http://jrm.sagepub.com/Education

Journal of Research in Music

http://jrm.sagepub.com/content/30/4/255The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.2307/3345299

1982 30: 255Journal of Research in Music EducationManny Brand

Skills of Music Student TeachersEffects of Student Teaching on the Classroom Management Beliefs and

  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

  National Association for Music Education

can be found at:Journal of Research in Music EducationAdditional services and information for    

  http://jrm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://jrm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://jrm.sagepub.com/content/30/4/255.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Jan 1, 1982Version of Record >>

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on October 30, 2013jrm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

JRME 1982, VOLUME 30, NUMBER 4, PAGES 255-265

This study provided a basis for answering two questions: (1) Does the music student teaching experience affect student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills; and (2) As a result of student teaching, do the classroom management beliefs and skills of student teachers and their cooperating teachers become more congruent? Forty-seven music student teachers from two universities and 47 cooperating teachers comprised the sample population. Data were collected on the subjects' classroom management beliefs and skills before and after the 8-week student teaching experience. Multivariate analysis oJ variance results indicated that the student teaching experience did not affect the student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills, and student teachers did not become more like their cooperating teachers wtih regard to classroom management beliefs and skills. The results raise questions regarding the effectiveness of cooperating teachers in assisting their trainees in the area of classroom management.

Manny Brand, University of Houston

Effects of Student Teaching

on the Classroom Management

Beliefs and Skills of Music

Student Teachers

Student teaching is generally considered the most important and unifying experience of music teacher training programs. In reflecting on their professional preparation, music student teachers consistently refer to student teaching as the most valuable experience they have had, the time during which they learned the most about being a music teacher (Tabachnick, 1979).

Few doubt that practical experience with children should be a signifi- cant part of any music teacher's training. Furthermore, since the

This research was funded by a Faculty Research Opportunities (rant from the College of Education, University of Houston, Central Campus. Appreciation is extended for the assistance of Betty Blair, James Hughes, and Peg McLennan.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Mannv Brand, Department of Curriculul m and Instruction, College of Education, University of Houston, Houston 77004.

255 A

256 BRAND

cooperating teacher is in a leadership role during this experience, it is assumed that he or she greatly influences the music student teacher. Despite such apparently unanimous praise of student teaching, do we really know what specific changes take place in the student teacher during the experience? In addition, do we understand the impact of the

cooperating teacher, the individual who works most closely with music student teachers?

This study addresses these questions by examining the effects of the student teaching experience and cooperating teacher's classroom and rehearsal management beliefs and skills on music student teachers. The area of classroom and rehearsal management (in this study "classroom and rehearsal management" refers to the prevention, reduction, and handling of deviations in behavior from that which is approved or

expected by the individual or group making the designation) was selected because it is one of the most important skills for music student teachers, and the cooperating teacher is expected to provide primary leadership in this area.

Most teacher educators agree that the student teaching experience is the most significant part of a teacher education program (Andrews, 1964; Conant, 1963; Harty & Mahan, 1977; Wroblewski, 1963), and that the cooperating teacher is the most relevant variable in student teaching (Milner, 1959; Yee, 1969). Unfortunately, only a limited amount of

empirical research has been conducted to determine the specific impact the student teaching experience and cooperating teacher have on the student teacher (Boschee, Prescott, & Hein, 1978). Furthermore, there is apparently a near void of research specifically on music student teach- ing.

Most of the relevant studies surveyed by Boschee et al. (1978) suggest the need for further research into the compatibility of philosophical beliefs held by student teachers and cooperating teachers, and report conflicting positions on the impact of cooperating teachers on student teachers assigned to them for practical classroom experience.

Studies by McAulay (1960), Price (1961), Holemon (1963), and Stoller (1964) all reveal that student teachers are greatly influenced by their cooperating teachers. Yee's (1969) careful review of these studies, however, shows they contain "conceptual and methodological shortcom- ings which restrict the confidence and generalizability that can be given them" (p. 327). The McAulay study, for instance, used an extremely small sample size (the influence of three first-grade cooperating teachers on their six student teachers), and failed to employ a systematic observation schedule.

More recent research has overcome these conceptual and method- ological shortcomings, but results still appear equivocal. For example, Karmos and Jacko (1977) have found that student teachers view their cooperating teachers as having the most significant influence on their student teaching experience, and Peters's (1971) work reveals that the influence of cooperating teachers in shaping attitudes of the student teacher is very great. On the other hand, Brown (1967) found no relationship in "teaching behavior" between the cooperating teacher and

JRME

student teacher during the experience. Another study by McIntyre, Buell, and Casey (1979) indicated no relationships between the verbal behavior (e.g., use of questions, commands, praise, criticismn) of student teachers and their cooperating teachers. They concluded that student teachers do not model their cooperating teachers' verbal behavior.

With regard to the cooperating teacher's specific impact on the student teacher's classroom management skills, many studies have used the Pupil Control Ideology Inventory (PCI) (see Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967), a Likert-type questionnaire that characterizes a teacher as being humanistic (accepting and trusting of students with emphasis on stu- dent's self-discipline) or custodial (stresses the maintenance of order, assumes a punitive, moralistic approach to pupil control).

Using a sample of 108 elementary teachers, Roberts and Blankenship (1970) found that the student teaching experience does modify student teachers' views in a custodial direction. Additionally, Templin's 1979 study of student teachers (N = 28) indicated that the subjects became significantly more custodial during student teaching. In contrast, Camp- bell and Williamson (1978), examining student teachers in inner-city schools using the PCI, reported that cooperating teachers were not a major factor in the shaping of student teachers' attitudes toward becoming more or less humanistic or custodial.

As seen from this review, many studies have focused on changes in student teachers' attitudes, philosophies, and behaviors during this nearly universal experience so highly valued by preservice teachers. Most of the research has been contradictory. Although many studies have shown that schools and cooperating teachers have significant impact on student teachers (Friebus, 1977; Hoy, 1967; Zevin, 1974), others have found that cooperating teachers have not influenced their student teachers much (Boschee et al., 1978; Corbett, 1980; Horowitz, 1968). A recent article in the Music EducatorsJournal by Burnsed (1982) reported on a unique student teaching experience for students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in which 4 weeks of elementary music student teachers' experience were done without cooperating teachers. Burnsed reported that, based on a comparison of videotaped lessons, there were no significant differences in teaching effectiveness between student teachers who had cooperating teachers and those who did not.

Although it appears from a practical stance that student teaching experience and cooperating teachers exercise a powerful influence on student teachers, empirical research has been unable to consistently pinpoint the ways in which this experience affects student teachers. If music teacher education programs are to be fully successful, it is imperative that we anticipate and understand the nature of this experi- ence and its specific influence on student teachers.

METHOD

The purpose of this study was to measure the effects of the student teaching experience and the cooperating teachers' classroom manage-

257

258 BRAND

ment beliefs and skills on music student teachers. More specifically, this study provided a basis for answering two questions: (1) Does the music student teaching experience affect student teachers' classroom manage- ment beliefs and skills, and (2) As a result of student teaching, do the classroom management beliefs and skills of' student teachers become more congruent?

This experiment took place in the spring academic semester of 1982. Forty-seven music student teachers from the University of Houston and the State University of New York College at Potsdam, and 47 cooperat- ing teachers comprised the sample population. All the student teachers were either in the last semester of' their junior year or senior year and were majoring in music education. For this study, student teaching experience was defined as teaching instrumental, choral, or general music at any public school grade level under the supervision of a certified music teacher (cooperating teacher) for a minimum of four hours per day, five days a week, for eight weeks.

Although the subjects' student teaching experiences was quantitatively similar (all subjects spent approximately the same time student teach- ing), the question of whether the student teaching experiences were

qualitatively similar needed to be addressed. Despite the diversity of public schools, music programs, and supervisory competence, the sub- jects generally shared very similar goals, challenges, and experiences. The student teaching experience must prepare the music education major for first-year teaching regardless of where the individual student teaches.

Any subject enrolled in a separate music education or education course while student teaching was eliminated from the study to minimize the impact of any out-of-student-teaching experiences. Of the 47 student teaching subjects, 36 took no other classes while student teach- ing. Eleven subjects, however, were enrolled in additional class(es) such as science, history, and foreign language, which were not related to the music teaching and learning processes. Thus, for all of the subjects, student teaching was the exclusive formal music education learning activity during this eight-week experience. No other courses or seminars dealing with classroom management were offered to student teachers during the duration of the experiment.

The Behavior Management Skills Inventory (BMSI) (Brand, 1979), was used to measure the subjects' classroom management skills, and the Beliefs on Discipline Inventory (BDI) (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980) determined the subjects' classroom management beliefs. Both instru- ments were administered as pretests to the student teachers during the first week of student teaching and again as posttests during the last week of student teaching. The cooperating teachers completed the same instruments during the second week of the student teaching semester.

The differences between the student teachers' pretest and posttest BMSI and BDI scores were used to ascertain if the student teaching experience affected the student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills. Additionally, the differences between the student teachers' pretest scores and the cooperating teachers' scores were compared with

JRME 259 the student teachers' posttest scores and cooperating teachers' scores to determine if the classroom management beliefs and skills of music student teachers and their cooperating teachers became more congru- ent.

Difference vectors were developed for: (1) pre- and post-student teachers' scores; (2) pre-student teachers' scores and cooperating teach- ers' scores; and (3) post-student teachers' scores and cooperating teach- ers' scores. Each of the difference vectors was tested to determine whether it was significantly different from the null vector with multivari- ate analysis of variance (MANOVA) (Finn, 1968). Alpha level was set at .05.

Instrumentation

The BMSI was used to measure student teachers' and their cooperat- ing teachers' classroom management skills. The BMSI contains descrip- tions of 15 classroom management problems requiring a music teacher to make a decision. Five classroom management decision-responses followed each behavior problem, and the respondent was asked to rate each classroom management decision according to its appropriateness for the particular problem.

The 15 classroom management problems were gathered from a variety of sources that determined the content validity of the BMSI. Some of the problems were adapted with permission from Ver Velde's (1974) Decision Making in Classroom Situations. Other problems were developed from actual behavior problems experienced by a panel of experts including supervisors of music, elementary and secondary music teachers, university music education instructors, and cooperating teach- ers. The writings of Ginott (1969) and Madsen and Madsen (1970) offered additional classroom management problems that were incorpo- rated into the BMSI.

The validity and reliability of the instrument were established based on the responses of 28 music teachers. Of these teachers 14 were deemed "most proficient" and 14 "least proficient" in classroom man-

agement as determined by these teachers' music supervisor. Construct validity of the BMSI was established (p < .01) by comparing the mean scores of "most proficient" and the "least proficient" behavior managers via a t test (Brand, 1977). A KR-21 reliability estimate of .85 on internal consistency was attained.

The BDI was used to classify the student teachers' and their cooperat- ing teachers' beliefs on classroom management. This instrument was designed to make an assessment of and to classify a teacher's beliefs on classroom management according to various schools of thought. Two schools of thought, noninterventionist and interventionist, were exam- ined in this study. The noninterventionist reflects the belief that teachers should not impose their own rules but should allow students to reason for themselves. Students who are given the opportunity and appropriate support will be able to solve their own behavioral problems. In contrast, the interventionist believes that human action is a matter of external

260 BRAND

conditioning. For example, the teacher must establish standards and efficiently shape the appropriate behavior. The way students learn to behave is to be systematically taught those standards (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980).

The BDI consists of a series of forced-choice items that "... pits a belief or technique from one school of thought against a belief or technique of another school" (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980, p. 461). An assumption of the inventory is that although teachers believe and use techniques from several schools of thought, usually one predominates. Therefore, a score is derived for each school of thought. According to the authors of the BDI, the instrument has been field tested with 61 pre- service teachers and 63 in-service teachers and its content validity and theoretical consistency established by groups of teachers, curriculum specialists, and college professors. The instrument has been shown to discriminate well between groups of persons known to hold differing beliefs about classroom management (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980).

Results

The first stage in the analysis of data was the computation of various summary statistics. As shown in Table 1, the before-student-teaching classroom management skills of the student teachers, as measured by the BMSI, were nearly identical to those of their cooperating teachers who were experienced music teachers. Also, based on the BDI, the before- student-teaching classroom management beliefs showed less emphasis on the interventionist position as compared to the cooperating teachers who appeared to lean more toward the interventionist stance. After student teaching, however, the mean interventionist score for student teachers and cooperating teachers became slightly closer.

In terms of changes from before student teaching to after student teaching, mean scores showed small changes. Figure 1 charts the means for student teachers and cooperating teachers in graph form. The pretest student teachers' scores, posttest student teachers' scores, and cooperating teachers' scores appeared quite similar.

With regard to whether the experience affected the student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills, the MANOVA results, F (3, 38) = 1.67, p < .19, revealed no significant differences between pre- and Table 1-Means and Standard Deviations on the Dependent Variables for

Student Teachers and Cooperating Teachers (n = 94)

Dependent Variable Pre Post Cooperating Teacher

BMSI 48.0* 49.3 48.5 9.4 7.4 9.1

BDI 40.9 45.9 43.1 (interventionist) 11.3 10.5 10.3 BDI 15.4 13.1 12.2 (noninterventionist) 10.1 10.6 9.2

*First entry is mean, second entry is standard deviation. BMSI = Behavior Management Skills Inventory; BDI = Beliefs on Discipline Inventory.

JRME 261 posttest classroom management belief and skill measures for the student teachers. In order to determine if the classroom management beliefs and skills of student teachers and their cooperating teachers became more congruent during the student teaching experience, first the pretest measures for student teachers were compared with the scores of their cooperating teachers. The MANOVA results, F (3, 38) = .75, p < .53, revealed no significant differences between the pretest measures of the student teachers and their cooperating teachers' scores. The posttest measures for student teachers were compared with scores of their cooperating teachers. MANOVA results, F (3, 38) = 1.16, p < .34, revealed no significant differences between posttest scores for student teachers and their cooperating teachers' scores relating to classroom management beliefs and skills. Since these overall tests did not produce significant results, no further post hoc tests were performed.

Conclusion

This study provided a basis for answering two questions: (1) Does the music student teaching experience affect student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills? and (2) As a result of student teaching, do the classroom management beliefs and skills of student teachers and their cooperating teachers become more congruent?

To determine the effects of the student teaching experience, the subjects' classroom management beliefs and skills were evaluated at the

Key: 55 - ? ..*.. = prestudent teaching score

,XK~. ~-~ X = poststudent teaching score

50 - - -- A= cooperating teachers' score

.... 45 ---.-_ ^

40-

35-

*"\ 30 -

25- \

20-

15- -

10- A

BMSI BDI BDI (interventionist) (noninterventionist)

Figure 1-Graphic representation of mean scores.

262 BRAND

start and end of student teaching. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between these pre- and posttest mea- sures. Thus, for the student teachers in this study, student teaching did not affect their classroom management beliefs and skills. There was, however, a slight tendency (though not statistically significant) for the student teachers to become more interventionist (with the teacher exerting high control over students) and less interventionist (with the teacher exerting low control over students) in their classroom manage- ment beliefs during the experience.

To ascertain if the student teaching subjects' classroom management beliefs and skills became more like those of their cooperating teachers, the differences between the student teachers and cooperating teachers at the start of student teaching and again at the end of student teaching were compared. The results showed that there were no statistical differences in classroom management beliefs and skills between the student teachers and their cooperating teachers either at the start of student teaching or at the end of the experience. Thus, the student teachers' and cooperating teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills were similar at the start and at the end of student teaching.

DISCUSSION

The results of this study were, at least initially, quite surprising and raised several questions. First, how could student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills not be affected by eight weeks of actual and practical teaching experience in the public schools? Second, how could beginning student teachers share similar classroom management beliefs and skills with their more experienced and more expert cooperat- ing teachers at the start and end of the experience?

The findings in this study could be disturbing to some. All parties involved in the training of music teachers (student teachers, cooperating teachers, music education professors) place great confidence on the impact of student teaching experience in the training of music teachers. Typically, it is believed that student teachers are sent into the schools with unrealistic and idealistic attitudes and untested music teaching skills. Colleges and universities rely on the student teaching experience, and more specifically the cooperating teachers, to turn out street-wise and school-wise music educators prepared to succeed as first-year music teachers.

With regard to school discipline, Ausubel (1961) believes that most colleges and universities tend to emphasize the ideal, and that teacher educators stress the desirability of permissiveness in pupil control, while discipline as practiced in the public schools emphasizes authoritarian control. The results of the present study directly challenged the concept that music teacher educators teach the ideal and that it is the responsibil- ity of the cooperating teacher during student teaching to socialize the neophite to the reality of classroom and rehearsal control. The student teachers in this study had classroom management skills and beliefs very similar to those of their cooperating teachers at the start of the

JRME

experience, and these went essentially unchanged during student teach- ing.

There are some possible reasons for this occurrence. First, music teacher educators have in recent years attempted to prepare music education majors for the reality of music teaching. Some methods teachers have used both written and videotaped simulations (Brand, 1976) to depict and train for actual situations student teachers will face. Observations and participation in the schools are being emphasized and begun earlier, even as early as the freshman year. Also, more recent publicity in the print and electronic media on the problems of discipline in the schools probably has opened the eyes of the formerly idealistic music education majors and helped them put away their rose-colored glasses before entering student teaching. Thus, it is possible that music education majors are entering student teaching with a more realistic view of music teaching and schools, and therefore, their beliefs and expectations concerning classroom management are more congruent with their cooperating teachers at the start of student teaching. Many would see this as a positive development in training music teachers; that is, equipping music education majors with the beliefs and skills of the more experienced and skilled cooperating music teachers.

There is, of course, another, less optimistic, interpretation of the results of this study: cooperating teachers do not affect their student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills, and student teachers have essentially the same classroom management beliefs and skills as their cooperating teachers at the very start of student teaching. It is possible that (1) the cooperating teachers did not have superior class- room management skills and mature beliefs as would be expected of experienced and skilled cooperating teachers; or (2) the student teachers did not change their classroom management beliefs or improve their skills because the cooperating teachers were not effective in assisting their trainees in these areas.

Brodbelt (1980) does state that it is far too easy to become a cooperating teacher. Just volunteering to supervise a student teacher has been accepted as qualification for receiving a student teacher. It appears that neither the colleges nor the directors of student teaching have wished to antagonize school personnel by requiring high performance standards on the part of cooperating teachers. The results of this study should provide impetus for those responsible for placing student teachers to reexamine the qualifications and effectiveness of music teachers who volunteer to work with student teachers.

Future studies might adopt a trait-treatment-interaction design to examine individual characteristics of both student teachers and cooper- ating teachers to determine which traits are essential for providing a positive influence on student teachers. Also, since there were very slight changes in the student teachers' classroom management beliefs and skills during the 8-week student teaching experience, the long term (16 weeks) effects of student teaching, or the effect of first-year teaching, should be studied.

Finally, it has been noted that the student teachers in this study were

263

264 BRAND

evaluated initially during the first week of student teaching. Given the practical realities for the study, this was the only time that would permit such evaluation. Seperson and Joyce (1973) have reported, however, that the impact of the cooperating teacher may be felt at the very start of the student teaching experience rather than being slow and cumulative. Thus, future researchers may want to replicate this study with the initial measures of the subjects completed prior to the first meeting of the student teachers and their cooperating teachers.

REFERENCES

Andrews, L. 0. Student teaching. New York: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1964.

Ausubel, D. New look at classroom discipline. Phi Delta Kappan, 1961, 23, 26-28. Boschee, F., Prescott, D. R., & Hein, D. D. Do cooperating teachers infuence the

educational philosophy of student teachers?Journal of Teacher Education, 1978, 29, 57-61.

Brand, M. Watch what you're doing: learning to cope with behavior problems through video simulation. Music Educators Journal, 1976, 63, 50-53.

Brand, M. Effectiveness of simulation techniques in teaching behavior manage- ment. Journal of Research in Music Education, 1977, 25, 131-138.

Brand, M. Measuring behavior management skills of preservice instrumental music teachers. Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 1979, 3, 36-41.

Brodbelt, S. Selecting the supervising teacher. Contemporary Education, 1980, 51, 86-88.

Brown, C. C. The relationship of initial teaching styles and selected variables in student teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Co- lumbia University, 1967.

Burnsed, V. Student teachers on their own. Music Educators Journal, 1982, 68, 45-46.

Campbell, L. P., & Williamson, J. A. Inner-city schools get more custodial teachers. Clearing House, 1978, 52, 140-141.

Conant, J. B. The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963. Corbett, H. D. Using occupational socialization research to explain patterns of

influence during student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 1980, 31, 11- 12.

Finn, J. D. Multivariance . . . univariate and multivariate analMsis of variance, covari- ance, and regression: a Fortran IV program (version 4). Buflalo: State University of New York, 1968.

Friebus, R.J. Agents of socialization involved in student teaching. Journal of Educational Research, 1977, 70, 263-268.

Ginott, H. G. Between parent and teenager. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Glickman, C. D., & Tamashiro, R. T. Clarifying teachers' beliefs about disci-

pline. Educational Leadership, 1980, 67, 459-464. Harty, H., & Mahan, J. M. Educational tendencies of student and supervising

teachers in preparation programs for native Americans in mainstream set- tings. Educational Research Quarterly, 1977, 2, 61-69.

Holemon, R. L. Attitude change of the student teacher: A test of the ABX model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington University, 1963.

Horowitz, M. Student teaching experiences and attitudes of student teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 1968, 79, 317-324.

Hoy, W. K. Organizational socialization: The student teacher and pupil control ideology. Journal of Educational Research, 1967, 61, 153-155.

JRME 265

Karmos, A. H., & Jacko, C. M. The role of significant others during the student teaching experience. Journal of Teacher Education, 1977, 28, 51-55.

Madsen, C. H., & Madsen, C. K. Teaching/discipline. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970.

McAulay, J. D. How much influence has a cooperating teacher? Journal of Teacher Education, 1960, 11, 79-83.

McIntyre, D. J., Buell, M. A., & Casey, J. P. Verbal behavior of student teachers and cooperating teachers. College Student Journal, 1979, 13, 240-244.

Milner, E. J. (Ed). The supervising teacher. Thirty-eighth yearbook of the Associa- tion for Student Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown, 1959.

Peters, W. An investigation of the influence of cooperating teachers in shaping the attitudes of student teachers toward teaching English, 1971. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 074 052).

Price, R. D. The influence of supervising teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 1961, 12, 471-475.

Roberts, R. A. & Blankenship, J. W. The relationship between the change in pupil control ideology of student teacher's perception of the cooperating teacher's pupil control ideology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1970, 7, 315-320.

Seperson, M. A. & Joyce, B. R. Teaching styles of student teachers as related to those of their cooperating teachers. Educational Leadership, 1973, 31, 146- 151.

Stoller, N. Televisionfor teacher education: changes in teacher education. Washington, D.C.: National Educational Association, 1964.

Tabachnick, B. R. Intern-teacher roles: illusion, disillusion and reality. Journal of Education, 1979, 162, 122-137.

Templin, T.J. Occupational socialization and the physical education student teacher. Research Quarterly, 1979, 50, 482-493.

Ver Velde, R. B. Classroom decision making: a comparison of two groups of teacher trainees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Arizo- na, 1974.

Willower, D.J., Eidell, T. L., & Hoy, W. K. The school and pupil control ideology. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State Studies No. 24, 1967.

Wroblewski, C. A student teacher views the supervising teacher. Journal oJ Teacher Education, 1963, 14, 333.

Yee, A. H. Do cooperating teachers influence the attitudes of student teachers? Journal of Educational Psvcholog,, 1969, 60, 327-332.

Zevin, J. In the cooperating teacher's image: Convergence of social studies student teachers' behavior patterns with cooperating teachers' behavior pat- terns. New York: Queens College, 1974. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 087 781).

June 9, 1982