DOCUMENT RESUHE

ED 088 832 St? 007 803

AUTHOR McCarthy, John P.; Voth, John A.TITLE The Effects of Competency-Based Teacher Education on

Student Teaching.PUB DATE Apr 74NOTE 45p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

American Educational Research Association, Chicago,Illinois, April 15-19, 1974

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.85DESCRIPTORS *Behavior; Comparative Analysis; *Conventional

Instruction; Laboratory Training; Methods Courses;*Performance Based Teacher Education; *StudentTeachers; *Student Teaching

ABSTRACTThe effects on student teaching behavior of a

relatively traditional, lecture-based, general secondary methodscourse are compared to the effects of a laboratory-oriented,competency-based course. The classroom performance of two groups ofstudent teachers (30 of whom completed the competency-based courseand 40 of whom completed the lecture-based course) was assessed bItwo trained observers, the student teachers themselves, the highschool students in the classroom, and the cooperating teacher andsupervisor. Recordings were analysed with the Flanders categories.Findings show a significant difference in favor of thecompetency-based group on both trained observation measures but nosignificant difference on most other measures. (In addition to thedescription of the study, this paper includes a literature review ofperformance-based teacher education.) (Author/JA)

U.S.E

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,DUCATION & WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT

HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS

RECEIVE° FROM

THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORSGIN

ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOTNECESSARILY R EPRE

SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTEOF

EDUCATION POSITIONOR POLICY.

41,41

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

THE EFFECTS OF COMPETENCY-BASED

TEACHER EDUCATION ON

STUDENT TEACHING

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS COPY-RIGHTED MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

_,/2cc472e7,-/LPJTO ERIC AND OFIGANIZATILINS 6PERATINGUNDER AGREEMENTS WITH PIE NATIONAL IN-STITUTE OF EOUCATI(',. FURTHER REPRO-DUCTION OUTSIDE THE ERIC SYSTEM RE-OUIRES PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHTOWNER

American Educational Research AssociationAnnual Meeting

April 15-19, 1974, Chicago, Illinois

John P. McCarthy, InstructorUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

Stephens College, Columbiaand

John A. Voth, Associate ProfessorUniversity of Missouri-Columbia

Division C Section C-2

"THE EFF-CTS OF COMPETENCY-BASED TEACHER EDUCATIONUPON STUDENT TEACHING" .

THE PROBLEM

A review of current literature on education revealsthat education, and in particular teacher education, needsimprovement. Conant examined teacher education in theUnited States ,Ind concluded:

One finds a complete lack of agreement on what con-stitutes a satisfactory general education program forfuture teachers . . . the amount of time to be devotedto such studies (education in a specific field) incollege and the level of competence to be demandedopinions differ.

Dr. Conant continued by stating that there is almost asmuch confusion associated with courses in education asexists in general education:

There is little agreement among professors of educationon the nature of the corpus of knowledge the areexpected to transmit to the future teachers.

It also appears that such practices in teacher education aslectures on how to teach, reading methods books and otherrelated materials, and discussions about teaching proce-dures have only limited value in preparing teachers forthe task ahead. Students in the nation's classrooms-needteachers who can skillfully perform those teaching taskswhich optimize learning.

The search for significant teacher education experi-ences which produce more competent teachers, and thus,optimize classroom learning has-been long and arduous. Thefollowing programs and materials illustrate the involvementof governmental and professional agencies in the s'.arch:USOE teacher education models; the American Association ofColleges for Teacher Education performance-based teachereducation publications; and the Association of TeacherEducators' 1973 Conference theme, "Perfc-rmance-BasedTeacher Education." The concept of performance ozcompetency-based teacher education emerged in the latterpart of the Sixties as one promising alternative way to

1 James Bryant Conant, The Education of Americar.Teachers (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963),p. 209.

2Ibid., p. 210.

prepare teachers. Improvement of teaching competenciesappears to offer the best promise for increased learningin the classroom. However, if national implementation isto be encouraged, scientific investigation and testing ofthe effectiveness of this approach are imperative.

Theoretical lecture-oriented teaching methodscourses which consitute most of the pre-service trainingof prospective teachers do not seem to adequately prepareteachers for classroom teaching. In these courses under-graduate education students listened to lectures, readbooks and handouts, and/or talked about teaching meTITOdsin small and large groups.

The College of Education at the University ofMissouri-Columbia has not only been searching for betterteacher education experiences, but has also been develop-ing such a program by revising both the content andinstructional activities of a required undergraduatesecondary general methods course. What used to be alecture-based course has become a competency-based one.

Background for the Study

Teacher education at the University of Missouri-Columbia for the most part followed a pattern similar tothat followed by comparable institutions in other parts ofthe nation. After a survey of the students enrolled inthe D110 course, Secondary School Curriculum and Instruc-tion, revealed widespread dissatisfaction with a tradi-tional approach to the training of teachers, a committeeof faculty and graduate and undergraduate studentsundertook to develop a new course. The original coursewas characterized as a lecture-based (LB) course (controltreatment), since most instruction was accomplished throughlectures.

Curriculum Revision

Although this research is primarily a validation study,or what may be described as a causal-comparative or quasi-experimental study, the treatment, however, deals withthe five basic areas which constitute curriculum design.Objectives were reexamined in the light of current liter-ature on teacher education; a large number of PBTE modelswere reviewed; a significantly new theoretical approachwas taken in analyzing the learning process as it relatesto teacher education; the selection of curriculum exper-iences was based upon a specific set of desired learning

3

outcomes or competencies which are though(, to result fromthe performance of specific instructional tasks; speci'alattention was given to organization of curriculum; andfinally, the competency-based approach to improving scopeand sequence of activities with emphasis upon the essentialelements of this approach may be considered the most inno-vative of all the dimensions of this new design.

A significant result of the efforts to revise thecurriculum was the preparation and publication of auseful, clearly stated handbook or text which emphasizesstudent performance, observation, peer interaction (feed-back), and an analytic examination of a specific competencyat an identifiable level of competence. This course wascharacterized as a competency-based (CB) course (experi-mental treatment).

Essential Elements of the CBTE Course

The newly revised D110 course was implemented inAugust, 1971. Each semester approximately 350 educationstudents are enrolled in the new course. In view of thelarge number of students enrolled, classes and facilitieswere scheduled in such a manner so as to provide each stu-dent an opportunity to meet for one hour each week in alarge group (seventy) where the module was introduced bythe developer. A demonstration of the given skill andinstructions for preparing for and participating in thetwo-hour laboratory session were provided.

The laboratory sessions were planned so as to pro-vide a performance-based educational experience in smallgroups of twenty students, these groups were further sub-divided into smaller groups of five to ten students.Laboratory sessions were conducted by UMC instructors andteaching assistants. Graduate and undergraduate studentsserved as leaders for the small lab groups. Grading wasestablished on a pass/fail basis, but each student had theoption of working for a letter grade if he desired to doso. This letter grade was based upon demonstration ofproficiency in the teaching tasks which constituted thecourse. All instructional activities and evaluation pro-cedures had but one purpose--the development of specificteaching competencies.

Since the beginning of the new course, considerablefeedback was received on each teaching task. Studentresponses to questions about the course, objectives, etc.,followed the same general pattern shown in the following,sample question: "In general was the D110 a valuableexperience"? Forty-two and six tenths per cent stronglyagreed, 43.4 per cent slightly agreed, 5.7 per cent were

4

undecided, 5.9 per cent slightly disagreed, 2.4 per centstrongly disagreed (N=258). More than 1,000 teacher educa-tion students have completed the new course, and commentsreceived from the students during evaluation sessions havebeen consistently similar to those cited above.

Purpose of the Study

This research was undertaken to determine if ageneral undergraduate secondary methods course is a moreeffective solution to the problem of influencing studentteaching if it is competency -based than if it is lecture-based. The specific question remains, is this new com-petency based course more effective than the old lecture-based one?

Specifically, the study compared the effects uponclassroom teaching of two teacher preparation courses--thelecture-based treatment and the competency-based treatment.Effects of the modifications on student teaching perfor-mance were assessed through the use of selected instru-mentsments ana/oT devices.

Independent Variable

The independent variable in this study was a courseof study listed in the general catalogue of the Universityof Missouri-Columbia as "D110, Secondary School Curriculumand Instruction." It is a required course for all secon-dary teacher education students. Further, the independentvariable has been subdivided into two treatments.

Lecture-based treatment.--A series (two hours perweek for sixteen weeks) of educational experiencescharacterized by classroom lectures, demonstrations,'reading, talking with other students and instructors, andasking questions about course content, books, handouts,reference materials, etc. At, least two objective-type,pencil and paper tests were included as part of the educa-tion experience. This treatment is identified as theLecture-Based (LB) course.

Competency-based treatment.--This course is a seriesof educational experiences (one-hour demonstration and atwo-hour laboratory each week for sixteen weeks), character-ized by a "systems" approach to teacher training. Eachstudent is assigned fourteen instructional tasks and pro-vided an opportunity to develop and practice specificteaching competencies in a "safe" laboratory environmentwhile engaged in a variety of simulated teaching activities.

5

This treatment is identified as the Competency-Based (CB)course.

The revised course seeks to develop specific teach-ing competencies to optimize learning, rather than perpetu-ating traditional instructional pl-ocedures. Eacheducation student is provided an 3iiportunity to learnabout, practice, and develop a high degree of professionalcompetence. Some essential elements of the revised coursewhich play a vital part in helping the student developthese competencies are early performance of specificteaching tasks, observation of self and others teaching,describing teaching analytically, and interacting withpeers with a view toward seeking alternative behaviors.Five key aspects of the laboratory experience may belisted as follows:

1. A laboratory setting--performing the taskcompetently.

2. Separate focus week by week upon a wide rangeof student oriented objectives (students'needs).

3. A wide variety of alternative teaching per-formances were introduced.

4. A spirit of mutual trust and development pre-vailed.

5. Definiteness of goals.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is a set of teachingbehaviors exhibited by each subject while engaged instudent teaching. Measurement of the dependent variablewas accomplished by the employment of six differentinstruments or devices which contain a variety of criterionmeasures (empirical and hypothetical constructs) purportedto determine the existence of a given phenomenon and theextent to which it is present during the student teachingperformance. All these dependent variables were scaled ona five-point, bipolar, Likert-type scale.

Research Questions

This investigator posed the following researchquestions:

6

1. For all subjects, is there a significant dif-ference between the LB and the CB courses in their effectupon the student teacher's classroom performance asreflected by the:

a) Observer Schedule (Appendix C):1) Total scores?2) Four subscores?3) Eighteen item variable scores?

b) Teaching Techniques Rating Form (AppendixD):1) Total scores?2) Twenty-four-itme variable scores?

c) Teacher's Self-Report (Appendix E):1) ?otal scores?2) Forty-five-item variable scores?

d) Student Opinionnaire (Appendix F):1) Total scores?2) Twenty-six-item variable scores?Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor'sReport (Appendix G):1) Total scores?2) Thirty-two-item variable scores?

f) Flanders Interaction Analysis System(Appendix H):1) Derived scores?2) I/D ratios?

2. For each of the following two subgroups--maleand female -is there a significant difference between theLB and the CB courses in their effect upon the studentteacher's classroom performance as reflected by the:

a) Four Observer Schedule (C) Subscores?b) Teaching Techniques Rating Form (D)?c) Teacher's Self -Report (E)?d) Student Opinionnaire (F)?e) Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's

Report (G)?3. For each of the four subject areas--langaage

'arts, social studies, science, and mathematics--is therea significant difference betwee-ii the LB and the CB coursesin their effect upon the student teacher's classroom per-formance as reflected by the:

a) Four Observer's Schedule (C) Subscores?b) Teaching Techniques Rating Form (D)?c) Teacher's Self-Report (E)?d) Student Opinionnaire (F)?e) Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's

Report (G)?4. For each of the six grade levels--grades seven

through twelve--is there a significant difference betweenthe LB and the CB courses in their effect upon the studentteacher's classroom performance as reflected by the:

a) Four Observer Schedule (C) Subscores?b) .Teaching Techniques Rating Form (D)?c) Teacher's Self-Report (E)?

7

d) Student Opinionnaire (F)?e) Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's

Report (G) ?

5. For the total pupulation, is there a signifi-cant difference between the LB and the CB courses in theireffect upon the student teacher's classroom performance asreflected by student teaching letter grade scores?

Statement of Hypotheses

The following general hypothesis in null form sum-marizes the research questions presented in this report:

There is no significant difference between the scoresachieved by the LB group and the CB group as reflected onthe following instruments;

a) Observer Scheduleb) Teaching Techniques Rating Formc) Teacher's Self-Reportd) Student Opinionnairee) Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's Reportf) Fiander's Interaction Analysis System Subscores:

1) Derived total scores2) I/D ratio scores

All subjects as well as the following subgroups weretested: male and female; four subject areas (language arts,social studies, science, and mathematics); grade levelsseven through twelve; and student teaching letter grades.All data based upon the above measures were presented inthe following format: Total scores; subscores; and itemvariable scores.

Assumptions, Postulates, andLimitations

The following assumptions, postulates, and limita-tions relative to this investigation are listed here. .

Assumptions.1. A relationship between conventional methods of

preparing teachers and alleged widespread unsatisfactoryperformance in the classroom exists.

2. That the quality_of the preparation of teachersis related to effectiveness' of teaching in the classrooM.

3. That effectiveness of teaching in the classroomis related to the learning in many classrooms.

8

4. That the empirical and hypothetical constructsemployed in this study are adequate to assess teaching be-haviors in the classroom.

5. That empirical results obtained from thetreatments are related to the. hypotheses presented herein.

Postulates.1. That quantitative differences in values associ-

ated with the dependent variable are the results of thedifferential treatments incorporated into the researchdesign.

2. Extraneous variables associated with this studywhich were difficult or impossible to control may exertequal effects at random on all treatments or conditions.

Limitations.1. Some extraneous variables which cannot be iden-

tified will operate systematically toward confounding thestudy; however, these variables will tend to effect eachgroup or subject to the same extent and, in effect, are"randomized out" and controlled during statistical analy-sis. These variables which ca7..not be controlled by othertechniques may be identified by such factors as previouslearning and/or concomitant learning experiences (specialmethod courses, experimental curriculum experiences inother courses, etc.), motivational level, and super andsupra influences.

2. This is a quasi-experimental design, since thetreatment for the control group preceded that of the exper-imental group by one semester, and in a few cases, by twosemesters. However, many of the control subjects completedstudent teaching at the same time as the experimental group.

3. The extent to which raters were free of bias isa limitation in this study.

4. The results of this study are generalizable toother populations only to the extent that they reflect.characteristics similar to that used in this study.

Significance of the Study

The approach to teacher education taken in the com-petency-based course which is the subject of this investi-gation is not new or novel. A theoretical bases forimplementation of the laboratory approach to teachertraining has existed since the early days of the progres-sive education movement.

Development of professional laboratory experienceswhich are an integral part of the preparation program maynot be the answer to the problem of making teacher,education

9

programs more" effective than they are now. However, manyresearchers claim that the gap between theory and practicein the training of teachers is still about as wide as itwas twenty-five years ago. Professional laboratory experi-ences may help close this gap, and give teacher educationprograms a professional quality they now lack.

While there is no hard evidence that the competency-based course reduces educational costs, the utilization ofgraduate and undergraduate students as small group leadersat little or no cost represents a heretofore untappedirstrrctional resource. It would appear then that improvedteacher education is possible at approximately the samenominal cost of the lecture-based course.

The significance of the findings from this studycould provide teacher educators with zubstantial evidencethat a competency or performance-based experience is or isnot superior to a conventional lecture-oriented orlecture-based preservice teacher training experience.

Definition of Terms

Key terms which are employed in this study areoperationally defined as follows:

Competency-based teacher education (CBTE). Acompetency-based teacher education program is one in whichthe competencies to be acquired by the student and thecriteria to be applied in assessing the competency of thestudent are made explicit and the student is held account-able for meeting those criteria. Two types of criteriawill be used here: (1) knowledge criteria which are usedto assess cognitive understandings, and (2) performancecriteria which are used to assess the teaching behaviors.

Criterion-referenced measures. Measures which"depend on an absolute standard of quality . . . as opposed

1 Howard L. Jones, "Implementation of Programs"Chapter 6), Competency-Based Teacher Education, W. R.

- Houston and R. B. Howsam (eds,) (Chicago: ScienceResearch Associates, Inc., 1972), p. 122.

10

to norm-referenced measures, which depend on a relativestandard."'

Mediated materials. Instructional ma.':erials whichrequire the use of audio-visual mqterial such as film-strips, videotape recorders, etc.

Microteaching. A teaching situation which isscaled down in terms of time, content, and number of stu-dents. It usually is a four- to twenty-minute lessoninvolving three to ten students. (The microteaching unitswhich are involved in this investigation are three- to3five-minute sessions involving four or five students.)

Module or teacher task. A set of laarning activi-ties intended to facilitate the student's acquisition anddemonstration of a particular competency or objective.4

Performance-based teacher education (PBTE). Thedefinition which will be employed in this investigation.istaken from one of the earliest current research projectson the subject of performance-based teacher education.

The condition of teaching requires each teacher tomake decisions and translate the decisions into

1Robert Glaser, "Instructional Technology and the

Measurement of Learning Outcomes," American Psychologist,18 (1963), 519; and R. Glaser and A. J. Nitko, "Measurementin Learning and Instruction," Educational Measurement,R. L. Thorndike (ed.) (Washington, D.C.: American Councilon Education, 1971). These authors redefined Glaser's1963 definition as follows: "A criterion-referenced testis one that is deliberately constructed to yeiid measure-ments that are directly interpretable in terms of speci-fied performance standards (p. 516)."

?Jones, 1972, op. cit., p, 102.

3Teaching Skills: A Handbook for DevelopingInstructional Behavior (Columbia, Missouri: The Universityof Missouri-Columbia, June, 1972), p. 2-2.

4 Benjamin S. Bloom, "Mastery Learning and ItsImplications for Curriculum Development," ConfrontingCurriculum Reform, Elliot W. Eisner (ed.) (Boston: Little,Brown and Co., 1971).

11

actions (performance). Accountability for performance(both teacher and learner) will be bqsed on the qual-ity of decisions as well as actions.'

Professional laboratory experiences. All thosecontacts with Children, youtT , and adults (through obser-vation, participation, and teachingincluding simulationexercises) which make a direct contribution to an under-standing of individuals and their guidance in the teaching/learning process.2

Student teaching. "The period of guided teachingwhen student takes increasing.responsibility for the workwith a group of learners over a period of consecutiveweeks."6

Systems approach. A self-correcting and logicalmethodology of decision-making to be used for the designand development of man made entities. Concept of taskanalysis is included.

Task analysis. A process by which the designer ofa system identified and describes all its necessary parts- -goals, tasks, materials, procedures, prerequisites, knowl-edge, performance(s), etc. Concept includes formulationof performance objectives, the analysis of functions andcomponents, the distribution of function among components,their scheduling, the training and testing of the system,installation, and quality control.

Teacher behavior. This term is operationally de-fined as representing the effects of a teacher in a givenclassroom situation. It is further defined in a behavior-al sense, in that it is a group of variables or stimyli--aset of teaching behaviors which affect the learners.

1Texas Performance-Based TTT Project, A Proposal for

Educational Personnel Development Operational Grant, Part D,EPDA Act of 1965 (Austin: State Education Agency), p. Fl.

2Sub-Committee of the Standards and Surveys Committee,

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,School and Community Laboratory Experiences in Education(Oneonta, New York: American Association of Colleges forTeacher Education, 1948), p.7.

-Sub-Committee of the Standards and SurveysCommittee, AACTE, 1948, op. cit., p. 16.

4Bloom, 1971, op. cit.

12

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Since this research study deals, generally, withthe education of prospective teachers and specifically,with the substantive issue of improving teacher education,this review of the literature and related research islimited to the three areas which appear to have receivedthe most attention and which are most relevant to thisstudy--teacher behavior, instrumentation, and performance-based teacher education. Researchers generally agree thatthese areas constitute the most perplexing, most misunder-stood, and most challenging aspects of improving teachereducation.

Performance-Based Teacher Education (PBTE)

According to current literature on teacher educa-tion, there is increased concern about the quality ofteacher education programs throughout the country. TheAmerican Association of Colleges for Teacher Education andthe National Council for Accreditation in Teacher Educationhave recommended that colleges and universities whichoffer teacher training programs undertake to expand andimprove programs according to recently revised criteria.'For example, one criterion for judging a teacher educationprogram is whether it produces competent gradqates whoenter the profession and perform effectively.' This wouldimply that considerably more attention must be given tothe formative assessment phase of the preparation program.The AACTE established a special committee in 1970 to lookinto performance-based teacher education. This committeehas reported that performance-based teacher education isviewed by at least one observer as a multi-faceted conceptin search of practitioners and there are, however, ante-cedents, developments, and growing pressures which suggestthat a reform movement of great potential is i' the making.

Since PBTE provided a theoretical basis for thecourse of study under investigation, information relativeto the development of this approach to teacher educationis especially relevant. PBTE is one of the more promisingaspects of teacher ecucation that has been developed inrecent years--it may be described as either performance-based or competency-based teacher education. The concept

1AACTE, Recommended Standards for Teacher Education:

The Accreditation of iic and Advanced Preparation Pro-grams for Professional School Personnel (Washington, D.C.:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,1970).

2Ibid. (Standard 5, NCATE).

13

has been defined by educators in a variety of ways; how-ever, Cooper and Weber defined this approach to teachereducation as follows:

A competency-based teacher education program is one inwhich the competencies to be acquired by the studentand the criteria to be applied in assessing the compe-tency of the student are made explicit and the studentis held accountable for meeting those criteria.1

Elfenbein indicated the "PBTE programs are incipientphenomena exhibiting characteristics often associated withyouth, experiementation,,enthusiasm, commitment, zeal, anduncertainty of iesults. "2 The programs that she studiedoccupied a range in teems of affiliation and size, therationale, the development and implementation procedures,the supports for the programs, and the positions on atheoretical-practical continuum.

Elam 3 emphasized that PBTE in the United States isby no means a full-fledged movement. He indicated thatAACTE has studied the phenomenon for more than a yearand has not only established a committee under the leader-ship of Dr. Donald R. Medley to study the subject, butalso developed a number of papers devoted to its variousaspects. The AACTE and the National Council for Accredi-tation of Teacher Education are providing new leadershipin meeting the challenge of change and improvement inteacher education. They have advocated (1) moving fromsingle-type preparation programs to multiple preparationprograms; (2) more attention to the nature of the profes-sional role for which the students are being prepared; and(3) increasing concern for the performance of graduates,

/James M. Cooper and Wilford A. Weber, A preliminarydraft of "A Competency-Based Systems Approach to TeacherEffectiveness," Chapter Vol. II, Performance-BasedTeacher. Education Programs: A Comparative Description,Iris M. Elfenbein (Washington, D.C.: American Associationof Colleges for Teacher Education, 1972), pp. 3-4.

2Iris M. Elfenbein, Performance-Based Teacher Educa-

tion Programs: A Comparative Description (Washington, D.C.:American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,1972), p. 7.

3Sta.nley Elam, Performance-Based Education: What isthe State of the Art? (Washington, D.C.: American Associ-ation of Colleges for Teacher Education, December, 1971),p. 8.

14

not the kind and number of courses "required." A recentrevision of the recommended standards now includes"specific professional training components, in additionto the content for teaching specialty, humanistic andbehavioral tudies, teaching and learning theory, and apracticum."1 This along with the fact that some progressis being made in developing a viable "theory of teaching"are indications of how seriously the AACTE and the NCATEview the problem of improving teacher education.

The American Assoziation of Colleges for TeacherEducation selected for examinatil seventeen model teachereducation programs from thirteen institutions throughoutthe country which were in operation prior to August 1,1971. Each institution was visited and the programexamined by team members representing the AACTE committeeand the U.S. Office of Education to determine if the pro-grams met published criteria for PBTE or CBTE programs.Findings of the investigation along with specific criteriahave been published by the association.2

While the advocates of CBTE programs appear to bemore numerous than the antagonists, there are those whowould offer arguments against the CBTE approach itself, oragainst some of the essential elements or characteristicsof it. Simons appeared to take a critical view of severalaspects of CBTE. He felt that the CBTE emphasis onbehavior as a criterion in assessment is accomplished atthe expense cf knowledge. He stated his position asfollows:

There is no way to link either understanding orinterpretation with particular behavior. . . . Thebehavioral objectives movement seems misguided in itszeal to deal mainly in behavior to the exclusion ofknowledge and the relationship between knowledge andbehavior. In fact, the entire movement seems .doomedto failure because it lacks the necessary theories.. . . Behavioral evidence of knowledge can be describedand measured through the traditional means, namely,standardized tests, subjective judgments, ratingscales, teacher-made tests, etc. These techniqueshave many problems, but behavioral objectives provideno real improvement over these traditional tech-niques.3

1Elfenbein, 1972, op. cit., p.

2Elam, 1971, 22.. cit., p. 24.

3Herbert D. Simons, "Behavioral Objectives: A

False Hope for Education," The Elementary School Journal,73:4 (January, 1973), p. 176.

15

Broudy, in presenting a critique of the competency-based approach to teacher education, Stated that althoughhe had some reservations about the competency-basedapproach, in particular, the "technician" rather than theprofessional emphasis upon teaching, his position on CBTEwas not too much different from that of the AmericanAssociation of Colleges for Teacher Education, namely,That CBTE is a response to social pressures and to criti-cism of existing programs."1

Other researchers, while not especially critical ofthe CBTE or PBTE approach, suggested alternatives. Gage2suggested developing- more adequate "tools of the trade,"and Rosenf,?line3 suggested a "curriculum-materials"approach, in which curriculum models referred to a set ofinstructional materials and instructions for their use.The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) Programand the Bank Street College Program may be cited as ,examples of this approach to research and teaching. The"curriculum materials" model is similar to the CBTE model,in that the "package" is comparable to the "module," andcsntains well-formulated strategies for implementation.According to Rosenshine,4 models 'or packages appear to,beparticularly useful settings for study because the pro-grams incorporated (1) ideas developed from research,(2) inventions and intuitions;of experienced teachers andsubject area specialists, and (3) feedback data developedin the early try-out phases of the programs.

As may be expected because of the recency of theCBTE movement in teacher education, there is only a limitedamount of research available relative to the effects of thecompetency-based approach n the education of teachers.Waimon, Bell, and Ramseyer 3 reported a study which at-tempted to assess the effects of competency-based training

1Harry S. Broudy, A Critique of Performance-BasedTeacher Education (Washington, D.C.: The American Associ-ation cf Colleges for Teacher Education [AACTE], May,1972), p. 12.

2Gage, 1963, op. cit., p. 257.

3Rosenshine and Furst, 1971, op. cit.

4Rosenshine, 1971a, op. cit.

5M. D. Waimon, D. D. Bell, and G. C. Ramseyer, "The

Effects of Competency-Based Training on the Performance ofProspective Teachers: (A paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association,New York, February, 1971).

16

on the performance of prospective teachers. The experimentinvolved three treatments designed to help prospectiveteachers perform pretutorial behaviors based upon thetheoretical work of Ausubel, Bruner, and Gagne.lThese researchers contended that the amount and rate oflearning are influenced by the nature of the subject matter,the way it is broken down, and the order in which itis presented.

The treatment in this experiment was similar to thatfound in most microteaching instruction. It consistedof dividing the tutorial teaching behavior into componentparts, each of which was defined and modeled. Practice inperforming each behavior was given and reinforcement wasmade contingent upon the successful performance of each.The treatment was labeled microplanning. The microplanningenabled prospective teachers to perform pretutorialbehavior, which not only precedes tutorial behavior intime but also relates and explains it.

The researchers concluded that:

Teachers cannot be clear and rigorous in handlingsubject matter inputs during the course of instructionunless they have learned to perform pretutorial teacherbehaviors; that is, prospective teachers have learnedhow to solve problems having to do with purpose, con-tent, or Tethod before they engage in tutorialbehavior.

Further, an assumption that the preplanning phase appearsvital to success during both the microteaching phase andthe clinical phase appears justified. It is also con-cluded that:

... it may be that prospective teachers should neverbe allowed to engage in tutorial behavior before they.demonstrate their competence in performiing pretutorialteacher behavior. Microteaching, unless preceded bysuccessful performance in mj,cro-planning, could be acase of misplaced emphasis.

Other researchers who only recently attempted toassess a variety of competency-based programs may also be

1Ibid., p. 237.

2 Ibid., p. 244.

3Ibid.

17

cited. HarsteI found a marked decrease in student learning

as measured by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills at the third-grade level and a nonsignificant finding on the influenceof the experimental program on student learning at thesixth-grade level. Sybouts' reported an attempt to assessthe effectiveness of a competency-based program at theUniversity of Nebraska by measuring the achievement ofstudents who were taught a single concept by both tradi-tionally prepared teachers and those prepared in acompetency-based program. Students taught by thecompetency-based teachers appeared to achieve significantlyhigher mean scores than those taught by the traditionalteachers. Emmer3 conducted a study to determine ifinstructional behaviors acquired during a simulated teach-ing experience would transfer to a "real" setting. Hefolind there was some evidence that instructional behaviorfrom a peer setting would transfer or improve when appliedin a real school setting.

J. W. Maucker, Assistant to the President of KansasState University, provided the following advice oncompetency-based teacher education (quoted in part):

Enter into the dialogue--don't ignore it. Studythe "State of the Art" papers (Elam, 1971) and otherprofessional position papers and atteni the conferencesin your area.

Try PBTE at least in part of your teacher educationprogram.

Do not undertake the above unless you can meet atleast the following three criteria:

a. Develop a cooperative relationship with thecollege or university and with one or more schooldistricts and obtain substantial student input.

1J. C. Harste, "The Effect of a Field-Based TeacherEducation Program Upon Pupil Learning" (A paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, New Orleans, Louisiana, February, 1973).

2Ward Sybouts, "Performance-Based Teacher Education:Does It Make a Difference?" Phi Delta Kappan, XIV (January,1973), pp. 303-304.

3E. T. Emmer, "Transfer of Instructional Behaviorand Performance Acquired in Simulated Teaching," TheJournal of Educational Research, LXV (December, 1971Tpp. 178-182.

18

b. Provide substantial time for staff planning anddevelopment before the program is put into opera-tion.

c. Incorporate a strong evaluation and assessmentprogram . . . investing at least as much time ofthe staff in definition of acceptable "evidence"and the development of evaluation instruments andtechniques as in the development of instructionalmaterials_.

Support research and development efforts by profes-sional organizations and associations and by thefederal and state governments.'

Summary

A review of the literature and: research whichrelates to the areas of education selectedteacherbehavior, instrumentation, and performance or competency-based teacher education--appear to show several definitetrends.

Studies which deal with teaching behavior seem toreflect a rather continuous change in direction. Focus isno longer on characteristics or traits possessed by theteacher, but on the behavior of the teacher in the class-room. Increased emphasis has been placed upon how theteacher behaves in a variety of settings. Objectivemeasures have been developed to measure the interaction.between teacher and student. Considerably more attentionis being given to the effects that teacher produced stimulihave upon the learner. Researchers who deal with assess-ment of teaching appear to be moving toward an increasedrealization that, in the final analysis, the only cri-terion which is important as it relates to the assessmentprocess is the cirterion which includes the effect of teach-ing behavior upon the students.

Instrumentation appears to have moved in the samegeneral direction as teaching behavior. There are indica-tions that the "check scale" or rating form has given wayto more objective measures of teaching behavior and toperformance reports which yield data describing a specificset of teaching behaviors and the effects they have upon

4

1 J. W. Maucker, "Performance-Based Teacher Educa-tion," American Association for Teacher Education Yearbook,Vol. I (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegesfor Teacher Education, 1972), pp. 74-77.

19

the student. However, there is some evidence that ratingforms possess some worthwhile characteristics when com-pared to other methods or systems which are being employedin assessing teaching behavior. Rosenshine reported thathe had completed some work on this subject and includedthe following in his findings:

. . . some observational systems (the rating system)which distort reality appear to be more predictiveof student achievement than the )7stems which moreclosely represent actual events.1

In the latter instance the researcher was referring to thevariety of observation analysis systems similar to theFlanders Interaction Analysis System. For example, instudies reviewed by Rosenshine and Furst, evidence such asthe following was suggested: "the most consistent resultsand the highest correlations and F ratios were obtainedfrom the variables in rating systems." Assessment inteaching appears to be moving toward competencies or per-formance type criterion measures designed to assess thequality of the end product. Many of these criterionmeasures will, as a result of public pressure for account-ability indices, move toward a fixed standard which isdirectly related to both criterion-referenced and formativeassessment.

There appears to be ample and impressive testimonythat student teaching tends to be the most practical anduseful part of pre-service education. In addition,questionable effects of traditional teacher education seemto pervade both the literature and recent doctoralstudies.3 These factors appear to be a basis for a move-ment in teacher education toward performance or competency-based education. A "systems" or "instructional designs"approach to teacher education is held to improve theeffectiveness of the teacher educational program. Thisapproach to teacher education is receiving national atten-tion, and when all the results are tabulated, the question

1 B. Rosenshine, "The Use of Direct Observation toStudy Teaching," Second Handbook of Research on TeachinR,R.M.W. Travers (ed.), p. 136.

2Rosenshine and Furst, 1971, op. cit.

3R. F. Peck and J. A. Tucker, "Research on TeacherEducation," Second Handbook of Research on Teaching(Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1973), p. 967.

4 Ibid., p. 943.

20

of which is more effective--traditional, lecture-basedmethods of preparing teachers, or the more dynamic, per-formance or competency-based methods--may be answered.

One must conclude from a review of the literaturethat one of the main issues in teacher education appears tobe the accountability of teachers for meeting behavioralobjectives, as well as colleges of education meetinghigher standards for the professional certification ofteachers. The graduate of a competency-based program will,in the future, emerge with a given set of behaviors rela-tive to teaching. If these objectives have been chosen asrepresenting minimal standards for effective teaching, theneach graduate leaves the program 1,,th a demonstratedability to know and to do those things diet are believednecessary for effective teaching.

21

RESEARCH METHOD

A between group design with one independent variableand two treatment levels is employed in this study. Theindependent variable is identified as a general secondarymethods course of study, and the two treatments as (1) theLecture-Based (LB) Course (the control group) and (2) theCompetency-Based (CB) Course (the experimental group).These variables are operationally defined in the "Defini-tion of Terms" on pages 4 and 9.

As indicated above the independent variable consistsof those two assigned values or treatments. The experi-menter attempted to determine whether these two treatmentsor conditions differentially affected the dependent vari-able or variables. The dependent variable is identified asthe classroom behavior of student teachers. It is repre-sented by sets of scores on selected criterion measures.Dependent variable set scores (total scores, subscore sets,and 145 item variable scores) are compared by total group,subgroups, and treatment groups.

The population for this study is defined as allsecondary student teachers (eighty-fivp) assigned to publicand private schools in the mid-Missouri area. The popula-tion student taught during the last half of the Fall, 1971,and two halves of the Winter, 1972, semesters in thefollowing subject areas--language arts, social studies,science, and mathematics. The mid-Missouri geographicalarea is defined as an area thirty to forty miles fromthe University of Missouri-Columbia. Several kinds of admin-istrative organizations are represented by the schoolsselected. For example, there are junior high schools,grades seven, eight, and nine and grades seven and eightonly; high schools, grades nine through twelve and ten,eleven, and twelve; and junior-senior high schools, gradesseven through twelve. Distribution of subjects betweenpublic and private schools is approximately equal.

In August, 1971, the lecture-based method of teach-ing the D110 course was discontinued and the competency-based method introduced. Those education students whocompleted the course prior to that date were assigned tothe control group (LB course) and those who completed itafter that date to the experimental group (CB course).Treatment groups were equated by cumulative grade pointaverage to within.0003 honor points and by subject areaaccording to total number within each subpopulation. Noattempt was made to equate groups by sex or by gradelevels taught. The stratified sample consisted of forty

22

student teachers in the control group (LB) and thirty inthe experimental group (CB) (N=70).

Data Collection

The observation of each student teacher took placeduring the end of their eight weeks of student teaching.All observations were made in conjunction with the univer-sity supervisor's regular visit to each school, whenpossible.

Permission was obtained from each school officialprior to each visit and he was advised of the purpose, thedata collection procedure, and expected dates of thevisits. Identification of subjects according to group(experimental or control) was withheld. Each schoolofficial was furnished a list of student Veachers,cooperating teachers, and university supervisors.

Instrumentation

A wide variety of instruments and/or devices wereemployed in this study to provide the investigator with amore accurate assessment of teaching behaviors whichoccurred during the student teaching performance. Some ofthese instruments had been used by the university forseveral years already, while others were developed for usein the competency-based course as part of the instructionalassessment phase. Each instrument or assessment device wascarefully designed or selected to yield measures whichwould contain a minimum of error. The precision in assess-ing the experimental effect upon the dependent variable isbased upon such factors as the accuracy of defining thevariable measured, the skill of the observer in detectingthe presence of the given variable, and variety of vari-ables identified. Since the dependent variable--teachingperformance--is extremely complex and contains many fac-tors, it was observed from six different points of view.Assessments of teaching behaviors were made by the follow-ing: two reports by trained observers, a self-report byeach student teacher, a cooperative assessment by thecooperating teacher and the college supervisor, an assess-ment by the classroom students, and a more objectiveassessment based upon the analysis of audio-tapes accordingto the categories in Flanders Analysis System.

Each instrument or device employed in this study togather information about the teaching performance of each

23

subject was desinged to yield data which were quantifiedon the basis of frequency of occurrence and/or intensityof response accurate within the parameters which wereprescribed.1 Competent observers were trained to assessperformance according to a five-point, bipolar, Likert-type scale from high (5) to low (1) .

Some comments relative to the development and/oradoption of the instruments employed in this investigationare presented here.

D110 Observation Schedule (C)

The D110 Observation Schedule was developed by uni-versity instructors who were involved in assessing thequality of the laboratory teaching of those D110 studentswho 'wanted to receive a letter grade rather than a pass/fail grade in the CB course. The objectives or competen-cies of the course served as the basis for these items.

Teaching Techniques Rating Form (D)

The device in its present form was assembled by theinvestigator from a prototype such as the one developed byRose.2 The form was modified to meet the needs and pur-poses of this study in the sense that only those items wereused which would lend themselves to use by an impartialobserver who was present in the classroom and who possessedno additional information about the student teacher or thelesson she was teaching. Items were carefully selectedfrom a wide range of teaching performance assessmentinstruments to obtain a clearly defined set of items whichwould reflect those facets of teaching generally includedin an assessment of instruction. .y

1Assessment of teacher behavior in this ivestiga-

tion was based upon criteria listed under operationaldefinition for "performance-based teacher education."This information is shown in the "Definition of Terms"section. Criteria of two types are used--knowledge toassess understanding and performance criteria to assessthe teaching behaviors. A majority of criterion measuresare contingent upon some behavioral manifestation or demon-stration of a particular teaching skill. The latter mayalso be referred to as a "performance test."

2Homer C. Rose, The Instructor and His Job (Chicago:American Technical Society, 1961), pp. 2-66=-277.

24

Teacher's Self Report (E)

Development and adoption of the Teacher's Self-Report were based upon several factors. First, a self-rating form which was prepared by Callahanl and publishedby Scott Foresman, Inc,, was used as the main guide forthe development of the instrument. Second, several formsused by the University of Missouri for the improvement ofinstruction served as a pool of items. Third, the experi-ence of the researcher in assessing teaching behavior overthe past ten years provided a basis for selection ofappropriate items. Only those items thought to correlatehighly with the independent variable under study wereselected for the instrument.

Student Opinionnaire (F)

Development of the Student Opinionnaire was basedupon several factors. First, a form used at the Universityof Missouri provided a pool of items and also served as aguide in developing measurement criteria. A large numberof criterion measures derived from the literature on pupilassessment of teaching were identified and items werewritten or revised to represent these criteria in theinstrument; then the items were reworded to meet thereading level of junior high school students. These itemswere then "tried out" or revised in undergraduate teachereducation classes until an acceptable level of instructoragreement was reached. The researcher and other membersof the development team drew upon their own experience inreaching a consensus in terms of selecting and eliminatingitems which were considered on the original instrument.

Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor'sReport (G)

The Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's Report(Student Teaching Record) was developed by Dr. Carey South-all, Director of Student Teaching, College of Education,University of Missouri-Columbia. The form was created forthe specific purpose .of rating student teacher performance.It was designed to be completed_ by the cooperating teacherand the university supervisor on a cooperative basis.General criteria for identifying strengths and weaknessesare provided. More detailed criteria are contained in the

1Sterling G. Callahan, Self-Evaluation Checklist

for Teachers in Secondary Education (Glenview, Illinois:Scott Foresman, Inc., 1966).

25

structure of the form, since criterion measures are orga-nized under the following six major headings or subdivi-sions: attitude, scholarship, instruction, discipline,personality, and miscellaneous. No information relativeto procedures followed by the university in determiningvalidity or reliability was available.

Flanders Interaction AnalysisSystem (H)

While the trained observer was recording observa-tions on .his two instruments, an audio-tape recording wasmade of each teaching lesson or performance. Someresearchers, who have been concerned with the subject ofassessment of teaching performance, indicated that it isone of the better means to describing classroom behaviordeveloped over the past ten years. With the use of analy-tic categories of classroom behavior, this yields moreobjective data. It lends itself to a more reliableapproach to the collection, recording, and analysis of thedata. Following is a brief summary of the instrumentcategories to be used and the procedures to be applied inprocessing the data.

In the Flanders system, those categories labeled as"indirect" influences are seemingly related to the openend of the climate continuum; those labeled "direct" influ-ences may be elated to the closed end of the continuum.The author claimed that his system will measure both verbaland nonverbal interaction between the teacher and the stu-dents in the classroom and that evidence of verbal inter-action is indicative of nonverbal interaction which mayalso be present.1

Training was undertaken to improve coding reliabil-ity beyond that required for classroom performance feedbackto teachers. Information relative to the use of theFlander's system published by Flanders, Amidon and Flanders

1Ned A. Flanders, Teacher Influences, Pupil Atti-

tudes; and Achievement. Cooperative Research Nonogra7E.No. 12 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare, Office of Education, OE 25040, 1965),p. 6.

26

and Greenberg) was used in the training sessions and in 1analyzing the data. Doctoral studies by Dahl and Romoser'were also employed as reference documents during thisstudy. After extensive coding practice a minimum of .85reliability level of coding was obtained. Procedures wereas follows:

1. Two segments of instruction from the taperecorded classroom performance of a student teacher wereselected for analysis, one at the one-third point andanother at the two-thirds point of the recorded session.Each segment was about five minutes in length.

2. The researcher coded these sections of theaudio-tapes according to the ten Flanders InteractionAnalysis categories.

3. A coding sheet was prepared which provided tallyspace beside each of the ten Flander's categories.

4. While listening to the recycled segment, thecoder placed a tally every three seconds (or every categorychange, whichever occurred first) in the space whichdescribed the type of verbal behavior exhibited during thepreceding three seconds. Wherever necessary, the segmentwas rerun and the coding repeated until maximum precisionwas attained.

5. After coding a segment of recorded instruction,the coder summed the tallies in each of the ten categoriesand determined the percentage of the total tallies in eachcategory. Tht total percentages of tallies was then deter-mined according to three major categories: indirect

1 Ned A. Flanders, Analyzing Teaching Behavior(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1970);Edmond J. Amidon and Ned A. Flanders, The Role of theTeacher in the Classroom (rev. ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.:Association for Productive Teaching, Inc., 1967), p. 37;and Selma Greenberg, Selected Studies of Classroom Teach-ing: A Comparative Analysis (Scranton, Pennsylvania:International Textbook Company, 1970).

2 Ivan J. Dahl, "Analysis and Evaluation of CertainAttitudinal and Behavioral Changes in Selected StudentTeachers During the Professional Laboratory Experience withan Experimental Variable of Supervisory Personnel" (unpub-lished Doctor's dissertation, University of North Dakota,1968); and David R. Romoser, "Change in Attitude and Per-ception in Teacher Education Students Associated withInstruction in Interaction Analysis: (unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, University of Denver, 1964).

27

teacher talk (categories 1, 2, 3, and 4), direct teachertalk (categories 5, 6, and 7), and student talk (categories8 and 9). Both the indirect and the direct teacher talkcategories were also combined and their percentage deter-mined.

6. Mean percentage scores were computed andrecorded for both segments for each subject.

7. These percentage scores were then convertedinto "bipolar" scores (1 to 5) using Table I below.

In the following scale the lowest score (1) repre-sents interaction as teacher talk (90 to 100 per cent) withonly up to 10 per cent as student talk, or as student talk(100 to 90 per cent) with only up to 10 per cent teachertalk. This category represents little interaction betweenteacher and students. The highest score (5) representsinteraction situations where up to half was student talk(50 to 41 per cent) with teacher talk being 50 to 59 percent, or where up to half was teacher talk (41 to 50 percent) with student talk being 59 to 50 per cent. Thiscategory represents much teacher-student interaction.

TABLE I

PERCENTAGE SCORE CONVERSION TABLE

Teacher(T)

Student(S)

T S T S T S T S T S

Percent-age

90 E100

10 E0

80 F89

2011

E 70 i79

3021

& 6069

g 4031

E 5059

E 5041

E

Scores

Between0 &

10100&90

11 &20

8980

& 21 &30

7970

& 3140

& 6960

& 4150

& 5950

&

BipolarScores 1 2 3 4 5

In addition to a bipolar score of one to fiverepresenting the amount of student talk, the relativeamount of indirect and direct teacher talk was determined.

28

To do this, the total number of tallies in categories 1,2, 3, and 4 was divided by the total number of tallies inall the teacher talk categories (1 through 7). Thisquot: ',rt is referred to as the I/D ratio or the ratio ofindirect to direct teacher talk. For example, an I/Dratio of .50 means that for every three seconds ofindirect teacher talk there were at least three seconds ofdirect teacher talk. (It should be pointed out that thiscomparison is relative and do?s not relate to the codingprocedure, per se, since the rule for coding is "everythree secona?or category change, whichever occurredfirst.") An I/D ratio of .67 means that there was twiceas much indirect teacher talk as direct teacher talk; andconsequently, an I/D ratio of .33 means that there wasonly half as much indirect teacher talk as direct.

Data Treatment

The data collection procedures were described indetail in a previous section of this report. Analyses ofthe data were made according to total scores, subsetscores, and item variable scores, which were yielded by thesix ranking-type instruments and the quantified lettergrades. Since all data, except the I/D ratio scores(variable H2), were quantified on a five-point, Likert-type scale, analysis of scores included descriptive statis-tics (mean scores, standard deviations, and variance).

These basic statistical data were used to describeselected attributes of teaching behavior by group. How-ever, significance data which include critical values (z andU), and probability (p) values shown on the same form werebased upon "distribution free" tests of significance.

Since data derived in the study were consideredordinal data which approaches interval data, nonparametrictests of significance were employed. The "distributionfree" characteristic allows the researcher to make a moreindependent assessment of significance. Further, thequality of the findings are increased because fewer limi-tations and restrictive assumptions are placed upon thestatistics employed in analyzing the data. Siegell alsoindicated that certain assumptions are associated with moststatistical tests and those associated with the nonpara-metric test include the assumption that the observationsare independent and that the variable under study has

1Sidney Siegel, Non arametric Statistics for the

Behavioral Sciences (New Yor : McGraw-Hill Book Co.,

29

underlying continuity, but these assumptions are fewer andmuch weaker than those associated with parametric tests.,Moreover, he stated that nonparametric tests do notrequire measurement so strong as that required for theparametric tests and that most nonparametric tests applyto data in an ordinal scale and some apply to data in anominal scale.

Rationale for Use of Nonparametric Tests

The assumptions associated with the one-way analysisof variance or "F" test are that the observations areindependently drawn from normally distributed populations,all of which have some variance. A requirement of the "F"test or "t" test is that the data must achieve at leastinterval measurement of the variable involved. It shouldalso be noted here that interval measurement depends forihe.most part upon exact scaling of psychometric propertiesof the stimuli.

In this study total scores based upon ordinal scalingwere used, but in addition, the individual items on eachinstrument also provide a basis for analysis and comparisonto resolve the "normality" or scaling problem. Since theassumption of "normality" is relalzd directly to thescaling, advantages of employing nonparametric tests whichdo not require the assumption of normality appear to off-set some of the advantages associated with parametric testing.Another advantage of utilizing "distribution free" tests ofsignificance is that one may conclude that "Regardless ofthe shape of the populaiion, we may conclude that . . . ."

1Henry E. Garrett, Statistics in Psychology andEducation (New York: Longmans, Green ani Co., 195-17,---p. 321.

30

DATA AND FINDINGS

In this chapter the data are organized in terms ofeach of the hypotheses. Each table of data is followedby a brief description of these data and the related find-ings. The findings are then summarized in Figure 1.

Hypothesis One--D110 Observation Schedule

For all subjects, there is no significant differencebetween the control (LB) group and the experimental (CB)group as measured by the various scores obtained from the"D110 Observation Schedule"

a) Total score (C).b) Subscores (C1, C2, C3, C4).c) Item variable scores (Cla-g, C2a-c, C3a-e,

C4a-c).

These data are shown in Table II.

Data.--Variables identified as Cl through C4 aresubscores From the D110 Observation Schedule. Each sub-section of this instrument contains from three to sevenitems. Statistical data for each of the eighteen separateitems on this instrument (as well as the four subscoresand the total score) are presented and discussed below:

An examination of Table II shows chat the CB groupscored higher than the LB group on all twenty-three "D110Observation Schedule" variables. Of these twenty-threevariables, twenty-one were significantly higher using theWilcoxon Rank Sum Test. Only two item variables--"student/teacher interaction" and "openness, tolerance, considera-tion"--were not significantly higher. All four subscores(C1, C2, C3, and C4) and the total score (C) were signifi-cant at tine .01 level--z values of 3.03, 3.87, 4.15, 3.90,and 4.04, respectively.

Findings.--The total score hypothesis, the four sub-score hypotheses, and sixteen of the eighteen item variablescore hypothcses wcre rejected. Of the twenty-three sub-hypotheses for the "D110 Observation Schedule," twenty-onewere rejected. The control (LB) group was found to differsignificantly from the experimental (CB) group on twenty-one of these twenty-three variables. By inspecting themeans this difference was found to favor the experimental(CB) group.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

IAILE 11

0119 011E1114710N scs,rnutr sr:prs to r0r007 (LP) CROUPAS) (trip;uyttL r(, gt':UP

Ver. L9 rooJo C9 rrr. ''''''''''''''Vriable Seretr. "ran f--, ...,n 9, 1.31,, l]:, r

CI 215471M%45/C51.11:f 3.11 C.39 3.41 C.61 3.03 .01199Ace evan, e of rt ...lent s 3.1S 0.11 .72il 0_17 7.4$ .014

V Clarity of irstruc.Clonal goa:t 3.10 0.61 3.71 0.94 2.46 .0149

C Conveying goal eliget-lattens

Studerifteatt.erio ***** fton 3.43 8.36 3.71 0.63 1.34 .100

Studert/s:u,:trt2.40 1.11 2.90 0.112 2.10 .031

laf mogieoirr students 2.23 0.27 3.60 0.16 7.77 .00699

I °P""." "I'"'"' 3.11 0.16 3.60 0.00 1.7$ .079consideration02 C00717 10.1)::iv.:1101 2.24 0.12 3.16 0.60 3.17 .00019*

Reel we tlov!etedctirul. 2.73 3.116 3.27 0 91 1.37 .0129

V Nonverbal evoTession 2.20 0.12 1.60 0.! 1.00 .0001c Syolo1i4 sti- it 3.10 0.61 T7111 C.61 :.CS .00: 99

C3 COCA1c151 ft11.1_0r119T 2.10 0.71 771.1. 0 10 4.15 .10,Pao', esavrles 3.03 0.99 77." 0.re 1.79 ,001

I 140ersos eta^ples 7.99 4.97 .1-711 0.9e 3.17 .001_ ---C Corphrirg/saciksns

wrangles 2.43 1.17 1.23 1.32 1.40 .009..

4 Cves,-0 esavoles 1.0.0 1.00 0.10 1.17 4.74 .0777.e Sunnor,:ire tonrrpt 7.23 0.20 7717 6.21 3.21 .00V19°

it 11.1.41VC :7, PRIORItk0,111I.E

2.61 0.11 3.52 0.11 3.00 .0001'

Aurabor and soriet 2.71 0.92 3 A? 0. 96 3.29 .001.*V Clarity cf concept 2.65 101 T7-E7 0.9: 3 97 .0004c topl14 i1ross cnt

sorcifi.iiv 2.6) 0.0/ 3.43 0.90 3.44 .0006

---rmr,,,... ,,..._ 2.11 0.63 i.S, 1.44 4.04 .01 .10StIq'..011

irel7717-7...eT 40The undeelir,4 vest andi ccccc which group cAlered

the higher I;---i-i-TSTiie.Significant t .01 (I of 1.96) level ea Iwo tailed.

00ndifection4I tekt."Significant at .01 (s of 2.11) lee') en two tailed.

adirettional test.hilitoson 14n6 Sus :est and 401.1^-titaef V statistic

seal t deterotoe signiftcnce.

'flat 111

TPACH1NG 9..21%1. Trku scnpts 99 CCINTOCIL (111);C9) 640:2

Var.Or.

1

1

1

4

2

Vris)]* Nano

02001 6.2 111101'1%7)5

A f 44y310 presets iraortai /AS 0.89tic.

'oasis's.* tf. st,..dnt 3.16 9.96td 461,160,.,

0.:6t36,/ rn 4rthrough effe 3.50 0.93

Mandl.' sire ,h c...t .teack.ts

of f ic lent 43,,7643 V.

Cerpeter,e in si.tert 3.11 0.71gets seat: :.4 Ct.t,

lci lefs,n

1:ILLZ

cv 4n sn

7 Translates :ea,-,-3Object,,f4ttttt e Itart.r4

6

0

IC

ELJ.a:2 1 1r%The "a2,4

3.10 0.7$ 2.33 .630

3.70 6.79 3.34 017

4.23 car 3.08 .091

s.1 .007"V, 44.70 0.54 7.657 .004

0.50 3.0 .0001.°

2.1) coo 3.80 coo 1.20 .091

ctik.liesSelection of cootett

consistent altSpupils' intele.ts.

rdabilities

Vse4 06:g.t41 and1443 ttttt t 16,4s

Plott,ates 4411t,T,loteus. rutecnters

V51,0 ttUtt,t .03.4,-5. nJ koaledge

2.91

3.03

1.19

2.11

1.13

(101

0.06

1.20

0.98

0.93

0.94

6.90(CO) 04)0

3.47 9.73 1.31 .011

3 40 1.30 1.03 .137

I I) 9.111 1.11 .1)1

7.16 0.79 0.61 .363

3 93 1.91 3.19 .091.

The 0-777 red sa in t hick group ehiove4the ti56er 14A1 "(re

Significant as .05 level es toe.teiled 4.46.ditv:t1cnal test.

..S.soificant t .01 love) ow Iwo-tailed .6.-41 tttttt lest.

4,1334eorn Paoli 5.r !es' ad 6104m-iitnev Vreed to 4 t Ito oissi.fscwe.

31

9661.9 111 (continued)

Vor.07hasVrib le Ka l'.1tte10111.22:itan 13 "ern %.7. la:!reII

14

IS

III

17

18

10

10

71

12

IS

74

LeftIos si:usitios

lead " l""ddf4Sp0Alitilityand participAt4410

Come, S po4 Ill% efarettltle64 IVtuderto

6.1. iiIiwu1atir8uestions

Culdir4 student C.ltibutions andouestions

Adapts,' to 3er,7a76ion aro 6s-s.4

feedback effect:se1fChoice of words avidConvey.Cir ideaselesly andeffectively

Sensitste tc feelsamoand ttstudet.r,t1c,p tes dbeets oseds rddill ccccc es

Olosnose puss)ProIlr-s

Selects ond 671C1surplenental silo

Nawdling sontroerssAilI

"'II ''" """e'stproblsesDevelocsvi 01E1440 6a

weovinsfkl andflh.41ht afthitt

8.19 0.97 LE 1.04 :A .011

las cep 1.67 9.70 :AR .014

8.20 0.99 4.07 9.79 1.76 .0101

1.13 6.16 3.6S 0.1$ 1.79 6.71

1.29 0.81 3.42. 0.44 2.26 .024

1.21 0.71 3.73 9.0 1.04 .1402

2.8$ 0.89 3.17 0.77 2.04 .011

1.01 9.93 3.19 0.95 0.31 .709

2.65 0.16 /.13 0.91 1.29 .220

0.90 6.10 3.67 9.91 3.49 Altos'

3.03 0.77 1 93 9.62 3.38 ,6017

1.83 0.71 ill 0.82 1.79 .471

a I1AC; 71:: "1"4-S11A116.1. K.% 1.14 0.18 1.44 0.12 3.11 .C!'11

32

Hypothesis One--Teaching TechniquesRating Vim

For all subjects, there is no significant differencebetween the control (LB) group and the experimental (CB)group as measured by the various scores obtained from the"Teaching Techniques Rating Form":

a) Tctal score 1.)).b) Item variable scores (1-24).

These data arc shown in Table III.

Data.--An examination of Table III shows that theCB group scored higher than the LB group on all twenty-five"Teaching Techniques Rating Form: variables. Of thetwenty-four item variables, eighteen were significantlyhigher using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Tesl. Only seven itemvariables--"uses origninal and imaginative ideas," "moti-vates children," "enthusiastic about le.;son content,"guiding student contributions and questions," "diagnosing

pupil problems and differentiating between individual andcommon problems," "selects and uses illustrative andsuppl:,mentary aids," and "subject developed in a meaning-ful and relevant manner," were not significant in favor ofthe CB group. Total score (D) was significant at the .01leNel--z value of 3.51. 2 values and p values (probabil-ity) are given in Table ITI.

Findings.- -The total score hypothesis and seventeenof the twenty.four item variable score hypotheses wererejected. Of the twenty -five sub }.ypotheses for the"Teaching Techniques Rating Form,' eighteen were rejected.The control (Lb) group was found to differ significantlyfrom the experimental (CB) group on eighteen of thesetwenty-five variables. By examining the means this differ-ence was found to favor the experimental (CB) group.

Hypothesis One--Teacher's Self-Report

For all subjects, there is no significant differencebetween the control (LB) group and the experimental (CB)group as measured by the various scores obtained from the"Teacher's Self-Report":

a) Total scare (E).b) Item variable scores (1-45).

These data are shown in Table IV.

BEST coil AVAILABLE

337A/14 IV

TIACNIA'S IlL9-ttr-r7 P7 C7,-0!": tlf) CP01.1.&ND tif11:',74L C,;.P

%or..

1tortatl

1 Secure lletlen ofthe el.!, clore 3 40fanfare

1 Puff!, reoey ror ve -t,o/e ree:lese ee:se

Ao.lt e7e::41cler eie.iesci

1 :ce talt.rE byt. e ffffff e,S 3 41Cip!,,e rrt-t.e-e

S tele! 1. et 47,e , 4 ItprereeLree errcs:r1,!,1 c.; r.r ; 43tore fat.. Sitof the f..,

0 teepees grc.0OSfully e-;,...ed

7 1 TTTTT SO 1.'10o9A14 SS SCtIS

1.26fitly e-;:f,emtutare do,

tee -err le,.groundof ehalever. In 3 SSbind

9 Dieeit...hri'fettrar er4,te..1belp and te/eech.

ti YyST, StAt ; OS

. .c. et teachjra4 1d

117,e

0.33 2.7C 0.49 1,10 .11

3 -f1 3.00 C "0 1.34 .31

1.:9 1.63 1.12 2.24 .0:

0.41 3.37 C.94 0.11 .011

6.96 1.13 0.117 0,61 .14

C.47 1.71 1.34 1.6? .16

1.11 SI C.73 0.90 .21

0.94 3.31 0.14 0.62 .11

1.21 3.33 C.16 0.31 .76

3.12 1.27 C.43 2.$6 .02

(C6) 9.30 (LO) 0.40

The Lean lndiceteo rhlehIL, Lisse7

at the ,C5 level on"Saintfoce-t t fIe .01 level to

',we, ...Aim{

two-tailed test.tuo-teoled test.

71114 11' fccntstwed)

Sttett 54neSr.

I. (,'

tier .n

C

1.:,e V4'

17 Orr ;tr,ef f 1c le-

1,11 2.10 1.27 1.41 .11

11 Ci;; ore,- ret,ceto:, C' n, c7ter 1 :3 1.33 1 90 1.13 0.60 .f.$011ad4.rteic,

10 dotiat frt.-, citetenet Ito, t!,o,ewho Ott c....eor.ore

3.53 1.34 3 72 0.9: 0.311 .74

30 Pre:11ton -,dfr.ct in e:ret-coon,

11 O. of .eto ....Jolt

La 0.96

3.37 7.00

3.33 . or

! 7C I.C3

0.0

0.41

.S0

.77

12 At : e c0-oaf t .o.rrola 2_,11 3.0$ 2.73 0.67 1.63 .131r.

SI Vrierst..:.., ;rob-10-s cf

3.40 1.14 3.43 1.14 0.C1 .06

34 Cw1amt.-; ,,J11and ureetoi. ,Ireof freto

y IS 1.31 2.07 1.I1 0.11 .36

30 ettarg if class 3.35 0.94 11.35 3,16 0.C6 .06

16 Ace*:tir2 4ri4feirool

1.71 0.91 1.73 0.31 0.11 .91

17 111-1 ee.:1rra oretrarir rarcir. ofty effect., ofthe.

2.71 1.17 Lfit 1.31 0.10 .70

10 Peale* el ....dere*orb lootest bd 1 el 0.00 3.10 1,21 0.31 .69CI",

SO Assa.r.ttcreArl to 7441-1littC tfn.:srato 3.33 1.00 $.69 0.13 0.31 .11rd atilat.tra ofst,derto

40 Cleo- conocao6o ofoopeliar.g atwritten oil

Lel 4.01 3.27 0.30 1.10 .01

polo of.

7611-4 TT (continued)

Var.VerfobIe bane 11172.111,-

AT.union .4,. 37 %.7,.

le paerirv relay end!till "

11 My Inteett endentbtlia.eend naintil.n that LIE 1'91of l'e toluleet

13 Atoll rrerespell:re, iro...,or, 1.90 1.11and trtl,,s, tote,

16 Shut 1,1,3 el furfoseleol emir,liSout thief affil

4.12 0.07ere notodes 1.414On that (*enc.. tosell. te^edied

IS A Food houseleeper LLL1 0.14If Co.t.olts rt.?,

isaginotion end LA/ 0.00fmiclitie*

17 EffAele,t tie ofth11 be.r!S rand Li! 2.114,..71,6 (evicts

10 factleyare root andIry sirs ),LI 0.97

10 Tlsog tore tf sthnolequie,nt tor.d top. 4.10 1.64plies 44 env')

10 Control of cloy111 !Al 1.004

11 /rotor heat 1 Yen-1lities 31,1 LAI 0.11cl ft

21 Deo .!uoteents 1.73 1.6723 1441,mtoin.T4 clsol.

Togo re.ordir. LLLL 1.11plot. etc.

1-1(0.101) 6 AT/IITOTS14 Plan work to . '-.ore 3,33 1.0$20 Avoid1.4 .4 Lli 1.14

use of ihtttee120 C3ec1Ari. rapoff,

loorkbon111. t. tea 2.11wpb of other.e* de It

3.63

3 22

3.40

3.63

3.13

3.30

1.22

3.20

3.03

3.00

3.47

2.67

3.61

1.57

1.43

3.1'

1.03

0.16

0.66

1.07

1.01

0.11

1.21

0.71

1.16

1.06

0.07

1.17

1.00

1.07

1.22

0.117

0.40

0.00

1.21

1.11

1.04

OM

1.11

0.11

0.13

1.23

1.11

1.19

1.11

0.21

1.31

11.02

.61

.01

.20

.01

.04

AO

.27

.01

.06

.43

.11

.11

At

.70

.16

.21

TAPIA IV ( Continued)

V"' Varier:, %a otKr.fr trove (3 fir :-

'ean 3!)-----.-

Peon 9I

fb:ue !lo,ve

41 13111net tare, -lento ofthe a/aid to

ell _n flutleff

LAI 1.11 3.13 0.01 1.21 .14

43 Is outiect metirong.ful Li L .06 1.11 0.11 0.20 .713

63 tel. child receive*114,Liees ov4,yr-te&Ity for learo.lc Or. thesubjects

3.11 0.60 3.07 3.13 0.70 .436

44 Charaog feoponflo-tlify forunooflotoctofytort of ciao*

2.13 0.91 3.61 OM COO .3204$ Loofg for ter

ideas t eateri14ter s,;tot:rstest Lone

3.43 1.11 3351 0.72 0.31 .7:$

34

Data.--An examination of Table IV shows that the LBgroup scored higher than the CB group on thirty-six of theforty-five item variables. Of these thirty-six variables,six were significantly higher using the Wilcoxon Rank SumTest. There were no item variable scores for the CD groupwhich were significantly higher than those of the LB group.All six item variable scores were significant at the .05level--z and j values are shown in Table IV for thesevariables. Total score (3) was not significant at theestablished level (.05 on a nondirectional test). i andE values are 1.39 and .163, respectively. While eachvariable on the previous two instruments (both reflectingthe perceptions of a trained observer) favored the experi-mental (CB) group, this self-report generally favors thecontrol (LE) group.

Findings.--The total score hypothesis and thirty-nine of the forty-five item variable score hypotheses wereaccepted. Of the forty-six subhypotheses for the "Teacher'sSelf-Report," forty were accepted. The control (LB) groupwas found to differ significantly from the experimental(CB) group on only six of these forty-six variables. Sig-nificance on these six variables was in the direction ofthe LB group.

Hypothesis One--Student Opinionnaire

For all subjects, there is no significant differencebetween the control (LB) group and the experimental (CB)group as measured by the various scores obtained from the"Student Opinionnaire":

a) Total score (F).b) Item variable scores 1-26).

These data are shown in Table V.

Data.--An examination of Table V shows that the LBgroup scored higher than the CB group on all twenty-six"Student Opinionnaire" variables. Of these twenty-sixvariables, only three were significantly higher using theWilcoxon Rank Sum Test and established alpha level. How-ever, three additional item variable scores were signifi-cant at the .05 level on a directional test. Z and Bvalues for total score and item variables are Mown inTable V.

Findings.--The total score hypothesis and twenty-three of the twenty-six item variable hypotheses wereaccepted. Of the twenty-seven subhypotheses for the

041112 V

SIUDIST Cff70171 (LA) CROUPAMV LIP161'1%1AL 1(0) CRC:L.

CO 1IEM %.1.01AILES

ar" Verlable NameNr,

L5 Ere., Cs1

"'rep, SD ',ran 5D value Svlue

1 Ability to stinulate others

2 Control sr! diret-tion of class

I Attitude tosr4stvlents

4 Fairness in %ratitesAcee-plisetrit spe-

cific lessongoals

6 'testability ofsrted ttettcoR

7 Sultatiltte ofreference

A;ro7flift testsII freshness of p

lotion10 Fnevledze of subject11 Claim dIscussion12 Teacher's tr.t

ir. ',ejectAI Inn ttt stirs t1ass

,torr slisstens14 OritatiAatIon el the

classreox ttttt onsIS TesAher's self.

eontiterce111 Clearness of

erplarotions

04

3.09

EJ

el

0.14

3.06

3.75

0.56

0.41

0.56

0.53

0.41

0.03

0.42

0.41

0.01

0.420.07

0.43

0.71

0.47

0.47

0.47

3.40

3.64

4.0)

0.116

3.75

3.46

3.50

3.62

3.68

4.231.60

4.17

3.06

3.57

1.11

1.65

0.41

0.12

0.06

0.47

0.46

0.39

0.48

0.47

0.53

0.110.57

0.45

0.61

0.30

0.02

0.60

1.54

0.0)

1.28

0.61

0.89

0.71

2.01

2.31'

0.78

0.271.37

0.46

1.81

2.110

0.58

0.67

.114

.SP"

.20:

.040

.073

.4611

.4/di

.021

.433

.710

.171

.013

.070

.030

.060

.383

7.59

3.17

1.733 '6

4.23

3.75

3.74

1.66

3.11

(CI) h30 (Lf) 9.40

The un4erltred mean indIcetes which stoup schlevedthe higher r.,.. score.

"S,Intficent at the .05 level on a twotailed test."Significant at the .01 level on a two. ta ilvd test.

TAKE VI

COOPERATING TEACHER'S SAO SUPERVISCR'S REPORTIT CONTROL (Lr) IIPEA/1"1,741 (Ct)

CREW ON Mg VAR:ASLE5

1.0. Variable Sanehr.

LS (TOO, (00'r 5:c,itica-re

Vein SD roan sD Value Value

ATTITUDEI Actit,te teamed [chi1 Attitude tossed

pupil'3 COC:CfAtillA 'it%

others4 Attitude t d

admin.Attitude toviird

classactivitySCH1Lao1r1P

6 irros!edte of subjectUse of littlish

gran -ar11 General lro,ledge

I.:Wet:010SAbilit. to ;Ian

in:truetio:10 A001131 to esecute

plans11 Enthusiasm fisslayed12 Selectitn of retnods13 Use of modern redia14 Avareness of pupils'

seed"IS Provides for indi-

vidual differ.0000

4.45 0,87

4.06 0.64

4.55 0,82

4.40 0.96

435 0.71

4.15 0.00

4.19 0.75

4.25 0.67

4.13 030

1.13 0.79

4.1) 0.924.11 0.874.6) 0.7)

4.10 0.74

3.93 1.07

P'30

4.60

4.63

4.77

4.53

4.60

4.07

0.77

0.56

0.50

0.71

0.01

0.48

pat0.63

0.73

0.60

0.760.630.77

0.72

0.03

9.49

1.07

0.26

1.11

0.31

0.17

2.82"1.0s

1.IS

1.62

1.99'

0.269.060.6:

1.74

0.73

.280

.7118

.233

.700

.060

.005

,2641

.250

.106

.017

.793.901.537

.082

.466

4.17

4.43

4.43

1.17

1.3127712777

4.40

4.17

(L11)(CB)

Tko underlined mean indi which troop achievedtho hither WA score.

"Significant at .00 level on too- tolled telt."Signifacnat et .01 level on two-toiled test.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

35TAKE V (continued)

LX Grout Cl Gem.,a. -.1....ercs

:ter: Variable Rase'iron S5 "020 SD Value VaIde

;

17 Method of presets- 3.79 8.48talon

18 Feeling between3 I5 0.63testier and close ...1.--

0$ Understanding['steers talk 3.09 0.03

20 Acceptance of3.95 0.04others

21 Cremate' or.. 3.71 0.43encoursget thinrs60----

21 Presentatfons hold-int attention 3.41 0.61

21 r," Ift Etuin help 4,09 0.47from teacher

24 24" of tatki'1 to 4.16 0.47the teacherIS Sense of humor 4.00 0.70

Generalermting of 0.26

chtea

3.00

3.63

3.75

3.11

3.68

3.20

0.117

3.93

3.783.10

0.02

0.68

0.60

0.03

0.111

0.60

0.66

0.60

0.71

1.76

1.44

0.87

0.60

0.14

1.50

1.80

1.61

1.2S

.078

.131

.3$$

.411

.817

.1:1

.071

.108

.221

VI (Continued)

Variable /8 Croux C!Croup )l; :: :errs

Mean SO 1.10 SD.

Vei.de Valme

111 Discussion leader-ship

If Skill in expositfon

14 Clarity Of Ilii20.rents19 Pupil eve/ultion20 Rapport with

students21 Mastery of tech

eki11501SCIPLIKE

22 Earns studentrespect

23 itespends to class-room behavior

24 Control conduciveto learning

Pi0s0sALITY29 Health26 Dress.trooning27 Self-confidence28 Dependability29 Maturity30 factional stability31 Voice32 Self-relinnte

4.20

4.10

1.10

4.13

4.40

4.10

4.33

4.10

4.7.0

4.034.104.131.104.00(.504.334.45

0.71

1.08

0.95

2.07

0.61

1.17

0.13

0 96

0.79

0.880.790.641.010.880.500.73SAS'

!al 0.611.10 0.79

1.350.711

1.11 0,77

4.43 0.73

1.33 0.61

4.37 0.81

4.1n 0.79

4.23 0.06

4.06 0.6177-, 0.05TM 0.0227.7 0.7737 7" 0.6i177-!' 0.00r.-1 0.7317,7 0.06

IA,0.60

0.01

0.77

0.00

Oaf.

0.28

0.79

0.26

0.531.4S0.960.000.911.600.611

0.54

.212

.549

301.442

.10"

.720

.771

.432

.7114

.599

.147

.007

.475

.s:e

.0'1

.556

.595

36

"Student Opinionnaire," twenty-four were accepted. Nosignificant difference was found between treatment groupson total score and on twenty-three item variables.Hypotheses for t'aree item variable scores "suitability ofreference materials," "appropriate tests," and "organiza-tion of classroom sessions" were rejected in favor of theLB group. The results here again favor the control (LB)group just as in the "Teacher's Self-Report" instrument.

Hypothesis One--Cooperating Teacher'sand Supervisor's Report

For all subjects, there is no significant differencebetween the control (LB) group and the experimental (CB)group as measured by the various scores obtained from the"Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's Report":

a) Total score (G).b) Item variable score (1-32).

These data are shown in Table VI.

Data.--An examination of'Table VI shows that the CBgroup scored higher than the LB group on all thirty-two"Cooperating Teacher's and Supervisor's Report" item vari-ables. Of these two were significant at the establishedtwo-tailed, .05 alpha level; however, two other itemvariable scores were significant at the .05 level on adirectional or one-tailed test. The Wilcoxon Rank SumTest was used in both cases to test significance of dif-ference. Total scores were not significantly different.Z and p values for significant variables are shown inTable VI. The results all point in the same direction asthose reported by the trained observer and opposite to thedirection generally reflected by the "Teacher's Self-Report" and the "Student Opinionnaire."

Findings.--The total score hypothesis and thirty ofthe thirty-two item variable hypotheses were accepted. Ofthe thirty-three subhypotheses for the "CooperatingTeacher's and Supervisor's Report," two were rejectedaccording to established alpha levels. The experimental(CB) group was found to differ significantly from thecontrol (LB) group on only two variables. Significance onthese two variables vas in the direction of the CB group.

Hypothesis One--Flanders InteractionAnalysis System

For all subjects, there is no significant differencebetween the control (LB) group and the experimental (CB)

37

group as measured by the various scores obtained on the"Flanders Interaction System Categories":

a) Total score (H1).b) I/D ratio scores (H2).

These data are shown in Table VII.

Data.--An examination of Table VII shows that theLB group scored higher than the CB group on the FIA scorevariable. Treatment groups scored about equal on the I/Dratio variable. Using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, therewas no significant difference between the CB group and theLB group on eigher of these variables. Z and p valuesgiveirfot the Hl and H2.variables are 1.07 and .285; andfor the latter, 0.10 and .919, respectively.

TABLE VII

FLANDERS INTERACTION SYSTEM SCORES BY CONTROL (LB) GROUPAND EXPERIMENTAL (CB) GROUP

Var. Variable NameNr.

LB Group CB Group Significancez p

Mean SD Mean SD Value* Value

Hl FIA scores 3.03 1.21 2.53 1.68 1.07 .285

H2 I/D ratio .169 0.14 .168 0.17 0.10 .919

(CB) N=30 (LB) N=40

The underlined mean indicates which group achievedthe higher mean score.

*Significance at the .05 level on a two-tailed test.aWilcoxon Rank Sum Test and Mann-Whitney U statistic

used to determine significance.

Findings.--Total score hypothesis (Hl) and I/Dratio score hypothesis (H2) are accepted. No significantdifference was found between the control (LB) and theexperimental (CB) groups at established alpha levels.

S2lected Subgroups Within the Population:

Male and Female.- -The pattern of scores for the maleand female subgroups is almost identical to that of thecombined groups (Tables II through VII).

38

Four Subject Areas.--Eight of thirty-two null hy-potheses were rejected. All eight dealt with "ObserverSchedule" and "Teaching Techniques Rating Form" variables.Four of these eight variables