DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 036 460 SP 003 457

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSPGNS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

CLAYTON, THCMAS E.; AND CTHERSPREPARING BEGINNING TEACHERS FOR WORKING WITH THEEDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED: A CONTINUING STUDY OFTHE INFLUENCE ON STULENT TEACHERS OF A TRAININGPROGRAM fCE COOPERATING TEACHERS.. FINAL REPORT.SYRACUSE UNIV, NY. SCHOCL OF EDUCATION.NEW YORK STATE EDUCATICN DEPT., ALBANY. DIV. OFRESEARCH.JUL 6S212P..

ELES PRICE EDRS PRICE MF-4)10 00 HC-$10.70DESCRIPTORS *COOPERATING TEACHERS, FEEDBACK, INTERACTION PROCESS

ANALYSIS, *PRACTICUM SUPERVISION, *STUDENT TEACHERS,*TEACHER BEHAVIOR, TEACHER EDUCATOR EDUCATION,*TEACHER WOEKSHCES

IDENTIFIERS MINNESOTA STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTORY, MSAI,OBSEBVATICN SYSTEM FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS, OSIA,TEACHING SITUATION REACTION TEST, TSRT

ABSTRACTA 2-YEAR INVESTIGATION ATTEMPTED TO ASCERTAIN

WHETHER SUMMER WORKSHOP TRAINING OF EIEMENTARY TEACHERS IN THE USE OFSUCH FEEDBACK PRACTICES AS FLANDERS' INTERACTION ANALYSIS, VIDEO TAPETECHNIQUES, AND OTHER CONCEPTUAL SUPERVISORY TOOLS WOULD PRODUCEMEASURABLE CHANGE IN THE INSIRUCTICNAI BEHAVIOR OF THEIR STUDENTTEACHERS AS CCMPAREL TO STUDENT TEACHERS WORKING WITH NONWORKSHOPTRAINED TEACHERS., ERE- AND POSTTESTS INCLUDED THE TEACHING SITUATIONREACTION TEST (TSRT); A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL ON CONCEPTS OF ASPECTSOF TEACHING; AND TWC ADMINISTRATIONS (REAL AND IDEAL) OF THEMINNESOTA STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTORY (MSAI).. A TEAM OF TRAINEDOBSERVERS OBSERVED EACH STUDENT TEACHER SIX TIMES DURING THE SEMESTERUSING HOUGH'S 23- OF 32-CATEGCRY CESERVATION SYSTEM FOE INSTRUCTIONALANALYSIS (OSIA). RESULTS SHCWED AN INCREASE OF CONGRUENCE BETWEENSTATED INTENT AND INSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE OVER THE PERIOD OFSTUDENT TEACHING.. ALTHOUGH THE DATA WERE MORE SUGGESTIVE THANCCNCLUSIVE, THERE WAS SLIGHT EVIDENCE THAT FOR DEFINABLE SUBGROUPS OFSTUDENT TEACHERS, PARTICULAR SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES WERE RELATED TOTHE PCSITIVE CHANGES.. (IMPLICATIONS ARE DISCUSSED, PARTICULARLY WITHREGARD TO THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENTS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ABCUTTRAINING DESIGNS ANL FURTHER RESEARCH IN THE AREA. (ALSO INCLUDED AREBEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITY DESCRIPTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOPS,COPIES OF THE INSTRUMENTS USED, AND A 28-ITEM BIBLICGRAPHY.) (JS)

"PREPARING BEGINNING TEACHERS FOR WORKING WITHTHE EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED: A CONTINUINGSTUDY OF THE INFLUENCE ON STUDENT TEACHERS OFA TRAINING PROGRAM FOR COOPERATING TEACHERS. "

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

THOMAS E. CLAYTON

(Report by:THOMAS E. CLAYTON

JOHN C. BELLANDSTEPHEN FORTGANG

Assisted by:PATRICIA KRANZ)

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

5/9

.ge0.SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY i=6

July 1969

FINAL REPORT

NEW YORK STATE EXPERIMENTAL AND INNOVATIVE PROGRAMSARTICLE 73, SECTION 3602a, SUBDIVISION 14 OF

THE STATE EDUCATION LAW

The Research Reported Herein was Supported by The New York StateEducation Department, partly by the Division of Research, partly bythe Bureau of Inservice Education

O.acOsOCI.

"PREPARING BEGINNING TEACHERS FOR WORKINGWITH THE EDUCATIONALLY DISADVANTAGED: ACONTINUING STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE ON STUDENTTEACHERS OF A TRAINING PROGRAM FOR COOPERAT-ING TEACHERS."

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

THOMAS E. CLAYTON

(Report by:THOMAS E. CLAYTONJOHN C. BELLANDSTEPHEN FORTGANG

Assisted by:PATRICIA KRANZ)

July 1969

The work upon which this report is based was supported jointlyby Syracuse University, the Syracuse School District and theNew York State Education Department under article 73, section3602a, subdivision 14 of the State Education Law. Agenciesundertaking such projects are encouraged to express freely theirprofessional judgement in the conduct of the project. Points

of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarilyrepresent official policy of the New York State Education De-

partment.

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

Syracuse University.

Syracuse University Research Institute

Attention William Hough201 Marshall StreetSyracuse, N.Y., 13210

CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES 10040.1 vi

Sections

1

1

3i, 5

7

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem t

Review of Related LiteratureObjectives and Hypotheses

PROCEDURES .

Subjects Involved in the Investigation 7Educational, and Research Treatment and

889

1217

38

ActivitibsThe Training Phase 0 0

Workshop ActivitiesThe Research Phase

Instruments of the StudyTechnical Description of Procedures used

for Data Analyses

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OF THE STUDY AND RESULTSOF THE ANALYSES 41

Pilot Study . V

Teaching Situation Reaction Test (TSRT) .

4Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory (MSAI) 49The Semantic Differential . . 56Workshop Assessment Index 58Summary 58

Findings from the Continuing Study 60Teaching Situation Reaction Test (TSRT) 60Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory (NSAI) 80

92

. . :99S

100105

1064,

Student MSAI ScoresWorkshop Assessment Index ScoresSupervisory Activities ChecklistThe Semantic DifferentialSummary

DISCUSSION

Interpretation of findingsPilot StudyContinuing Study

.

.

II

a

0

.

.

0

et) 106106109

Sections Page

Implications and recommendations 110Implications 9 110R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

SUMMARY fie, 0410$9 116

119REFERENCES

APPENDICESAppendix A - Objectives of the Workshops . .t....1AppendixB - Instruments of the Study

ACKNOWIEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements and thanks are due to many people andorganizations that have been instrumental, helpful and/or en-couraging in this training-research effort.

The New York State Education Departments

The Bureau of Inservice Education in the Division of Teach-er Education and Certification, especially Dr. Vincent Gazzettaand numerous members of his staff who supported both the PilotStudy and the Continuing Study.

The Division of Research which provided the necessary re-maining support for the Continuing Study.

The Syracuse School Districts

Especially Dr. Franklyn Barry, Superintendent, whose con-tinued interest in a truly protocooperative relationship withthe University has been evident, and Mr. Hanford Salmon, Assist-ant Superintendent, who has consistently provided both supportand constructive criticism.

The elementary supervisors, Dr. Mary Durkee and Mrs. Marga-ret Perry for their insight and specific help.

The elementary school personnel, principals, students andteachers (both workshop participants and not), especially thosewho participated in the workshops and continued to participatein the research design (in spite of the fact that many thingsoccurred which tried their patience).

Contiguous School Districts that participated in the Con-tinuing Study (Solvay, Onondaga Hill, Baldwinsville)s

Especially the Workshop participants and other teachers whohave cooperated so splendidly.

Syracuse Uhiversitys

First; Dr. Jack Hough, who was largely responsible for thedesign of the study, the training design of the first Workshop,and many other aspects of the study.

Second, Dr. Wil Weber, who was co-director of the secondWorkshop and provided many continuing insights as the studyprogressed.

Third and fourth, Dr. Ernest Lohman and Mr. Joseph Rousseauwho have been more than helpful in conceptualizing, organizing,

and administering the placement and supervision of the studentteaching portion of the program.

Somewhere, before or after this, the sequence of acknowl-edgements breaks down.,

I am most grateful to Dr. John Belland for the magnificentjob he has done in conceptualizing, administering and operatingthe research effort. I am equally gratful to Steve Fortgangfor his work in both the Pilot Study and the Continuing Study.

John, Steve and I are most appreciative of the work ofDr. Tom Samph and Mr. Ben Purvis (hopefully, by the time thisreport appears, Dr. Ben Purvis) for their help in computer analysis.

We are equally appreciative of the research observers; inthe Pilot Study, Jeffrey Smith, Marilyn Mengarelli, Mrs. BridgetMartin, and Carolyn Krause, and in the Continuing Study; Mrs.Patricia Kranz, Mrs. Margaret Fleck, and Lynn Schran. Help hasbeen given by persons too numerous to recall. Names that immedi-ately come to mind are Carl Backman, Charles Bathbone and SisterLinda Kulzer.

Much of the work that has been turned out has been the di-rect result of the dedication and skill of my secretary, Mrs.Elsie Stewart.

The college supervisors of student teachers who participatedin the study, will not be named here, but will be designated inthe body of the report. They have been an important part of theeffort.

Finally, the'Elementary Education Student Teachers in 1967-68 and 1968-69 who are included in the study have been a mostimportant part of the research effort, and their help is grate-fully acknowledged.

THOMAS E. CLAYTONSyracuse UniversityJuly 1969

LIST OF TABLES

PROCEDURESPage

Table 1 Number of Subjects in each cell . 7

Table 2 Final Distribution of Subjects for

the Continuing Study 8

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Table1 An Analysis of Variance Pilot TSRT 42

2 Descriptive Statistics of Convergence onStudent Teachers who gained in TSRT Score

in the Post-test compared with the Pre-test 44

3 An Analysis of Variance Pilot Study Treat-

ment Groups scoring higher on the TSRT in

the Post-test as compared to the Pre-test 45

4 Pilot Study Treatment Groups who scored

lower on- the Post-TSRT compared with Pre -

TSRT Descriptive Statistics 46

5 Analysis of Variance Pilot Study Treatment

Groups scoring lower on Post-TSRT than

on Pre-TSRT47

6 Means and Standard Deviations on the

Teaching Situation Reaction Test Pilot Study. 48

7 Analysis of Variance comparing levelsof the MSAI (Real)

50

8 Descriptive Statistics on those Subjects

who scored above the Mean in the MSAI on

Convergence Data51

9 Analysis of Variance Pilot Study Treatment

Groups in which Subjects scored above the

Median on the MSAI52

10 Descriptive Statistics on thaw, Pilot Study

Treatment Groups who scored below the Median

on the MSAI regarding Convergence Data 53

11 Analysis of Variance Pilot Study Treatment

Groups scoring below the Median on the MSAI 54

12 Means and Standard Deviations on the MSAI

scores Pilot Study Treatment Groups 55

13 Means and Standard Deviations on MSAI scoresproduced by Students in the classes of

Cooperating Teachers Pilot Study 55

14 Total Shift and Mean Shift on SemanticDifferential Pilot Study 57

15 Mean Utility and Mean Frequency of Use of

Supervisory Techniques Workshop Assessment

Index 1967 Workshop 'Participants and Student

Teachers assigned to those Participants 59

fT

Table

i6

17

Analysis of Variance, Treatment byCongruence, All Student TeachersAnalysis of Variance, Student Tewho gained in TSRT scores whenPosttests were compared

18 Congruence of Student Teachergained in TSRT scores when PrPosttests were compared

19 Analysis of Variance, Studrwith Posttest TSRT lower t

TSRT20 Congruence of Student Te

decreased in TSRT scoretests were compared

21 Analysis of Variance,by congruence, Fall

22 Analysis of VarianceTeachers who gainedand Posttest were

23 Congruence of Palwho gained in TSPosttests were

24 Analysis of VaTeachers withlower than P

25 Congruencewho decreasPosttests

26 Analysisby congr

27 Analystwho gaPostt

28 CongrwhoPos

29

30

31

2

33

Page

TSRT byin Study 61achersPre- and

63s whoe- and

6441t Teachershan Pretest

Iachers whos when Pre- and Post-

. I 66Treatment by TSRT

65

emester Student Teachers. 68f Fall Studentin TSRT score when Pre-

compared 69

1 Student TeachersRT scores when Pre- and

compared 70riance, Fall StudentPosttest TSRT scores

retest TSRT 71

f Fall Student Teachersed in TSRT scores when Pre- andwere compared 72

of Variance, Treatment by TSRTuence Spring Student Teachers 73s of Variance, Spring Student

ined in TSRT score when Pre- andest scores were compared 74

uence of Spring Student Teachersgained in TSRT scores when Pre- andttests were compared 76

.Analysis of Variance, Spring Studenteacherb who scored lower on Post-TSRTthan on Pre-TSRTCongruence of Spring Student leacherswho decreased on TSRT scores when Pre-and Posttests were comparedTSRT Descriptive DataAnalysis of Variance, Treatment by MSAI(Real) by congruence All StudentTeachers StudiedAnalysis of Variance, All Student TeachersStudied who scored above the Median onMSAI (Real)

77

7879

81

(32

Table

34

35

Page

Congruence of Student Teachers ?lhoscored above the Median on MSAI (Real) 83Analysis of Variance, All StudentTeachers Studied who scored belowthe Median on MSAI (Real) 84

36 Congruence of Student Teachers whoscored below the Median on theMSAI (Real)

37 Analysis of Variance, Treatment byMSAI (Real) by congruence, Fall

8638 Analysis of Variance, Fall Student

Student Teacher 0

Teachers scoring above the Medianon MSAI (Real) 87

39 Congruence of Fall Student Teacherswho scored above the Median onMSAI (Real) 89

40 Analysis of Variance, Fall StudentTeachers scoring below the Medianon MSAI (Real) . 90

41 Congruence of Fall Student Teacherswho scored below the Median onMSAI (Real) 91

42 Analysis of Variance, Treatment byMSAI (Real) by congruence, SpringStudent Teachers

43 Congruence of Spring Student Teacherswho scored above the Median on MSAI (Real) 94

44 Congruence of Spring Student Teacherswho scored below the Median on MSAI (Real) 95

45 MSAI Real-and Ideal, Descriptive Data 9646 Student MSAI of Fall and Spring Student

Teachers, Means and Standard Deviations 97Workshop Assessment Index,Master Teachers' Mean Scores 0 97Frequency of Use of Supervisory Techniques 99Total Shift in Effectivity on Conceptsin Semantic Differential Instrument 101Total Shift in Potency on Concepts inSemantic Differential Instrument 102Total Shift in Receptivity on Concepts inSemantic Differential Instrument . 103

85

93

47

4849

50

51

52

53

Frequency ofDifferentialFrequency ofDifferential

PositiveConceptsPositiveConcepts

Shifts Semanticby Cooperating Teachers. 104Shifts Semanticby Student Teachers 104

INTRODUCTION

Preface

This report describes a two-year investigation of the in-

fluence on student teachers of a training program for coopera-

ting teachers. Certain characteristics of both student teachers

and cooperating teachers were studied 1,o assess relationships

between and among such characteristics and the major variables&

training, and the classroom instructional behaviors of student

teachers.

Two discrete but related projects provide the data for

this report. The first, A Pilot Study (Preparing beginning teach-

ers for working with the educationally disadvantaged s A pilot

study of the influence on student teachers of a training progral,

for cooperating teachers in inner-city schools) covered a contract

period of July 1, 1967 through June 30, 1968.

The second project, A Continuing Study (see full title on

Title Page of report) covers a contract period from July 1, 1968

through July 31, 1969.

The description and findings of both studies are presented

here as an integrated report. It follows the format suggested

by the Division of Research, but is intended as a final report

to the Bureau of Inservice Education, the Syracuse City School

District and the Division of Research.

Since thesearch design,will be on the

projects involve both a training design and a re-

both will be detailed, but the greater emphasisresearch phase and its findings.

Statement of the problem

The problem was initially stated in the proposal for sup-

port of the pilot studys

Student teaching has long been recognized asbeing one of the most critical components in progra"'s

for the preparation of teachers. Typically, the stu-

dent teaching experience is the ter"inal experience

in teacher training progralis. In the five year urban

teacher preparation progra t Syracuse Universitythis will not be the case.1)

TAIn this program, stu-

dent teaching is seen as one of several experienceswhich are designed to prepare the beginning urbanteachers for an intensive internship during their fifth

TITSee "Urban Teacher Preparation Programs Proposal

for a New Five Year Program in Urban Teaching,"Syracuse University, 1967 (mimeographed).

=11M

year in inner-city schools, In theteacher training program at Syracustudent teaching experience will bwhere these beginning teachers fithe basic skills of teaching ina substantial number of educatistudents. It is here where thtrol and apply teaching behaveffective and congruent withas beginning teachers, andstudents they are teachingerating teacher has beenteaching experience. Thiin the student teachingurban teacher preparatithe supervisory relatiers will play a critiunder which these stdevelop an effectivethat will be refineIt would seem, theof effective coopsary for the sucteaching expertprogram.

five year urbanse University theecome the placerst learn to applyclassrooms that containonally disadvantagedey will learn to con-iors which are bothth(. it unique potentials

are appropriate for the. TrAditionally, the coop-key figure in the student

s will be particularly trueexperience of the five yearon program. The quality of

oar ship with these student teach-cal role in creating the conditions

udent teachers will begin toand natural teaching style

d later in their internship.refore, that a well trained corpserating teachers would be neces-cess of this initial clinical

ence in the urban teacher preparation

Effective teaching and effective supervisionrequire different skills. Our experience suggeststhat supervising teachers, though successful andperhaps outstanding in the classroom, typically (a)lack skill in giving useful feedback to student teachersconcerning their instructional behavior, (b) lackthe kind of'conceptual understanding of the teaching-learning process necessary to help student teachersdevelop generalizations from exemplars of concepts,(c) tend to shape the student teachers' instructionalbehavior in their (the cooperating teachers') ownmold.

What is needed is a corps of cooperating teach-rs who can help student teachers develop effectiveteaching patterns that are congruent with their ownunique potentials as beginning teachers and theirperceptions of the role of the teacher that are con-sistent with the situation in which they teach.The feedback skills and conceptual models of theteaching-learning process necessary for effectivesupervision have not been readily available tocooperating teachers in the past. Recent innova-tions in training designs, instructional materialsand supervisory procedures have, along with recent

-2-

research findings, now uade it possible to imple-

ment a training prograu to develop an effective corpsof cooperating teachers. The project described inthis proposal will involve a workshop in which coop-erating teachers will be trained to use these newsupervisory tools. In addition, this project will

test the effectiveness of this workshop by measur-ing the extent to which student teachers workingwith the trained cooperating teachers are able to con-ceptualize and produce effective teaching behaviorsthat are consistent with their .unique potentialsand come to use these behaviors in their own teach-ing.

The research question of the Pilot Study wass Is there

any measurable difference in the behavior of student teachers(in classroom perfor"ance and in response to various instruments)

working with cooperating teachers having certain kinds of train-

ing, as compared to student teachers working with those who have

not had such training?

The same research question was asked in the ContinuingStudy, but the additbnal question wass Does the prescription

of specific differentiated supervisory activities demonstrate

further measurable distinctions among these variables?

Review of related literature

This section could become quite extended. The literature

concerning student teaching and its supervision is voluminous.

The past decade has produced research and opinion-type

literatures concerning student teaching and teacher education

which are related to, but beyond the scope of, this report. Other

sections cf the report "ake reference to this literature.

11111

It was decided to restrict this review to a very brief sum-

ary of the literature concerning student teaching, rather than

to attempt a comprehensive survey.

Literature related to the instruments of this study are

summarized below in the section on instruHentation.

The dynamic changes taking place in American society have

been causing change and expansion in the field of education. A

significant portion of the task of coping with the educational

changes has fallen upon teacher educators. The most crucial com-

ponent of teacher-education programs is widely agreed to be that

of student teaching. During the years 1965 and 1966 alone, over

fifty articles and other publications exclusively devoted to as-

pects of student teaching were reported (Association for Student

Teaching, pp. 129-156s bibliography).

While most, if not all, teacher training programs containstudent-teaching as a component of their total programs, thereare wide differences as to the procedures they follow in adminis-tering their student-teaching experiences (Brinegar and Laymon).

It is no accident that student-teching should play so cen-tral a role in American teacher educdtion programs. For onepart of this question see Iannaccone and Button's fascinatingstudy of its relationship to attitude formation and initiation(1960. Corrigan and Garland (1966)" point to two basic reasonsfor the popularity of student-teaching as a training device.These sources are our democratic value system and instructionaltheory. In the first place, they claim (following Sharpe, 1956)that "odern democratic values prescribe that life preparationinvolve learning to deal with a changing world. "Education con-sists not so much in the mastery of specific techniques andskills as in an ever-increasing ability to solve probleus."(Corrigan and Garland, p. 11). Secondly, modern learning theory,oriented in large part to direct experience, dovetails nicelywith this prescrAption, and student teaching suits them boths

The science of learning provides the knowledgethat an individual learns best when actually involvedin achieving his purposes and solving his problems.Thus the modern concept of direct experience is thatit shall provide the learner with an opportunity to

solve his own problems. In student teaching experi-ences, positions are created in order to provide theguidance and opportunities for learning necessary toeet the objective of helping the student prepare,through the integration of theory and practice, toassume responsibility as a beginning teacher(Corrigan and Garland, pp 11f).

With the increasing importance of student teaching has comean expansion in the role of the public school in the preparationof teachers (Brinegar, p 1). Brinegar refers to Andrews' (1965,

p 35) suggestion that over 90% of student teaching is now prac-ticed in off-campus non-laboratory schools, primarily publicschools,and without college control.

The present study took place in an environuent and periodin which student-teaching was increasing in popularity andundergoing critical scrutiny allied at increasing its effective-ness. The cooperative relatiOnship between public schools andcolleges and universities was at a high point. This study isan attempt to isolate and describe some of the variables associ-ated with the supervision of student teachers.

Objectives and Hypotheses

In the following discussion, the term "Objectives" will re-fer to the expected outcomes of the training phase, the Work-shops. The term "Hypotheses" will refer to the research phaseof both projects.

In the words of the original proposal for a Pilot Study'

The primary objective of this workshop may bestated as follows* As a result, of this workshop,cooperating teachers should be able to help stu-dent teachers develop effective teaching behaviorsthat are congruent with their (the student teach-ers') unique potentials and teacher role perceptions,and are effective in guiding the learning of pupilsin inner-city elementary schools.

This primary objective remained essentially unchanged forboth Workshops.

Eight major\second level objectives were created to con-tribute to this primary one. These served as a framework forthe instructional process of the Workshops and in turn were the

basis for third level evidential performance objectives whichstructured the specific learning activities.

These second and third level objectives are included inAppendix A in the form in which they were used in the 1968 Work-shop. Also included in that Appendix are copies of instructionsand worksheets that further document the relationship of activi-ties to objectives.

No formal hypotheses were generated in the initial re-search designs.

Informally it was hypothesized that those student teachersworking with Workshop trained teachers would, on the average,produce better performance in the measures of the study than wouldthe comparison group. Specifically, it was predicted that theywould show greater congruence between their instructional inten-tions and observed classroom performande, more positive attitudestoward teaching, greater evidence of ability to conceptualizethe teaching function.

In the Pilot Study, minor hypotheses developed around thedimension of the assignment of student teachers to one situationfor the entire semester as compared to two different situationsduring the semester. It was generally hypothesized that thevarious measures might show a positive relationship with the fullsemester assignment.

-5-

In the Continuing Study, the same major inobtained. Secondary hypotheses posited thatdifferential performances of student teaprescribed supervisory treatments: n

teachers provided the opportunitytape recording and interactionthe various measures; thatnot interaction analysisbeen trained in both)that those using 1ing (though thewould perfodent teawould

ormal hypothesisthere would be

hers according to theamely, that those student

for feedback frou both video-analysis would perform best on

hose using videotape recording, but(though thete cooperating teacher had

, would perform at the next lower level;nternction analysis, but not videotape record -

ir cooperating teachers had been trained in both),m slightly less well; and finally, that those stu-

chers provided with unspecified supervisory techniquesbe at the lowest level in their performances.

The rationale for these hypotheses is clear, given the ra-tionale and objectives of the Workshops. Optimum feedback tech-

niques are considered the most useful form of supervision which

should result in improved performance. Those trained cooperat-ing teachers who are free to use all techniques at their dis-posal should help to produce the greatest improveuent. Next in

efficacy should\be those who have videotape recording available,

and who also have the conceptual framework of interaction analy-

sis but do not have access to the videotape tool which is per-ceived as having direct impact value. Finally, it is recognized

that many cooperating teachers have developed excellent tech-

niques of their own but that the cumulative effect of those tech-

niques will probably be less than the effect of such techniquescoupled with defined specific skills.

These objectives and hypotheses led to the specific educa-

tional and research treatments and activities detailed in the

next section.

-6-

PROCEDURES

Subjects involved in the investigation

There were two classes of subjects involved in the investi-gations Elementary Student teachers at Syracuse University andthe public school teachers in Syracuse Public Schools and threecontiguous districts who were their cooperating teachers.

In both studies there was some attrition from initial assign-ments as a student withdrew or became ill at a critical datagathering time. The following figures represent those studentsand teachers who comprised the final subjects of the studies,and who provided the data on which the 'findings were based.

In the Pilot Study, thirty-one teachers who had been parti-cipants in the 1967 Summer Workshop and twenty-four teacherswho had not been participants, all in the City School District,served as the cooperating teacher group in the Fall semester,1967.

Thirty -four, student teachers, senior undergraduates inElementary Education, were assigned to these cooperating teachersand became the student teacher group of the investigation.

These teachers and student teachers were identified asthirty-one teachers and eighteen student teachers in the "Work-shop group," and twenty-four teachers and sixteen student teach-ers in the "Comparison group."

The apparent disparity in the number of subjects is oc-casioned by the design to test the influence of full semesterplacement in one'situation as compared to changing situationseach quarter. The following table indicates the number of sub-jects in each cell.

W refers to Workshop trained teachers and theirstudent teachers.

C refers to the Comparison group of Non-Workshoptrained teachers and their student teachers .

fs refers to full semester placement of studentteachers

ss refers to split-semester (change at quarter)placement of student teachers.

fs

SS

TS

TS

W C

10 810 8

21 168 8

T T 31 24S 18 , 16

TABLE 1.7.

T

1818

3716

The Continuing Study involved subjects in both semestersof the school year 1968-69. The cooperating teacher group wascomprised of thirty-five 1967 Workshop teachers, fourteen 1968Workshop teachers, and eighteen Non-Workshop trained teachers.since some teachers served both semesters, the totals here dif-fer from the table below. Five individuals in the Workshopwere fro', districts contiguous to the City, so that the totalW group includes six non-city placements and the total C groupincludes six non-city placements.

Since all placement of student teachers for the continuingstudy was initially for the full semester, it was intended thatthe number of student teachers and cooperating teachers wouldbe equal. However, it was agreed that circumstances would arisewhich would necessitate switching, and that that would be doneas long as the switch was within the same treatment sub-group.The following table indicates the final distribution of subjectsfor the continuing study.

Fall SemesterT

S

TSpring Semester

S

T

C'67 '68

2 21 6.

27 6

12 14 12

26 12

14 354953

TABLE 2

TTs

29

33

38

38

18 6718 71

Participants are listed in Appendix C.

Educational and research treatments and activities

This section will be divided into the treatments andactivities of the training phase and the research phase.

The Training Phase

ThepreviousMaterialsection.

training phase has been described in some detail inproject reports (Clayton, 1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1969).from these reports will be used extensively in this

-8-

The 1967 summer Workshop in the supervision of elementarystudent teachers was planned and conducted by Dr. John Hough andDr. Thomas Clayton, Associate Professors, School of Education,Syracuse University. It was an intensive four-week program withsufficient instructional time to grant six semester hour credits.Tuition and travel allowance to the thirty-three participantswere paid by the New York State Education Department. An addition-al stipend to participants was paid fron the funds of the UrbanTeacher Preparation Program at Syracuse University. The instruc-tional program was generated "by instructional objectivesdescribed above and displayed in Appendix'A.

Since the instructional activities of the 1967 Workshophave been described in some detail in previous reports (Clayton1967, 1968a), it is appropriate in this report to concentrateon the activities of the 1968 Workshop for the Continuing Study,indicating major changes that were made based on the experienceof the Pilot Study.

The 1968 Summer Workshop for the Continuing Study was con-ducted by Dr. Clayton and Dr. Wilford Weber, Assistant Professor,School of Education, Syracuse University. The program was ex-tended to five weeks on a schedule that permitted six-semesterhours of credit. Tuition, travel allowance and stipends werepaid to the thirty-five participants by the State Education De-partment.

Where the 1967 program was restricted to Syracuse Cityteachers, the 1968 program enrolled five teachers fro ,' con-tiguous districts and included two kindergarten teachers.

. The format and instructional program for 1968 followed thepattern established in the Pilot Study. Changes included:

--Increased time and attention devoted to the viewing andanalysis of the videotapes of participants teaching intheir regular classrooms.--A slight reduction in the emphasis on theoretical models,especially those having to do with learning theory.--Modification of the micro-teaching activities to elimi-nate the immediate re-teach cycle, viewing the second micro-teaching session as the re-teach episode, and emphasizingmore strongly the supervisory engagement in the micro-teaching.--Generally greater attention to skill development insupervisory behavior.

The Workshop Activities were summarized in a Progress Re-port (Clayton, 1968b):

Workshop Activities

To provide technological support for the Work.;shop, two graduate assistants from Instructional

-9-

Technology were employed. One was currently a gradu-ate assistant in the Division of Teacher Preparation,and the other volunteered to start his summer assign-ment early. During the nonth of May, they videotapedeach of the thirty-five prospective workshop partici-pants in their own classrooms to provide data for theinitial phases of the workshop.' Approximately twentyminutes of teaching activity was recorded for eachparticipant.

A sampling ofat the University afurther use.

Two experienassistants to suin the Workshopand auxiliary spate in the re

Becausefull five 4week, and foweeks. The

As aassignedbution t

standnioaOriualgi

t

F1

those recordings has been retaineds a record of activities and for

ced teachers, employed as graduateervise student teaching, were included

roster. They became both participantstaff, and have continued to partici-search phase of the study.

of the July 4 calendar, the group met ays the first week, three days the secondur, days in each of the following threeWorkshop was scheduled from 8:30 to 3:00.

matter of convenience, daily secretaries wereto keep minutes of the meetings for distri-

o the group.

rat week activities:

The first week was devoted to developing under-ing and skill in the basic intellectual and tech-1 skills to be used in the Workshop and supervision.

entation, operation of videotape equipment, concept-izations of "teaching" and "supervislon", the be-

nnings of analysis of supervisory skills, trainingn Flanders interaction analysis, and the administra-ion of the initial instruments of the research study

were all packed into the first week.

Second week activities:

In the second week, heavy emphasis was placedon viewing the tapes which had been made in eachparticipant's classroom, using a triadic pattern ofteacher role, supervisor role and observer role.Thus the tapes were used as a basis for initialexperience in supervising, usinginteractionanalysis --

and other teOniques developed in the first week.

-10-

Because of space and equipment, while one halfof the group engaged in the behavior described above,the other half considered ways to conceptualizeteaching, using such various models as Flanders'social-emotional climate, Gallagher and Asehner'sCognitive levels, Hughes' public and private cri-teria, Bellack's analysis of verbal behavior, Clay-ton's notions of teacher influenef, and the instruc-tional process. This was applied to the basic'assumptions of the objective 'eedback, approach tosupervision.

The behavioral objectives dealing with video-taping and interaction analysis were completed formost of the participants during the second week.

Third week activities:

The major activity of the third week was theplanning for and carrying out of the first micro-teaching session.

Instead of bringing children in for micro-teaching as in the previous year, the Workshopparticipants arranged to visit a summer schoolprogram in North Syracuse where groups ofchildren were made available for the micro-teaching expetience.

One half of the group engaged in micro-teach-ing on Tuesday, the other half on Wednesday. Mon-day was largely spent on planning for the micro-teaching since the plan called for a "supervisor"and "teacher" to work together in planning the ten-minute lesson. Included in the planning was a pre"sentation on the Bloom and Krathwohl Taxononies ofEducational Objectives in the Cognitive and Affeel.tive Domains.

The group on campus discussed theories oflearning and motivation. The group in the fieldcarried out the 111cm-teaching task, videotaping theepisode and carrying out a follow-up supervisoryconference using interaction analysis and videotape.

On Thursday, the micro-teaching was critiquedand the group attended a summer session CurriculumConference on campus.

Fourth week activities:

The fourth week included presentation and die-

cussionlby two guest speakers: 'Hough dealing withinstructional strategies and Dr. Lohman dealing withareas of concern in student teaching.

Learning theory and perception were the main sub-stantive areas, and considerable time was spent analyz-ing the micro - teaching videotapes, role-playing a varietyof supervisory conferences, and planning for the secondmicro-teaching episodes.

Fifth week activities:

The fifth week was devoted to planning for, carry-ing out and analyzing the second micro-teaching sessionsand their supervisory follow-ups. When not engaged inthese activities, participants worked individually onoompleting objectives,work sheets and satisfying anyobjectives not yet met.

Various instruments required for the researchactivities were filled out.

Subjective Assessment

Participants' response to the Workshop appeared tobe very positive, and the instructors felt that theprogram had worked very well. There was considerableevidence that most participants had changed their per-ception of appropriate supervisory behavior and thatmany had developed considerable skill in applying newtechniques.

The Research phase

The research phase of the two studies has been complex andevolutionary. The original conception was a relatively simpleattempt to assess the probable influence of the Workshop train-ing on the performance of student teachers. As the Pilot studyprogressed, our perception of the variables multiplied. Datahave been gathered that will be reported in this study andstored at the University, but that cannot be analyzed within thescope of this report. There appear to be many interrelation-ships that could be fruitfully examined.

For both the Pilot Study and the Continuing Study, researchwas designed to assess the impact, if any, of Workshop trainingupon the classroom instructional behavior of student teachersand other variables related to teaching.

In the Workshops, selected paper and pencil instrumentswere administered to participants in the first days and last

-12-

day of each Workshop. The pre and post administrations includedthe Teaching Situation Reaction Test and a form of Semantic Dif-ferential. The Workshop Activities Assessment Index was completedat the end of each Workshop.

These instruments are described in the next section, andcopies are included in Appendix B.

For the school year following eaeh Workshop, student teach-ers were assigned to cooperating teachers who had been Workshopparticipants and to an otherwise equivalent group who had notparticipated in such training. The large majority of regularlyenrolled undergraduate students registered for student teachingin the semesters under study participated in the program. Thoserequiring special placements, those required to fill placementcoHnitments in suburban schools and graduate student teacherswere not included.

In the Pilot Study, active research procedures took placeonly in the Fall Semester. In the Continuing study, placementsduring both semesters were used.

In the Pilot Study, the Workshop group and the Comparisongroup were equivalent in number (see analysis of subjects above).Approximately half of each group was assigned to a full semesterwith the same cooperating teacher. The other half followed, themore conventional pattern (for Syracuse University) of havingtwo assignments, at different grade levels, during the semester.

In the Continuing Study, a more complex design was project-ed. Four treatment groups were formed, equivalent in nu fiber,three involving Workshop trained teachers and one involving non-participants in the Workshops.

Group A was asked to use both Interaction Analysis and video-tape recording procedures in their supervision. Group B wasasked to use videotape recording, but not Interaction Analysis,and Group C was asked to use Interaction Analysis but not video-tape recording. Group D, not trained in the Workshops, usedunspecified techniques that they had developed through theirown experience (see memoranda in Appendix D).

During the 1968 Workshop, participants indicated theirpreference for inclusion in Groups A, B or C. These preferenceswere followed where possible in the assignment to treatmentgroups. In soiie cases, second order preference was necessarybecause of the logistics of delivery of videotape equipment,of similar treatment within the same school or because of theneed for equivalent size groups. 1967 participants were assignedto treatment groups without consultation.

1

In both the Pilot Study and the Continuing Study, arrange-ments were made to provide the support of videotape equipmentto those designated to use its in the Pilot Study, all thosein the Workshop trained group; in the Continuing Study, thosein Groups A and B.

Three sets of General Electric Tri-Pac videotape equip-ment (i inch tape) were provided by tlic Audio-Visual Service ofthe Center for Instructional Communication at the University.These sets were rotated almong those schools designated to usevideotape in the supervision of student teachers. Schedulesfor such rotation are included in Appendix D among the samplememoranda.

No atte4ipt was made to prescribe the specific use of video-tape equipnent. Within each school, the teachers were responsi-ble for scheduling their own use of the equipnent while it wasthere. There is evidence that there were tremendous variationsin the frequency and quality of utilization from teacher toteacher and from school to school.

In the Pilot Study, the equipment was rotated so that itreached each teacher- student teacher pair six times during thesemester. Reactions to this scheduling caused a revision forthe Continuing Study so that each pair received the equipmentthree tines during the semester, thus having a longer continu-ous period of time to develop its use.

With the exceptions of a few sanples retained, tapes wererecorded, viewed and re-used. Many participants recommendedretaining the recorded tapes in order to coupare early and laterperformances. This would probably have been a valuable super-visory technique, but it was decided that the cost would beprohibitive in this study.

One of the broader objectives of these studies was an at-tempt to redefine the roles and responsibilities of the collegesupervisor and the cooperating teacher.

It was felt that the studies provided an opportunity toassign greater responsibility for supervision to the cooperat-ing teacher and to shift the college supervisor's role towardthat of a liaison between the University and the public school,a trouble shooter when probleus occurred, and a conductor ofweekly seninars. Thus, the college supervisors working With theexperimental groups were asked to observe student teachers pri-marily to obtain data for use in seminars and to move away fromthe more conventional supervisory-evaluative use of observa-tions unless asked by cooperating teachers. There is sonequestion whether, in actuality, this role shift occurred.

In order to make this shift more probable, graduate stu-dents in Elementary Education to be employed as college super-visors participated in the Workshops and were assigned to thesupervision of specified student teacher groups in the studies.

In the Pilot Study, Mr. Walter Koukal participated in theWorkshop and became the supervisor for all of the Workshopgroup student teachers in the Fall of Y967. Three other Grad-uate Assistants and Lecturers, non-participants in the Work-shop, worked with students in the comparison group.

In the Continuing Study, Mrs. Florence Gray and Mr. DeVilloSloan were participants in the 1968 Workshop and became super-visors of Workshop-related student teachers in the Fall andSpring se it, esters of 1968-69.

Mrs. Gray was assigned to Group A which was designated touse both Interaction Analysis and videotape recording in theirsupervisory actiqtrities. Mr. Sloan worked with Group B, to useInteraction Analysis but not videotape recording.

Group C, using videotape recording, but not InteractionAnalysis, was supervised by Mrs. Joan Landers in the Fallsemester and by Mr. Joseph Rousseau in the Spring semester.Neither of these individuals had been participants in the Work-shop, but both received individual instruction and obtainedpractice experience in the use of videotape recording.

In the Continuing Study, embers of Group D, the compari-son group, were distributed among three superVisors in the Fallsemester and were assigned to Mr. Wayne Dickinson in the Springsemester. No special instructions were given to the comparisongroup supervisors, and it was assumed that they defined theirroles in unspecified conventional ways.

II

Throughout the year of the Continuing Study, all CollegeSupervisors met regularly (approximately once a month) withDr. Ernest Lohman, coordinator of student teaching, to developsome commonality of procedures in their work.

In both studies, the principal investigator met with thoseseminar groups scheduled to use Interaction Analysis during thefirst two seminar meetings in order to provide sufficienttraining in Interaction Analysis for them to respond to the feed-back process. No attempt was made to have the student teachersachieve competence in the application of the technique, exceptthat practice materials were made available on an individualbasis for those who wished to gain additional competence.

For those groups using videotape, a technically trainedGraduate Assistant in the Division of Teacher Preparation was

-15-

available for for training and assistance during the seminars.

The major data gathering device of both studies was aseries of scheduled observations of student teachers by trainedobservers who recorded both an interview and a classroom ob-servation six times during each semester.

Schedules for each series were prepared and communicatedto student teachers and cooperating Leachers. The training ofobservers, their reliability, and the procedures of observa-tion are detailed below in the section on Instruments of theStudy.

In the Pilot Study, seven observations were made, withthe first one considered as part of the training process, ra-ther than as part of data gathering.

In the Pilot Study, a very careful rotation schedule wasused so that each observer saw every student teacher at leastonce and no pattern of observer-teacher familiarity wasformed. Subjective analysis of observer reliability for the

Continuing Study\ decided that this degree of rigor was unneces-sary, and observer assignments were made on pralquatic bases of

availability and convenience, although each student teacher wasobserved by at least three different observers.

Other than planned observation, data were gathered fromthe instruments of the studies according to the followingschedule.

As indicated above, during the Workshops, participantscompleted pre and post forms of the TSRT and Semantic Differ-ential, and filled out a Workshop Activities Assessiiient Index.

In both studies, student teachers filled out .TSRT andSemantic Differentials during the first two weekly seminarmeetings. On the last day of their student teaching assign-ment they returned to the University, meeting as a group at1 P.M., and filled out the post form of these instruments.In addition, at that final session, they coupleted a state-ment of their perception of the supervisory behaviors usedby their cooperating teachers (Workshop Activities AssessmentIndex for Pilot Study and Supervisory Activities Checklistfor Continuing Study, see description below). They also re-acted to two versions of the Minnesota Student Attitude In-ventory, one as they would like their students to respond tothe (Ideal), and one as they thought their students wouldactually respond to them (Real).

In a few cases each semester, a few students unable toattend the meeting scheduled themselves for the next week or

-16-

received and returned the instruments; by mail.

Additional data were received from the cooperating teach-ers within two weeks after the completion of the studentteaching. In the Pilot Study, Workshop trained teachers com-pleted the statement of frequency and value of supervisoryactivities actually used by reacting to the Workshop ActivitiesAssessment Index. In the Continuing Stlly, all teachers, Work-shop and Comparison, provided similar data using the Super-visory Activities Checklist.

It was intended to gather data on all student teachersby having their classes fill out the Minnesota Student Atti-tude Inventory. However, itAwas found that there were a num-ber of teachers and schools that had serious reservations abouta number of items in that instrument, and there was consider-able question about the instrument's viability for prinarygrades. Consequently, its administration was made optional andits results are reported as a biased sample for whatever valuethey may have.

Detailed information on these instruments is provided inthe next section.

Instruments of the Study

The basic selection of the data gathering instruments ofthe studies was made prior to the submission of proposals forsupport of the research activity. Some changes occurred as aresult of the continuing evaluation of those instruments andthe assessment of continued research experience.

Some background from the literature, description of theinstruments, and analysis of their utilization follows. Theinstruments themselves are included in Appendix B.

1. The Teaching Situation Reaction Test (TSRT).

The T3RT has gone through a series of revisions since itwas developed by Janes K. Duncan and Jack Frymier (see Houghand Amidon, 1963),for use in a non-educational setting. It hasbeen used in many research studies (many of which are describedin Hough and Duncan, 1965, Duncan, Hough and Thompson, Feb.,1966, and Duncan and Hough, Sept., 1966),

In its present form (1966 revision) it is designed to mea-sure a person's reaction to teaching situations he is asked toimagine. It has been refined so that it may measure specificnon-subject-related aspects of a teacher's perception of hisrole. Specifically, an item- analysis of the data it produces

-17-

will reveal four dimensions of this perception:

1) The ,dogmatism factor (Rokeach, 1960)

2) The!human relations factor, using the G.T. Barrett-Lennard (1962) Relationship.Inventory, designed tomeasure positive regard, empathy, congruence, un-con itionality, and willingess to be known.

3) The structure factor (Duncan !.1.nd Hough, Sept.,1966).

4) The objectivity-subjectivity factor, as relatedto a teacher's use of data about students (Houghand Amidon, 1963).

There are forty-eight iteus in the test, relating to every-day aspects of teaching, such as planning, classroou management,and teacher-pupil relationships. Subjects are asked to rank-order their choices of four possible behavioral reactions tohypothetical classroou problem situations. They place theseassigned ranks on an answer sheet which is scored by means ofa master key (see Appendix B for the test and answer sheet).The key and directions for using the key are included in Fig-ure 1 and the text below.

Duncan and Hough report in their "Technical Review of theTeaching Situation Reaction Test" upon several administrationsof the TSRT in conjunction with other scales such as the Cali-fornia Test of'Mental Maturity (Short Form) and the MinnesotaTeacher Attitude Inventory. These studies, they report, havehelped clarify the TSRT's dimensions and its underlying theory(p. 5). After reviewing a variety of studies, they concludethat the TSRT seems to be both fairly reliable and fake-re-sistant. It has demonstrated predictive validity, and has"...related to or confirmed findings in the studies of FlandersInteraction Analysis As it stands the test has merit" (p.31).

The spaces beneath each set of four numbers are cut outas "windows" which are placed over the subject's responses.Then for each question, the following procedure is used forscoring:

1) Start with #3.2) Determine the number of other responses greater than

the responses under #3.3) Record that number and cross out the response under

#3.4) Repeat the same procedure for #2 and #1.5) Sum the recorded numbers.6) Sum, the 48 totals calculated during Step 5. This

grand total is the subject's score on the TSRT.

2. The Semantic Differential Instrument

-18-

thine 4'N P'

-, .,

0.1 2p3I:?

,, W1'' 'It*'f" J-_

a ' 03'.fl.q4!.. .-rr'.__,203 1

.., ,., /, 3 2.,.-. II......, .'. I.''."y,

-. ' . fl203! :

"I .'. .' '.'.$',I' -.;-r.'' . ..

I.

-'ka-. 'VM".-

1 0 32. . ., ,.... -rt$.. '.1 IitIIII .'

, .. I '

:302 '1. :.p i$'rpm. .., 'n t"*,,rq, '-'r,rqflefl,fr,E

-4 PI*WPI i.I.__L._.,,......J

)3 , /,1-

t / 03...,,,

41.'p-.. :ir".-/230-.?. 'p'ffilN 1

231 0P p ,p-. ...' .,*t.4pPp ?flI*I*p,.p.'I.r.' '_.'

-p,p

0 2 /3,-øtr" -- 1-tPM' --. ø.Y-s,n-rlIr,.ww

i 02. 3nwnoIo.. .. . 's-n-"-..s,.-- ,Sw,.mjs"'

i.,_,

$rP'It ? r '4"#I4,.I'.qtpIfl - P - -.,.

I P1" 44'$ tIIJ.''.V1'.*r 'VP $,l*'.?I,.',, ....... v-Pp

P.'I r"q-P1',r-.- V'P'.'VP$"'P' P"pp4pP 'Pflha 62

'p,. , -p-I. V,x-IW:1L14. , ......

P p,.,tI,r '4%IPPpç1P

. /20'1' IIIII1'1"MWvI'P1IfII$PPIP

$*p Wd11#I'PØIIMI

IP

I

I p

-' pppPpIPPp'V

11' ''IP 'PV''.lIlpp

'I., 3o','lIP, I' 4P11 -'4P PP., I' --

,-', PV'lIPV /PI '11.11'23 10VIPPIPPW* .1'V "'"t' '1(,*'I','

#1"P*hP#lIP I - -

H- I'- P

- '.L. .. l.4IS1P..-..IPI._SpaLp..M._r._'._---_In,J

:/02. 3-,- I ,U1 -

PIP " P 'I4l

3 /2.'-.,,. IIPIl'PPW ':"'Ir.IIPIP. ,/ fppflp '1 I.1flPØ'4P Upl p1

IPII'I'.-y -.Ii1'4

'3 /0 2P PP*pW!.

-

- "I,I"-. IflItPV Wpra,!r'- PIIP*..,_-,__U_

':0231I

PII"III1' IP'IIIP

lI,,'IH3 /flPV', 'pVPpPIpi5lP. ' VflIPPI

pIPI"'V' ,p4%JI, ,, - VII 1,IIPP'1

VIPp.P,p.ppfpPp'I .PpPPP1P, '.,.PPMP1P1P ,.I1PPIP

I

.II.' PPPPPI1' I? V' PPIP4II I P 1'.PP,' p

P .I1'PPPP1-". 4?4PIP1'P2J31,,PpIAIIV.,'IP4I Wt*III"P 4'IP'PPI 'p. I IIMI!PPPPP1

pP_PW4I II, ______________0 ,aII 'I'I 'I'!vIpIft41'-IIP'PIPPPP4PI''

PP. IJPPPPl, P l.P'

-

P.IIIITf1'1''oP '.JPI 'r '1F"PUip.,,,

2 13 0.'lPIW JI* VI',V '*,IIJ

p1

-I 1 *f.

H32-0 I.pI*'Il'PIV.' I'

fP 'I 'pp. -,..,I"'-Ip4pP1I '.203/ :'

-1*P.fr. I ..p p.PP

FIGJRE'1,

i -19-'

z13.O,V'hi,4.'Pl'U"l' -,PaW4.pJIr.' IPpmp,.-

I, IPIPPI*I . IQIPiI1PP VPflII1Pt -

1'I fl4VPW" ,'I?PP1f '/VI,V41'Ij4

4., I"IPPflPPV,' I'PIP'4" ' P'$IPI(pO3 2pppp !P1II , I VIP P1WIV4'P' PI.,.P/ppP,pp.I1' PIP P.PP?PPIqIP'j

It

IIlppP'( I PPPIIP1'l1'

3,0 1Z .

, . VfIP.ppp,'

I IPil p111,1, '''III /sPlp,'.'.p.pflpppp., -.'.P1'ppp,pp032./Ippplpp ,1'Ip.jpfI'APIMP 'I'', Pp" I IVYVP1'P PII .II1'IVP*1'

,'1"1' p,.J:, PVl':',,.' 'p.P 'iz3O H-' IffppP.1V1'. I, I Ip-;i1'PP.'

i.I'fVI,li' ' -'

£1 30'PP/,II*I1'1'P$p P1."

2'I Jo.frnP1,wpwfl,t.r,..'PIa,)rp.,nS .-,,p-,p, "tlrn,IM IM.I#

'1

VP*fl..PSPP .LiZ11.' .IIP',crr3zio,t,Ipp7,I'"'I I(IIYI'111 II' M...PPI.1I1.

I pp.p'.,--."pPpp7;Iy- '.PIPMI... "''PI.PP'PPp'

1.025 LIP.. 'I,p':ii'.' ".,'IllP.V"I*fIP '.11 1'VV11 1' P V'I*PP P1t 11.11 P

% pp. .,.', ,,',PIPPPIp,.i.S-.' .1

3012.''PIP.PP? IVi.iPI'IlC, ''".I PV.. ,., j

-

-'- .IY"IPP'. .Ip V., -

/2 03- -IPPITIP I.P P I

'P

piV .,-ip.3YV .' p

2.1031" l'I ,.' ''P P1 P

''I''PrIPI'''. I''P1 i1PPi"P1 I' ' "WV,.Ill

ozi'-H,

14P11' P,tPlpl. I23 o91111IP1PIII*hIIIPPII' 11.1.,,,, II P " I I1,IP.I'P .. I, ' " "'I -

'..l4 11I .'-.'. P I$ppp

.! 2_3 o-

- Ippp.,'np/P.fl-n, 'P PIPPIPI,1 1tp

PPP1 !tpiPI t*PI$WP%6

In attenpting to get at attitudes toward specific as-pects of teaching and instructional behavior, it was proposedto use some form of a Semantic Differential Instrument.

The originator of the Semantic Differential Instrument isCharles E. Osgood. Its description, theoretical rationale anda review of its applications are reported in Osgood, Succi andTannenbaum (1957). A brief description and review appears inRemmers (Gage, Editor, 1963).

The semantic Differentliably and systematicallypositions towards evaluatitude over time. Its desimost, if not all topics,Continuing Studies speciAnalysis and a model oflected as stems.

The original dereactions to items rand aspects of The1965) on factor seAn example of this

ial can, j.t is claimed, rather re-measure attitudes (seen as predis-ve responses) and changes in atti-gn allows it to be applied towardand for purposes of the Pilot andfie topics relating to Interactionthe instructional process were se-

ign of the instrument included affectiveepresenting each of the Flanders categories

Model of the Instructional Process (Clayton,ales of receptivity, potency and evaluation.instrument is included in Appendix B.

After the original Semantic Differential Instrument wasadministered to the Workshop teachers and the student teachersin the Pilot Study, the instrument was revised to include onlythose stens which elicited a significant shift in response.The number of scales on each factor was increased in accord-ance with the general reconnendations of Osgood, Sucei andTannenbaum (1957). Each stem was placed on a separate pageso that responses would be as independent as possible betweenitems. This instrument is presented in Appendix B.

3.

Theused byhis usconsitulleswithdir

Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory

Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory was previouslyFlanders (1965, passim). In this monograph he discusses

e of and adaptations with the MSAI, together with someeration of its reliability for measuring student atti-towards teachers. His own use of it was in conjunctionInteraction Analysis data in his study of direct and in-

ect influence.

See also, J.P. Anderson's Student Perceptions of TeacherInfluence (1959)

In the present studies, further adaptations were made tosimplify the ;responses of students and the analysis of thoseresponses. A set of directions and answer sheet were developedwhich called for students to agree (A) or disagree (D) with

-20-

the statements about the student' teacher who had been work-ing with them.

As indicated in the section on research activities above,the use of this instrument became quite suspect with teachersand schools that were concerned with possible negative reac-tions toward instruction and instructional personnel.. Hence,its use with children in these studier vas not taken veryseriously, and data were used with recognition of the samplebias.

The more important use of this instrument was in the mea-sure of contrast or congruence of the "ideal" and "real" per-ceptions of the student teachers as they assessed how theywanted and believed that students would assess them.

4. The Workshop Assessi'ent Index and the SupervisoryActivities Checklist.

For the 1967 Sum er Workshop phase of the Pilot Studythe instructors created an assessment index for the workshopcooperating teachers to fill out, in order to collect informa-tion about their perceptions of the workshop activities (seeAppendix B) . The teachers were to respond along two dinen-sions (predicted usefulness and predicted frequency of use)

to twelve items, each of which had been a component of theWorkshop. These teachers were to take these again (now actu-al instead of predicted usefulness and frequency) at the con-clusion of their cooperating-teacher assignments, for pur-poses of comparison.

During the semester the idea developed that it might beuseful to administer it to the student-teachers in the Work-shop group as well. Therefore, special directions were cre-ated (see Appendix) and these people also filled out the in-dex at the end of their student-teaching experiences.

The Workshop Assessment Index was also administered tothe workshop cooperating teachers at the conclusion of the 19-68 Summer Workshop. Soon afterward, however, the investiga-tors conceived of the idea of constructing a measuring de-vice that all the participants in the study could take atthe end of their student-teaching or cooperating-teachingperiods. With such an instrument it would be possible togain information about just how different the treatmentgroups really were, in addition to learning about the ef-

fects of the workshop upon cooperating and student-teachersin the workshop group (as the Workshop Assessment Index hadbeen designed,to reveal). Hence the creation of the Super-visory Activities Checklist, a longer index in terms, of the

number of items, but a simpler test which could be filled out

by members of all the treatment groups involved (see Appendix B).

5. The Observation System for Instructional Analysis

(OSIA).

The major research technique oft-the studies was observa-

tion of student teachers by trained Qbservers. In a very

real sense, the "instrument" includes both the observation

system and the observers themselves. The techniques, relia-

bilities and qualifications of observers are essentially a

part of the instrumentation.

The discussion below includes data about the background

and development of the system, its description, the training

and reliability of observers, and procedures used in apply-

ing the "instrument."

A description of some of the early attempts at systematic

classroom observation and analysis,-together with a dis-

cussion of the basic requirements for sound research with

such instruments is provided by Donald M. Medley and Harold

Et Mitzel (Gage; pp. 247-328). Edmund J. Amidon and John

B. Hough cover some of this territory and also report on

some more current research findings and applications.

A number of researchers have been concerned with the

question of observing and understanding the kinds of inter-k

action that take place in classrooms. One of the earliest

was H.H. Anderson (Amidon and Hough, pp. 4-23), who in 1939

studied the integrative and douinative behavior of teachers

in the classroom. Anderson set up categories for behavior

seen .as 'integrative and those for dominative ones, and has

his observers keep a tally of the kinds of interaction that

took place between teacher and students. At the end of the

observation period the data were processed and analyzed.

Fro n these beginnings, we have, particularly in recent

years, seen the emergence of a great many systems of class-

room observation designed to measure the quantity and quali-

ty of interaction (see Simon and Boyer for a conprehensive

and descriptive catalogue of these).

Most of the researchers since Anderson have adhered di-

rectly or indirectly to the dichotomy he drew between dom-

inative and integrative styles of teaching. Other names

have been given for modes but there is a arked sinilarity

between Anderson's "dominative-integrative," Lewin, Lippett

and WhitOs "autocratic-democratic" I(Amidon and Hough, pp.

24-46), Withall's "teacher centered-student centered"

(ibid, pp. 47-64); Cogan's "preclusive-inclusive" libido

-22-

1111

pp. 65-88) and Flanders' "direct-in4irect" (ibid, pp. 103-116, Flanders, 1965, Amidon and Flanders, 1967).

Flanders is the researcher who developed the now widelyused ten-category system, which has been the catalyst forso many of the current systems of observation that are understudy. He used the results of the above researchers as a"theoretical basis for conceptualiziLs the relationship be-tween teacher influence and the behavior and attitudes ofpupils." (Amidon and Hough, p.3), and his category systemhas been the basic tool of educators for assessing the so-cial-emotional climate of classrooms. For evidence in sup-port of the assertion that this climate can objectively andreliably be measured (and that it is related to teachingeffectiveness), see Amidon and Hough's second chapter.

The systems of observation used in our Pilot and Con-tinuing studies are examples of the suggestiveness of theFlanders system for expansion and modification toward theaccommodation of different goals and uses. Hough has pre-served its usefulness in measuring social-emotional climate,while augmenting it so that it may do even more than that.The variations culminating in his thirty-two (or more) cate-gory system each possess specific categories so organizedthat it becomes possible to examine observed instructionalbehavior in the light of learning theory (see Amidon andHough, pp. 150-157 and Hough and Duncan, In Press).

Hough's Observation System for Instructional Analysisprovides a sophisticated measuring device for the sorts ofinteraction that takes place incclassrooms. Although ouruse of it capitalizes upon its virtues vis a vis quantita-tive measurements, our data and new data collected with itflight well be utilized for a wide range of purposes.

During the two years of the study, the ObservationSystem for Instructional Analysis (OSIA, Hough and Duncan,1969) was going through an evolutionary process.

The original decision to use the developingtistrumentwas made in the summer of 1967 as Dr. Hough and Dr. Claytonconsidered the kind of data that would be helpful in re-cording the instructional behavior of student teachers.

Since Dr. Hough was available to participate in thetraining of observers, it was felt that the Pilot Studyshould use the newly developed tool and, at the same time,be useful in its analysis and development. Consequently,the September 1967 revision of the System was used in thePilot Study.

By the time of activation of the,i reeearch phase of the0.23-

Continuing Study (Fall 1968), the System had evolved into amore complex category system in which student behavior andteacher behavior were in parallel categories.

The relative benefits of using the same system in thetwo studies, or of using rather different versions or thesystem were' considered. If the same system were use.A., com-parisons between the two studies would be facilitated. On

the other hand, in terms of instrument development, theuse of the September 1967 form'in the Continuing Study wouldindicate failure to utilize continuing development, requiredependence on an unpublished instrument that would probablynot generate further research, and would miss some :,6f the

data available with the new version.

Since, again, Dr. Hough was available to participate inthe training of observers, it was decided that the currentversion of the Observation System should be used in theContinuing Study.

A brief description of the 23 category system used inthe Pilot Study, is included below, followed by a more ex-tended description of the procedured used in the ContinuingStudy.

vp,

-24-

OBSERVATION SYSTEM FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSIS

September 1967 RevisionCATEGORIES USED DURING STUDENT TSACHER PILOT STUDY,

FALL 1967

TE'AC

'BE

AVI

0

10.

11.

12.

Clarifies and accepts student feelings and/orgives non-evaluative ennouragement.

Clarifies and accepts student ideas andquestions.

Answers student substantive questions.

Teacher-directed silence (used during informa-tion giving by means of chalk board, overhead,etc.).

Gives substantive information or opinion.

Gives substantive procedural information oranswers substantive procedural questions.

Asks open questions (divergent, evaluative).

Asks closed questions (cognitive memory, con-vergent).

Gives managerial procedural information oranswers managerial procedural questions.

Criticizes or rejects student ideas, behavioror feelings.

Gives corrective feedback for incorrect ideasor behavior.

Gives confirmation of correctness of, ideas orbehavior.

13. Praises student ideas, behavior or feelingsand/or gives evaluative encouragement.

A

[

S 14. Gives closed substantive verbal response (cog-

T nitive memory, commergent).

UD 15. Gives open substantive verbal response (di-

E vergent, evaluative).NP 16. Gives expression of feeling.

B 17. Asks substantE questions.HA 18. Asks manageVI 19. Silent ov0la 20. Silent c

21. Studen0

22© Studti on

23. In

ive or substantive procedural

rial procedural questions.

rt activity.

overt activity.

t to student interaction designation.

ent followed by student interaction designa-

.

structionally non-functional behavior.

-26-

. .

.

Mb

II re

it

G

I4

1t

&

I ,

INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE MATRIXFOR, THE 2 CATEGORY SYSTEM

Area A

Area B

Area C

Area D

Area E

Area F

Area G

Area H

Area I

Area

Area

Area L

Area M

Area N

Area 0

represents the area of extended acceptance and clari-fication of student ideas and feelings as well asnon-evaluative statements of, encouragement and re-sponse to student substantive questions.

represents the areabehavior, primarily,

represents the areasolicitation.

of extendedinitiation.

of extended

teacher substantive

teacher substantive

represents the area of extended teacher negativeappraisal behavior.

represents the area of extended teacher positiveappraisal behavior.

represents the area

represents the area

of extended student behavior.

of extended silence.

represents the area of extended student response toteacher clarification.

represents the area of extended student response toteacher solicitation.

represents the area of extended student response tonegative appraisal behaviors on the part of the teacher.

represents the area of extended student response topositive appraisal behaviors on the part of the teacher.

It

represents the area which encompasses most of bothareas H and I. It also includes thearea of notationfor those occasions when student behaviors followteacher-directed silence and teacher initiation of

substantive information.

represents the area of extended teacher response withclarification behaviors.

represents the area of extended teacher response withsubstantive solicitation behaviors.

represents the area of extended teacher response withnegative corrective feedback behaviors.

14

Area P represents the area of extended teacher response withpositive appraisal behaviors.

Area q represents most of the area enco passing Areas M andN plus the area marking occasions when student be-haviors are followed by teacher initiation of sub-

staritive information.

The form of the Observational System used in the Continu-ing Study is more difficult to describe. It classifies class-

room behavior into fifteen specific categories which can beengaged in by both students and teacher (15T and 15S parallel

categories). Two additional classes of behavior are definedirrespective of the specific T=S identification. Thus it is

frequently referred to as a 32-category system. However, six-

teen categories (8T and 88) can be further classified in two

ways (open and closed) giving a potential of 48 categories or

sub-categories.

In the Continuing Study, the shorter form (32 categories)

was used since the greater refinement of the extended version

did not appear to be relevant to the required data.

The first twenty-six categories of the syste" are divided

into three major sections (Figure 3). These are the substan-tive, appraisal and the managerial. Substantive behaviors deal

with content. This relates to the knowledge or skills that

are displayed in the classroom with regard to the subject mat-

ter that the teacher considers as part of his objectives.

Managerial behaviors relate to procedures of running the

classroolp that are not directly related to content. For in-

stance, if the teacher requests thatithe students take out

their math books this is clearly a substantive behavior be-

cause she planned to use the text in ;the lesson. If a student

requests permission to get a drink of water, and this is not

part of the lesson, this behavior is managerial.

The appraisal behaviors relate to the feedback exhibitedwithin the classrool. These appraisal behaviors inform the

individual or group as to the "rightness or wrongness" of pre-

vious behavior. They are not to be used to identify good andbad students or teachers. These three "ajor categories arebroken down into 'fore specific teacher-student behaviors.

Figure 3 indicates the two headings, teacher behaviors

and student behaviors. Under each heading and Ti, T2,T3

etc., and Si, 82, S3 etc. the T refers to teacher and the S

refers to student behavior. The numbers refer to the type of

behavior, the capital letter refers to who is exhibiting thatbehavior. Both teacher and student 'an exhibit the same typeof behavior. There are fifteen.behaviors that both teacherand student can display in this system. The last two behav-iors, X 16 and Y 17, are of a different nature. X 16 refersto confusion, and Y 17 is used to designate that a studenthas spoken but is followed by another student speaking. Inbetween the two S recordings on the tally sheet the observerwould place Y 1 ?.

The category of substantive clarification refers to state-ments that clarify preceding comment. A student or teachermay ask for clarification of content. In recording observa-tions, this behavior takes precedence over other behaviors.Responding to substantive solicitation is answering a ques-tion that refers to the content under discussion. Initiatingsubstantive information can be either lecturing or a declara-tive statement on content. Soliciting substantive responsesrefers to asking a question about the content under discussion.These categories are the substantive 'categories.

The appraisal behaviors are divided into five categories.Corrective feedback is exhibited when the teacher or anotherstudent corrects misinformation with,!the correct information.Confirmation is exhibited when one is told that the informa-tion is correct. Acceptance occurs when an opinion is accept=ed as stated, not in the sense that it is correct but rather

the sense that there is not one correct answer or that theresponse is usable without requiring-value judgment. Positivepersonal judgment occurs when a correct answer is given butsomeone, either teacher or student, praises the answer; nega-tive personal judgment is just the opposite. A wrong answeris given and the person is told so in a personal way.

Managerial behaviors are very similar to substantive be-haviors. The major difference is that they refer to class-room management irrespective of specific content. A manageri-al clarification refers to clarifying a question or state-ment concerned with classroom procedures. Responding to amanagerial solicitation refers to answering a managerial ques-tion. Initiating managerial information is a managerialstatement or lecture. Soliciting a managerial response isasking a question concerned with procedure or routine.

The last behaviors to be discussed are the silence be-haviors. Silent covert behaviors occur when it is clearly ex-pected that someone is thinking, perhaps preparing to respondto a question. Silent overt behavior is planned silence dur-ing which time the students are working on content connectedwith the lesson. This can be recorded when the teacher iswriting on the board.

The Observational System for Instrutional Analysis,

Teacher Behaviors Student Behaviors

3u TI Substantive clarificationbs T2 Responds to substantivet solicitationa

T3 Initiates substantivet information

T4 ..Solicits substantive response

A T5 Corrective feedback

pp T6 Confirmationra T7 Acceptance

s T8 Positive personal judgment

a1 T9 Negative personal judgment

a T10 Managerial clarificationna T11 Responds to managerial

solicitatione

T12 Initiates managerial informa-

i tiona1 T13 Solicits managerial response

1 T14 Silent covert activity

T15 Silent overt activity

S1

S2

s3

sir

85

s6

87

S8

s9

S10

Sll

S12

Teacher or Student Behavior773fastructionally non-functional behavior

X 17 Interaction separation designation

S13

sikS15

1

,11111111.

Categories 1-4, and 10-13 may be further categorized as

a. closed or b. open.FIGURE 3

-31.

Sub

tant

e

Appraia1

anager

a1

S

1enc

4

1

,r1F,14,14731:;*,te:

The thirteen basic categories, plus the silence categoryas described above are the basic behaviors contained in TheObservational System for Instructional Analysis.

This system allows for recording sone aspects of non-verbal as well as verbal behavior. If the teacher gives a ,

student an instruction and the student responds, this is re-corded even though the stwitnt did not say a word.

The categories of the Observational System for Instruc-tional Analysis are recorded in five, second intervals. Tall-ies are recorded on the tally sheet (see Figure 4) at leastevery five seconds, or less if the behavior changes in lessthan five seconds. The tally sheet is made up of four majorcolumns as outlined by heavy black lines. Each column isagain divided into three sections or boxes. The research ob-server started each tally in the middle set of boxes of thefirst column with an X. For example,, when the teacher askeda short question, a T4 was recorded. This would be followedby a student response or S2. The teacher would say, "cor-rect," a T6, and then perhaps she would lecture, recorded asa T3. The lecture could take 30 seconds. Instead of record-ing a T3 every five seconds the otz:lerver places a slash markin the box next to T3 every five seconds. The sample tallysheet has five slashes next to the T3 recording. This indi-cates that the teacher spoke for a total of thirty seconds,five for the T3 recording and five for each slash. In thismanner the research observer recorded classroom interaction.

The Prediction Matrix

Each student teacher was interviewed' by the research ob-server before an observation. The purpose of this interviewwas to allow the research observer to predict what classroombehavior would be observed according to the information gath-ered from the student teacher. Several questions were askedin order to deterfline what behaviors the observer would re-cord. The questions were as follows:

1. What type of lesson am I about to observe?2. How do you plan to present the lesson?

Will this be new material or old?4. Will the students be doing any silent work?5. Do you anticipate any problems with the lesson, and,

if so, what kind?6. How do you handle student responses?

If the Student teacher was unable to answer the questionas stated then the observer would restate them. These re-sponses were then interpreted in terms of categories of TheObservational System.

-33-

The research observer would then record his predictionon a matrix (Figure 5). The matrix is divided into four mainsections. Each of these sections is outlined by heavy blacklines on the figure. Across the top and down the left sideof the matrix are the symbols that correspond to the symbolsused by the observer when using the analysis system. Withineach square are cells which were filled in to relate thetype of predicted behavior in accordance with the interview.The upper left hand square refers to teacher behavior only,the upper right hand square refers to teacher-student inter-action (student behavior following teacher behavior), thelower right hand square refers to student behavior only andthe lower left hand square refers to student-teacher interac-tion (teacher behavior following student behavior). In theappropriate cell within each square, the research observerwould record an H if the student teacher anticipated a highfrequency of that type of behavior in her lesson, an N if amedium frequency of that type of behavior and an L if lowerfrequency but some of that type of behavior. Nothing was' re-corded if the student teacher did not indicate that she wasexpecting a certain behavior. If, for instance, the studentteacher expected, to lecture for most of the class period,t4,741 within the teacher square and the T3, T3 cell the ob-:erver would place an H. However, if the student teacher ex-pected a lot of questions and answers during the class periodthen the researcher would place an H in the T4, S2 box. Like-wise if the teacher said that thNre would be sone questionsand answers but not exclusively, then an L or M might be re-corded. The, prediction matrix could then be coupared to theactual tally, of classroom performance.

5A. Observer Reliability

The four observers for the Pilot Study underwent a peri-od of training in the 23 category Observation System forInstructional Analysis. Their training was aimed at twobasic objectives. First, they needed to become familiar withthe system itself, enough so that they could ultimately re-cord classroom interaction with some proficiency at five-second intervals. This part of their training consisted ofpractice sessions using both audio and videotapes of class-room episodes, plus discussion of the subtleties of the systeand the development of ground rules for discrimination be-tween categories when ambiguities arise. The final phase ofthis part of the training was an actual two-week observationperiod in which all the student teachers in the Pilot Studywere observed on the job. Training fwas under the directionof Dr. Hough and Dr. Clayton.

The second objective of the training sessions was to

41031411.

NI MEMMAR ommv UMI NM 11111111111111

IBMRR 1111 SEIM UM

IMINMINUN III NMI =MI MIMIII EMI NE IMRE EMU II II11111111111111 MN MEN 11111111111111 1111111

II Ma MI MINSSEMI I111111111111111111/1 IN10211111111111111MIME 1111111111II MEN 11111 MR RIM IMMINIMMIMING =PEI IMMO 11111111III NM A MO MIN ISM =UM U

KM MN MI IMMO 111111111111MUM MUM Ina=

; N MR 111111111111 ruirmnuommi111111111 111111111 IMOIMMEIMMOMM MEM= ME MNM MIER 111111111111

IN NMI PIN GI El1111111 IM MO RS II NM M

MR MN MI III RN MIMI= aII NMI MNIIEM IMMO I MI II NM11111111111111 a 1 MEM a MEM

111111111111111 9 III MUM OM= aREM ai to U MINI 111111112III I 1 II MINI A

1111111111°--111111111111111111 MAMIMI' NI IMMO MINIMINUNI ausamNI ms Emu MMNE IMF111 REM 111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111MM

rI

reach a point; where the observers were as similar as possiblewith respectHto the data they would collect were they all todo interaction analysis on the same teaching segment. The goalhere, in other words, was to make their observation techniquesas uniform as possible. If the data they were to collect wasto be assimilated, a high degree of consistency among thewas obviously necessary.

The only example available to the observers at that timewas Flanders' approach to this problem in his early studyinvolving his ten category syste (Flanders, 1965). Histechnique was to use the Scott Coefficient, and this proto-type was followed.

The four observers were brought together, at approximateintervals of two weeks, in order for them all to record dataon one teaching segment, usually on videotape. Their datawere analyzed, their Scott coefficients of reliability (withone-another),were computed. Since this was the first use ofthis category-system, no criterion coefficient was established.Observers simply had to proceed with and report the reliabili-ties achieved at\each session. While there can be no absolutestandards, one general guideline for evaluating these coef-ficients is Guilford's (1965, p. 145).

less than .20 slight. 20 - .40 low. 40 - .70 moderate. 70 - .90 high

Below is a summary of the reliability figures.

ReliabilityCheck #

Mean of ReliabilitiesBetween All PossiblePairs of Observers (6)

1

6

7

.5

.42(.62)*

. 63

'0165

. 67

. 75

. 67

6

Range of ReliabilitiesBetween All PossiblePairs of Observers (6)

. 31 - .73

4

. 15 - .63(.51 - .70)*

.54 - .73

.57 -

.54 - .76

. 69 - .80

. 62 - .71

6

-36-

* Upon inspection it was realized that the low originalreliability was a direct result of difficulties among the ob-servers with respect to discrildnation between categories 14and 15 (see Appendix B or text above). A second computationof reliability was then made in which observer tallies in cate-gories 14 and 15 were considered as tallies in one instead oftwo different categories. The percentages in parentheses re-flect the results of this computation.

** Reliability checks 5 and 6 weremorning.

noade during the same

In the Continuing Study it was determined by the princi-pal investigator that a Scott interobserver reliability of .65would have to be attained before any data would be collected.Reliabilities were computed *idway through the training ofthe observers and before each set of observations was begun.The data for the observers in the continuing study follow.

GradeLevel

\Medium Date Interob-server

Train- Primary Live 9-30ing

(Prifiary Live 10-

(Primary Video 10-21

Fall (Primary Video 11- 4Sem-ester (Primary Video 11-17

(Primary Video 12- 4

'(Primary Video 1- 8

Train- Inter-

3

ing ediate Video 2-10

(Primary Video 2-17

(Primary Video 3. 3

Spring (Jr. Hi. Audio 3-17Sem-ester (Jr. Hi. Audio 4-14

(Jr. Hi. Audio 4-28

(Jr. Hi. Audio 5 -12

-37-

Re1i4 Rangebilit Low - HI42.

2 .3 .70

. 82 .79 .85

.83 .76 .85

. 80 .77 .85

. 79 .71 .84

.84 .79 .88

. 69 .65 .81

. 59

.83

. 81

. 77

. 71

. 85

'79

. 42 .63

. 76 .89

. 78 .83

. 72 .81

.68 .76

.78 .89

. 76 .81

Using the 32 category system required constant monitoringof reliability in order to maintain performances in the .70 to.90 range. The observers showed a marked decrease in perform-ance when checked just after the semester vacation. Retrain-ing was necessary before the second semester observationscould be initiated.

Technical description of procedures used, for data analyses.

Instructional analysis data.

The data from the 23 category system for instructionalanalysis in the Pilot Study were initially compiled into 23x 23 matrices in which each cell contained the frequency ofeach diadic set of instructional behaviors. The row was de-termined by the first element of the diad and the column de-termined by the second. The pattern of prediction by thestudent teacher was then compared with the matrix and the .per-centage of cells predicted which were used was calculated.The percentage of tallies occuring in predicted cells .was al-so computed.

The data frou the 32 category system for instructionalanalysis in the Continuing Study were compiled into 32 x 32matrices as above.

Data analysis procedures.

Since the Teaching Situation Reaction Test (TSRT) and theMinnesota Student Attitude Inventory (MSAI) produce a singlenumerical score and since those scores were scaled in an in-terval manner and were distributed approximately normally,means and standard deviations were used to describe the data.In the exploratory phase of the study, paired t-tests wererun on the pre vs. post scores on the MT to test for sig-nificant gains. In order to co Tare the MSAI' "real" withthe MSAI "ideal", paired t-tests were also run. Data fromthe Semantic Differential instrument were arranged into fre-quency distributions and chi-square analysis was performedto test for differences between treatment groups. The Work-shop assessitent index data were arranged in frequency tablesalso but no inferential tests were performed on these data.

In order to test the hypotheses for the exploratory(Pilot Study) phase, two 4 x 2 x 6 analyses of variance wereperformed with repeated measures on the final factor. Fac-tor A was the four treatment conditions. Factor B was shifton the TSRT in the initial analysis. All those subjectswho showed a higher post TSRT score than they had on the pre-test were included in level one of Factor B. Those subjectswho had a posttest TSRT lower than the pretest TSRT were

-38-

placed in level two. When the analysis was run with the levelof MSAI as Factor B, all those student teachers above themedian on MSAI were placed in level one while those belowthe median were placed in level two. Factor C was the con-vergence of the prediction with the actual observed data (con-gruence of stated intent and observed classroom instructionalbehavior). The measure of this was the percentage of tal-lies in predicted cells.

In the Continuing Study, the model was the same exceptthat the four treatment conditions were defined as describedin the design section. Analyses were also run separatelyon those student teachers who were teaching in the fall sem-ester, 1968, and those who were teaching in the spring sellester 1969.

The analysis of variance nodel used was the least squaressolution for unequal cell sizes. It was discussed by Winer.(1962, pp. 319-330, 374-378). This became necessary when itwas found that restrictions on the assignment of studentteachers would make it impossible to design for equal cellsizes. The mode; is illustrated below where:

a is a treat i ent

b is the performance on TSRT or MSAIin two levels

is convergence of prediction withobserved performance

-39-

ObservationsSubjects

cl 02 03 04

al

a2

b2

bl

b2

b1

bl

a4

n

n-f-1

n+p

n+p+1

n+

05 c6

X121,

, ,

211

X221

311

x.321

n+p+q+1

n+p+q+r

o

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OF THE STUDY ANDRESULTS OF THE ANALYSES.

In this section the analysis of the data for the PilotStudy is presented first. Then the analysis of the data forthe Continuing Study is given. These analyses are presentedwith the analysis of variance. The descriptive statistics,further lower-level analyses of variance, and t tests were nec-essary to ascertain the nature of a particular contrast.

Pilot Study

Table 1 presents the analysis of variance for those sub-jects in the Pilot Study in all four treatment groups, thefirst of which was supervised by Workshop teachers for a fullsemester, the second of which was supervised by one Work-shop teacher for a half semester and then by another Work-shop teacher the second half semester. The third treatmentgroup was supervised for a full semester by a non-Workshopteacher. The fourth group was supervised by a non-Workshopteacher for the rirst half of the semester and another non-Workshop teacher for the second half of the semester.

TSRT

Factor B is a description of whether the student increasedhis score on the TSRT when pre and post tests were comparedor decreased in TSRT score under these conditions. Factor C

is the congruence of prediction with the actual observed data.This congruence was calculated as described in the precedingsection by the measure, percentage of tallies which occurredin cells predicted using the twenty-three category instruct-ional analysis matrix. The analysis of variance showed a sig-

nificant F for Factor B (p < .01) which indicated that subjectswho gained in TSRT score had different congruence of predic'tion with actual performance than those who scored lower onthe post TSRT. The interaction of treatment and TSRT was al-

so significant (p< .05). Factor C, the congruence was alsosignificant (p < .01) which indicates that the congruenceshifted significantly as that measure was repeated throughPle student teaching experience.

In order to describe these data, means and standard de-

viations were calculated and are presented in Table 2. The

mean convergence on Group 1 ranged from 3 to 58. The mean

convergence for Group 2 ranged from 27 to 58. The mean con-

vergence for Group 3 ranged from 28 to 63. The mean con-

vergence for Group 4 ranged from 33 to 69. These were stu-

dents from those groups who had an increase in TSRT score when

TABLE 1

AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PILOT TSRT

Source of Variation df MS

Between

A( treatment) . 3 ;824.25 0.86

B(TSRT) 1 :51378.13 53.42**

AB . 3, 15246.88 15.85*

ERAB 26. 961.78

Within

C(congruence) 5,

AC 15,,

5-

15

ERCX 130

BC

ABC

5127.45

1429.66

868.00

1225.60

1010.82

5.07**

1.41

0.86

1.21

* p < .05** p<.01

.42-

pre and post tests were compared. The analysis of variancefor these data are presented in Table 3. In this particularcase the only significance was in Factor Co congruence :

(p .01). Table 4 presents the descriptive data for these

students. With this grouping those students in Group 1ranged in mean convergence performance from 26 to 60. Thosein Group 2 ranged from 29 to 55. Those in Group 3 rangedfrom 29 to 58. For the fourth group, the mean convergenceranged from 34 to 53.

The analysis of variance for those students scoringlower on post TSRT than on pre TSRT is presented in Table 5.In this analysis the convergence is significant (p<;.01)which means simply that the nature of the interaction of Aand B was not indicated to be in those groups who scored loweron post TSRT than on pre TSRT.

Table 6 presents the meansthe TSRT tests. None of the sgroups was significant, but iwithin groups were comparedthan the pre TSRT scores.

TSRT Summary

and standard deviations onhilts from pre to post withinn general, when all studentsthe post TSRT scores were lower

Students generally showed varying convergence within allfour groups. There was no consistent pattern within the con-vergence. There is no evidence to conclude that a specificsupervisory treatment influenced the convergence behavior.Therefore, there was no evidence to enable the rejection ofthe hypothesis that there would be no significant differencebetween the overall mean congruence of the workshop teacherssupervised group and the non-workshop teacher supervisedgroups. There was no evidence to reject the hypothesis thatthere was no significant difference between the overall meancongruence of the half-semester group and the full semestergroup.

There was evidence however, to reject the hypothesisthat there was no significant difference between the mean con-gruence of the various observations for, the four treatment

groups. However, there was no uniform pattern of differencesamong these groups. Some groups started with their lowestconvergence and completed the experience with the highestconvergence. Other groups started with a low convergencerising to the high and then dropping off near the end of the

experience. Other groups vacillated between high and lowconvergence, so there appeared to be no systematic effectwithin the convergence data.

4,

TABLE 2

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF CONVERGENCE ON STUDENT TEACHERS WHO GAINED

IN TEST SCORE IN THE POST-TEST COMPARED WITH THE PRE-TEST

TSRT

OBSERVATION

GROUP

Level

12

._.3

....4

._

56

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

1S.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

1Increase

31.3

9.9 46.8

21.8

36.3 -15.9

58.6

7.9

51.4

12.6 3576-733

2Increase

27.8

21.9

32.4

24.1

33.9

12.9

47.3

6.6

53.5

12.

58.7

10.1

3Increase

28.5

24.

31.6

13.9

48.6

20.9

50.5

3.5

63.6

11.2

59.1

5.

1 4r

Ir

4Increase

37.9

23.4

49.8

11.4

48.1

3.8

33.4

5.9

69.6

4.5

58.1

14.8

TABLE 3

AN ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PILOT STUDY TREATMENT

GROUPS SCORING HIGHER ON THE TSRT IN THE POST-TEST

AS COMPARED TO THE PRE-TEST

Source of Variation

Between

df MS

A(treatment) 3 107.63 0.52

ERAB 6 208.92 0.0

Within

C(congruence) , 5 1067.04

AC 15 152.18

ERC 30 209.30

5.10**

0.73

0.0

**p .01

GROUP

1 2 3 4

TABLE 4

PILOT STUDY

TREATMENT GROUPS

WHO SCORED LOWER

ON THE POST TSRT

'

COMPARED WITHPRE-TSRT DESCRIPTIVE

STATISTICS

TSRT

Level

,,

1X

S.D.

Decrease

26.6

10.6

Decrease

29.3

12.5

Decrease

29.4

18.6

Decrease

45.5

23.8

OBSER-VATION

23

4_

56

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

XS.D.

31.1

7.9

3A.6

18.5

60.3

8,4 33737177 55.5

12.1

37.9

15.7

37.4

12.9

47,4

15.1

53.2

10.7

56.9

8.0

35.9

15.0

48.9

19.5

48.8

14.4

54.0

16.2

58.0

8.7

34.5

5.8

38.6

12.1

48.0

17.5

53.6

14.4

48:0

18.3

TABLE 5

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PILOT STUDY TREATMENT GROUPS SCORING

LOWER ON POST-TSRT THAN ON PRE-TSRT

Source of Variation df MS

Between

A(treatment) 3

20

Within

C(congruence)

AC

ERC

30.75 0.12

264.83 0.0

5 2320.11 11.96**

15 197.90 1.02

100 194.03 0.0

** p <.01

-47-

GROUP

A

TABLE 6

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON THE TEACHING

SITUATION REACTION TEST PILOT STUDY

PRE POST t

2 S.D. X S.D.

207.5 12.95 ri54.7 9.58 1.01

B 203.62 12.63 199.25 8.00 1.62

C 201.17 7.38 198.5 15.37 0.45

\ 207.14 5.93 203.0 7.91 .94

A+B 205'. ?7 202.28 1.83

C+D 204.38 200.92 0.99

WorkshopMasterTeacher

B (1)

(2)

204.2 11.1 205.1 12.9

203.5 17.0 186.5 26.5

204.5 18.9 191.5 28.5

MSAI

Data relative to students divided into groups both bytreatment and by level of performance on the Minnesota Stub;dent Attitude Inventory Real version. In this analysis, themedian of the Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory which wasfilled out by student teachers as they perceived their stu-dents would really have filled it out. Those above the med-ian on the MSAI Real were classed as the first level of the BFactor and those scoring below the median were clawed as thesecond level of the B Factor., The analysis of variance forthese data is presented in Table 7.

Among all the analyses only the congruence data showed asignificant variation (p< .01). Looking at each of theselevels of the MSAI factor separately, Table 8 presents thedescriptive data for these groups. The mean convergence inGroup 1 ranged from 28 to 58 with the high performance fall-ing on the fourth observation. The second group ranged from21 to 53. In this group the highest convergence was on thefinal observation. In Group C the convergence ranged from29 to 62. In group 3 also, the general trend was lower tohigher convergence as one proceeded through the observations.In the fourth group, the range was from 37 to 57. However,this group seemed to vacillate between high and low converg-ence on the observations.

The analysis of variance for those people who scoredabove the "edian on MSAI Real is presented in Table 9. Theonly significant variation was in the convergence data acrossthe six repeated measures formed by the observations.

Table 10 presents the descriptive information for:thosewho scored below the median on the MSAI. In those studentsin treatment one who scored below the median on the MSAI therange was from 26 to 60 on convergence, starting with the lowconvergence and going to a high convergence. In treatmentGroup 2 the range was fro'. 34 to 63. This group started witha moderately high convergence dropped to its lowest point nearthe middle and rose again to the end. Group 3 had a range inmean convergence from 24 to 55 proceeding from low convergenceon the first observation to high convergence on the last.Group 4 had a mean convergence range from 22 to 58. Thisgroup vacillated in convergence as it was observed through thesemester.

Table 11 presents the analysis of variance for these data.Factor C, congruence across the six repeated measures,, was theonly significant source of variation.,

Table 12 presents the means and standard deviations for

-49-

TABLE 7

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE COMPARING LEVELSOF THE MSAI REAL

Source of Variation df MS

Between

A( treatment)

B(MSAI)

ERAS

Within

C(congruence)

AC

BC

ABC

EEC

1

3

82.71

71('.25

166.88

216.15

0.38

3.29

0.77

5, 3316.30 18.54**

15 233.96 1.31

5 226.52 1.27

15 225068 1.26

130 178.92

** p< .01

-50-

MSA

IG

RO

UP

Lev

el1

23

45

6X

S.D

.S.

D.

TE

S.D

.X

S.D

.3E

-S.

D.

3-C

S.D

.

TA

BL

E 8

DE

SCR

IPT

IVE

ST

AT

IST

ICS

ON

TH

OSE

SU

BJE

CT

S W

HO

SC

OR

ED

TH

E M

EA

N I

N T

HE

MSA

I O

N C

ON

VE

RG

EN

CE

DA

TA

OB

SER

VA

TIO

N of

AB

OV

E

1H

igh

31.1

12.

6628

.a 8

.731

.10

.131

3737

7946

.37.

2

2H

igh

21.7

11.

735

.0 2

0.0

37.6

4.2

50.6

12.

852

.9 1

0.8

53.6

6.4

3H

igh

33.4

17.

029

.4 1

7.6

50.1

21.

449

.1 1

8.2

62.6

6.2

61.0

9.0

4H

igh

56.0

16.

137

.26.

035

.86.

444

.6 1

2.3

57.1

15.

252

.6 2

2.1

TABLE 9

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PILOT STUDY TREATMENT GROUPSIN WHICH SUBJECTS SCORED ABOVE THE

MEDIAN ON THE MSAI

Source of Variation df MS

Betweena

A 3 326.35 1.49

ERA 14 219.76

Within

C 5 1696.45 1o.30**

AC 15 297.66 1.81

ERCX 74 164.72-

** p < .01

TA

BL

E 1

0

DE

SCR

IPT

IVE

ST

AT

IST

ICS

ON

TH

OSE

PIL

OT

ST

UD

Y M

EA

TM

EN

TG

RO

UPS

WH

O S

CO

RE

DB

EL

OW

TH

E-

ME

DIA

N O

N T

HE

NSA

I R

EG

AR

DIN

G C

ON

VE

RG

EN

CE

DA

TA

MSA

IO

BSE

RV

A-T

ION

GR

OU

PL

evel

1.

2...

_.3

4X

56

XS.

D.

2S.

D.

XS

Ds

ICS

aD

XS

aD

.X

S. D

.

1L

ox26

.88.

83.

24.-

--7.

=)

'4 1

a 7

19.7

60.4

8.4

58.9

11.6

5$.7

11.1

2L

ox41

.03.

339

.210

.734

.721

.542

.114

.253

.911

.163

.66.

3

3L

ow25

.0 2

0.8

40.2

.7.

847

.617

.8. 4

9.3

4.3

50.3

19.7

55.6

5.8

4L

ow22

.7 1

3.5

40.2

15.7

49.6

13.6

43.8

25.3

58.5

16 1

46.9

464

TABLE 11

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE PILOT STUSCORING BELOW THE HE

Source of Variati

Betw

TABLE 12

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MSAI SCORESPILOT STUDY TREATMENT GROUPS

GROUP

A

B

C

D

A+B

0+D

REALX S.D.7:39767

90.5

86.25

83.00

90.6

84.6

18.7

13.6

21.14

14.2

16.6

IDEALX S.D.

111.4 -cur'

-112.75 2.90

110.25 7.8

113.25 2.90

112.0 4.4

113.8 5.3

9.39**

3.08*

4.54**

3.62**

* p < .05** p < .01

TABLE 13

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS ON MSAI SCORESPRODUCED BY STUDENTS IN THE CLASSESOF COOPERATING TEACHERS PILOT STUDY

GROUP

1

2 1st2nd

3

4 1st2nd

semestersemester

semestersemester

86.3.

96.783.4

92.1

90.773.2

S.D.

11.8

9.614.5

11.7

9.812.5

navailsMaramairrr

A

the MSAI data. The data is shown for both Real and Ideal con-

ditions in the filling out of the MSAI. Several t tests were

run which indicated that in every case students had a signifi-

cantly different perception of the way they really thoughtstudents would fill out the MSAI as opposed to the way theywould really like their students to fill out this instrument.

Group A had a mean on the Real MSAI of 90.6 and the Ideal

mean was 111.4. Group B had a mean performance on the MSAIReal of 90.5 and on the MSAI Ideal of 112.75. This general re-lationship held throughout all four groups.

As an optional part of the data gathering, the students

who were taught by the student teachers in the study filled

out MSAI forms. Table 13 presents the mean and standard de-

viation of those instruments. The mean MSAI for those stu-

dent teachers in Group A was 86.3 The mean student MSAI forthose in Group,C was 92.1. For groups B and D who had halfsemester experiences there were two MSAI's eadh. In Group B

on the first half of the semester the MSAI mean was 96.7 andthe Group D first half semester mean was 90.7 and in thesecond half semester, the mean was 83.4 for Group B and forGroup D, the mean was 73.2. One might note that the full sem-

ester students who were supervised by Workshop teachers had

students who filled out MSAI's with lower scores than those who

had non-Workshop supervisors. However, those students whohad half semester experiences indicated a patterh reverse ofthe first mentioned, that is, that those student teachers

who had workshop cooperating teachers had students who filledout MSAI's with higher scores than those who had non-workshopcooperating teachers.

Semantic Differential

The Semantic Differential instru"ent measured attitudechanges on the part of student teachers and cooperating teach-

ers. Table 14 presents the total shift and mean shift on the,

Semantic Differential by the student teachers. In general,

most of the shifts were in the negative direction, regardless

of the group.

For ease of analysis, the items were grouped relative to

those in the Clayton Model of koalas, those in the Flanders'

Interaction Analysis. System and the one reaction to the con-

cept teaching itself.

In Group 1, there were negative shifts in almost everysituation except for potency relative to the Clayton Model

items, evalUation and potency relative to the Flanders' items

and potency relative to teaching item. In Group 2, there were

positive shifts in both receptivity and evaluation to the Clay-

-56-

TABLE 14

TOTAL SHIFT AND

MEAN SHIFT ON SEMANTIC

DIFFERENTIAL PILOT STUDY

GROUP I

ots et 0 44

GROUP III

GROUP II

GROUP IV

NJ

pi-

to

et0

ft,

etat

0re

m

ocw

t5

0 00

o44

Mrt 1-

*

44ct

a 44

Ques- -50

- 5

37

10

1^

-47

103

-14

85

- 2

80

18

Total

Shift

hift

1-28

- 5

-.5

3.?

2.2

-9.6

12.9

-1.8

10.6

-.4

16

-3.6Mean

Shift

%Irt .a s

Que

s4

064

43?

-3

-16

-33

69

-33

12

0Total

Shift

tions

29-50 -

46.4

:A

7.4

-.6

-3.2

-4.1

8.6

-4.1

.2

0Mean

Shift

Ques- - 5

- 3

6- 8

-15

=15

-3?

-48

-49

-7

30

Total

tion

Shift

51

-.5

-.3

.6

-1.6 -3.0 -3.0

-4.6

- 6

-6.1

-1.4

0Mean

Shift

GROUP I

(10 students) -# 1 - 10

GROUP II

( 8 students) -#11 - 19

GROUP III

( 5 students) -

#20 - 27

GROUP IV

( 5 students) -

#28 - 35

ton Model, a positive shift inthe Flanders' System but a negafactors relative to the conceptwere positive shifts in receptiviton Model items and in evaluationGroup 4, there were positive shiftand potency in relation to the itemton Model, positive shifts in reoeppotency of the items in the glandersitems and positive shifts in evaluatipresented with the concept teaching.

receptivity in relation totive reaction on all threeteaching. On Group 2, therety and potency on the Clay-on the Flanders' items. Ins relative to evaluations dealing with the Clay-tivity, evaluation and' Interaction Analysison and potency when

Workshop Assessment Index

Table 15 presents the data collected with the WorkshopAssessment Index. These data were collected on the Workshopcooperating teachers at the end of the Workshop and also col-lected on team at the end of the semester. These data alsowere collected on each student teacher at the end of the sem-ester experience and, for those who taught two assignments,these data also were collected at the end of the half-sem-ester period. The Index was scored eilploying the utility ofthe concepts involved and the frequency which those conceptswere used. For the cooperating teachers in Group A, whichwas a full semester assignment, Workshop cooperating teachersproduced a mean of 54 for utility and 48 for frequency. Atthe end of the semester, when measuring how they had super-vised their student teachers, the mean for utility was 39and frequency 35. The student teachers of these people pro-duced a mean for utility of 35 and a frequency of 25. Thesewere less than those produced by the cooperating teacher. InGroup B, the cooperating teachers at the end of the Workshopproduced a utility score of 49 and a frequency score of 45.Their student teachers produced a utility score of 33 and afrequency score of 28. The cooperating teachers for the

,second: half of the semester produced a utility score of 40and a frequency of 32, again lower than that they produced atthe end of the Workshop. The student teachers produced autility score of 29 and produced a frequency score of 19,again considerably less than the scores indicated by thecooperating teacher.

Summary

The findings of the Pilot Study are summarized as followsThere was significant variation in congruence scores in allfour treatments when compared both on levels of TSRT and onwhole TSRT, on levels of MSAI and whole MSAI performance. Thepattern of congruence varied considerably, however, so thatthere was no uniform conclusion that a particular treatmentcaused a particular type of congruence pattern.

41

TABLE 15

MEAN UTILITY AND MEAN FREQUENCY OF USE OF SUPERVISORY

TECHNIQUES WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT INDEX 1967 WORKSHOP

PARTICIPANTS AND STUDENT TEACHERS ASSIGNEDTO THOSE PARTICIPANTS

GROUP A CooperatingTeacher

StudentTeachet

SUMMER END OF SEMESTER

UTILITY FREQUENCY UTILITY FREQUENCY

54 48 39 35

GROUP B(1) CooperatingTeacher 49 45

35 25

StudentTeacher 33

(2) CooperatingTeacher

40

StudentTeacher

29

28

32

19

-59-

The Real versus Ideal perceptions of student teachersfilling out the Minnesota Attitude Inventory form showed thatstudent teachers have considerable variation between theways that they think they actually are perceived and the waythat they would like to be perceived. The student-producedscores on the MSAI were considerably lower than those scoressuggested as Ideal by the student teachers, but were in thesame range as those scores produced by the student teachers.The student teachers had a relatively well informed feelingabout the way students would fill out the M3AI. Attitudesshifted considerably in the process of student teaching asmeasured by the Semantic Differential. Most of the shiftswere in the negative direction.

The Workshop Assessment Index indicated that cooperat-ing teachers found listed techniques to have higher utilityand more frequent utilization in the Workshop than theyfound later when they were actually supervising a studentteacher. It was also found that student teachers producedlower scores for both utility and frequency than the cooper-ating teachers who supervised those student teachers.

auallel from the Continuing Study

The data for the Continuing Study were collected duringthe school year 1968 -1969. In it there were four treatmentgroups. Treatment one consisted of student teachers super-vised by Workshop cooperating teachers who were instructed touse both the videotape recorder and Flanders' InteractionAnalysis as part of the supervisory program. The secondgroup were supervised by Workshop cooperating teachers whowere instructed to use the videotape recorder but not Flanders'Interaction Analysis as part of the supervisory program.The third group were supervised by Workshop cooperating teach-ers who were instructed to use the Flanders' InteractionAnalysis System for supervisory purposes but had no access tothe videotape recorders. The fourth group had cooperatingteachers who were not participants in the Workshop and whowere allowed to use whatever supervisory techniques whichthat supervising teacher felt were appropriate. In order todelineate the analysis, subjects from the Fall semester wereanalyzed separately from those in the Spring semester andthen all subjects were combined into an analysis for the totalstudy.

TSRT. Table 16 presents the analysis of variance for theentire set of treatment groups using the TSRT pre to postgain or loss scores to determine levels of Factor B, usingthe four.treatnents as Factor A and using the six, repeated-measure congruence sets of data as Factor C. There was no

TABLE 16

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TREATMENT BY TSRT BY CONGRUENCE

\ALL STUDENT TEACHERS IN STUDY

Source of variation cif MS Fa

BetweenA (Treatment) 3 378.67 0.41

B (TSRT) 1 17.00 0.02

AB 3 1505.00 1.65

Error AB 62 914.42

WithinC (Congruence) 5 1673.00 2.02

AC 15 a 686.73 0.83

BC 5 1696.20 2.05

ABC 15 1044.73 1.26

Error C 310 828.29

significant F for any of the factors or interactions in Table16. Looking at the data divided by levels of Factor B, Table17 presents the analysis of variance for those students whoincreased in TSRT score when pre and post test scores werecompared. In this analysis only Factor C, the repeated mea-sure congruence data, produced a significant F.

Table 18 presents the descriptive data for this group ofstudent teachers, those who gained in TSRT score when pre andpost tests were compared. Those students in Group 1, receiv-ing both videotape and Interaction Analysis supervisory tech-niques, had a range in mean congruence from 44.7 to 62.1. The

congruence was the lowest in the first observation and in-creased to the middle observation, decreased again, and thenincreased to the high point at the last observation. Forthose receiving the videotape-only treatment, Group 2, thecongruence data ranged from 44.1 to 63.5. These data decreasedafter the first two observations, increased to the fifth ob-servation, and then decreased again. For the group receiv-ing Interaction Analysis as a supervisory technique, the rangeof mean congruence was 47.6 to 59.5. In this instance thelowest congruence occurred in the first observation and thehighest congruence occurred in the sixth observation.

For the group receiving no specified supervisory tech-nique, the congruence ranged from 43 to 58.4. This congru-ence increased from the beginning to the fourth observationand then diminished again to the sixth observation.

Table 19 presents the analysis of variance for studentswhose TSRT score decreased from the first pre-test administra-tion to the post-test administration. In this analysis onlyFactor C, the within-group change in congruence, produced asignificant F. The descriptive data for these congruencedata is presented in Table 20. For Group 1 the lowest con-gruence was 50.7, the highest congruence was 61.0. The lowestoccurred in the first observation, the highest in the second.All subsequent observations were lower than the second ob-servation.

For the second group, receiving videotape feedback only,the congruence ranged from 47:.,4 to 5501. These congruencesincreased from the first to the fourth observation and thendecreased. For the group receiving only the Flanders' Inter-action Analysis supervisory technique, the mean congruenceranged from 42.4 to 54.5. These were achieved in the secondand third observation respectively. In the fourth groupwith no specified supervisory techniques, the range was from4446 to 67.1. These were achieved in the first and thirdobservations respectively.

-62-

TABLE 1

ANALYSIS OF

STUDENT TEACHERS WHO

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTESTS WERE COMPARED

7

VARIANCE

GAINED IN TSRT SCORES

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 94.52 0.34

Error A 32 277.62

Within

C (Congruence) 5 591.11 2.32*

AC 15 216.06 0.85

Error C 160 254.83

P

-63-

TABLE 18

CONGRUENCE OF

STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO GAINED IN TSRT

SCORES

WHEN PRE- ANDPOSTTESTS WERECOMPARED

Group

TSRT

level

Observation

12

34

56

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

1Increase

45.2

19.71

2Increase

46.2

18.14

3Increase

47.6

17.35

4Increase

43.4

15.59

51.9

49.7

52.1

11.91

16.87

13.33

54.0

24.78

44.1

16.47

53.3

16.90

47.3

13.3

51.6

16.51

1

44.7

18.341

51.8

17.58

46.6

11.34

55.7

20.23

58.4

20.99

63.5

9.44

52.8

12.57

54.1

11.31

62.1

12.74

52.8

10.16

59.5

17.43

52.1

14.38

TABLE 19

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

STUDENT TEACHERS WITH POSTTEST TSRT

LOWER THAN PRETEST TSRT

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 664.13 2.36

Error A 30 280.99

Within

C (Congruence) 5 587.86 2.67*

AC 15 175.77 0.80

Error C 150 220.52

0%

Group 1 2 4,

TABLE 20

CONGRUENCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO DECREASED IN TSRT SCORES

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTESTS WERECOMPARED

TSRT

level

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Decrease

Observation

12

34

56

Mean

S.D.

50.7

16.86

47.4

24.04

45.8

13.72

44.6

20.56

Mean

S.D.

61.0

12.32

50.6

11.38

42.4

10.75

51.5

9.47

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

55.0

8.89

58.5

14.05

52.9

16.19

55.1

14.97

54.5

10.66

51.1

16.78

67.1

20.18

64.8

10.93

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

50.8

12.33

51.7

17.65

48.6

18.78

48.7

13.92

45.7

17.07

49.4

10.24

59.7

16.95

47.3

16.37

Bresq,Ang the data down into the separate-semester analy-ses, Table 21 presents the analysis based on increase or de-crease in TSRT scores for those student teachers assigned inthe Fall semester of the 1968-1969 school year. This analysisshowed a significant F for Factor B which was the shift inTART score and a significant F for Factor C which was thechange in the repeated-measure congruence data across the sixobservations within each treatment grc.up.

Breaking these data into separrite levels of B, Table 22presents the analysis for those subjeats whose TSRT score in-creased when pre and post tests were compared. In this analy-sis only Factor Co the congruence data within the groups,showed a significant F. The descriptive data for this groupis shown in Table 23. The mean congruence data for those whohad increased in TSRT when pre and post tests were comparedand who were in Group 1 receiving both videotape and Flanders'Interaction Analysis supervisory techniques, showed a range inmean congruence from 33.5 to 63.8, the lowest occurred in thefirst observation, the highest in the sixth. For those sub-jects receiving only videotape supervision, the lowest congru-ence occurred ir7othe first observation which was 38.4, thehighest occurred in the fifth observation. This was 62.5.?or those subjects receiving the Flanders' Interaction Analy-sis as a supervisory technique, those subjects produced theirlowest congruence in observation four with 47.8 and theirhighest in observation six, producing 67.8. In the last group,with no specified supervisory techniques, the first observa-tion was the lowest congruence, 32.8. The third observationwas the highest, 55.44.

Table 24 analyzes the data for those subjects with lowerpost test TSRT scores than pre test TSRT scores who taught inthe Fall semester. In this analysis there was no factor orinteraction producing a significant F.

Table 25 presents the mean convergence data for thesegroups. Since there were no significant differences, thesedata were not discussed.

Table 26 presents the analysis of variance for those sub-jents who were assigned to student teaching in the Spring sem-ester of the 1968-1969 school year. In this analysis, FactorB--the level of TSRT score, and the interaction of the treat-ment A with the TSRT level were significant.

Breaking down the data into levels of B so that the inter-action AB can be analyzed, Table 27 presents the analysis ofvariance for those students in the Spring semester who in-creased in TSRT score when pre and post testa were compared.In this analysis there were no significant F's. Therefore,

TABLE 21

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TREATMENT BY TSRT BY CONGRUENCE

FALL SEMESTER STUDENT TEACHERS

I.

Source of variation

--

clf MS F

BetweenA (Treatment) 3 152.33B (Tsrt) 1 2636.50 1

3.70:**

AB 3 517.71 2.57Error AB 25 201.53

WithinC (Congruence) 5 1063.45 4.43**AC 15 184.07 0.77BC 5 185,00 0.77ABC 15 49.77 0.21Error C 125 240.28

TABLE 22

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

FALL STUDENT TEACHERS WHO GAINED IN TSRT SCORE

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTEST WERE COMPARED

Source of variation df

Between

A (Treatment) 3

Error A 14

Within

C (Congruence) 5

AC 15

Error C 70

255.04

226.23

884.14

163.10

236.38

1.13

3.74**

0.69

**p.01

Group

TABLE 23

-CONGRUENCE OF FALL STUDENT

TEACHERS

WHO GAINED IN TSRT SCORES

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTESTS WERE COMPARED

Observation

TSRT

level

1 2 3 4

Increase

33.5

15.07

Increase

38.4

12.49

Increase

54.3

21.81

Increase

32.8

3.54

50.5. 12.62

46.7

19.02

52.6

15.11

44.1

20.14

50.5

17.76

48.2

17.76

41.8

16.45

55.4

24.52

46.0:

8.61

62.5

10.90

57.7

9.66

54.7

5.98

63,8

10.47

52.1

11.34

67.8

10.88

54.7

9.33

TABLE 24

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

FALL STUDENT TEACHERS WITH POSTTEST TSRT SCORES

LOWER THAN PRETEST TSRT

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 191.27 1.12

Error A 11 170.19

Within

C (Congruence) 5 312.32 1.27

AC 15 88.06 0.36

Error C 55 245.24

-71-

7

TABLE 25

CONGRUENCE OF FALL STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO DECREASED IN TSRT SCORES

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTESTS WERE -COMPARED

Group

TSRT

level

Observation

12

34

56

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

1Decrease

2Decrease

Decrease

4Decrease

46.1. 15.06

30.0

21.74

44.1

6.87

48.2

22.82

56_..6

14.10

52.3

18.41

4S.0

9.42

45.0

5.19

58.5

4.86

44.6

16.09

50.4

11.24

57.1

27.54

55,6-

9.61

42.8

13.59

49.2

17.80

55.8

16.01

53.9

7.99 544 15.69

57.2

12.54

56.2

10.52

56.7

20.92

57.4

15.92

54.9

5.37

53.3

23.06

TABLE 26

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TREATMENT BY TSRT BY CONGRUENCE

SPRING STUDENT TEACHERS

,

Source of variation df MS F

BetweenA (Treatment) 3 1803.38 1.18

B (TSRT) 1 25535.50 16.75**

AB 3 7229.16 4.74*

Error AB. 29 1524.70

WithinC (Congruence) 5 2903.71 2.17

AC 15 1485.87 1.11

BCABC

515

2060.191228.48

1.540.92

Error C 145 1 1340.301

***p<.05p <.01

,..73-

TABLE 27

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SPRING STUDENT TEACHERS WHO GAINED IN TSRT SCORE

WHEN PliE- AND POSTTEST SCORES WERE COMPARED

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 140.88 0.59

Error A 11 239.38

Within

C Congruence) 5 128.17 0.52

AC 15 335.25 1.35

Error C 55 247.92

the descritive data is merely presented in Table 28 and not

discussed.

Table 29 presents the analysis of variance for those stu-

dents who decreased in TSRT score wheA pre and post testswere compared. In this table Factor C, the change in congrui

ence, produced a significant F. The mean congruence data forthis group is presented in Table 30. Toor the group receiving

the combined videotape and Flanders' supervisory techniques,the lowest congruence occurred in the fifth observation of47.0. The highest congruence oor;ureud in the second observa-tion, 66.42. This group markedly decreased in congruencethrough the seftester.

The group receiving only the videotape feedback forsupervision had the lowest mean congruence in the fifth ob-

ervation, 43.4. The highest was in the fourth observation,

62.5. These data seem to vascillate up and down. The groupreceiving just the Flanders' Interaction Analysis supervisorytechnique had, the minimum congruence in the second observa-tion of 39.1, the maximum convergence in the third observa-tion of 56.5. The fourth group with no specified supervisorytechnique had its minimum congruence in the first observa-tion at 39.0, and the maximum in the third observation at62.5.

Table 31 presents the TSRT descriptive data. These data

),re broken down into Fall and Spring as well as indicating";he mean and standard deviation of the scores for the totalcoup. Group 1, receiving the Flanders' Interaction Analy-ls and videotape supervisory techniques, had a mean of 210.9

a a pre test, 209.6 as a post test. In the Fall the pre

test it ean was 210.5, post test mean 209.4. In the Spring pretest mean 211.4, posttest mean 211.0. In each case, the mean

on the posttest was less than the mean on the pretest.

Group 2, who received the videotape supervisory tech-nique only, there was a variation in pattern. The total

group increased from 206.1 to 207.3 on the posttest. The

Fall group increased from 204.8 to 207.3, whereas the Springgremp decreased from 206.4 to 205.9. In the group receivingjust the Flanders' Interaction Analysis, the overall shiftwas down from pre-to posttest of 208.7 to 206.7. The Fall

group showed an increase in mean score, however, from 206.6

to 208.0. The Spring group showed a decrease from 210.9 to

205.3. For those who were in the non-specified supervisorytreatment, the overall performance was an increase in mean

score from 208.6 to 212.6. The Fall group decreased, however,

in mean perfor ftance from 209.8 to 209.0, whereas the Springgroup increased in performance from 204.6' to 215.6.

^.11

11M

arve

.....

of

TABLE 28

CONGRUENCE OF SPRING STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO GAINED IN TSRT SCORES

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTESTSWERE-COMPARED

Group

TSRT

level

Observation

12

34

56

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

1 3 4

Increase

Increase

Increase

Increase

59.9

14.71

64.6

17.04

40.9

10.30

54.0

6.10

53.6

12.61

42.9

22.25

53.7

9.61

47.6

15.54

63.2

30.87

44.2

1.77

58.3

18.31

56.1

9.21

45.8

13.53

45.0

8.96

63.6

17.37

76.6

8.13

59.0

24.51

65.9

5.75

47.9

14.52

54.2

17.76

Mean

S.D.

59.9

16.59

54.4

8.55

51.2

20.12

54.3

13.80

TABLE 29

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SPRING STUDENT TEACHERS WHO SCORED LOWER

ON POST-TSRT THAN ON PRE-TSRT

Source of variation df MS 1 F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 456.46 1.11

Error A 18 412.57

Within.

C (Congruence) 5 675.75 3.20*

AC 15 277.86 1,32

Error C 90 210.95

I I I

<, 05

Group

TSRT

level

TABLE 30

CONGRUENCE OF SPRING

STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO DECREASED ON TSRT

SCORES

WHEN PRE- AND POSTTESTSWEREtOMPARED

Observation

12

34

56

1Decrease

2Decrease

3Decrease

4Decrease

Mean

S.D.

56.4

19.45

57.9

20.23

46.6

16.74

39.0

19.71

Mean

S.

D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

66.4

8.24

49.6

7.32

39.1

10.49

54.8

10.34

50.6

11.49

57.9

15.67

56.5

10.78

62.5

21.44

62.0

19.31

47.0

16,90

62.5

10.86

43.4

21.18

52.1

17.90

40.2

13.50

61.0

16.00

59.8

18.22

Mean

S.D.

48.3

21.81

44.3

14.75

45.4

3.11

43.9

12.62

TABLE 31

TSRT DESCRIPTIVE DATA

Group

Semester

Pre

Post

Mean

S. D.

Mean

S. D.

1Fall

210.5

14.01

209.4

16.98

1Spring

211.4

6.50

211.0

14.25

1Total

210.9

12.78

209.6

15.01

2Fall

204.8

10.16

207.3

9.23

2Spring

206.4

15.06

205.9

18.48

2Total

206.1

14.15

207.3

15.33

3Fall

206.6

11.25

208.0

8.79

3Spring

210.9

11.60

205.3

9.95

3Total

208.7

9.38

206.7

9.13

4Fall

209.8

20.07

209.0

15.26

4Spring

204.6

12.35

215.6

21.69

4Total

208.6

16.52

212.6

18.45-

Summarizing the data with respect to congruence scoresbroken down according to TSRT gains or losses, and TSRT scoresthemselves, while there were significant differences in con-gruence as the sixth measures rare male on the teaching be-havior, there was no consistent pabtrn in congruence in anyone of the levels of TSRT performance or in any one of thetreatment groups. There was no consistent performance inshift on TSRT in any of the treatment ;;soups. Therefore, thenull hypotheses related to any of tbose considerations cannotbe rejected.

MSAI. This section presents the analysis of the databased on the Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory filled outby the student teachers as they perceived their studentswould actually have filled them out. This will be called theMSAI Real score. These data were also analyzed for the totalgroup and for the Fall and Spring semester groups separately.

Table 32 presents the analysis of variance for the con-gruence data separated on the MSAI scores above and below themedian MSAI Real score for all student teachers in the Con-tinuing Study. In this analysis and the subsequent ones inthis section, Factor A is the four treatfient groups, treatmentone being that group which received both the Flanders' Inter-action Analysis technique and the videotape recording. Group2 received only the videotape recording technique. Group 3received only the Flanders' Interaction Analysis. Group 4 hadno specified supervisory treatment.

In the analysis in Table 32, there was no significant F.Table 33 presents the break-down analysis for those people whosc:ored above the median on the MSAI from the total year of thestudy. In this analysis there was no significant F. The de-scriptive congruence data for this group is presented in Table34.

Table 35 presents the analysis of variance for the sub-jects in the entire year who scored below the fiedian on theMSAI Real. There were no significant values for F in thisanalysis, Table 36 presents the data which describes thesecnngruences. Breaking the data down into those who studenttaught in the Fall and those who student taught in the Spring,Table 27 presents the analysis of variance for all studentswho taught in the Fall semester of 1968-69, when broken downon the basis of those whose scored above or below the medianon the MSAI Real. In this analysis, Factor B, the levels ofMSAI was significant and' Factor C, the repeated congruencemeasure within the group, was also significant.

Table 38 shows the analysis of variance on those studentslr the Fall who sbored above the median on the MSAI. In this

TABLE 32

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TREATMENT BY MSAI (REAL) BY CONGRUENCE

ALL STUDENT TEACHERS STUDIED

Source of variation elf MS F--.....

BetweenA (Treatment) 3 378.33 0.43B (MSAI) 1 3229.00 3.64AB 3 1000.33 1.13Error AB 62 887.05

WithinC (Congruence) 5 1673.00 1.97AC 15 686.80 0.81BC 5 359.60 0.42ABC 15 1030.93 1.21Error C 310 I 850.51

I

TABLE 33

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

ALL STUDENT TEACHERS STUDIED WHO SCORED

\

ABOVE THE MEDIAN ON MSAI (REAL)

Source of variation df MS

Between

A (Treatment) 3 455.04 1.38

Error A 29 329.60

Within

C (Congruence) 5 276.94 1.10

AC 15 157.74 0.63

Error C 145 I 252.37

-82-

4

TABLE 34

CONGRUENCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO SCORED ABOVE THE MEDIAN

ON MSAI (REAL)

-'

Group

CO

_

I

MSAI

level

12

Mean

S.D.

Mean

1 2 3 4

Above

Above

Above

Above

53.7

22.84

46.0

18.47

51.9

16.02

44.9

19.51

57.2

50.7

48.3

51.6

S.D.

Mean

11.22

59.4

14.82

45.9

10.81

50.6

11.11

62.4

Observation

3I

4

S.D.

I Mean

23.81

20.19

12.26

22.11

57.3

49.5

63.5

62.8

S.D.

Mean

13.63

50.4

16.34

52.3

13.87

55.1

16.57

56.8

56

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

9.84

18.69

10.20

14.34

55.1

15.77

52.6

11.78

56.8

14.22

53.1

16.83

TABLE 35

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

ALL STUDENT TEACHERS STUDIED WHO SCORED

BELOW THE MEDIAN ON MSAI (REAL)

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 187.44 0.86Error A 33 218.72

Within

C (Congruence) 5 434.44 1.84AC 15 279.60 1.18Error C 165 236.44

CO

Group

TABLE 36

CONGRUENCE OF STUDENTTEACHERS

WHO SCORED BELOW THE MEDIAN

ON THE MSAI (REAL)

Observation

MSAI

level

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

1 2 3 4

Below

Below

Below

Below

43.3

12.38

49.8

24.45

42.9

13.95

43.1

16.70

55.8

14.25

46.9

13.18

46.0

14.32

47.2

12.12

50.5

11.69

52.1

10.96

56.2

14.47

55.8

17.47

47.0

19.29

52.3

10.34

46.1

17.69

60.2

17.98

Mean

S.D.

52.0

18.27

63.1

9.74

44.8

16.96

56.7

14.71

58.3

16.62

46.5

9.72

52.3

1528

47.0

13.64

TABLE 37

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TREATMENT BY MSAI (REAL) BY CONGRUENCE:

FALL STUDENT TEACHERS

Source of variation df MS F

BetweenA (Treatment)B (MSAI)

31

152.022168.44

0.8512.16**

AB 3 168.31 0.94Error AB 25 178.33

,

WithinC (Congruence) 5 1063.29 5.25**AC 15 184.13 0.91

BC 5 367.94 1.82ABC 15 304.38 1.50Error C 125 202.40

I

TABLE 38

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

FALL STUDENT TEACHERS SCORING ABOVE

THE MEDIAN ON MSAI (REAL)

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 508.79 4.02*

Error A 11 126.61

Within

C (Congruence) 5 200.67 0.81

AC 15 323.52 1.30

Error C 55 248.57

*p <.05

analysis, Factor A or the treatments themselves, produced asignificant F. No other factor or interaction showed signifi-cance.

Table 39 presents the congruence data for these subjects.In the first treatment group, the minimum mean of congruencewas 43.4, the maximum was 62.2. These were achieved in thefirst and third observations respectively. The second treat-ment group, receiving only videotape as a supervisory technique,had minimum congruence of 36.0 and maximum congruence at 60.0.These were achieved in the third and fifth observation.

The third treatment group receiving Flanders' InteractionAnalysis treatment, had minimum congruence in the second ob-servation of 39.9 and a maximum congruence in the fourth ob-servation of 67.3. The group with unspecified treatment hadminimum congruence in the second observation of 47.6 and maxi-mum in third observation of 60.15. The highest congruence wasachieved by those in the interaction analysis only group.The second highest was achieved by those in the combinedinteraction analysis and videotape group. There was littleobservable diffeience in congruence performance between thosewho received videotape only feedback and those who had an un-specified treatment for supervisory techniques.

The analysis of variance for the Fall student teachers whoscored below the median on the iSAI is presented in Table 40.None of the factors or interactions was significant except forC, the shift in congruence within the groups. The descrip-tive data for these subjects is included in Table 41.

For the subjects in the first group who received a com-bination of both the videotape and the Flanders' InteractionAnalysis, the minimum mean congruence occurred in the firstobservation, 38.3. The maxifium occurred in the sixth observa-tion, 64.7. In the group receiving only the videotape super-vision, the minimum mean congruence was 35.4 in the first ob-servation and the maximum, 61.9, was in the fifth observation.In the group receiving only the Flanders', the mini ""um congru-ence was in the fourth observation at 34.2 and the maximumoccurred in the sixth observation at 66.0.

In the fourth treatment group, those with no specifiedsupervisory technique, the minimum congruence of 27.5 occurredin the first observation and the maximum of 60.0 occurred inthe last or sixth observation.

Students in the Fall sample who scored below the medianon the NSAI Real showed a definite increase in congruence asthe semester proceded through the six observations. Each ofthe four groups showed the same basic pattern except for the

-88-

TABLE 39

CONGRUENCE

OF FALL STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO SCORED ABOVE THE MEDIAN

ON MSAI (REAL)

Group

MSAI

level

12

Mean

S.D.

Mean

1 2

Above

43.4

18.24

Above

36.3

13.72

Above

59.5

23.01

Above

50.9

19.55

63.6

55.8

39.9

47.6

Observation

34

56

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

4.87

62.2

4.79

58.7

11.16

55.0

11.52

46.0

10.82

14.31

36.0

19.69

37.3

9.67

60.0

11.01

54.2

11.57

5.45

55.9

15.96

67.3

2.41

60.4

12.02

59.8

21.79

6.37

60.1

28.71

54.2

18.73

55.0

5.48

50.7

20.66

TABLE 40

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

FALL STUDENT 'TEACHERS SCORING BELOW

THE MEDIAN ON MSAI (REAL)

Source of variation df MS F

Between

A (Treatment) 3 79.69 0.36

Error A 14 219.06

Within

C (Congruence) 5 1144.72 6.89**

AC 15 193.61 1.17

Error C 70 166.12

<.01

-90-

TABLE 41

CONGRUENCE OF FALL STUDENT

TEACHERS

WHO SCORED BELOW THEMEDIAN

-

ON MSAI (REAL)

Group

MSAI

level

Observation

23

45

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

1 2 3 4

Below

Below

Below

Below

38.3

15.79

35.4

17.84

42.8

7.25

27.5

3.99

49.3

13.23

49.3

16.76

57.3

13.59

36.7

9.28

48.5 .15.53

52.6

13.35

44.0

10.01

49.3

15.80

Mean

S.D.

45.9

19.41

47.8

7.43

54.5

8.40

61.9

12.17

34.2

8.28

55.0

16.51

47.4

15.02

54.5

5.64

Mean

S.D.

64.7

10.61

52.4

11.00

66.0

3.52

60.0

16.92

interaction analysis only treatment group which first wentdown in congruence and then produced higher values.

Table 42 presents the analysis of variance table forthose student teachers assigned in the Spring semester ofthe 1968-69 school year, with B Factor being the scoringabove or below the median on the MSAI. None of these valuesof F was significant, therefore, no analysis of variance wasperformed breaking these data into separate levels of Factor B.

Table 43 and Table 44 present the descriptive data forthose student teachers in this classification.

Table 45 presents the descriptive data for the MinnesotaStudent Attitude Inventory comparing the Real, which was theversion filled out by the student teacher as he perceived hisstudents would have filled it out, and the Ideal, which wasthe student teachers' filling out the MSAI in the way hewould like to have had his students fill it out.

There were marked differences between MSAI (Real) andMSAI (Ideal) scores in all treatment groups whether groupedby fall, spring, or total. There were no large differencesamong the treatment groups on either the real or ideal admin-istrations; therefore, no analysis of variance was performedon these data. The least difference between Real and Idealversions occurred in the group with no specified supervisorytreatment. This group also produced the lowest MSAI (Ideal)scores. The student teachers in the interaction analysisgroup with student teaching assignments in the spring semesterproduced a distribution of MSAI (Ideal) scores with a muchsmaller standard deviation than that produced by any othergroup.

Student MSAI Scores. The Minnesota Student Attitude In-ventory was adoinistered as an optional iteu to students ofthe student teachers who were participants in this study.There were students of student teachers in each experimentalgroup who completed the instrument. In Table 46 there arethe means and standard deviations of the student MSAI scoresgrouped by treatment group and by semester. In the Fall sem-ester the group with the lowest mean score on the MSAI wasthe first treatment group, those students receiving bothFlanders' and videotape as feedback and supervisory treatments.Those students who produced the highest MSAI scores occurredin the group for which were student teachers who had no speci-fied supervisory technique.

In the spring a different pattern prevailed. The lowestscores on the MSAI were produced by students of student

TABLE 42

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TREATMENT BY MSAI (REAL) BY CONGRUENCE

\, SPRING STUDENT TEACHERS

Source of variation df MS

_BetweenA (Treatment) 3 1803.35 1.39

B (MSAI) 1 1318.19 1.02

AB 3 3030.98 2.33

ERAB 29 1298.37

WithinC (Congruence) 5 2903.63 2.30

AC 15 1485.88 1.18

BC 5 1271.27 I 1.01

ABC 15 2244.55 1.78

Error C 145 1262.39

TA

BL

E 4

3

CO

NG

RU

EN

CE

OF

SPR

ING

ST

UD

EN

T T

EA

CH

ER

S

WH

O S

CO

RE

D A

BO

VE

TH

E M

ED

IAN

ON

MSA

I (R

EA

L)

Gro

up 1 2 3 4

MSAI

level

1

Mean

Above

63.9

Above

55.8

Above

38.7

Above

38.9

Observation

S.D

.

17.0

2

18.4

7

16.7

9

20.2

7

23

4

Mean

S.D

.Mean

S.D

.Mean

S.D

.Mean

S.D.

56.0

13.7

164

.525

.23

62.1

13.6

449

.511

.90

45.7

15.0

055

.816

.84

61.7

11.6

644

.522

.72

51.7

14.1

649

.011

.65

47.4

14.2

146

.912

.63

55.7

14.2

464

.617

.40

71.4

9.52

58.6

21.0

0

Mean

S.D

.

58.9

17.1

9

50.9

13.1

0

21.0

0 11

.05

55.6

14.7

6

%.0

Ln

TABLE 44

CONGRUENCE OF SPRING

STUDENT TEACHERS

WHO SCORED BELOW

THE MEDIAN

ON MSAI (REAL)

Group

MSAI

level

Observation

13

45

6

Mean

S.D.

I Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

1 2 3 4

Below

Below

Below

Below

48.5

10.18

66.7

4.82

68.1

18.05

49.3

13.48

48.0

12.17

40.4

9.34

47.6

16.26

50.1

11.60

44.2

11.34

47.8

6.69

62.7

12.16

57.6

18.64

40.3

16.62

46.3

10.52

62.9

18.10

63.9

17.97

58.9

33.28

63.9

4.63

40.8

14.96

57.3

16.77

46.1

22.70

43.4

14.41

44.5

12.78

43.2

11.23

TABLE 45

MSAI REAL AND IDEAL

DESCRIPTIVE DATA

Group

Semester

Real

'-

Ideal

Mean

S. D.

Mean

S. D.

1Fall

85.9

11.45

112.6

5.17

1Spring

89.3

15.21

111.3

4.20

1Total

87.5

13.02

111.4

4.75

2Fall

88.0

12.12

113.6

7.55

2Spring

93.3

8.75

112.1

6.09

2Total

90.1

10.89

113.5

5.64

3Fall

88.4

10.93

111.9

7.01

3Spring

90.6

7.47

112.8

2.90

3Total

89.6

8.88

112.6

5.94

4Fall

91.0

7.27

107.7

5.61

4Spring

82.0

12.73

106.0

6.32

4Total

85.8

11.36

106.5

6.00

TABLE 46

STUDENT MSAI

OF FALL AND SPRING STUDENT TEACHERS

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

.Group Semester Mean S. D.

1 Fall 86.3 14.53

1 Spring 88.4 17.29

2 Fall 87.7 15.03

2 Spring 73.1 18.53

3 Fall 95.4 15.96

3 Spring 76.9 20.73

4 Fall 98.9 12.24

4 I Spring 76.1 22.58

TABLE 47

WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT INDEX

MASTER TEACHERS/MEAN SCORES

Group Semester Utility Frequency

1 Fall 46' 40

1 Spring - 50 46

2 Fall 46 39

2 Spring 50 48

3 Fall 47 35

3 Spring 49 42

-.97-

teachers who were supervised using the videotape only as asupervisory technique and the highest scores were produced bythose students of student teachers who received both Flanders'Interaction Analysis and videotape as supervisory techniques.

Workshop Assessment Index Scores. Master teachers whowere in the Summer Workshop filled out Workshop Assessment In-dex forms at the close of the Workshop. These scores are pre-sented in Table 47 in the form of means for utility and meansfor frequency of use divided into the four treatment groupsand into the two semesters. The range on utility across allsix of the groups was 46 to 50. The range on frequency was35 to 48. On frequency the lowest reported mean was from themaster teachers of all semester student teachers who receivedonly the Flanders' supervisory technique and the highest fre-quency was reported by the Workshop teachers who had studentteachers assigned in the Spring semester. Those teachers re-ported a mean frequency of 48.

Supervisory Activities Checklist. The Supervisory Activi-ties Checklist was administered both to student teachers andto master teacher6 in all four experimental groups in both sem-esters. Table 48 presents the frequency of use of supervisorytechniques as reported on that instrument. It is divided intoFall and Spring semesters and into the four treatment groups,then into the student teachers and master teachers fro" eachof those treatment groups. It reports on each item on theChecklist. Items 11 and 12 are concerned with the use of thevideotape equipment. In Groups 1 and 2, where that equipmentwas directed to be used, it was reported to be used by all ofthe student teachers and all but one set of master teachers.In Groups 3 and 4, which were not to use the videotape re-corder, no one in the Fall semester reported its use. However,in the Spring semester, three student teachers and two coop-erating teachers reported using videotape equipment.

Items 13 through 17 concerned the use of the Flanders'Interaction Analysis technique. In Groups 1 and 3, whichare concerned with various aspects of using Flanders' tech-nique, each student teacher and cooperating teacher reporthaving actually used this technique. Ip Groups 2 and 4, wherethis was not specified, only one student teacher reportedusing this technique and two master teachers reported usingit. In the Spring semester, concerned with the same items,Groups 1 and 3 again report heavy use of interaction analysis.In Group 2, at least two student teachers and one cooperatingteacher report actually using the Flanders' technique. InGroup 4 no student teacher reports the use of this technique,but at least four of the master teachers claim that they havemade use of Flanders. Almost every other item was claimed to

TABLE 48

FREQUENCY OF USE OF

SUPERVISORY TECHNIQUES

Item

Fall semester Spring semester

Experimental group Experimental group

II III IV I

ct St ct st ct st ct

II III IV

st ctSt Ct St Ct St ct

1

234567

8910111213141516171819202122

245631

12131306697

54567

3513

7

8754

111089

138684861056468

6'11

8473

1313113133

N 9

00100302414

10

118107

61

1210693000000205512

4594

1014611120006441011049

675751

7:.5

71009645333577

8876808983

00000000015

8582623590000021010757

5 105 99 105 65 42 38 10

11 910 10

2 47 72 37 94 45 33 53 33 41 41 67 7

10 i 9

2652229851421120010024

118

15753161314265101001013

10

389271712120321010487

34466

12 3 1610 4 5

11 2 156 2 94 7 102 1 3

7 7 98 14 1914 14 192 2 41 1 1

1 0 2

11 0 44 0 08 0 1

10 0 3

5 0 03 0 2

6 0 25 0 7

9 6 1012 7 11

8 8 8 9 8 12

-99-

have been used by master teachers and student teachers in allfour groups in both semesters.

Semantic Differential. The Semantic Differential was ad-ministered to Workshop cooperating teachers at the beginningand again at the end of their Workshop experience. This sameinstrument was administered to the student teachers in allfour treatment groups. The Senantic Differential containedpairs of adjectives related to three factors; effectivity,potency and receptivity, for each of the twelve concepts givenin the instrument.

Tables 49, 50 and 51 present the total shift in thosefactors on the concepts of the Semantic Differential instru-ment. These totals were equalized so that the effect of dif-ferent sized groups would be eliminated from the table.

Table 52 presents the frequency of positive shifts on theSemantic Differential concepts by cooperating teachers. These

are presented separately by Fall and Spring and then combinedso that a chi-square analysis could be run on these data. The

chi-square for effectivity across the three groups of coopera-ting teachers, was 1.61 which gives a probability less than.50 that these occurred by chance. On potency, the chi-squarevalue was 1.63, the probability was less than .50. For re-ceptivity, the chi-square value was .45 giving a probabilityof less than .80. Each of these probabilities is considerablyless than that which is acceptable for saying one has a sig-nificant difference. Therefore, it is assumed that the Seman-tic Differential did not indicate any significant differencesamong the three groups of cooperating teachers on the conceptslisted in that instrument.

Table 53 presents the frequency of positive shifts onSemantic Differential concepts by student teachers. In thiscase, the four treatment groups are presented, separated byFall and Spring, and combined for purposes of analysis on eachof the factors. On effectivity, the chi-square value was 6.81,probability less than .10. For potency, chi-square value was3.58, probability less than .50. For receptivity, the chi-square value was 2.16, the probability less than .70. Onlythe factor effectivity showed anything approaching signifi-cant differences among the four treatuent groups. These dif-ferences were less than would be required to produce a proba-bility of less than .05 (the level accepted in the rest ofthis document), yet the differences were marked and approachedsignificance. On the effectivity factor those students inGroup 2, the group who received videotape feedback as a super-.visory technique, had more positive shifts than any of theother groups.

-100-

s 0 I-a

TABLE 49

TOTAL SHIFT IN EFFECTIVITYON CONCEPTS

IN SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

INSTRUMENT

$

Item

III

III

IV

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Springy

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

st

1+8

+5

-1

-5

-7

+4

+13

+5

-1

-3

+11

+4

+1

-1

20

+8

+9

-2

+2

+2

+4

+3

-5

+2

+6

0.5

+3

3+11

-7

-5

-4

-11

-4

+6

+8

-15

+1

-3

+7

-4

-2

4-11

+6

-16

-3

+6

-3

+16

+1

-2

+4

-9

+2

-4

+2

5-4-9

+1

-1.

-4

-9

-16

+17

-1

+2

-3

-6

+2

-8

+3

6-5

-4

-22

-3

+19

-12

+8

+3

+1

-5

+14

-2

-4

-13

7+1

+10

+15

-3

+8

+1

+8

+5

-2

+8

+4

+3

-1

+3

8-4

+16

-1

-11

+5

-14

-24

+1

-6

+35

-11

+7

-6

-20

9-7

+2

+9

-5

-6

+4

+11

-5

-2

+12

-2

+2

-3

-7

10

+8

-13

=18

+1

+7

-8

+13

-8

+7

-2

+7

-1

-12

-3

11

-2

-23

-26

-5

-6

-12

+8

-29

+3

-33

+3

-31

-7

+1

12

-2

.5

-13

1

..T2

+1

+12

+17

-17

-10

+4

-1

+1

-5-

i

+1

TABLE 50

TOTAL SHIFT IN POTENCYON CONCEPTS

IN SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL

INSTRUMENT

Item

II

III

IV

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Springy

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

st

1+1

0+7

-1

+3

+4

-1

-1

-8

+1

+5

-2

+1

+3

2-7

+9

-10

-2

+1

+5

-8

+4

-3

+2

-2

-8

-3

+4

3+2

-1

-5

-2

+1

-4

-3

+2

-8

+3

-3

-7

+1

+1

4-7

+10

+3

+1

-3

-5

+9

+2

-11

+4

-13

+9

-3

+3

5+6

-1

-5,

0+11

-10

+8

-13

+18

-4

0+2

-1

-1

6+1

+11

0-2

+12

-11

-4

-6

-9

+5

-2

+1

+3

+3

7-9

+12

+7

+2

+1

-2

+4

+10

+5

+2

-10

+6

-2

+9

8-10

+3

-1

10

+17

-7

+10

+15

-12

+13

-19

+7

-4

-5

9+13

-3

-3

-1

+11

+10

+4

+6

+2

+7

-7

+3

-3

-4

10

+10

-4

+8

+1.

+8

-1

-9

-2

+4

+1

-7

-3

0-2

11

-3

-13

-10

-1

+1

-5

+3

-11

+12

-4

+5

-16

-8

+7

12

-1

-1

+1

-1

+6

-2

-1

-9

-4

+2

+7

-2

-4

+8

TABLE 51

TOTAL SHIFT IN RECEPTIVITY ON CONCEPTS

IN SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT

Item

III

III

IV

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Spring

Fall

Springy

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

ct

st

st

1+

5+

3.2

-5-1

-5+

5+

16-9

+19

+9

-11

+6

+2

+2

2-3

+10

+3

+1

+6

-9

+11

-5

+13

+4

-1

-1

-5

+12

3+3

-5

-7

0+2

+7

+15

+12

-8

+2

-19

+3

+2

l-6

4-5

-3

_3

-3

-3

0+7

+2

+7

-7

-10

+1

-2

+4

5+2

+8

-29

+5

-25

-1+12

-1+

7+

5-6

-30

-9

6+25

+11

-10

-24

-12

-4

+8

+31

+7

0+

5-1

2-9

7+16

+6

+14

-1

+11

+6

+14

+8

-8

+17

+3

+2

+2

+6

8+8

+7

+6

-2

+3

-8

-6

+3

0-6

0-3

-2

-14

9+3

-12

+1

-3

-5

+3

-2

+2

+1

+11

+1

-1

+4

-4

10

+10

-4

-3

-2

+11

-8

+13

-14

-1

-2

-8

0+

1-8

11+

4+

11+

2-5

+7

-7-5

-22

i+

7-1

00

-4+

4-2

12+2

+2

-15

-5

-3

+4

+12

-9

I0

+2

-12

0-5

-1

TABLE 52

FREQUENCY OF POSITIVE SHIFTS

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL CONCEPTS

BY COOPERATING TEACHERS

Factor Semester

Treatment group

I IIIChi square

Effectivity

Potency

Receptivity

FallSpringTotal

FallSpringTotal

'FallSpringTotal

7

29

538

82

10

57

12

369

56

11

78

15

106

16

8513

=1.61(1)650)

=1.63(p<.50)

=0.45(p(.80)

TABLE 53

FREQUENCY OF POSITIVE SHIFTS

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL CONCEPTS

BY STUDENT TEACHERS

Factor SemesterTreatment group

'ChiIV

squareI II III

Fall 5 7 4 1

Effectivity Spring 3 11 6 6Total 8 18 10 7 =6.81(p<.11

Fall 6 11 5 3

Potency Spring 5 6 3 8

Total 11 17 8 11 =3.58(p(.51

Fall 10 6 7 6

Receptivity Spring 5 8 2 4Total 15 14 9 10 2.16(1)01

-104-

)

Summary. When student teachers were divided withintreatments into groups who gained or lost in TSRT scores whenpre- and posttests were compared, there were significant dif-ferences only on the within-group congruence across the re-peated measuring of that variable. There was no pattern tothis congruence although higher congruences were generally at-tained in the later observations.

When studengroups by MSAI (participants, ocant differenceformance, therthe MSAI (Realgroup congruescoring abovedifferent inachieved byond-highestand interacdifferencevideotape

Theduced bythe studaction-erallyby the

t teachers were cateFrolized within treatmentReal) scores above or below the median for allnly the fall student teachers showed signifi-s. Utilizing both levels of MSAI (Real) Per-

e were significant between-group differences in) levels and significant differences in within-

nce across the six observations. Student teachersthe uedian on the MSAI (Real) were significantlytreatment effect. The highest congruence was

those in the interaction analysis group. The sec-congruence was achieved by the combined videotapetion-analysis group. There was little observablein congruence between the two lowest groups, the

only, and the comparison groups.

largest difference between the MSAI (Real) scores pro-the student teachers and the MSAI scores produced by

ents of those student teachers occurred in the inter-analysis group assigned in the spring semester. Gen-the MSAI (Real) scores were similar to those producedstudents.

e Workshop Assessment Index (end of Workshop) showedno marked differences among cooperating teachers assigned touse the three prescribed supervisory programs. The SupervisoryActivities Checklist provided evidence that the differenttreatment conditions actually prevailed.

The Semantic Differential Instrument indicated strongshifts (ps;.10) among the four treatment groups of studentteachers on the effectivity factor. Those student teachers whowere given videotape-only feedback produced the highest numberof positive shifts. The lowest number of positive shifts oc-cmrred in the no-specified-treatment group.

-105-

DISCUSSION

Interpretation of findings

This section deals with the retults of both studies bydrawing inferences from the statistical findings, speculat-ing about their meanings and indicating possible interpreta-

. tions.

A tremendous amount of data has been collected over thetwo-year period. This report deal.; with those data as groupeddata subjected to finite statistical treatment. By design,such treatment precludes other possible groupings of data foranalysis. It necessarily limits or suppresses informationabout individual cases and the dynamics of behavior change instudent teaching.

However, the statistical treatment exposes areas that areworth further investigation on a re-grouped, individualisticor more dynamic basis. It is anticipated that continued studyof these data will delineate some of the relationships thatare hinted at, but not demonstrated, in the statistical analy-sis.

It is recognized that student teaching and its supervisionoccur in a bafflingly extensive complex of variables that canconfound those variables selected for analysis in this study.Even though the "chance" assumptions of a statistical studyhave definite theoretical and practical value, soue aspectsof those "chances" have, in reality, more dynamic cogencythan can be adequately demonstrated in the scope of this study.

The particular school in a particular city at a particulartime--the specific cooperating teacher and student teacher andtheir specific potentials for interaction--the individual stu-dent, the individual student teacher, the particular classroomsituation--these and many other aspects in interaction providean unanalyzed context in which these findings must be considered.

The Pilot Study. It is clear in the Pilot Study findingsthat the main effect, the positive relationship between specif-ic training of the cooperating teacher and the recorded per-formance of the student teacher, was not demonstrated.

However, some somewhat more subtle, expected and unex-pected, relationships were demonstrated, at least in termsof statistical significance,

1. The major finding is that, irrespective of treatmentand other variables, all groups changed significantly frommeasure to measure in congruence of prediction and actual ob-served performance in classroom instructional behavior. The

-106-

general trend was an increasing convergence (even though notconsistently increasing sequentially from measure to measure).

Somehow or other, in the conditions of this study, theexperience of student teaching permitted students to deflon-strate that their instructional behavior became more congruentwith their prediction of that behavior. Whether this is afunction of improved prediction of perceived reality or ofimproved control of instructional behavior, or of a bettermatch between both phenomena, the study did not explicate.

The "implications" section below will speculate furtherupon this question.

2. A second finding is that the TSRT instrument had somesignificant relationships with the degree of congruence ofintent (prediction data) and performance (observation data).

In general, those students who increased in pre-to-postTSRT scores showed a greater increasing congruence than thosewho decreased in TSRT scores.

No prediction of congruence was possible fn.. initialTSRT scores. However, inspection of the data shows that inmost cases the poSt TSRT showed a decrease in scores as com-pared to the pretest. The one exception is in Group A(Workshop supervision on full semester assignment) where anequal number of students increased or decreased. This may in-dicate that there is some efficacy in continued consistentsupervision as compared to more varied experience.

3. The interrelationships of three types of administra-tions of the MSAI produced some significant findings.

By and large, student teachers' estimates of how theirstudents perceived them were very close to the actual ratingsby students. This finding must be accepted very cautiouslysince many classes did not fill out the instrument and thedata are thus derived from an incomplete sample biased in un-known ways.

The mean of students in all groaps 'showed that their de-sired rating on the MSAI (Ideal) was significantly higherthan their estimates of student perceptions (Real). This maybe interpreted to say that student teachers wanted to do bet-ter in the eyes of their students than they actually thoughtthey had done.

The only other difference (consistent but not statisti-cally significant) in the MSAI was that classes who ratedstudent teachers at the end of the first quarter rated themhigher than those who rated their student teachers for the

-10 ?-

second quarter. In contrast, the ratings of those who hadthe same student teacher for the full semester gave a mean rat-ing falling between those of the first and second quarter.

Again this is the inoo"plete and biased sample, and anyinterpretation is suspect. However it is another bit of in-formation which raises the question of the value of full sem-ester placement in student teaching.

4. Using the Semantic Differential as a measure of atti-tude toward teaching and selected aspects of it, there was ageneral shift in a negative direction from thebeginning to the

end of student teaching.

There were interesting variations from group to groupand from section to section of the instrument. Interpretively,no pattern has been found to clarify the meaning of these dif-ferences.

5. The Workshop Activities Assessment Index was designedto get some information about the expectations of Workshopparticipants as to the value of specific supervisory practicesand the frequency with which they expected to euploy them.Some rather fine discrimination among practices were called for.

These discriminations are completely destroyed in thesumming of the rankings for statistical purposes. The statis-tical treat."ent simply sums the weight of all ranks for fre-quency and similarly for value, and makes no distinction foralternative choice possibilities. It is, therefore, a grossmeasure of anticipations of value and frequency.

It is clear that teachers in all groups perceived them-selves as having utilized the summed techniques less frequent-ly than they had anticipated and perceived them as being lessvaluable than they had hoped.

Siftilarly, when students were asked to indicate thepractices that had been used by their cooperating teachers,they perceived the" as using those practices on the Index evenless frequently and with less value..

Interpretations of these findings lie in the actual con-ditions of student teaching in the real world of the school..Cooperating teachers found themselves with insufficient titlefor the kind of supervisory activities they wished to engagein. The pressure of teaching and other responsibilities e-roded their good intentions.

Similarly, the pressures on student teachers and theiranxiety about the many variables in the student teaching.

-108-

situation caused them to attend less to subtle differences insupervisory behaviors.

The question is raised in, these findings about the carryover and continuation value of a training design, however goodit may be, if the conditions for its application are not care-fully structured, monitored and maintained. The question isalso raised about the possible value of concurrent supportivein-service activities as a necessary part of the trainingdesign.

C_ontinuine stELa.. In most respects, the pattern of thefindings from the continuing study was similar to that foundin the pilot study. The following points eophasize the majordifferences.

1. Aille the general trend of congruence was from low con-gruence to high congruence, and while these congruence neasureswere significantly different within groups in most analyses,there were many instances in which the congruence vacillatedconsiderably. This could have been caused by the varying den-sity of spacified treatments in the course of the student-teaching experience. If a videotape had just been recorded oran inter7.ction-analysis matrix compiled just before the researchobservazion, that observation would record prediction and actualbehavior more strongly influenced by the treatment.

2. 3tudent teachers who scored above the median on theNiSAI C.oal) and who taught in the Fall semester produced sig-nificantly different between-group concruences. The group re-ceiving the interaction analysis feedback produced the highestconrgence. The second highest congruence was produced by thecombined interaction-analysis-and-videotape-feedback group.The videotape- only- feedback group produced congruences similarto ,.;'ne no-specified-feedback group. Seemingly the interactionanalysis provided student teachers who perceived themselves as

r,-,nked high by students with analytic skills producinghiler congruence. Videotape feedback did not seem to influ-enc,: this skill measurably.

3. The Supervisory Activities Checklist demonstrated thatth.. prescribed treatment conditions had indeed existed. Thisim;zrurLant did not gather data on the extent to which any super-visory technique was used. The physical assignment of the video-tape apparatus makes it possible to ascertain that no studentteacher could have utilized this feedback system for more than5 poi' cent of the student teaching experience. No similar in-formation can be obtained for the interaction analysis usage.

4. The semantic-differential data indicated considerable

-109-

shift in attitude among the student and cooperating teachers.While there were more shifts in the negative direction thanshifts' in the positive direction, those shifts riere distributedthroughout all treatments with one exception. While not sig-nificantly different, videotape feedback student teachers hadmarkedly more positive shifts than did the other treatmentgroups. This would suggest that the videotape feedback mayhave more affective influence.

5. Generally, student teachers who were assigned in theFall semester showed more measured behavioral change than thoseassigned in the Spring. While no evidence was collected toenable analysis of this phenomenon, it might be speculatedthat time intervening between the Workshop and the assignmentof a student teacher may have diluted the effect of thisactivity. Of course, the season itself or the availability ofstudent teachers for assignment in a particular semester Hayhave been influential.

In summary, while overall data analysis did not supportthe hypotheses, some portions of the student-teacher popula-tion studied produced differential behavioral changes. In thepilot study, certain student teachers defined by TSRT scoresand by full semester assignment showed influence of thesupervisory techniques. In the continuing study, student-teachers who scored above the uedian demonstrated differentialeffects of the feedback although these effects did not occurin the predicted order.

Implications and Recommendations

Implications. Since the findings of the Pilot Study andthe Continuing Study are relatively consistent, their credi-bility is increased. The fact that the over-all relationshipbetween supervisor training and student teacher performanceon the instruments of the study was not demonstrated, andthat more subtle relationships were demonstrated, once againillustrates the complex nature of the variables in studentteaching.

The methodology and instrumentation of the studies per-haps carry more important implications than the findings them-selves. It has been demonstrated that the instruments as usedcan provide a handle for describing and analyzing some of theaspects of student teaching and supervis5on and their relation-ships.

The major measure of the study grew out of the notion of"congruence." For decades, defensible and measurable criteriaof teacher effectiveness or teaching effectiveness have eluded

-110-

educational researchers. Many reasons for this are apparentand will not be elaborated here. It is generally agreed thatthe most desirable, but also most elusive, criteria are thoserelated to the end productlearning by children. In anynaturalistic setting, such as student teaching, such measuresare virtually inpossible espectially over a relatively shortperiod of time.

For these studies, it was decided to use a process vari-able, rather than a product variable. Viewing instruction asan influence process, and viewing the teacher as influencingthe behavior of students by the control he exerts over hisown behavior, the investigators reasoned that a useful criteri-on would be the degree to which the teacher used the instruc-tional behavior he intended to use. Thus they sought a wayto measure the congruence of intent and action in classroominstructional settings.

Among the possible ways to measure congruence it was de-cided to use systematic observations of student teachers inaction combined with prior interviews to determine the studentteacher's intende'd instructional behavior. Put another way,the student teacher was asked to predict his behavior and thenobserved to determine his actual behavior.

The studies have demonstrated that such a criterion andits measure are viable. Observers can be trained in a complexobservational system to categorize and record instructionalbehavior with a high degree of reliability. Congruence asdefined has proved useful for the purposes of these studies.

The data on congruence collected in this study providea rich deposit which could be mined in nany ways. For statist-ical convenience a simple measure of percent of actual talliesfalling in predicted cells was used in these studies. Foradditional analysis or to seek more complex relationships,other methods could be used. For example:

The predictions in both the Pilot and the ContinuingStudies were actually taken in a manner which permittedthe observers to report the relative weight distribu-tion of predicted behaviors as well as simply to deline-ate types of predicted behaviors. Thus, data are avail-able in which prediction matrix zones are designatedas "heavy" and "light" in the Pilot Study, and pre-diction matrix cells designated as "heavy," "medium,"and "light" in the Continuing Study, according tohow much of each lesson was predicted to have beencharacterized by behaviors so labeled. It would beinteresting to know what sorts of convergence statis-

-111-

tics would show up were these weighted approximat-ions to be utilized. In addition, Pilot Study dataare available in which specifically predicted zonesare tallied together, which, if analyzed, would givea portrait of the kinds of interaction predicted bydifferent groups. If compared with a refined analy-sis of the actual teaching data, a still more sophis-ticated set of convergence statistics would be possi-ble.

Instructional analysis data and'congruence data could beanalyzed in a number of non-statistical ways. Do certainspecific strategies lend themselves to greater congruencethan others? In some cases is lack of congruence desirable?In selected individual cases, what are the relationshipsbetween these data and other measures of the study?

The other instruments of the study have demonstrated po-tential usefulness. Continued accumulation of studies usingthe TSRT is justified by the findings.

The SemantiC Differential on concepts in teaching hasproved useful. The disparity of results in the Pilot Studyand the Continuing Study require further explanation. Theinvestigators have a hunch that the very length of the in-strument used in the Pilot Study mitigated against positiveattitudes. Its novelty value in the initial administrationmay have overcome this aspect, while the final administra-tion at the end of a rough semester could enhance the nega-tive. At any rate, there is internal evidence that theshorter form used in the Continuing Study has continuing valuein research in teaching.

The MSAI proved questionable for use with children inthe conditions of these studies. However, its use as a selfreport of perceptions in the Real-Ideal dimensions provedvaluable.

Speculation about the implications of the, findings raisesmore questions than it answers.

It is clear that there was an increase of congruence be-tween stated intent and instructional performance over theperiod of student teaching. The reason for this is not clear.Was it a function of adaptation to the student teaching ex-perience itself? Did the intervention of the interviewer-ob-servers provide an attention and practice effect that causedstudent teachers to change in ways that would not otherwisehave occurred? There is some slight evidence that for defina-ble sub-groups of student teachers, particular supervisory

-112-

activities were related to positive changes.

This increase in congruence, though significant, wasnot dramatic. The overall mean of congruence was approxi-matel fifty percent. Thus, typically, as much unpredictedas predicted behavior occurred.

The general tendency to decrease in TSRT scores and tovary in both directions on the Semantic Differential requiresfurther analysis, especially in regard to relationshipsamong these shifts in individual cases.

The fact that cooperating teachers used specifiedsupervisory techniques less frequently and with less utilitythan they had intended to raises a number of questions.Although there is no hard evidence on this, it appears thatthe everyday demands of the classroom and the school make itextremely difficult to find time to give full attention toadmittedly desirable supervisory activities.

Perhaps the major implication of the findings is thatthe enormously complex series of situations and activitiesthat are called student teaching can be subjected to analysis,but they must be analyzed in a variety of ways that recog-nize their complexity. The ideosyncracies of a particularindividual or a particular situation may prove to be moreinfluential than the evidence provided by grouped data.

Recommendations. On the whole, the study generated datawhich were more suggestive than conclusive. The whole con-ception of the study, particularly the unique Hanner inwhich interaction analysis was being used, provided continuousstimulation for thought and conjecture concerning potentialfuture research in student teaching.

Many of the ideas evoked by the study fall withinthree basic categories. First, during the analysis of thedata there was much interest in but little time for ex postfacto reorganization of the data. Questions were asked con-cerning possible usefulness of different sorts of comparisons.Obviously there are almost limitless possibilities, for this.

Some examples follows

a) A comparison of the data of student teachersworking in urban and non-urban schools.

b) A comparison of the data of student teacherswho taught at different grade-levels.

-113-

0) A comparison of the data of student-teacherswhose cooperating teachers have had elifferentamounts of teaching experience.

d) A comparison of the data of student teacherswhose cooperating teachers had significantlydifferent scores of various measures of atti-tude toward teaching.

e) A comparison of the data of student teacherswho themselves come from urban and non-urbanareas.

f) A comparison of the data of student teacherswho worked in larger and smaller schools.

Second, the new ways in which interaction analysis asbeing used (and indeed the new systems themselves) suggestedstill more possibilities rot:Use of that mode of analysis.Some possibilities which relate closely to the present studyfollow:

a) Training of the student teachers themselves inthe particular interaction analysis system withwhich their treaching will be measured. Thiswould enable them to produce their own predictionmatrices which would eliminate the variabilitywhich occurs among observer prediction interviews.

b) Short of training student-teachers in the appro-priate observation system, it might be possibleto create a uniform prediction questionnaire forstudent teachers to fill out which could thenbe transcribed onto prediction matrices by ob-servers or other trained personnel.

Third, for purposes of training rather than research,discussion and use of interaction analysis data in relationto other measures of teacher performance and attitude raisesa whole series of questions about teaching which might notarise in a context from which such concrete vehicles for dis-cussion are absent. DiscuLsion of the issue of how muchconvergence student teachers made between their predictionand results leads to the question of just what perfect con-vergence would indicate about a single teacher, and whatvarying percentages of convergence between student teacherswould tell about their respective performances. To ask suchquestions, is to begin to explore the nature of effectiveteaching from a somewhat different perspective from the onescommonly taken. To have data on specific kinds of high or.

-114-

low convergence available for comparison with other measuresof teacher and student performance may eventually providenew forms of infornation about the problems of teaching,forms which may be uniquely functional.

fapecific recommendations follow:,

1. Data collected in these studies should be subjectedto continued analysis in terns of individual cases and dy-namic interrelationships among individuals and _situations.

2. The instruments and techniques of this study shouldbe used in continuing research on teaching and studentteaching.

3. The TSRT and Semantic Differential should be usedin both research and training to find and clarify relation-ships among the analytical and the affective dimensions ofteaching.

4. The notion of congruence of intent and actionshould prove useful if incorporated with feedback devicesin teacher education programs.

5. In programs to train cooperating teachers, con-tinued support and in-service follow-up should be provided.

6. Ways must be found to improve the conditions inwhich student teaching takes place so that cooperatingteachers have the time and setting to engage in appropriatesupervisory activities.

SUMMARY

1. In the Introduction to this report the purpose ofthe study and its relationship to related literature onstudent teaching were described.

Both Pilot Study and Continuing Study were attempts toascertain whether training teachers to use specified feed-back practices in supervising student teachers would resultin measurable change in the instructional behavior of theirstudent teachers as compared to student teachers workingwith cooperating' teachers not so trained.

In the Continuing Study, this purpose was further re-fined to assess the differential value of specific practices.

The objectives of the training phase (the Workshops)and the hypotheses of the research phase were explicated.

2. The section on Methods described the training de-sign and the activities of the Workshops which involvedthirty-three prospective cooperating teachers in the summerof 1967, and thirty-five prospective cooperating teachers in

1968. The 1967 group was entirely from the Syracuse CitySchool District; the 1968 group included five teachers fromthree contiguous districts.

Research activities were designed to assess the per-formance of student teachers in the Elementary Teacher Pre-paration Program at Syracuse University who worked with thesecooperating teachers and comparable teachers who had notparticipated in the Workshops.

Observers were trained in relatively complex systemsfor recording observational data on instructional behaviorof teachers and students. They observed each student teacherinvolved in the study six times. These observations tookplace in the Fall semester, 1967, and in both Fall and Springsemesters 1968-69.

Instruments administered to Workshop participants andstudent teachers included the Teaching Situation ReactionTest; a Semantic Differential on concepts of aspects ofteaching; the Minnesota Stude.nt Attitude Inventory, (a) asstudent teachers perceived their ranking by students (Real)and (b) as they would like their students to rank them (Ideal).In addition, in the Pilot Study, a Workshop Activities Assess-ment Index was filled out at the conclusion of the Workshopand by the Workshop Cooperating teachers and their student

-116-

teachers at the conclusion of student teaching. In the Con-tinuing Study, the Index was used at the conclusion of theWorkshop and converted into a Supervisory Activities Check-list which was completed by all participants at the conclu-sion of student teaching.

A computer program was developed to analyze the datagathered from the observations and instrument administration.The primary technique used to detenaine significance of find-

. ings was analysis of variance.

3. Statistical findings were presented textually andin fifty-three tables.

In all groups there was a statistically significant in-crease in congruence over the student teaching semester.

Differential effects of feedback among the groups ofthe Continuing Study were statistically demonstrated onlywith student teachers who were assigned in the Fall semester1968 and who scored above the median on MSAI (Real). Thosein the above classification who received interaction analy-sis feedback produced the highest convergence.

Full sellester student teachers in the Pilot Study pro-duced more consistent behavioral change than those given twohalf-semester assignments.

For all groups in both studies, there were marked dif-ferences between MSAI (Real) and MSAI (Ideal) with the Idealbeing consistently higher. There were no apparent differen-ces among the groups.

There were predominantly negative shifts in attitudesmeasured by the Semantic Differential in the Pilot Study.In the Continuing Study, there were about as many positiveshifts as negative. Student teachers receiving vider,tapefeedback produced more positive shifts than the other groups.

4. In discussing the findings, the statistical resultswere interpreted and speculation about their implications waspresented. Recommendations were made about training designsand further research in this area.

While the analyses did not demonstrate differential ef-'feats of the supervisory feedback in all groups studied, evi-dence pointed to the existence of such effects in certaingroups. The intensification of treatment and the developmentof processes for student teachers to form their own prediction

-117-

matrices might have produced a more marked effect as well asmore precise measurement of that effect.

Only a few of the variables in the complex student teach-ing process were investigated, but those have given new in-sights into the nature of the proceset

RESPONSE SHEET

WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT INDEX

Follow instructions on the Workshop Assess- NAME:t :ent Inc:4'ex 'Pam. Use space between items SCHOOL:for additional comments if desired. GRADE:

le a),

not very o screeuseful use

b)Probal.AFFEH5inever once or

twice

1

2. a)not varyuseful

but not alwayswhen the equip-ment is avail-able

of someuse

veryuseful

as oftenas theequipmentis avail-able

veryusefulbk4.--,. 1 iprobablypeveraJ. times as often

never once or but not always as thetwice when the equip- equipment

went is avail- is avail"able . able

371not very o someuseful use

b) i 1probaarm-mTierihaps several, times arrasiit*never once or every other

twice week(as soonas the stud-ent starts toteach

4111101111=a1LIIlawallialassamommi

B-J44

veryuseful

at eastevery week(as soon athe studenstarts toteach

N

is a),

not veryuseful

never once ortwice

5. a),

not veryuseful

b)probablynever

a)not veryuseful

b)

never

-2-

0 8

everytimes every other

week(as soonas the stud-ent startsto teach

very use-ful

a eastevery week(as coon asthe studentstarts toteach)

of seineuse

perhapsonce ortwice

T. a)inot vouse

bprcbrev

11111.

perhapsonce ortwice

severtimes

=r111-...rmom8 easevery otherweek(as soonas the stud-ent teacherstarts toteach)

0 someUSG

slave

times

orgueuse

ably perAir"''''',1617651or once or times

twiceB-45

every otherweek(as soonas the stud-ent startsto teedh)

every otherweek

veryuseful

ai eastonce a week(as coon asthe studentstarts toteach)

veryuseful

--"it'Lastonce a wee.(as coon a-the ctudenteacherstarts toteach)

veryuseful

at-leastonce aweek

1

3 )4 -.4not veky o some very

useful use useful

b):protaberr Dewlaps iiiiiifir'''' arthif77" liT".6east

never once or times every other once a

twice week week

a)not veryuseful

1,1

prol7ab:cr---7.Z3A:=-never once or

twice

O a IL--not veryuseful

probe1517-- perbilpsnever once or

twice

a)not veryaseful

of someuse

E5441times

I

veryuseful

'-"-WrIgrig"7-'-'70mteastevery other once aweek week

IO someuse

times

0 SOWUSG

bILprobaar-------76FAs TOW&~sever once or times

twice

. a);not veryuseful

b}probaarnever

--66EgaBn-ally

. Additional Comment:

BralmheUSG

veryuseful

every other once aweek week

--InrlaAumevery otherweek

veryuseful

a eastonce aweek

4veryuseful

many unot necessarily every supein every super- visory convisory conference ference

B-46

SUPERVISORY wrivrriss GRECK LIST

Tt4:,,re are many ways of working with student teachers. Every super-viaor Uses a variety of techniques and activities.' We are attempt-ins to gat information about the variety that different cooperatingwachars use, and their perception of the value of different tech-niques.

In the curranit vtudy some teachers were asked to emphablze certaintechniquas others were given no special instructions. Will you in-dicate how you actually worked with your student teacher this pastsamaster by checking the following list.

1. Check VE3 or NO to indicate your utilization of the particularactdvity0

2. Place a double check for the FIVE activities you used most fre-quently,

3. Indicate the VALUE of each utilized activity by marking 1, 2, 3,4 or 5 in theWirie column to indicatesbf little value ml, "ofvery great value" all50

1. Planning speolfic lessons withthe student teacher prior toher teaching*

2. Requiring the student teacherto present a plan, but not planningwith her.

3. Presenting a critique of thelesson ao soon as possible afterthe teaching episode.

40 Praising aspects of the teaching,but avoiding criticism.

5. Evaluating the teaching as yousee it, without concern forpraise cr criticism,

YES NO VALUE

4011111111111111=10

mallftwomoso also.......

1111114011111111100 111111111111111111111111M

OMMIONNINIMMID 40140INIIIEN

60 Bringing in a third party.

.

(spocialiBto principal, otherteiacner) to evaluate the teach-ing,

7. Ask the student teacher tocritique her town teaching withit'iae help from you.

8. Giving the student teacher free-dom to try what she wants (laiesez-faire;

B-47

alIMPIOOMINININ 11111111111101111111MI

IIMININI111111111111110

-2-

9, Enceux,aging the student teacherto try now ideas and practicesanal to develop her own teachingk,tyleo

106 Carefully directing the studentvcacher and controlling her ft-tivil:las as mush as possible*

110 Mine a videotare recorder to re-cord samples of the student teacher'steaching behavicir, and then sittindown with the student teacher n a .

supirvisorg765Perenoe're7VNW anddiscuss the 1esson6

126 Mira a videotape recorder to recordsamcles of the student teacher'steaming behavior, and then allowingthe student teacher to view thesample of the lesson without zestapre2enceo

YES NO VALUE

11111111111111111111111111111

111111110/11101/11.

110111111111111101111110

130 Taking interactiOa analysis on a sampleof the student teacher's lesson, plot-ting tine data into a matrix (or havingthe student teacher plot: the data intoa matrix) and than slum down withtho student teacher in a supervisorye 1 f`Ur `c to analyze the data and dis-cuss tha lesson.

14. Taking interaction analysis on asample of the student teacher's lesson,plotting the data into a matrix (orhaving the student teacher plot thedata into the matrix) and then en-courage the student teacher to am7,yzethe data without Est metrat.

15. Taking interaction analysis data onthe student teacher, and discussingit, without plotting a matrix,

i6. Baying the student teacher use thematrix as a means of stating instruct-ional irtent prior to a lessm, takingintistio,n analysis nn the loosen,plotting the data Into a matrix (orhav:ng the.student teacher plct the datain t) a matrix) and then sittin% down

thl student irmavIlitrrii7i supervis-7717)neiTo7;iiilyza and discuss

congruAlme or 3ack of cowsruencebctwean Intended dri aotuaI flaching

behavior.

OININ11111101111111111111

11=01110111110.

411111111111111111111111.

arlimumauso

1=11111110111111111111111 011111.111111111..1111

111111.11.111/11111111111

IMONOINOMI INIM01111111IN

cA)4e;!:

.nk A (1.(1 .k ;14: wAtiltAi.1; 16.1.4.truic.

1,9*:.4..,ng,

tV,0 matrix (i)rao,

3tuflm', r.act.

rr-07'.141 ,1 ii1 t.')...1.:!rx v4r.i.;., Arras-ana.47e

)I' 4-hr

v..e.t",1"; 47. 0

"%'!.4:o1a.4

teq:;616.;!r ntlave in-

%ittratk'igy rri6d..41 'eA), 1v3truo,

Inrt, ;/w'u-:!%elfr mAkiri7 rst:--* re-

1 analysim

rol.avi? in-m.-.ept.Q.0 to -

ineArutien-a:7, t716t$ Toy maktrl:

LTop...1 o. alaMMmroMOMM

are.1.

a 11 ttlyz I. :4

r1 .41 7C.

Eci:3Lraaing 446 a.3oit4i.ine. t1041 stude:!vt1:n4 uoing Gr tPaStiliive

46e!-:1 ..1.1:0:0 rte.- $TLJtInt

4t4* ra1 a lo:40 *f it:1w `-z-) ? 47. got? 44i .; eyrc..N

.7,.4 )i ;7.F. 0 prcAit

ioveIe 4J. iret.14.4aGij, In ACu-.

11,hq: qwesr.icsi.k6s

f;:iclj14

And Oasi.itot

"::.tifr 111. .157..C.olT.7-ArlAW

inn4.11 .s!,. EL! Ira% f rtsitti

y tine; zit t; 4 ar

1,;?:* A.A . r 6; .Jurel

:4) '68:1p Lrol

W.PA.st

aty! ermge.'=eivalrfr a .aw!,,,,) *ffettiv

crisrvi:: rat;1" ??, :7 zi-.1.rie,

B-49

...1111Wlome

mommommommomm

aMMOMMIMMII110

maomMlem.

:6

W.; VALUg

IMMeammomm rum mmomma. mama..

IMMIIMMMOMMICY 41.1.1.1110.11011110a

11.0MM.VMMIMMO .41.1.01MOOMPIM

eMIMMIMMMmo 01.1,11011.11000111101111

MMOMOMMO MOW malimmmie lommlaM

001114.11 *M1.041

The Minnesota Student Attitude Inventory January 1969

We should like to get as much data as possible for our student teach-ing research project, including the reaction of children to the stud-ent teacher. Hence, we would like you to administer the MinnesotaStudent Attitude InventorY.

However, wa recognize that there are two problems: (1) Some schoolsdo net wish to expose children to this type of instrument, and (2)tie instrument may be too difficult for children in Kindergarten andlower &Jades, Therefore, we must leave the use of this to your dis-cretion. If you decide to administer it, please follow the directionsbelow in order to standardize administration as much as possible.

1. Give children the directions and answer sheet.

2. Read to them or with them the material on the form.

3. Answer any necessary questions.

4. You may either read the inventory items to the students or givethe inventory to them to do. This will depend upon your assess-ment of their ability to handle it with a minimum of help.

5. If you are reading the items to the students, read the item asit is. If further explanation is necessary, you may then re-word, parlphrase, or explain. Similarly you may elaborate ifindividuals need help on item interpretation when they arereading the item.

6. For some classes, it may be batter to do no more than twentyitems at one time, and then return for a second and third ad-ministratilt. The answer sheet is set up in three columns tofacilitate chis.

7. Please make it clear to the children that they are to react tothe student teacher and the classroom situations that existedwhile 7FrgtiriletThcher was in charge. This is probablybest done by referring tee the student teacher by. name.

B-50

MINNESOTA STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTORYJanuary 1969

This is not a test because there are n6 wrong answers. The answer

to oath question is A NATTER OF OPINION, and your true opinion, what-.

ever it is, IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. You will be asked a lot of questions

about how much you like this class, the teacher who has been working

with you, and the work you are doing here. All the questions refer

to THIS ONE MASS AND THIS PARTICULAR TEACHER. By giving frank, true

answers to show exactly how you feel, you can help us understand the

opinions of students.

Your teacher will give you a paper with the questions on it or will

read them to you. You will respond by marking an X in a box on your

cnswer sheet.

HERE IS AN' EXAMPLE

The statement you are marking might be: I think my homework is veryhard. If you agree with this statement or think it is a oorroct

statement, mark an X in the first box, like this

A

If you disagree with the statement, or think it is wrong, mark an X

in the second box, like this

D .

DIRECTIONS:

1. Please doNOT write your name on the answer sheet.

2. Do not skip any questionsanswer each one carefully.

3. Mks sure that the number on the answer sheet matchesthe question number then you mark your answer.

D-51

MINNESOTA STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTOR!

(DO NOT WRITE ON THIS COPY)

1. This teacher asks our opinion in planning work to be :lone.

2. This teacher keeps order fairly.

3. I get along well with this teacher.

4. I find it easy to talk to this teacher.

5. This teacher never asks trick questions to show how dumb we are.

6. Most of us get pretty bored in this class.

7. This teacher never slaps us or handles us roughly.

8. No one dares talk back to this teacher.

9. This teacher is one of the best I have ever had.

10. I just don't trust this teacher.

11. It is easy to fool this teacher.

12. This teacher makes sure WE understand our work.

13. This teacher often sends boys and girlsiout of the room as punishment.

14. This teacher really understands boys and girls my age.

15. Our teacher is very good at explaining things clearly.

16. Frankly, we don't pay attention to this teacher.

17. This teacher has lost the respect of the class.

18. Sometimes things "get out of control" in this class.

B-52

-2-

19. This teacher certainly knows what he (she) is doing.

20. This teacher often "bawls you out" in froftof the class.

21. This teacher makes it fun to study things.

22. This teacher has some special favorites or "teacher's pets."

23. Our teacher never gives us extra assignments as punishment.

24. This teacher wants to check our work to make sure we are on the righttrack.

25. I really like this class.

26. Sometimes I think this teacher doesn't hear what we say.

27. This teacher helps us get the most out of each hour.

28. This teacher is cool and calm.

29. In this class we fool around a lot in spite of the teacher.

30. When I'm in trouble I can count on this teacher to help.

31. This teacher becomes confused easily.

32. This teacher will punish the whole class when he (she) can't find outwho did something bad.

33 This teacher thinks clearly.

34. Some of the students are smarter than this teacher.

35. This teacher lets us discuss things in class.

36. It is fun to see how much we can whisper before we get caught.

37. This teacher makes everything seem interesting and important.

B-53

..3,.

38. I wish I could get even with this teacher.

1

39 This teacher knows a lot.

40. This teacher is quick to see a new idea.

41. This teacher is too bossy.

42. This teacher never gets angry and shouts at us.

43. We often complain just to get out of work.

44. If I could get away with it, I'd sure like to tell this teacher off:

45. This class is noisy` and fools around a lot.

46. This is the best teacher I have ever had.

47. You can't walk around in this class without permission.

48. It seems that somebody is always getting punished in this class.

49. I with I could have this teacher next year.

50. This teacher has lots of fun with us.

51. Sometimes just thinking about this class makes me sick.

52. This teacher makes very careful plans for each Oils work.

53. This teacher helps students when they have problems with their work.

54, Frankly, we just don't obey the teacher in this class.

55. This teacher always takes time .to find colt your side of a difficulty.

56. This teacher never pushes us or shakes us in anger.

B-54

57. This teacher punishes me for things I don't do.

58. This teacher likes to hear students' ideas.

59. We behave well in this Glass even When the teacher is out of the room.

B-55

1.

2.

.4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

MINNESOTA STUDENT ATTITUDE INVENTORY

ANSWER SHEET

A D A Ti

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

)1. 30.

11..

[::1 32.

13. [::1 33.

14t.

15. [::1 35.

16. 36..

18. [::I .38.

19. 39.

20:

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

34. U U 54..

40.

55.

54:

.57.

58.

59.:

A

uk.ztnative

Obeervational Ant_en for Instructional ...11122L.8At

Teachel-. Eehavions Stueent Behaviors...11.111401

1, lubstantive clarification

T2 Re.spoaCs to substantive solicitation

In substantive information

T4 Solioits substantive responseI %TIM

rE5 Corrective feedback

Ccafirmation

pyvaizal 1 Ty Acceptance

tr" Positive personal judgment

.7 '141. 4' wix

ilence

> 1%-z;ative persc:nal judgoent144:01.

.._,

T10 :::ancserial clarification

T11 Eesponds to maneserlal solicitatlon

T12 Initiates mancgerlal informatical

Solicits mlnagerial response

P.S.3100

iT14 Silent covert activi:y

! T15 Silent ovelit activity10*.f.e.

Tceollar Cr Studeni; Behavtoraloe 00 MNPNI.alP 0PM 10 enelln4:.

X 16 Lantructionally non-functional behavior

7 17 Interaction separation desicnation

Sl

SP

33s4

L15

S6

S

S7

8

S9

810

$11

812

S13

S14

815

Crateo4ez 1-4, and 10 -3.3 may be further catecorized 4a-0,.a. closed or b. open.

B-57

Substanti

Appraisal

Silence

T

AC

ER

EHAVI0R

STUDE

BEHAVI0R

0A

OBSERVATION SYSTEM FOR INSTRUCTIONAL ANALYSISSept. 1967Revision

1. Clarifies and accepts student feelings and/Orgives nonrevaluative encouragement.

2. Clarifies and accepts student ideas and questions. 41

3. Answers student substantive questions.

4. Teacher directed silence (used during information giving bymeans of chalk board, overhead, etc:).

5. Gives substantive information or opinion.

6. Gives substantive procedural information or answers substantiveprocedural questions.

7. Asks open questions (divergent, evaluative).

8. Asks closed questions (cognitive memory, convergent)

9. Gives managerial procedural information or answers managerialprocedural questions.

10. Criticizes or rejects student ideas, behavior or feelings.

11. Gives corrective feedback for incorrect ideas or behavior.

12. Gives confirmation of correctness of ideas or behavior.

13. Praises student ideas, behavior or feelings and/Or givesevaluative encouragement.

1111111111111111151011111111MNIMMINCENIMIll

14. Gives closed substantive verbal response (cognitive memory,

ccinvergant),

15. gives open substantive verbal response (divergent, evaluative).

26. Gives expression of feeling.

17. Asks substantive or substantive procedural questions.

18. Asks managerial procedural questions.

19. Silent overt activity.

20. Silent covert activity.

-41ftraillalmntio

Zt, Student to student interactic.n designation.

H 22, Student followed student interaction designation.

R 123, Instructionally non-fumtivnal behavior.

B-58

WORKSHEET 2.1 (1968)

lease place appropriate Flanders' category in spaces provided in exampleshich follow:

Teacher: "Today we're going to discuss the .stories we read yeiterday,"

Teacher: "Please open your books to page 159."

Teacher: "Your paper is very neatly done, Jimmy."

Student: "The answer to problem 6 is 392."

Student: "I think we should go over our homework first, Miss Jones."

Teacher: "It looks like you enjoyed your field trip."

Student: Veil who did discover the Pacific Ocean, Mies Jones?"

Teacher: (Responding to g.), "Balboa Discovered the Pacific Ocean, John."

1=111011411

allNIMMUmmowlm=11

10=111141

111

10.411101111101111110/BM1

Teacher: Vhat do you think about the forthcoming elections?"

Student: (Responding to I.) "It looks like Nixon and Humphrey willbe the candidates."

Teacher: (Responding to j.) "You think Nixon and Humphrey will be thecandidates.'

Teacher: "John, how could you gire me such a poor answer?"

Teacher: "That is Called the commutative law."

Teacher: "If we know 3 + 5 =4 3 what do we know about 5 3?"

Student:

Teacher:

Student:

Teacher:

"According to what you said yesterday the answer isCaptain John Smith."

'You should all pay attention to the directions at the top ofthe worksheet."

"Where should the decimal point go in this kind of problem?"

"tRkil has given us a very good answer. "%

Teacher: (Continuing r) "die has said Jamestown was founded beforePlymouth."

Teacher: (Continuing s) "what else does our book tell us aboutJampstownr

A-14

WORHSHEET 2014

Please place appropriate Flander's category in spaceexamples which follow:

c.

e.

fgh.J.

Teacher: "Please turn to the map on page

Student: 'to we add or subtract in thi

Teacher: "What did you set as the anproblem, John?"

Teacher: "Bill's answer is very g

Teacher:

Teacher:

(continuing d) lie haspressure caused the ba

(continuing e) "Does\

(1968)

s provided in

148,"

s kind of problem?"

swer for the fourth

od because it's so well thought

said the water pressure and airr to float,"

Out,

this agree with what the book has to say

Student:(respondingto f) *Yes, it does agree with the book*"

Teacher: "You seem to be

Teacher: "Your answers

30 Student: "Is my answe

ko Teacher: (responding

1. Teacher: " "You did

mo Teacher: 'What

no Student:(respboo

oo Teacher: (1'

po Teacher:

go Teache

re

0.to

Stucle

Tea

r:

nt:

cher:

Teacher:

a bit puzzled by that question, John."

to number 6 were really poor; elczo."

r to problem 2 correct, Miss Erotin?"

to j) *Yes, your problem is correct, John."

very

kind of

onding toko"

well on your exam, Bill."

problem do we call this, Sue?"

m) "That's called a reading problem in our

sponding to n) "A reading problem."

continuing o) " "Very good*"

" "What's your favorite color, Bill?"

"1 like blue the best,"

' "Albany is the capital of New York State."

"Tom, will you please close the window a bit?"

A-15

Cell Designations:10 -92, 5-53. 9-34. 4-85. 8-2

6. 7-70' 3-48. 8-99. 2-3

100 9-1

WORKSHEET 2.5 (1968)

11. 4-412. 6-613. 8-714. 1-115. 5-9

16. 3-317. 6-1018. 2-919. 5-420. 9-9

E-ase place number of appropriate cell in spaces provided in examples,which follow:

do

Student responds and his response is criticized by the teacher.

Teacher

Teacher

Teacher

Teacheranswer.,

Teacher

Teacheranswer,

Teacher asks several questions.

Student elaborates on his divergent response.

Teacher lectures for extended period.

criticizes student behavior and gives student a command.

gives information and asks a question based on that information.

praises students idea and interprets idea.

asks broad question to which student responds with divergent

accepts student feeling for extended period.

asks narrow question to which student responds with correct

Student responds with cognitive memory answer and continues bygiving personal opinion.

Teacher tells students to go to blackboard and they do.

Teacher gives lengthy directions regarding seat work assignMent.

Student says he is very bored and teacher repeats what student hassaid.

Teacher accepts and builds on a student's idea,*

Teacher calls on student who has ipdicated by raising his hand--that he wants to speak and student asks a question.

Student answers with the correct answer and the teacher praises him.

Student interrupts while teacher is lecturing.

Student gives his opinion which teacher clarifies for class.

Teacher, having accepted student's idea, asks probing questionbased on the idea.

A-16

Cell Designations:

1. 4-92* 5-5

50 8-2

60 7-67. 3-48, 8-99. 2-3

10. 9-1

WORKSHEET 2,5a

110 4-412. 6-613. 8-7140 1-115u 5-9

16. 3-317. 6-1018. 2-919. 5-420. 9-9

Pl-ase place number of appropriate cell in spaces provided in exampleswhich follow:

ae Teacher lectures for extended period.

b. Teacher asks lengthy question.

V Teacher accepts student feeling for extended period.

d. Teacher criticizes student behavior and gives student a command.

3.0 Teacher, having accepted student's idea, asks probing question-based on the idea.

011110110114MII11111111111111

Student answers With the incorrect answer and the teacher criticizeshim.

7 Teacher accepts and clarifies a student Qs ilea.

10 Teacher gives lengthy .diroctions regarding homework assignment.

Le .Student responds correctly and his response is praised by the teacher.

j, Teacher asks evaluative question to which student reJponds withevaluative answer.

P Teacher asks cognitive memory question to which student respondswith correct answer.

Student gives his opinion which teacher clarifies for class.

le Teacher calls on student who has indicated by raising his hand- -that he wants to speak and student asks a question.

1. Teacher tells students to go to open their books. and they do.

)0 Student responds with convergent answer and continues bygiving personal opinion.

4 Teacher gives information and, asks a question based on that information

Teacher praises student's idea and repeats ity

0MIII..01.1.110111111

Student elaborates on his on idea.

Student says he is very happy and teacher accepts what student hassaid,

Student interrupts while teacher is giving information.A-17

WORKS HEET FOR OBJECTIVE 6,1

By using the npproprinte label ((lobo°, etc.) match the following terms

with the definitions and descriptions below. Place the proper label

in the space before the definition or example.

Labelsa. Reinforcementb. Positive reinforcementco Negative reinforcementd. Aversive stimulatione. Behavior shaping

Terminal behaviorg. Intermediate terminal

behaviorh. Acceptancei. Clarification

Definitions:

11011041110.10110

IMMIN10011.1.1

.11

Immawsmerms

0111010110101/11111011.

MmOINIO.N.

lok yorilloaralbairas

WINO111111100111

J.k.1.m.n,o.

p,(4r.

InsightFigure-ground relptionshipSocial-emotional climateIndirect behaviorDirect behaviorIntrinsic motivationExtrinsic motivationEmpathyCongruence or congruent

10 The conditions which connote the quality of interaction in

classroom.

2. Those verbal, behaviors of a teacher which tend to restrict

the freedom of students.

3. Those stimuli from a teacher or situation which are designed

to curtail or block a specific behavior of a student.

4, The behavfor which is desired or observed as evidence that an

objective has been reached.

Those verbal behaviors of a teacher which tend to expand the

freedom of students.

The condition, or moment in time, in which comprehension, or

a flash of understanding, is achieved.

7. The condition in which two or more persons FEEL essentially

the same about something.

8. Classroom verbal behavior which causes the student to recog-

nize that the teacher thinks his statement is useful or

worthwhile.

9. GiVArg a reward of some kind immediately following an emitted

behavior,

10. Rewarding a partial behavior that moves toward the desired

behavior,

_44 Punishing or criticizing an undesired behavior.

12. Receiving; positive feedback that one's behavior hms achieved

on goalz go satisfied oile's motivations.

13. The condition of recognized similarity between one zet of

data and another.A-18

-2

Tbe perceptual condition which causes an item or object toappear differently according to the context.

That bohavior which gives evidence that the student is movingtoward the desired final behavior.

Pressure on the learner of recognition, reward, or punishmentfor symbols of achievement rather than for the value of theachievement itself.

17. Granting to the learner a reward that he values for thespecific behavior he has perform01.

18. The condition in which the individual is encouraged, forced,or pressured to explicate his statement or position.

The teacher says, "Now, if you do a good job on this assign-me'nt, your grade will go up."

A student says, "Could you repeat that definition and give usan example?"\

A teacher asks a question. A student responds, and the teachersays, "that's almost right, can you take your response alittle farther to come closer to a final answer?"

A class has been working through a discovery lesson, and, at;a particular moment, a majority of the class seems to respondby saying "sh-ha-I think I see it!"

A teacher lectures or gives information to a class.

A student is particularly interested 'in a special subjectand the teacher seeks ways to satisfy this interest.

7. A student tells a teacher that he has enjoyed a particoularstory, and the teacher responds sincerely by saying, 41enjoyed it, too."

8. A teacher intends to do particular things during a .esson..An observer's interaction analysis indicates that he (she)has done so. The result could be called

In a specific classroom, the teacher tends to accept studentfeelings; praise student contributions, accept student ideas,and ask questions. This would be referred to asbehnvipr.

10. A student answers a teacher's question. The teacher says,-677 "Good, that's right," This could be classified as indirect

influence. It; could also be classified AO or.More.... 10MINNOMMIOe...ww1110PV:1A-19

alON

.3.

11. A student answers a teacher's question. The teacher says,"Wrong. that's a terrible answer." This could be classifiedas direct influence (7). It could also be classified as

oras. I12. A student responds to a teacher's question, and the teacher

(non-judgmentally) repeats the student's answer. This wouldbe classified as mamma im

13. A teacher has a particular behavioral objective for a student,or group of students. When he 'checks their behavior in somefashion, he finds that they can all perform satisfactorilyaccording to the criterion measure. We would says that theyPiave achieved the desired 1111A

14. A classroom observer makes an analysis and talks with theteacher about the relative use of direct and indirect influence.He would be dealing with the

in the classroom.

15, Halfway through a unit, a teacher checks the understanding(as demonstiPated through verbal behavior) of students. Heuses this evidence to. diagnose student learning and re-planhis instructional strategies. We could say that he haschecked the MMft 11= .MMi ....N.. 1.8ww..of his students.

1 The class is working with a felt board and the teacher asksstudent to place the circle on the square to see if one islarger than the other.

A-20

.0

WORK SIAM F01 OBjECTIVE 77 P

Match the questions o: clarifying statements in (column B with the level ofnought processes, listed in column A, '::.hat the ques'Uon or clarifying.statement would be designed to solicit rrom student t, Place your responsesin the space provided in column A,

2°

coarm pourm B

Enumerating or listing

Grouping

Labeling or categorizing

Identifying

5. Explaining

;. Makin inferences

'. Predicting consequences

o ExpLolning pr4Nlictibas

Verifying predictions

w11100110.140.

r0011060r.... ....11=101000

400101010.00010

0.0///a/ 1111111011.1011/11.1011

emo00010NMIP sonoralarrio

4110110. 000001011Ory

A-21

a, From ',nine vocations we havelisted on the board, can youtselect the ones that would begovcrnmemb jobs?

b. VW/ did Columbus sail for Spainrater than Italy?

e, Gan you select a bird from thenart that would feed on smallAnimals?

d. Why do you think the balloonwould expand if you heated theair thpz is in it?

e. Given 41e data that we have hereabout !;he raw materials and othernsturall resources available in

what do you think wouldbe ont of the major industries ofBolivia?

f. How would you go about findingoutt if a decrease in watertenperature from 800 to 600would result in A decrease infood consumption for the go10-fish?

g. Who VIPs President Eisenhower'slice-Pvesident?

h. (an you airange the groups ofrietures of animals so that when":41e groups are rearranged they.present of continuum ofevolutionary development fromthe lowest order of developmentto the highest?

1, That would hnppen in the UnitedArab Republic if President Nassnwere to order general freeelections for the presidency andruled himself out as a candidate?

.1* Why do you think that we wouldhave R less serious racial problemin the United States today ifPresident Lincoln bad not beenassassinated and had served twofull terms r president?

k, With the facts tint you now haveabr;ut place values in the decimalsystem, the base six number systemand the binary number system, whichsystem do you think would be thebest to use if ease of computationwas the criterion for selection?

1, How would you determine if anincrease in student participationin setting the rules for classroombehavior would lead to fewerrules being broken.

VI Who is the mayor of Syracuse?

n. Can you make three columns ofnumbers, one that has the highestIn the hundreths place, one thathas the highest value in the tenthqs:place and one that .has the highestvalue in the one place.

o, Why do you think that Florida wouldgo into an economic slump if a chanEc:in climate resulted in an

avertemperature change that was twentydegrees lower than the presentaverage temperature?

p, Can you put nil of the rectanglesin one box and all of the trianglesin the other box?

Yow was the invention of the printing press related to increasedavailability of knowledge?

r, Can you select the square from thedifferent shaped blocks on thetable?

WORKSHEET FOR OBJECTIVE 7.4

Match the questions or clarifying statements in column B with the levelof thought processes listed in column A, that the questions or clari-fying statements would be designed to solicit from students. Placeyour responses in the space provided in column A.

COLUMN A COLUMN B

Cognitive memory

2. Convergent thought

3. Divergent thought

4. Evaluative thought

00 ells a. How do you think our new system ofclassroom government is working?

b. What is the largest city in New YorkState?

c. If you had 6 apples end you gave2 to John and 2 to Sally, howmany would you have left?

d. If the draught had continued inCentral New York State, what wouldhave been the effect on the re-creation industry in New York State?

e. Who is the governor of New York?

f. If 2 to the second power is 4, whatis 2 to the third power?

g. Which encyclopedia do you thinkwas most helpful to you in pre-paring your report and why?

h. What would be the effects on NewYork City if we had another powerblackout that lasted for a fullweek?

WORKSHEET FOR OBJECTIVE 7.7

Classify the following teacher statements as (a) praise or encouragementusing private criteria, (b) praise or encouragement using public criteria(c) corrective feedback or criticism using private critera, or (d)corrective feedback or criticism using public criteria.

I, "I will not put up with any more noise."

2. "You answered that well because you gave examples to illustrateyour points."

3. "1 won't accept, that kind of work from you."

4. "Your paper was difficult to read because there were so manymisspelled words."

5. " "Your homework paper made me very happy."

6. "John's statements about South America are correct accordingto the map in your books."

7. "I don't think\Milt's report was as good as Vera's."

8. "Your drawing isn't quite right. The relative size of thefigures destroys the perspective."

9. "No, your answer is incorrect. The dictionary defines thatterm as...."

10. "That's a very good answer!"

11. *Yes, that's right. You remember that we all agreed to usethat procedure.

12. "No, you may not do that. The Principal won't like it."

WORKSHEET FOR OBJECTIVE 8.1

(a) Using opaque (regular paper) matrixsix models of teaching intent represefor specific content and objectivteach. On the back of each shobjectives and rationale fo

forms, formulate at leastnting instructional strategies

es for the grade level that youeet, describe verbally the content,

r the model.

(b) Describe (with or without modesty) your perception of particularteaching talents that you have. (e.g.--'I listen well."--"I organizedescription clearly. " --"I find and present instructional materialsmagnificently."--"I make kids work.") Explain how these talents areexploited in the instructional models.

A-25

APPENDIX B

Instruments of the Study

TEACHING SITUATION REACTION TEST

Revised September, 1966

Directionsg The caze example that follows bas been planned tomeaeuro your, ability to work through some of the problems ofbandling. a classroom group. You will be given certain infor-mation aboat the 'classroom group and tbe working situatin.You will tnrin be asked to respond to amumber of questions.This will be'repeatel througb a series, of problem situations,The case 6tudy has been designed so that you can respondregardless of your teaching subjeestlield. You do not reedteClnical subject Otter knowledge to taky this test,

You are asked to indicate your first, se@cmdm Ihird.9 and fourthchoice under ea oh question by Inserting respeot0% the numbers12 2,9 3 1 111. the spaces provided on the answer sheets under(a) (I,) (o) and (d)0 The most desirable choice should belabeled 19 and the desirable 4, For example if your firstchoice was response (c)0 your second choice was 'response (a)2

your third ;hole was response.(b)j, and your fourth choice wasresponse (d)0 you would,record your responses, on the answersheet as follows

(a) c (d)42

Pleave do not write on the test booklet.esrossawnaswasseasso .111111010.11001

B-2

The Situation:0

You have been employed by a school system which is engaged in aseries of experimental studies, One Of these studies involves anexperimental class designed to improve pupils° general adjustmentto their environment, A heterogeneous group (physicals mentally,socially) of twenty-five sixth grade youngsters have signed up forthis class,

The Blass is scheduled to meet the last hour of the day on Tuesdayand Thursday during the last half year ,Arrangements have beenmade so that the class might take trips and students might have anopportunity to meet informally with the teacher after class.

Around the first of November your principal calls you in to tellyou that if you are interested, you have been chosen to teach theexperimental class. You were asked because of your background inernild psychology and your interest in helping youngsters withminor problems of adjustment typical of the pre-adolescent °

Your principal has given you pretty much of a "free hand" to developthe oentent of the course and the activities in which the studentswill be engaged, A good supply of instructional materials, books'on children, and descriptions of similar programs in other schoolshas been made available to you, There will be no direct supervisionof your work, but an eval:uation by students and yourself will berequested at the middle and close of the semester, Studies willalso be made of the gain in personal adjustment evidenced by yourstudents° You know the names of the students who have signed upfor your course, An experienced teacher-counselor has been askedby the principal to help.you when and if you ask for help, Theteacher-counselor knows well each of the youngsters who have signedup for your class.

The GroaE:

Some of the youngsters who have signed up for the course know eaebother very ell, having gone through school together, Three do notknow anyone else in the group, Others are only casually acquainted°Members of the group have a variety of interests arid abilities,and they represent many levels of competence and come from a varietyof socio- economic backgrounds. The quality of their personaladjustment varies, but none Is seriously maladjusted,

-2-

Ao' You have about eight weeks plus the Christmas vacation to plan for

your class:

19 When you begin planning the course you would:

(a) Ask your teacher-counselor what hethinks should be in the

course.

(b) Examine the materials available to you and determine how they

might be used by members .of the class.

(c) Read through the copies of publications describing other

school programs of a similar nature and draw ideas from them.

(d) Interview a randomly selected group of the young people signed

up for the course and set your own tentative objectives

based on these interviews.

20 During early December an important local civic group comes out

against teaching sex education in the schools. Your planning had

included some sex education. At this point in your planning

you would:

(a) Continue panning as you have been.

(b) Ask the principal if you should include any sex education

in your course9

(c) Remove the lessons dealing with sex education.

(d) Find ways to get the sex education material across without

causing an issue,

39 About three weeks before your class is scheduled to meet for the

first time, your principal asks you to come in and talk with him

'about the course. You would hope that your principal would:

(a) Say that if there was anything that he,could do to be of help

that you should feel free to call on him.

(b) Indicate to you what he would hope the course would

accomplish during the semester.

(c) Encourage you to talk about the,purposes of your course as

you see them after several weeks of planning0

(a) Makc specific suggestions to, help you in your planning, and

encourage you to dip in for further suggestions if you

need help.

40 The weekend before the course is to start it would be natural

for you to feel:

(a) Concern that your planning has been inappropriate.

(b) Anxious to get started and prove your ability to handle this

rather difficult assignment.

(d1 Confident:' knowing you have done the best you could under theHopeful that the course will prove of real value to the stude

circumstances.

:You will have your first meeting with the group tomorrow.

5. It will be important that you have planned for:

la) students to get well acquainted with each other.

(b) explaining your grading system,

(o) activities to catch student interest.

(d) explaining your complete program for the semester.

6. The teacher-eounsefor drops by your room and asks if he can be of

help. You would ask him for:

(a) his opinion about what you have planned for tomorrow

(b) suggestions to help you make a good impression.

() suggestions as to what student reaction might be on the first day.

(a) nothing until you had an opportunity to meet with the group

7. The more Important personal information to gather at the firstmeeting would beg

(a) interests of the different students.

(h) parent or guardian, home address and phone number.

(c) what the students would like,to do in the course.

(d) why they are taking the course.

8. Of the things you would do the evening before meeting the class,

the most essential would be to:

(a) become familiar with the notes for such presentationt as

You might make.

(b) become familiar with students names and any informationyou have about' them from their files.

(c) become familiar with the sequence and nature; of any activities

you may have planned.

(d) be giure any materials you were to use were available and in

good condition.

9. Your greattrst, concern on this night before the first meeting would,

beg

(a) how to appear poised and at ease,

(b) bow to gain control tkm group.

) how to handle problem pupils

(d) how to get your program moving rapidly and wellB-5

On moetin tho gremp VA° fimt day a number of ..;tudents come in fromthrQ to flys minube late° Following this, as you get your programunderway the student set restiess4

100 With .1.0 students that come in late you would:

(a) simply a(r;knowledge their presence and noticeably mark thenpri::,sent in the record book*

(b) inVorm them politely about the time at which the class starts

(e) ask them politely why they were unable to get to class on time'

(d) S'XCI 0:ear to the c1as.5. as a whole and the late Students inpart;loular the standards you will maintain with regard toeciardnet5s0

would handle t;he restlessness of the group by

prent;ing your program more dynamically

a',:exing students why they were restless

yeakirAg to1k;he group firmly about paying at

(d) pivkIng out one or two of the worst offenders and reprtmandingthem

12. You wculd tell the group your name and

(a) the rules or nonduct for your clasil

(b) your expectattons for the class

(c) of your personal adjustmeab problems at their age

eiom of your interesta and babbles

You would) by your general behavior and mannery try to presentyour*if

(a) Vim and zeviouci but fair

effictent$ nr3rly and buAness-like

(c, friendly symtvIthel and undenstandillg

d) understanding,1 friendly and firm

140 You wouAd prepavie Por the next meeting, byg

fa) di::q!,uing wij;h pupilo what they 'would like to do and deoidingqr two ide8

to) i t t 11:IxT; them otat pap,m6 to rezld

14';) TA:ving students a (:'.;)-oit%e of two ideao and detervoinAng whiAt't1e majority ts Intere;:ltod,,

ed) di4i,dussing'yourHplans fao he next meeting with themeB-6

Y94 witil your class four tims and ';iav%71 made aemn observations,

Two boyz N:tm pariularly dirty and you havc ,Cound they come from alowor class slum area, One girl seems to be withdrawn, 'nw,, students

do not pay attention to hero She is a pleasant looking well dressedgirl° Them am rour or five youngsters, apparently very good frtands(both boys, and girls) who do most of the talking and take most of the

initiative0 Students seem to continually interrupt each other and youo

15 a In the interests of the two boys from the slum area you would:

(a )find an opportunity to discuss the matter of cleanlinesswith the class

(b) speak to the boys about their need to be clean in a conferencewith them

Winaugurate a cleanliness competition with a prize to that halfof the class with the best reoords puttin6 one boy in each half

(d)epeak to the boys about their need to be gIean and arrangefacilities At achool where they could clean up

16, In tai e intemsts of the apparently withdrawn girl you wouldg

(ajtalk to her informally over a period of time to see if youcould determine her difficulty

(b)call on her regularly for contributions to the discussion

(e)diseover a skill she hay: and have her demonstrate for the olass

W)have a conference with her and tell her to become involvirld with

the (};:tarp diJaaussion and speak up

17, To improve the mlationahip of the group to the apparentlwithdrawn giw1 you wouldg

(.,a)determine whos if an'' is friendly with her and P.,:mni7!

to how; the work togythor on ae7.1easion

b)takct the i;ivq, aside !And help hor see how .8h0, can w;s1Athbette r relAtiml with bee classmai;et4

art' :Rto halm her work with the group 0V Tioys and 1Lris

who 'mast? most of the inj.tlative

(d)allow hvp to work out her own. virobletl

180 With ronrd to the four or five youngster Olo do moot of the;imri take tbe initiative you would tind to be:O.oveg

(n)thQy arc brlebtor than most of the other students

(L .Vfm the Aeaders nf th clam; .

Lsth/

iz eonsiderable variation in student's abIlItyIpate in class

(d)Uilv *am a little too erxrky and think they know morothers

14.7

9. Witt regArd to the tendency of class members to interrupt while

others are talking you would::

(a) tell the class politely but firmly that interruptions areimpolite and should not continue

(b) discuss the matter with the class, determining why thishappens and what should be done about it

(c) organize a nyatem of hand raising and set rules for studentsparticipation In discussion

(d) set rules for student participation in discussion and firmlybut fairly reprimand each person who breaks the rules

20. One of the important problems facing you now is to do something which:

(a) will insure that no one is rejected or disliked

(b) will result in everybody's being liked

(c) will encourage each person's acceptance of the others

(d) will guarantee that no one's feelings get hurt

?. At the beginning of the eighth class session (fourth week) Johnny comes

into class holding on to his arm and very nearly crying. The tears are

welled up in his eyes and he looks away from the others, You notice that

Peter, the largest and strongest boy in the class, looks at Johnny occa-

sionall with a sneering smile. You do not feel that you can let this

pasts, so you arrange to meet with Johnny and Peter separately after class

21. You would tend to believe'

(v) thAt Jc'Ir,ny probably did something for which this was just, but

maytw: sovere, payment

(b) that ee;tir 1 s something of a bully

(0) that JcOnny Ions. *:it on the arm by' Peter

fd) tr.at*, re t, Wily and Peter WAH quite awam it

220 When yo,.1 410..:.+; Jonnny you would;

aLk w:nn ff Peter hit him and why

c'ne:Ail! ;aim In <37,11versation and'iend slculy into the difficultynftermcvn

te: etItm yoL; wom Rwave that he hnd 3tvvie difficulty And offer

your nip to ;him

Irri guide 11)ae dluNtwil.n and reveal what /1P wrrulA nbout

tmAdent

B-8

'3 WAtT, 13:111 with Peter you would

(a) tell ,lam that Johnny was upse this afternoon and you hadric,ticv4i that he (Peter) was looking strange--proceed from there

(b) make aware that you know he.had trouble with Johnny andTrr4,x,e4j fron

W make award that he is bigger and stranger than the otherboy6 ard that he is a bully if he picks on smaller boys

(J) ask tlim if' he and Johnny had had difficulty

240 wren you people get into conflict inIsehool it would be best to:

(a let them resolve it themselves

(b) tbem to establish a friendly relatlanship

(c) flnA the cause of the trouble and work to eliminate it

(d) nontrol the school situation so that the conflicts are less'.1kely. to arise

F0 In your progrA ir4s been moving along satisfacLorily, but aferthe ele,:oth meei;Ing you have a feeling that the stwient6 are beginning tolose ini.:ertJst A number or students seem to be sitting thrcu; alasswit,hcut really getting Involve:do Others seem t stay interested andaotiveo The tx:aclicr-counselor asks to see you informally over ,Icff ee.

t.P1r1r4 you rqt-t with the teacher-counselor yau would:

a) not .=1.k about your .31ass or its praaent 1a61: cf involvement

(bj your czalcern with him and liotun for tzue&:.:e5tions he

mii!nt !1.,0)4f

(C) :Aip0/4. ,Itrout he=.w satisfactory the ez-;;:y meeting6 09d

(d) alla t,enox.--eunselor to orlent the dis4tan

260 YOAV pllr.A121p. fr..a. nvxt (ninth) ,t,:4141e,1 vOUA

tat yau klad not trioil

4tfi '=.1,1Vtontion of the importaw .:$4:4Adiontn domr4 weIl

LAN

ttit?Ht,- 1110/11 stud47nt ay.ter,,

;),*/ t Mtv.. atis

,(d) way *.e nwn! studons activ:y 3oine c4Aletkqre In PIatii8

8-9

.8..

2t. DurinA ninth session you woul

(a) behave much as you had in ea

(h) put :tome stress on the impoin clnu

(c) by careful observation de

(d) speak pointedly to thos

28. You would tend to believe

(n) a rather natural rea

b) railure of studentsto a course of thi

(c) a rarnRr naturaltogether on pers

ricer sessions

rtance of everybody paying attention

termine which students seem disinterested

e who were not paying attention

the loss of interest due to:

tion in an elective experimental course

to realize that they must contribute muchis kind

group reaotion to the experience of workingonal adjustment problems

y

(d) your own failure in developing good human relationships inthe :I.ats and stimulating the students

Go T3eft::ry tkAe rat 4 term eighteenth) meeting of the class you take time outto think about the experiences you have Ilado The class has been good somedays and p5ov ,&,M31-fr days. You have tied no word from your principal about

ymur woNrk f-4 been. The teanher-counbelor has seemed satisfied but

not very much imised with what you are doing. You have heard nothingabowc tl6e ymmr vftvie who are being studied° You are asked to meet with

the parents m w:12912 the experimental claws in an Informal way.

Ye-.0 would t.

(a) tbi)thi! p

(b) uhzit

mot concerned about:

.:cure of the principal and teacher.counselor.to discussifTvowt or the students before your meeting with the parents

yno eay to the parentis

(t;) yaw- 4r;y3rt:Ilt failure to impress your eacher-counselor

30o Wu

a

I

hnt ra utor71 of the young people ire Bilowilv

w:11:11) tlrY!

) 7rfqc progrss with the tpatlther-couns4.1or

b; at,k f t 4/' :)T1.)01ntIment with thg: primtpaI to find out how he1;iout

(e.1) plan ,s0 140E4( hArdPr witIa your grcup

(d) nGt let the rrsi3ent sat: or affairs worry you

B-10

.9.

31v Whtln talkthg with the parents you woullj

(a) e:ricourv.a them to ask questions about the program

(b) tell ttlem what the program has consisted of 30 far

(c) tell tkIPM you don't know how well the program is going

(d) impr9so upon them the importance of student participationin clout activitiesv

320 In this case you would feel that parents:

(a) ought to be told how their childrn are doing in this clams

(b) ought not to become involved in such an experimental program

(c) are entitled to an opportunity, to question you

(d) oueot to be referred to those in charge of the experiment

330 At your next class meeting:

(a) youi you3 d tel3. students what you told their parents

(b) you would not initiate any discussion about your visit withthi? parent.m

ynu would dismass briefly the parents' interest In the class

Cd) you wnnld trin the students that you expected more ,opfrAtlion

firm r...,14 that their parents were involved

H, ninetoentil ;And tweAt.ieth class sessions are very unnattsfantory4Y.?,L1 11:ave clt;. at tIs end of tha twentieth sestion doubts in yourmin .:4s, wiwt14 oAdente are gaining in perponal n)k(I .75o(!ta1 adjustment,You eain 30,,v TWobltiv7. with the structure and organizaton Ar hio class sodbr:liove th;ft if 0::P, nefuld be corrected or if you hal (tone eomP thingsdIfforntly ovtir waft few weeks that YOU would not.tave a problemwith 4:he c1:1-r!t.

34, tbIF, weluldx

(a) i;f1 s!r, )pr etla,14 nftxt (Inv :trld sk' y(Sur 1:;uflt.nOt IutyL-r progrea46 of

(10 7;kliry problem rarefmlly anal start rovi3ions7:11-0 nexi; yar

ft,) t" we'crT%Of Ar-Pept- falt tbsitwith 11:,,iiN:eAnm.Inta and redoubIi.1 your effr)ta to J.a.14rclwis .--Jt.tx!r ir tb4. future by spending more time in preparation

yrA.t,' students to wor;t "AarcP4r.

rat ntir 1/!:PAr tc,ncc-Jry at thq next meeting of your olbab anJ eh-:;ourf.le students ti talh with you after class about the progressof the course

S-11

yr.vk gotc4 bwvter regarding thf. accuracy of your entimnteahmtr, ure.lit with the class if your

iz*,) :!vikre tkot sow; of the students wre not being difficult onp4r71-,,,iA to tAtct your authority eb a new teacher

(11) *kmo!iN rw-ftF% atwut tho expectations *f your student!t and to whatexidrint n)ley their expectations were bating met

coul0 t,fivt a colleague in whom you could confide Rnd in whomyou cAtitd trq.st3 conic in and observe your class and talk with

you

(d) were eum you understood your own needs for suewss and the1::tennt to with these needs influence your feelings

360 AVtee n twontIeth sessions it would be natural for you to feel

(a) you ve:'1uI4 t, ire to relax and.think about the situation over

the wc.W.nq

(b) you ltudentm accepted the f.-mt thot thing:3 th;J), are

tevmhr tt)-m IA sell ols are usually gnod f,'J them evi-fn though

they rtai n6t :.Ike: what they are learvirs :Al of time

(c) thin r:,.14om ;z) wtal all the time for iorerybody 41n4 that they

cdttlt f.xpx,etti to always go well for yexJ

) It ;:w;tt, Avel 0-?01) wonderful to te9el4 in the Blood o3 d drays when

[2:14Yit* *4,A7. in :4ohnnl because they war '.'1 to 1Rarn.

37. m an to f7/,111yre the source or tam ptvqiffin ye.44 am having

v10!/ yf7aw . ;111 WolAid;

(; ftw!. t with sevoral or tIr T trIgkr ziru mor inter-

41:%ritlf: 0,;.41-w:,1. to tsoo if they ocolid M.Ve 4i1141 3ny tnto

.e!," .A.Ase cee.sion teJ nham your (couterns wItlf/ the

revitLions. and thl» trtrct.rirl'ittl on, f,thinkrni

(r;) i%:14 .:ae,,,-!.eolnifIlor to olvw. In qnd lb;;;:rve th4. qtlass

A '

.orld tailf with T7:11 nbout his cbx,ervatamb

-1 t; 4., cis r 871) 4-1-0.9:: to nee . y::-eu ono d ri nd("1 ' VA

B-12

yo..ir t,111,7wrN-.tf,uoli meeting you wish to mAke plans for a eeriPs orvisits tiLrk*:;ront /Immunity health and wAineee agencies. You want to besure that the youngsters learn from the experiences and conduct them-selves propecly whilti traveling to and from and visiting in the agencies.

38. In order to assure that all youngettrip you would:

(a) assign particular things forlisten to

(b) ask each to write a brief cthey saw and heard

(c) encourage them to ask quo

(d) present them with a theand auk them to cheek

39. In preparstion for the fi

(a) tell tAom a much aswere aqtykil

ers learned from their first

all of them to look for and

ommentary on the most important things

ationa while they were there

ck sheet or items to be seen and heardoff those that they saw or heard

rst trip you would:

you could about the agency to which they

(b) tell i:helm you vere sure it would be interesting and fun and let

them see and hea for themselves

(c) ask tbc:In 'that they thoaght they could ennet and encouragesuido41 di:cu;,sions about their expefations

(d) tell them abo

40. To insure that

(a) SOt OUT. VU

(b) ask tiorathgqi. !p2:1ol

ut the most interesting things they would sec and hear

tift group conducted themdelves pmerly you would2

les of conduct for them

to t./e)lave as young ladies and dentIvr-m representing

(a) ask thpm wt rules oV tonduct they would prop4Jse and develop acoiic 1,41th tb:, ;rt)up

(d) 1*..cat If they did not benave properly they would not40 ();-! tkqp:, in the future

41. On z1y2

(a) d

yfx w.14113:

10:4) mall grciupe with a lizoder rprponsitle for eachgPvAIN lrrnge their itinerary and meetinge after you get to

dency

aek yowle.)4ers to got your p.....f.mtsAon first And on thi*; bustst.iteN t puroe own interelts

(c) lot T;11 ar!e'my w!p:le tike resronsibtlity for dcWidIng. ohemcould ef' end rien

id) keep ri..q4 (di togealer 33 a maneceable group

B-13

-12-S.J. At the close of the thirtieth class session Bo b

boys, summarizes a class discussion on boy-giwe've talked around the subject but we neverquestions." The agreement of a number of the

42. You would tend to believe:

(a) the class members are too youngquestions in this area

(b) you had allowed just a littleof boy-girl relationships

(c) this simply reflects a natintroduce some excitement

b, one of the most ableri relationships with.. Val,get down to the importantclass members is evident.

to be dealing with important

too much freedom in the discussions

ural desire on the part of students tointo the class sessions

(d) the class could handle important questions in this area with yourguidance and support

43. Before the thirty-first se

(a) clarify the significin your own mind

(b) determine what youclass in this area

ssion you would:

anee and implications of Bob's statement

will and will not allow to be discussed in

(c) consult the principal and get direction from him

(d) discuss the sito getting ide

tuation with the teacher-counselor with a viewas for handling the next session

44. During the thirty-first session you would:

(a) propose astudentsable of t

thou

list of carefully selected questions you believe theaye in mind and begin discussions on the most manage-

)10Lf-;

,1/?nt and dra,I from tIm r-ATI:15 a lf..:!; oV OlAt ti`

t aloulo be discussed

sugect that acme questions are not appropriate for discussionin school and that some of these fall in the area of boy-girlrelationship

(d) ask Bob to pick up where he left off and guide him and other classmembers as they clarify the directions further discussion shouldtake

B-14

It, Your /:taos at Inst. developed intc., a fairly tf:ohesive on)t. t) die.

.I.:(61.*Ins An more animated and every4ne participates to .eome degree,

Iladgreemo:Intr, on ideas begin to appear and the students g1ve evidence ofinten-5e feelings on a number of issukssv George has been particularly out-spoken. He has very radical ideas that seem to provoke 'al., other studentsLo disagree but, you know that the ideas be expresses have some supportfrom some psychologists that you consider to be thee "lunatic fringe".George se)dom gives in on a point0

45, You would believe that these conditions are likely to

(a) ultimately strengthen the group

(b) do little but make it uncomfortable until Gedrge learns his lesson.

(c) destroy the group unity unless you intervene

(d) make it difficult for progress to be made for some studentsuntil they learn to accept George

46. With rvgard to George you would:

(a) refer him to the teacher-counselor

(b) point out to °parse that he is intolerant of the views of other

clase members

(6 encourage him to express his ideas in ways that would notirritate other students

(d) politely but firmly keep him from expressing such ideas

470 With rogard to the other students you would

(a) encurage them in their effort to stand up to George

(b) help them to understand what George is doing to them and why

(c) help them to get onto topics and ideas where George could notdisagree with them so forcefully

(d) get Into the discussion on their side and shew 'George I:hat he

is wrong

46. With regard io your concern for George as a pers.!Inv you would feel

that

(a) h, iu developing undemocratic traits by behavinz as he does, andyou W01.410 IlCiAt to help him change

(b) 'At: 1 dt-A.14.not understand how to behave in a demonratio tvAlting

and may need help

(c.;) prtobaoly ila.4.% never learned t;ertain social skills necesoarytor demorat.10 grc.up be and Kile poseibilititie or dove:km-ins' ouch kacilis should be sttown

(d) be will learn sooner or .0,!er the in a democraw, acme ideas areundesirable because they to destroy the group

B-15

Answer Sheet

TEACHING SITUATION REACTION TEST

Name Number(print at irat

Date

1. a bad 17. a be dSM111610011111 ISINNIERNIN 1111111onsill

2. a b a d 18. a b a d611111116 1111160111111MISI

3, a b a d 19. a be d111111Issimis oilm soossoms twossomos olemairos sosmsorm

4.a b c d 20. a b a del1110~11110

5. a b a dsli/SMEMINI 4111111111Slislie elin11111111111111, alinell1011110

21. a b a d

6 a b a d 22. a b a d

7. a b a d 23. a b a 43

ON/IIIIM11M11 11111I1111ONIO 11111111101111111e INNINSMISIN 11111MISININIP al8. a b a d

9. a b a111101VMPIN

24. a b a d

25. a b a dasISSININ111.0 asIMISSISSils 1111110111111110 ON......

10. a b a dammisisIND SIONSMISISay

26. a b a d

11. a b a if 27.seMlimilSONIP onoWismonlis

12, a b a el 28. a b a11101111 6111111.11110 MININSINNIP 111111111111111111

13. a bad 29. a bga d

14. a b a 4 30. a b aswaxwaimlb 011111111111111 111112~111NNI 41110011111111 1111001110111NNINP 111111111111011011 111111111101115.8 bad 31. a b aOmmossoors ..isosonsso 1111111i11111111111,

16. a b a d 32. a b a d0111111smsnas 101111111.1111 1101111. 4111114111111D

B-16

SF.ANTit'" DIFFERENTIAL INSTRUMENT FOR ESTIMATING ATTITUDES TOWARDACIIVITIES RELATED TO INSTRUCTION°

Th:' purpose of this instrument is to measure the meanings or certainidect* and aztlyities to teaoners and prospective teachers by having

matvl uoi:AerAto ab4 ui. some items according to a series of des-s.:alebo In filling out this form, please make your judgment

on virw? basic of what these thing3 mr-An 10 etc u and ha/ xell feel aboutfl:Amu

In tr1s in3trument, you will finJteaOlers do or may do that

will al.? (Ind six :males against

fifty or more statements aboutare related to instruction, Youwhich to rate each statement.

ro s how you are to use these scales: If you feel that the state-moot la 4ts~ s...osel related to one end of the scale, you should placeyour chilsx mar 314 ICITINST--

rieaeing A ;

Pleaoino 11 4

IllwI1P 1.1a

110OR

A 01 Annoying

.: X_.4 Annoying

If lick) feel that the Aatement is vatot"rier en..3 the scale (but not exti;emeliiTiraicheck -maric as follows:

146.antr.8.1.

Meaningles%4

.ftenioniels.

MINIMINANIO

X :

JAVAIIIINP

OR

0

AMMIIMIUM. WWWWNIONS

related to one or thelaWarplace your

111, Meaningful

X Meaningful.

If fte statement seems 2aly. sly2tiz related to one side as opposedt.!r the other (but in not really net44.117Win you should check asfollow:42

TmpeIrtant

nripori',ant,

a0 V

6 3 X0

11IN111111: Trivial

Trivial

The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of6htf two_ end 6 of the. scale seem most characteristic of the statementy01.2 an, itioang

Tr r7Ju fe.snsider tbf,t *tatc!ment to be neutral on the scale, both sides of60411e. ilpl.ria: L:4 with thZ7ITZTVMent,'orif the scale is

irreve;111. unFqated to the statement, then you shouldreiatm =ark iv the middle space

V:luahle 1%MOM: MP

Worthless

irli,TRTAI\Yr.1 1) PlaiJe; your cheek-marks In thT middle of laces, not Ottt Lu 7)0 3 ri

X 1

Trtis:; 1imolloamAv

A21110 Mom.., .410,MM1m.

Xpir.00.0%.

B-17

-2-

2) Be sure you check every scale for every statement--do notomit"1--Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale.

Sometimes you may feel that you have dealt with the same item morethan once on this instrument. This will not be the case, so do notlook back and forth through the items. Do not try to remembirhowyou cEliEReFiiiriflifs items earlier. Make each item a se orate and

a.independent judgment. Work at fairirEre-iiiiirthro sity. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is yourfirst impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the items, thatwe want. On the other hand please do not be careless, because wewant your true impressions.

3

Ti) INSTRJCZIONAL ACTIVLTIES

.1 't a't? tt6:Ett r'eLatod Lo 1r*otruetionai actviti'c wto.y .r in. Ra1 nCati'TnerAt acoxdn to youz'

z' belief in relation to 'ich of the sii1e" U

I 3 cr s'rtc t' 1on th etii10

Anir'

____:

Triv'tai.

;' ii 'Th ': Ee2 tl.rlg.L -

'o I,

Jt'J oIrej - ---g (rnod Led1A'

2. ? m;6 W.th chtldren0

Z Yb; Anoy1 nç

---a -

: P11I12I1I411

__:.

_gi._..

Tr1v11a .

.3'3 I 4 'JIIII 4

I.

P .t .L. -- i---- ---t .a Ey

EiI1 'dt_____£

Good 1rc'1ure

1 4ki.n ri isto nbout thi, purpoec or ;i 1e3aon,

as.: Arvvyinp,--

: r'ki4flingVul

rMr?W

IIi: rrfter' Good 1roced'x'e

e'k.1rf 1rJ tt Lind out ah"ut tickntt3.

: Anrcy1np'

:: : -iiMan1.ri1N'tv1ai1

: TTh 'iii. i: :m____:

-EXC1t1n_Ea y

. a- .r Rt-

: 't-'duZ'... -- _,.

''1' wLti tir'n to 'ai'1 t*r?tr rredr.

' I

t____ 5--Mar14'u1.

-S. __7

___rrt v&:.

1. _; ___Ij I

__S___t1CC1t,irh1

.,1. :' ':

S ., --- .-.

P:1.;

3-19

I-

i

g

Z MLrttn:f1g$4

4

.4

044

.t .4

o ,.

.1 4,

1.

.- .. --4) 4.

*

II

IaAS4II - V.s.L..*

4. .

-43 I fl

I:4 .4 __a. .4 I

'i ;;"r"(':' 'U.:_4.,. i_ _ ._ -

(Jt)ovi C.)d'r;----i-a __a

7 ..tttJ1f' cdt't poal:, 1'x 1r arirg.

r :;. I._4 .d? Wnt7rt'U1a :_4..4 44US1 - _______ - -- _4'

. .1

-. .4 i'e 4

4#j'.I,..I.,

.

..a_4.a ,'4-- ..

.. - .4.

T\t' oct',- i: Tii_ lkd 1'cwur''

,, .-cttti rit tionii3. atiii1

__: :-.=) ____'- .JW

Cl '. 04.___ '___

d44.J ___ _ _.__

Oooa e''J'i:'-.4U-

),. :-td.r t, t4ruct1'ru3]. matez1aie

.;

t''r A.. ?i.j

- ._ - -I----

2

-2 Tx'LV1%1.4 ** - 4 *._4 -- -- -

.4 .-., -- --.-. ---- _________

Eayiid 0oo P'i

.. a --w ..'mar8._4 - .-

.) 4,r' te s-T& innt thb' .rtt11' t1oLft.

cij'ortrir

1r1sui,.m' ..S..a 1I4.4 :: 'rr- vti:a &' S. 4 .4S 4. .4.

7'. ,_ _4

- .- _-- ''fl

: ': r,ot, ?c'',.4, ,---_ _a4. 4 _-_-.

t'.h ?rta1i, 4

t:L.' . .', 4.*IL)'tfl

9; ';:'3 4-. -' _

-,

- ' S.'4i. S.

.4 .'4 .

4.- . a-a.a .a. . . _.ea

a,.

4eflS.

'L'"tv ?i1- -

,a

'4

:-

j ',

a a --a 1"

....

p .. .

4.

4z, ',i4' *.

-L

Aj 'Iri 4 - rJ liz"i

B2O

II

. 4' 4* 4 's .0.41 1;41 "irt a" 11 ar rows

s '.

1%' V.04"

T:. ..'d tIl.0.. ; .

.

a. .. 7 n

I ; .14.

'f f5 '..reo, 1

7 .

321..Vb 1{

...,/.

..1 al- POW 0.4011. ....0.0.4

II #..# 4.

. 4* 114 a 11 ewe Yaa 1040101: 1to I. A

aoP ...AP. Aye Whirr, 04/1, Wm" Wawa4 .3n.

..it *Nee /1144 41 . ala*Paradaso4 , Af k,

NI 41.44 WWII. .. 41141,

..w.

4I)

.. .14. al. o MIPS aor:IP ..

' e

es n..(4 V-.. .0. Iv

.71 o

4 ..

............ .APIIIIIIIMVOI

0ao0

4 Tir i *I 1.; -.4.0000./.0

............ a0.1

'a.

0.0010-0 IP

01 r 411,

1411114414 40

a00

60

messorsan,

.4100als,

°I.0

60106

011100

.1 1111000.0

,Itlxtve.mati with HP. (ntaid.

... .lims.A a'-a..-a.. 0

OM a....0 0 MIf .

...4400.1avs ........sso...

..,

l,........,A

s,

0111041000 r.

J44441.11

t.4 14. 4

14.114 a

4'..'

1I

4=0. as.)

I10. WOO .IP

laA aal0010.0 4

PAr.

I.. IIA

......7........0. 1:.

A0

:, i V

4IIdfdrelks.

11 A

Sco...V. 141tP IPA .1 e.

(. : ftPP 4011114

)44 ' .1.4.0.41/4. . -1044411400 I 14110111410

' 41 0

OJP. g ?'114. 7 No 11. !' 11..P41.Z14t ; tt or,rurriv.)ritu

h.

mammas.; e;

EX..: 1.t .nF _i i.V.11

141),71el Pr ; ''7 ii * I .I.10

aa0400.10

114114SIP

aaaI; fia

01111.00.

4Ki ferk.214 ..4*(i 1:tir4

4 4 tos 4 7

11414440C ot

P

sit WOA*

2 A..hr ity,,.....irlit!...

~A/Nap 11 I011104010h0 ° 1.6010101010

at*41411.111140 000110aasaa0

44,

1 1 i M. an t. n...........,

0 o

,....inaoar. 411.14140* IP,

01141001.. A

0.210.4020A

04114

?,... 'A

r r .7.il el: 1;.1:: ir. :Ir4.4..........40 4 P 4

401144

001711111001;

aA

t.eitt./.1*a ....1.. .04...1

.1 11 o.OS

"114441I.1e. 0

.0

.008148illia" -........ 4.1014010.

44 t.

4. WWI" 4144. a. ..0404,041a

0001.000 tl444 0 AMINANIIIIIM

0 ret:Velf..: rreY.11.1, !,'Oittr.:a

..o. t . :%rititi 1.1 b.,. t /13 t.:11)111**:11.0,- - 4 1,00

i47tt

V;

7.1

t". 11 c, sp.

4.k

t.f ar 4.. s

1.;;'' t.

7f

ftc)

11'0'

' .4

. A r,.1 C.

)1,

03 il. An) . alV 1 r .. .%

. 42 ... ..4. .5. 44411. 0 400.000110 11101111A10 1111 11A .. *woo ant tt o

0 r.it C 0 .27..?!.ri;..fitt:

A . .. .., as. II .110011. 1000 7.0 ast P. . 0 Tr.! V i P. II.. 011 #1 a 3

....4.4.4 a * 141 1011341111. mg. 01.10. ala MINN.

I

n., n

n ..0 0

3 A. F.4:Xt.t t t 1 Att:

a. to ...a. .1024.4.-.2 itialra 04101100010 - 40am...a 400 0

1

A4 ea

II

.4141411 .1/0 1/004.3 4 e 2 3 rioo(t V-ro(",,....fit4.1--5 r,

0 . 0010110 ' 11444. 11.1 401111111 VP a: 404 . MM. 11,..

4111.4.4a 4104 1401,411141.4.01 ,400144

444 ...16-aes.1111 411114111or

.71r..1..tr: ;':7I 1.111

tt04

la 3 vTartA a,

era 00400. a11010110 00004100. 01.1111.:Pt .. 1 1s 16.01 118 .0

. . .4 004.0.0 . rar14',E 4f,

*. I 4 -

ga- I ;

a

114411.1

IV

B-21

0..- ' ammo. tor allnon

4 .44, 4440. ..

V 4..4

, ...,..112...

."ma

41

Porta a no% 4444

I4 ... 4.4..0 00 .. 4111.10......

1

. (; / .1 6 i ..:i.r. a *. a' 4: :-.us... ... ,....... . .111.... a

a oeseaa, Woes. It..

Annzt7 1yI7.'r1 v rt

c. a.0.1

S

:x:rn

v

1 ,4

-...

A .b

-

-

A .,.1

C5

IA .

Mà.!#

...w

a.

s,a..

.e.l - : I

_____

_ -

Trt',tal

: 'Th

fl.r

3r"

.-.

._.

.

u_.-_

.,

Gio

rrI'd,tr'...

..

ua

. -a.

. .

r

f11

Y. 1?

1 7

-

:

.

__

.-

Sa._

-

zvta1.

S-

.

..a.a...s J

(

.,.

w ....

...

d- S

-

A

-

,,

-,S

_

_.__...

-

-

L a. Iay

5 Ceo)

Pry''

zr'

...

a..#

_a.b

.--._.

___________

tw

1.r'rn

for

diAront

ktnd

of

acttvtt1

%:.

i

t4*tn

t. i i

___ -

Trvtv1

___________

___________

-

-- : E

xcitY.n'

1 ;

%w_

- -.*-

-__I-_w

._w*_

---

Oood

Zx'd'r'r

- - -

U-___

.__

I_l__

___________

-J-s

-

.t

r(?'.1trattg

'i

th do

sorneth1n

?I 'S

.

r ' : Mvoy

1.

. .---

-

-r--

-

______

- Th

' : : 'r1'

- %_fl*S

S

-

_

- __ -

I5_I-__

--

'

' "1 e

I a.

5 A

________

S

Bt

T'd'1X'

..

S : -aoo'

v2'.:s

-___ -

S l.I

______

-

ttg

1anc

wth

nthe

t#acheri0

.3

'i

a. a.a.

r-1

_____

-

!

t1ttfl

-I.- 55

. - -

. .

. e

a

._-__-s.

'

)

r----

S

I .1

.._*__

_J_

I.

a...

A

a.

.a.S_I_

V

S-a.-

_ i Gk)(

?!.,2.

.4r..up.

___: .m..va

èT.,

'r

( 4(fl

.'

yt'.'

-u

VIa.

a.

_a

-..

..

a.

.a.

a.s.

1

'Vr'

-

-

-a

S S.S.

S.

a. a.

A

S.d

...

a..

a.

oU A

-.

_ -.

A

a - _ -

a a r.

w * L

7 S I

tc:

- a..

. a

a. - _ -...

a. .

aa.ma.

3-22

ess.rp4 )

, 1-. 44.! req. 1%

) '.1 .

14. otr. "MID ' 114 4.4 II

,'

. 1 . .

.. . , .. '.." .4. le

. . le ...Ow** ..r.4. Is : "AO ...

5

0fI 41.L. . 110. 1 *V AVM *II..4 .J11 44 r a 1 400, 10 0 I-. a a

a 1.40.5 " . i 1. so t 5 1 VW

; el l'/ICirti It 4..,ti"*: 41; tri

Arog",t 4.

C% PI? 9! 10rt.r` 't

fib

P...'" 0... ii *. 1 : ... ,:.

.., . I ; A .. J il !\1' el ) t;"4 le Mk Sr

:..! ?-44. 1 1 0:. , '....4 4: 44r. . '. 4.' : 1e a 1.I.A. ....0111. m all.M........: . 0. pa V' t;,.nvir, , : rrtv I rt.!... I' V Oa" Mo.. 1I' 1, 0 n i , 0 >

F r.1% 4.....4 1!': . .. 4. .... . 4. 11101QM. API i A *0. Niro OW r...

.::: Z1 t. *.! , . ...c: 1 .4%4+

........... ....... S. am.. ~Or 11110 wt. V* * .i4.;.: .... 14::"Y'''.0 i'..11!"<1 , ..

S.4

:: IC0 Ci r: ; 'rt. 1'4- , . .. :. : '.; W ;/kV mom I

4! 1:1"1 t...y Or '71.--tItarj!.% ,

. i *.2 V '4 44.- i '. 4. of (

. OW, a , , J. . . 4* 11.1111 .100 OMR. ,1 4.

eal'1

41..1 4 1 0~W. ." Irir ,..", 'R .1 II ..fP / 0,,,i, 4 I% i . .... I . . 0.1t.,' 411

.. . I. J .0cl";:r r.C.1

. r . ts 0104 *IND

4 '1

.64o n

.,.6

........... ...m..... a... ) ,Ne! V*" 16. rt-' ''.'ara t. 110'0 evri trirl rev obi. 4, Id 1 1 "A

7 .

......6.. ...V4 rolt.,ar,4,.(.47.1',;::.Jts. .0.1,1a01 i Irritel:4:*,Ma.J1.0

............. ..........,

.. Gorski PI .--. .,7.:r............ ..........

1 0 a 'I, .44 A Ow 10 : .t r

ate,. WO. gal,- .011 .11111.4410..111r,

IOW reIMIIMP 00yea .40. ...le ...Ma.... .4 . 1

1114 ........... 4 5410 *W., ar

n.... n r.

44)

a......11~: :....I ...Ow . nw 4 ant. s, **14*. so4. ). t 1

SW Mr* **ORM OW . P.M . 5111155 001.1115*- I1

et if." .. 14 . WOO 11 AIME AV.. 6

r .4t's nor v 3.1 At.' .! ilt"

I .3I, ;1

.1 : 41

;

s 4.k

1 4 .)

1110 11411A.. Iv GNI /

L. alwar".

.1,1 4I.'1 . .

A*

A 40

) .,1

10111=ie

*I1I11

. woo ........

..... froo..

AMMAN. 111

er .... I.1

4a. ..

..A or I4 .1 I. 4 * 1111*****111*14aUr .......

., 41100 0 4 l . i . 111~m ''''f r

4,a ... 5 I OM*

f2.% ' f r t rirt.4

V*MP PM,.

, . . 4 1` 100 AM. ,

. r05. ow. .. ,. I. . . **se a A ...I .. ...NY ...eV. , O. 4

.... . .... , .1.0 11..110

00 OW . ,MO 'le* ^

oc"It

Y:.T.r 11',

1; .11 r..44.

1

.e,

3'., ' ta'. .a:bt '' thc'tr d

..

44.4,344)

.34 4 . '.*' . .. ..j.,.P .4 .4 44 4

.4_. .. ..4, .,.

'.a,a . 4

(4 0. . 4. .4 4

t4 . ?r '.i .-

31 itg.tjy' r;tsiirtti q;tPr.4tt%1

aI

3

.3

4

.4

a

I

- w.a..* - -- -: M.ara2 tts1*j

____: Itvv;I3__._s *-

4 ,.4

ii,r.rQ(.4r)$ )Cff'kLt!

J-_r .- - -j--st

: rtvtt.I'

a. 4443

'- -ai

4 'V' Ib.44da...

, - .________1

.. - -.4.. -- .

-

$:: c'i;r e

_ - w-ma ,a - '.4.4 -

Ofi Pr'tc;.,'.

by' cf' vrtz,rzi media.)

''i.; Lp__ a'

..

43a-.. .r - ________

'r.'t- _______ -Il__I

2

-: k.:vytjrrv

1 .44

4. ,,4

- -.3 44 '4 4, U444.;) 4.. -a

4. -4

4'

44

.1

-

:-

' -7

.4&iO vv.i"-44 1..P

1Ii about I*ow to d th1n

1'43 43

.3'V $AJ1..

4W ....J...4' - 43

4-43

3

41 Ni.'#'it.' 43 S 4

sm...:

4 '4

m'.a . 4' .&.4e$

.'

..S 4J 'I r -. a--£

*

4

4- ..4as---..

. 0___________

P 434.3

-.44

ft d -.14.aa..2

c) '4'.L'I.3 3

._ __ a *44.V

Gn.v* _4-__ 4- ,_ .4. - - -

Y; 1drm :)'0' ,but- how t)tzge' ehoi1v 'ir 1

'? ç. Ar.toyt rh'.'.44

4... ., , 4)4 )4444

* 4, 43

__tL_.__. '

£,,L.. . i i 4i'' -..A4 '''4.

::: :'. :::4 ' '

.

....'. .is .. '

.. -. S-.'

5

'i44444. 4'

3 4''

4.a4Y

:f:r'-.4.4, .4. .4- £.5

'

&k',v4'.3** 4 .4). _Ja,* ' 4-

''1r v11 '' 'bi'uj? jr j4w, .

.

-

4. 4.

'4. ' ' .

, 444

4. _r 4443 4444444. 4.4 '

-4'

*

4.4 4

j )s I).4 P ',,.,. 4... '1 . 4' '4 . ' " P i .4.I_. I.

'r" 4.44.' l 4',... . 4.. 4...-. . a.

.3

4,44. 4.44,

4

I4 5. 44.. .

.4 4

.4.

. '. 1,,,b., ,,, ,.4. _ 4 '- -4.

I

4 .4.. 4.

4

.

'.

'

.a 4.-b 3.I4.

.4. ' 4 " ' "-i ' P.

r.". .4 . .44 --,

-

4

_44_S S_'4.4.4 S;'( t"

4444,.44 4 - 4.. ._.__,___I_ _ .4rL_..._ 4.

(r /'rfS('d1U3'-'-.'.-. _. .4- 4. -_. .__1_.

3-24

I'd

.'.,,. .u- i,i.jx1_1 iisxt how thtv2 h'iuid Lu,.

::.; _l IIISNS

._-1

-..

_____%1mn&ngU1

.- _. --1

(. 4

_.'-

______I-

: FxGitnC.L _____ _____

': EayaQoel sC'tL)

d _ *1..

'., ni.'it'rtnr pizy.stca1 pu L&W)fl tu Cthi1d1'7rt0

! v' ______

:: ::______ _____

iii ..iii_-

'

'? Ii

____ ____ ____.1

1 A Aa 4

-- ê .1

-.____

ALIWPI

.c

___ -_ ___ ___: (ood Pc')'

itp11nt thtidr with wrba1 w reetrtct4vr

AniMrtin,fui

mpcortt ___4.' 4. j. a.,

1

.

AA

4)I 0 4 1I

4 J'&' .(

f

*% rc1tj _____:oOf1 Prc'ecithx':'

_____

39 Payir;g icta. ttirtt1on ti, th11th'n one 1ikes.

?1? - t n. -, _____:ir"y' t i!

_______ _____ -_____Mer,trizfUi

nprtiztt J 'Lr1J141___ ___

Th : Easy

15.td ?.U'iUX oo P____ ____ ____

.rrU w'"c i1t. thiiJn00 .- '-V.----

,,_..i _--. ___: ___,:

.' . Tr1vt___________ --

04) 4) 4 0 4 .ps .w

4 #. .1.0 0 A 1 L &___ ___ -

A ,) AJ A 0 u

L'bid Tr:1ufl; :.::; 2hz ::: ::::* :-.-.-.-i:::: -t :-_iiii.-

a-)( PTr'ti'x"

41 :i i' fn'ntt"rt that t v'x'1f1ahii

':i _.______I_.

4

_____

. .4S. .i 4-,....

- .,.,_,

s ..

t A-

A A l V 44 c .1

A b ' .4 'P.4.1 L.èL ,.' - _._, ..._ .,

A________.

.'.' a

A " )4

.. *SVV

rf'. :'..

44 .V..

' L..-'_- -I.

i'' ' '

ti P'"rv jjPjr'4.,

B-25

14?, rtt e'iricO that vex'tft a propciitiofl.

_____:2 t1i.'azitu'tu1-Trtviiil

___z ____z ____:xCitiflC2

- -2 2

2

It xedux\ : Oood Procod'irc_J L___

U

s'&k'iI nbtldrona' que8t1Ofl about how to do things

: ____: Aruioytni

Mtrg1u ____*2 pIntntz4tUl

__

(Mod Pocrdur'c2 ___: ___:

4i A:fkt:; qW33ti0n3 that will z'ovedl what childrifl Iaow or rrmDr

):

____: : Mtnirwtul

:m ::11': : Trtvttl

___: __: _2 2 xcttingS___

1

___1 2

2 'od Poriur) ___ 1 2

1sf. 41 Ue8ttOfl3 that will reveal unuaual or creative i*:; of

thUdrfl

Pii1' 2 2 2 2 ____: Arnoyii.

i;133 '

trip1)rta1a1 _2S a

A 4 4) s,.p 4 -

______a___I____

_: Good-_2 __*

xchitions that will xcvtal hildrone' opiniona 0?

EILt tir:i:

2 _____:l____A$ J_____

2 2 2

:; vtS

:

0 A 4) P'4)

Pp 0

2

b

2

P 0

'2

0 11.1 1 1

I

_____

-_____J U

(tnI1 bI*L__

1474) )riLV r3tt?th thg statoflIEflt'., Acai or behavior tr 1-

'' --

:

. .L....-.S

a- jt1bk''lS-.

2 't'X1V!

. ,

- A4) L___..S _..._-f-..__ _ -

.L__________

-_.__ s...._ _ -I___ --__a.__

l'rocciurc---

2

-I _2 Good

-

- -k4

4

.aormotin3 or heaping to

Tmortant

ParaL4d Prmedure

improve a child's statement or idea,

vi 61114111.0. 111111a...a. al aromos

5 4 0was 1111 0101M10100/Q 4 A

111101110111n. 111101 114 9

* 4111lin

49. informing a child that his statement

Flaa6tnePoaningleesIm:;IrrantP411RaniBad Yroceduro

ArAnoyl ng

MklanintofulTrivial

: ExcitingEasyGood Procedure

or idea is correct,.

6 0 : 0:I

64 ft

nal 000 all!a o a 44 4 0 4

oram. wiggill4 0 0 m4 e r n111. =1 Mall

03 4 0n 10 Ili ell 110600n *n o 0 0omm l ill.

A A 6a a

Giving porsonal praise forbehaviore

PleasingMeaninglessImportant1.1113

itardBad Procedurn

04011111011P

a410011111

1114 11110.01011011

4

: Annoying: Meaningful

: Exciting: Easy: Good Procedure

approved student statements, ideas or

sommen

earnomm

41~0

0

a

err

: Annoying: MeaningfulTrivial

: Exciting

-a.m.'EnayGood Procedure

Finally, will you please react to a broad concept as contained in asingle worw

51, T.eaellng

NeaninelessImN:,mantpun)iard

Bad Pg,ocedure

et4411.114Mg

ar.

6111188111.00

000 API1

111.

17

4eMOMMIM

salIMMINIera

B-27

a

.1111=1110

OM111

11152

Annoying2 Meaningfult TrivialExcitingEasy

: Good Procedur4,

ATTITODZS TOWiat:,

A012 IV IT,: 1 K2, iidiATBO TO 1.ATRUCTION0

ot tof MValKW mimmings ot tI

1 piecepti60.1u,d tea-4'1'41,1'3 tvAr t$Aviltlt

j...e..AtazIrt43a4J(J4,0Aivz iv, a ,rerl.:/t4 c,f

14 .1' VA 44 * ti.4°Nrid ) $r'j 'Oa At ti yt:.t.4;(.4

174;% wAat C4i1:14",ki 111:".40. ';* V IrV irsti4J tr.:otkAt.,eawaMowr eau 1 :WINO WOW/

- rim*411

t)t lnatlftri%) you 1,11 ftnd1 ain ikainga:

ov ma) Jo .c.al; ape Ins4rw;tia1l ;'4u A111 it%to; Yo

631 %J.! nain.:7t .Va'6 o fr,a..J1A

For aA X in ';Ay. 4,arg.71 ksida ;kmir tf.(111pg

jfijeMe 4644:1A. t;)iivt!'kAt A.tCra daq

0A lho mevint*g :epdoe 1.04.1.4;aeld z*it 64 06"icM

z.,L 14ra

elvdmp,41.41 `,-;11zorc S.V.....(.1,1114 $."16 bel Lig yX LA

';.;'0...1 rosX6041-3" oz.4

,arca 1i fl if a sfsd,,Iim 1.$ fOC. tlll 'n

A.:PLIV,:eVarr: 21.111:4T119 .:70.1.4,r" X ,01.7,....42.4. isr in r;lie li

v,t..Jal,e, 4

4 In ii4j441-4 a an undtr)1ntoh auea, ttiA nn t;le

4,0 BJ *aitV Nen.% tia4cik. ovees, tet4.1:10 fi,r, evgly .611,allimeni;--Oo r*t omit) .. ...... ...........

...,.t.,...': P .1 V er

.....wm:s.

0 tv.pe1 1 4&ke 1.°%':R11 .1112;tt-MAIM IWO

Samaim,..:,.....4 7,Yr.,o mi.ty rev.,' 1.;,!!,..f.;.,'; plo if,tille ii.ia:1;;. wilAtp.. i:i".'.,..e s..umita i'irl.An mowl .,..t'on.., . .

-.%;?:::.,,,z; (-5-;:e. ,:;:.?..te: ..r.eve..c;..ya:....1.7p.,... .:::..AF, ,...u.... r.c.:e- (...r; ,...4;e: .6:9;.4.-3,, 1. I5. iit+ ri.,::..E. ..1,,:;.)..it

Q,:f.'lir ..::-) A 1..f7 X+7. .:71..,,*mqr.; ..!..'ve itl.ixo 6 Kie.', Tit.,.t 3.. ft'), ta p.ieluttlroy..4?.., ....,,i):! /4- J o.:!,,,.:6.7!iti

ow, ot.s.nay los OF - .o ., ...NI-....11mV.1.!.:1:.v 177.-t1T,6 ;.?e,:::.!..141.7.., Rilr....! t',.:,.1A :/.:43t11 a :e.i.oxi.61.11i0t. ana ,i4leltlx,,J(in .0).,..".y..

- .4.. - ...VI WO 40. m WPM W. .- o -, ; 11 *or 4.

1-1..!.,nt.r., N.6.f2 a'4 Ca*.q..r.p.Lv liAlgr:1 ..........:...4 '4.....:(..ci.togol ,..-',.'4:73 m!!..1q-vvv.!.., 14'0. 'OA .;7..:171,i.... *SO P NI. IP

.

.. .04 .ii: Z ,.. 4'. l' V iI. ''.: ir..11V1.-;;,..,., .........vTy,, .1,1r ;444 y. ... , 7, 1....4 :..,;:, , .

. +. k 4 . 4. . . 4.1ali,;1 (.'..'i li :;'. t :. 0 '..). i'4141A

rf

,

1328

CjiIN tot

.04.4k t. .11111141.11111111111

r r sow 8

V

onemaavaimar 10.

to

10."1.11~..71.4110

tnolli dngAIMPOMIlitopt

mo10.010011000 MitellimPIOVIRIPM

essta

newhail

nwapOtmsoloolitleant

*IPIpa .011.11rnalIMIll

1 0 planning le3sona

.

*1**AIIIENN0***0

1111.

*/***

a0

11111~110 11100 11110111

lattaial~=0

4a

millIONMIIIMIIIPP NMI 11104111.1111MMIWMIO 4111111101111111111.

4~6,4~W f t0*.

op

.50IMMONNIIMISMIIIIIaeweiltNIMIPM* ~OW I SIM

0.000110161900~saw em

n1$1

6101111.411$00111011111

IIIINSIONOMMaM~

POPIPLO*0114..**10kr

011000.**Vat 111101014114starto 0101814110

11.01M11.

.3 C4.3

0011001IMPIorealt WDNIH41O***8410 0111110**

a

Milmnill*V*1061MONINNIVES111111

WIMPeteftlIONIIMI

IPIONNOIM*1111111100

0

eysimpallbsploggp

4

asumwolownlINONIM

t

11111M11110111111111

0

ro. .,,

4. (T.1

.;,.. COAS ,1:0

li ....41 ir 1 ft;.. . 11 7.) v".i.

S,',ra

i f, .:.-1 .6.1-'.6 '1 VI

'PI , 6 i 10:1 4-1 i';wit ti :17

!II) r443 PI: : 1 gi 0 01.1

71 t , 0 Its

i..-',1

4

t: ariSi :.$'.." tr

I

0 1 rill. 0 6.4" tog 0

1.. AI S.:, .1

4 -0 t%.4-1 :::.1 4 vi i4' $ )11 0,4 ;3 ra- I 14 ft 0 0.

B-29

Bad

Intemating

ineffe:Aive

Valuable

Leaent

U2v3 tin

Heard ngl e6n

Strong

Annoying

Sueessful.

ClerA

8: Ling

Efret3lve

Woroblet:1

Sev&ra

DuU

NeanInefulA

Weak

Pieasins

Unzutcessru.1

,20 diagnosivg stuaent needs

1111861M10110..

01001 IINNIMM108.A

3

frw4344434443a.....O4

1111041,

14

alyowna immowalosse 0.lOD

100 01110101001111 3944 4343..8.....;i 340331333~3

34949334133343.0433m334

0

amsfall

0.........1k *ftarams.. 0

.5p 7"m444446ft.stears omswo ansaawam4403 1600/00 104171101011016110011.0870ms 0,710

.4M41010 M000 1. 101*O 01000 349,434wssipe.

0 b 3 a4101****01 7.1 4/ IIHMEN1011011110 4101.7.1* 1=111011. da./01110011ft 0710

0Y

.0.0116s8.71141017 11100110MINO 1Mivalb. 11Pn00160P. VW& WINAIDAIMAMND 00711wmp DIND70~

a 0AWEIsomeWvp.' Wino nOINIond 86.0.0AAll~~0b 71 1.7110 Sar.0671

br,'1 or

4o, IPCD 4:1rq A 6.

'T) ,r, 04 ii,

3) 3.1 .5..0.,, 4.1' 1.1.

.;.1 01.4

11)

.(4) vl

4.4 41 42)

C; if)>4 >4 t I 0.., I..pt .-r ,t'...! '2)r69 4-1 64 I)rtg-I -.I or4 :

Jr 4 '11 A.1 J 0M 4.. 0 ltr :ps

B-30

Bad

Interesting

Inaffem4vi.

Valuable

LenieLt

Exciting

ReanineLesG

Strang

Anncying

Successful

at)ed

B5.rins

EffeGave

Worthlecks

S2vere

Dull

Wzak

Ple&sIng

Umu

30 zelelting Inatruotional

4

sswamw 4 4swrisww fw 1111 1w w......4 w w 0

011~10160 111111 annMI U1 116111

2 00 44t MI.11 MII100/11101WIN/O 11111/NIMW 41104086~M

\ A 0 00on000411800410 ill4,44014, =11 01 10010,

.14

101Malli~10011 0060 SISIM.01.011.1. amrsolgOm 1ms 111104mp

0018112 IMM 488081040,010440

ft 000100.4011 110.1101110

4 9rwseasowtmas

0d041404 4

4 a 1111

to44

4.00011011101 Inbikela0141410 1110011111 0100 0 0

egisemossup amok aggampaggo= 11 11»..1 simpumpow

. 0sometear

4

4010081 1111~

.'11

Iri

4». In 0 44:k

sli w..)4-4 %

,,A 1/0 cr 1) .4.1

P i il) 0: 61 .1)

4..11 .!4-1 il.,

c 03 0!,- . .% .1

ix.% r ..4 ova tr..;.! iv t ,,!,) ,,,,I

411 en .1 Noi to 1)

tiu 0' l.).') e 1 er'N tx4 ,.. 4

,.. 1 0,41 1.1 ..-4 I- .) * rio: . 4:. 03 -0 0ii. ...... e.ail .t-4

kA 14 %pi ....:1 rt qrf 1..%

01i 1 el .Tt .-,: 0 (1)

r,:. zy 07 01 V %

B-31

Bad

interesting

IndiTe4Aive

Valuable

Lanient

Expitlzs

Meaninglews

Strons

Annoylmi

Suctwaful

Erre:T.:Live

Wc:Tt?ileas

Sever.:

SP1 . -. C.

',ULJ

Ndaningfull

'!eak

pie:Azins

Unaucteesful

evaluating student performance

IIP

1 0moOmmilhomMW wiMmilimmoOmp

emmmMftiM 41.WMMIUMMOIM AmOMMIMASIMW. 11.1alleMposs

w4100

.........a

1111.

44/80088tP

11111,11MMOMIED

miwor

\

,ffII,10.0

.5111840

=111011

40111141011111~b

1114110114MMINIe

0

aMIMIN.11111/11111

0

itima 11.18111.=10

00.

.11

41.1111.411

01

.....40

......IN 4

afi

Crmommw.

no r 0 04000..immessmo asmsairar~0 mommonsomes suomosomm .wwwwwrmw 00.0

///......3 J a

ft

dommommwoomm wommommwomme

41 IMO =kWaille~ 0.11111~ 411 NIMIN.1.1411.

.4:44117.

il 4.4..., M

.;.:, ...1XI 4%)

0 4..!.:

.....i 03 .

.,44:rik T1 V 00

c :.. 12 Ai Sic 0-

,i, .:.; .1;. P.1:%... 1; 0 ei

Ifr-elNs t4'1 .re4

%AE f a 41 co.1,

1., V 0Qfa

1.4

4N oc: .41 A:( a

2 fa -, '4) r4 Z 0.7.). 01 al 14 in 01 PA

3-32

Fad

Intere2ting

Ineffective

Valaable

Lenient

MeacingltLen

Strong

AnnLvi:-Ag

Sueasful.

Er'.

IATVIiesk;

Weak

50 managing the classar-oom

Bad001.01100 ~10=010 1100001M

O 4 4 Intarttsting.......eetivera....womourr GroaP maxmcmory emosomme marram ammmormmm InM

Valuable10S 10 01.0011101 4NM=0~88100 011110

O 0 0 AO Lenient0M ...

Exciting0110100400 all..0 ... ....

,. ; ; .

,., % Meaningloz,1

. . . 4 . Strong.1s assmovamr numwormo imm 11110

Annc7ing. z 0110rma 0111841 4011

Suc4esaful1 .. . .. 0,1MINIMI0.11110101......f 17;

-. ,., ,';-:! +' 4`.

i-c.'31,

:,1 '4 0if;'

13

Pl'ist

r 11)m

.1-10

01 .--11 4.2

,-.2 1.4 'O. PA)

-

r.1 4.1, 0)iO

) ,r- 4),s... 0 (1' ',`

B-33

4

6. keeping eitukient records

Bad4140

4 V 4. nteresting.. . ...61 0

44114144.444 WISPNIISSIONIMMO 4114444 ".410000&410,06000. 0200060010.61. 4 0 MNI14.Inaffective

04011124

of, 0 0 aVtaWA)6 4 0 0....... leLi

0 4 Lenient0.......Mos

Exciting444441444m 444444444

&&86060881160110

illearang:.es,swor soweammis ilemewsursmo

Strong

0 64201.001.81, ~01000000l =411144

4111024041111 =.60 00040611

A Anmying;1,414444 044111411114141440

3uac,.essfulorrome tiownimairear

i

i

i

ar)

0,...4

NJ

...-'.Mo,i14

r-ii;*,

tiN

'ii

.4.,M

ii-.1

ii-!J-,,,,,,;

,;,:03

rkCrI,,.p.!,

*1)::&

t.1

1)

ti9 '61

.0.Wsci

.!.Irel

iil

0, '4

'.,..,:i

in

0-4

44

;".

et16044el

.PIN.

.V.930,1

einMVII..}

...if

.114.5'*4

Iti41,*

Al

:or,v40Mti)

r:t

1 B-34

70 auepting stuttient feallnga

Gvo0 4;

.. Bud.

.c.

.a :

........... ONIMMENIMPSMINOM MnaMM.IMMINNW 511 INIWINION .110~.~11110 WNINNEINIO~Mm

la:ring ,, . : : Interesting40MMIND.ONIMIO. ..

Zffeiw; .. . , . Ineffeative......

tqC1114 90 Valuable, .

.. ,

. ,

- .............................-.... ....

StAiere =mallatIsI ...... Lenient

D411 : 0 .1

0A

oil : I Exoitins

MaLinA41,1 ..,

., ,'.

g ,. .

, lanit.rewik:.awolralmmamrftwo ala 11=011~8109 reaktIsIvesewsWier imesvoLaiarame samiL~INIANNW *a amormi ................

1::eak ... ,0 StAirc,

-0.+11..1~101Ne 41114111110~1111Weeb 611.111 MOO bent AI OMISIIMINIP Mr 11.1011110011400 ..111141111111101,4.. NONIIIIMINOVOORNIP

AraloyingrallOwo moit .1.. I lame fty .1 #=ftwa 0101/ IIMMINYMwM P

3 Sultarteoatal00..111,..~4,01. 011111.11~114111.011, 411011.11101. 11.10,1M1.01. 1..00.111110~...." 111111~11110

Q.)

t

B-35

60 adaliniszd.rts punisment

3

Of 4. 44.4

1.:;,oirz

v:4

4 ..

414 41

6111141MIMIMMPOSID 0111111111.41Aese .1.111ANNAIPIAND .01.5111111.111.111111110

A

11111111111111.1millile

4

401111011101010.....A

1

4AllID/P11411101~AIND

0VINNIM1111~...4

1

SIMMANOIN

1

elealeMAIIIINAMA.114

VagonAll1114.4114114

44.4

elINISSollilnee01111AINIt

141

w

e111044011A eldIBMINIMION410111114 11111114011M1111.111110

44

/11111/4

411OvnemmieNeRre.

a

411.111114. IMMO. 081.1P 840Pleinliaole

Oleo VeraftellIegnI.0

4. I

AMMIIIM111.1111111

MINNEMOM11100AAIMIMIlll AUWAINNelmsAftwir AnemtBOWN oNIIIMII1411=111111 lell0w...=........

A

mamortswensgreo

U

146111161=1.0+4.114

J5

.....n44 e

J4m4SMIIIMMIfte

41

1114Imnpellenlinle 11.0A101ellese AMMO 00.11.011.1ApIP

1

AMIIM/SAMPANAIII.

04

rw

'17,

'.:.

.4-4.:

0014or,

..)

.. '',:f.!

14

1ft

IMINOINSMIONOIM

c(,

ii..k.0

IFIV elelolAIN110MIN aramenmewinnow

.1c)

41

minon

r4

0'4

.

r.-

'TeW!

'i..

i' .i,

°}k

ii%

ro

...f,

tad,I, . 3

op

!.-4?

.e 4:.-11

.:1*

'4.1

:7..

4%'da:"

1

*A,Arn

1PIi::::

:..141)

'4

4',,,f,

ti.

ri.a-1

ye

tt)en4.1

c4.1

a:i

0-4

Cr

...1vlali°

Po

>

B-36

.-

Interestinz

ImafeAive

Valua.)10

LenlAmt

Exliting

Nuaningieds

Srmong

Annoyirz

Sueu,A$oft.O.

9, ut;Ing 14M.3o

/11.4:

T..47'4 a.

'10

.

.

.

.12

4

:

14

I.+

t?

.00010,001000000't

el atu

Intuftstirg

VuIttai:e.wz,

Leninr:

Exe;i:;41/s

!s2.; :

Stnxt!,

itvrying

001001010000

.4

0.0001101001100P

7

00111100.11001000

0000,00800710

010000000000

4,

1000110

4,

10110100000010

*

0000102100nsmill

41000011101/00P

.1

11111P10.00P sell

4

01101001110 01.1P

.,

0000111000.00100

8010010.100090P-

A

1010.00000/00.0

1

1/1010/00/00001.0

01000000.m.00

4/411.444.44.4440,44114

11'

40.080 .0.70.010

Nvolownowea aka

41

e4RISMINV114110044

.1

0000015001000.

I)

100000110000010

1

00.0004r000t".

41000,0000011.00.

I

0110000010100.41P

.00100000010M0 100Wil

.0001AMEMOD 0

mgmeftlikpagme...

.4

anftempoweir....

0.0,1001001010

.

10001~.../.../

0

mme.4111.611411411101

4

411104611~111.444411. 00,000/008000PNO

0100010~0008, 01000:0060~

0000000010,110

,.

100800.1.10101

0110,00,001.00

,

41

0000110~1.0P 100

160000100001.200P

OS

.11

0401./ NM 00040

40000010001

e)

4.44,14441

41et

41141,04444444.4810 0.414114

ear11/4

1....eP~WIPM

'4

aespouivoriewmas

,..,

e

.1011

IN000104101.0000

44

alrowneuswisonsue

400 01010011.10.0.

.

.41,44.4

41,01414141.484414.411a

UNIWW411411414.44110140

A

44141404.4444141410

44114100111414=411441

orstAroaromao 014441.844014.44414444 0414141,

:-4

g

let

B-37

tN

161

v

;

9.911:9:111 "'

zlvira t..4.6LiLieaTc6 inrcriazItian

010 4 0dommo21m4244114111 411040041..40 =1411110 4411141

almolmom. ( alI) .1

99 0044144,144,41114.0 4114184.40111.4.444 .4414144.44.11,4420044114441144 4/4/404444, 4441444.4444444,

. 0.1 9. 4

4.1.244022240. 2.4 4U -1. ON4414141011140 114041141014111 4149 041.41,01.4,0. ONr. 4

/0084.10;Immo 4.4144..... 4441441114.40 64141104...11114

e 4 4 40 2 .0 N 445.4.4.4.049044. 4111.. 84.40114460. Ow.4104404.44144. 44.441440 =WM.. 04144.441141410 4144.00

. . .1

1 .1.1.1 . r ls..1061 .01 IWO 0Al. 0 mEM .4.4.440D.

,.9

mplpulsonruEm.10111C CM. lo.../04000.. .0011.1.0. a .4..9 .4.4.44.4,00

.4AP /1 .1 4 05..- .......~ ..... ... ~on. 954' 4.9... ..........es..... 1. ..100.6.0.111. conclim~ 01.40/0

! 9.) 6./: 9 10..41 OD. eel 4141144 4.4.0044~NM. 4441.4444/ 4 Mo1810

B-38

.1.11000 4111144110

Inip44144NIP

111

111

..1011.101111..r.

444.4.1444444iner

OWN. /11.4.0

.;

9)'

4

AnYA41r6.,

i;

Se;,:era

11. tirit1.41.4.1rag iitutitybAk. behavlor

Bad1 6..... s AONAMM116

4 V IntoreJting....... ....... ....... ....... ..............

Iraftective....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......

A

~AA A61 611104 ALMA.

AIIII00110

Dul,I 1 z

NoarIns-ViA.)1..#..

,.

,

.,

............. 14"

0Vir 141021

.

0261211

.,

,

...1

VIP 6111

IIGI

S4%

-010411111004110

/4,.

.MIIIIVANIr %AA SAD

-,INIMOVIVIMNIVIII2

Valuable

4:01.tart

Excltins

ManingIt454

Si.rors

..1.4v.a.i.t .14oO

0O G

O 41

. ; Ann v'y'ing

.4 *

9 J2 V

4 Sue.:43e3zfulUiNwv4i4..sal ..

,% 111iwiia 10110 .111111)~ VINOVVIMIONIIO 42412111110P

er) 4.'

MA le lie

'r-li I)

." vi 4.4 vl ei tivt

74 71 ri11;ii

V41 M

.ii ;;;. 0 Vv. t) PI 1,. ol 0

"1 PA .0,4

K.) 0 431 43 ttl,

it't .it r52til IP in4.1

r

,,,, .94 .4 .1 ,4 .4 P.',-

1,1 .z... x

p., gp ri ,4a It) *

44 M.r 11 crf

I: ?.1 ,,...". ..F,)4 IP

B-39

1.04-.5.1yz

. :a

44 aLot:, I. a 4 0.1 ..0111.1. 444 . OW* .11.4.4, 1111104

f",

al, ,'1

''

1'

r

.4 fa 1 i4 4101 OP NIP .444.4~ 1 pre fr111111110.. 0.0

4ADMIN./ .1 *AMMO. OA IMP .111 ~NI S 011.

Hie Or

1 IMO. moo 4,41 4444,411

I V4. 1. .0 411., wowsOM 0 01 r ...mg IWO --

4 14..00 SW. S -0. Sse me I we or. 00 0111000 m

4 . . 8:4 .6 I10 .9. ...MP* , MI 111 100111..00../ 0011., 0100 000011001000010

WOO .411111.4 ..1.0111.4.1/ 44144 01

V .0! ,I '0 V IV 't V ,:i .45 51 0 V

I, el.1111.01.00 MOO aloallaeaalla. - V AMP ',M.S. de 44,44444/104 allOR 44A41114441444 1

0 8 4. ,141.46.11 AM 44.0 41.041010404 04014444 1/041/0444/04411 M.O. MOIL 44411111114404 0410 541immem woo

.8 0 Ia I .

VI. , . ...II NM. I... .a. Ir.. ..,... rm.... ....an 41040040//444/04 110/4 440 Aftft OM '.r440 .1155.58

a .a .

1 :It e 4..

11) . 7.

F1 .71. .1 .

"4 1 a . ,..... ,., .; I Iv ... . I 1)

It)

4:. , . ri "'I :;:e,'S

,,i,., 1) trZe e 4..1, l ,. i fal el .1)

.. .

... i'l ..

.. .... ' ..- i t ! e I, -1 1.7i. iaIS,

41

. .' 0 t . : 63 .'.).;' .1",ri

' 'I. 1.4 'Is rf .e.4 %.

.I . ..,, ,Ii ,

.4

. ... .. 6 ).. ..,j .10 : ....

WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES ASSESSMENT I:

The original directions for reacting to the Index asked tea-

obers to assess the potential value of the activities and to

val.:a:L1(1:i; the frequency of use.

Now that you have worked with your student teacher, will

yl:Aa :wct to the index by indicating how valuable the activities

ma22..61x. were and the actual frequency of use. Use the scales

pvovided, but asseas what really happened instead a predioticns.

\

WORKSHOP ASSESSM3NT INDEX

Please respond to each item on two bases: (a) The tential usefulnessof tL'..% ideas, skillo, etc., that have been worked w uring the work-shop in terms of your using these ideas, skills, etc., with your studentteaJher next fail (b) The probable frequency of use of the ideas, skills,etc., as you see your use of them with your student teacher next fall.

Please respond to each items make your response on the reeponse sheetay plaoing an (x) at the Rae on each scale that represents your present

perception of usefulness and probable frequency of use associated witheach item. You may make additional clarifying comments with respect toeach item if you wish.

1. Using a video tape recorder to record samples of the student teacher'steaching behavior, and the sittin down with the student teacher in asupervisory conference to view and discuss the

2. Using a video tape recorder to record samples of the student teacher'steaching behavior, and then allowing the student teacher to view thesample of the lesson without your pee.

3. Taking interaction analysis on a sample of the student teacher'slesson, plotting the\data into a matrix (or having the student teacher

plot the data into a matrix) and then sittin down with the student

teacher, in a supervisory conference to and yze-TEiraTiWZraTursirthe lesson.

b. Taking interaction analysis on a sample of the student teacher'slesson, plotting the data into a matrix (or having the student teacherplot the data into the matrix) and then encourage the student teacherto analyze the data without roux; presence,.

5. Having the student teacher use the matrix as a means of stating in-structional intent prior to a lesson, taking interaction ana:ysis onthe lesson, plotting the data into a matrix (or having the student

teacher plot the data into a matrix) and then sittin down vith the

student teacher in a supervisory conference to ana yzeriBiliscUUr67zruence or lack of congruence between intended and actual

teaching behavior.

6. Etvins the student teacher use the matrix as a means of atating in-

struc tional intent prior to a lesson, plotting the data into a matrix

(or having the student teacher plot the data into a matrix) and ther

ensourazing the student teacher to analyze the congruence or lack of

concruenee between intended and actual teaching behavior witlout

.11°

7. Helping the student teacher relate instruction strategy models (re-

ception, interpersonal, etc,) to instructional intent and/or in-

s truotional behavior without making concrete reference to the inter-

action analysis matrix.

8. Eelping the student teacher relate instructional strategy models

(reception, interpersonal, etc.) to instructional intent and/orinstructional behavior by mamma s.eciflo reference to regions,

cells, and transition patterns in he n race irinalysis matrix.

-2-

Encouraging and assisting the student teacher in using the Gaipper3' en.13 a Thinkina Nadel to help the student teacher become more awareUfh;:w riTirmalons, clarifying statements, etc., provo:7.o differentqueIvvels of thinking in students, and improve her questioning skill.

10. EncouraGing and assisting the student teacher in using the Taba LevelsThInIfine7 Nadel to help the student teacher become Mora awar-e77"ner quesvions, clarifying statements, etc., provoke different levelsof thinking in students, and improve her questioning skill.

10 Encc;uraging and assisting the student teacher in interpreting in-stru:;tional and control incidents in the classroom in terms of prin-ciples drawn from theories of the teaching-learning process (PieldTheou, reinforcement theory, motivation theory, etc.).

12. Using primarily accepting and clarifying behavior rather than ;7u3g-mental, directive and 'telling behaviors during supervisory conlerencesto help the studei* teacher "see" what occurred during teaching in-cidents ana grow toilard becoming a more effective teacher in uaysthai; are congruent with her unique potential teaching talent°.

B-43