DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 083 183 SP 006 976

AUTHOR Grandgenett, Donald J.TITLE A Comparison of the Ratings Given Ten Teacher

Applicants By Ten Public School Administrators Aftera Traditional Interview and a Video-Tape TeachingDemonstration.

INSTITUTION Nebraska Univ., Omaha.PUB DATE May 72NOTE 84p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-$0.65 HC$3.29Student Teachers; *Teacher Evaluation; *Teachers;Teacher Selection; *Video Tape Recordings

ABSTRACTThis study determined if add :-2d information in tfle

form of a 10-minute teaching demonstration on video tape wouldsignificantly change the ratings given 10 teacher candidates by 10judges in an earlier 15-minute interview. The judges were members ofthe Omaha school system responsible for interviewing and hiring newteachers. Subjects were second-semester student teachers at theUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha. Statistical results indicated thatthere were no significant differences between the ratings of judgesusing only ti,e traditional interview method and the ratings of thosebenefiting from the additional video tape. However, the lack ofagreement among the judges in ranking the candidates in both theinterview and the vide,Jtaped demonstration may have been significantenough to mask any treatment effect of the video tape. A criterion,and evaluative check list, or some other rating process that hasreliability, needs to be developed by school systems for theselection of teacher candidates. (Selected appendixes are included.)(JB)

A COMPARISON OF THE RATINGS GIVEN.TEN

TEACHER APPLICANTS BY TEN PUBLIC SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

AFTER A TRADITIONAL INTERVIEW AND A

VIDEO-TAPE TEACHING DEMONSTRATION

U.S. DEPARTMENTOFHEALTH,EDUCATION &WELFARE

ATIONAL INS1ITUTEOFEDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT

HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLYAS RECEIVED FROMTHE

NPERSONP R OR ORGANIZATION

ORIGINSTATEDACIOINTS

OF VIEW OR OPINIONS00 NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL

NATIONAL INSTITUTEOFEDUCATION POSITION

OR POLICY

A Study

Funded by the Senate Research Committee

University of Nebraska at Omaha

by

Donald J. Grandgenett, Ed.D.

May 1972

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In doing a research study, the cooperative assistance

of many people is always involved. This study proved to be

no exception. Foremost among such people are Dean Elton S.

Carter and the members of the Senate Research Committee, for

without their financial support, the study would still be in

the idea stage.

The writer is also indebted to Professor Ray Ziebarth

and Dean Paul Kennedy for their endorsement of the study.

Appreciation is extended to Professor Richard Wikoff,

Charles Wilson, and Barry Timanus for their suggestions in

handlinz the data in the study.

Recognition is also given to the diligence and daily

efforts of the Research Assistants, Sandra Wakefield and

Charlene Ainsworth.

Last, but in no way least, the writer wishes to express

his gratitude to his wife, Jean and children for their patience

and encouragement during the many hours necessary to complete

the study.

Especially to the previously mentioned individuals

and to all others who assisted directly or indirectly, the

writer extends his appreciation.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE. ********** . ii

LISTOF TABLES. ******** . . vi

Chapter

THEPROBLEM ****** 4 0 0 0 00 0 1

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 2 2

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY . . . . . .. 2

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED..... . . . . . .

Video-tape 0040.00Teaching demonstration.......

44.0

. .

4 0

,

0 3

.3

Teachers ..... . 0 0 0

Judges ...... . . . ...... 0 0 3

Interview . .... . . ..... 0 3

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . 0 4

MAJOR LIMITATIONS . . . ..... 0 4

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY 5

II. RELATED RESEARCH 7

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES L6

SELECTION OF THE POPULATION ...... . 16

PROCEDURES . . . . . . . ...... . 16

Budget 17

Selection of Judges and Teachers 17

iii

Chapter Page

Interview 19

The Video-tape Viewing Session 20

Treatment of the Data 21

IV. RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . 22

THE PROBLEM 22

RESULTS 23

CONCLUSIONS 27

RECOMMENDATIONS 27

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE STUDY. . . . . 29

APPENDICES 32

A. LETTER REQUESTING BACKGROUND INFORMATION. . . 32

B. LETTER OF COOPERATION FROM OFFICE OFTT PIMP PTi .A CEMF.NT . . . 34

C. REQUEST FOR RESEARCH GRANT 36

D. LETTER OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION 39

E. LETTER OF AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL...... 41

F. LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM OMAHA .

PUBLIC SCHOOLS 43

G. BUDGET 45

H. PERSONNEL 52

I. LIST OF TEACHER CANDIDATES AS CHOSEN BYRANDOM NUMBERS 55

J. LATIN SQUARE OF RANDOMIZATION 57

K. KENDALL'S COEFFICIENT OF CONCORDANCE 61

L. GRAPHS OF TEACHER'S RANKING ACROSS JUDGES . . 64

M. GRAPHS OF JUDGE'S RATING ACROSS TEACHERS. . . 75

N. LETTER VERIFYING EQUIPMENT INSURANCE 94iv

ChapterPage

O. LETTER OF APOLOGY FROM JUDGE 96

.P. INSTRUCTIONS FOR VIDEO-TAPE98

100BIBLIOGRAPHY.

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Analysis of Variance for Method (A) andJudges (B) and Subjects (S) 24

2. Simple Effects of Judges (B) for EachMethod (A) 25

3. Simple Effects of Method (A) for EachJudge (levels of B) 26

vi

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

The investigation was concerned with a comparison of

ratings of ten University of Nebraska at Omaha second-semester

student teachers by ten Omaha metropolitan public school

employers utilizing the traditional interview procedure with

the added exposure of a ten minute teaching demonstration on

video-tape.

The traditional method of selecting the best qualified

teaching personnel has come under recent attack by some

administrators. Heald and Moore seem to suggest the need for

more information in making a candidate selection when they

stated,

When a Superint-endent arbitrarily decides for oragainst a candidate on the basis of grade pointaverage, marital status, or the modulation of theapplicant's voice, his decisions can only be subjec+-ive.

Fawcett appeared to be somewhat doubtful of relying

only on an interview for the selection of personnel when he

stated in his book, School Personnel Administration:

Much has been written about the usefulness of thepersonal interview in the selection of personnel. Onedistinguished author from the University of Texas hascharacterized it as useful only for the purpose ofdetermining whether the candidate needs a seeing-eyedog.

1

2

Today there is an acute awareness of the vital role

of education in a democracy. This consciousness has prompted

wide spread re-examination of the structure, re-definition of

purposes and re-evaluation of the processes of education. One

way to improve public education is through better selection

of teachers; therefore, a study utilizing added information

in this process was considered important. The outcome of

such a study could have valid implications for the selection

of teachers and training personnel for public schools,

universities, and related professions.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this study was to determine if added

e- 4.. 2-U... ^4 4-,57+ mirsvet.a i-A=rhina drsmonA tratiall

on video-tape would significantly change the ratings given ten

teacher candidates by ten judges in an earlier fifteen minute

interview.

PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

The purposes of this study were: first, to secure,

list and identify data concerning current policies and

practices of teacher selection in secondary schools; and

second, to analyze the data obtained with regard to hiring

procedures using traditional methods and an added exposure

of a ten minute teaching demonstration on video-tape.

More specifically, it was the purpose of this study

to test the following hypotheses:

3

1. There will be no significant difference betweengroups that have had the traditional method ofjob placement ranking and those that have had theadditional benefits of the V.T.R. teachingdemonstration.

Hol: j= 0 for j HoA: j 0 0 for j

2. There will be no significant difference betweenjudges in subject ratings..

Hot: = 0 for Bk Hok: for all Bk

3. There will be no significant interaction betweenjudges and treatment levels..

H03: Bjk= 0 for Bjk HoAc: B 0 0 for Bjk

DEFINITION OF TERMS USED

Video-tape. This term denotes Sony one-half inchV.T.R7equipment. It consists of a portable 1/2 inchV.T.R. recorder and camera and a 9 inch V.T.R. monitorfor viewing the teaching demonstration.

Teaching demonstration. Two selected five minutevideo-tape segments of a lesson in which a teacher isworking with real seconaary students in a realclassroom pursuing a real lesson. One 4 1/2 minuteV:T.R. clip was of the teacher lecturing and one 4 1/2minute V.T.R. clip was of him working with a small group.Thirty seconds of the students entering the room andthirty seconds of them leaving the room was includedin the total ten minute clip at the request of the judges.

Teachers. For this study, this term designates tenEnglish student teachers who were doing their secondsemester of student teaching in the Spring Semester of1972.

Judges. This group consisted of ten individuals inthe metropolitan area who have been given the responsi-bility by their school system for interviewing teachersfor possible employment.

Interview. This was a regular interview conductedin tHEEFETTEional manner as dictated by the prospectiveemployer, with the exception of a twenty minute timelimit for each candidate.

4

MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS

In the initial phase of this study, it was necessary

to make a number of basic assumptions for the purpose o.-

forming a framework and a point of departure for the research.

It was assumed that the ten judges involved in the

study were competent and sophisticated enough to make

reliable and valid judgements concerning selection of

teachers.

It was assumed that all interviews we,:e conducted

under normal conditions.

It was assumed that all the teachers , the necessary

qualifications for placement consideration I the school

systems involved and that all credentials o.re complete and

available to the judges.

It was assumed that each candivace was given equal

exposure on the V.T.R. clip through the use of timed segments.

Finally, it was assumed that the period of two weeks

which was allowed between the interviews and the viewing of the

V.T.R. clip was sufficient to assure maximum objectivity in

the s,z;oring by the judges.

MAJOR LIMITATIONS

This research was begun with a realization of

existent inherent limitations within the study. The

limitations that result from such factors as techniques of

sample determination and research aims may introduce

certain biases. Specific limitations of this study include

5

the following:

1. Only Secondary English student teachers enrolledin Advanced Student Teaching in the SpringSemester of 1972 were included in this sample.

2. Only judges from major school systems of theOmaha/Lincoln metropolitan area were consideredas a part of the study.

Other noncontrolable factors which may have effected

the research were: (1) the psychological set o-L7 the judges

and candidates at the time the interviews were conducted;

and (2) the eccentricities of the individual video-tape

situations.

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

IP the decade since 1960, the use of the video-tape

1.,mo hae,rwri mQ

place as the use of some of the earlier observation and

feedback techniques - audiotape recordings, 35 mm time-lapse

photographs, kinescopes, and motion picture films.

However, a perusal of the literature germane to

research on video-tape feedback in pre-service and in-service

teacher education programs will reveal very little in the

way of empirical research compared to the voluminous citations

of so called "testimonial reports." Citing these articles

as to what others are doing at "Jones College" is important,

because most of our research emanates from current or planned

practices and the need to evaluate their effectivenss,

rather than the more efficacious use of research and

development models.

6

The ur ose of the ro ect was to determine whether

a ten minute segment of a video-tape showing the student

teacher in the actual classroom situation would assist a

school-employing official in the judicious selection of a

beginning teacher. At no time was any thought given to

replacing any of the traditional evaluative tools of placement

with the video-tape. From the very beginning, video-tape

was thought of as only a supplement to the conventional

forms usually found in the credentials folder.

CHAPTER II

RELATED RESEARCH

The following summation of related research studies

does not deal directly with the use of the video-tape recorder

as described.in this study. An extensive search of the related

literature and research journals produced no specific studies

in this problem area. However, the review of literature does

indicate several studies in which the video-tape has been used

in teacher education.

A descriptive journal article 'by Cyphert and Andrews

(6:1067-69) definitively analyzes the uses of video-tape in

teacher education, and is used here because most of the

research findings reported to date are related to one or more

of the following uses which are relevant to teacher education.

The article describes the use of video recordings to provide:

(a) observation material for a class or an individual student;

(b) immediate private feedback for a student teacher or

counselor trainee concerning his performance; (c) evaluation

of performance by a supervisor and a trainee; (d) specific

pre-planned recorded lessons as a basis for methods course

instruction; (e) situation materials to be used with

simulation procedures or case study analysis; (f) feedback

and supervisory analysis prior to immediate replication of

performance; (g) both demonstration and feedback in developing

7

8

specific teaching behaviors; (h) evaluation of teaching

performance on a before-and-after time lapse basis; (i)

research analysis of teacher behavior, pupil behavior, or

teacher-pupil interaction; and (j) instructor-prepared

materials for use with closed-circuit television, dial

access, or film loop independent study activities.

Much of the early research utilizing the video-tape

recorder was a spin-off from Stanford's microteaching project,

from which Allen and Fortune (2:8) reported that in a TV

feedback versus no feedback design, the trainees in the TV

group had behavioral changes significant at the five percent

level.

The University of Texas' Research and Development

tr,O l.ln Q.1401 onn allni-ori rocoarrth--------- %--__-_,

on students' openness to environmental feedback, with openness

being operationally defined in terms of teacher behaviors such as

increases in questioning and decreases in lecturing. Seventy-

seven elementary education majors comprised one control group

and three experimental groups which were tested and filmed

before treatment (feedback) and again after student teaching

18 months later. Although pre-post change differences

between experimentals and controls were not significant, the

behavior of the total group changed significantly from the

first to final filming--they lectured less, accepted pupils'

ideas more, corrected more, and asked more questions.

Stoller, Lesser, and Freedman (17:177) postulated and

tested the hypothesis that prepared kinescope recordings

9

provided a more effective medium of observation than closed-

circuit-TV and that TV observation was in turn more effective

than the traditional procedure of direct observation in

elementary classroom. Results showed that an objective

measure of information about methods of teaching failed to

confirm the hypothesis, but an essay examination assessing

ability to evaluate an observed classroom lesson strongly

confirmed the hypothesis..

Schueler and Gold (16:359) conducted research at Hunter

College on the use of kinescopes for supervising student

teachers by using a research design of supervision via personal

visitation (0), supervision via the use of kinescopes alone (K),

and supervision via a combination of in-person visitation and

nCnAD t-nkinescope recordings (OK[. .

measure change in teacher behavior, Schueler and Gold found

no significant differences between the control group 0 and

the experimental groups K and OK. They did report small

differences favoring K over groups 0 and OK.

At Stanford, Aubertine's research (3:7) led him to

conclude that some type of feedback was necessary in order to

change the behavior of teacher trainees. Findings were that

trainees who were provided video feedback and an opportunity

to practice correcting their "mistakes" from previous teaching

acts performed better at the one percent level of confidence

on subsequent demonstrations than a control group which

received neither feedback nor the' opportunity to practice.

Brooks (5:).) tested the basic proposition that teachers

10

who appraised their classroom interaction as viewed on video-

tape recordings would evidence greater growth in classroom

behavior than would teachers who did not see themselves on

video-tape. Changes in teacher behavior were determined by

analyzing three 20-minute tapes of each teacher recorded

before and after the inservice program, using an instrument

which measured cognitive and affective teacher objectives,

closed and open teacher methods, and verbal and nonverbal

teacher expressions. Brooks' data analysis led to a rejection

of the hypothesis that teachers who viewed video-tapes of

their own teaching would experience greater growth than

teachers who did not view their own tapes.

Woolman (18:9) investigated the effectiveness of

videu.-Laped LiemuLtLI.cLtiL by asseaGizi, shazgcc

practices and viewpoints of teachers, by analyzing the results

of the video-tapes with and without certain supervisory and

counseling procedurs, and by relating the amount of change

as seen by trained observers to the amount of change as

revealed by an inventory of teacher opinion and understanding.

The inservice program participants viewed five 30-minute

video-tapes which were prepared in advance. Observers visited

and measured all of the teachers before and after the five

tapes had been viewed. Woolman accepted the null hypothesis

that there was no significant difference between the three

groups that could be attributed to the treatments imposed.

Millett (12:3) attempted to answer the question, "Could

video-tapes produced for training purposes which displayed both

11

selected pupil cognitive behaviors desired in secondary school

social studies and also developmentally related teacher

behaviors affect the teaching behavior of social studies

intern-teachers?" Forty-three intern-teachers received

identical classroom materials to use in an experimental lesson

and were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Two groups

served as quasi-control groups (did not view video - tapes),

while the other two groups did view the video-tapes on how to

use teacher translation tactics. Interns teaching an experi-

mental lesson generated the data for measuring purposes. The

statistical analysis showed a significant difference between

the two groups which saw the video-tapes and the two groups

which did not.

HG Temple UuiviLy, R1-12-1:5 (10:E.) 2.cmparc.ri the

effectiveness of the two types of video-taped instruction by

determining if preservice teachers who observed video-tapes

of elementary school children using scientific methods performed

significantly better as science teachers than did preservice

teachers who observed video-tapes of the traditional lecture-

demonstration type. Pre- and post-video-tape checklists and

pre- and post-tests of science knowledge yielded data which

were analyzed to determine the relative effectiveness of the

two techniques for teaching science methods to prospective

elementary school teachers. The null hypothesis was accepted;

however, those who observed the experimental video-tapes tended

to increase their rating from their initial status to their

final status more than those who observed the control video-tapes.

12

Barron (4:3) attempted to ascertain whether or not

significant gains in openness would be evident in a selected

group of teacher trainees who received elementary language arts

methods instruction supplemented by microteaching and video-

tape techniques over a group supplementing instruction by

classroom observation and over a group not supplementing

instruction at all. Barron concluded from his statistical

analysis that Group One evidenced a positive and significant

gain in openness as measured by a Teacher Problems Q-Sort.

Groups Two and Three did not experience a significant gain.

An Ohio State University study by Reynolds (14:6)

compared the change in role concepts of a group of science

student teachers supervised in the usual manner with that of a

cry-min ennorvicod wit-h vidpilmtanA recordings. Using Corwin's

Professional-Employee Orientation Role Concept Scale before

and after student teaching, Reynolds concluded that there

were no significant differences between the experimental group

and the control group. However, 10 of the 18 behavior areas

tested were significant for those who received video-tape

feedback.

Young's (19:1) research at Stanford attempted to

determine the effectiveness of dubbing a supervisor's comments

onto a video-tape of a teacher's performance. All subjects in

the experiment prepared five-minute lectures which served as a

pre-test. The subjects then viewed symbolic model teachers on

video-tape. Each subject retaught his first lesson two more

times, with the last episode serving as a post-test. The

13

results of the study indicated that a model with a contingent

focus (supervisory comments dubbed onto the tape) did not

produce significantly greater differences in teacher behavior

than did a model with a non-contingent focus.

Acheson (1:1) tested the effects on selected behaviors

of teachers in training who observed their own teaching via

video-tape during supervisory conferences. The study was a TV

feedback versus no TV feedback design for three groups etchreceived indirect supervision, direct supervision, and no

supervision. The two criterion measurements were teacher

monologue in terms of percent of time and the frequency of

teacher-pupil interaction episodes. Television feedback

combined with supervisory conferences, either direct or

r 0'

selected behaviors than supervisory conferences without

television.

A study by Roush (15:21-24) conducted with the University

of Houston's Teacher Corps project used five five-member

groups, each of which was video-taped three times. The control

group's members did not receive any feedback, while the members

of the four experimental groups differed in the amount and

kind of video-tape feedback given. Each tape was coded with

the Flanders Verbal Interaction Analysis System, using 1/D

Ratio as the quantitative criterion for behavioral changes.

Although the means for Experimental Group Four were

significantly higher than the other groups, an F test that

failed to exceed the five percent level of confidence led to

14

the acceptance of the null hypotheses.

One of the first studies in this area was done by

Olivero, (13:1) whose research answered the following questions:

(a) Does feedback from supervisors who observe television

recordings produce more change in trainees' behavior than

feedback from supervisors who observe the lesson taught in the

classroom? (b) Do trainees need to have feedback from

supervisors in order to change belavior? and (c) Does verbal

and video-tape feedback from supervisors produce more change

in trainees' behavior than just verbal feedback from

supervisors? Using the Stanford Micro-Teaching Appraisal

Guide to quantify changes in behavior, Olivero reported that

the answer to question one was no, answers to question two

grne

One generalization might be drawn from these reviews:

a lot of people are using the video-tape recorder, and there

has been at least a minimal degree of success. Where there

have been less than desirable results, the contributing factors

are more likely to lie not with the equipment used, but with

inadequate research designs, a lack of creativity on the part

of the researchers, or the constraining limitations of

measuring instruments, Whatever the conclusions, they should

be put into the perspective of the "early days" of experimen-

tation on the use of the video-tape recorder in teacher

education. Also implicit in the reader's conclusions should be

the idea that if teacher educators are going to continue to

invest time and money in acquiring media accouterments for

15

learning laboratories, it is incumbent upon them to continue

research in this area and, to go one step further, to put the

research into practice.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

The present study sought to secure and analyze data

concerning hiring practices using the traditional method and

the added exposure of a ten minute V.T.R. clip.

SELECTION OF THE POPULATION

The study was confined to the Omaha/Lincoln

metropolitan area school systems. The judges were selected

from the metropolitan school systems hiring a major percentage

of the teachers in this area. The ten teachers for the

study were randomly selected from a master list of the English

second semester student teachers, using a table of random

numbers. (See Appendix I)

PROCEDURES

The purpose of this section is to present a general

overview of the procedures which were followed during the

study in the areas of budget, selection of teachers and judges,

interviews, video-taped teaching demonstrations and viewing

sessions, and treatment of the data.

16

17

Budget

The proposal and a budget were prepared and submitted

to the Senate Research Committee. The proposal was ,4proved

and funded, December 6, 1972. (See Appendix C) Equipment

was then purchased for the study and insured through the

Office of Business Finance. (See Appendix N) This equipment

included a Monitor, the Video Corder, the Camera, a Wide Angle

Lens, a Battery Charger, and one extra battery. Also purchased

was a case for the equipment, ten video tapes, a tripod, and

a stopwatch. The total cost of the equipment was $1,794.78.

(See Appendix G for complete breakdown of budget). Two

personnel, in addition to the Graduate Assistant, were hired

to facilitate completion of this study. One was a Research

Anc.4a1-ant- othPr a typist.

Selection of Judges and Teachers

A request for participation in the study and a copy

of the project was sent to the ten judges who were selected to

be a part of the study. It was requested that they offer any

comments or recommendations which would improve the study.

Within two weeks all the judges had accepted. Two major

recommendations were forthcoming: (1) that approximately

one minute of the ten minute video-tape clip be devoted to

the class entering the room and leaving the room; (2) that

the interview be up to twenty minutes long instead of the

fifteen millute period which was originally alloted. These

recommendations were noted and incorporated into the study.

18

The selection of the ten student teachers was made

from a list provided by the Secondary Education department

of all the English second semester student teachers. A

table of random numbers was used to determine which of these

student teachers would participate the study. A list of

fourteen teachers was completed. After selection of these

teachers, a meeting was held to explain the study, and each

potential teacher candidate was given a copy of the study.

Each of the first ten teacher candidates from the list

consented to be a part of the study. Four alternates were

chosen in case of cancellations. The teachers who participated

in the study each filled out information slips and a permission

form. These teachers were requested tc complete their

credentials ac t..he eariiebL pubbiLit date.

Next, a list of teachers participating in the study

was sent to the Placement Office to enable them to prepare

and complete the credentials.

Permission was requested and received from the Omaha

Public Schools to conduct the research study in their system.

On February 17 and 18, each school involved in the study was

visited. At this time a copy of the study was given to the

principal of that school and to the co-operating ;teacher of

the student teacher. During the week prior to March 1,

taping schedules were set up for each of the ten teachers,

and a list of basic instructions for the taping session were

sent to the teachers. (See Appendix P) During the weeks

of March 1 through March 16, each of the teachers was taped.

19

If he did not like his first taping a new appointment was

set up and he was re-taped. It was found that certain

teachers had conflicts on March 4th, the day of the interview.

Therefore, the alternates that were previously chosen were

contacted and were consequently taped. Each taping session

was conducted by the Rese ch Assistant and the Graduate

Assistant. Each segment of the tape was carefully timed

using a stopwatch to insure correct time allotments for each

segment of the clip. The segments were taped alternately by

the Graduate Assistant and the Research Assistant to insure

against biases in taping.

The Interview

Permission was obtained from ten College of Education

faculty members for the use of their offices on March 4 and

March 18. Each judge was given a separate office. His name

and the school he represented was identified by a sign on the

door of his office.

The Latin Square was utilized to make a chart which

assigned each teacher to each judge for a period of twenty

minutes. Each teacher was given a schedule which told him

where to go for each interview. A total of twenty minutes

was allowed for each interview. During this time the judge

interviewed the teacher candidate, and rated him on a scale

of a low of zero (0) to a high of one hundred (100).

Every attempt was made to make the interview situation

as realistic as possible. Each judge had a set of credentials

for each teacher. Coffee was provided for the interviewer

20

and the interviewee upon request. One judge requested to be

interrupted once during each interview. This was carried out

as directed.

On March 4, all teachers and one alternate were

present. Nine judges were present. One judge was ill andere2

could not attend. (See Appendix 0) Orientations were given

in separate rooms to the set of judges and to the set of

teachers. During lunch the teachers and judges were also

separated, to insure greater validity of the study. During

the interview each judge was supplied with a score card for

each teacher that he interviewed. After dismissing the

teacher, the judge placed a score between 1 and 100 on the

score card. These cards were picked up before the next

4-1,^ 4rit-earNr4avIrg tha

judges were asked to rate the student teachers in a rank

order. After all the interviews had been conducted the

teachers were asked to rate themselves as to what score

they thought they received from each judge.

The Video-Tape Viewing Session

To prepare for the video-tape viewing session on

March 18 a request was sent to the Audio Visual Department

for ten video-tape recorders and ten monitors to be placed

in each of the" ten offices which were previously used for

interviews. A reminder was also sent to the members of the

Elementary and Secondary. Education Departments whose offices

were going to be used.

21

The taping and re4taping of the teachers was completed.

All tapes were previewed and checked for proper timing. The

names of the teachers to be viewed were placed on each of the

office doors which contained a V.1 R. tape recorder and monitor.

A Latin Square was again employed to randomize the order of

viewing the demonstration tapes. The judges were again given

score cards on which to mark their rating of one to 100.

On March 18 all nine judges were present. They were

given fifteen minutes to view the ten minute clip and record

the score for each teacher. These score cards were collected

after each viewing session.

Treatment of the Data

In comparing the data for hypothesis number one for

statistical significance, .a two-way analysis of variance

with repeated measures was used. In testing all other

listed hypotheses a one-way analysis of variance was used.

Analysis of Variance tables were used to interpret the data

and report the findings. (A graphical description of the

findings is included in Appendices L and M for the reader who

wants an added method of analyzing the data. In reporting the

study, only the Analysis of Variance tables were presented

to analyze and interpret the findings.)

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze

the data, to draw certain conclusions based on the summary of

the results, and to make recommendations with regard to their

implementation and further study.

THE PROBLEM

The purpose of this study was to determine if added

information in the form of a ten-minute video-tape teaching

demonstration would significantly change the ratings given ten

teacher candidates by ten judges in an earlier titteen-minute

interview.

More specifically, it was the purpose of this study to

test the following hypotheses:

1. There will be no significant 1ifference between

groups that have had the traditional method of job

placement ranking and those with the additional

benefits of a ten-minute video-taped teaching

demonstration. (Hol)

2. There will be no significant difference between

judges in subject ratings. (Ho2)

3. There will be no significant interaction between

judges and treatment levels. (Ho3)

22

23

4. There will be no significant difference between

judges for the traditional interview method. (Hon)

5. There will be no significant difference between

judges for the video-taped teaching demonstration.

(H0B2)

6. There will be no significant difference between

the traditional interview method and the video-

taped teaching demonstration for each judge.

(HCIAB)

RESULTS

In comparing the data for hypothesis number one for

statistical significance, a two-way analysis of variance with

repeated measures was used. In testing all other listed hypo-

theses, a one-way analysis of variance was used. Analysis of

Variance tables were used to interpret the data and report

the findings. (A graphical description of the findings is

included in Apendices L and M for the reader who wants an

added method of analyzing the data. In reporting the study,

only the Analysis of Variance tables were presented to analyze

and interpret the findings.)

According to the findings in Table 1:

1. The- null hypothesis (Hol) that there is no sig-

nificant difference between groups that have had the traditional

method of job placement ranking and those that have had the

additional benefits of the V.T.R. teaching demonstration is

accepted.

24

2. The null hypothesis (Ho2) that there would be no

significant difference between judges in subject ratings is

rejected at the .05 level of significance.

3. The null hypothesis (Ho3) that there will be no

significant interaction between judges and treatment levels

is rejected at the .05 level of significance.

Table 1

Analysis of Variance for Method (A) andJudges (B) and Subjects (S).

SV df SS MS

(ANN,

Judges (B)

Subjects (S)

AB

AS

BS

ABS

1

8

9

8

9

72

72

9h1.66

3,266.00

3,627.22

2,948.04

802.01

6,253.28

5,334.79

261.66

408.25

403.0

368.51

89.11

86.85

74.09

261.662.94

48i:2i86.85

4.70*

368.514e97*

74.09

25

The hypothesis (HoB1) states that there will be no

sioiLicant difference between judges for the traditional

interview method.

The hypothesis (HoB2) states that there will be no

significant difference between judges for the video-taped

teaching demonstration.

According to the findings of Table 2:

1. The null hypothesis (HoBi) that there will be no

significant difference between judges for the traditional

interview method is rejected at the .01 level of significance.

2. The null hypothesis (HoB2) that there will be no

significant difference between the judges for the video-taped

teaching demonstration is rejected at the .01 level of

Table 2

Simple Effects of Judges (B) for Each Method (A)

SV df SS

452.91BA

1Interview 8 3,623.32 452.91 86.85 = 5.2149*

BA2 V.T.R. 8 3,078.40 384.838846.8805

= 4.45*

BS 72 6,253.28 86.85

*p < .01

26

The hypothesis (Hogg) states that there will be no

significant difference between the traditional interview

method and the video-taped teaching demonstration for each

judge.

Table 3

Simple Effects of Method (A) for Each Judge (levels of B).

SV df SS MS

AB1

AB2

A

A

AB

Ag6

AB7

Ag8

AB9

AS

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

I

9

125.00

61,25

,^vv.vv

31.25

2,332.8

288.8

.20

288.8

1.25

802.01

125.00

61.25

nn ^^.v.v...

31.25

2,332.8

288.8

.20

288.8

1.25

89.11

125.00 1.489.11

61.25.69

89.11

. ^^e2V

89.11

31.25 .35

89.11

2,332.8=26.18*

89.11

288.8 = 3.2489.11

.20 _41

89.11

288.83.24

89.11

1.25

89.11

*p .01

27

The effects of method (A) at Judge 5 (B5) was

significant at the .01 level. All other null hypothesis

(AK) through (AB9) are accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study should be generalized to other

situations only after definite relationships between those

groups and the sample of this study have been clearly estab-

lished. An examination of the findings in this study has led

to the following conclusions:

1. A criterion check, an evaluative check list, or

some other rating process that has reliability needs to be

developed by school systems for selection of teacher candidates.

L. very liuule pLedit-LiuLt vi saiacticia can bc

made with the present interview techniques or with the addition

of watching video-tape in selecting teacher candidates.

3. The adding of video-tape for viewing by judges

does not make any difference when they are free to use their

own evaluative process.

4. As indicated by results of the study little can

be done with preparing candidates for an interview due to

the inconsistency of agreement among the judges.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of this study may be generalized only to

populations :that meet the sampling requirements used in this

study. The results previously described and the limitations

28

thus set warrent the following recommendations:

1. A replication of this study should be made with

the modified design of having five judges rate

the interview and the remaining five rate the

video-tape teaching demonstration at the first

session. The sequence would be reversed at the

second session.

2. A study should be made to develop a reliable

criterion by which judges might rate teacher

candidates more consistently.

3. More emphasis should be placed on exposing

students to various interview situations in

their undergraduate teacher training. This

7. 1 1. _1 2 _ - 1 s-OLLCIU.1%1 JAAVW.I.VC ac "--- ac

role playing.

4. An opinion survey should be made of students who

have participated in numerous interviews for

the purpose of providing feedback in identifying

problem areas in the interview process.

5. A program should be established which emphasizes

alternative hiring procedures for training

personnel who have the responsibility for

teacher selection. This program should be

organized as a seminar, a workshop, an

inservice program, or a course.

6. A replication of this study in other states on a

national basis, to determine better national

29

applicability and significance should be

conducted.

7. A subsequent longitudinal study is recommended to

measure changes in administrative attitudes

toward the hiring process which may result

from a so called "teacher surplus."

GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE STUDY

In a study of this nature, there are always some

comments and findings that were not deemed significantly

important to report in the final write-up stage; however,

they are of interest as an insight to the total study and

to further research in the area. The reader is cautioned

LLeaL Part C.f. thC rcp,:rt az: vtr4 f4t rcocth,

but more of the nature of added data that may or may not

be significant.

The lack of significance in hypothesis number one,

(which would not allow the rejection of the null hypothesis

that there was no significant difference between the scores

given the group of candidates by the judges between a

regular interview and a video-taped teaching demonstration)

might have due to several factors4The lack of agreement

among the judges in ranking the candidates in both the

interview and the video-tape demonstration may have been

significant enough to mask any treatment effect of the

video-tapeThe tendency of the judges to remember certain

characteristics of a candidate after rating them in an

30

interview may have influenced their rating of the video-tape

demonstration.

Other results that may be interesting were:

1. In the majority of cases (75 per cent)

students were rated lower as a group after the

judges had viewed the video-tape demonstration,

than when they were given a ranking after the

interview.

2. Students stated in discussions following the

interview that each interview was different in

content, atmosphere, and the candidate's role.

They could not speculate from one interview

what the next one would be like.

morn of

what to consider in deciding upon their "best

performance" for use in a video-tape teaching

demonstration. Several students stated they

chose the first taping because of a lack of an

example criterion to apply to their demonstration.

4. Several of the judges indicated they had no specific

training to prepare them for selecting the "best"

candidates from a group of applicants. In some

cases, judges had little previous opportunity to

examine their own interviewing skills or watch the

methodology used by others with similar

responsibilities.

5, All of the students in the study stated that it

31

was a worthwhile experience and that it was one

that should be considered as an integral part of

of the undergraduate program.

After completion of the study, it can be re-affirmed that

the selection of candidates for a school system is one that is

rich in promise, but in dire need of additional research.

APPENDIX D - LETTER ;OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION

UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA Sr OMAHA

INTE D ri LTA fi ,2 2NTAL COL71:7;12.5201iD2NCII

Date: December 2 1971

To: Dean Carter - Senate Research Committee

From: Don Grandgenett

Subject: Research Proposal - Background Information

This idea for this study has come about from my many visits withnumerous personnel in public schools end universities who have theresponsibility of selecting teachers for positions in our public schools.The discussions have also included members of business and industry whohave expressed a desire to know the results of such a study. Dr. Hunter,who is working with the C.O.O.P. program, has expressed an interest in theoutcome of the study as well as Mrs. Yvonne Harsh, who is in charge of ourplacement service here at U.N.O. (see Appendix B). Last March, 1971, Ivisited with Dr. Hefley (see Appendix A) about the merit of this study.At that time, he suggested I undertake an exploratory study with thepossibility of the results providing a basis for a larger project fundedby the Federal Government.

In deciding upon the deefgn and statistic to be used, I have visitedwith several of my colleagues here at U.N.O., including Dr. Wikoff andDr. Kessler of the Psychology Department. I have attempted to incorporatethese suggestions to make the study as "tight as possible-. every a5 tempi,

will be made to be sure any Liases in the study are minimized.

The purpose of providfng this background information for the ResearchCommittee is not to bias their decision, but to be certain that all infor-mation is available for them to consider in making their decision. I would

be happy to discuss the study in person if they so indicate.

I'm certain this study will be done by someone in the near future,I!n hopeful it can be me.

Respectfully,

Don Grandgenett,Associate Professor of Education

bas

APPENDIX G - BUDGET

REQUESTED BUDGET FOR PROPOSED RESEARCH

Amount regnested of

Name of Applicant Don J. Grandgenett Senaii. Research Committee

A. SALARIES AND WAGES (Itemize names if known, and rateplus Social Security.) Social Security match-ing funds must he included iu the budget forall salaries and wages paid out of SenateResearch funds. Matching funds for 1971-72re M.

I. Permanent Appointments - Realeased time

S

5925.25

1624.02

1/ 6

2. Graduate Assistants - Research Graduate AssistantSenate Research $1260.00S.S. Matching Funds $65.52

1325.52

3. Temporary Appointments

4. Hourly and Part Time - Clerical and secretarial helpSenate Research $380.00Social Security $ 19.76

None

399.76

B. CAPITAL ADDITIONS AND PERMANENT EQUIPMENT

1. Physical Plant Alterations and Service Facilities None

2. Permanent Equipment 1900.95

C. OPERATING EXPENSES

1. Consumable Supplies (See itemized sheet attached)

2. Travel ,;See itemized sheet attached)

3. Fellowships

4. Other Expenses. Specify (e. g., computer time, see AnnualReport, Part III, Section B.5) - Telephone 017-1681-139

D. OVERHEAD

25 Is

100.00

51)0.00

50.00

TOTAL $ 5925.25

47

A. SALARIES AND WAGES

1. Permanent Appointments - Released Time $1624.02

Based on four hours released time atpresent salary of 12,350 per year with 5.2%matching funds for Social Security.

2. Graduate Research Assistant

One graduate research assistant for one semester 1325.52

The duties of this research assistant wouldinclude assisting in the video-taping of theteaching demonstrations, helping in coordinatingthe interview sessions and aiding in the a_similationof the results. Under the direction of the author,he would assist in the preparation of the finalreport and dissemination of the results.

3. Temporary Appointments None

4. Hourly and Part Time-Clerical and Secretarial Help 399.76

The duties of this individual would includetyping of letters and other study correspondence,helping arrange the Saturday morning sessions andother meetings in regard to the study. She willalso type the final report of the study as wellas type the material needed to publish the resultsas widely as possible.

B. C.2ITAL ADDMONS AND PERMANENT EQUIPMENT

1. Physical Plant Alterations and Service Facilities None

2. Permanent Equipment

1 Sony Vi:!erover, II model 3400/AVC 3400AVC-3400 Camera 2=7376" (W) x

5" (H) x 15-1/16"D Weight 6 lbs. AV-3400Videocorder 11" (W) x 6-3/16"H x 11-5/8" Weight18 lbs. 12 oz. (with battery pack and reel).

This equipment is vital to the study inrecording the VTR teaching demonstrations onVideo-tape. Its portability and size make itpossible to record these teaching demonstrationswith a minimal amount of confusion to the normalclassroom environment..

48

$1495.00

1 Sony CVM-9200 Portable Monitor 195.00---7" (measurea-aanaLly)

Dimensions: 10-2/5" (H) x 9-1/3" (147) x10-3/5" (D). Weight 13 lbs. 13 oz.This monitor is needed for playback purposes inthe study.

10 1/2 inch Video tapes V-30H 1210 feet $21.95 each 210.95Tapeqa-11 be used to record teachingAcqnnrictratinTIR

C. OPERATING. EXPENSES

1. Consumable Supplies

2. Travel

3. Fellowships

This mole,,y would be used to pay each judge$25.00 for each Saturday morning that he wasinvolved in the interview and the teachingdemonstration. Payment would involve approximately$50.00 total for each judge for approximately twohalf days. The personnel involved in this study areextremely busy people and the amount of time on theirpart is more than in many studies where they simplyfill out a questionnaire or a similar instrument.

25.00

100.00

4. Other Expenses - Telephone 50.00

TOTAL $5925.25

DIVISIONS

APPENDIK G

ITEMIZED EXPENDITURES

DATE:

MARCH 31, 1972

BUDGET

INVOICE NUMBER

AUTHORIZATION

AND/OR ITEM

EXPENDITURES

BALANCE

A.

SALARY AND WAGES

1.

Permanent Appointment

$1624.0'4.

$1624.02

2.

Graduate Research

Assistant

$1325.5;.

$1325.52

3.

Temporary Appointment

none

4.

Hourly and Part Time

$ 399.76

$ 124.20

(Additional funds transferred

from "Honorariums"

C-3)

+ $

25.00

$54.00

$ 178.20

$246.56

$3374.30**

$246.5

B.

CAPITAL ADDITIONS AND

PERMANENT

EQUIPMENT

1.

Physical Plant Alterations

and Service Facilities

2.

Permanent

Equipment

(Additional funds 4/8/72)

TOTAL

none

$1900.95

0-15621

$ 283.00

Case

$55.50

$2183.95**

Battery Pack

$29.50

Ten VTR Tapes

L.126.20

$ 211.20*

0-15620

Sony TV System

$1260.00

Wide Angle Lens

$54.00

Monitor

$ 162.00

$1476.00**

0-16319

Stop Watch

DIVISIONS

BUDGET

AUTHORIZAT:ON

INVOICE NUMBER

AND/OR ITEM

EXPENDITURES

BALANCE

0-16050

Undirectional

Microphone

$34.95

Adapter

$49.50

Tripod

$40.00

(less 23.2%)

$95.58*

0-16831

Electric

Typewriter

$392.00*

$2183.95**

- $2186.29*

2.34-

C.

OPERATING EXPENSES

1.

Consumable Supplies

$25.0)

Duplicating services

$20.05

$50.00

(Additional funds transferred

Mail Room

$10.56

- $

30.61

from C-3 "Honorariums")

+ S

25.0)

Authorization

Number 467

$19.39*

$50.0**

February

$9.04

2.

Travel

$ 100.00**

March

$4.48

April

$14.24

$27.76*

$ 100.00

- $

27.76

$72.24**

3.

Fellowships

(Honorariums)

$ 500.00**

Mr. Monty Allgood

$50.00

Mr. Paul Basler

$50.00

Mr. Rex Cadwallader

$50.00

Ms. Sharon Clark

$50.09

Mr. John Johnston

$50.00

Dr. Frank Lee

Dr. Carroll Sawin

$50.00

$50.00

Ui 0

Mr. Craig Whitney

$50.00

Mr. Ron Witt

$50.00

$ 450.00*

DEVISIONS

BUDGET

INVOICE NUMBER

AUTHORIZATIDN

AND/OR ITEM

EXPENDITURES

BALANCE

4.

Other Expenses

$50.00k*

$ 500.00

- $ 450.00

--3?$

50.00

a.

Audio Visual Department

#13-2446

- $

50.00

10 slides of graphs

$3.50#

,$

00.00**

#12,073

b.

Rental - Canon Calculator

10 name cards

-

$3.75

two weeks

$35.00

c.

Telephone

$10.86

d.

Bookstore

$1.34

$50.00

- $

54.85

$

TOTAL REMAINING

$ 331.00

as of 3/4/72

KEY

Expenses incurred after March 31

but not received in a budget statement

$25 transferred to secretarialhelp and $25.00 transferred to

consumable supplies

*Subtotal

i*

Total for a section

APPENDIX H

PERSONNEL

JUDGES

Mr. Monty AllgoodAdministrative Assistant

Mrs. Sharon ClarkAdministrative Assistant

Mr. Craig WhitneyDirector of Personnel

Mr. Rex G. CadwalladerAssistant Superintendent

Mr. Ron WittAssistant Superintendent

Mr. John JohnstonSuperintendent

Mr. Paul D. BaslerSuperintendent

Dr. Frank LeeSuperintendent

Dr. Carroll SawinAssistant Superintendent

Mr. Benjamin E. KrantzSuperintendent

.943

Omaha Public Schools

Westside Community Schools(District 66)

Council Bluffs Schools

Bellevue Public Schools

Millard Public Schools

Ralston Public Schools

Papillion Public Schools

Lewis Central CommunitySchools

Lincoln Public Schools

Blair Public Schools

54

TEACHERS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY

Jon Bridgewater

Linda Cavey

Robert Frank

Ron Gabriel

Richard Hall

Carol Jackson

Henry Jackson

Kevin Nolan

Ruth Ridder

MaryBeth Shoemaker

BUDGETED STAFF IN STUDY

Dr. Donald J. Grandgenett - Project Director

Mrs. Sandra Wakefield - Research Assistant

Mrs. Charlene Ainsworth - Graduate Assistant*

Mrs. Sandra Vargas - Secretary

Mrs. LaDene Black - Secretary

*This person was not directly budgeted butdevoted much of her time working on this study

APPENDIX I

LIST OF TEACHER CANDIDATES AS CHOSENBY RANDOM NUMBERS

NAMES RANDOM NUMBER

I. Cheryle Babbitt 16

2. Jon Bridgewater 5

3. Richard Brown 14

4. Linda Cavey 11

5. Robert Frank 9

6. Mike Freis 13

7. Ron Gabriel 8

8. Richard Hall 6

9. Carol Jackson 7

10. Henry Jackson 1

11. Charles Neumann 15

12. Kevin. Nolan 4

13. Ruth Ridder 10

14. Mary Beth Shoemaker 3

15. James Tramel 12

16. Marla West 17

17. Marianne Young 2

APPENDIX J

LATIN SQUARE OF RANDOMIZATION

LIBRARY TABLE OF LATIN SQUARES

S7/5 8

This table was taken from Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural

and Medical Research by R. A. Fisher and F. Yates (Edenburgh, Oliver & Boyd, 195)

pages 80 to 82.

A BCDEF G H I J

B G A E H C F I JDC H J GE' BE A DID A GIJECBF H

E F H J I G A D BCF E B C D I J G H A

G I F B A D H J CEHC I F G J D E A B

I J D A C H B F E GJDEHB,AICGF

LATIN SQUARE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Random Letters (third randomization)

1 JDIGFCAEBH2 D E J H C A F B I G

3 I G B F J H C D A E

4 A C E J B F H I G D

5 EAHIGDBCFJ6 BIG A.HE DJ CF7 H F CE-IJ G A D B

8 C B F D E G I H J A

9 G H D B A I J F E C

0 FJA:CDBEGHINumber Code (Judges)

Allg:cci1 Allgood 1

Basler 7 Clark 2

Cadwallader 4 Whitney 3

Clark 2 Cadwallader 4

Johnston 6 Witt 5

Krantz 0 Johnston 6

Lee 8 Basler (

Sawin 9 Lee 8

Whitney 3 Sawin 9

Witt 5 Krantz 0

Letter Code (Candidates)

Bridgewater 4 Frank A

Cavey 9 Shoemaker B

Frank 1 Jackson H. C

Gabriel 6 Bridgewater D

Hall 0 Jackson C. E

Jackson C. 5 Gabriel F

Jackson H. 3 Bidder G

Nolan 8 Nolan H

Bidder 7 Cavey I

Shoemaker 2 Hall J

.59

LATIN SQUARE #2 TAPE-VIEWING SCHEDULE

Random Letters (third randomization)

_1 -G _I C _D B .F E A J H

.2 "J E Z .AIDDCEF'3 'F :0 I H .0 A J B G E

4 2E :J .1) G A I C. H F B

5 :I IC A BY EHJD G

6 A -A .F E .1) J I G H C

7 :D 2B E J .H G A F C I

8 H .0 _B Z E D F I A J

9 C E 2J F G H B D I A

0 A. :F H I 2 C G E B D

Number Code (Judges)

Allgood 3 Basler 1Basler 1 1,71.,44-.,,,i

... ...- 'J 2

Cadwallader 8 Allgood 3Clark 9 Johnston 4Johnston 4 Krantz 5Krantz 5 Sawin 6Lee 7 Lee 7

Sawin 6 Cadwallader 8Whitney 2 Clark 9

Witt 0 Witt 0

Letter Code (Candidates)

Bridgewater 7 Gabriel ACavey /4 Shoemaker. BFrank 3 Frank C

Gabriel 1 Cavey DHall 0 Nolan EJackson C. _8 Ridder FJackson H. 9 Bridgewater GNolan 5 Jackson C. HRidder 6 Jackson H. I

Shoemaker 2 Hall J

60

CALCULATION OF THE COEFFIEIENT OF CONCORIANCE, THE DATA CONSISTINGOF THE

INTERVIEWING RANKING OF TEN CANDIDATES BY NINEJUDGES.

(1)

(2)

Individual

Judge's Ranks

Candidates

12

34

56

A8

B9

C1

D10

E2

F3.5

G6.5

H5

I6.5

.1

3.5

W= 12(17112.5)

81 (10) (99)

W = .261

5 1.5

7 9.5

7 1.5

9.5

7 14 3

7

6 5 1

1 3 5.5

6 7 3

1 3

14 6.5

1

28.5

it

56.5

10

8.5

27

1.

35.5

99

8.5

lo

lo

98.

51

83.5

73

56

3.5

81

38

h2

(3)

(4)

(5)

Sum of

89

Ranks

I3

D2

9.5

45.5

4.o

16

22.5

37.5

1240

144

61

28.5

21.0

441

76

58.5

9.0

81

96

55.5

6.0

36

36

44.5

5.0

25

lo

6714.5

25.0

625

59.5

61.5

12.0

144

86

51,.0

4.5

20.25

12.5

35.o

14.5

210.25

495.o

1742.50

Kendall's Coeffiecient of Concordance, W.

Basic Statistical Methods, Third Edition,

N.M. Downie mid R.W. Heath, (Harper & Row, N.Y., 1970) pp. 124-125.

t'/

CAICtTT.ATION OF THE COEFFICIENT OF CCNCCRDANCE, THE DATA CONSISTING OF THE

TAPING RANKING OF TEN CANDIDATES BY NNE JUDGES.

(1)

Individual

7,andidates

1

A8.5

Blb

C1

D7 4

F6

G4.

It

I8.

5

w =

12

(291

5..t5

181 (10) (99

w = .286

2 9 5'

8 6 1 10

7 2

6.5

2 4.5

9 4.5

9 9 6.5

2

(2)

(3)

Judge s Ranks

Sum of

46

78

9Ranks

98

36

69.5

65.5

31

43.5

4.5

35.o

6.5

61.5

16

132.5

33

1.5

lo

3.5

2.5

47.5

10

78

910

9.5

68.o

15

92.5

1.5

4.5

39.5

6.5

10

10

89

7.5

74.0

6.5

25.5

68

2.5

48.o

3It

76

1.5

64o.o

,6

45.0

495.o

(4)

(5

DD

16.0

256.0

14.5

210.25

17.0

289.0

2.0

4.o

18.5

342.25

10.0

3no.00

24.5

600.25

1.5

2.25

9.5

90.25

20.2

1914.50

Yendallts Coeffiecient of Concordance, W.

Basic Statistical Methods, Third Edition, EN.Mr. Downi.1 and R.W. Heath, (Harper & Row, Na., 1970) pp. 124-125.((r)

Candidate #

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANEIDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10) )

Ta

iiim

1101

1110

011f

tler

e viewin

nankin.1~44.isr

............. ........--- -....................,,,...----=,

..----.1

4 I--

2 3 4 8 10

Judge

..0.4

16.1

111.

.Ilit

s,--

..,r

4A1.

01 1

Judge #2

Judge #3

Judge #4

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9-

ugh

Low

Candidate #B

raak

adal

liiIIR

eti.

-..,

ti.1.

1771

111r

i.ZIM

P-D

...

11

VZ

...11

Cia

illift

v101

6.O

....=

NO

S;

,,W.s

rM;S

IMIll

OO

NIN

OIR

.c

siox

i=21

..0.=

3110

.4,I

M. a

i S

liore

4..1

1

fl.-.

Ale

ilwal

liiim

-MiN

iraa

',../L

INIa

Lcat

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10)

)

Interview ranking

1

3

Tape viewing ranking

ANNWNOMMOr

1,,

V41

MM

a.aa

laill

aVae

l=-1

il. 4

../43

0/ar

atrf

e-..d

iaffl

iart

.

arm

aint

a..a

aeka

anar

zw.r

e.ro

am,1

MIM

ON

-70.

--11

Mia

latiL

.1.4

0P1b

-a.W

--

,SP

.Wha

-OM

Mad

liilfa

r...

.bal

aliw

arm

irmaa

ma.

sas.

va-I

m0a

a

-low

eilM

ON

AM

ION

ME

MO

GR

.11,

741.

1111

Afl.

Vol

ownI

IIIP

--

uraa

alle

-nal

.- ..

7. 4

111.

......

7.-

rara

lifig

nuai

laIP

S&

Llaw

im

ba.1

1111

0aiN

wV

.M...

...S

a,ra

il ao

llera

lwoo

trw

s.,;,

...4:

1110

1.53

a,,a

rlalim

itlift

rasM

ada.

+V

i.

eadM

ik.M

ON

P.

seal

iNai

erl~

.3.-

,MP

erre

AM

III/m

Nai

raiN

elib

ra, ,

044,

1MIII

IWIA

NW

OM

O:

ellia

llirM

inifi

ttha

EI,1

1111

1117

.41.

911:

01, w

ww

w.a

tals

o.a.

.1.

1

10

.13n

.a.iM

4640

04,W

m,c

"

Judge #1

Judge #2

Judge //3

sars

r F

rei

-w

iRan

Ead

palW

oonn

ak-

tlr,R

cilli

n..4

42,..

.ala

K.E

...C

r

Judge

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9

Candidate # C

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CAN:IDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10) )

Interview rankinc

UrftlagaX4MOWASF.WHA-

1

Ta e viewing rankin

AMMimissirsommr

0,41

.1%

10.1

110,

V1.

4t4.

4. -

.7.:V

MM

W=

.LY

-IIV

.112

i.V

...-.

1.7a

1b.A

.S44

0111

...da

illiL

l...1

,611

,-E

MM

A..

a sW

o..r

illia

ng...

.o.a

...71

0601

.

Ara

ewes

raw

...

Judge #1

Judge 112

Judge #3

Judge lb

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9

3

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANCIDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10) )

Candidate

fr D

Interview rankiu

,1Lelti:t.-2:222.21.122.111

.0.1

1Jid

41W

WW

W14

0,6

Edf

il4e,

c,r;

IMA

MA

MIM

WM

j2a

kurw

irsc

r

II;,,

,NY

1 W

Mil%

.111

0 %

...1.

1101

0:11

11J.

.4.+

Imm

oilii

reA

ms1

1111

,,IM

...1.

1.11

1010

.4-.

..1,

wi./

.14-

ti.G

INIW

WZ

AX

,

I

it..4

000A

0100

110.

011i

5Mva

rW

.OB

ILIS

.411

1111

12,0

1111

1W11

2

110.

3.6/

61A

.A44

113X

IMIM

MIN

WM

,r4.

1s^

aft1

1111

MM

IIII

P,;0

1411

---a

.,73

1411

:411

114.

1.,.

-MY

) V

TR

IX,

V.V

IAM

IIIX

LIP

AL

Judge #1

Judge #2

Judge #3

Judge

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9

nigh

Lo`

ri

Candidate htE

",a

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10)

)

Interview ranking;

Tape viewing rankin

Llif.

=40

.61:

1001

/a. .

,,,11

.111

1114

- a

caav

absu

a a

taira

a.ac

a

tala

wal

lliO

Pa

scoa

mat

aaim

larv

atar

til m

aaas

amaw

alar

amas

ebra

war

t

..

.iam

mow

Wim

mom

.111

10 1

.

1.11

mM

ITIM

.AP

tir 7

0151

11T

dyeE

k

:lip"

lir,a

{,Q

9

8ha

itam

,sag

..v,

10

Judge #1

Judge #2

Judge ;3

Judge.#:;-

Judge #5

Aaw

amda

aaftm

mak

aw-m

a

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10) )

Candidate it F

Interview ranking

/Tape viewing ranking

1 E

lmeM

ili.V

elkW

J.,1

10..4

0MIG

ffiria

.1 lw

111

0410

~M

O1,

V4W

,Lw

aNIM

.P.0

A

LOA

NG

AM

MW

.NO

NM

72.

LUN

A, I

MIM

M11

1.12

011.

1

.W..-

-1,1

ZaJ

O:0

110X

424&

&04

4....

.

.-wouavAmmoftm.......

r........

Judge #1

Judge #2

/111

111W

ill.w

rillm

aini

or. -

41. A

IM I

1411

INIM

IIMM

R,

1VPIMIN111.1111101..M.,,,

-wia

=f1

, nftr

ewur

ia..

' <2.

1111

1.11

1.01

1Wie

rt P

47.

4213

EM

MO

NIN

NE

AD

An.0

1O

WW

W=

MM

10,4

=4-

t,..

1 IJudge #4

Judge #5

4111

1000

1LIM

IYT

Oa

I I IP

le 0

1111

....:

.....x

imm

orm

x.7.

411A

W.4

10

Judge #3

Judge #6

Judge //7

Judge #8

Judge #9

sigh

Candidate /JIG

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANOMATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10) )

411111`

Interview rankiL LAm...i

Ta e viewinzmaing

arik

aiiif

tlieh

ra

.7.0

4OM

PIN

WIIA

N:Z

Z6

+.0

.111

t7P

.MP

lIMO

INIi2

.11.

." ,*

.t=11

1111

. ilk

IF:-

/DiL

t.-7

.AM

IIIN

SM

ION

Iam

tliliN

t . IN

IMN

IIIIIM

701.

.

I.1

1..0

111.

06K

at

1MIT

,

t man

"tat

atIta

rata

ga. :

.410

fill.i

tlik

I11I

NN

/G71

11.,.

trt.1

1111

11M

5td*

7:1

101.

; alb

tt1.0

0011

11O

tt!1-

,.1

1IgI

UM

.1.1

,

10

Low

-mar

om.-

asku

tli

Judge #1

Judge #2

Judge #3

Judge #,

Judge #5

Judge ##6

Judge ##7

Judge #8

Judge #9

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANE IDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10)

)

viewin

rankinz,.

7SZ

OO

OC

F.2

110~

0111

~-1

...IO

LAC

ION

CO

OM

iliM

ME

INE

lit-C

OM

MA

X O

MO

oli.1

0XIM

ioda

,4

10

Judge #1

Judge ff2

Judge #3

Judge

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9

Candidate

R.ANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CAN DMATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (1) to low of ten (10) )

Interview rankinE

Tape viewin

rankin

.00.

1111

1111

1111

.114

'IMPO

INIO

SON

I..0

,111

.111

1.11

13A

1

11.1

A21

11A

SS

IMIV

RA

MB

IAM

INI.,

:11.

104.

1

as. 4

1111

PO

MM

INftw

atim

iam

on.

3704

1111

1iiil

lailM

IA11

=1:

1111

il`"'

-ree

mir

----

=--

,.--.

r.s.

',,al

iCZ

ON

.114

2111

11:1

1Fam

iiiiii

ar

Judge #1

Judge #2

Judge #3

Judge #4

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9

tr'"

r"

r""4"

r-r-1

1"\

Candidate

RANKING OF INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATES ACROSS JUDGES

(*Ranking of high of one (

) to low of ten (10)

)

4a

MWINWPWW

fi J

Interview ranking;

Ta e v

wi,ligjanking.,

,,Tr1777,771,

s.

.........

,......iiigialiMMIMAYLAY

Al W

afia

.7uN

UM

01/4

0.21

140.

01.s

piw

e.

1

/.

1I

A4A

IMIM

MIA

SA

LMM

OM

MO

AM

MIL

IMA

IAJW

OU

SA

O,

1

r ,h

400:

..110

1011

117M

MIR

.' 1"

2

Mas

ft

War

aMW

W,1

0-1,

41.4

.4.4

117.

Ar

AS

IIIM

INO

IM10

10.1

~

sAro

issi

maa

lmar

ams.

. 4

mad

am-,

weh

imie

nsia

nuou

uois

..:ca

mm

iem

agal

i .0.

34K

atte

r

aftr

osof

Am

alaf

tmiO

rria

lmex

em41

9111

160=

MIL

IAG

R,W

0IIN

F

10

Judge #1

Judge #2

Judge #3

Judge

Judge #5

Judge #6

Judge #7

Judge #8

Judge #9

APPENDIX M

GRAPHS OF JUDGE'S RATING ACROSS TEACHERS(INDIVIDUAL AND MEAN SCORES)

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONALINTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION

JUDGE #1

Candidate's Score 'Treatment

Oi:NM,t0fs ( i,r,qc,Al

iew

A2

(Tape Demonstration)

FIS

cn

1- 4

0

9

9

8

8

7

7

6

55

50

.:'

.:

.

-1-.:

:.: I. :1',

.. . 1__. ._

..

1

. .

..

; : ,4':

!:1

i.

:I::

:

,

. :.1,'..;

:

. .

.

. -

::

4

: : . :

; :-.

: : :':.".

.

; : :

. ; ;

: : :-.--.":: .

I:

.

-

":.

.

..'

!

"::7,

-

:"."--.....

;

. .

...

":

;;:..:.!

1-.7

:,::

:'

:'::!:.:11". .; , .:._,_ _. ... ._.: ;" 1 ::

-1...-1 -1t :-. 17.-7

::

.: ' ::_ _

:: .

-.7:7-.1-1---.. ., .

, .. .

......L..::._t_L.

a ...

...::::: :-:aia 1...

...

.-___,_.__

.

.:1

.. _

1 ".1'

..: ..

.

-

.

I

. __

-:I,.:. :'

...1.:_:-.--

. : :::.1.-..L.

.-..1::.!,-.1.1.

LILL

:....:.

'-,

-..:

:::

.. 1

"HT I

1:;:i:.:. .

. :-:::'.... ! I ".

.

..

::::

:.:

:.,1

.....

:1::.

.

::: :7::1'1:: ::::."

, ,,

:: '...--I---:

. ..

- .

. -"

. ..-...

..:. .

'

- . .; ", .. . . :,-'.:.!:t ---

,:;;,,:::

-

-.7777177:7;:: ::',

7-7- 7774-77:1;1

....

.;:

....:1,.:7--;::;;L:i;:,

:7::

:

''''1:

.

::1:

1

.

'.....;_:.;',

-.1'

7'

.

.

.

'-

. ,

::

":'

::

-..

.. .

:,:: .

.

: :::):::::': ...

.;:::.,

:::..::

:1'-'..

::17:1"

:: :

:-'1: 7.

::

7777-7:. .

,.......:..2.:L.... :

.

..

. ::

:"::::.._:

-1

..

.. ..- -

.,..1, .. . 1

. ,"

.

::: :

. ::

: ,;.. ..:: .. .......:._

:.

I . .

,,

..

.: .. ...

--...." ..1,...

.. ::

..

::::

. ,. ..: .:;

.

.

:.:....::. : ::::

,

:..

..,. ....

. .-

- ...,__.

-......: .-r. 17---..-: :-:. ::7-7:- . ;..

i

:_:.... .......

..:: : :

-:......::::::.....:::::.-ii:*:-.

. , .

_1. . . .

. ..L

. : .::: - :::-- - -.. ....; .:.:. .. .

..' ,

: . ...-:: ...

....

7;:

:. i:...;:: .::.:::

i

:,:: . : I.:.... -

.

'

::. ..,......,:w.:: i ...:::.

,..:.

:, .:

. ..:: i';.

.-+.-

_.

.....,..---/'''.::.: .::::1::::.

-...:

.

...;LL

..............":

--.::::::::.

....... 1:

,

..

. Li:a...J.:::. ......

.

. .

.F.:...,.,... ...:L..:.,..

,,...: :,

'.

. .

::.;..

: :.

.

...1:...

7,,

:::

::: . ::::

,

I-:i: : .

...LL,

:' ..... ...... ,

:!...L.1::__: .,....:4 ...__

.; :1.:__::::

:...:L-

""

....:: ..""

.:__..'...

;::

.

:-:-..:.

:' .

.. L''...

.I.:::_.____ .

... .

..,.. '

:::: ::::_.....:....:..:

1

5

"" . .... ... , ...

..

,.,.

.::::::: .

-... .,..

.-.L::.1_:__L.

':: -:. ....

.........L..'

.:

.

i:.' :F::

.

.

..:I::::)

777.1"7:;1_;;

: :1

.

: -.: ::'.

. .

. : , . .

.:.. ..1

,..,

:::.....:

:::

;::-

;',.1........

:::'

-:::

...4

.

. ..

.:1 :.:::"'1:::. .

::1

1

.

...- 1:::

::: iI.:.

-

. .:::.1.1.1- L.:L.!:

.. . . .. ..

: .... .r....;,

..,l ' ,..

:..

":

1:'.

::: :::.:1:::

.

:;-,. .

.:1:: . 1 :::.:1::. ..

,.

.....

. ....

.

:: 1

. ..:: .

.. .,. ...:,

. .

.

. -

,

... .

.. .

;;; ;. ..1 .

2

:11..::..,".. ::

...

.

:.": .7.;....

.,,

--.

,

, .

:

.

I., 1:!.

....: . .. ...-:1:-.

!::::: _ : :

:

.--.

..

",..

..,........-............--

1:1

1

.

:4...

' :1 :!-1:..11'1 .:. .. ..

4....

Figure:II' -.1-------, ...

--"T':.,.

-:-:

.

.

: Comparison--VTR:::,-.......--:by-:judge-:,#17'

INTERVIEW):.. I I

Demonstration'

:,:..

i

:,.. "..,.: :::

i

of

1....:iii14

.:

. :

the.Traditional.-,

.

; ,; :.

.::0.,

.:

Mean:7 7

:,1,,

.

.:!:

.

Score:.:....

. ..

:

, i.

.t.1,...1..;;,4:-....1.

. :. -: . :,

:

:: ...

Given-::-:.iii-F:

.,, "...

: .

Interview....: I..,

"..." -:-:.

; (VTR.4 i 1

,'. , ::, ::

Meanfor -Student

:. : :.,7.1';" i:. 1..,.1 ...

: -.! ';:1:

jj

DEMONSTRATION1

I

'-:i17.7.:.,.,1,1;

.:::1

:

, ;;

Score-..Performance:-,

;;:-;(71-17.,..,...;1...,...,:

I :

and

:.:---i;"7,-;

.

.......

.

the .i-,,-..-1

*-7- .... .:-:-.-. li. .1 ... .. .

. . .

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL '

INTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION

JUDGE #2

Candidate 's Score_. Treatment,

. : : : A Intervi.ew ! !

1

78

i onammMIIMI. .

i

C i

A2 Tate Teaching Demonstration; : D Impoomompoompompb . . !

1

, ; . ,E i ; .__ . _i ' .Pamm..

G . .. 1

!

_

. .

IJ fr.....wwwwwww.

1

1 ;

. .

; i ;- ---. .

F l

-7- -15

8o

70 -:

, 1 ; . ; :

--I j. :;

.! I. I

.r I

I

.

;1

,i : : 1 ' ', :==

0'. : . ,i

.

: 7 ; '

.I

11 1.. al :

0 I1-1

1 ' ........6o a ,

,

,

:. .

. ,i 1

. .1,... :

. ;g I . . ... . ; ; ; . I

1 -.. 1 . : ';-,.-- -17-H----f--- i----" -; -1

: !- -1 7.I .

:'. I Ii.: I i

50

! I

r: :

. . ;1 - ;

t . . . ; ; ;. . ; ;

I,; I

At

(Interview)

;.

i

: : : . .

A2

(Tape Demonstration)

10

95

90

85

80

U)

75

0

U)70

65

60

55

50

1

I! ;:i......1!;!; ..",.: 1: '

1;;... '' 1..:::'-':;'1. :Iii.. ; . I

,.;..:.

,,:,

i;.,1..,.I

J:4- ..,:,,,,::::1- ,;::

1:;7177,17,717:1, _ ._:_:_.... : ; :_: i :.:_:..

-7., ., :: :1-1-17:71

- -79:.. .

.

.7 '," :,-:'-.

..._

.

:I

.

; :

:'77'..

ILL-L-L.--

,:

.

...

:: :,::.

.,

.

.

..

...

.

' ,

...

.::

..

.........

.

7,--,-.,777-7-1

, .,

.

.

.;;.::---.;:,.-..1:,--.:1-:

:j!;

'''; '.1::::':

,

. . ,

---

...

......

..-_,:

,..,

,

-+

:::'1;

- :...!.._::.

i

.

,

'

.1.::.:TL.-,.'_-_:::"I.L'...'_'...r.:__

!..;"1.:".

, .1

..

::i.: 1.....! '' :i._

::

.--..,_:.

; .

::1

1

: :::,:.

:1":::.L:...1:.,.....

.

: :;. , :.,"::,.: . 1. .

'......:.1.1;:".1 ::::

:'

'- .....

-...

_

j.

.

..7.7.:;: ::::

-I.; -, ,....... 1

..

...---.

"-,

... -..:...:......

___.

:,,..:i...

.

....: .:_:.

.

:.. .

.

;

..... . .!-

L

.

: .... .

.

77::...---.4-:-L-...

. . .

--:-.--.-

.

...-

:

'', .

.....::,

--. : '

: : : ,

:77'

!

! .

. :

.. ..... ....

...: ;

I .

..1...-..

.

..... ...

LL...:.. . .

..

. :!:.....

i

.(f32.0 .. . 1

"_

.:.

.

1

,:.!

!::

..

i

.....;:,,

,

i . . . .

.

.:.:1 7......

.,:.1:.;:--I--

. . . , : ..

. . i .

-7-7

-:17-:"..T::

----.

'

:

-77I-11777;;, ,

:,........U'....

1 . 1

...1....

.:

..

,,

: . . I'.-::

. .;

77771777!,

. .

.. ,.------"

-.

".

:

,- .,.:...r..!:-.

".::it.:''::.I'V.

. ...

7717:.... .

H--H

. :

',,...._'.

::::

.

1

...

.. *-----...; .

'

.

:.:1':::::".:17,7

:-..:; .::.... . ...

): ; ., ... ."1 :'

- ...."" ..t

.

7. : ' ,...

i' '. :1::::':.1.,1._:::1.::'7' "1::.-

.....1

............ - ,t.

1

...,

..

::

' __ ': .... .

..1::.: ';:r!.::....-

:: '::: .

.

- - --.::1:. :

.:._

,

.. .

I''777

iil.

::::'..

,-;-7..,

h.::

:: :::

1

"': ;I:.:'.'

I:::--;-7..--.7-4--

- :.......

_:_:.7

-.--....

...L.:_."

....::;'

. ..::;" ':':._:".1_:.:__'.

::

:::1'..:-: :I.:I

3

..

.....

::::/..!,.'..t".

::

:::I .

':.':

.:I .7:-.7:::.:.

... . :

:::.--/

.....:..1:;_.::_:.

. .

"." "::.:;4..:..

- ...

4........

. 1... :

.

. t .. .. I

........ .:...: :

.....; .

..

i ', '

... . .

. . .

.

.

'

..

I .

; : 1 : : : .

. is

.. ,

t , .

..".I.: .13.

J. ..... .. 1 ....,..... ....P., ......:

.I.:r1.7.. 7

: 1:

..:I

.

77

...

.

.. ...

. ....

.... . ..

'''''

. .

.4 .

..

1 i

..

.

.". '77,iii

1

'''.

4

.

,__,.

........ .L.'... ...

: :

'..

:.....

.. : :

...

;

..

... :

1 't

....

; ; : :

. .

: 1 .' :

: ' ',

11

i

.

...

-

.

:.::

----

1

1. ....

...' .I.. L.

:: I ;

: ...'

"

. :

3

....

... . .

.....

. :

.

.

.

i&r.ure7.----,71-',;:..._.:::,:::.., .1::

I ..; 1,.

.

:.

,;.,_

.......

' (INTERVIEW)...:.::

. 'Comparison-7-- VTR

:. ;

.."-.r.Judge.:::::-.; I..: -t--1,.:1:!ili:1!Ii!

Demonstration:

. ..

:

, 1 -.

of.#2. .

-I

the

1

:i

,

1

;i

.

TraditionalMean

, !!

::.

-;,1.il;

J.:...: :

1

. .,

Score

;;i1,:t ,

I....,

-Given-

,..

.....:il.

...,..

Interview

; ...,::

for:,;

.. .

VTR..

MeanStudent

:;;. ;.1111;i,13.2

.:1 HI

DE'MONSTRAT! ; .!

.., ,.,..

.;;;

I,: .

.

Score..Per

.:::...A.L,_.....L

::!:1:;i:

:: .1

:

formance-,7'--

;::i

:

ION) : I

, :

, -

.

and the.:I,"::!,.. ., .-1.---I -

..,-... .t.:; . ;;;.,,

2.1 IS 2,

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL.INTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION

JUDGE #3

E.I

100

90

80

f'

50

Ito

1

Al

(Itterview)-

2

(Tape Demonstration)

:J:f:j'.:i:

1:;jJ..t ::1L

I

)H

..

LrI

Lr.

-L' 1iii+ll:HHi 'FL1'

_L_i____J__

_.___j_

.

-r.

ht'4I'j

. ..

Jt!irI----

tH

.

I

.- .Lt

II

LIII I

It

:

Tht

LTT- - * - - - r- 1 -1- r i fllfl IT T fl r

iI i.

j.:jj}:

I

ti''l

I I

;!

:r+I 2: ip

'II+,1TI liii

LJ IA fIHt

1 H HL f2I

HHI t(INTERVIEW)hI _j (vTR DEMONSTRATION) II

tlIIIII1I

;::C.son of th& TraditionallII

Interview Mean Score and h&JT

LItTVTR Deraonstration Mean

1hi L

Score Given for Studeflt Performance

I 1 h 1T i 1I LL

: I : : : : : :: 1 :

; :

:

'COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL.INTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION'

JUDGE .

Candidate's' Score

:1 A wow.. ;

Treatment

-InterviewA1: 1

ITaPcronIIIIEi; ; . . .1..?; D reeneowsuipmemmumeminsrs

1 ;

......m.r.:,[.., i ,- i . 1 - I 1 1 I ..:7.: ; -:.:::,-----177

.

I 1 , F 1.....m.i I ; . : 1 i -: 1:-. ; ; I 1- -, I '.; r"- 7 -77 -t :-I - 7 .. ' . .- ! ! .1 1 . : i :::' i .

-I ,i . I :

, - i ..

1. : ::; .: G- orImillme. 1 : : I, ! ', -.....__.

1 .I ' t

.

1... ....-..:_:;_:.......:_r__:...

:.::-:.; :: : H 4 -I.:. .: i -,..- : t . , ;:.

A

r 7----1---

I : ':: : i ; I IPIPMIIMMillr ____1_.: : : i : ', : 1 ; ' ! ,

. . 1 . : .

1..-...- .---...----7- - . : :

,

J MMENNEMININII.11111111.01., : i .!

1

.1 ' !

.-; r--

1-1

1:

; : . : : _ i 1 : . it :

!

iY---- .

..,:-.. .

....,

1 'I, : - 1 . . , . t : ; . . . _ . ._

1 1 1 i . 1 . .

i1 :7 1 . ; !.. I i . 1 ; : 7. r____........

, , ,. ,.. , .. , , ;. , .. 1 1

,

.. I.. :. 77.1- L 1 !- i 1:---- ;, 1 [77;-. 1 .. A . i 1. 1 ::I'. _I !" . 1. 1 -. 1 : 1: : . : ..

1 i : : 1 1 1 . ; i ; ! : : , 1 - i ;

, . -I. i :E1

i-:---.;, , . . ; . ,. . ..

, ; . . . . . , :

t.

.

, , . , -., :; ,;

1,- : , , .'. ,, : : 1 ::

__.....,-._.:..1_L_.,__..

.. .

. i . 1 : : . I 1 :: 1 1 . : .

-r-- .

.11 :.: I. ii. ; i : i .1.

. . . . '"----7---;-.-----"-"7; .-0

8-1-

t 1

r:

1.I:;

;: j ; . . :

.. 1.I ;

. -

.. .

-17

.. . . .

--- ,1 ^ y. 1 _1

.

ApIT Ii Ii111Inttor, ht tL!Cvlitirit:I.q (Interview) (Tape Dem0h8tratiOn)

)

I

1

fIrLL1LL'

j1

V

it'

HTTLii

__________________________________Iil(H-tti ii IILi t

I

- _L4i

Ijy

t_4

:II!:JiI

?t

I

_1 r

iir ::iei1

L

±

--H-_ri1LJf 1L HT+H

ii :Lic:Tr 1i:h TI iii i

±:1i:

:.

:L

:. ft

-Litit:[iiit Mr iiU:fl.

: fr11i

:

Ii

:

ft:

: ::::: ;.:]-::.::;:: :::::; ;::: ;: ::

:

.:::

T1±:

::*Li

'

{J1±±'b+.:!L i 1f!i

1HLLi

:.

1rrn*TH +

A[H

fL J2H HL

I (INTERVIEW) Ii_ (vTR DEMONSTRATION)1 I

Figurer

I

I

.Comparison of theVTR Demonstration

11T

TraditionalMean

b:ihiTh

'IIlIjItInterview Mean Score and the

Score Given for Student Performance

i I ihI ±tI i L

18;

I

t ;1

, . .

t .

.; ; : :

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL; ,1: :; .1.

; 1: ;,;;

,

_ .

INTERVIEW AND VTR- DEMONSTRATION

JUDGE #5. . ... '

,

.

. :.1 ' ; .

1 , 1

Candidate's Score Treatment .

... 1 . : 1 , ; : :

1 .1, A; .

: C

'D ws...s.womonoww

Interview

Tape Teaching Demonstration--; I

.. I: .1

; E gmammwmtswm I

I 77 :- -71777 7771' I ; '

I.

. ._: : . .

I

1..'

100. .

. . I ; : r. : "1;

I,!

.. ...

I )

-. ., i

!.

f - ; .- .' ; t '

4

: i 1 I- .) I , . -; ; I . : . 1 . . .

. - :7' j t 5 , ; 5 71 i ; . ; 5 ..-------- __----_.

90

: 7 ; . .

. I I

" I . f.

80. .

. .1 . . .

) ..).- I '

..1._, .1

I

. . 7 . ; ; ; i;

7 : 74- . . ,. . :. 1 ; .

) ) I

. 1 : ;1 I 1 . .1.

.. .1. : : ; : :

L

60

1,!1LW

. 14 I I

--

`A

7117711 : . .

, .(.: .1:11 :

: 3 .50. ;

1 14 -1). ; .

11' Interview)

.r : .

.

. .. . : ;" 7 _ .

; ; ; ;

:5 .' -;. 17

; ;

. . ,

r-7-7

; 1. .1' : . I : ;

! I . : : i ; . .

; ; -1 :

: ..1 !

. I . I I

.

.17: . '

: : . !"'77:T7 : ;

1 - -

. ; I .

!

- :7- 77-77-17- 7777 1.I ;

' ' , .. I -, . .

"!.. --

.

--_ .r.

, .... . ....,... , .

1 j.

A

. .

: .--.

A2

(Tape Demonstration)

188

10

9

9

85

80

75

f

70

65

60

55

50

.1

1

1.

;',, ;;;;I:';;;1_...l........ *,-.* "77-17::71 :

:: -.:!: '.*: :::'

ii. i.

': :':.,!!"..,1::!::r.,:.:.

'.,... At.:1;.:: !!!:--.7 '77:1

!! :'':IP. ',W,:::11;1::'1!:17,-,-:-.:t:::1: ''

,1IIIItt.;777:1:11

Illa:',',...1*,;1:tH;J::.1...:e7t,":"..;711'717'11'7:;1:11"

.;:!4 ..';,:. ,:,:.:.....:.1: F...:li IF.T.111. :',..:1*:1:.:L...1.1v;,11:_:t.t.4...:.........:. 1, ., ..., ,..., '. :--.--:-.1.-:-.1--. -77.1.7r-7(7T; :-:...-,E-.-: -17. .'" 777":. :::...

I.::: ,

:.:::-.

1: it : "..1::::1: .._.:.7-1.1.:11.

:"./::" ' I" . ,:-.,. .

!. .

L

. .

. :

... ...::.1 . :::-. .1.1:-

. . ,, .....

. :!:1:::.:.1-:.1...11...-: i

.

::::...:."..:

..:::::.:.1...:--

11.1:::

:7HI :1"i77,

:::; .!,

1 ...177'717

-i.ri: :::;:t; ::::

-11-71;" ::1:1"1:11': ..

1Ii . - . .

' 7 ' -1-17.-7 -77::" :::J : : .._j'. .... . .:

.. .

. .. :

. : :

. .

"I:: :: I

---r-;-:,:: :::.

..,

;

:

:

..

I .

.:...1.:.:

::: ::: -.'.:E.; ; . :: :

....!:

"' .

.:,' -L:.:."i!I.:.: ::': : '. !;: ...

. :..: ".: ::: :;:..st, ::::1::..::. t:

. . ... : .

. it:......:-:.,' .......

;.._:.:..:

- '. i:::4.70

: ;,..4

. ,.

::.....;

.:...;1

1::. .4.:

...1..; ;:...;

r 77:I-77

: ...," rt:11

.

:: .

-----.;.: 77.

.

. , ''

-..: . -i -::::7:7.::........ : ::::

......; t:.:r !:::

rE''.: , ....::::: ...,..::: :: :

'....:.:

:

.::

::.

"':-.::":........*;17.::

::::--:::':'.1.1

:::..:....:

.

....:-:::I':-IL: .....;

",..

,,

,

/I' '''';',I

',111:.w

!!:III

41,

",..1.'i.I..,i1."

.t,:,

I.L.I.I.I.:

:;,:.....::,'.

II

2.J.".......:;,.;:::'

:: !....:1.;:'....

::.:.:........:::.::.,

,;h.;1:: ; .t;;; .

..,---

I

7'7:....'..-;:::

--.-::::;17.--.

::::7777

:. :::!. .1!.:.!;.t.:J

.

'.

...!, .1-,,, . ,: Th:,...1

..

::

:it.

::.

:ilt.....0,'''

11

:'nl".:

:::...,'.

"''11:1

""."

"i".':'

:::: ... . .:,1-..11.:

..'''''

". .t.: ..:,

i'";;'...

..1

..

.

,

:i

'...,.,

:11:

,....

:11

;;;; 1.; .....; ::::...;.: - -1.:.:..11.....: ..

.. :.:.:.: :.:.1::.:'L.-1H'!

::::

-::,:. ,::: :.

:

. 1;1..1:1:_,_

.

:1:1

. ,..,..":!..:

-'1'

:;1111.1.17..4.''' . .1

''",

1.'t11...:i. 1

:1",

:1::1::111:::.::

,::;11:

:VI

H.:1:.,":1:1

...':

..!:

11.:: 111:.1 :../

1::: :1!:

11::

71::....;,...:

':

----*-..,,..t.

.

,.!,,!

1:.:

.1:1

._:.,

'..,::4:

:1.1'.

,::.,...".,:;

ii1::::,.',.

::,:..;:i ..:..,...

::: ..:1,1;':::".1*.!--..,..

: :: :....

.

....:,::

..............-:::: -.:,...1;::: ..,..

:::-...,:::..'

...

..' '..

,- -.",..

::-,'...:

I,-.,:.: : ,'::., :::t :,, !:.-:: ',.-:,:,.. :.-,.,::.. :::t ,....:;., ,::........::: :::: ,,.1-_.,

...,

,,::. ..,.......o., .. .,.. ,. . .

;:: . ,.::i....::", .,,-,....,,,

'....;.........;i::.

'-'W.'_..1:.::

'..:.:i.:

::::

;;:.:.,....-....:::: :::: ....

.

,

,- -:. ; ,

it

-::::- ;:.:-:

.0,-:::.,,::::

:':' :::::......L.....,.:::: ....;. - ...

:::.,::::

:::..,_,,::.;.

t........LP.:: :::,

=.

....!." ....I::,. ..i.::t ..,::.::

.:]?.,..,.

.

r:i;.; .;:::.........

......

.:::..,...,

.: ... ,.

..1: LI

::::.. .

:::: : .- ,.. ...

::::

::

:t.:

.

... :;:t-t "

, ..

:

:'

::_._...._-

:.....i...

.:::iii..;::: :::::::" -

:.:2._:.::::::1:

1:::

';...:

:::i-...._:_..,:

::.

,..1,:

::. :1H._i_......._::t;::::

'Alt

::::....:

:t.,":.:::::

::..

-.1

::.........

...:, :-..:1:1:,;........'..t.:_...:

:-........

_,.....::. :: ::;;:

:.. .._:,:.:.: :::::.! !:::

.::_:.:.....:......::!::1:1

1:111::

...._:.:

...'_...L.......__.':'1:

:::.'', ::.

.t

11;77'1

'1--7:117''' " .

:

.

. .

.._::::::T.'.

.:_:_._.1:.:::

'''..;"::.L:_:1::-

';`......;

'

.

:::

i'-:!:

'..;

!,:',: ...tr..:1....:.._:.:.:1_:.:....

::: ...;:."...t ...Lit

.,.

..--7-. sr:77!"..: ,..::_ .._:::: ::::!':' 1:..1

.. ...,

....1_,! ::"

...-::

..._::!

_II::-

.

I - i! ' . .-. - .h.,.....

,

..

717771:-.

.

7Tr:',:-:::;I:II.: .

...; ,:t':

-77-7 r r:: . ::: ::::

...: ..::.' :.

: ..:...:::

::::::....:;:

.:11

:.::::::-11.1::

:,..u,.t.....,

:111 :111 ip..

H....,......... .,..

:::,i_:..1.1_,....'

11,1!

......1,

111:

..

:: " ::: -

,,"1. ::::1,:. :

. .,...' , . .

:::.::::

1...1:::::

::::: 1' ""1

'.: ',"'!" II:.: ;:'.I

1::::

:!.:::

!I..............,. 7.1:1 :1: "..: :1:: :11.:1 hr.i .:',1 . -

. .... I. : 1 i:.: II:,- 1:',.",". :II!'' ::' ::;: '.....r III::'!:, .:, .,

. : I.::

' 'I ::::.... ..r..;.... III: !;:i:11: :II;:::: II;:

H:

:II'

,;::'III-..:::II:

:I::::::,Ii..LI.I.I

.

:

II::

.

'",

-".., .

..,:

. !:1: III: ::'. i'

:

: -::1: II:

7:77..;:,::.... ,

7.-7:I: .. ,..I:

".": :I.:: -I::: :::.: I.l'I'".- --:

.:*:-;::.

:: :::: :;- ....1=-:... '' :::,.. :HI,,,,,

!1:I l''''..lillil :!; ,,:.; ::II I::: :::: :II: :',I 1:;, .

.. "I";::: I.I'l: :::1..... ,.., ... :::'.... .. ' '" '" "

t''':' .. 1 .

!I:11*.!I!

:::I.III ::

....::1'. II:

:::.!II:

;::..::.

::::".::

:::::!' ,

. ih: '.*:: I ..,."" , .... ..:"' I'" ' 'I:II; :".'. ;I: "::II,. ..,

.

II:. ,

[....I..,1......;.....,

iii! 1...:i.:

i.

ill:,

:::::. ; ,

.

...

"f..

I

'": :II;._Lt.l.

;:.:-'''

1 ;:t1--..;II

'-'.'

-:.:..:.

,

!I::

;1I

:I::' : IIII.I':'.. :II: '" 'I-1 I"':::: :. ,I:: I.".::: li,::.

'7771-7::: :::.:

;

' It.::.:...I.

' :::

2......."..1.::d.I.::-....:I: :.! :::: ::41.;

;:'iS , Ss

. ':.....:_:. ....:-:_."1::.;

.,.-..-....' I..-.:I" .I'.:: :al:

: "

'I';S: ";',;;;.I::

',..;4:

,I: '. .1:

_-........-:-,:I:: :;:i1:::::::: !::

::::.I..._

11::

::!::.::-1.:--!..

: Vs

:'::

:::

;:i:'.:,::7

'T.: ...:-.

.

:::".

:::.

' 1 1::: :::tt:.1. 1 .:111,1:'' " :I::"" ::::

"1!......::::1,,1

:::4.:4.14.=41.1,1:.:'11, :1' 1:1. .::

:::::

.:::iV.:.ii.,..,

::,::.'...!...I.

1,:

,...;.

2i....

....

:.'..,"....

:1!..1111:11 . 1 1:' 11i1 :11:..,.....::. 1 : ' '' ',..,*. , HI! ili! ii, ,:ii i

...-.1 ...... '..:: '..

..:., '''' "' " ,..1 ...I

"1:::

".1 1..

1.":.

"'....-::II

; ':...'.

"..t.I.',,..;.,I

;:"1

i......

..'.................. . " ...r.: ill i., .,..:, :I : 1. :,!, ::1: .,:....11. ii-..... ;....1, ti.li ly..1 ,......1 il. )

....,.

.........._..

............... ,.... '..: P.'..' ...:1:' i'...

* .i:-.P..,. ii :Ali: :P...." ,... 1.-..

:III :IV; ''''71

1.1i1. ..

1.11:. !C:i

::ii 111.111. :, 1

';!1! rill

Li::1 ::

;II:

Ili.:1.!

:I:-.7":-.-:!

:

:....:::::

::::

.fli ....:.ti.. ...-

77:-:-.7,...:II: :IIII

ii.i!,._,.,;

Il

.1,,1;..,,',I1::-.

ii,,1.......,.:!I:II,..1"I'-

,

...;

:1.1.,!....-

,,!.11,,1::.;W.:d'...11

i.:!:'.....

.

.:::

.

-.''

.

;,1.I;i' ,.1' '

. :!I:_. 11 1:::-

.-1::.

'A:I

11

i

...::

;,.:

.

.

..,.

; 17;.!.'.'-Ii.:7;::

111 ,:. ......1.

_....: ::.......- -.

:", .

11::..1,.

::: 1:: ..

:in:7:1

i'

i'.:1 :/i; :ill:':t I I! I

:::-1 717: ...77'- :''' :"::;: 171: :111- -... -::1'. 111:[1,.1.!

...i.0vf,.,,."11::..---

:C.,;",',.1.,

pi. Wor ::::1117 .1,'11; '1-,.," :.11

ll,.,".

1

ii.. :1'.:.:: :::

':," '111.0; 1'

H.'. ,,;::::1: ;''...11 .:::."'--.......-

iiiii,1::1....---

.

..

.

:

. . ..

. . .. .. 1:: :111'''' 1:1: , ; ::: 1.1:11

111%:,1

:

.:".,

i -fi-of -!the',..., ;

,,11.Ii 1.q.,

1

1

,:

1

1 ,1

__"1,,1.

\

..

1:.".1.-",:,:

!';1,.*:*/':: ''''7:--t77. : i.:..,..::

::Given--..-for-Student1.....i.,..1,.1 '-"I"

,.::.L,..;.!::.:..;_1 ,

i

...:i1:;.::,._.:.1i

.:

.

".:":t t;;:

: ''' ,1:.,

Interview'.i.,.,

.,..ii.l.,,*11"

.

:' :

.

..'''.1

; -,t::

(VTR, ...1.::1 ....I.!.

'Mean

.;.L.1.1.,1,..11....1-.711,,I.1."1......i.:1:,1,.1t,,,'..' i"., ..1"14..t. .1. r 1.

:...: :

DEMONSTRATION)1.....,1,.

i......:::.imp..,_.

,,

:' :. :

:.,.: '..;; ..1

Score-,.Performance

' 4.1'0,..:tt 't. ,

. .1'2 : . ..i ..

and:....,..j......, ,.

i ....,, :,..... .,(

t.he,...

..2,......,-Li

.,..

...

.

-...

....7"7'..::

---:-'-."

-,TH..71

,

'.

.

L.:... .

,..:::,

-.---.-.1-::

:: :1.,:;:

Figure_,.....;:h......

-..,:-1,-;',.-:::

ii.i.4i'.

....i...

.

..._._

,...-., ,Iii...

:.-,-1....:_:.

i,;.:1-:::.

..:-:',"--1:It:

:1;;,;;;

:..,......- !

'::::

.:::_

.:

-

:-.,..

.. .:..1

(INTERVIEW).: .I.;:

ComparisonV".....,-

by Tudo-i--:......,ji-."1

.

Demonstration

.. ,',.,..,;..,:

; 1::r. ,,' ,:,...i.

,.1, #5,-;°) r '

F:,.

;f:

,,-:--,

,

1.1l'..1""

.:..:..!:c,

:;i:1..--1"."::.; 'H

.

TraditionalMean...:...,:;

,-- -,,.11,, , 1,1y,I,Lit t* I''

...1l,'1,.1',...,

.!:1,1.

1-7;.,

-" 1.1t

. .. ...1.'..1.,

:::.;;-7.. :

Score.1-7,

11..1-,.. 11

-\ -

100

90

80

70

..' ., -.., .... ; ... - ,... , .......... . -1- ..T. .. :I :- I :-. ! -::!- .,! ::1: ;7. :-, V;7-1-,, -:

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONALINTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION

TuDG-E #6., :- i,. :

. ... . ,

....

: ; -. . ,- .-- : : . , . ; .. . , ; :. ; .:,

-. Candidatel.s ScoreL::: :...-:-.__,: _.... Treatment_-__: .. .- _ -..1..--_.__.__-:._ :_.-;, .. ..

. .. :

, . . .. . ... ,. .. . . . . .1. : : ,

-1-7-:-__.

: i R.- ; . ' A .InterviewB

- 1

11_: : -; _

.. .

86.

Tape Teaching Demonstration:. I:

. ; , .,, ! , 1 . , ; .:

E111 gmEmmm" : -;

,. . ;

1. ;

1

t 1

; : I . . . .

' 1 ,

I . 1 ;

! i

; .

II 7

1

t ;

'-`17.--:7-1777- ;.

;: t ; :::1 . t:

,.. .

. : I ;.. . : .

. : 1

. - : 1. : .1

; ;

-: . 1. .

:

.

2=7:-- r

. . ,

.7 .;-:---1-777--.. . i 1

:..':. I I .. -: 11

6,...... i : . i' ; ; ': i ". , -. i

6o co .0 1..: i :

.1.4 ___.,______.____......,..0 . t

vl---,---,- -.---.7-,---7,-.:,_.. 150 0 ---t--,---. ... :.-.

. .. .. . .. . .i: 1 . : .I: :::,24 :. .!.. . -.. :::.,:- : ; .

-. i -; """1: , .717-7

1

.

I ----; i

I 11:1 I' .:,' :

:--71-::"--1 :- 7 I --:-1.- ....j. _. .

I . . - , i ; ' 1

14.0 '1..-.-. .-:..---1.-..: : : 6.)

I :

: r.-;.

1: t - I I `

.... t1:i ".; ; -: ::,. ; ;

.1 .. 1 - .1 : . : L 1

1 ". ."I 1

- ' 1 : .

. ,...... .. .1: :: : . I

. ;

'I .:-. :I: ,

I '

: t 1 : .1

:1 . . : ; ! . .:,* . 1

.. ; : . 1 ..' 1. ; .! .1 . I

.

1 1 ..

A1111 vs; ht. r Interview) (Tape Demonstration),.

I

.... :lliiiL1Ji:

Li1i

p

;.:I:::(::::i;.;:i.:: ::

1iJH::JH± _i +: "±H± TL++ l Th I *'

.L)4: :ill_Lj_ I r- L

r- -r4 i i 4 4

I--i±

I : : .:TL L L j EL1:.I...

r':i.!i[1I

I T1 I I;

I

LIEIJI

IL

± L4L!Lt J1

FEEEFII IA

111 -ft

INTERVIEW) _ - (vTR DEMONSTRATION)1

E1T(T1

[

JT

1

. Comparison of'th Traditional Interview Mean Score and theTIT

VTR Demonstrat3.on Mean Score Given forStudentPerforrriance I

b Judg ____j LhrJfl ViL lJtl ftL ftI

rir...473/

1771 .L.

t: . 'L'

1

":-: COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL :1' INTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION

: 88

juDGT, #7

Candidate's Score 1 __'._. : .. _ Treatment ..:_______ _:_

.7 ; .

r-7,--,A , , , i Interview

1 : , 134= I ; ; . ,

....__:....,C im..... ; -1--- - 7 .

; i Tape Teaching DemonstrationD ineramenmemmonsper ; 1 : i

. ; ; i ; .

..... -1

.,-,

. r; INIMImangssommnimm. i I ;. . . ..... .. .. 1::::1:-:I -. 1:_ I . : 1 .., 1 . ,

7 F.-;-;- 1-: 7-: '

".. I 1. ' '

__-___..-- - , - __,.-

1 I :

.7-71----117711---.7-F Otiiimmiammff ___...i__..._....___.............::_-___:.i...L.....H...H. ...1_........L::_t:..._.i._:_...:17.................+...._.7- L!;_____-': 1.:_..:H.:___.:::- _........::1' H1

f , .

. :, -.' --! !- :" ,! ; .; : :" I- . : :--.:- ..... :-.1 .1.: , : 1

1

i. Hmii,,,m,,,m,,,4 i . ;: I.; .; .::11 ':--: .1' . -I.. i ::. I.' :: -"I :.,:...; --:':'',' ---:' :7-7-'---: It 771LIT:.1_-1114-1-til.;

I , ,

i :... 1..; :. 1 -: .- I -:,. ; ... i , ., . ,. . ;

, ,.

: .. ...t

. . .., J I.. : : : 1 ; ,. .. i.t.,.; : ..-

' 7 :

i

t . ;

,

4

:

. '

,

' 1 I :

. . .

. . , . 1 . . .

100 [----7-1-----7-71-77 7- -7-

90. : : 1 . I .

:'. :1:I . I :

, .

! .!

: .

, I 4 -1:1_ ..1

; , :. .1: ..:.1.-1 :. 1

.:i: :

..;

1

' 1 " . I ,. ,

, ; ; : !

; 1

. . ,

80 .f

! ; 1

-

, 70 -I-7-7---r--i--------;.

H .

FII-I-4.,a.) r : ,,- . ..,

:<:,.1 i

; : ; : (. .. .

1,4 .....,.._:.:_,.._,_ .. ,___ ___0 1 : , I. .:, . I

: 1 ; !6oi

,

, -:,---

Cf3 . ;:...' 1. .. I.: :-.: _ : 1 . ; 1 1: i . I .t I _ :

I-_- ,,----:------.-------:17------;---i-------- --------.-..---.'""-.-.-',"----*--1--. -----77---l I ,li I_ 1 ; 'Ir.: !':: .1 1 : : 1 . 1; .:': 1. 1. V. :::.

r Cri ..i: I. : . I t ; 1 i I- "gd 1 - 1 .. . i . 1 .. . . ..I1 . !. I . 1 ..... 1 i , 1 , .. !, .! I . 1 1. !

:IT . -1 11.:.! -: :7 7 :.I :' . -:-.1 " -1 :-," 1!.-1 -1".1-11":..- 1 .: . . . : . t . ;. . . . _L.:. ....1 ... ....; .

i 1:: ; '' :: :-.' ..--1.- -1- ":--1.: -1..1:"1...-I1 F'.;. -'- -. 1-. --.H. -.4'1"1 -.1:::::;I''':1::.-I,

-..::::iLl_',1::: '117.',1.7- !_.4._ -._,_..-....._.:..,_--:.i_7...:.:1... -__; I': . ' ! , - '. , : : - I : . : .. .1 . I . ,:. . . . . . 1--77-177. 7. 771.-:-.7- 71 777 r- .. i .1.

1 :. ; I': . .1 ::: I .:H. "i ' '1." '!. 1. , . ..1 . 1 1 :

?.

..: :1- I ; 1..;;_..L . --

.

.. . .

.'," ,

. -

1 . . 1 , I. I ' '. ;

., .

)

Al1

iI' 151 7111111113elvts (.IIIIII; C1.11011.1l.tti. (Interview)

A2(Tape Demonstration)

co

c2.1

0

95

90

85

80

75

70

1:4

65

60

55

50

:1 I

1 .

INTERVIEW). (VTR DEMONSTRATION)..i .!

T:i

Figtire . Comparison of the Traditional Interview Mean Score and the- .1

...VTR Demonstration.Mean Score Given for Student Performance .-by . Judge-:# 71 1. I

.

I

I

'A-

I

7,

i

..: .

1--

:

: .1

I : :

?: COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL--1INTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION 1' .

.JUDGE #8

, .

90 !

Candidate's Score Treatment...

A , . A1 Interview-1

1 .Tape TeachingDemonstration I

.1=mmealP . 7 ..: i : : . . . . ;

1 .

' -. .0 ........r ; 1 : 1- 1.,... , . A2. .. .

17:. :-, :D -..mig.Nmaimeaffm.. --I-T.-. . i , 7

rI -.IL:. ........_ .. .: I.E.---- - 4...........

. . !I I . .. ' i I 1,--t.........

1.___. . _..G...._.,,, ,.' - "::....., :- :::.:.,- ,:.71. _ .,. i_. .,.. 1, :., .,. , .! :

-,

: I .. : . 1 , : :1 .. ; 1 : 1, . :

. .. .

. - ..i :: . : HI- , ..

1 ! -;:.! ,.-.!..-;.. , ,...,...". ! : I--, -"...1II i 1 ! ' ' :

I 1

. 4.

i . .. . . i ,

I . . ,i . i. i ;

,

! . '1 ;

;, ,

---"--:,;:'I : I :

, ! ;

: '

.; I ! 1 ,

: .1 i ; ;

.

H.: .

1

,1

I

,

I, I

,

. '

1,-. 'i... 1 .;l""'-.--71--1----

I 1 ; ;

t :. 1. I '

-7 :-- 1:- 7;7' --: :-

1

I ;

-;I.

,

. 1

-- :.' i

,..4

1

.._II 1 1 .

r . :

t

: : ! ; 1 . 1 : 1 : ;1

,

H:.I

r

; . . t : .i : i .1 . 1 .

4 I

', . :I.

! ' I, ' ' -L. _I L -1-__LI,

: ; : 1

7 : i

,

.. . , 1 ..7.1-71 ' 77- 1 ! 1

T ': ---'

I . i...... . . !....a. :. ....., .7-II-. r-....:_ - .....!... -: - -_-" ,--_:. "....--II--, .....: ::._.:. "--1 -_ . .1........ _ _ . . .... _- I - -.-:-.......r.....:_i......_ 1.__........_.....,_____,_

1 ,

I I.....! , -I .. I . !-- ..

1

;..---:.-----:---- = ---77---t--7"-7:-----,--- 1---- ---1...............-.-.....

....- I-. : J_ ...;._:.i._:_j___.',.....:_e:_:__.. -_ 3.! :. 1 ; 1

1 ' i I i 1

---- : -..1 ; i , i i' i : :1 : ,.. _1__.

80 .----:7-777-.7"------7---- --,:-----7--' .1..,! ' 1--. . I

!. 17 i I. 1.- ,

70

. -1 i

;.

I ---: -.____:...- I-- i

' I : 1 : , 1 ' ' ' i

i . : il ' . 1:

! ; ; : I

: 1 '

! ; I I

HI).!1 . I

60

LL1-1 . I : :.I :

1- 0 j -1 I; .

(rj

50 Ir

1

- - - -I

::` 1

ii ., 1

; :

1. - ;

40

. 1 .. -1'1-1

1A : !-1

4t. . 1: .:.; ::i

::: .,. . , . - ,

-!-- r- [..,. ... j . . ; :

-

:; ?' . :1: : :1' ": : . : . ".. ' r- 77 -r '7-1-7 , .

'!! .:," ::71 !." It' . .1 l.

- I

I

, -

. I

ii I Ii c, Ill ;:,,t,t,:r

; ; I . . : ' ' :

Al A2

Ta e Demonstrtion

10

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

1 .......:

i

A.'.-I

(INTERVIEW);

Figure . Comparison of theE' -7-VTR ;demonstration

: :Judge 8;

(VTR DEMONSTRATION)

Traditional Interview Mean Score and sheMean Score Given' for. Student Performance

.1.

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

COMPARISON OF TRADITIONALINTERVIEW AND VTR DEMONSTRATION

JUDGE #9

Candidate's Score Treatment.

A13

D aiummemommose..t

F

HlosiunklOPPR.

I e. -rmirmotemeneamwermo,J axwasemffenagnawiwwww,

Al interview

Tape TeachingDemonstration

92

AAl A2

tMIIIMMMMIMM

10

1,77.1T,1::

95

90

85

80w

075

70

65

60

55

50

IN1.ERVIEW) 1-- I .

100

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Acheson, Keith Alan. "The Effects of Feedback FromTelevision Recordings and Three Types of SupervisoryTreatment," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,Stanford University, 1964.

2. Allen, Dwight W. and Fortune, Jimmie C. "An Analysis ofMicroteaching: A New Procedure in Teacher Education,"Paper read at the Micro!.leaching Clinic, StanfordUniversity, November, 1967.

3. Aubertine, Horace E. "An Experiment in Set InductionProcess and Its Application. in Teaching," UnpublishedDoctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1964.

4. Barron, Bennie George. "An Investigation of.the Effectof Video-tape and Microteaching Technique on Openness,"Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, University ofSouthern Mississippi, 1967.

5. Brooks, Elbert Daniel. "Effect of Alternate Techniquesfor Modifying Teacher Behavior," UnpublishedDoctor's dissertation, Stanford University, 1967.

C 7 0.w VJ V.Video-taper in Teacher Education," AudiovisualInstruction, 12:1067-69, December, 196/.

7. Dunne, Michael D. and Owens, Leroy D. "Video-tapeTeacher Inservice Programs," The Instructor,77:140-41, March, 1968.

8. Fuller, Francis F., Menaker, Shirley L., Peck, Robert F.,and Brown, Oliver H. "Influence of Counseling andFilm Feedback on Openness to Pupil Feedback inElementary Teachers' Filmed Behavior," The proceedings,75th Annual Convention, American PsychologicalAssociation, 1967.

9. Ingham, George E. "Teacher Preparation Through MultimediaFacilities," Audiovisual Instruction, 12:1054-56December, 1967.

10. Kriebs, Jean Oak. "The Effect of Video-taped ElementarySchool Science Teaching," Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, Temple University,,1967.

11. Michel, Sister M. "Teacher Training by Video-tape,"Ca.holic School Journal, 65 :30 -32, May, 1965.

101

12. Millett, Gregg Balwin. "Comparison of Four TeacherTraining Procedures in Achieving Teacher and Pupil"Translation" Behaviors in Secondary School SocialStudies," Unpublished Doctor's dissertation,Stanford University, 1967.

13. Oliver°, James Lee. "Video Recordings as a Substitutefor Live Observations in Teacher Education,"Unpublished Doctor's dissertation, StanfordUniversity, 1964.

14. Reynolds, George. William. "-he Usefulness of thePortable Video Recorder ill Supervising StudentTeachers of Science," Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, Ohio State University, 1966.

15. Roush, Robert E. "Changing Teacher Behavior withVideo-tape Feedback," SRIS Quarterly, 2:21-24,Summer, 1969.

16. Schueler, Herbert and Gold, Milton J. "Video Recordingsof Student Teacher - A Report of the Hunter CollegeResearch Project Evaluating the Use of Kinescopesin Preparing Student Teachers," Journal of TeacherEducation, 15:359, December, 1964.

131,414nOL.V11C.1:, INCAUALUA.A., uI. "A Comparison of Methods of Observation inFreservice Teacher Training," AV CommunicationReview, 12:177, Summer, 1964.

18. Woolman, Lorraine. "The Effect of Video-Taped SingleConcept Demonstrations in an Inservice Program forImproving instruction," Unpublished Doctor'sdissertation, University of Houston, 1968.

19. Young, David Brandon. "The Effectiveness of SelfInstruction in Teacher Education Using Modelingand Video-Tape Feedh-_'2k." Unpublished DoCtor'sdissertation, Stanford University, 1967.