r supervising teachers. This program can involve informal get togethers, workshops, meetings, and th a t which could be most beneficial o f a l l , a sp ecific graduate course e n title d "The Supervision o f Student Teachers." He suggests th at the results o f such an e ff o r t could lead to improvement in the offerings o f our educational programs, to the youngsters in our country and th is in turn would lead to the improvement o f our . * 61 society. Davis and Davis suggest th at the professional relatio n sh ip between the student teacher and the supervising teacher is the most important fa c to r 1 n the success o f the student teaching experience. The supervising teacher presents a model both in terms o f verbal ®®Allen A. Spanjer, "Competency-Based Student-Teacher Super­ v is io n ," NASSP B u lle tin (December 1975): 51-8. 61Robert L. Cornish, "The Education o f Cooperating Teachers and College Supervisors," Teacher Education 15, No. 2 (F a ll 1979): 17-21. 64 style and the physical settin g o f the classroom which has s ig n if i62 cant impact on the performance o f the student teacher. T ra d itio n a lly , university supervisors have considered student teachers th e ir primary resp o nsib ility and supervising class­ room teachers only secondarily. Since the college supervisors have many roles and re sp o n s ib ilities i t is d if f i c u l t to be to ta lly e ffe c ­ tiv e in meeting individual needs. Even i f university supervisors are able to v is it classrooms re g u larly , they are unfam iliar with the day to day program as well as with problems and needs o f individual children. Supervision then results 1n barely nothing more than a public relations gesture rather than a substantial attempt to improve classroom in teractio n . Therefore, i t is obvious that classroom supervising teachers are in the best position to d irec t day to day development of teaching s k ills . The college supervisors are in positions to best accomplish the goals of the university and to d ire c t th e ir e ffo rts toward developing Inservice a c tiv itie s fo r the supervising teacher. S p e c ific a lly , a classroom supervising teacher requires teachable s k ills to become an e ffe c tiv e supervisor o f 63 student teachers. Wiles and Brooks suggested th at through jo in tly designed workshops teachers who supervise student teachers can be introduced ®^Jon K. Davis and Kathryn W. Davis, "Maximizing Positive Student-Teaching Supervision Relationships Through Performance Con­ tra c tin g ," College Student Journal 11, No. 2 (Summer 1977): 193-96. ^Low ell Horton and Karen Karvey, "Preparing Cooperating Teachers: The Role o f the University Supervisor," Peabody Journal o f Education 57, No. 1 (October 1979): 56-60. 65 to the design o f the university teacher education programs. The train ing experience establishes the extent by which supervisors make s ig n ific a n t improvements in the teacher educational program and th e ir own classroom teaching. A sensible model o f teacher train ing can emerge when the programs o f the university are blended with the experiences and knowledge o f classroom teachers. 64 Can an educational plan fo r preparing instructional leaders (supervising teachers) be developed which is both competency-based and largely fie ld oriented? Can a competency-based learning format be u tiliz e d e ffe c tiv e ly in fie ld settings not d ire c tly under the control o f a university faculty? These questions are being addressed by the e ffo rts of a program in progress at the University o f Texas. Williams and others describe the University of Texas Special Education Supervisor Training Project (SEST) which has a set goal, which is the preparation of change-oriented instructional leaders fo r supervising positions in special education in public schools and other educational settings. The program 1s designed so that graduates o f the program can f u l f i l l state standards fo r c e r t ific a ­ tion as professional supervisors. The major features and philosophy of "competency-guided instruction" are defined and because compe­ tencies are conceived to be complex on the job performance patterns, the SEST model fo r specifying competencies 1s rather complex and is spelled out 1n d e ta il. B r ie fly , each competency 1s composed o f 6^Jon Wiles and Douglas Brooks, "The Extended Faculty: C ritic a l Elements in Student Teacher Supervision," Contemporary Education 49, No. 2 (Winter 1978): 75-77. 66 three parts. Each is derived from problem solving, human relations and job task, to behavior repertoires. A given competency 1s the expression o f a synthesis o f a ll three domains in a job s itu atio n . The project model defines 27 o f these c r itic a l competencies fo r special education supervisors. The 27 c r itic a l competencies are fu rth er broken down into 245 specific competencies for assessment and train ing purposes. 65 Morris described a program, with developmental stages and focus areas, which has the potential for guiding supervising teachers, university supervisors, and coordinators o f fie ld exper­ iences as they design and implement inservice programs directed toward improving the student teaching experience. The program is designed in fiv e sequential stages as a basis fo r systematic develop­ ment of inservice improvement programs to prepare supervising teachers who are: 1. Developing awareness and understanding student teachers. 2. Developing knowledge o f principles necessary e ffe c tiv e during the early part o f the student teaching experience. 3. Developing supervisor's attitu des and competencies needed by beginning professionals. 4. Supervisory s k ills are polished to prepare highly s k ille d teachers o f teachers. 5. Focuses on developing supervising teachers Into agents o f educational change. 65Martha W illiam s, e t a l . , "Structuring Field Learning in Competency Guided Programs," Performance-Based Teacher Publication 3, No. 9 (March 1975): 1-3. 67 The goal of every inservice improvement program should be to assist each supervising teacher in reaching a specific stage of pro­ fessional development. Only 1n th is way can s ig n ific a n t improvements CC in the q u a lity of the student teaching experience be achieved. In mid-1970 the University o f C alifo rn ia at Santa Barbara (UCSB) in itia te d the development o f a train ing program for super­ vising teachers who work with student teachers in the schools. Training a c tiv itie s focused on four s k ills areas c r itic a l in the performance o f supervisors; namely, observing, analyzing, prescribing and counseling. A fter three years o f development work, UCSB produced a self-contained instructional supervision train ing program which has demonstrated its c a p a b ilitie s fo r advancing selected supervising s k ills in both college and local school systems. 67 An investigation was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the University o f C a lifo rn ia a t Santa Barbara train ing program for supervising teachers. used. Nine fie ld sites across the United States were Sixty d iffe re n t scores were available fo r the analysis of train in g e ffe c ts ; fifty -th r e e of the scores are in the desired direc­ tion and fo rty -fiv e were s ta t is tic a lly s ig n ific a n t. Specific posi­ tiv e comments from users included the observations that ( 1 ) the tra in in g program was useful and relevant; ( 2 ) the instructional supervision process serves as a model o f good teaching techlnque; 66John E. Morris, "A Strategy fo r the Development o f Super­ vising Teachers," Clearing House 53, No. 8 (A pril 1980): 367-70. 67Norman J. Boyan and W illis D. Copeland, "A Training Program fo r Supervision: Anatomy of an Educational Development," Journal of Educational Research 6 8 , No. 3 (1974): 100-116. 68 (3) the instructional supervision process helps beginning teachers to make self-evaluatio ns; and (4) the program addresses the improve­ ment o f classroom instruction through the acquisition and application of pertinent supervising s k ills . Assumptions invoked by the UCSB s ta ff in building a model of instructional supervision processes include: ( 1 ) instructional super­ vision must focus on a teacher's instructional concerns, p a rtic u la rly with respect to the effects o f the teacher's behavior on pupils. 68 Andresen compared supervising teachers who participated in a series o f three inservice sessions fo r supervising teachers with a group of supervising teachers who were not s p e c ific a lly given inservice tra in in g . The content of the 1nserv1ce sessions consisted o f specific behavioral objectives related to Flanders interaction analysis, conference techniques, and the evaluation o f the student teacher. As a resu lt of this investigation i t was concluded that supervising teachers who participated in the selected inservice train in g were more e ffe c tiv e in using students, p articip atin g in student teaching center a c tiv itie s , and on evaluational techinques than teachers who did not receive the Inservice tra in in g . 69 Reaves conducted a study to determine possible differences in verbal exchanges between supervisors and teachers contrasting c lin ic a l supervision and tra d itio n a l supervision. Seven supervisors, 6 8 Ib id . 69Glenora I . Andresen, "The Development of a Tentative Model fo r Selected Inservice Experiences fo r Supervising Teachers a t F lin t College" (Ph.D. d is se rta tio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1971). 69 each o f whom worked with one teacher, made up the c lin ic a l pattern. Thus, post-observation conferences were taped and analyzed by trained observers using Blumberg's technique (a system fo r analyzing supervisor-teacher in te ra c tio n ). The data revealed a sig n ific a n t difference between treatment groups favoring the c lin ic a l supervision s ty le . Teachers responding on a sematric d iffe re n tia l scale also favored the c lin ic a l supervision s ty le .7® Stewig investigated the perceptions o f student teachers and supervisors o f the role and q u a litie s o f the ideal supervisor. The results o f the two groups responding to the survey, the most important task was c la r ific a tio n o f th e ir perception. However, the most frequently chosen as important by student teachers concern­ ing the supervisory service was "stim ulating the student teacher to evaluate h is/h er own teaching behavior." On the basis o f these findings, i t can be concluded that crucial differences e x is t between the perceptions of supervisors and student teachers th at may hinder communication and lim it supervisory effe ctive n e ss .7^ Clem concluded in a follow-up study o f resident student teaching program that supervising teachers benefit from p artic ip atio n in the program as follows: ( 1 ) personal sa tisfac tio n through helping a student teacher; ( 2 ) stim ulation to re-evaluate h is/h er usual classroom practices; (3) student teachers were o f great assistance 70Charles A. Reaves, "A Test o f the C lin ic a l Supervision Model," The Journal o f Education Research 70 (July-August 1977): 311-15. 7*John W. Stewig, "What Should College Supervisors Do?" Journal o f Teacher Education 21, No. 2 (Sumner 1970): 251-56. 70 to the supervising teacher; and (4) classroom instruction was improved because o f more detailed planning and was made more interesting to children because o f "newer" ideas. 72 Henry and Beasley contend that a student teacher can be an asset in many d iffe re n t instructional situ atio n s. The presence o f a student teacher presents an excellent opportunity fo r the Inservice growth of the supervising teacher. The supervising teacher should think o f the student teaching experience as an opportunity fo r real professional growth, i f th is is done the p o s s ib ilitie s fo r improved instruction are v ir tu a lly countless. 73 Summary The lite ra tu r e reviewed and presented in th is chapter was related and pertinent to the problem being studied. L ite ra tu re re la tin g s p e c ific a lly to the assessment of inservice components of competency-based teacher education programs is very scarce. However, a review o f related lite ra tu r e was made on ( 1 ) Inservice education, (2) teacher assessment, (3) competency-based teacher education, and (4) supervision o f student teachers. The f i r s t section o f the chapter on Inservice education provides a theoretical basis fo r the problem under Investigation. ^Paul Null Clem, "Study of the Michigan State lln ierslty Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program" (Ed. D. d issertatio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1958). 70 Morris A. Henry and W. Wayne Beasley, Supervising Student Teachers the Professional Way: A Guide fo r Cooperating Teacher? (Terre haute: Sycamore Press, 1976), pp. 8-9. 71 The review o f lite ra tu r e indicates that the m ajority of a rtic le s published on inservice education are subjective and not the resu lt o f educational research. The review also summarizes studies which deal with various aspects o f Inservice teacher education. These studies produce generalized Information about Inservice education. However, the review o f lite ra tu r e suggests th at inservice education is necessary fo r the continuing growth and professional development of teachers. The lite ra tu r e indicates that inservice education fo r super­ vising teachers o f student teachers regarding teaching s k ills is 1 imi ted. The second part o f the chapter presents a review o f teacher assessment. Since specific teaching s k ills may be id e n tifie d , are observable, and can be correlated with various measures o f student learning, this review was important. A major lim ita tio n in the review of lite ra tu r e is th at there are lim ited studies which suggest teaching s k ills that show a strong e ffe c t on student learning. However, the lite r a tu r e suggests that more and more teacher educa­ tion in s titu tio n s are beginning to focus on s k ills and behaviors of e ffe c tiv e teaching and fu rther recommend educational research in the area o f teacher assessment. In the th ird part o f the chapter, lite r a tu r e is reviewed on competency-based teacher education. The review has summarized the major publications on competency-based teacher education and the m ajority o f the a rtic le s deal with descriptions and evaluations o f competency-based teacher education programs being implemented at 72 various teacher education in s titu tio n s throughout the United States. Most o f the lite ra tu r e cited supports the competency-based teacher education movement. However, 1t 1s often s p e c ific a lly stated that the m ajority o f the competency-based teacher education programs need to improve valid atio n o f the program competencies with focus on the impact o f the id e n tifie d teaching competencies on student learning. The research on CBTE considers the e ffe c t o f each single competency as well as the e ffe c t of the combined competencies. The fourth and fin a l section reviews lite r a tu r e on super­ vision o f student teaching. The review summarizes a rtic le s and studies in the area of supervision of student teachers and the results o f planned Inservice a c tiv itie s fo r supervising teachers on th e ir own classroom behaviors fo r much of the content o f student teaching programs have id e n tifie d competencies which can be helpful to c e rtifie d teachers. In conclusion, none o f the lite ra tu r e reviewed disclosed any research that s p e c ific a lly focused on the assessment of the e ffe c tiv e use o f generic teaching s k ills by supervising teachers as a resu lt of inservice tra in in g offered by competency-based teacher education. CHAPTER I I I PROCEDURES USED IN THE STUDY In order fo r the reader to understand the investigation more c le a rly , th is chapter provides a discussion o f the procedures used in the study. They are as follows: (1) development o f the instru ­ ment; (2) procedures for data c o lle ctio n ; (3) data processing and c la s s ific a tio n ; (4) procedures for analyzing data; and (5) hypotheses o f the study. Development of the Instrument This section o f the chapter w ill provide a description and discussion o f the development o f the instrument as follows: (1) a ratio n ale fo r the development; ( 2 ) selection of competencies; (3) selection o f observer; (4) validation o f observer; and (5) pre­ tes t o f instruments. Rationale fo r Development Selection of instruments fo r th is study was d if f ic u lt because research regarding the inservice tra in in g component of the Michigan State University-Lanslng School D is tr ic t POINTE Program was lim ite d . Therefore, in order to assess the importance and use o f s k ills generally applicable to a ll teachers, that are read ily observable, and include: ( 1 ) the performance o f teaching tasks; 73 74 (2) a ffe c tiv e behavior; (3) a part o f the 12-18 clock hours inservice tra in in g , and (4) inservice a c tiv itie s received by c lin ic a l instruc­ tors which had not been addressed. As a re s u lt, an exhaustive search and many hours of consultation with building s ite clu ster consultants, university facu lty members, members o f the Michigan State U niversityLansing School D is tric t team who were responsible fo r developing the proposal fo r the Generic Competency Based Teacher Education program, were carried on to gather the needed information. The w rite r was able to id e n tify only one instrument that was designed to assess importance o f and the use of generic teaching s k ills as they pertain to the MSU-LSD POINTE program. The instrument is used to evaluate and provide feedback to student teachers enrolled in the program. The student teachers are evaluated on th e ir performance in classroom teaching situations. The instrument includes a competency and enabling objectives by which the student is to achieve the competency. i There is no information on the use o f the instrument fo r collecting information concerning the effectiveness o f the inservice program fo r supervising teachers (c lin ic a l in stru cto rs). However, the results of the use of the instrument on student teachers seem to be worthwhile. Therefore, the w rite r developed the teacher survey information questionnaire from the ^School of Teacher Education, Michigan State University and Lansing School D is tr ic t, "Development of a Competency Based Teacher Education Program Focusing on the Directed Teaching Experience," Final Report, Competency Based Teacher Education Grant (Michigan Department o f Education, 1976), p. 39. 75 competencies and enabling objectives used by the POINTE program. 2 This instrument seems to be comprehensive and represents generic teaching s k ills . Selection o f Competencies The Michigan State U niversity and Lansing School D is tr ic t Competency Based Teacher Education program consists of seven required competencies: (1) instructional planning; {2) attending behavior; (3) analysis o f teaching; (4) questioning techniques; (5) interaction techniques; (6) social foundations and (7) reading comprehension. Evaluations are developed fo r each competency. These have not been checked fo r r e l i a b i l i t y and v a lid ity ; however, under the 1975 CBTE grant, evaluations fo r the competencies Questioning Techniques and attending behavior have been developed which do have a high r e l i a b i l it y . 3 V a lid ity o f the two instruments was established, since the enabling objectives describe the kinds o f things students and teachers do in the classroom and has been used successfully several times. Procedures fo r each o f these instruments Include several key elements. made. F ir s t, the separation o f measurement and evaluation is A c a re fu lly prescribed time and means fo r recording or c o l­ le c tin g descriptive information is followed. This step provides the observer with the basic data on which to make an evaluation. 2 3 The See appendix C fo r a copy o f Teacher Survey questionnaire. School o f Education, Michigan State U niversity and Lansing School D is tr ic t grant, 1975, p. 39. 76 decision on successful attainment of each competency is then made by summarizing the data and given a rating. A Selection of Observer Selection o f an observer was of utmost Importance because the observations and assessment of the use o f these selected generic teaching s k ills by instructors in this study were done as a check point to see whether instructors responding to the questionnaire were giving themselves a f a i r rating o f th e ir effectiveness in actual classroom practice. Further, the observation instruments used in the study were developed by the members o f the MSU-LSD CBTE pro­ gram and therefore required tra in in g on the use o f the instrument. The observer was a teacher who had completed several hours of inservice training in supervision o f student teachers including a working knowledge o f the s k ills being taught in the MSU-LSD CBTE program. For more detailed information regarding the observer's tra in in g and professional q u a litie s see Appendix D. Validation of the Observer The researcher c a re fu lly selected two teachers who had some working knowledge and s k ills in conducting observations on student teachers. Interviews and discussions on the use of the observation instrument were c a re fu lly explained step by step in order to reduce subjective judgment as much as possible. The two observers were given instructions on the procedures o f conducting the observations. 4Ib id ., pp. 39-40. 77 They conducted one observation on a teacher fo r a 30 minute teaching s itu a tio n , a fte r which the two observers were brought together to discuss with the researcher the descriptive data co l­ lected. The researcher compared each instrument and asked questions to test the face v a lid ity of the data or to check to see i f two people could report and agree on what they actually saw and recorded. Based on the findings o f th is fie ld study, the researcher then con­ cluded that one observer could in fa c t conduct the classroom observa­ tions. Pretest o f the Instrument The w ritten and observation instruments used in the MSU-LSD CBTE program were administered to a group of teachers (N-10). Item analysis o f the enabling objectives revealed that classroom teachers could not respond to the questions in th e ir present form. Thus, i t was evident that conclusions drawn from the use o f the instrument suggested that the formulation o f questions to be used with a popula­ tion o f inservice-trained teachers would have to be improved. Reworded items were again judged to ascertain whether or not they were congruent with the d e s ira b ility o f the instrument. The revised Instrument contained the same competencies and enabling objectives as the o rig in a l. The second pretest was with the revised instrument. This Instrument was administered to a group which included classroom instructional teachers and administrators (N-15) located in the Lansing School D is t r ic t , Lansing, Michigan. This sample was thought 78 to be comparable to the sample to be investigated in this study. I t was concluded from the results of this pretest that the in s tru ­ ment had demonstrated s u ffic ie n t discrimination to progress to a v a lid ity investigation in which the te s t would be applied to d if f e r ­ ent populations. Procedures fo r Data Collection This section of the chapter describes the data collection procedures used in the investigation. They are as follows: (1) the population used in the study, (2) sample selection, and (3) data collection. The Population Used in the Study The population fo r this study was re s tric te d to three secondary schools which contained c lin ic a l and non-clinical instruc­ tors who met the following c r ite r ia : 1. Instructors were classroom instructional teachers who have received 12-18 clock hours o f inservice tra in in g from the MSU-LSD CBTE program. 2. Instructors were classroom instructional teachers who had not received 12-18 clock hours o f inservice tra in in g from the MSU-LSD CBTE program. 3. The s ta ff must represent both male and female teachers. 4. The s ta ff must represent a v a rie ty o f subjects taught. 5. The school must be a CBTE s ite in which student teachers are assigned to complete the student teaching experiences. The schools selected fo r use in this study were located Lansing School D is t r ic t , Lansing, Michigan. in They were (1) Everett 79 High School, (2) Gardner Junior High School, and (3) Walter French Junior High School. Everett High School is located on the south side o f Lansing and serves as the receiving high school of the two Junior High Schools in th is study. in the school d is tr ic t. Everett is also one of the four high schools Gardner and Walter French Junior High Schools are two of the fiv e Junior High Schools in the d is tr ic t. These schools were selected on the basis o f c r ite r ia number 5. They are p articip atin g schools in the MSU-LSD Competency Based Teacher Education program and have assigned to them a clu ster con­ s u lta n t, who is responsible fo r providing supervision fo r both terms of fie ld experiences to student teachers and c lin ic a l Instructors in the POINTE program. Sample Selection A population o f 128 teachers was drawn from a ll three of the p articip atin g schools. A request was made fo r a random sample from the facu lty roster o f each o f the schools. However, school o ffic ia ls indicated that this was not possible due to the lim ited number of c lin ic a l versus non-clinical instructors in the investigation. The design does not enable descriptive s ta tis tic a l comparisons to be made fo r each variable 1n the study. Data Collection Data fo r th is study were collected during the months December 1980 and January 1981. A fter having received permission to conduct the investigation from the central administration o ffic e o f 80 Evaluation Services, each p articip atin g school principal was con­ tacted by the researcher for the following purposes: (1) to obtain fu rth er information concerning teacher class schedule; (2) to become more fa m ilia r with the school schedule; and (3) to obtain a date fo r the purpose of administering the instrument. Each school principal assigned one person, usually the clu ster consultant, fo r the purpose of administering the questionnaire. The cluster consultant in each school was given a b rie f overview of the purpose of the study and w ritten detailed instruc­ tions on how to complete the instrument. explained to the instructors. Each section was c a re fu lly The subjects were given a date to complete the questionnaire and return to the building cluster consul­ ta n t, who then returned i t to the researcher. A fter completion and return o f the instructor s e lf-ra tin g questionnaire, a random sample o f four (4) c lin ic a l and four (4) non-clinical instructors were drawn from each o f the three secondary schools (N=24). Each o f the selected teachers were then observed by the observer in a classroom teaching situ ation . For the purpose of id en tifyin g which instructors to observe, each p articip atin g Instructor was assigned a number and the cluster consultant provided the person and location o f the classroom fo r the observer. The observer had no p rio r knowledge o f which teachers were c lin ic a l or nonclinical Instructors. Each observation was 30 minutes In length and was conducted before noon. 81 Data Processing and Classication This section of the chapter w ill discuss the procedures used in coding and classifying the data. This w ill provide a b etter understanding o f the data processing procedures and also provide a basis for answering certain questions presented in the investigation. The data were c la s s ifie d in the following manner: (1) participation in inservice education, (2) knowledge and s k ill o f attending behavior, and (3) knowledge and s k ill o f communication questions. P articipation in Inservice Education There are four types o f inservice train in g programs. Each program was given a selection based on the number o f clock hours, years, and/or c re d it earned to determine the frequency o f p a rtic ip a ­ tion and fo r the purpose o f coding the instrument in two groups {c lin ic a l and non-clinical in stru cto rs). Each participant was assigned to a group based on the number of hours completed in Michigan State University-Lansing School D is tr ic t Competency-Based Teacher Education program. Knowledge and Ski 11-Attending Behavior There are fifte e n (15) enabling objectives. were required to rate each ski 11/knowledge based on: The respondents (1 ) part A— the Importance o f that knowledge/skill to the teaching process, and (2) part B --th e ir a b ilit y to consistently apply or use the knowledge/ s k ill 1n classroom teaching. For each knowledge/skill Importance of maintaining attending behavior response, the numerical value scale 82 o f one (1) to four (4) with a rating o f one (1) indicating crucial to teaching and four (4) indicating nonessential to the teaching process. For each knowledge/skill, a b ilit y to maintain attending behavior response, the numerical value scale o f one (1) to four (4) with a ratin g o f one (1) indicating excellent a b ilit y to four (4) indicating poor a b ilit y to maintain attending behavior. Knowledge/Ski 11-Communication Questions There are twelve (12) enabling objectives. were required to rate each skill/knowledge based on: The respondents (1) part A— the importance o f th at knowledge/skill to the teaching process, and (2) part B --th e ir a b ilit y to consistently apply or use the knowledge/ s k ill in th e ir communication (question techniques) with students. For each knowledge/skill (enabling objective) importance ratin g to classroom teaching response, the numerical value o f one (1) to four ( 4 ) , with a rating on one (1) indicating the s k ill is crucial to the teaching process and four (4) ratin g indicating nonessential to the success o f teaching. For each knowledge/skill (enabling objective) a b ilit y to use communication questioning s k ills response, the numerical value scale o f one (1) to four ( 4 ) , a ratin g o f one (1) indicated excellent and a ratin g of four (4) indicated poor a b ilit y to consistently use the enabler in th e ir classroom teaching. 83 Observed Attending Behavior S k ills The instrument used fo r co lle ctin g descriptive data on the teacher's behavior included demographic data, directions fo r using the instrument, column fo r recording tim e, description fo r recording student and/or group behaviors and response by teacher. Teacher response was given a ratin g o f a numerical value o f one (1) to four (4 ). One (1) indicated excellen t s k ills and four (4) indicated poor s k ills . The observer used the instrument th at was used by the instructors fo r s e lf-ra tin g s to ra te the observed in stru cto r based on the descriptive data recorded during the 30 minute observations. Observed Communication/Questioning S k iT T I-------------- ---- -------------- The instrument used fo r c o lle c tin g descriptive data on the teacher's behavior included demographic data, strategy or type o f lesson, directions fo r using the instrument, space provided to record questions asked by the teacher, q u a lity o f the questions, student responses and type o f questions. A ratin g o f the level of questioning technqiues used by the teacher was given a ra tin g o f one (1) to four (4 ). The ra tin g o f one (1) Indicated excellen t and four (4) indicated poor s k ills 1n asking a logical sequence o f questions which re fle c te d d iffe re n t le v e ls . The observer used the instrument th at was used by the instructors fo r s e lf-ra tin g s to rate the observed instructors based on the descriptive data recorded during the 30 minute observations. 84 Hypotheses of the Study The general purposes of th is study were to investigate the use of selected generic teaching s k ills as perceived, and observed behavior, o f secondary c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in the Lansing School D is tr ic t, Lansing, Michigan, and to determine the influence of the MSU-LSD CBTE inservice education train ing on teachers' classroom behavior with reference to generic competencies. S p e c ific a lly , the purposes of the study are to determine the relationship between the use of generic teaching s k ills by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors and certain variables by u tiliz in g the s ta tis tic a l tes t o f hypotheses. null The hypotheses were stated in the form to f a c ilit a t e acceptance or re jec tio n . The ten primary hypotheses are as follows: 1. There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ills o f maintaining attending behavior. 2. There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of generic teaching s k ills in communication. 3. There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior. 4. There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills in communication. 5. There is no difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill o f maintaining attending behavior. 85 6. There is no difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill in communication. 7. There is no difference between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. 8. There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors 1n th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills in communication from the three secondary schools. 9. There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. 10. There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills in communication from the three secondary schools. S ta tis tic a l Analysis of the Hypotheses The primary hypotheses of th is investigation were analyzed by a m u ltivariate analysis of variance. These s ta tis tic a l analyses were decided upon by the researcher through consultation with the research assistant. The m u ltivariate analysis of variance can be performed when two or more observations per c e ll are made. This makes i t possible to compute the erro r sum of squares, or to estimate the error v a ri­ ance, and thus separate the interaction e ffe c t from the random e rro r. York: 5 ^Lincoln L. Chaco, S t a t i s t i c s : Methods and Analysis (New McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964), p. 3 8 l. 86 The data were coded and key punched on computer cards. The computer program used was the SPSS (S ta tis tic a l Package fo r the Social Science). This program allows fo r the analysis of more than one dependent variable. The dependent variable used in the primary hypotheses in this investigation was the to ta l perceived and observed ratings of the use of generic teaching s k ills . The independent variables were teh scores on the c lin ic a l and nonc lin ic a l instructors' ratings and three secondary schools. The data analysed from the Teacher Information Questionnaire Survey and observer ratings were subjected to a tes t of significance of the means of the raw scores obtained from the responses of the three factors stated above. The hypotheses of th is study were tested by u tiliz a tio n of the appropriate programming and computations made by the IBM 370 computer used by the Lansing School D is tric t Computer Laboratory. The stated hypotheses permit the prediction of direction o f relationship and a m u ltivariate te s t of significance. The c r itic a l "F" tes t o f significance is used to tes t the null hypothesis of no difference between the variables. The .05 p ro bability level is used as a c rite rio n fo r the acceptance or rejectio n of the null hypotheses. When a hypothesis was rejected , the data were fu rth e r analyzed by comparison o f mean scores computed from data summary tables in Appendix F. 87 Summary This chapter on procedures used in the study included develop­ ment of the instrument, pretest of the instrument, procedures fo r data c o lle c tio n , data processing, procedures fo r analyzing data, and hypotheses of the study. The f i r s t section of the chapter discussed: (1) a rationale fo r the development of the instrument, (2) selection of competencies fo r the instrument, (3) selection and validation of observer, and (4) pretest of the instrument. The second part o f the chapter discussed the following procedures fo r data co llectio n: (1) the population used in the study, (2) sample selection, and (3) data co llectio n . The th ird part of the chapter discussed data processing and c la s s ific a tio n as follows: (1) p articip atio n in inservice education, (2) knowledge/ski 11s-attending behavior, (3) knowledge/skill communication questions, (4) observed attending behavior s k ills , (5) observed communication questioning s k ills , and (6) hypotheses of the study. F in a lly , the procedures for analyzing the data were described as follows: hypotheses. hypotheses to be tested and s ta tis tic a l analysis of the CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF DATA The primary purpose of th is investigation was to assess the perceived use of selected generic teaching s k ills , and observed class­ room behavior of secondary c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in the Lansing School D is tr ic t, and to determine the influence of in service education on teacher behavior regarding generic teaching s k ills . The preceding chapter described procedures used in the development of the instrument, the procedures fo r data c o lle c tio n , processing and c la s s ific a tio n , procedures fo r analyzing data, and hypotheses o f the study. This chapter w ill provide an analysis and presentation of these data as follows: (1) composition of the study, (2) descriptive analysis of the population, (3) tes t of stated hypothese, and (4) a summary of the analyses and interp retation made from the data. Composition of the Study This section o f the chapter provides a description of a selected group of 128 classroom instructional teachers teaching in grades seven through twelve in p artic ip atin g CBTE student teaching schools located in the Lansing School D is tr ic t. into two groups: They were divided (1) fo r ty -fiv e teachers who received inservice train in g comprised the c lin ic a l group, and (2) eighty-three teachers 88 89 a ll o f the remaining teachers in each of the three secondary schools who did not receive inservice tra in in g made up the non-clinical group. A to ta l o f twenty-four teachers were observed with regard to th e ir use of generic teaching s k ills . This sample included teachers from each of the three secondary schools. Four c lin ic a l and four non- c lin ic a l instructors were drawn from each school. These random samples were obtained by placing the names of a ll the participants on a s lip of paper, sorting the names by group and school (c lin ic a l and nonc lin ic a l) then a lte rn a te ly drawing a name from each p ile , one from the c lin ic a l group and one from the non-clinical group. Descriptive Analysis of the Population This section of the chapter provides a description of a selected group of 128 classroom instructional teachers. The data collected and outlined in th is section is intended to provide back­ ground information that w ill serve as a basis fo r a b etter understand­ ing of the data in the remainer of th is chapter. This section dis­ cusses c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors by: (1) sex, (2) age, (3) highest academic degree earned, (4) number o f years taught, and (5) subjects taught. C lin ica l and Non-clinical Instructors by Sex In re la tio n to sex, Table 1 w ill show that 19 (42 percent) of the c lin ic a l instructors were females and 41 (49 percent) were nonc lin ic a l female instructors from the three secondary schools. 90 Twenty-six (58 percent) of the c lin ic a l instructors were males and 42 (51 percent) were non-clinical male instructors. TABLE 1 .--T o tal Population by Sex (C lin ica l and Non-clinical In s tru c to rs ). Non-clinical C lin ica l Total Group Sex No. Female 19 42 41 49 60 Male 26 58 42 51 68 45 100 83 100 128 Totals % No. % C lin ica l and Non-clinical Instructors by A~ge Table 2 shows the age ranges of c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors. There were more instructors in both groups who were in the 36-45 years age group and the 26-35 years age group. Twenty- seven (35 percent) of the non-clinical and 16 (36 percent) of the c lin ic a l instructors were in the 36-45 age group, whereas 26 (31 percent) o f the non-clinical and 15 (33 percent) o f the c lin ic a l instructors were in the 26-35 years age group. 91 TABLE 2 . — Total Population by Age ( C lin ic a l and N o n -c lin ic a l In stru c to rs ). C lin ica l No. Age Non-clinical % No. % Total 1 02 6 07 7 26-35 15 33 26 31 41 36-45 16 36 27 33 43 46-55 12 17 17 20 19 56 or older _1_ 02 _7 09 8 45 100 83 100 128 25 or under Totals C lin ica l and Non-clinical Instructors b.y Highest Academic Degree Earned An examination of Table 3 w ill show that more c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors had masters degrees than any of the other academic degrees. T h irty (67 percent) o f the c lin ic a l instructors and 62 (75 percent) of the non-clinical instructors had masters degrees. Thirteen (29 percent) of the c lin ic a l instructors and 20 (24 percent) o f the non-clinical instructors had bachelors degrees. One (two percent) c lin ic a l instructor and one (2 percent) nonc lin ic a l instructor had Educational S pecialist degrees, whereas only one (2 percent) o f the c lin ic a l instructors had a Doctor of Education degree. 92 TABLE 3 . - - T o t a l Population by Highest Academic Degree Earned ( C l i n i c a l and N o n -c lin ic a l I n s t r u c t o r s ) . C lin ic a l Non-clinical Total Group Degree Earned No. Bachelor 13 29 20 24 33 Masters 30 67 62 75 92 1 02 1 01 2 J_ 02 _0 01 1 46 100 82 100 128 Ed. S p ecialist Ed.D. Totals % No. % C lin ic a l and N on-clinical Instructors by Number of Years Taught When considering number of years taught, Table 4 w ill show th at more instructors have eleven to fifte e n years in the teaching profession than any other category. There were 15 (33 percent) c lin ic a l and 22 (27 percent) n o n -clin ical instructors who had taught 11-15 years. There were 10 (22 percent) c lin ic a l and 19 (23 percent) non-clinical instructors who had 6-10 years teaching experience. Eight (18 percent) c lin ic a l and 18 (22 percent) n o n -clin ical instructors had 21 or more years o f teaching experiences, and 10 (22 percent) c lin ic a l and 15 (19 percent) non-clin1cal instructors who had taught between 16 and 20 years. 93 TABLE 4 . — T o tal Population by Number o f Years Taught ( C l i n i c a l and N o n -c lin ic a l In s t r u c t o r s ) . C lin ic a l N on-clinical Total Group No. % No. 1 0 0 2 02 2 2 0 0 1 01 1 3 0 0 3 04 3 4-5 2 5 3 04 5 6-10 10 22 19 23 29 11-15 15 33 22 27 37 16-20 10 22 15 19 25 21 or more _8 18 J8 22 26 45 100 83 100 128 Years Taught Total % C lin ic a l and Non-Clinical Instructors by Subjects Taught The results given in Table 5 show subjects taught by the c lin ic a l and n o n -clin ical instructors. More instructors taught mathematics and language arts than any of the other subjects. There were 5 (11 percent) c lin ic a l and 13 (16 percent) n o n -clinical instructors teaching mathematics; 7 (16 percent) c lin ic a l and 11 (13 percent) n o n -clin ical instructors teaching language a rts . 94 TABLE 5 . - - T o t a l Population by Subjects Taught ( C l i n i c a l and Nonc lin ic a l In s tru c to rs ). Subjects Taught C lin ic a l ---------------No. % N on-clinical No. % Total Group Mathematics 5 11 13 16 18 Science 6 13 4 05 10 Reading 5 11 5 06 10 Language Arts 7 16 11 13 18 Business Education 2 04 3 04 5 Social Studies 5 11 8 10 13 Performing Arts 2 04 7 05 9 Physical Education 2 04 6 07 8 Foreign Language 1 02 1 01 2 In d u strial Education 2 04 5 06 7 A rt 3 07 3 04 6 Vocational Education 4 09 7 08 11 Special Education 1 02 8 10 9 Drivers Education _0 00 _2 02 2 45 98 83 97 128 Totals 95 Test of Hypotheses There are six primary and four secondary hypotheses in this study. The purpose of the primary hypotheses was to tes t fo r sig­ n ific a n t main and interaction effects among certain independent and dependent variables, and also to tes t for differences between single independent variables and dependent variables. The independent variables were (1) the three secondary schools, and (2) trained ( c lin ic a l) and non-trained (n o n -c lin ic a l). The dependent variables were to ta l ratings by the Instructors and the observer. The m u ltivariate (three-way, two-way) analysis of variance was performed to determine s ig n ifica n t differences. Primary Hypotheses Hq1: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. A two-way analysis of variance (c lin ic a l by n o n -c lin ic a l) was performed on the to ta l instructional group. The analysis shows a s ig n ific a n t difference between the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors. The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is 10.430 with a p ro b ab ility of less than .005. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. Therefore, i t was concluded that s ig n ific a n t differences ex ist between c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors. Table F2, Appendix F. These data can be fu rth e r observed in 96 Since the null hypothesis was rejected, the data was fu rther analyzed by comparison of the mean scores. Reported in Table 6, the higher mean scores of the non-clinical (1.94) as compared to that of c lin ic a l instructors (1.66) suggest c lin ic a l instructors rate themselves more p o sitively in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill o f maintaining attending behavior than non-clinical instructors. TABLE 6 .—Total Group Mean Behavior. Scores on Maintaining Attending No. % Mean Scores* C lin ic a l Instructors 45 35 1.85 Non-clinical Instructors 83 65 1.98 128 100 Total * Extracted from Table F6, Appendix F, which contains more detailed information. H 2: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of communication. A two-way analysis of variance (c lin ic a l by n o n -clin ica l) was performed on the to ta l instructional group. The analysis shows a s ig n ific a n t difference between the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructions. The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is 4.403 with a p ro b ab ility of less than .050. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. Therefore, i t was 97 concluded th at a s ig n ific a n t difference exists between c lin ic a l and n on-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills of comnunication. This data can be fu rth e r observed in Table F4, Appendix F. Since the null hypothesis was rejected , the data were fu rth e r analyzed by comparison of the mean scores. Reported in Table 7, the higher mean scores o f the n o n -clinical instructors (2 .0 5 ) as com­ pared to th at of the c lin ic a l instructors (1.78) suggest c lin ic a l instructors rate themselves more p o s itiv e ly than non-clinical instructors in th e ir a b ilit y to use the generic teaching s k ill of communication. TABLE 7 .--T o ta l Group Mean Scores on Communication S k ills . No. % C lin ic a l Instructors 45 35 1.78 Non-clinical Instructors 83 65 2.05 Total 128 Mean Scores* 100 * Extracted from Table F8, Appendix F, which contains more d etailed information. Hq3: There is no d ifference between ratings by c lin ic a l and n o n -clinical instructors o f the importance o f the generic teaching s k ill o f maintaining attending behavior. A two-way analysis of variance (c lin ic a l by n o n -c lin ic a l) was performed on the to ta l group. The analysis showed no s ig n ific a n t 98 differences between the instructors' ratings o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills o f maintaining attending behavior. The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is 1.448 with a probability of less than .225. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. Therefore, i t was concluded that no s ig n ific a n t difference exists between c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors' ratings of the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. These data can be fu rther observed in Table F9, Appendix F. Table 8 shows the mean scores for the c lin ic a l (1.63) and non-clinical (1.67) instru cto rs' ratings fo r the importance of the generic teaching s k ill o f attending behavior. The closeness of the mean scores of the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors suggest they place the same importance on the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining sttending behavior. TABLE 8 .—Total Group Mean Scores fo r Importance Ratings of Attending Behavior S k ills . No. % Mean Scores C lin ic a l Instructors 45 35 1.63 Non-clinical Instructors 83 65 1.67 128 100 Total * Extracted from Table F5, Appendix F, which contains more d e ta ile d in fo rm a tio n . 99 Hq4: There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and n o n -clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of communication. A two-way analysis of variance (c lin ic a l by n o n -c lin ic a l) was performed on the to ta l group. The analysis showed no s ig n ific a n t differences between the in s tru cto rs ' ratings o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills o f communication. The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is 2.316 with a p ro b a b ility of less than .131. Thus, the null hypothesis was retained at the fiv e percent s ig n if i­ cance le v e l. Therefore, i t was concluded that no s ig n ific a n t d if f e r ­ ence exists between c lin ic a l and n o n -clinical in stru cto rs' ratings of the importance o f the generic teaching s k ills o f communication. These data can be fu rth e r observed in Table F l l , Appendix F. Table 9 shows the mean scores fo r the c lin ic a l (1.73) and n o n -clinical (1.8 3) in s tru cto rs ' ratings fo r the importance of the generic teaching s k i l l , communication. The mean scores suggest that the c lin ic a l instructors rated the importance of communication s k ills more p ositive than n o n -clinical in stru cto rs. TABLE 9 .— Total Group Mean Scores fo r the Rating of the Importance of Communication S k ills . No. % Mean Scores* C lin ic a l Instru cto r 45 35 1.73 N on-clinical Instructors 83 65 1.83 128 100 Total * E xtracted from Table F7, Appendix F, which contains more d e t a ile d in fo rm a tio n . 100 Hq5: There is no difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. A three-way analysis of variance (observer by c lin ic a l by non-clinical instructors) was performed. When repeated measures on the observer factor were used to te s t the hypothesis, no s ig n ifica n t e ffe c t was found fo r the observer fac to r. However, the c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is 2.007, with a p ro bability of less than .174. Thus, Primary Hypothesis 5 was not rejected. These data can be fu rth e r observed in Table F2, Appendix F. Table 10 shows the mean scores fo r the observer was lower (1.73) than that of the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors (1 .8 7 ). This suggests that instructors (c lin ic a l and n o n -c lin ic a l) rate themselves higher as compared to the rating by the observer in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior. TABLE 10.--T o ta l Group Mean Scores on Maintaining Attending Behavior fo r the Randomly Selected Population. No. % Mean Scores C lin ica l and Non-clInical Teacher Measures 24 50 1.87 Observer Measure 24 50 1.73 48 100 Total ★ E xtracted from Table F I , Appendix F, which contains more d e ta ile d in fo rm a tio n . 101 Hq6 : There is no difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of communication. A three-way analysis of variance {observer by c lin ic a l by non-clinical instructors) was performed. When repeated measures on the observer factor were used to tes t the hypothesis, there was no sig n ific a n t interaction a ffe c t. However, the c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is 13.049 with a p ro bability of less than .002. Thus, the obtained value leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. Therefore, i t was concluded that a s ig n ific a n t difference exists between observer ratings and instructor ratings of the generic teaching s k ill o f communication. These data can be fu rth e r observed in Table F4, Appendix F. Since the null hypothesis was rejected, the data was fu rther analyzed by comparison o f the mean scores of the observer and instructors. Table 11 reveals a higher mean score (1.95) for instructors than that of the observer (1 .5 7 ). This suggests that TABLE 11.--T o ta l Group Mean Scores on Communication S k ills from the Randomly Selected Population. Instructor Measure No. % C lin ic a l and Non-clinical 24 50 1.95 Observer Measure 24 50 1.57 Total * 48 Mean Scores* 100 Extracted from Tables F3, Appendix F, which contains more d e ta ile d in fo rm a tio n . 102 the observer rated the instructors more p o sitively than the instructors rated themselves in the generic taching s k i l l , communi­ cations. Secondary Hypotheses The secondary hypotheses tested in the study are as follows: Hq7: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. A three-way analysis of variance (c lin ic a l by non-clinical by school) was performed on the to ta l group. The analysis showed no s ig n ifica n t difference between the instructors' ratings from the three secondary schools (E verett, French, and Gardner) in the use of the generic teaching s k i l l , maintaining attending behavior. The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is .276 with a p robability of less than .762. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. Therefore, i t was concluded that no s ig n ific a n t difference exists between c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors from the three secondary schools. These data can be fu rth e r observed in Table F2, Appendix F. Table 12 shows the mean scores fo r the instructors' ratings fo r the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools: and Gardner (1 .9 6 ). Everett (1 .8 9 ), French (1 .9 6 ), The mean scores suggest that instructors from 103 Everett rated themselves more p o sitively in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. TABLE 12.—Total Group Mean Scores on Maintaining Attending Behavior from the Entire Population of the Three Secondary Schools. % Secondary Schools No. Everett High 50 39 1.89 French Junior High 41 32 1.96 Gardner Junior High 37 29 1.96 128 100 Total Mean Scores* * Extracted from Table F6, Appendix F, which contains more detailed information. H08: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ills of communication from the three secondary schools. A three-way analysis of variance {c lin ic a l by non-clinical by school) was performed on the to ta l group. The analysis showed no s ig n ifica n t difference between the instructors' s e lf-ra tin g s in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ills , communications, from the three secondary schools (E verett, French, and Gardner). The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is .428 with a p ro b ab ility of less than .658. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. Therefore, i t was concluded that no s ig n ific a n t 104 difference exists between c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors from the three secondary schools (E verett, French, and Gardner) in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ill o f communications. These data can be fu rth e r observed in Table F4, Appendix F. Table 13 shows the mean scores fo r the instructors' ratings for the generic s k ill of communication from the three secondary schools; Everett (1 .8 8 ), French (2 .0 0 ), and Gardner (2 .0 1 ). Even though the hypothesis was retained, the mean scores suggest that Everett instructors rated themselves more p o sitively than the two ju n io r high schools in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of communication. TABLE 13.--T o tal Group Mean Scores on Comnunication S k ills from the Entire Population o f the Three Secondary Schools. Secondary Schools No. Everett High 50 39 1.88 French Junior High 41 32 2.00 Gardner Junior High 37 29 2.01 128 100 Total * % Mean Scores* Extracted from Table F3, Appendix F, which contains more detailed information. 105 Hq9: There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the . importance of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. A two-way analysis of variance (school by c lin ic a l and nonc lin ic a l) was performed on the to ta l group. The analysis showed no sig n ific a n t differences between the instructors' ratings of the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools (E verett, French, and Gardner). The c r itic a l ra tio fo r the F d is trib u tio n is .168 with a pro bability o f less than .845. Thus, the null hypothesiswas rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. not These data can be fu rth er observed in Table F9, Appendix F. Table 14 shows the mean scores fo r the instructors' ratings of the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools: Everett (1 .7 3 ), TABLE 14.--T o ta l Group Mean Scores fo r the Rating of the Importance Given to Attending Behavior of the Entire Population. Secondary School No. Everett High 50 39 1.73 French Junior High 41 32 1.60 Gardner Junior High 37 29 1.63 128 100 Total * % Mean Scores* Extracted from Table F5, Appendix F , which contains more detailed information. 106 French (1.60) and Gardner (1 .6 3 ). Even though the hypothesis was retained, these mean scores suggest that Everett instructors rated the importance of the generic teaching s k ill o f attending behavior more p o sitively than French and Gardner. H-10: There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of communication from the three secondary schools. A two-way analysis of variance (school by c lin ic a l and nonc lin ic a l) was performed on the to ta l group. The analysis showed no s ig n ific a n t differences between the instructors' ratings o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills o f communication from the three secondary schools (E verett, French, and Gardner). The c r itic a l ra tio for the F d is trib u tio n is .328 with a p ro bability of less than .721. Thus, the null hypothesis was not rejected at the fiv e percent significance le v e l. These data can be fu rth er observed in Table F l l , Appendix F. Table 15 shows the mean scores of the instructors' ratings fo r the importance of the generic teaching s k ill communication, from the three secondary schools: Gardner (1 .7 4 ). Everett (1 .8 6 ), French (1 .7 7 ), and These mean scores suggest that Everett rated the importance of the generic teaching s k ill o f communication more p o s itive ly than French and Gardner. 107 TABLE 15 .—Total Group Mean Scores fo r the Rating of the Importance Given to Communication S k ills of the Entire Population. Secondary School No Everett High 50 39 1.86 French Junior High 41 32 1.77 Gardner Junior High 37 29 1.74 128 100 Total % Mean Scores* ★ Extracted from Table F7, Appendix F, which contains more detailed information. Summary This chapter presented the composition of the study and a descriptive analysis of the population, th e ir sex, age, academic degrees earned, number of years taught and subjects taught. Six primary hypotheses were tested to determine i f differences between the perceived use and importance of the generic teaching s k ills were related to the three dependent variables: (1) s e lf-ra tin g s , {2) observer ratin g s, and (3) importance ratings. Four secondary hypotheses were tested to determine i f differences between instruc­ to rs' s e lf-ra tin g s and observer ratings were related to schools in which they were teaching. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of Chapter V is to summarize the study, draw conclusions based on the study, and make recommendations fo r further research. Summary The primary purpose of th is study was to investigate the perceived use of selected generic teaching s k ills , and observed classroom behavior of secondary c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in the Lansing School D is tr ic t, and to determine the influence of in service education on classroom instructors' behavior regarding generic teaching s k ills . S p e c ific a lly , the primary purposes of th is study were to determine the following: 1. I f there is a relationship between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. 2. I f there Is a relationship between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills in communication. 3. I f there is a relationship between the ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior. 4. I f there is a relationship between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills in communication. 108 109 5. I f there is a relationship between observer ratings and s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non -clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. 6. I f there is a relation sh ip between observer ratings and s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and non -clinical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ill in communication. 7. I f there is a relation sh ip between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and n o n -clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. 8. I f there is a relation sh ip between s e lf ratings by c lin ic a l and n o n -clin ical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ills of communication from the three secondary schools. 9. I f there is a relation sh ip between ra tin g by c lin ic a l and n o n -clin ical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. 10. I f there is a relation sh ip between ratings by c lin ic a l and n o n -clin ical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills in communication from the three secondary schools. To te s t the hypotheses of th is study, two groups o f teachers were studied: 1. A group of fo u rty -fiv e secondary teachers who received 14-18 clock hours o f inservice tra in in g from the MSU-LSD POINTE program. 2. A group of eig h ty-th ree secondary teachers who did not receive 14-18 clock hours Inservice tra in in g from the MSU-LSD POINTE program. In th is phase o f the study s ta tis tic a l analyses were made on the data of the study. teachers' background. The f i r s t stage involved an analysis of the The second stage was to te s t and analyze six primary hypotheses to determine relationships between selected independent variables and in s tru cto rs ' perceived use of generic 110 teaching s k ills . The th ird stage was to tes t and analyze four secondary hypotheses to determine differences between two independent and three dependent variables. The m u ltivariate (three-way, two-way) analysis of variance was performed to determine s ig n ifica n t differences between the independent and dependent variables. Descriptive Analysis of the Population 1. There were more male non-clinical instructors than male c lin ic a l instructors. Also there were more female non-clinical instructors than female c lin ic a l instructors. 2. The m ajority of instructors in both groups were in the 36-45 age group and the 26-35 age group. 3. More of the instructors had masters degrees than any of the other academic degrees. 4. There were more instructors in both groups who had 11-15 years of teaching experience. 5. There were more instructors in both groups who taught mathematics and language arts than any of the other subjects. Primary Hypotheses Tests were made of the null hypotheses of the study and were accepted or rejected on the basis of the data collected. Hq1: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. Hq2: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ill of communication. Ill The m u ltivariate analysis did not support Primary Hypotheses 1 and 2. The analysis showed a s ig n ifica n t difference between the clin in ca l and non-clinical instructors. When comparing mean scores, c lin ic a l instructors rated themselves more p o sitively than nonc lin ic a l instructors in th e ir a b ilit y to use s k ills in maintaining attending behavior and communication. Hfl3: There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. H-4: There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors of the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of communication. The m u ltivariate analysis did support Primary Hypotheses 3 and 4. The analysis indicates that no sig n ific a n t differences exist between c lin ic a l and non-clinical ratings of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior and com­ munication. When comparing the mean scores, the results suggest that the closeness of the ratings by the c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors indicate that they place the same importance on main­ taining attending behavior. However, the c lin ic a l instructors rated the importance of communication s k ills more p o sitively than nonc lin ic a l instructors. Hq5: There is no difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior. Hq6 : There is no difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use o f the generic teaching s k ill of communication. 112 The m u ltivariate analysis did support Primary Hypotheses 5 and 6. There was no s ig n ifica n t e ffe c t found fo r the observer factor where the s ta tis tic a l tes t was performed to determine differences between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior. not support Primary Hypothesis 6. However, the m u ltivariate analysis did There was a s ig n ifica n t difference between observer ratings and s e lf-ra tin g s of c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of communication s k ills . The mean scores sug­ gest that instructors' rating and the observer ratings were about equal in th e ir a b ilit y to maintain attending behavior. However, the observer rated the instructors more p o s itive ly than the instructors rated them­ selves in the generic teaching s k i l l , communication. Secondary Hypotheses The secondary hypotheses tested in the study are as follows: Hq7: There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ill o f maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. Hq8 : There is no difference between s e lf-ra tin g s by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in th e ir use of the generic teaching s k ills o f communication from the three secondary schools. The m u ltivariate analysis did support Secondary Hypotheses 7 and 8. No s ig n ific a n t difference exists between instructors' ratings o f th e ir a b ilit y to maintain attending behavior and use communication s k ills from three secondary schools. Even though the hypotheses were retained, the mean scores suggest that instructors from Everett rate th e ir a b ilit y to use s k ills in maintaining attending behavior and communication more p o s itive ly than French and Gardner. 113 Hq9: H-10: There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of maintaining attending behavior from the three secondary schools. There is no difference between ratings by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ill of communication from the three secondary schools. The m u ltivariate analysis did support Secondary Hypotheses 9 and 10. The analysis showed no s ig n ific a n t differences between the instructors' ratings of the importance of the generic teaching s k ills of maintaining attending behavior and communication. How­ ever, the mean scores revealed that Everett instructors rate the importance of the generic teaching s k ills more p o sitively than French and Gardner. Conclusions Based on the findings of th is study the following conclusions have been drawn. Population 1. The population of th is study included more male than female teachers. I t can be assumed th at a large percentage of the population in the secondary school from which the sample was drawn are males. 2. The ages of the teachers appeared to be concentrated in the 36-45 age group and 26-35 age group. 3. The academic degrees of most o f the teachers did not go beyond the masters degree le v e l. 4. More teachers had 11-15 years of teaching experience. I t appears that a large percentage o f the population in the secondary schools from which the sample was drawn have been teaching fo r 11-15 years. 114 5. More teachers taught mathematics and language a rts. This suggests that since language arts and mathe­ matics are required subjects at the secondary level that there are more teachers teaching these subjects than any of the other subjects at this le v e l. Primary Hypotheses 6. Inservice education offered by the Michigan State University and Lansing School D is tr ic t POINTE Program influence the use o f generic teaching s k ills of classroom teachers. 7. Teachers who received inservice train in g and those who did not are sim ilar in th e ir perception o f the importance of the generic teaching s k ills to the teaching process. 8. There was s ig n ific a n t agreement between teacher and observer ratings regarding the use of generic teaching s k ills in maintaining attending behavior. 9. There was disagreement between instructor and observer ratings regarding the use o f communication s k ills . The mean scores in Chapter IV, Table 11, suggest that the observer ratings were more lik e ly than the instructors' ratings to indicate that the inservice tra in in g had a positive e ffe c t. Secondary Hypotheses 10. The secondary school in which the teachers taught did not make a s ig n ifica n t difference in th e ir use of generic teaching s k ills . 11. A ll respondents perceive generic teaching s k ills as being important to the teaching process. However, teachers at the senior high school perceived the importance o f generic teaching s k ills more p o sitively to the teaching process than the ju n io r high schools. 115 Recommendations fo r Further Research The study presented is worthwhile in that i t examined the outcomes of two groups of classroom instructors' perception and observed classroom generic teaching s k ills as a re su lt of inservice a c tiv itie s . I t should serve as a building block fo r meaningful research to be conducted in the future. As a resu lt of th is study, i t is the w rite r's opinion that i t should provide the challenge for fu rth e r examination as to how to b etter prepare secondary classroom instructors to assess and use generic teaching s k ills more e ffe c tiv e ly . Suggestions that might be incorporated in future research are as follows: 1. A study of th is kind could be conducted with a s tr a tifie d random sample of classroom instructors in re la tio n to selected independent variables. 2. Further studies could include race, sex, and subjects taught. 3. A study should be developed to determine the extent to which e ffe c tiv e use of generic teaching s k ills influence professional job promotion. 4. A study could be conducted to include elementary c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors. 5. An investigation should be conducted to determine student teaching perception of the use of generic teaching s k ills by c lin ic a l instructors. 6. An investigation should be conducted to determine the use of generic teaching s k ills by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors in a classroom teaching situ ation using Video-Tape. 7. A study might be made which compares the impact of the inservice described in th is study, with the impact o f some other type o f inservice a c tiv ity . 116 8. An investigation should be conducted to determine the perception of administrators responsible for teacher evaluation, on the use of generic teaching s k ills by c lin ic a l and non-clinical instructors. The above suggestions are by no means inclusive. Further research into the value of generic teaching s k ills and inservice education would be helpful to educators. BIBLIOGRAPHY 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Arnold, Daniel; Denemark, G .; N e lli, E .; Robinson, A .; and Sagan, E. Quality Control in Teacher Education: Some Policy Issues Washington, DTC~.~i SACTE, 1977. Chaco, Lincoln L. S ta tis tic s : Methods and Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. New York: Combs, Arthur W. The Professional Education of Teachers. Allyn and Bacon, In c ., 1965. Boston: Coombs, Arthur W., and Snygg, Donald. Individual Behavior. York: Harper and Row Publishers, In c ., 1059. New Crow, Lester, and Crow, A lice . The Student Teacher in Secondary Schools. New York: David McKay Company, In c ., 1$64. E d e lfe lt, Roy A ., and Lawrence, Gordon. "In-Service Education: The State of the A rt." In Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by Roy A. E d e lfe lt and Margo Johnson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Finn, Jeremy D. Multivariance: Fortran Program fo r Univariate and M u ltivarian t Analysis of Variance ana Covariance. Buffalo: Department of Educational Psychology, State University of New York at B uffalo, 1967. F u ll, Harold. Controversy in American Education. Macmillan Company, 1970. New York: Gage, N. L. "Evaluating Ways to Help Teachers to Behave Desirably." National Conference on Competency Assessment, Research and Evaluation. Houston: University o f "Houston, March 1974, pp. 177-65. Hamacheck, Don E ., ed. "Toward More E ffective Teaching." Selected Readings: Human Dimensions in Psychology and Education. 2d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 231-45. Henry, Marvin A ., and Beasley, Wayne W. Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way. Terre Haute: Sycamore Press, ld?2. 118 119 Howsam, R. B.; Carringan, D. C.; Denemark, G. W.i and Nash, R. S. Educating a Profession. Report o f the Bicentennial Commis­ sion on Education fo r the Profession of Teaching (CEPT). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1976. Joyce, Bruce R. "Listening to D ifferen t Crummers: Evaluating A lternative Instructional Models." National Conference on Competency Assessment Research and Evaluation. Houston: University of Houston, March 1974, pp. 61-80. Mead, E. J. Improving Inservice Education: Proposal and Procedures fo r Change. Edited by Louis R. Rubin. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. McDaniels, Garry L. "National In s titu te of Education and Research in C/PBE." National Conference on Competency Assessment, Research and Evaluation. Houston: University of Houston, March, 1973. O liva, Peter F. Supervision fo r Today's School. Y. Crowell Company, In c ., 1976. New York: Thomas Orrange, P a tricia A ., and Van Ryn. "Agency Roles and Responsibilities in In-Service Education." In Rethinking In-Service Education. Edited by Roy A. E d e lfe lt and Margo Johnson. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975. Rogers, Carl R. "The Interpersonal Relationship in the F a c ilita tio n of Learning." In Selected Readings: Human Dimensions in Psychology and Education, pp. 48-65. Edited by Don E. Hamacheck. Boston: A1lyn and Bacon. Rubin, Louis J. "Teacher Growth in Perspective." Improving Inservice Education: Proposal and Procedures fo r Change. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1971. Shearron, G ilb ert F. "Inservlce-Needs Assessment: Competency Based Teacher Education." National Conference on Competency Assessment, Research and Evaluation. Houston: University o f Houston, March, 1974. Verduin, John R ., Jr. Conceptual Models in Teacher Education. Washington, D.CTi AACTE, 1967. Weigand, James, ed. Developing Teacher Competencies. C lif f s , N .J.: P re n tic e-H a ll, In c ., 1971. Englewood 120 Journals Ainsworth, David. "Examining the Basis fo r Competency-based Education." Journal of Higher Education 68, No. 3 (May/ June 1977): 321-29. Amidon, Edmund, and Flanders, Ned. "The Effects of D irect and In d irec t Teachers Influences on Dependent Prone Students Learning Geometry." Journal of Educational Psychology 52, No. 6 (1961): 286-91. B erlin er, David C. "Impediments to the Study of Teacher E ffec tiv e­ ness." Journal o f Teacher Education 27, No. 1 (Sprinq 1976): 5-13. Bousell, R. Baker, and Moody, William B. "Are Teacher Preparation In s titu tio n s Necessary?" Phi Delta Kappan 54 (January 1973): 289. Boyan, Norman J ., and Copeland, W illis D. "A Training Program for Supervision: Anatony of an Educational Development." Journal of Educational Research 68, No. 3 (1974): 100-16. Brim, J. L ., and T o lle tt, D. J. "How do Teachers Feel About In service Education?" Educational Leadership 31 (1972); 251-52. Brubacher, H. A ., and Patton, D. C. "Selection and Retention in Teacher Education: Does i t Exist?" Teacher Education 10 (1975): 85-88. Burton, Kay. "More Must be Made to Mean B e tter." Education 33 (May 1974): 4-8. Trends in Coker, Homer. "Id entifying and Measuring Teacher Competencies: The Carroll County P ro ject." Journal o f Teacher Education 27 (Spring 1976): 54-56. Cornish, Robert L. "The Education of Cooperating Teachers and College Supervisors." Teacher Educator 15, No. 2 (F all 1979): 17-21. Cruickshank, D. R. "Synthesis of Selected Recent Research on Teacher Effectiveness." Journal o f Teacher Education 27 (1976): 57-60. Cruickshank, D. R.; Kennedy, J. J .; and ftyers, B. "Perceived Problems of Secondary School Teachers." Journal of Educational Research 68 (1974): 154-59. 121 Cruickshank, Donald R ., and Kennedy, John J. "An Attempt to Id e n tify Measures of Teacher Effectiveness from Four Studies." Journal o f Teacher Education 22, No. 3 (F all 1976): 261-67. David, Jan K ., and David, Kathryn W. "Maximizing Positive StudentTeaching Supervision Relationships Through Performance Contracting." College Student Journal 11, No. 2 (Summer 1977): 193-96. Domino, George. "In teractive Affects of Achievement Orientation and Teaching Styles in Academic Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology 62, No. 5 (1971). D u lla e rt, John. "Norwegian Elementary School Teacher Preparation." Phi Delta Kappan (March 1978): 462-63. Dziuban, Charles D ., and S ullivan, Timothy J. "Teaching Competencies: An Investigation of Emphasis." Phi Delta Kappan 59 (F all 1978): 422-24. Fields, Cheryl M. "The Q ualities Admissions Tests Don’ t Id e n tify ." The Chronicle of Higher Education 22 (1978): 1-9. F itzg erald, Thomas P ., and Clark, Richard M. "Process Evaluation fo r Inservice Training." Reading Improvement 12 (Winter 1976): 194-98. Fiske, Dudley. "Inservice Traininq: An LEA Appraisal." Education 33 (May 1974): 8-12. Trends in Flanders, Ned A. "The Changing Base of Performance-Based Teaching." Phi Delta Kappan (January 1974): 312-14. Ford, Charles W. "Mirror on the W all, Who is the Best Teacher of Them All?" Educational Technology 15, No. 3 (March 1975): 43-46. Harvey, 0. J .; Prather, M.; White, B. J .; and Hoffmeister, J. K. "Teacher's B e lie fs , Classroom Atmosphere and Student Behavior." American Educational Research Journal 5, No. 2 (March 1968): 151-66. Hamacheck, D. "Characteristics o f Good Teachers and the Implications fo r Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan (February 1969): 341-44. Hensen, Kenneth T ., and O liva, Peter F. Generic Teachinq Competencies?" No. 2 (Spring 1980): 110-21. "What are the Essential Theory in Practice 17, 122 Henson, Kenneth T ., and O liv a, Peter F. Generic Teaching Competencies?" No. 2 (Spring 1980): 117-21. "What are the Essential Theory Into Practice 19, Horton, Lowell, and Harvey, Karen. "Preparing Cooperating Teachers: The Role of the University Supervisor." Peabody Journal of Education 57, No. 1 (October 1979): 56-60. Howey, Kenneth R. "Putting Inservice Teacher Education Into Perspective." Journal of Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1976): 110- 12 . Howey, Kenneth, Joyce, Bruce. "A Data Base fo r Future Directions in In-Service Education." Theory Into Practice 17, No. 3 (1978): 206-11. In g e rs o ll, Gary M. "Assessing Inservice Training Needs Through Teacher Responses." Journal o f Teacher Education 27 (Summer 1977): 69-76. Kindsvatter, Richard, and Wilen, W illiam W. "Im plications of Research fo r E ffec tiv e In-Service Education." The Clearing House 51 (A pril 1978): 392-96. King, James C .; Hayes, P. C .; and Newman, I . fo r Successful Inservice Education." (May 1977): 686-87. "Some Requirements Phi Delta Kappan 58 Lorber, M. A. "From T rad itio n al to Competency-Based Teacher Education and Back Again: An Eight-Year Experiment." Phi Delta Kappan 60 (March 1979): 523-24. Lien, A. J. "A Comparative-Predictive Study of Students in the Four Curricul of Teacher Education In s titu tio n s ." Journal of Experimental Education 21 (1952): 81-219. McDonald, Frederick J. "Effects of Teaching Performance on Pupil Learning." Journal of Teacher Education 27, No. 4 (Winter 1976): 317-1Y. Medley, Don, and M itz e l, Harold. "Some Behavioral Correlates of Teacher Effectiveness." Journal of Educational Psychology 50, No. 6 (December 1959): 239-46. M ille r , C lin t, and M ille r , Dorothy. "The Importance o f Certain Personal Q ualities and Professional Competencies in Success­ fu l Classroom Teaching." Journal o f Teacher Education 22, No. 1 (Spring 1971): 37-39. 123 Morris, John E. "A Strategy fo r the Development of Supervising Teachers." Clearing House 53, No. 8 (April 1980): 367-70. Oestreich, Arthur H. "The Professional Growth of the Student Teacher." Phi Delta Kappan 55, No. 5 (January 1974): 335-37. Parker, Reese. "Weber State College Evaluates IPTE A fter Three Years." Phi Delta Kappan (January 1974): 320-24. Perkins, H. U. "A Procedure fo r Assessing the Classroom Behavior of Students and Teachers." American Educational Research Journal 1 (1964): 249-60. Quirk, Thomas J. "Some Measurement Issues in Competency-Based Teacher Education." Phi Delta Kappan 55, No. 5 (January 1974): 316-19. Reaves, Charles A. "A Test of the C lin ica l Supervision Model." The Journal of Education Research 70 (July-August 1977): 311-15. Rosner, Benjamin, and Kay, P a tricia M. "Will the Promise of C/PBTE Be F u lfille d ? " Phi Delta Kappan 55, No. 5 (January 1974): 290-95. Sanderfur, W alter, and Westbrook, Douglas. "Involvement of AACTE In s titu tio n s in CBTE: A Follow-up Study." Phi Delta Kappan 59 (May 1978): 633-34. Spanger, Allen A. "Competency-Based Student-Teacher Supervision." NASSP B u lle tin (December 1975): 51-58. S pillane, Robert F ., and Levenson, Dorothy. "Teacher Training: Question of Control, Not Content." Phi Delta Kappan (March 1976): 435-42. A Stewig, John W. "What Should College Supervisors Do?" Journal of Teacher Education 21, No. 2 (Summer 1970): 251-56. Wayson, W. W. "Developing the Teachers of Teachers." Theory Into Practice 13, No. 3 (June 1974): 177-86. W illiams, Martha. "Structuring Field Learning in Competency Guided Programs." Performance-Based Teacher Publication 3, No. 9 (March 1975): 1-3. Zigarmi, P a tric ia ; Betz, Loren; and Jensen, D a rre ll. "Teachers' Preferences in and Perceptions o f In-service Education." Educational Leadership 24, No. 7 (April 1977): 545-51. 124 Unpublished Materials Andresen, Glenora I . "The Development of a Tentative Model fo r Selected Inservice Experiences fo r Supervising Teachers at F lin t College." Ph.D. d issertatio n , Michigan State University, 1971. Clem, Paul N u ll. "Study o f Michigan State University Full-Time Resident Student Teaching Program." Ed.D. dissertatio n, Michigan State U niversity, 1958. DATRIX. "Direct Access to Reference Information: A Xerox Service." Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilm s, 48106. Freeman, Don, and McMillan, Jim. "Review of Research Relating Teacher Characteristics or Behaviors to Pupil Cognitive Achievement." CBTE Project, Michigan State U niversity, 1974. H alik, Richard J. "Teacher In-service Education in the A ffective Domain: Outcomes fo r Teachers and Students." Ph.D. d is se rta tio n , Michigan State U niversity, 1973. H a tfie ld , Robert. "A Dynamic Future fo r Colleges of Education." East Lansing: Michigan State U niversity, College of Education, 1978. H a tfie ld , Robert. "Teacher Responsibilities and Areas fo r Teacher Assessment." East Lansing: Michigan State U niversity, College of Education, 1978. School o f Teacher Education, Michigan State University and Lansing School D is tr ic t. "Development of a Competency Based Teacher Education Program Focusing on the D irect Teaching Experience." Final Report, Competency Based Teacher Education Grant (Michigan Department of Education, 1976): 64-65. Travers, Robert M. W. "Role Development in Teachers." Paper pre­ sented at the MATE Conference, Western Michigan U niversity, 1977. Wiles, Jon, and Brooks, Douglas. "The Extended Faculty: C ritic a l Elements in Student Teacher Supervision." Contemporary Education 49, No. 2 (Winter 1978): 75-77. APPENDICES 125 APPENDIX A RESEARCH STUDY REQUEST 126 to: - fwrls Walker Office of Evaluation Services Lansing School D is tric t 9/80 S J « li9^ m "**8933 1, S™ ” ' R£,1UEST Office of Evaluation Services Lansing School D is tric t Individual conducting study: ■aus Phone No. Joyce Jay Professional title, if any Assistant Principal Address ____ 3900 Stabler Street. Lansing, MI. 2. 37u-<<5S1 U8910 Institution, organisation, or agency with which individual la associated, if any: Everett High School 3. Reason for study: College or university course requirement Partial fulflllaent for Maatar*a degree _ _ _ _ _ Partial fulfillment for Doctor's degree xx Other If study la being conducted for course requirsuent or for a degree, plaaaa provide course Instructor's aaua or naua of major advisor. Wane Dr. George Hvers Phil Title _ ^hairmanjof_Conwnittee___-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A. Title of study An Exploratory Study of Selected Generic Teaching Skills a n d ^j j in selected secondary schools in Lansing, HI. S. Statement of hypothesis, aad/or objectlva(s) of study. teacher behavior of the use of selected generic teaching skill?; and tn j h ^ ^ J ^ | j j ^ ^ ^ J j * _ i n £ l u e n c e o f ^ o j ^ t e a c h . * r _ c il a s s r o o n ^ ^ g ^ | g ^ i o r (over) 127 . Br1 the procedure you w ill use In InvoU ■'■hers •s . . . met 1s, tdiat w ill they be required to do. Invol­ ved Individually or In groups (how many In a group). (Use aiLatnment) 4.a. Dace project Co begin D e c e m b e r ^ ^ S B O ^ ^ ^ 6 .b . How ouch tim e t r i l l be Involved? _ Ap£roxiiMro]^^_^otai__nf_?<^_h£j2£ £ ^ £ j' classroom observations. 7. Pupils aa subjects: How many? _ _ _ At what grada(s)? Particular characteristics, e.g., boy, girl, high or low ability, etc.: • > Xs a specific school or geographic area raqulredl^^^esIf so, explain. Competency-based teacher Ed. Schools (CBTE) Everett High. Trench Jr. High and Gardner Tunior High. 9. Hill taachers be required to help In the study? XXso, In what way? Respond to a written questionnaire. 10. Hill other school personnel be Involved in the study? If so. In what way? •iustfr consultants at the three building sites will administer the quest ionne .re. 11. Hill school records be required? Ho if so, to what extent? (Please apeclty) 12. Hill additional supplies or equipment be naceaaary? 13. How w ill the students/staff of Lansing benefit from this study? (Use attachment) 14. M ill a copy of this completed study be forwarded to the office? 15. How does your request f i t d is tric t p rio ritie s listed on procedures1 memo? (Use attachment.) 128 No If so, to vbat extent? * yes __ no 129 ATTACHMENT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION #13: As a re su lt of the demand fo r accountability in education in the past few years, Competency-Based Teacher Education has become almost a household phrase in education. Optional teacher education programs are being designed and implemented almost d a ily . The POINTE Program at Michigan State University is an example. Many of these programs require the p articip atio n of university fa c u lty , preservice and inservice teachers, local school adm inistrators, students and com­ munity prople. The design of these programs requires id e n tific a tio n of teacher competencies fo r preservice and inservice teachers. Many of the inservice teachers supervise the a c tiv itie s o f student teachers at th e ir local schools. The inservice component of the POINTE program seems to suggest improved classroom teacher performance in the areas o f generic teaching s k ills , observation, and evaluation of teacher competencies. There seems to be l i t t l e or no empirical research to support th is notion. Therefore, th is study is important fo r the following reasons: 1. L it t l e emphasis has been placed on the importance of generic teaching s k ills and how they are u tiliz e d by c lin ic a l instructors in the Lansing School D is tr ic t. 2. There is a need to determine how c lin ic a l and nonc lin ic a l instructors use generic teaching s k ills . 3. There is a need to determine whether c lin ic a l instructors experience s ig n ific a n t progressional growth and development as a re su lt o f the inservice received from p artic ip atio n in the POINTE program. 4. There is a need to determine i f the POINTE Inservice component provides c lin ic a l Instructors with the ca p a b ilitie s to appraise th e ir own teaching s k ills . 129 APPENDIX B SURVEY LETTER 130 APPENDIX B Dear Colleague: I t is imperative that we as educators seek every opportunity to striv e fo r excellence in teaching in an e ffo r t to b etter prepare our students fo r the many challenging pursuits w ithin th e ir life tim e and also pro­ vide teachers, counselors, and administrators opportunities fo r con­ tinued professional growth. I t is the purpose of th is investigation to gather and analyze data concerning professional development a c tiv itie s and the use of generic teaching s k ills . In order to accomplish th is purpose your cooperation in responding to th is questionnaire w ill be used solely fo r program development purposes and not fo r evaluating you as an individual teacher, but no doubt the feedback w ill be equally as useful to you in terms of continued professional growth. You w ill be receiving the questionnaire from your building cluster consultant on Friday, December 12. Please complete i t and return i t by Tuesday, December 16. Again, your help and cooperation are genuinely appreciated. Thank you, Joyce Jay JJ/ms 131 APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES 132 APPENDIX C TEACHER SURVEY INFORMATION TEACHER SURVEY INFORMATION F l t i n c oap lete the t t m lis t e d below. I f your response I s d if fe r e n t from sny o f those provided, plesse w r ite your response In the spsce e v s lls b le s t the end o f esch question. A ll In fo rm atio n on th is q u estio n n aire w i l l bs tre s te d ss e o n fld e n tls l. A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Sex: ________ 2. 3. 4. Msle ________ F e a s l* ________ 25 or under ________ 46-53 _______ 26-35______________ _______ _______ 36-45 Age Croup: 56 o r o ld e r Highest Acsdenlc Degree Esrned: ________ Less then s B sch elo r's ________ B sch elo r's ________ H e s te r's _________ Ed. S p e c le lls t Ed.D. Fh.D Nuaber o f years you heve taught f u l l t in s a t any le v e l: _______ 1____________________ 4-5 ________ 2 _ _ _ _ _ 6 -1 0 _______ 3 _______ 11-15 5. What major eubject are you teaching? H is to ry , e t c .) 6. What o th e r course(a) a re you teaching? _________ 16-20 ________ (Such as Accounting, En g lish , If none, check here: 133 21 o r sore 134 B. PARTICIPATION IN INSERVICE EDUCATION 1. Since 1972, which, I f any, o f tha fo llo w in g selected ln a e rv lc e education a c t i v i t i e s have you p a rtic ip a te d In? A c t iv it y Frequency o f P a r tic ip a tio n Completion o f the Lansing D i s t r i c t 's masters program Number o f C re d its earned: _________ None _________ 25-36 _ _ _ _ 1-12 _______ 37 o r more ________ 13-24 ________ None ______ 13-18 1-6 ______ 19 o r more for classroom Instruction. Number o f hours completed in Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity - CBTE ln a e rv lc e program fo r c li n i c a l In s tru c to rs . Number o f hours c o ^ ile te d in Michigan S tate U n iv e rs ity - CBTE ln a e rv lc e program fo r teachers new to t h e ir assignment. ________ 7-12 ________ None ______ 13-18 1-6 ______ 19 o r more 7 -1 2 Number o f CBTE Student Teachers you have supervised. /- I 1 -6 2. To what e xten t do you f e e l you are given encourugi.m^ML b y the school a d m in is tra tio n to t h r o v e your generic teaching s k i : ' s ' Strong M ild None I 13 or morn ATTENDING BEHAVIOR QUESTIONS INSTRUCTIONS: F l « u read u e h statem ent c a r e fu lly and respond Co each l e w In Che Survey. Answer the two questions (column A and B) which fo llo w each knovledse o r s k i l l araa lis t e d below. C ir c le the nunber in the column which beet expresses your view . A. To what extent Is this skill/knowledge essen­ tial to success In main­ taining attending behavlort / ENOWLEDCE/SKILL , / / / / / / 1. Identifying students who are not attending to Instruction. 2. Responding to non-attending behavior before it distrupts the class. 3. Maintaining the attention of the entlri group. 4 . Providing learning activities of a variety of levels which matches the skill levels of all the students In your class. Matching the pace and amentum of your Instruction to the Interest level of your students. 6. Matching the pace and momentw of your Instruction to the ability level of your students, 7. Consistently maintaining the involve­ ment of students In all of the class­ room learning activities. S. Recapturing the Interest of students whc are not attending to Instruction. 9. Selecting alternate Instructional techniques when group attendance begins to lag. 10, Recapturing the attendance of the groui after It has been disrupted. 135 B. Bow would you rate your ability to consistently apply this knowledge/skill In your classroom and teaching efforts? 8 / / / / 136 P a g * Two A. To what extent 1* this skill/knowledge essen­ tial to success in main­ taining attending bahavlor? //// i / //> KNOWLEDGE/SKILL it, Responding to a studanta non-attending behavior In a way which e l l c l t a a p o s itiv e response from the student and renews atten d in g behavior. B. How would you r*t* your ■blllcy to coa*lat*ntly apply tbla knowledge/skill la your classroom and teaching efforts? $ //// 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 12. Responding to a group d is ru p tio n in a way which e l i c i t s a p o s itiv e response from the group and renewed attendance. 13 . Id e n tify in g instances when the group is no longer a c tiv e ly a tten d in g to In ­ s tru c tio n . 14 . On the whole, how w e ll do you B a ln ta ln the atten d in g behavior to in s tru c tio n o f student* in your classroom. 15. Id e n tify in g students who cause c lass­ room d is ru p tio n s 137 Page T h re e COMMUNICATION QUESTIONS A. To what u t n t la t h la *• type o f q u e s tio n /a c tiv it y e s s e n tia l to auceaaa In classroom teaching? How would you r a ta your a b i l i t y to cona la t a n t ly apply th la k n o w le d g e /s k ill In your classroom and taach ln g e ffo r ts ? KNOWLEDGE/SKILL 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. Aaking knowledge questions In v o lv in g the r e c a ll o f s p e c ific f a c ta , term s, Methods, procedures, th e o rle a , e tc . to which one has p re v io u s ly been exposed. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Asking CoaiprsheasIon questions In v o lv in g the grasping o f the meaning o f m a te r ia l; the understanding and in t e r n a liz a t io n o f I t . 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Asking a p p lic a tio n questions in v o lv in g the use o f known ru le s , methods, concepts, p r in c ip le s , laws and th e o rie s w ith new d ata or In u n fa m ilia r but concrete s itu a tio n s . I 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Asking a n a ly s is questions r e fe r r in g to the a b i l i t y to break down m a te ria ls in to I t s component p arts so th a t I t s o rg a n iz a tio n a l s tru c tu re may be understood. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Asking synthesis questions th a t re fe r s to the a b i l i t y to put p a rts to g e th e r to form a new whole. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Asking e v a lu a tio n questions concerned w ith the a b i l i t y to judge the v alu e o f m a te ria ls and j u s t i f y th a t judgement w ith lo g ic a l reasoning. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 In c lu d in g many axaatples o f each o f these q u es tio n techniques In tea c h in g a daaerooai lesson . 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 L o g ic a l development o f your q u es tio n in g technique In p resen tin g classroom lesso n . Does your q uestion ing flo w from sim ple knowledge q u es tio n s , to d i f f i c u l t synthesis and e v a lu a tio n questions? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 O rg an izin g In s tr u c tio n a l u n its In a way to p erm it you to assess each s tu d e n t's le v e l o f understanding the m a te ria l? 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 138 Page Four A. To what e x te n t la th la B. How would you ra te your a b i l i t y to contype o f q u e a tlo n /a c tlv lt y a la t e n t ly apply th is e a a e n tle l to aucceaa In c laa aro o s teaching? k n o w le d g e /e k lll In your claaaroo n and teach in g a ffo r ta ? * / KNOWLEDGE/SKILL Jji/J s & tt g £$ *£ $r — r 10. Id e n t if y in g leaaona which a u a t be re ta u g h t to the e n t ir e d a a a or a e le c te d atudenta? 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 A 11- Encouraging e la b o ra te d , th o u g h tfu l, r e apontea fro n atudenta in a te a d o f one-word or very ahort anawera. 1 2 3 A 1 2 3 A Reapondlng to atudent enawera which en­ courage ra th e r than I n h i b i t the atudenta fu tu re reeponaea. t 2 3 A 1 2 3 A 12. APPENDIX D CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THE OBSERVER 139 APPENDIX D CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF THE OBSERVER The c r ite r ia fo r selection of the observer were based on professional q u a lific a tio n s and tra in in g a c tiv itie s . These items included: Professional Q ualifications 1. Science teachers fo r 15 years. 2. Department chairperson fo r 4 years. 3. Ph.D. in Teacher Education and Administration 4. Supervisor of student teachers 5. Instructor at the community college level for 6 years 6 . Principal of summer school a t the Junior High level fo r 4 years Training 1. Several hours of inservice tra in in g in CompetencyBased Teacher Education. 2. Graduate assistant in Supervision o f Student Teachers and Program Development, hired to work with various program a c tiv itie s . 140 APPENDIX E INSTRUMENTS 141 APPENDIX E ATTENDING BEHAVIOR Subject or Class_________________ DIRECTIONS: Time Date and Time____________________ Clinical_________________ Non-Clinical________________ Indicate examples of any student behavior which appears to be negative, uninvolved, dis­ ruptive, or exceptionally positive. I f there are no obvious examples to record during any one 5-minute period, b rie fly describe the general a c tiv itie s of the students during that time. Describe Individual Student or Small Group Behavior Any further comments on back Learning Climate (short comment) Percent of Class Attending Response by Teacher (sugg: Flanders) Observer Comments OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT Questioning Techniques Teacher No. ___ Class or Subject_____________________ Date andTime_________________ Strategy or Type of Lesson___________________________________________ DIRECTIONS: Write in the questions to be asked during a teacher led discussion and f i l l in the additional columns as related to each question. Quality of Question* List of Questions Record 10 questions in sequence clear unclear No. of Students Clinical____________ Non-Clinical________ 1. Knowledge 2. Comprehension 3. Application 4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation Student Responses appropriate inappropriate Type 1 2 3 4 ♦Quality - does an inappropriate response by student re fle ct an unclear question? On back of sheet - Observer could add a comment section for effectiveness of presentation. Did questions lead students where the instructor wanted them to go? Observer 5 6 144 Dear Colleague: I would lik e to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for your time and cooperation in helping me to c o lle c t information by responding to my questionnaire on "The Use of Generic Teaching S k ills by C lin ic a l and Non-Clinical Instructors," which I am conducting as a part o f my dissertation research. A special thanks goes to the selected group of teachers who were w illin g to le t me c o lle c t information by ovserving th e ir classes. Sincerely, Joyce Jay APPENDIX F TABLES OF MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE 145 A PPEN D IX F TA BLES OF M U L T IV A R IA T E A N A LY SIS OF VA R IA N C E T a b le F I . E ffects o f T ra in e d , N o n -T ra in e d (C lin ical and N o n -C lin ic a l), and School o r S k ill Levels fo r M aintaining A tte n d in g B ehavior fo r th e Randomly Population (th re e -w a y analysis o f variance) C linical In s tru c to rs School N X E V E R E TT Teacher Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A verage Measure a A FRENCH Teach er Measure O b serve r Measure A verag e Measure 4 GARDNER Teach er Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A ve ra g e Measure 4 T O T A L GROUP Teach er Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A verage Measure 12 1.88 1. 72 1.80 N on -C linical In s tru c to rs SD N X 4 A .19 .36 .1 9 1.63 1.83 1.73 Total G roup SD 1.75 1.52 1.63 .31 .29 .15 1. 55 1. 55 1.55 .30 .06 .18 2.20 1.90 2.0 5 .25 .56 .34 2.22 1.83 2.0 3 .39 .48 .13 146 1.76 1.78 1.77 .26 .26 .17 1.98 1.71 1.84 .3 5 .46 .33 1.88 1.69 1.79 .48 .3 5 .29 1.87 1.73 1.80 .37 .3 5 .26 8 24 12 .28 .26 .19 SD 8 4 1.73 1.59 1.66 X 8 .29 . 12 . 18 4 A N 2.02 1.86 1.94 .40 .39 .26 Table F2. Analysis of Variance Comparing Skills in Maintaining Attending Behavior for Randomly Selected Population--Within Subjects Design1 Source SS Between Subjects Variance Croup (Clinical versus Non-clinical) DF MS .908 1 .908 10.430 .005* . 048 .707 1.566 3.229 2 2 18 23 .024 .354 .087 0.140 .276 4.064 .762 .035* .260 1 .260 2.007 .174 .172 .002 . 284 2 1 2 .086 .002 . t42 .665 .018 1.094 .526 .895 .356 Within Subject E rror 2.333 18 .130 ----- — Total Within Subject Variance 3.051 24 .127 ----- — Total Variance 6.280 47 .134 ----- — School Group x School Between Subject E rror Total Between Subject Variance Observer x School Observer x Croup Observer x Croup x School C alcu lated using the MANOVA subroutine of SPSS. ‘ Significant at .05 level. a ----- — _ — — ----- 147 Within Subject Variance Observer (Teacher versus Outside) F 148 T a b le F3. Communication S kill Levels fo r th e Randomly Selected Population C linical In s tru c to rs School N E V E R E TT Teach er Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A ve ra g e Measure 4 FRENCH Teach er Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A ve ra g e Measure 4 GARDNER Teach er Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A ve ra g e Measure 4 T O T A L GROUP Teach er Measure O b s e rv e r Measure A ve ra g e Measure 12 N o n -C lin ical In s tru c to rs X SD 1.81 1.75 1.78 .26 .34 .23 1.88 1.42 1.65 .39 .30 .2 9 1.67 1.44 1.55 .30 .2 4 .2 5 N Total Group X SD 2.13 1.60 1.86 .63 .28 .32 2.04 1.60 1.82 .28 .36 . 16 2.21 1.58 1.90 .34 .36 .08 2.13 1.60 1.86 .41 .30 . 19 4 SD 1. 97 1.68 1.82 .48 .30 .26 1.96 1.51 1.73 .32 .32 .24 1.94 1.51 1. 72 .41 .2 9 .2 5 1.95 1.57 1.76 .39 .30 .24 8 4 8 12 .30 .31 .25 X 8 4 1.78 1.53 1.66 N 24 Table F4. Analysis o f Variance Comparing Communication Skills for Randomly Selected Population—Within Subject Design1 Source SS DF MS F a .095 2 .047 .428 .658 .487 .140 1 1 .487 .070 4.403 .629 Between Subject E rror 1.990 18 .111 — ------------- Total Between Subject Variance 2.712 23 .118 — — Within Subject Variance O bserver (Teacher versus Outside) O bserver x School Observer x Group Observer x Group x School 1.815 .058 .231 . 136 1 2 1 2 1.815 .030 .231 .068 Within Subject E rro r 2.503 18 .139 — — Total Within Subject Variance 4.743 24 .198 — ------------- Total Variance 7.455 47 .159 ------------- ------------- Between Subject Variance School Group (Clinical versus Non-clinical) Group x School C alcu lated using the MANOVA subroutine of SPSS. ^Significant at the .05 level. 13.049 .207 1.664 .488 .050* . 544 .002* .815 .213 .622 150 T ab le F5. Im portance R atings Given to A tte n d in g B ehavior S kills (E n tire G roup) C lin ical In s tru c to rs School N E v e re tt French G ard n er To tal Group T ab le F6. 23 8 14 45 N o n -C lin ical In s tru c to rs X SD N 1.67 1.53 1.61 1.63 .32 .21 .38 .32 27 33 23 83 T o tal G roup X SD N 1.78 1.61 1.64 1.67 .28 .31 .33 .31 50 41 37 128 X SD 1.73 1.60 1.63 1.66 .30 .29 .34 .31 S k ill R atings Given fo r A tte n d in g B ehavior (E n tire G rou p) C linical In s tru c to rs School E v e re tt French G ard n er To tal G roup N 23 8 14 45 N on -C linical In s tru c to rs X SD N 1.91 1.78 1.77 1.8 5 .23 .29 .32 .28 27 33 23 83 Total G roup 5c SD N 1.87 2.01 2.0 8 1.98 .43 .46 .31 .42 50 41 37 128 X SD 1.89 1.96 1.96 1.94 . 13 .19 .12 .3 8 151 T ab le F7. Im portance R ating Given to Communication S k ills (E n tire G roup) Clinical In s tru c to rs School N E v e re tt French G ard n er Total Group T ab le F8. 23 8 14 45 N on -C linical In s tru c to rs X SD N 1.78 1.60 1.72 1.73 .39 .20 .30 .33 27 33 23 83 E v e re tt French G ard n er To tal G roup )( SD 1.93 1.81 1.75 1.83 . 53 .45 .42 .47 N 50 41 37 128 X SD 1.86 1.77 1.74 1.80 .22 . 17 . 14 .43 S kill R atings G iven to Communication S k ills (E n tire G roup) C linical In s tru c to rs School Total Group N 23 8 14 45 N o n -C lin ical In s tru c to rs 5< SD N 1.80 1.77 1.74 1.78 .32 .39 .32 .32 27 33 23 83 T o tal G roup 5( SD N 1.94 2.06 2 .1 7 2 .0 5 .62 .51 .49 .54 50 41 37 128 X SD 1.88 2.00 2.01 1.96 .2 5 .2 5 .22 . 49 152 T ab le F9. A NO VA T ab le fo r Im portance R atings G iven to A tte n d in g B e h a v io r1 (Whole G rou p) Source School G roup G roup x School E rro r Total SS DF MS F .513 . 145 .033 11.909 12.501 2 1 2 122 127 .256 . 145 .016 .098 .099 2.625 1.488 .168 --------- a .077 . 225 .845 --------- ^Calculated using ANOVA subroutine o f SPSS. T a b le F10. A NO VA T ab le fo r S kill R atings G iven to A tte n d in g B ehavior (Whole G rou p) Source School Group School x G roup E rro r To tal SS .088 .475 .708 16.788 18.137 DF 2 1 2 122 127 MS F a .044 .475 .354 . 138 . 143 .318 3.449 2.572 . 728 .066 .081 --------- --------- 153 Table F11. ANOVA T a b le fo r Im portance R atings G iven to Communication S k ills (E n tire G roup) Source School Group School x Group E rro r Total T ab le F12. SS DF MS F .481 .429 . 121 22. 591 23.495 2 1 2 122 127 .240 .429 .061 . 185 . 185 1.298 2.316 .328 --------- a .277 .131 .721 --------- AN O VA T ab le fo r S kill R atings G iven to Communication S kills (E n tire G rou p) Source School G roup School x G roup E rro r Total SS .254 1.921 .387 28.177 30.985 *S ig n ific a n t at .0 5 level. DF 2 1 2 122 127 MS . 127 1.921 .193 .231 .244 F . 549 8.318 .838 a .579 .0 0 5 * .435 ------------- -------------- ------------- — — 154 T a b le F13. A nalysis of V a ria n c e T a b le fo r O u tsid e O b s e rv e r R atin g s o f A tte n d in g B eh avio r S kills (Random G rou p) SS Source School G roup School x G roup E rro r Total T ab le F14. .031 .409 .073 2 .3 1 7 2 .8 2 9 School G roup School x G roup E rro r To tal SS . 189 .501 .918 1.582 3 .1 9 0 ^ S ig n ifican t a t .0 5 le v e l. = = = = = 2 1 2 18 23 MS .016 .409 .036 .129 .123 F .121 3.178 .282 a .887 .091 .758 --------- --------- F a A nalysis o f V a ria n c e T a b le fo r S elf R atin g s o f A tte n d in g B eh avio r S k ills (Random G rou p) Source SS DF MS F a DF sums o f squares degrees o f freedom mean square F p ro b a b ility level DF 2 1 2 18 23 MS .095 .501 .459 .088 .139 1.077 5.697 5.223 --------- .362 .02 8* .0 1 6 * ----- ----- 155 Table F I 5. A nalysis o f V arian ce Table fo r O utside O b serve r R atings o f Communication S kills (Random G roup) Source SS School Group School x Group E rro r Total Table F I 6. .148 .023 .132 1.793 2.0 97 DF 2 1 2 18 23 MS F a .074 .023 .066 .100 .091 .743 .235 .662 .490 .634 .528 --------- --------- F a A nalysis of V arian ce T ab le fo r Self R atings o f Communication S kills Source School Group School x G roup E rro r Total SS .004 .695 .143 2 .7 3.541 ♦S ig n ific an t at .05 le v e l. DF 2 1 2 18 23 MS .002 .695 .071 .150 .154 .014 4.632 .477 --------- .987 .045* .629 --------- APPENDIX G MEDIAN RATINGS GIVEN TO EACH ITEM IN THE FOUR INSTRUMENTS BY GROUP 156 APPENDIX C H id la n R a tin g * G iven to Each Item In th e F our I n i t r i a w x b y C ro u p E n tire C ro u p (N-126) E n tire C lin ic a l C ro u p (N -05) E n tire NonC lln ic e l C ro up (N -83) 1.309 1.310 1.790 1.7C9 1.789 1. M 2 1.838 1.829 1.892 1.507 1.032 1.721 1.818 1.753 1.280 1.333 1.365 1.788 1 .6 K 1 .6 M 1.600 1.600 1.839 1.935 1.606 1.619 1.520 1.732 1.732 1.182 1,022 1.263 1.813 1.607 1.830 1.537 1.837 1.820 1.860 1.088 1.667 1.795 1.860 1.785 1.307 1.250 1.250 1.833 1.710 1.767 1.500 1.962 1.813 1.857 1.023 1.023 1.500 1.710 1.710 1.250 1.100 1.100 1.500 1.667 1.750 1.357 1.667 1.603 1.875 1.357 1.500 1.357 1,500 1.357 1.100 1.500 1.500 2.056 1.750 1.786 1.603 2.210 1.900 1.633 1.500 1.357 1.667 1.875 1.900 1.500 1.669 1.788 1.902 2.037 1.930 1.878 2.019 2.131 2.082 1.803 2.077 2.051 1.903 2.006 1.070 1.720 1.759 1.958 2.003 1.939 1.883 1.983 2.070 1.9 M 1.760 1.980 1 .K 6 1.817 1.766 1.365 1.631 1.807 1.930 2.030 1.920 1.875 2.003 2.170 2.181 1.893 2.150 2.112 1.957 2.169 1.501 1.733 1.653 1.971 2.038 1.938 1 .M 7 1.800 2 .0 M 1.900 1.857 1.929 1.860 1.900 1.722 1.357 1.500 1.875 1.900 2.071 1.875 1.633 1.667 2.000 1.786 1.357 1.833 1.929 1.750 1.357 1.167 1.889 1.033 2.071 2.000 2.000 2 .0 M 1.929 2.125 2.167 2.100 2.100 1.750 2.071 2.250 1.700 1.821 1.692 1.768 1.926 1.918 1.838 1.802 1.895 1.876 1.713 1.900 1.070 1.768 1.673 1.760 1.886 1.600 1 .6 M 1.701 1.911 1.788 1.688 1.891 1.000 1.609 1.702 1.772 1.906 1 .9 M 1.911 1.902 1.865 1.780 1.732 1.987 1.513 1.767 1.603 1.731 1.929 1.900 1.767 1.767 1.912 1.833 1.650 1.833 1.357 1.603 1.603 1.667 2.000 1.875 1.603 1.603 1.929 1.603 1.357 1.833 1.357 1.875 1.603 1.786 1.875 1.929 1.875 1.675 1.900 1.955 1.675 1.833 1.357 1.780 1.908 1.886 2.123 2.117 2.022 1.993 2.050 1.903 1.808 1.993 1.605 1.600 1.778 1.701 2.000 1.966 1.839 1.865 1.931 1.815 1.720 1.871 1.038 1.870 1.980 1.977 2.212 2.258 2.161 2.067 2.153 1.962 1.062 2.097 1.750 1.813 1.938 1.057 2.079 2.200 2.071 2.250 1.800 1.912 1.700 2.029 1.650 1.603 1.667 1.500 2.100 2.167 1 .7 M 2.100 1.500 1.750 1.500 1.000 1.500 1.900 2.100 2.056 2.066 2.250 2.357 2.357 2.167 2 .0 M 1.633 2.210 1.786 Item A tte n d in g Im portance 1 2 3 • S c 7 1 9 10 11 12 13 1« 15 Random C ro u p S elf O b * (N -2 0) Random Random C lin ic a l N o n -c iin leal C ro u p C ro u p S elf O b* S elf O b* (N -12) (N -12) Random C ro u p O utside O b* ( N-20) h*ndom Random C lin ic a l N o n-cltn lcal C ro u p C ro up O utside O utsid e O b* O b* (N -12) (N -12) A tte n d in g S k ill 1 2 3 0 5 0 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 10 15 1.632 1.767 1.750 1.833 1.750 1.667 1.500 1.767 1.809 1.023 1.938 1.900 1.786 1.500 1.875 1.750 1.500 1.500 1.750 1.750 1.603 1.250 1.603 1.900 1.100 1.667 1.833 1.667 1.250 1.900 1.929 1.900 1.929 1.900 1.750 1.700 1.833 1.875 1.833 1.833 2.100 2.056 1.875 1.786 1.833 1.300 1.250 1.563 1.500 1.603 1.853 1.500 1.583 1.833 1.710 1.357 1.591 1.357 1.357 1.667 1.500 1.500 1.750 1.603 1.500 1.833 1.357 1.357 1.357 1.250 1.167 1.500 1.500 1.750 1.900 1.357 1.667 1.833 1.900 1.357 1.786 Item Communication im p ortan ce 1 2 3 a 5 C 7 B 9 to 11 12 Communication S k ill 1 2 3 « 9 C 7 B 9 10 11 12 157