problems of student teachers by george fred stagg

Problems of student teachersby George Fred Stagg

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the. degree ofDOCTOR OF EDUCATIONMontana State University© Copyright by George Fred Stagg (1968)

Abstract:The purpose of this study was to determine problems of student teachers which were caused byprocedures and practices of the teacher training institution and attitudes of members of the studentteaching team toward the preparation of student teachers, procedures of the student teaching program,relationships of the supervisory personnel, and acceptance of student teachers.

A basic assumption of the study was that all programs—regular, exploratory or experimental—couldbetter achieve maximum effectiveness through knowledge of problems caused by the mechanical orprocedural aspects of the student teaching program and by problems caused by altitudinal differencesof personnel of the student teaching team.

Comprehensive questionnaires, ranging in length from 61 to 139 items, were sent to all administrators,cooperating teachers, college supervisors, and elementary and secondary student teachers whoparticipated in the student teaching programs of the five public and three private teacher traininginstitutions in Montana during the 1966-67 school year. The questionnaire was sent to 2,611individuals and a return of 72.0 per cent was achieved.

Some of the more important findings and conclusions were as follows: (1) Although student teacherswere generally satisfied with their overall preparation and student teaching experience, a large majoritywere displeased with portions of their training and student teaching. (2) Considerable variation existedbetween programs of different teacher training institutions and within the programs at each institution.(3) Courses were deemed valuable or lacking in value due to the nature of the instruction rather thanthe nature of the course content. (4) Student teachers made greater usage of audio and visual devicesthan did their cooperating teachers and were more willing to experiment than were the teachers withwhom they worked. (5) Considerable variation existed between elementary and secondary studentteaching programs and between expressed attitudes of the two groups. (6) The role of the collegesupervisor was assessed quite differently by the various members of the student teaching team. Moreagreement on the role was found between other members of the team than between any member andthe college supervisor. (7) A needless waste of funds for travel and per diem and in utilization of stafftime existed in the supervisory procedures of the student teaching program. (8) Considerabledisagreement was noted on the assessed value of lesson plans and on what constituted an adequatelesson plan. (9) The single greatest problem-causing factor in the student teaching program has beenthe failure to establish clear, two-way lines of communication between the teacher training institutionsand the cooperating school and between the various members of the student teaching team inconnection with what each was attempting to accomplish and how they were planning to do so.

PROBLEMS OF. STUDENT TEACHERS

by

GEORGE FRED. STAGG

A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the. degree-

of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Approved:

Head, Major Apartment

Graduate Dean V

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY Bozeman, Montana ,

August, 1968

iii

...ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The writer.wishes to .acknowledge Iiis appreciation to the many people

who gave assistance and advice in the preparation and writing of this

dissertation. He is.grateful to the individuals from the various teacher

training institutions of the State of Montana.who helped give direction to

the study and to the 1,889 individuals who. participated in the ,study.

He would like to thank his adviser, Dr. Robert J. Thibeault, for his

advice and assistance. He also would like to thank his wife,-Ann, and

daughter, Shirley, for their patience,. understanding, and encouragement

during the period of this endeavor.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . ................................ ................ I

Statement of the Problem....................................... 5Procedure . . . . . .......................................... 5Limitations . . ................................................. 11Significance of the S t u d y ...................................... 12Statistical Design . ............................................. 13Definition of T e r m s ............................... '......... 15

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................. ............ 18

History and Development of Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . 18'Supervisory Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . 24

The Cooperating Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24The College Supervisor......................... 28The Cooperating School Administrator . . . . . . . ........ 30.

The Cooperating School ............. 32Student Teaching ........................................ 33Problems of Student Teachers . . . ................. . . . . . 35

III. EXAMINATION OF ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHER RESPONSES ......... 41

General Information .......................................... 42Nfechanics of Student Teaching Programs ....................... 44

Mechanics prior to student teaching ....................... 45Mechanics during student teaching . . ..................... 48Mechanics involving the college supervisor ........ . . . . 50Mechanics involving the school principal ................... 54Mechanics involving the cooperating teacher ............... 54Other mechanical features of the student teaching

experience........ .............. .................... .. . 56Use of audio and visual devices . ..........................58

Attitudes Toward■Academic and Professional Preparation . . . . 59Degree of Acceptance of Student Teachers ..................... 66The Student Teacher and General Procedures . . . ............. 67

IV. EXAMINATION OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHER RESPONSES ............76

General Information ................................ '..........77Mechanics of the Student Teaching Program . . ............... Si ■

Chapter Page

Attitudes of Student Teachers Toward Various Phases ofthe Student Teaching Program . . . . . . ................... 92

Lesson plans . . . . . . . . . .......... . ............ 92Academic and professional preparation . . . ............. 93Case studies................................................ 104Procedures ........................................... 105Cooperating, teachers . ............ ............ .. 10SCollege supervisors............................ 109Use of audio and visual devices . . . . . ............... IllOther personnel .................................. 112

V. EXAMINATION OF COOPERATING TEACHER RESPONSES ............... 115

General Information . .............................. 115Procedures of the Student Teaching Program ................. H S

Procedures of the college supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . 120Procedures of the cooperating school administrator . . . . 123Conference procedures . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 124

Student Teacher Preparation ............... . . . ........ 125Audio and Visual Device U s a g e ......................... .. . 130Attitudes of Cooperating Teachers . . . . . . . . ........ 132

VI. EXAMINATION OF ADMINISTRATOR RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . . 140

General Information ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140Procedures of the Student Teaching Program........ .. . . . 141

Administrative procedures related to the student teachingp r o g r a m .................................. 142

Procedures of the cooperating teacher ................... 148Procedures involving the college supervisor .............. 149

A t t i t u d e s ...................................................... 153

VII. EXAMINATION OF COLLEGE SUPERVISOR RESPONSES .............. 154

Procedures of the Student Teaching Program .................. 155

Procedures involving the cooperating schooladministrator ................................ ■......... 158

Procedures involving the cooperating teacher .............. 159-Procedures involving the student teacher .................. l6l

IV

Chapter Page

Attitudes 172

VIII. A STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF RESPONSES OF ALL GROUPS . . . . 174

General Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 174The Student Teacher ......................................... 176Lesson Plans........... 182Academic and Professional Preparation ................. . . 184Activities.................................................. 187The Case S t u d y .............................................. 191The Cooperating Teacher .................................... 192The Administrator .............................. 196The College Supervisor.................. 197The Conference .............................. ' ............... 201Attitudes . . . . . . . .................................... 205

IX. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 208

Summary . . . . . . . ...................................... 208Summary of Findings . . . . . . ........................... 210Conclusions . . . . . . .................................... 217Recommendations .............................................. 225

APPENDIX........ ....................................... .. . 233

Appendix A: Cover Letter Sent to All Participants . . . . . 234Appendix B: Elementary Student Teacher Questionnaire . . 236Appendix C: Secondary Student Teacher Questionnaire . . . . 241Appendix D: Cooperating Teacher Questionnaire . . . . . . . 246Appendix E: Administrator Questionnaire . . . ............. 249Appendix F: College Supervisor Questionnaire . . . . . . . 252

LITERATURE CONSULTED.......... 257

vi

Chapter Page

LIST OF TABLES

1. Summary of the Returns of the Questionnaires........ .. . . . 9

2. Number of Degrees Granted in Education at the TeacherTraining Institutions in Montana in 1956 and 1966 .......... 13

3. Elementary Student Teacher Questionnaire Returns . . . . . . . 42

4. Percentage of Student Teachers Knowing Various Factors ofAssignment a Month or More Before Starting to Student Teach . 47

5. Elementary Student Teacher Participation in Non-TeachingDuties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5O

6. Median, Mode and Range of College Supervisor Visits ........ 52■*y

7. Availability, Feasibility and Use of Selected Audio andVisual Devices by Elementary Student Teachers . . . ........ 59

8. Comparison of the Adequacy of the Academic and ProfessionalPreparation of Elementary Student Teachers . , .............. 6l

9. Areas of Strength and Deficiency in the Academic Preparationof Elementary Student Teachers ............................... 62

10. Areas of Strength and Deficiency in the ProfessionalPreparation of Elementary Student Teachers ................... 63

11. Degree of Duplication in Methods Courses at Each TeacherTraining Institution . . .......... . . . . . . ............. 65

12. Degree of Acceptance as Perceived by Elementary StudentTeachers . . . . . . O * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

13. Secondary Student Teacher Returns . . . . . . ............... 76

14. Distribution of Majors and Minors of Secondary StudentTeachers .............................. ........................ ■ 78

15. Participation in Non-Teaching Activities by Secondary StudentTeachers . . . . . . . . . . ................................. 87

16. Comparison of Attitudes of Student Teachers and Their Opinionsof Cooperating Teachers' Attitudes Toward Lesson Plans . . . . 93

Table Page

viii

17. A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Preparation in Academicand Professional Sequences, as Viewed by Student Teachers . . 94

18. Comments of Student Teachers on Their Education CourseSequence ................... .. . . ............................ 96

19. A Comparison of Academic Strengths and Weaknesses .......... 98

20. Education Course Sequence Strengths and Weaknesses .......... 98

21. A Cross Comparison of Strengths and Weaknesses in Academic and Education Preparation at Teacher Training Institutionsin Montana....................................................... 100

22. Per Cent of Duplication in Methods Courses at TeacherTraining Institutions in Mentana ......................... 103

23. Comparison of When Student Teaching Was Done with ExpressedPreferences..................................................... 106

24. Per Cent of Availability and Usage of Audio and VisualDevices ............. ..................................... ■ . . 112

25. Attitude of Acceptance of Student Teachers ................... 113

26. Number and Per Cent of Cooperating Teachers in Various SizeSchools • . . . ............. 116

27. Number of Years Teaching Experience of CooperatingTeachers ...................... . . & ......................... 117

28. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Preparation of Secondaryand Elementary Student Teachers . . . . . . . . . . ............ 128

29. Availability and Usage of Audio and Visual Devices byStudent Teachers . . . . . . . . ............... . . . . . . . 131

30. Optimum Length of the Student Teaching Experience .......... 135

31. Reasons for Serving as a Cooperating Teacher ................. 136

32. Per Cent of Cooperating Teachers Approving Assignment ofStudent Teachers to Various Non-Teaching Activities ........... 137

33. Attitudes of Acceptance of Student Teachers by DifferentGroups....................................... ............... 138

Table Page

ix

34. Views of Administrators on Assigning Student Teachers toNon-Teaching Duties . . . . . . .............................. 143

35. Administrator and Cooperating Teacher Attitudes TowardLesson Plans as Assessed by Administrators ................. 147

36. A Comparison of Conference Procedures Used and Desired byAdministrators in Meeting with College Supervisors ........... 150

37. A Comparison of the Actual Number of Visits of the College Supervisor with the Number Believed Best by Administrators . 151

38. Attitudes of Other Groups Toward Student Teachers asAssessed by Cooperating School Administrators ................ 153

39. A Comparison of the Value Placed on Lesson Plans by CollegeSupervisors and by Student Teachers ............................ 164

40. College Supervisor Opinions on Advisability of AssigningStudent Teachers to Non-Teaching Activities............. '. . 167

41. Evaluation of Student Teacher Preparation............ \ . . 169

42. Strengths and Weaknesses of Academic Preparation of StudentTeachers ........................................................170

43. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Education Course Sequence . . 170

44. Proportion of Student Teachers College Supervisors WouldBe Eager to Hire or Would Hire Only in an Emergency........ 172

45. Attitudes of Acceptance of Student Teachers as Assessedby College Supervisors . . . . . . . . . ............ . . . 173

46. Optimum Time of the Tear for Student Teaching...............ISO

47. The Value of Lesson P l a n s ....................................183

48. Participation in Non-Classroom Duties at the SecondaryLevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . 18 8

49. Participation in Non-Classroom Activities by ElementaryStudent Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Student Teacher Participation in Non-Classroom Activities . .

Table Page

50. 190

X

ABSTRACT

The purpose of. this ..study was to determine problems of student teachers which were caused by procedures and practices of the teacher training institution and attitudes of members of the student teaching team toward the preparation of student teachers, procedures of the student teaching program, relationships of the supervisory personnel, and acceptance of student teachers.

A basic assumption of the study was that all programs— regular, exploratory or experimental— could better achieve maximum effectiveness through knowledge of problems .caused by the mechanical or procedural aspects of the student teaching program and by problems caused by altitudinal differences of personnel of the student teaching team.

Comprehensive questionnaires, ranging in length from 6l to 139 items, were sent to all administrators, cooperating teachers, college supervisors, and elementary and secondary.student teachers who participated in the student teaching programs of the five public and three private teacher training institutions in Montana during the 1966-67 school year. The questionnaire was sent to 2,611 individuals and a return of 72.0 per cent was achieved.

Some of the more important findings and conclusions were as follows: (l) Although student teachers were generally satisfied with their overall preparation and student teaching experience, a large majority were displeased with portions of their training and student teaching. (2) Considerable variation existed between programs of different teacher training institutions and within the programs at each institution. (3) Courses were deemed valuable or lacking in value due to the nature of the instruction rather than the nature of the course content. (4) Student teachers made greater usage of audio and visual devices than did their cooperating teachers and were more willing to experiment than were the teachers with whom they worked. (5) Considerable variation existed between elementary and secondary student teaching programs and between expressed attitudes of the two groups. (6) The role of the college supervisor was assessed quite differently by the various members of the student teaching team. More agreement on the role was found between other members of the team than between any member and the college supervisor. (7) A needless waste of funds for travel and per diem and in utilization of staff time existed in the supervisory procedures of the student teaching program. (8) Considerable disagreement was noted on the assessed value of lesson plans and on what constituted an adequate lesson plan. (9) The single greatest problem-causing factor in the student teaching program has been the failure to establish clear, two-way lines of communication between the teacher training institutions and the cooperating school and between the yarious members of the student teaching team in connection with what each was attempting to accomplish and how they were planning to do so.

r ;

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Each year .hundreds of....student tea chars, are placed in the..classrooms ■

of Montana schools to begin.one of their final experiences prior to the

assumption of the role of classroom teachers. This program has long been

recognized as an integral part of preparation of teachers. Harry Broudy

pointed this out in an address at the University of Illinois during which

he stated: "Thus were the two basic principles of teacher training imbedded

in educational history: one learns by teaching and one learns to teach by

teaching." (8:2)

At its best, the student teaching experience can put the polishing

touches on a prospective teacher and be a worthwhile, cooperative experience

for the student, student teacher, cooperating teacher, and the cooperating

school.

.Blair states: "As a student teacher reflects .on his total experience

in the school community, he realizes that he is a changed person. He has

changed emotionally and physically: he is a person of stature." (7:2l)

At its worst, a potentially good teacher may have been lost, a group

of students will have been subjected to a negative learning situation, a

master teacher may have become discouraged, and ill feelings may have been

initiated between the two educational institutions involved.

It would appear obvious that the more meaningful the student teaching

experience can be made, the more thorough will be the preparation of the

student teacher to enter the teaching profession as a worthy member of that

group.

2

.Student teachers.Jiave ..prohlems .which are..Qbsta.cle.s to the attainment

of maximum benefit from the student teaching .experience. In many cases

these problems are compounded because the college supervisor, cooperating

school administrator, and cooperating teacher are unaware that the problems

exist. Similarly, some of the problems student teachers encounter result

from .the student teacher being unaware of the problems of the aforementioned

supervisory.personnel. Further, certain conditions in the cooperating

schools and actions of supervisory personnel of the cooperating school and

the teacher training institution unnecessarily create problems for the stu

dent teacher. Below are listed illustrative examples encountered by the

writer in. his .capacity as college supervisor of. student teachers and his

former capacity as a .school administrator .and cooperating teacher while

working with.student teachers.

The college supervisor was greeted by the cooperating teacher who stated he. did not like to teach biology but was the only one on the staff who had a minor in."it so was stuck with it. He followed this

■ statement with another to the effect that whoever originated the BSCS biology program did not know what he was doing. The class, 35 students, was too large for the biology lab so it was being taught in the mathematics room and no biology laboratory experiences were contemplated.

The college supervisor visited the classroom in which the student teacher was presenting a lesson. The cooperating teacher sat in the back of the room and periodically-arose, walked to the front blackboard and wrote notes on the board to emphasize points made by the• student teacher. This occurred nine different times during the presentation of the lesson.

The college supervisor visited the cooperating schooL- a-nd--met - the . cooperating teacher in the school lounge. The cooperating-teacher- In1- formed the college supervisor that first year teachers have to -take, over a class immediately so he introduced the student.teacher-to the class the first day ,and left. He had not been back to the-class- since-, although the collegd supervisor's visit was during the third week of student teaching. :

3.

Two levels .of a foreign, language, were being taught in the same ■ room at the ..same time. .The cooperating .teacher was teaching one level and the student teacher the other. Both were attempting to conduct oral exercises at the same time.

The.history teacher greeted the college supervisor with the state-, ment that he had never had a student teacher from the teacher training institution which the college supervisor represented who was adequately trained in either subject matter or methodology. This same teacher insisted that the student teacher outline the chapter on the board and teach from the outline. The student teacher was not permitted to bring in 'frills' or even put the outline on a ditto sheet and distribute it to the class.

The four cooperating teachers visited in the school.by the college supervisor each requested that the college supervisor speak to the principal about rescinding the rule which required the cooperating teacher to be in the room with the student teacher at all times.

Student teachers were upset because they had received notification they were to register by mail and that the necessary materials would be sent to them. Registration was to be completed prior to the close of regular registration or a late registration fee would be charged. At the time' of the visit of the college. supervisor, the student teachers had not as yet received the materials although regular registration had already been completed.

The student teacher was in a state of confusion because of the extreme difference in the approach of the two cooperating teachers.One conducted a very permissive classroom and the other a very rigid one. One required detailed and lengthy daily lesson plans and the other a few informal notes. Procedures demanded by one were totally unacceptable to the other.

The student teacher was assigned one class with a cooperating teacher and was informed by the teacher that if he did not take both sections taught by the teacher, he would not be of much help. This same cooperating teacher operated a neighborhood grocery store which remained open in the evening and also had a 100-customer milk route before school in the morning.

A student teacher was visited by the college supervisor for five minutes in only one class. After class the college supervisor met the student teacher in the hall and offered only two comments. The two .comments were that the student teacher had a fine handwriting on. the blackboard and she dressed well.

The. student teacher was in the midst of a classroom presentation, with the cooperating teacher observing, when the principal entered

i

4

and informed the cooperating .teacher that she would have to complete the lesson because he needed the student teacher to take a class for another teacher who was ill. The student teacher was .given a class she had never met which was in a subject outside of her major or. minor fields.

Two student teachers from two different teacher training institutions were doing their student teaching in the same class at the same time. The class was an academic subject.

A teacher in. a ..school system .offered the information to the college supervisor that he did not have a student teacher because he had refused to accept one and would not again accept one because he gave his last student teacher an ’A' but the student teacher received a 'B' for a final grade.

A student teacher was informed he would do his student teaching in chemistry, his major, and upon arrival at the school was assigned two classes in eighth grade science instead.

A student teacher was assigned to a school to do student teaching under a well qualified instructor and found on arrival at the school that the teacher had resigned the previous spring -and had been replaced by a first year teacher who had a bare minor in the subject.

The above are some of the stimuli which led the writer to select

problems of student teachers as his area of research^since -it was felt that

a mutual awareness of the problems of all individuals involved would elim

inate many of the existing problems and would give direction toward the

resolution of many of the others. The greater the number of problems which

could be eliminated or readily solved, the more worthwhile would be the

student teaching experience.

Considerable research has been conducted into training programs for

the preparation of.student teachers. Additional research has been conducted

on the role of supervisory personnel. However, little research has been

done with the student teacher and his problems as the basis for the analysis

of the student teaching program.

5

Statement of the Problem

In examining the possible sources of problems encountered by student

teachers, five general patterns appeared to be involved. These included

the following:

Io To what extent do the mechanics of the student teaching program create problems for the student teacher?

2 o What are the problems of student teachers as revealed by -attitudes of cooperating teachers, college supervisors, cooperating school administrators, and student teachers in relation to the student teaching experience?

3. To what degree do the problems of student teachers interrelate with those of the college supervisor, cooperating-schooladministrator, and the cooperating teacher?

4. To what degree is each aware of the problems of others?

5. To what degree does each inadvertently create problems for the student teacher?

Procedure

When literature on student teaching was examined, it became increas

ingly clear that, while considerable concern was evidenced about student

teaching programs, little research combined depth of study with breadth of

study or was related to problems encountered by student teachers as seen by

student teachers themselves.

Informal interviews and conferences were conducted with teachers,

administrators, professors of education, and student teachers. Each group

agreed such a study had merit. Since it was decided that the study should

be broad and still have depth, a decision was reached to include all teacher

training institutions in the state of Montana,, both public and private.

6

Montana has five teacher training institutions which are tax supported: the

University of Montana in Missoula, Montana State University in Bozeman,

Eastern Montana College in Billings, Western Montana College in Dillon, and

Northern Montana College in Havre. In addition, there are three private

teacher training institutions: Rocky Mountain College, a Protestant sup

ported school in Billings; Carroll College, a Catholic supported school in

Helena; and College of Great Falls in Great Falls, also supported by the

Catholic Church. Each of the eight institutions trains teachers at both the

elementary and secondary levels.

These institutions were contacted and a conference was held with the

director of student teaching at each institution or with the individual

serving in that capacity at that time. Each institution furnished a list

of the student teachers for the school year 1966-67, the names of the coop

erating teachers, the schools in which the student teaching was done, and

the names of the college supervisors who visited the student teachers. Ad

ditional direction and information was received concerning means of contact

ing the individuals, the nature of the student teaching program, and proce

dures used in the program.

It was further decided that the study would include all individuals

who did their student teaching' during the 1966-67 school year from all eight

of the teacher training institutions. Also included were all teachers in

the state who were assigned a student teacher, all administrators of cooper

ating schools, and all college personnel who had visited student teachers in

a ...supervisory capacity.

7

The information to be obtained was collected by means of separate,

but related, questionnaires. These questionnaires were to be sent to:

college supervisors, cooperating school administrators, cooperating teach

ers, secondary student teachers, and elementary student teachers. Due to

the magnitude of the study, the Testing and Counseling Service at Montana

State University was contacted for suggestions for efficiency of tabulation

of results„ The final form of the questionnaire included some multiple

choice items, some check lists, and some questions calling for 'yes' or 1 no'

answers. A deliberate attempt was made to avoid presenting choices which

would be non-commital in nature. Since all possible responses could not be

anticipated, recipients of the questionnaires were urged to add comments and

offer suggestions.

A sample questionnaire for each category of individuals to be con

tacted was constructed and presented to individuals in each of these cate

gories. Five administrators, 10 cooperating teachers, 10 college super

visors, and 30 student teachers completed the sample questionnaire and

offered suggestions for clarity and additional areas of inquiry. The in

struments were revised, incorporating those suggestions which were both

worthwhile and feasible.

In final form, the questionnaires (Appendix:234-256) were printed and

mailed with a cover letter, return envelope, and standardized answer sheet -

to the individuals in the study. A standardized answer sheet was used so

that the results could be machine tabulated.

In compiling the lists of recipients of the instruments, a cross

checking of the lists was necessary since most cooperating schools had more

8than one student teacher and many cooperating schools received student

teachers from more than one teacher training institution. The final list

of recipients included 68 college supervisors, 225 cooperating school admin

istrators, 1,305 cooperating teachers, 705 secondary student teachers, and

308 elementary student teachers. A total of 2,611 questionnaires were

mailed. A minimum goal of 70 per cent return was set which meant 1,828 re

plies constituted a minimum return.

Approximately three weeks after each questionnaire was sent a follow

up letter was mailed to the 55 per cent who had not replied. A second ques

tionnaire was sent another two or three weeks later to those who still had

not replied, Follow-up requests invited the recipients to answer directly

on the questionnaire rather than on the accompanying answer sheet since it

was felt this would increase the probability of completion. In four of the

five categories this procedure elicited replies in excess of the predeter

mined minimum. In one category, the secondary student teachers, a fourth

communication was sent under the joint signatures of the investigator and

the investigator's adviser. The number of questionnaires sent and returned

are shown in Table I, page 9.

The minimum percentage of returns was exceeded in four of the five

groups and in the total for all categories. One group, the secondary stu

dent teachers, while not exceeding the desired total, closely approached it.

Each of the instruments was divided into two parts, although not so

designated on the questionnaire itself. One part was designed to ascertain

general information, including information on mechanics of the student

teaching program, and the other portion was designed to ascertain attitudes

9

'TABLE I. SUMMARY OF THE RETURNS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRES

Group Sent ReturnedPer cent returned

College supervisors 68 57 83.8

Cooperating teachers - 1,305 961 73.7

Administrators 225 160 71.6

Elementary student teachers 308 217 70.4

Secondary student teachers 705 484 68.7

Totals 2,611 1,879 72.0

toward the program. The instruments were designed to reveal problems en

countered in the student teaching experience and to indicate possible causes

of these problems. The portion of the questionnaire designed to ascertain .

information on the mechanics of the program was organized under mechanics

prior to, during, and following the student teaching experience. The re

maining portion of the instrument, in each case, was organized under cate

gories of attitudes toward student preparation, the cooperating school

situation, the teacher training institution, and personnel involved in the

student teaching experience. Although the general approach to each ques

tionnaire was basically the same, the questionnaires were, of necessity,

somewhat differently oriented as dictated by the position of the individual

supplying the data. An illustration of the different orientation occurred

in ques-tions....,snch,. as-.those related, to the nature of the student teacher-

10cooperating teacher conference. While each is concerned with the confer

ence, each will have his attitude affected by the attitude of the other.

The 1,879 replies received were checked and, in cases where neces

sary, transcribed onto answer sheets. Certain answers were eliminated

where it was not clear what the respondent intended. Answer sheets were

taken to the computer center at Montana State University for mechanical key

punching and accompanying frequency distributions. Each answer sheet had

been coded according to the relationship of the individual to the teacher

training institution with which he was associated, except in the case of

cooperating school administrators. Too much overlap occurred in this cate

gory for such a separation to be of much value since many of the schools

accepted student teachers from several of the teacher training institu

tions. It was felt it would be more worthwhile to separate the adminis

trators into groups according to the position they held so opinions of per

sons in similar positions could be compared. As a result, the administrat

ors were coded and separated into elementary principals, junior high

principals, high school principals, and superintendents who were serving

in a dual capacity as superintendent and principal.

Statistical presentation was divided into two general categories.

Some of the data, primarily general information, was carried no further than

the total frequency distribution and the frequency distribution by teacher

training institutions and a few other designated categories. This was par

ticularly true of the categories of cooperating teachers, administrators,

and college supervisors. No comprehensive study has ever been made, in;

Montana, on these points for these groups. While individual institutions

11

have made studies within- their own programs, none of this depth and breadth

has been made between institutions.

The second approach to statistical presentation was the comparison

of opinions from one group to another. Wide variance in the opinion of one

group compared to another group on the same point can, and frequently has,

created problems for the student teacher, A high degree of relationship

between groups indicated agreement, either of strengths or weaknesses.

Little relationship indicated areas of disagreement which, as previously

mentioned, were indicative of possible problem areas.-

Limitations

The study was limited to those students who did their student teach

ing in the state of Montana during the 1966-67 school year and who were

enrolled in a public or private teacher training institution's regular pro

gram of teacher preparation. The group of cooperating teachers included in

the study were those teachers in Montana schools, public and private, who

had one or more of the aforementioned student teachers assigned to them.

The administrators were those who served as principals of one of the schools

in which one or more student teachers did their student teaching during the

1966-67 school year. The college supervisors were those individuals, resi

dent staff or other, who were assigned by the teacher training institutions

to visit and work with the student teachers assigned to the various cooper

ating schools.

The study was further limited to.the mechanics of the student teach

ing program and the attitudes of the personnel involved... and did not include

12

teaching procedures except as related to the above mentioned mechanics and

attitudes.

Significance of the Study

The teacher preparation programs in Montana have undergone consider

able growth in the past decade. This can readily be seen by examining fig

ures supplied by registrars for the years 1956 and 1966 which indicate the

number of degrees in education granted at each teacher training institution

in Montana.

As can be seen from Table 2, page 13, there has been greater than a

four hundred per cent growth in the number of degrees granted in education

in a single decade. Eastern Montana College granted more degrees in educa

tion in 1966 than were granted in the entire state in 1956. Projected en

rollment figures have indicated that the growth has yet to reach its peak.

(54:475)The student teaching programs have been modified at each institution

to meet present growth but have not undergone radical changes. Increased

numbers create increased problems which tend to subjugate the personalities

of individuals and foster a situation in which problems are not readily evi

dent or assessed or may even be ignored in the overall view.

While each teacher training institution has certain procedures pecu

liar to, and dictated by the nature of the institution, each in turn has

problems which they hold in common with other teacher training institutions.

Each program and set of procedures involved in it could be improved and

offer direction to the other institutions in the elimination and solution

13

of problems of student teachers. This research has been designed to ascer

tain common areas which could be unified while allowing for diversity neces

sitated by local conditions.

TABLE 2. NUMBER OF DEGREES GRANTED IN EDUCATION AT TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN MONTANA IN 1956 AND 1966

Teacher training institutions

Degrees granted in education

1956 1966

University of Montana 76 139

Eastern Montana College 32 304

Western Montana College 26 187

Montana State University 16 132

Northern Montana College 15 99

Rocky Mountain College 14 14

College of Great Falls 29 53

Carroll College 4 69

Totals 212 997

Statistical Design

Six of the nine chapters in the. study were directly related to the

total responses of the returned questionnaires„ Chapters three through

seven each reported the total responses to each item in one of the five

14

questionnaires. Chapter eight compared the responses to items which ap

peared on more than one of the instruments.

A basic assumption of the study was that conflicting views held by

different members of the student teaching team were possible sources of

problems of student teachers. It was necessary, therefore, to determine

those differences which were significant when one group was compared to

another. It was decided to test the significance between two independent

proportions drawn from the same population. The population in this study

was all those who had participated in the student teaching program during

the 1966-67 school year as a student teacher, cooperating teacher, college

supervisor, or cooperating school administrator in the state of Montana.

Comparisons were drawn between these groups, each of which constituted an

independently drawn sample. Since the null hypothesis, that no significant-

difference existed between'the two proportions, was assumed, data for the

two samples could be combined to obtain a single estimate of ’p', the stan

dard error of the difference. Therefore, a value ' z' , which may be inter

preted as a deviate of the unit normal curve, could be determined. (25:177)

The formula used to determine significance of difference was:

Pl - Paz = , , . . ..IHI

v/ P q [(1/%) 4- (1/%)]

Fergusen indicated that the above interpretation of 1z! is valid pro

vided N1 and N2 are reasonably large and that 'p' is neither very small nor

very large. Fergusen1s suggested guideline was that if the smaller value

of 1P 1 or 1q' was multiplied by the smaller value of N and the product

15

exceeded five, then the ratio could be interpreted in reference to the nor

mal curve. (25:177) The suggested guidelines were applicable to this study.

Since the direction of the difference between the proportions could

not be predicted, this was a two-tailed test and the accepted values of 1.96

and 2.58 were used for significance at the .05 and .01 levels of confidence.

In this study the .05 confidence level was used since it is generally ac

cepted for research in education. (3:Si) (25:164-165) (57:199) The differ

ences which were found to be significant at the .01 level or better were

reported at that level.

Definition of Terms (27:1-464)

Activities, extra-curricular — programs and events, carrying no academiccredit, sponsored and organized by pupils’ or students’ organizations or by the educational institution, designed to entertain, instruct, and/or provide exercise of interests and abilities; subject to some measure of control by the institution.

Administrator ----------------- any educational official responsible forthe management or direction of some part of an educational establishment or system; includes school superintendents and school principals.

Aid, audio -------------------- any device by which the learning processmay be encouraged or carried on through the sense of hearing; for example, phonograph, recordings, public address systems, and radio programs.

Aid, audio visual ------------- any device by means of which the learningprocess may be encouraged or carried on through the senses of hearing and sight; for example, sound film slides, sound motion pictures, and television.

16

Aid, visual ------------------- any device by which the learning processmay be encouraged or carried on through the sense of sight; for example, silent motion pictures, photographs, and stereoscopes.

Case study---------------------a diagnostic and remedial procedure basedon thorough investigation of a person, in order to acquire knowledge of his history, his home conditions, and all influences that may cause his maladjustment or behavior difficulties, the aim being to apply remedial measures.

College supervisor ------------ the supervisory representative of theteacher training institution who visits the off-campus classroom to supervise the student teaching experience and act as a resource person for the student teacher and the supervising teacher.

Cooperating school ------------ an off-campus school whose facilities areused for student teaching in the program of teacher education; not an integral part of the teacher training institution itself, but by agreement provides opportunities for student teaching or research.

Cooperating teacher ----------- an off-campus teacher in an affiliatedschool who assists in the supervision and evaluation of student teaching.

Exploratory experience -------- the act of- seeing or studying the activities of teaching and learning in an actual school situation in order to secure a more realistic or meaningful conception of educational problems.

Mechanics --------------------- routine procedures; technical details ormethods.

Orientation ------------------- the process of making a person aware ofsuch factors in his school environment as rules, traditions, and educational offerings for the purpose of facilitating effective adaptation.

17

Preparation, professional ----- the total formal preparation for teachingthat a person has completed in a teacherpreparing institution; more usually it is understood to include, in addition, the aggregate of his experience in positions involving educational activities.

Preparation, subject matter --- the preparation that a teacher has had incollege or university in the academic areas such as English, biology, history, and mathematics in which he plans to teach.

Principal --------------------- the administrative head and professionalleader of a school division or unit such as a high school, junior high school, or elementary school; a highly specialized, full-time administrative officer in large public systems, but usually carrying a teaching load in small ones; in public education usually subordinate to a superintendent of schools.

Student teacher --------------- one who is acquiring practical teachingexperience and skill under the guidance of a critic teacher or other supervisor in the special laboratory or practice school of a teacher training institution or in the classes of a public or private school; usually an advanced student who has had no other teaching experience.

Student teaching -------------- observation, participation, and actualteaching done by a student preparing for teaching under the direction of a supervising teacher or general supervisor; part of the pre-service program offered by the teacher education institution.

Teacher training institution — any educational institution concerned withthe conduct of activities regarded as significant in the professional education of teachers.

%

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The literature consulted indicated that in considering the problems

involved in student teaching, four aspects must be reviewed. These four

aspects are the historical development of teacher education, the supervis

ory personnel involved in the program, the school setting in which the ex

perience is conducted, and the process of student teaching itself.

History and Development of Teacher Education

Historically, the citizens of the United States have placed great

emphasis on education. As early as 1636 education was recognized as a re

sponsibility of the community with the passage of laws requiring the estab

lishment of schools. (12:250) This was further indicated by compulsory

attendance laws passed in 1852. (12:4-61) Early teachers were housewives,

as in the case of the Dame Schools, with teachers then, and later, being

hired on the basis of being able to read, write, and do simple arithmetic

problems while maintaining order in the classroom^ (12:210) Little, if any,

attention was given to the training of teachers.

On March 6, 1818,legal procedures were established which allowed

Philadelphia to establish an institution with a training program for teach

ers. (31:8) However, thirty years passed before the first normal school was

established in Philadelphia. Meanwhile, student teaching probably had its

inception in Concord, Vermont, in a private academy established.by the

Reverend Samuel R. Hall in 1823 for the purpose of training teachers. (31:

13) The academy had some children in attendance to provide an opportunity

19

for demonstration teaching. The Reverend' Hall wrote the first widely used

text on teaching entitled Lectures on Schoolkeeping. In 1830 Hall joined

the faculty of Phillips Andover Academy and initiated a course called 'The

Art of Teaching'. (31:13)

In January 1825, the Reverend Thomas H. Gallaudet of Hartford,

Connecticut, wrote A Plan of a Seminary for the Education of Instructors of

Youth which included the following statements: (31:15)

1. Let an institution be established in every state for the express purpose of training the profession of the instructors of youth.

2. Let it be so well endowed by the liberality of the public that it may have professors of talent who should devote their lives to the theory and practice of the education of youth.

3. Let the institution be furnished with a library — maps, charts, globes, orreries, etc....

4. Let there be connected with the institution a school in which the theories of the professors might be reduced to practice, letting the students take their turns in the instruction of the experimental school.

The first public normal school actually established in the United

States was located in Lexington, Massachusetts, and opened on July 3, 1839.

This school was later moved to West Newton, Massachusetts, in 1844 and to

Framingham, Massachusetts, in 1853. In September of 1839, two additional

schools were opened, one at Barre and the other at Bridgewater. The former

was moved to Westfield in 1844. Although a pioneer in the establishment of

normal schools and the place of origin of the first three such public insti

tutions, there was not universal agreement on the worth of the project.

Harper (31:20) pointed out that even among teachers there was not a majority

20

who supported the new program and that only the belief in the movement by

strong personalities enabled the program to continue,

One of these powerful personalities was Horace Mann. He made the

following statement at the dedication of the normal school building at

Bridgewater, Massachusetts, on August 19, 1846.

I believe Normal Schools to be a new instrumentality in the advancement of the race. I believe that, without them, Free Schools would at length become mere charity schools and thus die out in fact and in form. Neither the art of printing, nor trial by jury, nor a free press, nor free sufferage, can long exist, to any beneficial and saluatory purpose, without schools for the training of teachers.; for, if the character and qualifications of teachers be allowed to degenerate, the Free Schools, and the pauper schools, will produce pauper souls and the free press will become a false and liscenous press, and ignorant voters will become .venal voters, and through the medium and. guise of republican forms, an oligarchy of profligate and flagitious

■ men will govern the land; nay, the universal diffusion of all-glorious Christianity itself must await the time when knowledge shall be diffused among men through the instrumentality of good schools. Coiled up in this'institution, as in a spring, there is a vigor whose uncoiling may wheel the spheres. (31:21-22)

These early.schools were small and offered only a short course, usu

ally three to nine months in length. The size is illustrated by the fact

that only three young ladies enrolled in the first course at Lexington in

1839.No tuition was charged and their popularity did increase. By i860

there were 12 normal schools established and located in nine different

s tates.

In October of 1839, a Model School was established in connection with

the normal school at Lexington for the express purpose of providing a prac

tice setting and students for prospective teachers. The growth of teacher

preparation programs was not confined to the establishment of normal schools

21

and practice facilities. The offerings were multiplied and universities

entered into the field of teacher education. Brown University started to

train teachers as early as 1851.

Harper (31:55-56) stated that by 1859 a three-year course was offered

which required four terms of student teaching as part of the prescribed pro

gram. of training. Teachers who had taken the training were paid twice the

salary of those who had not, In some programs teacher trainees were used in

role playing situations. One student was appointed the teacher while the

rest of the group was expected to play the role of six to eight year old

children.

The first normal schools established west of the Mississippi were

located in Winona, Minnesota, and Emporia, Kansas, and were established in

1958 and 1864, respectively. (31:8) In some cases, as in Iowa, a normal

department was established as part of the university rather than as a sep

arate normal school. Generally this approach was not too acceptable and in

Iowa the practice was discontinued. The first normal school was established

at'Cedar Falls, Iowa, in 1876. The central office of the Association for

Student Teaching was located at Iowa State Teachers College at Cedar Falls

from its early days until it moved to Washington, D.C. in 1967.

As the normal school movement spread south and west and as changes

occurred in the nature of the offerings, so did the nature of the student

who attended these institutions. Harper (31:107) refers to two surveys,

one taken in 1880 and the other in 1890, which showed the average age of .

students dropped during that period from 25 to 20, while students in the

eastern part of the country were even younger.

22There are many areas of controversy in teacher training today, some

of which are not new. From 1850 to 0.870 it was argued that normal schools

should teach the so-called 1 art of teaching' but that their function was not

that of teaching subject matter. Two schools of thought developed on prep

aration of teachers with one view being that anyone who .was prepared in sub

ject, matter could teach, while the other held that it was necessary to take

training in how to teach.

One hundred years ago it was argued whether student teachers should

be supervised by subject matter specialists or by professional educators.

The training school was recognized as the focal point of the entire process and here all theory was to find its application.From i860 to 1900 there were many kinds of organization among training schools and many systems of supervision of student teachers. It was debated whether or not special critic teachers should supervise the practice teaching or whether this should be done by regular faculty members. (31:118)

This argument is still unresolved today. Also, still discussed today

is the value of the on-campus training school versus the off-campus training

center. The latteh part of the nineteenth century elicited the following

statement: "It was argued as to whether the practice school should be

entirely under the control of the normal school or whether practice teach

ing should be done in connection with the regular or city school systems."

(31:119)

By 1875 there were 70 normal schools in the United States. The

growth was evidenced by the increase in number to 135 by 1890 and 177 by

1902. During this same period the total enrollment in normal schools in

creased from 15,000 to 49,000 students. The growth of the normal school

23

movement presented another area of controversy: whether the growth of normal

schools should.be planned to locate them in widely spaced areas and thus

bring the institutions to the people or whether each state should concen

trate on fewer, but larger, institutions in the interest of economy of

operation.

By 1905 there were normal schools in all states except Nevada,

Wyoming, and Delaware. New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts led in

the number of such institutions with 19, 15, and 10, respectively. Con

siderable variation existed in the funds available for operation. In Iowa

the average income per institution was $142,000, in Virginia $72,500, and

in Tennessee $70,000 and ranged down to low average incomes per institution

with $6,000 in Arkansas, $5,400 in Maine, and $1,435 in Mississippi. (62:45)

Just as the income varied, so did the per pupil expenditures of

monies. The range extended from $292 per pupil in Rhode' Island to $52 per

pupil in Indiana. The national average was $122 with M3ntana spending $169

per pupil on the 133 pupils at its one normal school located in Dillon. (62:

45)

Accompanying the growth of institutions was a growth in number of

trained teachers. Estimates of the per cent of trained teachers employed

for the 1902-1903 school year ranged from a high of sixty percent in Arizona

and forty per cent in Massachusetts to a low of ten per cent in Kansas and

Illinois. It was further estimated that the overall percentage of employed

teachers who had had normal school training was in the neighborhood of

twenty-five per cent. (62:8)

24The period from 1920 to 1940 saw standards being raised and programs

further expanded. During these two decades most normal schools were ex

panded into four-year institutions and changed their names to teachers

colleges or colleges of education. Accompanying the change in name was the

granting of degrees in addition to certificates to teach. Since 1940 the

changes have been toward expansion into the liberal arts field with an

accompanying change of name to that of state colleges and universities.

(47:1-3)

From the turn of the century to the present, there has been an in

creased number of programs in teacher preparation in private and state

colleges and universities. The combination of. teacher preparation and

liberal arts under one roof has triggered many an institutional argument.

Today the number has grown to over twelve hundred institutions preparing

teachers with less than one hundred of these having this, as their sole

function. (11:33-35) (5:1-12)

Supervisory Personnel

In general, the supervisory personnel involved in student teaching

programs can be divided into three categories: the college supervisor, the

cooperating teacher, and the administrator of the cooperating school. Each

has a distinct role and each plays an important part in the success of the

student teaching experience.

The cooperating teacher. The cooperating teacher is, or should be,

in constant contact with the student teacher and due to this position can

exert the greatest amount of influence upon the student teacher. It would

25appear logical that the greatest care should have been exercised in the

selection of this vital cog in the preparation of prospective teachers,

The literature consulted indicated that this has not always been the case.

Chaltas (13:311-318) points out that the assignment of student teachers can

be classified according to the following procedures: blind assignment,, stu

dent preference according to locale, student preference as to grade and

subject, student matched with the community in which he would seem to fit,

and matching the student teacher to the total student teaching situation. ■

He believes the latter two are the most important and the least used.

Wagner (67:10-11) lists 18 points covering the role of the cooper

ating teacher which are substantiated and expanded upon by Andrews, (2:58-

63) Burns, (10:41-43) Drayer, (21:173-175) Drumhiller, (22:290-295)

Durrance, (23:17) Hays, (32:1-14) Miner, (45:91-94) and Wiggins. (68:44-45)

1. Planning for initial orientation of the student to the classroom and the school

2. Acquainting himself with the program of the student teacher as proposed by the college

3. Familiarizing himself with the background of the student (through material sent by the college)

4. Creating an atmosphere of acceptance of the student on the part of himself, the pupils, the faculty, and the community

5. Introducing the student to classroom routines and instructional procedures

6. Providing opportunities for observation and participation in various class and extra-class activities

7. Acquainting the student teacher with pupil personnel records and the manner in which they are kept and used

8. Acquainting the student teacher with instructional materials, supplies, and equipment available to him

26

9. Orienting the student teacher to accepted patterns of planning

10. Establishing a climate in which the student teacher may gradually develop skill in planning and in continuously evaluating his own planning procedures

H o Treating the student teacher as a co-worker rather than a subordinate

12. Providing opportunities for the student teacher to test theory in practice in a variety of classroom and extra-class situations

13. ' Arranging the schedule for actual teaching experiences by thestudent teacher

14. Providing for continuous evaluation of the student's teaching through frequentj planned conferences, weekly report sheets, self evaluation by the student teacher, and check lists

15. Guiding the student teacher in attaining cooperatively established objectives

16. Providing for opportunities for professional growth through attendance at professional meetings, staff meetings, use of the library, and building of a personal library

17. Providing opportunities and time for conferences

18. Serving as a consultant to former students in in-service situations

Perrodin (51:36) reported on a study by the Georgia Supervising

Teacher Education Program on the training of cooperating teachers. It was

found that student teachers placed with trained cooperating teachers made

substantially greater gains over student teachers who were placed with

cooperating teachers who had not been trained for that responsibility.

Wiggins (52:43-48) listed three main jobs of the supervising teacher:

teaching of classes and extra-curricular responsibilities, providing direct

assistance to the student teacher, and creating an environment in the class

room, school, and community which facilitates maximum success.

27Durrance (30:19) lists seven characteristics of a cooperating

teacher:

Io Be a superior teacher in his own right

2. Possess a positive professional attitude

3. Be a cooperative participant in the total school program

4. Want to participate in the student teaching program

5. Be able and willing to make frank and objective evaluations of the student teacher’s work and progress

6. Be able to work with another adult in the classroom

7 o Be willing to cooperate with the university or college in providing a program of experiences desired for the student teacher

McNeil (52:57-6l) lists five facets to the role of the 1 teacher of

teachers'.

1. He helps the beginning teacher find purpose in his teaching.

2. He furthers the beginning teacher's sensitivity to individual students and the dynamics of the classroom.

3. He enables the beginning teacher to visualize instruction.

4. He gives the student teacher a view of teaching as learning.

5. He influences the student teacher to act professionally.

0'Hanlon (50:339) indicates that one of the problems that arises in

the assignment of cooperating teachers is the false assumption held by some •

of the assigning officials that any experienced teacher is a satisfactory

cooperating teacher. Forte (26:139) feels that one reason student teaching-

programs have not reached their full stature is the shortage of well trained

28cooperating teachers. McGuire (43:43-52) provides case experiences for the

student teacher to examine relative to the nature of different procedures

used by them.

Milner (45:1-42) (46:1-126) provides a guide for cooperating teachers

on how to act toward student teachers. Edwards (24:1-22) delve's into the

causes of friction which may exist in the student teaching program between

different members of the team. Illustrations given included: the cooper

ating teacher fails to convey to the college supervisor that he is accepted

or needed; the cooperating teacher is jealous of the relationship which

exists between the college supervisor and the student teacher; and the

cooperating teacher and the college supervisor instill in the student teach

er a feeling that they are ganging up on him to point out his inadequacies.

Clothier (15=1-42) emphasized the necessity for the cooperating teacher to'

establish good rapport with the other members of the student teaching team.

Nash, (48:112) Foster, (60:58) Wolfgramm, (70:176) and Andrews (2:6)

all emphasized the need for minimum requirements to be met by cooperating

teachers. They are in general agreement that cooperating teachers should

have a bachelor's degree, two years of successful teaching experience, and

a course in the supervision of student teachers. It was further recommended

that certification standards, now used in some states, be examined for

adoption in all states.

The college supervisor. The role of the college supervisor does not

present as clear a picture as does that of the cooperating teacher. There

was considerable agreement on the function of the cooperating teacher, the

general procedures he should follow, and on the.shortcomings of the

29personnel involved in working with student teachers. The role of the col

lege supervisor is complicated by the fact that some are involved with on-

campus schools while others are working with off-campus schools. Those

working in off-campus schools may be supervising within the college commun

ity while still others may travel thousands of miles in a single month to

visit student teachers. The length of the student teaching experience

varies, the number of student teachers assigned to a college supervisor

varies, and college policies vary on who will actually do the supervising.

All these factors contribute to the complexities and variations in the role

of the college supervisor and the number and length of visits he will make

to the classroom of the student teacher. Edwards (24:2) states:

It is the belief of the writer that many student teaching experiences have been less than satisfactory because the college supervisor has not taken the responsibility for instituting a definition and expectation of roles and functions at the beginning of the student teaching experience.

General agreement does seem to exist that one of the functions of

the college supervisor is to serve as a public relations person for the

teacher training institution he represents. Briggs quotes Haines (52:6l)

and Stratemeyer (52:62) on the public relations function of the college

supervisor and is substantiated by Burns (10:32-36) and Pfeiffer. (53:23-90)

Harper (31:118) was cited earlier as a historical source for the

still present problem of the subject matter specialist versus the profes

sional educator as the supervisor of the student teaching experience.

Conant (16:1-275) examined several phases of this problem in his visits to

teacher training institutions throughout the United States. He (16:7) found

30that many of the instructors of academic courses felt that education courses

were worthless and also found school after school where professors in aca

demic departments were totally unfamiliar with what was going on in the

public schools and who could not have cared less. (16:169) Conant (16:415)

expressed the belief that the supervisor of student teachers must have an

educational background and must have training in the subject matter of the

student teacher he supervises.

Woodring (71:17) traces the historical background of the conflict

between the academicians and the professional educators in an attempt to

explain some of the background to the conflict which still exists today.

The result has been, according to Woodword (71:22), an uneasy truce typi

fied by the following statement:

Many liberal arts colleges have, for many years, offered professional cdurses for teachers but have offered them reluctantly and more with an eye to legal requirements for teacher certification than for any real conviction of the value of the courses.

The cooperating school administrator. The cooperating school admin

istrator is the educational leader in the school in which the student

teacher is placed. It is he who sets the tone of the school and influences

the attitude of the staff, the student body, and the community toward stu

dent teachers. He is the individual who accepts the student teacher into

the school and recommends the members of his staff who are to serve as

cooperating teachers.

Wagner.(67:5) outlines the role of the cooperating school adminis

trator as follows:

311. Interpreting the student teaching program to the community, board

of education, and the teaching staff

2. Approving the selected corps of supervising teachers who will participate in the program

3. Participating in study groups to bring about changes and improvements in the program

4. Making available for study and distribution an excellent selec- • tion of printed material which reflects the current thinking onstudent teaching

5. Establishing rapport with the student teachers

6. Encouraging an exchange of ideas among all those connected with student teaching so as to insure a program which can produce the caliber of teacher desired by any school system

Edwards (24:6) also provides insight into the role of the adminis

trator of the cooperating school:

1. Helping to orient new supervising teachers to the student teachingprogram )

2. Reviewing with experienced supervising teachers all aspects of the program

3. Helping the student teacher become acquainted with the buildings and grounds

4. Introducing the student to the staff

5. Studying and reviewing written observations and lessen plans of the student and discussing them with the supervising teacher as advisable

6. Supervising the work of the student and giving him an opportunity to evaluate his work with the educational leader.

7. Encouraging the student to participate in school activities and responsibilities outside the classroom

Edwards (24:14) states that one area of conflict which may detract

from the student teaching program is the rapport established between the

32administrator and the college supervisor. The administrator may feel that

the college supervisor is visiting the school to evaluate the facilities,

staff, and administration rather than to work with the student teachers.

The Cooperating School

The cooperating school is the setting in which the student teacher

does his student teaching. In general, there are three types of cooperat

ing school situations: the on-campus school, usually under the direction of

and working directly with the education department; the off-campus center

located in the public or private schools of the college community; and the

outlying community cooperating public or private school.

Harper (31:8) indicated that in October, 1839, the first normal

school started an on-campus school for the express purpose of training

prospective teachers.

From the outset, the training school was rated highly important,

according to Harper (31:118), as the place where theory developed in the

teacher preparation program could be applied to an actual classroom situa

tion.

Then, as' today, disagreement existed on the value of the on-campus

student teaching center as opposed to those located off the campus. Harper

(31:119) stated: "It was argued as to whether the practice school should be

entirely under the control of the normal school or whether practice teaching

should be done in connection with the regular or city school systems."

The two main justifications given for the operation of the on-campus

school are that it is under the direct administrative control of the

33education department and as such can be staffed more readily with personnel

who are sympathetic to the teacher training program and more amenable to

experimental programs and, secondly, it offers a more feasible situation

for supervision of the student teacher placed in the school. Opponents of

the on-campus school tend to point out that it is not a typical school

situation since the students are frequently a select group of individuals.

The public schools located off the campus of the teacher training

institution combine the feasibility of supervision with a more typical

classroom teaching situation. However, as student teaching programs grow,

the ability of the local school system to absorb teacher trainees and their

willingness to do so tends to decrease.

The off-campus school in outlying communities allows students to

teach in their home communities which is usually a financial advantage.

The outlying school has the disadvantage, particularly in Montana, of re

quiring considerable travel on the part of the college supervisor who may

miss his on-campus classes on occasion to make his supervisory visits.

Student Teaching

Student teaching is generally recognized as a valuable tool in the

training of prospective teachers, although there is considerable diversity

of opinion as to what constitutes optimum length of the student teaching

program. Jones (37:513), in his study of off-campus student teaching pro

grams involving 551 institutions training 49,292 student teachers, found

that the student teaching experience varied in length from 5 to 36 weeks

with the median length being 12 wee%s.

•34Inlow (36:337), in a survey of 38 midwestern teacher training insti

tutions, discovered that elementary programs varied from 8 to 32 weeks with

the one-half day of student teaching the most common. Fifty per cent of the

secondary programs and 42 per cent of the elementary programs were based on

half-day student teaching programs. Full day student teaching programs were

found in 21 per cent of the secondary programs and 25 per cent of the ele

mentary programs. Secondary student teaching experiences ranged from 9 to

27 weeks.

Kuhl (38:44) determined that cooperating teachers in 77 per cent of

the cases favored the student teaching and observation period to be full

time and for one full semester. Smith (63:20) suggests a comparison of on-

campus and off-campus student teaching programs would be a worthwhile pro

ject. Regardless of the length of the student teaching program and its^

accompanying period of observation, there does seem to be general, although

not universal, agreement on the value of student teaching.

Specific statements in support of the value of student teaching have

been traced back as far as Sophocles (33:48) and include support from such

contemporary writers as Hutson, (34=415) 0'Hanlon, (50:339) Sharpe, (6l:33)

Andrews, (2:3) Hfeade, (63:5)■and Wiggins. (68:4) Typical of the views held

by the above writers is a statement by Conant: (l6:27)

Given the disagreements among experts, however, few of those in leadership posts would attempt to specify precisely what instruction should be required, except for practice teaching on which there is general agreement.

While there is the general agreement on the value of student teaching

and observation, a few questions have been raised as to the value of one or

35both.

Wearing (48:137) stated that no research has shown that direct ob

servation is as valuable as the value assigned to it and therefore it is

possible that films and television tapes may be just as effective.

Ingle (35:460) compared two educational psychology classes and found

that the group which observed in a classroom one day per week while taking

the course showed no demonstrable advantage in their attitude toward

children, no demonstrable gain in understanding the learning process, nor

in knowledge of the growing process. He concluded that the observation

did no harm and that there was some subjective evidence of other value.

Steeves, (64:308) in commenting on crucial issues in education,

raised the question as to the necessity of student teaching. If forced to

choose, he would retain course work rather than student teaching if he

could have only one or the other.

Sharpe (61:34) perhaps sums up the total picture of student teaching

in his statement: "Student teaching can be described in general terms, but

one must remember that there are as many varieties of student teaching as

there are institutions preparing teachers."

Problems of Student Teachers

Student teachers have problems and are part of problems which are

many and varied. These problems may involve: entrance into the education

and student teacher preparation program; the assignment to the school and'

subject to be taught; relationships with other personnel, both supervisory

36and on the staff; the classroom situation; and re-entry into college fol

lowing the student teaching experience.

The great majority of literature available which deals with problems

of student teachers was found in books designed as texts for preparing

teachers, In the main, the approach was that of problems as seen by the

authorities in the field and oriented primarily to the in-classroom prob

lems involved in teaching and planning. Batchelder, (4:1-135) Beggs,

(5:1-116) Crowe, (18:1-327) Devor, (20:1-358) Grim, (29:3-108) Lindsey,

(40:3-120) Meeker, (44:11-17) Schorling, (58:1-331) Schultz, (59:1-402) '

and Wiggins (68:27-78) are illustrative of the many such works. They are

fine for the purpose intended, but do not treat many of the problems re

sulting from the mechanics of the program or those resulting from attitud- '

inal differences of supervisory personnel.

Some research has been done on these problems but it has been con

fined to narrow fields or specific areas or has been oriented toward one

particular group or institution.

Craig, (17:27) at Mbntana State University, found that there were no

adverse effects on returning two weeks late to campus after fall student

teaching. Newsome (49:323) reported that student teachers were less con

sistent in their beliefs about educational ideas after student teaching

than before student teaching. Lantz (39:202-203) discovered that student

teaching caused a significant change in the elementary student teacher's

self concepts and views of the ideal elementary teacher. Veldman (66:396)

determined that high school students did not prefer one sex over another in

their student teacher nor did they consider one sex more poised, systematic

37or knowledgeable than the other. He -did:find that .high school students

thought that female student teachers were more cheerful and regarded female

student teachers as more friendly, more interested in students, and more

democratic.

Brumbaugh (9:422) learned that social science, mathematics, and

science teachers tended to be more closeminded than foreign language,

English, and fine arts student teachers in regard to various criteria of

teacher effectiveness. Hbthis (42:422) determined that the best indicators

of success in student teaching were the amount of participation in extra

curricular activities, the grade obtained in speech courses, and the grades

earned in professional education courses.

Hoover (33:328) compared expressed teaching strengths before and

after student teaching. Nine of the 25 areas showed a significant change.

In five of the nine categories the change was a greater feeling of compe

tency and in the other four it was a lesser feeling of competency.

A Temple University study (55=20) elicited the following conclusion:

To identify a teacher, therefore, by the kinds of professional or academic credits he earned or by scores obtained in any test— whether aptitude, personality, or achievement— is like identifying the' horsepower of an automobile by the quality of its upholstery or the amount of chrome on the body.

Attitudes developed during their educational preparation may have a

bearing on the degree to which student teachers will attempt to use what

they have been exposed to in their teacher preparation courses.

Goodlad (28:263-270) stated that students universally dislike the .

first education courses. He indicated the reasons were: such classes would

38number from 60 to 600; a good percentage of those taking the course were

doing so as a safety valve in case they were not admitted to some other

field or were undecided upon the field they wished to enter; the newest and

most inexperienced instructor usually taught the course; it did not meet

the students' wrongly preconceived idea of what the course would be about;

and other professors may have run down the class..

Drumhiller (22:290) also viewed course preparation as a possible

source of dissatisfaction for student teachers: "Education instructors and

students alike are agreed that pre-student teaching courses tend to be dull

and sterile when opportunities for student involvement with children in the

classroom are omitted from the program."

McGuire (43:15-91) used some problems of student teachers in his case

problem approach to the.preparation of student teachers. Clarke (14:14-15)

reported on his study in which eight college supervisors were selected to

observe and evaluate eight student teacher presentations. The percentile

ratings by the eight supervisors for each student teacher presentation var

ied from thirty to fifty-seven per cent.

Grue, (30:47-48) of Montana State University, made the following five

recommendations after participating in an experimental program called the

1 Manhattan Project':

1. In view of the apparent merits of the Manhattan Project, it is recommended that further programs of a similar nature be conducted by Montana State College to improve and further test the effectiveness of such programs.

2. It is recommended that some type of program be developed by the Education Department of Pbntana State College to train supervising teachers. This could be in the form of a regular college

39course, or it could be in the form of a college conducted in- service .program, or both.

3. It is recommended that a criteria be set up by the Education Department of Montana State College and certain cooperating public schools working jointly together for the selection of supervising teachers and that this criteria be followed by the College or by participating schools in the selection of supervising teachers.

4. It is recommended that more cooperative organizational work be done between the College and the participating school so that all participating groups are fully informed, in ample time, of all phases of the program.

5. It is recommended that a rating committee be set up to rate each student teacher, and that this committee be made up of college supervisors, supervising teachers, and participating school administrators. This committee would meet together to jointly rate or grade the student teacher.

Student teaching was generally regarded as a valuable experience in

the preparation of teachers; however, this was perhaps the only area of

general agreement on the brpad field of student teaching. Disagreement

existed on admission.to the program, the nature and depth of the prepara

tion, the assignment practices, the length of the student teaching exper

ience, the location of student teaching, the portion of the day a student

teacher should teach, the nature and amount of supervision, who should

supervise, and the roles of the personnel involved in the student teaching

program.

Regardless of the direction taken in any one of the areas, student

teachers have problems. These problems can be categorized into those of

their own making, those common to all teachers, those thrust upon them by

the.mechanics of the program, and those caused by attitudinal differences

of personnel involved in the program. Any problems student teachers have

40detract from the worthwhileness of the program. The uncovering of the

causes of those problems and discovering possible solutions would make the

student teaching experience of greater value.

CHAPTER III

EXAMINATION OF ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHER RESPONSES

There are eight teacher training institutions in the state of

Montana conducting programs to train elementary school teachers. Five of

these are state supported institutions and three are private colleges.

The programs of these institutions in elementary education for 1966-67 •

varied in1 enrollment from 4 to 76 students. With the exception of the

College of Great Falls, the elementary program at each institution was

smaller than the program for training secondary teachers.

The elementary student teacher was one of five groups involved in

this study who were sent questionnaires (Appendix:23'4) • Table 3, page 42,

shows the number of questionnaires, sent to elementary student teachers from

each of the institutions, the number of replies received, and the per cent

of return.

During the 1966-67 school year, Eastern Montana College conducted

an Honors Program in conjunction with'their regular elementary student,

teaching program. The six persons involved in this program were sent ques

tionnaires. Northern Montana College had two student teaching programs,

one for sophomores and one for seniors., Although both of these groups were

sent questionnaires, neither the participants in the Honors Program nor the

sophomore student teachers were counted in totals appearing in Table 3.

One reply could not be identified as to origin of college attended. Two

hundred ten of the 217 replies received were usable.

42TABLE 3. ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

School Sent Returned Percentage

Carroll College 13 7 ' 52.8

Eastern Montana College 76 41' 53.9 'College of Great Falls 16 . 8 50.0

Montana State University 72 69 95.8

Northern Msntana College 31 26 83.9

Rocky Mountain College 4 I 25.0

University of Montana 61 42 . 68.8

Western Montana College 35 22 62.8

Totals 308 217 70.4

The information obtained from the questionnaires was categorized

into three main divisions: general information; mechanics or procedures of

the student teaching program; and attitudes.

General Information

Of the 210 usable responses, 90.5 per cent were from women. The

marital status included 42.3 per cent married elementary student teachers,

2.0 per cent divorced, and 1.0 per cent widowed. A majority of the re

spondees, 67.1 per cent, were between the ages of 21 and 23. An addition

al 20.0 per cent were between 24 and 30 years of age, while 9.5 per cent

43were over 30, and 3-3 per cent were under 21 years of age.

Slightly more than half, 51.2 per cent, of the elementary student

teachers did their student teaching in the fall of the year. Winter,

spring, and summer followed in order with 26.5 per cent, 20.9 per cent, .

and 1.4 per cent, respectively. Carroll College, the College of Great

Falls and Montana State University had the largest majority of their stu

dent teachers placed in schools in the fall, while the other teacher

training institutions had a more even distribution over the fall, winter,

and spring. Summer student teaching was reserved for special or unusual

situations by all of the training programs.

Almost two-thirds, 65.1 per cent, of the elementary student teach

ers participated in their student teaching experience in their college com

munity. Of the remaining number, 16.6 per cent did their student teaching

in their home town and 18.3 per cent did theirs in a community which was

neither their home nor their college community. Nine of the individuals in

the latter category commuted to a nearby community to do their student

teaching. Sixty-five per cent of those located in communities which were

neither their home town nor college community were student teachers from

Montana State University. Two factors underlie this situation: Montana

State University has one of the largest elementary programs In a relative

ly small community and the public school system has a policy of limiting

each cooperating teacher to one student teacher per year.

It is generally recognized that a period of observation sometime be

fore the time of student teaching is a valuable part of the teacher prep

aration program. All but 14.9 per cent of elementary student teachers did

44participate in this phase of the program. Of the approximately eighty-five"

per cent of the student teachers who did observe, a majority did their pre

student teaching observation in the same school in which they later student

taught. Considerable variation existed from institution to institution

with the College of Great Falls, Eastern Montana College, Western Montana

College, and Northern Montana College having a high percentage of their

students having both experiences in the same school. The University of

Montana had 30 per cent of their students doing so and Carroll College and

Montana State University ranged down to less than eight per cent.

Montana colleges and universities drew their student teachers from

all sizes of high schools. Some 6.3 per cent of the elementary student

teachers graduated from high schools with an enrollment of less than fifty-

students, 12.0 per cent from schools of less than one hundred, 25.5 per

cent from schools between one hundred and three hundred, 21.2 per cent from

schools between three hundred and five hundred, and 35.1 per cent from

schools with an enrollment over five hundred students.

Mechanics of Student Teaching Programs

A basic premise of this study was that anything which caused prob

lems for the student teacher might detract from the worthwhileness of the

student teaching experience. The attitudes of. the. student teacher may well

have been shaped or affected by factors which were not directly involved

in the student teaching process. Certain procedures were related to the

student teaching program prior to the student teacher arriving at. the coop

erating school to which he was assigned. Certain other procedures

.45paralleled the student teaching experience but were not directly a part of

the actual teaching situation and were classified as general program pro- ■

cedures or those procedures resulting from relationships with the various

supervisory personnel. Still others were a part of the transition from the

role of student teacher .to that of student upon returning to the college

campus.

Mechanics prior to student teaching. Once the student teacher has

been admitted to the student teaching program and has been accepted as a

candidate for assignment to a student teaching situation in a cooperating

school, certain anxieties begin to present themselves. He will wonder

where he will student teach, under whom he will student teach, what will

be the grade level, what will be expected of him, and what he should do to

better prepare himself. Many will begin to have doubts as to their ade

quacy and preparation. The fewer anxieties caused by the mechanics of the

program prior to its beginning, the better prepared will the student teach

er be to approach the student teaching experience. (52:2-38) Part of the

questionnaire was.designed to secure information on these points. The re

sults are reported on the following pages.

Six of the eight teacher training institutions appear to have a

policy of allowing prospective student teachers to express a preference for

the community in which they were to student teach since 84.7 per cent of

the respondees had a choice. Most of those not offered a choice were from

Carroll College and the College of Great Falls, both of whom try to place

all of their students within the college community. All but 15 per cent of

the student teachers who had an opportunity to express a preference were ■

46assigned to the community of their choice. Seventeen of the 28 student

teachers who were not assigned to their requested location were student

teachers from Montana State University. This, too, probably resulted from

the aforementioned relative sizes of the program and community.

Six of the eight teacher training institutions appear to have a

policy of early notification of placement of student teachers since 94 per

cent of the student teachers from these institutions knew their place of

■assignment a month or more prior to starting their assignment. Eastern

Montana College and College of Great Falls elementary student teachers

were generally informed at a later date than the other schools. One-half

of the student teachers from the College of Great Falls and 77.1 per cent

from Eastern Montana College did not know their assignment until a week or

less before starting their student teaching.

To provide the maximum opportunity for preplanning for student

teaching, the student teacher should know the following information as soon

as possible: the cooperating school in which the student teaching is to be

done; the teacher with whom the student teacher is to work; and the grade

level to be taught. Table 4, page 47, compares these factors for each

teacher training institution.

Table 4 shows the variation which existed from one teacher training

institution to another in the amount of time available for the student-

teacher to plan once they were notified of the location, teacher, and

grade level. •Carroll College and Western Montana College student teachers

were most likely to have the greatest amount of time for preplanning for

student teaching.

47TABLE 4. PERCENTAGE OF"STUDENT TEACHERS KNOWING VARIOUS FACTORS OF ASSIGN

MENT A MONTH OR MORE BEFORE STARTING TO STUDENT TEACH

CO* EMC* CGF * MSU* NMC* RMD * UM* WMD * TOTAL

Location 100,- 23 50 95 93 ' 100 88 96 79

Grade level 86 10 0 54 58 0 38 63' 45

Cooperating teacher 100 5 0 51 74: 0 44 77 44

*CC: Carroll College; EMO: Eastern Montana College; CGF: College of Great- Falls; MSU: Montana State University; NMO: Northern Montana College;RMC: Rocky Mountain College; UM: University of Montana; WMO: .Western Montana College

Another area of concern to student teachers- was in adapting to the

local school situation. Some of the concerns could be dispelled during

the period of observation mentioned earlier. More than ninety-five per

cent of the students who did their student teaching in the fall were in

vited to a pre-school orientation period scheduled by each school for their

regular staff members. Only 20.0 per cent of the student teachers who par

ticipated in the winter, spring, or summer received this orientation to

the school.

The college supervisor was the connecting link between the student

teacher and the teacher training institution. Students .from six of the

teacher training institutions generally met with their college supervisor

in his official capacity prior to proceeding to their cooperating school.

At the University of Montana 6l per cent did not nor did 79 per cent at

Montana State University. Part of this was due to the fact that both

48universities employed some non-resident staff to supervise student teach

ers. This situation existed because of the large area over which each

placed their student teachers and the time involved in travel to the stu

dent teaching centers.

■ Mechanics during student teaching. ' Just as there were mechanical

or procedural aspects to the student teaching program prior to the start of

student teaching, there were also those which occurred during the experi

ence which could be causes for concern to the student teacher.

Most student teachers were concerned with the procedure relating to

the length of time they would observe before actually starting to teach..

It would appear that the starting time was determined by a combination of

factors. Some cooperating teachers had definite ideas on procedures of

orienting the student teacher to student teaching, some followed the re

commendations of the college, and others assessed the adjustment of the

student teacher to the student teaching situation: Most common starting

times- were the second week, 52.-2 per cent, and the first week, 26.8’per

cent. The third week was the starting time for 15.1 per cent, while a few

did not start until the fourth week, 3.4 per cent, or the fifth week, 2.4

per cent.

Once the student teacher had started to teach three general proce

dures were used. Most often, 53.2 per cent of the time, student teachers

taught the remainder of the time they were assigned to the student teach

ing assignment. - In 39.0 per cent of the cases the student teacher and the

cooperating teacher taught alternate units, Some student teachers, 7.5 per

cent, taught only one unit during their student teaching experience.

49The student teacher expected to be supervised by his cooperating

teacher. Both extremes of supervision were experienced by elementary

trainees. A few student teachers never had the opportunity to teach with

out the direct supervision of the cooperating tacher and a few never were

observed by the cooperating teacher. A degree of uniformity was evidenced

when 86.3 per cent of the student teachers reported they were supervised,

the first day they taught. Once the initial teaching experience had

passed, considerable variation in procedures occurred. Elementary teach

ers permitted 50.5 per cent of the student teachers to teach unsupervised

frequently, 30.6 per cent did so occasionally, while 10.2.per cent of the

student teachers reported they seldom had the class to themselves. The

aforementioned extremes were reported by 1.9 per cent who never taught

alone and 6.8 per cent whose student teaching was completely unsupervised

by a cooperating teacher.

Accompanying most teaching jobs were a number of non-teaching du

ties and services. These are listed in Table 5, page 50, together with the

responses which indicate participation or non-participation in the activi

ty.

It was only in those areas thought of as being a part of the ele

mentary teacher's job that the majority of the elementary student teachers

participated. Those areas were noon and hall duty, playground supervision,

and class meetings. Marking report cards and registration also fall into ,

this category and probably would have been in the majority if all student

teachers had done their student teaching when registration was conducted

or were in the cooperating school at the close of a marking period. Those

50activities generally thought of as being outside of the regular duties of

the elementary teacher were participated in by a minority of the student

teachers. The one category which did not show a decided tendency one way

or the other was supervision of detention. Other data, appearing later,

supports the division of opinion as to whether the supervision of deten

tion falls into the scope of the elementary student teacher program.

TABLE 5.. ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN NON-TEACHING DUTIES

Activity Number participating Number not participating

Registration 73 186Noon duty 176 32Detention 98 107Hall duty 140 65Ticket selling 28 177

Nbrking report cards 62 135Class meetings 115 88Playground supervision 196 12Club meetings 46 155Guidance 45 160

Mechanics involving.the college supervisor. The visit of the col

lege supervisor should be the apex of the student teaching experience. He

is the individual to■ whom the administrator and the cooperating teacher can

communicate shortcomings in the student teacher programs and problems con

cerning the student teacher. He is the individual with whom the student

teacher can communicate about problems of adjustment, methodology, and.sub

ject matter. He is the individual who is a resource person to the student

51teacher and a public relations representative of the teacher training in

stitution.

The number of visits of the college supervisor was determined by a

variety of factors. The number of student teachers under the direct re

sponsibility of the college supervisor, the accompanying teaching load on

campus, the proximity of the student teachers to the campus, the number of

communities to be visited, the ability of the student teacher, and the

ability of the cooperating teacher all affected the number of visits made

by the college supervisor. Different teacher training institutions planned

for visits on a one, two or three week schedule.

The number of visits reported by elementary student teachers ranged

from none to more than five visits. More than two-thirds of the student

teachers had at least four visits from their college supervisor while 20.8

per cent reported three visits. Visited twice were 10.2 per cent of the

students, while 1.4 per cent reported only one visit and another 1.4 per

cent reported no visits. A common comment of student teachers was that

they wished that they had had more visits from their college supervisor.

Table 6, page 52, indicates the median, mode, and range of visits of each

of thte teacher training institutions. Since Rocky Mountain College had

but one respondee to the questionnaire, it is not included in the table.

Closely related to the number of visits of the college supervisor

was the length of the visit. The length of the visit varied from less

than fifteen minutes, which occurred in 10.1 per cent of the cases, to more

than one full class period, which occurred in 10.6 per cent of the cases.

In 35.1 per cent of the visits the time spent was a full class period and

S

52in 43.3 per cent of the visits the time visited ranged between fifteen and

thirty minutes. One per cent of the student teachers were not visited.

TABLE 6. MEDIAN, MODE, AND RANGE OF COLLEGE SUPERVISOR VISITS

Institution Mbdian Mode Range

Carroll College 3 3 0-5

Eastern Montana College 5 5 ■ 0-5

College of Great FaIls 5 ■ 5 • 4-5

Montana State University 4 4 0-5

Northern Montana College 4 5 1-5

University of Montana 4 4 1-5

Western Montana College 4 5 2-5

Totals 4 ' 5 0-5

Almost three-fourths of those who were visited for periods of less

than fifteen minutes were supervised four or more times. Two-thirds of

the student teachers who were supervised for a full class period by the

college,supervisor were supervised only once or twice.

An important portion of the visit of the college supervisor is the

conference held with the student teacher. One student teacher remarked

that it was very irritating to have the college supervisor visit the class

and leave the school without having a conference about what he had ob

served. Another reported her cooperating teacher was quite upset because

53

the college supervisor asked her not. to be present while he conferred with

the student teacher. These were not isolated instances since 12.8 per cent

of the student teachers reported they did not have a conference the day of

the visit and an additional 1.9 per cent reported they conferred only be

fore the visit to the classroom. Conferences were held both before and

after the supervisory visit in 21.8 per cent of the cases. Each teacher

training institution had at least one student teacher report that no con

ference was held. Highest incidence reported was the University of Montana

where this occurred in 24.0 per cent of the cases.

The visit of the college supervisor.can be an emotional drain on

the student teacher. One student teacher characterized surprise visits as

being devastating. No one procedure on notification of student teachers

of forthcoming visits of the college supervisor was evident from the re

plies of student teachers. One-third reported they never received notice,

one-third always were notified, and one-third were- notified on some occa

sions. Most college supervisors arrived before the class period and re

mained for the presentation of the entire lesson. Procedures such as

visiting the first half Of the class, visiting the last half of the class,

visiting for ten minutes, and similar variations were used by 37.0 per cent

of the college supervisors. Four student teachers volunteered the informa

tion that the arrival of the college supervisor in the middle of a presen

tation was a definitely disrupting experience.' Insufficient conference

time with the college supervisor was expressed by 31.8 per cent of the 1

,elementary student teachers.

54Mechanics involving the school principal. The administrator of the

cooperating school exerted a definite influence on the student teacher.

Part of the influence was indirect as in the case of determining which of

his teachers would serve as cooperating teachers, the general tone of the

school as far as student and staff attitudes were concerned, and general

rules and procedures followed in the -school. Part of the influence of the

cooperating school administrator was of more direct nature. This would

include the orientation of the student teacher to the particular school,

the nature and frequency of supervisory visits to the classroom, and the

number and nature of the conferences held by the administrator with the

student teacher.

Approximately two-thirds of the student teachers, 64.3 per cent, had

conferences with the administrators, either as individuals or in a group.

The nature of the conferences varied: 23.1 per cent being social in nature,

44.1 per cent about a classroom visitation, and 32.8 per cent about general

school procedures. Eighty student teachers, 38.8 per cent, were not vis

ited in the classroom by the administrator, while 26.2 per cent and 35.0

per cent were observed once or more than once, respectively.

Pbchanics involving the cooperating teacher■ The cooperating teach

er aids, as a member of the team, in guiding the prospective teacher

through his student teaching experience. Many of the mechanical proce

dures of the' cooperating teacher are a reflection of the philosophy of the

individual and are a reflection of the attitudes toward the student teach

ing program in general.

55Planning is one of the keys to success in student teaching along

with knowledge of subject matter, knowledge of methodology, ability to com

municate, and a personality which relates to students and to fellow work

ers. Planning is the source of direction given to learning and the ulti

mate base on which student teaching is evaluated by the student teacher's

supervisory personnel. The unit and daily lesson plan are the central

features of planning and, in practice, range from those.which are so

sketchy that they give little or no direction to those .which are so com

prehensive that the formulator of the plan is lost in the maze of details.

They vary from those which are. so textbook oriented that they resemble a

table of contents to those which are so general that they could be used for

any unit for any subject. Lesson plans were viewed by some as being com

pletely without value, by some as absolutely essential to successful teach

ing, and by still others as having a value somewhere in between these views.

It was well within the realm of possibility that the student teacher could

be placed in a situation in which he would have to adapt to polar views of

two, three, or more individuals. This was true, not only of planning, but

also of all mechanical and attitudinal phases of the student teaching ex

perience. Part of the questionnaire was designed to ascertain some of

these divergent points of view and procedures.

Lesson plans were submitted to cooperating teachers before each les

son by 56.7 per cent of the student teachers and by 15.7 per cent before

some of the lessens to be taught. Some student teachers, 17.1 per cent,

submitted lesson plans for the first few units and more than one out of

ten student teachers, 10.5 per cent, never offered the lesson plan to the

56

cooperating teacher for examination before using the plan to present a les

son to the class. In addition, nearly ten per cent of the lesson plans

submitted were returned to the student teacher with neither written nor

oral suggestions. Responses of elementary student teachers indicated that

cooperating teachers were frequently more concerned with general method

ology, discipline, classroom and school routine, and other facets of the

overall teaching situation than they were with plans for the classroom

presentation.

The most common procedure used by cooperating teachers to communi

cate suggestions and ideas to student teachers was the daily conference.'

Although 82.2 per cent of the student teachers did have daily conferences,

a small percentage, 9.1, met with the cooperating teacher less than once a

week. A conference varying in length from ten to thirty minutes was re

ported in 54.7 per cent of the student teaching situations, with another

33.1 per cent of the conferences characterized as being less than ten min

utes in length. The remaining 12.2 per cent of the meetings between the

student teacher and the cooperating teachers exceeded thirty minutes in

length. Despite the fact that there was considerable variation in the

frequency and length of the student teacher-cooperating teacher confer

ence, 85.2 per cent of the student teachers replied that they felt they

had sufficient conference time with the teachers with whom they were work

ing.

Other mechanical features of the student teaching experience.

Student teachers who are out in the field during the period of regular col

lege registration may encounter the problem of registering for college or

57

in enrolling in the classes of their choice. -Different procedures were

used at different teacher training institutions and within some of the in

stitutions. At some student teachers were able to register at regular

registration as did 46.0 per cent of the student teachers, while at others

they registered at an early registration, at late registration, or by mail.

The majority of those registering at early registration were students of

Western Mcntana College, College of Great Falls, and the University of

Montana, although some from the other institutions helped to make up the

30.0 per cent who registered in this manner. Of the 22.1 per cent who

registered by mail, most were from Montana State University and Northern

Montana College indicating these two institutions are the only ones who

used this method as a general procedure. Less than two per cent of the

elementary student teachers enrolled in their college at late registration.

Another mechanical process of great interest to the student teacher

was the procedure by which he would learn his grade for the student teach

ing experience. No standard procedure was uncovered, either in total or

for any one institution. Most student teachers learned of their grade for

student teaching through the regular college grade slip received at the

conclusion of the quarter or semester in which the student teaching was

done. Although this was the most common procedure, reported by 53.9 per

cent of the student teachers, it did not reflect a definite policy of all

or any one teacher training institution. Other methods by which student

teachers learned of their grades for student teaching included: from the

cooperating teacher, 5.8 per cent; from the college supervisor, 28.2 per

cent; and from the director of student teaching, 12.1 per cent. Each

58teacher training institution had student teachers respond to each cate

gory. Comments of student teachers indicated that there was a preference

for learning of the grade before the close of the term and from the col

lege supervisor during a conference upon returning to the' campus. Some

student teachers reported waiting as long as six to eight weeks before

learning of the grade.

Use of audio and visual devices. In the preliminary phase of lay

ing the groundwork for the study and the questionnaire, the writer con

tacted many individuals and found considerable interest in the general

area of visual and audio devices and specific interest in the degree of

their usage. Because of this interest and because the use of these de

vices is emphasized throughout the professional preparation of teachers,

it was decided to attempt to ascertain the degree of usage and availabil

ity of certain selected devices of this nature. No attempt was made to

determine if the devices were used properly but merely the extent.to which

they were incorporated into the teaching situation. Table 7, page 59>

shows the number of student teachers who found the devices available and

whether or not they were used, as well as the number of student teachers

who deemed each of the different devices not feasible to use in the class

room.

Record players, film projectors, and filmstrip projectors were most

often available in the elementary schools and were used by the greatest

number of elementary student teachers. The opaque projector was the de

vice least likely to be found in the elementary school, while the Slide

projector was least likely to be used by those engaged in the student

59teaching experience. When a device was available and used by large num

bers of student teachers, the question arose as to why some other indivi

duals considered it not feasible to be used. Comments of student teachers

indicated three reasons why they were so considered: the physical facili

ties did not lend themselves to the usage; the degree of availability was

such as to discourage their usage; and variations in the ingenuity of the

individual student teachers.

TABLE 7. AVAILABILITY, FEASIBILITY AND USE OF SELECTED AUDIO AND VISUAL DEVICES BY ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

DeviceAvailable- not used

Available-used

Notavailable

Notfeasible

Tape recorder 79 69 49 12

Record player 39 166 ■ I ' 0

Film projector 69 127 6 4

Filmstrip projector 62 127 5 7

Slide projector 96 41 52 16

Opaque projector 66 37 85 14

Overhead projector 71 93 33 10

Flannel board 68 96 33 12

Flip charts 61 77 55 14

60Attitudes Toward Academic and Professional Preparation

Since inadequate preparation, either academically or profession

ally, is one of the causes of unsuccessful student teaching experiences,

student teachers were asked to assess various aspects of their profes

sional training. In the area of academic preparation, 63.1 per cent of

the elementary student teachers.reported'their preparation was adequate

and 12.7 per cent replied it was excellent. Of those students who felt

their academic training was less than adequate, 21.5 per cent felt it was

somewhat insufficient while 2.7 per cent indicated it to be very insuffi

cient .

The same question posed to the elementary student teachers concern

ing their professional education course sequence elicited the information

that 50.0 per cent thought it was adequate and another 8.7 per cent be

lieved it to be excellent. Professional education preparation was rated

as being somewhat insufficient by 3,2.5 per cent and very insufficient by

8.7 per cent. Table 8, page 6l, compares the opinion of elementary stu

dent teachers about the academic and professional preparation at the par

ticular college they attended.

Only at Carroll College did the elementary student teachers feel

that their preparation in education was on a par with their academic train

ing and only Carroll College, Eastern Montana College, and the College of

Great Falls were viewed by the elementary student teachers as having had

preparation above the median for the colleges of the state. At all teacher

training institutions, with the exception of Carroll College, there was a

difference in rating which ranged from four per cent at Northern Montana

61College to 27 per cent at the University of Montana. Greatest differences

were noted at Western Montana College, Montana State University, and the

University of Montana.

TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

School Academic Professional

Carroll College 86% 86%Eastern Montana College' 82 67 .

College of Great Falls 83 67

Montana State University 76 58

Northern Montana College 67 63

University of Montana 70 43

Western Montana College 81 62

Mbdian 81 63

Mean 75 59

As a follow-up to student teacher views of their academic and pro

fessional preparation, questions were asked to elicit ,areas of strength and

weakness in the two general areas of preparation. Table 9, page 62, com

pares these stated strengths and weaknesses in the academic preparation.

Student teachers felt a greater degree of competency in the know

ledge of their subject than in the manner in which they could best present

it to the students in their classes.

62TABLE 9. AREAS OF STRENGTH AND DEFICIENCY IN ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF

ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

Area

Per cent indicating

Strength Deficiency

Methodology 25.2 44.1

Subject matter knowledge 49.5 11.4

Related background knowledge 15.4 20.4

One special area 9.9 24.2

Table 10, page 63, summarizes the views of the elementary student

teachers on some of the general areas of their preparation in the education

sequence. While there are many competencies which a prospective teacher

must develop, the few selected are those which are common to all areas and

to all levels of instruction. Another basis for selection of these areas

was that all were treated to some extent in methods courses even though

they might also have been studied in greater depth in a specific course

offered by the teacher training institution.

While test construction and grading were least frequently listed as

the area of greatest strength, neither was indicated as the area of great

est weakness. Practical application was the second highest area of

strength and was the predominant area of weakness. Although some of the

elementary student teachers felt quite competent in relating the subject

matter to the experiences of their students, a far greater percentage found

63this to be an area in which they were deficient. These variations were due

to student teachers from one teacher training institution assessing their

program of preparation differently than the student teachers enrolled in

other teacher training institutions. Also illustrative of the variations

from institution to institution were: Carroll College students assessing

grade determination as the weakest part of their preparation as compared

to student teachers from all other teacher training institutions rating

practical application of theory as the greatest single deficiency; the

student teachers from the College of Great Falls being evenly divided with

half rating lesson plan construction as the greatest strength of the pro

gram and the other half feeling the same area was the greatest weakness;

and student teachers from Western Montana College rating usage of audio

and visual devices as the greatest strength of their preparation.

TABLE 10. AREAS OF STRENGTH AND DEFICIENCY IN PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION OF ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

Area

Per cent indicating

Strength Deficiency

Lesson plan construction 59.5 10.9

Audio-visual usage 16.4 12.3

Test construction 3.1 8.1

Grading 4°1 19.6

Practical application 16.9 48.9

64When asked which specific course proved to be of the most value to

them during their student teaching, 44.4 per cent chose their educational

methods course and 41.4 per cent selected the pre—student teaching observa

tion course. None felt the course in tests and measurements was most val

uable while 4.0 per cent and 10.2 per cent selected courses in audio-visual

usage and educational psychology, respectively. The courses involving the

observation of the classroom situation were judged the most valuable by

student teachers from Eastern Montana College, Western Montana College,

the College of Great Falls, and the University of Montana, while methods

courses were chosen by student teachers from the remaining institutions.

The value of a course taken to prepare a student teacher derives its

value from the nature of the course content and the nature of the instruc

tion of the course. The value placed on good instruction by elementary

student teachers can be seen from the replies which indicated almost two

to one that the most valuable courses taken were valuable because of the

nature of the instruction rather than the nature of the course content.

Supporting this was the margin of more than three to one expressing the

view that the courses which proved to be of the least value in student

teaching were also due to the nature of the instruction rather than the

nature of the course content.

Educational methods courses frequently have been criticized. One

of the most common criticisms aimed at methods courses was the amount of

duplication which exists from one methods course to another and from one

education course to another. Some of the comments volunteered by respon

dents to the questionnaire included statements which indicated that all

6$education courses are alike, methods courses were a complete waste of time

methods courses should be eliminated, and one methods course should be suf

ficiento To determine the validity of the often expressed view on excess

ive duplication, student teachers were asked to indicate the degree of

duplication experienced in the methods courses taken. Little or no dupli

cation was found by 6.3 per cent of the respondents; 24.9 per cent be

lieved the amount of duplication to be less than twenty per cent; nearly

one-half, 49.3 per cent, felt the amount to be between twenty and fifty

per cent; and 20.0 per cent of the elementary student teachers viewed the

amount of repetition as more than fifty per cent. Table 11 compares the

responses to this question by students from the various colleges and

universities attended.

TABLE 11. DEGREE OF DUPLICATION IN METHODS COURSES AT EACH TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTION

College or University None 0-20% 20-50% Over 50%

Carroll College 0.0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.0% -Eastern Mbntana College 5.0 17.6 44.1 33.3

College of Great Falls 0.0 0.0 83.3 16.7

Montana State University 6.1 37.2 48.0 - 8.7

Northern Montana College 8.6 13.2 74.2 4.0

University of Mbntana 13.1 26.9 40.0 20.0

Western Montana College 0.0 13.8 - 36.2 50.0

Median 5.0 , 17.6 48.0 16.7

66Every student teacher from the College of Great Falls replied that

there was at least twenty per cent duplication in the methods courses at

that institution. The greatest degree of duplication appeared to be at

Western Montana College since one-half of the students assessed the amount

of duplication to be in excess of fifty per cent and an additional 36.0

per cent placed the amount of duplication between twenty and fifty per

cent. Montana State University and the University of Montana each had

more than forty per cent of their elementary student teachers report less

than twenty per cent duplication.

Degree of Acceptance of Student Teachers

Ihny student teachers are apprehensive when they enter the cooper

ating school for the first time. A show of enthusiasm on the part of the

staff, administration, student body, and community is helpful in dis

pelling much of this feeling of apprehension. Several student teachers

reported they were invited to a community dinner where they were intro

duced to the community along with the new teachers on the regular staff of

the cooperating school. Other student teachers reported practices of the

administrator or the cooperating teacher which eased their entry into the

student teaching situation. Some of the practices reported included:

introduction to the staff at the pre-school orientation meeting; invita

tion to and introduction at a regular staff meeting; a tour of the facili

ties; invitations to the coffee room and teachers' lounge; inclusion in

staff activities such as a bowling party; and just showing cordiality which

made the student teacher feel welcome. Table 12, page 67, summarizes the

67

attitudes of different groups as perceived by the student teacher.

TABLE 12. DEGREE OF ACCEPTANCE AS PERCEIVED BY ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS.

AttitudeStaffmembers

Cooperatingteachers

Administrator

Studentbody , Community

Tolerance 1.0% 1.9% 0.5% 2.0% ' 2.5%Indifferentacceptance l\. a i\. 3.4 6.4 4*4 10.9

Generalacceptance 27.2 19.8 35.5 39.7 62.4

Enthusiastic,helpfulacceptance 67.4 74.9 57.6 53.9 24.2

The majority of student teachers perceived their acceptance as being

enthusiastic and helpful by all groups except the community. The degree of

acceptance was related to the closeness of contact between the student and

the individual or group. This is shown in Table 12 by the percentages for

cooperating teachers, staff members, administrators, the student body, and

the community, in that order.

The Student Teacher.and General Procedures

Student teachers were involved in many general procedures some of

which were determined by the teacher training institution, some by the

cooperating school, and still others by the cooperating teachers. The

68degree of acceptance of the worth of these procedures both affects and was

affected by the student teacher's attitude toward the student teaching ex

perience „ The preconceived attitudes and the attitudes formulated were

partly a determiner of the success of the process of becoming a teacher.

One of these procedures was the period of observation which usually

preceded the start of active engagement in the act of student teaching.

Most student teaching programs recommended a period of one week to orient

the student to the classroom situation by serving as an observer or an aide

to the cooperating teacher. A majority, 56.5 per cent, found this to be a

satisfactory procedure, while an additional 30.4 per cent thought a two

week period of observation was the best approach. At the two extremes

were 10.6 per cent of the student teachers who thought it was unnecessary

to observe prior to starting to teach and 2.5 per cent who preferred a

three week period of acclimation to the classroom. In actual practice the

variation was still greater with 27.0 per cent starting to teach during

the first week, 52.3 per cent during the second week, 14.7 per cent during

the third week, and 6.0 per cent not entering into the teaching situation

until either the fourth or fifth week. In general student teachers ob

served for a longer period of time than they deemed necessary.

Once the student teacher had started to teach, he followed one of

three procedures: he taught the remainder of the time he was in the cooper

ating school; he alternated units with the cooperating teacher; or he

taught one unit and returned the class to the teacher with whom he was

working. The procedure followed was usually dependent upon the views of

the cooperating teacher, the nature of the material being covered in the

69classroom, and the ability of the student teacher involved. Most student

teachers, 53.2 per cent, taught the full term once they had started, al

though 39.0 per cent alternated units with the classroom teacher. The

remaining 7.8 per cent taught only one unit which, in a few cases, was

quite a lengthy unit. Student teacher opinion as to which of the above

procedures was most satisfactory was evenly divided between the two pro

cedures of continued teaching and alternate teaching with 48.8 per cent

and 46.8 per cent responding to these methods, respectively.

The presence of the cooperating teacher in the classroom affects

student teachers in different ways. Some student teachers feel more con

fident if the teacher is present in case a situation arises which the

student teacher does not feel competent to handle. Other student teachers

have difficulty relaxing if they are observed constantly. In actual prac

tice, 90.8 per cent of the cooperating teachers were reported as having

been in the classroom part of the time while the student teacher was

teaching and the two extremes were represented by the 2.1 per cent who

were never present in the classroom while the student teacher performed

and the 7.1 per cent who were present at all times. The actual procedures

of cooperating teachers corresponded quite closely to the expressed de

sires of the student teachers who felt the cooperating teacher should be

present part of the time in 84.4 per cent of the replies. The remaining

15.6 per cent of the student teachers were divided with 9.8 per cent for

constant supervision and 5.8 per cent for no supervision.

Most student teaching programs required student teachers to submit

copies of their lesson plans to their college supervisor incorporated in a

70

handbook or log of student teaching experiences. While most student

teachers did, they did so not from a deep conviction that these plans are

necessary but rather because they felt this was one of the criteria for

their evaluation.

Only 44-.9 per cent of elementary student teachers replied that they

thought lesson plans were necessary for successful teaching. Another 27.5

per cent believed lesson plans were helpful but too time consuming, and

24.2 per cent felt they were needed for the first few units only. The re

maining 3-4 per cent saw little value to lesson plans as part of the prep

aration for teaching. Comments furnished by a number of student teachers

offered insight into the possible reasons for the answers given to the

above question. The statement of one student teacher incorporated the

views of many who commented. The student teacher pointed out that they-

were furnished curriculum guides from the state department, course out

lines from the school, and used textbooks which had a teacher's guide and

accompanying workbook and were instructed to base their teaching on these

materials. Equally numerous were the complaints that either the cooper

ating teacher or the college supervisor insisted on long, detailed,

descriptive lesson plans rather than concise statements of ideas to be

presented, how they were to be presented, and what materials were to be

used to implement the presentation. The lack of use of lesson plans ex

isted despite the expressed view of student teachers that lesson plan

construction was the greatest strength of their educational preparation.

Since student teachers frequently follow the lead of their cooperating

teacher, the student teacher's assessment of the attitude of the classroom

71teacher toward lesson plans might be a determiner of student teacher atti

tudes and procedures. Elementary student teachers reported that 45.7 per

cent of the teachers with whom they worked felt lesson plans were necessary

for successful teaching; 17.8 per cent thought they were helpful but too

time consuming; 27.9 per cent believed they were needed for the first few

units; and 8.6 per cent of cooperating teachers were characterized as

thinking lesson plans had little or no value.

Some programs of preparation were more successful in inculcating

a belief in the necessity of lesson plans, The percentage of student

teachers who believed lesson plans were necessary for successful teaching

ranged from 0 to 84 per cent among the institutions included in the study.

Many student teaching programs required the student teacher to con

duct a case study as part of the student teaching experience. Comments of

student teachers indicated that it was the orientation to the idea of case

studies which was a determining factor in the way in which this part of the

program was viewed. If the case study was approached on the basis that its

value, during student teaching, was in the acquainting the prospective

teacher with sources and location of information about atypical students

rather than the deep analysis of the problems of such a student, then the

idea of the case study was more acceptable and in the long run created

more favorable attitudes toward the studies. The variation in attitude

toward the case study was evidenced in ,the replies which rated the case

study as having little value by 22.1 per cent of the respondents; as help

ful in understanding children by 38.5 per cent; as being helpful but too

time consuming by 25.5 per cent; and as being of great value by 13.9 per

72

cent.

Some teacher training programs had a policy against assigning stu

dent teachers to the school from which they had graduated. Of those who

expressed an opinion, seven times as many felt that student teaching in

the school from which they matriculated would be a handicap as thought it

would be.an advantage.

Some student teachers participated in their student teaching exper

ience in a nearby community and commuted to the school. A majority, almost

seventy per cent, of the student teachers believed that commuting hindered

on-the-job training to some extent.

Just as the place of student teaching was recognized as an important

factor in student teaching, so was the time of student teaching considered

a factor in the success of the experience. Fall student teaching was be

lieved to offer the most comprehensive view of teaching in the opinion of

69.6 per cent of the elementary student teachers. Only 2.9 per cent

thought the spring was the best time to student teach and 8.7 per cent

thought winter was the optimum period for student teaching. All others

replying to the question stated the time of student teaching was immater

ial.

A greater diversity of opinion was expressed by elementary student

teachers about the length of time spent in student teaching than in the

time of the year in which it should be done. Some of the comments and

suggestions made included: have eight weeks of student teaching and a

final week of observation; student teaching should be for a full year;

there should be two student teaching experiences; provision should be made

73

for non-teaching associations with children of the age group in which

student teaching was to be done; student teaching and methods courses

should run concurrently with the student teaching experience; and there

should be more student teaching. Each of the comments was expressed by

more than one individual. Most student teachers favored the 9 or 12 week

pattern of organization with 43.6 per cent choosing the former and 42.6

per cent preferring the latter. Eighteen weeks was the choice of 10.3 per

cent and the remaining 3.4 per cent expressed a desire for six weeks of

student teaching. Correlated with the length of time spent in the cooper

ating school was the amount of time actually spent in teaching. The num

ber of hours actually spent teaching varied from less than twenty to more

than one hundred hours. More than half of the prospective teachers spent

at least eighty hours actively teaching and a majority of all student

teachers felt that the amount of time spent teaching was about right.

The student teaching experience encompassed more than the classroom

presentations made by the student teachers. Each teacher was involved in

some non-teaching duties or teaching in a non-classroom situation such as

extra-curricular activities, hall duty, lunch duty, ticket selling, play

ground supervision, and similar responsibilities. More than ninety per

cent of student teachers believed they should be assigned to the non

teaching routine duties and 77.1 per cent felt they should be assigned to

assist in some extra-curricular activity.

Normally, the student teacher spent considerable time in conferences

with the cooperating teacher, the college supervisor, and in some cases

with the cooperating school administrator. Student teachers believed the

74

student teacher-cooperating teacher conference should be held as often as

needed. They preferred daily conferences, both before and after the class

room presentation, lasting as long as needed. The conference should be

about evenly divided between planning and evaluation and preferably, in

the opinion of the student teachers, should be a regularly scheduled con

ference rather than an infrequent or sporadic chance meeting. A number of

comments were made by student teachers to the effect that they had diffi

culty understanding just what the cooperating teacher expected of them.

The benefits derived from the student teaching experiences in the

classroom and from the conferences were related to the attitude of the

cooperating teacher toward serving in that capacity. Student teachers

were presented five reasons why they thought their cooperating teacher had

accepted a student teacher. Two of these reasons could be classified as

positive and three as negative. A minority of the cooperating teachers

were judged by the student teachers as accepting the assignment for the

positive categories of an obligation to the profession or an opportunity

to learn. Only 15.4 per cent of the classroom teachers were placed in the

former category and 24.1 per cent in the latter group. In the opinion of

the student teachers, slightly more than half of the cooperating teachers,

51.3 per cent, had accepted a student teacher to share some of their work

load. Student teachers felt the person they worked with looked upon serv

ing as a cooperating teacher as a chore in 4.1 per cent of the cases and

as an opportunity to pick up some extra, money in the remaining 5.1 per cent

of the cases.

75

Since the student teacher must work with both the cooperating

teacher and the college supervisor, it was important to the student that

the best possible relationship exist between these two members of the

supervisory team. Student teachers felt that 69.1 per cent of the coop

erating teachers welcomed the visit of the college supervisor but that

21.2 per cent were indifferent to the visit and 9.7 per cent actually

resented having the college supervisor come to the cooperating school and

the classroom. While 86.3 per cent of the student teachers felt the col

lege supervisor should arrive before class and stay for the entire presen

tation of the lesson, this procedure occurred on only 62.1 per cent of the

visits. More student teachers thought the visits by the college super

visor should be on a weekly basis than any other schedule and that con

ferences should be held after each classroom supervisory visit. Thirty

per cent of the student teachers did not feel they had sufficient confer

ence time with the college supervisor.

The student teachers generally indicated the student teaching ex

perience was one of the their, most worthwhile college experiences but were

cognizant of many ways in which the program could be improved to make what

was a positive and memorable portion of their training even more valuable

to them in preparing them for their chosen profession.

CHAPTER IV

EXAMINATION OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHER RESPONSES

The training of teachers for secondary schools was the larger of the

two teacher training programs included in this study. Seven of the eight

teacher training institutions in the state of Montana had programs in the

field of secondary education which exceeded enrollments in their elementary

education programs. Only the College of Great Falls had more elementary

student teachers than secondary education enrollees. Table 13 shows the

number of secondary student teachers at each institution and the number and

percentage of responses to the questionnaire sent.

TABLE 13. SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

Institution Sent Returned Percentage

Carroll College 27 16 59.3

Eastern Montana College 142 89 62.7

College of Great Falls 11 10 90.9

Montana State University 176 140 79.5

Northern Montana College 59 42 71.2

Rocky Mountain College 28 11 39.3

University of Montana 196 124 63.3

Western Montana College 71 49 69.0

Other 3

Totals 705 484 68.7

77

The largest programs in secondary education were operated by the

University of Montana, Montana State University, and Eastern Montana Col

lege „ It was not possible to identify three returned questionnaires as to

the institution with which they were associated so they were placed in the

group headed 'other'.

General Information

Slightly more than half, 52.5 per cent, of the student teachers

were male and almost half, 49.3 per cent, of those responding were mar

ried. Of the 51.7 per cent who were not married, 48.2 per cent were

single, 2.1 per cent were divorced, and 0.4 per cent were widowed. The

predominant age group, 62.9 per cent, was from 21 to 23 years, followed

by 24.7 per cent from 24 to 30 years of age, 8.2 per cent who were over 30 years of age, and 4.3 per cent who had not reached the age of 21.

Secondary student teachers were trained in a wide variety of sub

ject matter areas. The areas and the enrollment in each are shown in

Table 14, page 78. The three main fields which have expanded into the

extended or broad fields major are industrial arts, English, and social

studies. In the fields of earth science, geography, general science,

speech, library science, psychology, and sociology, minors outnumbered

majors. The top ten categories accounted for three-fourths of all majors

and minors reported by secondary student teachers,' Three subject matter

areas reported— wildlife management, Japanese, and philosophy— are not

generally associated with subjects taught in high schools. More than one-

fifth of the majors and minors reported were in the fields of vocational

78TABLE 14. DISTRIBUTION OF MAJORS AND MINORS OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS

SubjectBroad field ma j or

Regular ma j or Minor Total

English 12 59 26 97Health and physical education 0 42 46 86Business 5 39 33 77Social studies 8 26 22 56History I . 27 24 52

Mathematics 0 31 20 51'Home economics I 30 12 43Biology I 26 15 42Art 2 19 17 38Industrial arts 14 10 10 34

French 0 12 14 26Sociology 0 2 16 18 .Spanish 0 6 11 17Psychology 0 0 14 14Chemistry 0 4 9 13

Physical science 0 4 S 12Music 4 4 3 11Library science 0 1 10 11Speech 0 2 8 10General science I 0 7 8

German 0 3 4 7Agriculture I 6 0 7Geography 0 I 5 6Earth science 0 0 5 5Physics 0 3 2 5

Distributive education 0 4 0 4Geology 0 3 0 3Political science 0 I 2 3Vocational-technical education 0 3 0 3Guidance 0 0 2 2

Special education I 0 I 2Journalism 0 I I 2Economics 0 0 2 2Russian 0 0 2 2Latin 0 I I 2

79

TABLE 14. (Continued)

SubjectBroad field major

Regular ma j or Minor Total

Wildlife management 0 I 0 IPhilosophy 0 0 I IJapanese 0 0 I IDriver education 0 0 I I

education. Approximately another one-fifth were in social science, one-

fifth in the sciences, and three of every ten students majored or minored

in humanities, One of every ten majored or minored in health and physical

education.

Almost as many student teachers participated in the student teach

ing experience in the fall as were engaged in the program in winter and

spring combined. Some individuals, 21,5 per cent, did their student

teaching in junior high schools although the majority, 78.5 per cent, were

placed in high schools both within and outside of the college community.

Those who taught within their college community made up 38.3 per cent of

the number who replied to the questionnaire. Other students who did not

have to establish a second place of residence were the 13,2 per cent who

student taught in their home town or the 9,6 per cent who commuted daily

to the student teaching center. It was necessary for 38.9 per cent to live

away from their college community or home town in order to do their student

teaching. The number who did this varied from none at Carroll College and

Rocky Mountain College to 82.1 per cent of the student teachers at Montana

80State University, A problem peculiar to Montana State University existed

not only because it had a large number of student teachers compared to the

size of the college community but also because it trained teachers in such

specialized fields as home economics, industrial arts, vocational agricul

ture, and distributive education which offered limited possibilities for

placement within the college community.

Most.student teachers participated in a period of observation some

time prior to doing their student teaching. Of those who responded to the

questionnaire, 41»3 per cent did this observation in the same school in

which they did their student teaching. At all but Eastern Montana College

and Montana State University, over sixty per cent of the student teachers

observed and student taught in the same school. At these two institutions

the percentages were 41.2 and 13.1, respectively. In addition, students

from the University of Montana reported that 31.3 per cent did not partic

ipate in the period of observation. The high school from which the stu

dent teacher graduated was the location of 14.1 per cent of secondary

student teaching assignments.

Secondary student teachers, like elementary student teachers, had

graduated from high schools of various sizes. Graduates of schools with

fewer than fifty students made up 4.1 per cent of the total, while 11.9

per cent had attended schools with an enrollment between fifty-one and one

hundred students, 23.5 per cent were from schools with a student body be

tween one hundred and three hundred, 19.0 per cent were from schools

between three hundred and five hundred, and 41.5 per cent had matricu

lated at schools which enrolled more than five hundred students. The

81three private colleges drew only 5.5 per cent of their students in secon

dary education from schools with an enrollment under one hundred compared

to 16.0 per cent from the same category in the public institutions.

Mechanics of the Student Teaching Program

Each teacher training program had certain procedures followed prior

to, during, and following student teaching which might have been the cause

of problems for student teachers. Part of the questionnaire was designed

to discover what might be problem-causing procedures.

One of the first points of concern to student teachers was where

they were to do their student teaching. Most student teachers, 84.7 per

cent, were given the opportunity to express a preference for a specific

location, and of the student teachers who reported having had this oppor

tunity, 80.1 per cent also reported they were placed in the school of

•their choice. Carroll College student teachers were given a choice in

only 13.0 per cent of the cases which was the only group varying to any

degree from the overall total.

Secondary student teachers frequently commented that they would have

liked a longer period of time to prepare for their specific student teach

ing experience. Four areas were included in suggestions for lengthening

this period. They included earlier notification of school assignment,

cooperating teacher assignment, subject assignment, and subject matter

within the subject field they were to teach. Some student teachers knew

a quarter ahead of time where they were to student teach and 77.7 per cent

reported they knew at least one month in advance. The remaining 22.3 per

82cent indicated it was closer to a week or less before they knew. Con

siderable variation existed among the teacher training institutions with

more than eighty per cent of the student teachers from'Rocky Mountain

College and Eastern Montana College indicating they did not know until a

week before where they would do their student teaching while no other in

stitution reported over sixteen per cent in this category.

Only 51.8 per cent of the student teachers knew with whom they were

to student teach one week before the start of the term of student teach

ing. Eastern Montana College and Rocky Mountain College were joined by

Montana State University in making up the largest portion of the. unin

formed group. Although most student teachers at Montana State University

knew quite early where they were to student teach, they were not informed

until a much later date with whom they would student teach.

A student teacher could not prepare lessons unless he knew the sub

jects he was to teach. Some student teachers, 16.8 per cent, did not find

out which subjects they were to teach until they arrived at the cooper

ating school and an additional 26.8 per cent did not learn of their subject

assignment until the week before they reported to the school. More than

half of the student teachers did not know what specific material they would

be expected to teach until after they had arrived at their student teaching

center.

Most student teachers indicated the school in which they student

taught held an orientation session for staff and student teachers before

school in the fall. Of those doing their student teaching in the fall,

91.2 per cent were invited to participate in such a program compared to

83

23.0 per cent of those extended a similar invitation who taught in the winter or spring.

A number of different procedures were used by student teachers to

secure private living quarters in the community in which they student

taught. The most common procedure, used' by 84.2 per cent of the student

teachers, was to secure living quarters through their own efforts. Only

4.1 per cent received help from their college or university and a like

number were aided by the cooperating school officials. The remaining 7.6

per cent secured living accommodations through friends, relatives, or

other sources. Several student teachers commented on the returned ques

tionnaires that they had some difficulty in renting a place to live for

such a short period of time and settled for quarters they did not deem very

suitable because owners of more suitable accommodations were reluctant to

rent. All student teachers did eventually find a place to live and were

ready to start on their student teaching assignment.

One of the questions which elicited considerable comment from stu

dent teachers was in the area of assignment of classes. Six individuals

reported they were not assigned to any classes in their major field and

71 others taught but one class in their major. All others taught two or

more classes- in their main area of academic concentration„ Several stu

dent teachers reported they taught six classes with four different prep

arations, a load exceeding that of regular staff members . Several -other

student teachers felt that before a student teacher is assigned to teach

a foreign language in a school, the method of instruction should be checked

to see if it corresponds to the method in which they were trained.

84A somewhat similar situation was reported in minor fields with 22.5

per cent of student teachers indicating they did not teach at all in their

minors while 1.8 per cent taught four or more classes in their minor field.

A number of student teachers commented that they wished they had had an

opportunity to teach in the minor while others expressed the opinion that

they thought it was ridiculous to expect a person to teach in the minor

field. The modes of responses varied from one teacher training institu

tion to another in respect to the number of classes taught in the minor

field. At Rocky Mountain College the mode was zero while at Montana State

University and Western Montana College the mode was two. Eastern Mentana

College had bimodal responses with the same number of students reporting

no classes in the minor as reported two classes. All other institutions

reported one class in the minor as the most common procedure. One secon

dary student teacher stated she was assigned to teach a senior honors

class in a weak minor she had not as yet completed. She characterized

this as a rather harrowing experience =

Forty-three student teachers replied they had taught classes out

side of their major or minor field. Two reported they taught four such

classes and four others taught three classes outside their fields of con

centration. Some of the classes taught outside of the major or minor were

related to the fields. Most commonly mentioned was history majors or min

ors teaching classes in citizenship, sociology, economics, or American

Problems, Students from Msntana State University made up 42.3 per cent

of' the cases of teaching outside the major or minor fields.

85Most student teaching programs and instructions to cooperating

teachers indicated that it was the, preferred policy of the teacher train

ing institution that student teachers observe for one to two weeks before

actually attempting to teach the class. Approximately one-third, 33.1 per

cent, started to teach the first week in their major and 27.1 per cent did

so the first week in their minor. The second week saw 47.1 per cent start

in their major and 47.9 per cent start in their minor field. One student

teacher reported he did not start to teach in his major until the fifth

week. Another did not start until then in his minor field. All others

were evenly divided between starting in the third or fourth week of their

student teaching experience. Once the student teacher began to teach, he

usually, 87.6 per cent of the time, continued to teach for the remainder

of his stay in the cooperating school. Other procedures included 9.2 per

cent of the student teachers alternating units with their cooperating

teacher and 3.3 per cent of the prospective teachers who taught just one

unit and returned the class to the teacher under whom they were working.

The percentages for the actual procedures followed corresponded closely

to the views of what student teachers thought the procedure should be.

Approximately two-thirds of the cooperating teachers remained in

the classroom the first day the student teacher taught the class. After

the first day the procedure varied with 27.0 per cent who reported they had

taught the remainder of the term without the cooperating teacher ever being

present in the classroom. At the polar position were 2.3 per cent of the

student teachers who were never allowed to have the class without the

cooperating teacher being present. Most student teachers, 54-5 per cent,

86were allowed to teach unsupervised frequently while 10.4 per cent did so

occasionally. The remaining 5.8 per cent reported they were seldom allowed

to' conduct a class without the presence of the cooperating teacher. Four

student teachers stated that the only time they saw their cooperating

teachers were on the days the college supervisor visited the school.

Another student teacher said the only time he saw his cooperating teacher

was the first day when he was introduced to the class. Another noted that

his cooperating teacher never visited class but frequently listened to the

class over the school's classroom communications system.

Since teaching was not confined to the classroom, student teachers

were asked to respond to questions concerning the degree of participation

in non-teaching activities during student teaching. Table 15, page 87,

presents the responses of the student teachers to those questions.

The only activity in which a majority of secondary student teachers

participated was that of 'marking report cards1. The next two activities

with the greatest participation, although involving less than half of the

student teachers, were supervisory in nature. These were supervision of

the study hall and the homeroom, both of which were closely related to the

classroom situation. Both of these activities were conducted within the

confines of the regular school day. The smallest degree of participation

occurred in those activities, which were outside of the hours when school

was in session. The degree of participation fell short of the degree to

which student teachers believed they should take part. Although a majority

of student teachers were involved only in report card marking, 64.7 per

cent felt they should be assigned to non-teaching duties and 75.8 per cent

87believed they should be assigned to extracurricular activities.

TABLE 15. PARTICIPATION IN NON-TEACHING ACTIVITIES BY SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS

Activity Did participate Did not participate

Homeroom supervision 189 271Registration 88 370Noon duty 129 131Detention 82 379Hall duty 161 304

Chaperoning dances 58 408Interscholastic athletics 92 371Intramural athletics 72 391Ticket selling 60 403Study hall supervision 188 275

Marking report cards 239 225Class meetings 164 301Playground supervision 29 432Club meetings 145 316Guidance services 109 353

The college supervisor is an integral part of the student teaching

program since it is he who should correlate the activities going on in the

cooperating school with those of the teacher training institution he rep

resents. It is his responsibility to communicate the college policies

to the schools and their personnel and to accept feedback from these

schools. He must be a public relations man, a resource person, a super

visor, an evaluator, and at times a father confessor. (52:61-65) Student

teachers were asked a number of questions in an attempt to determine if

student teachers perceived the role of the college supervisor in the same

88way he was perceived by experts in the field.

A majority of secondary student teachers met with their college

supervisor prior to going to their cooperating school to student teach,

although a large minority, 39-7 per cent, did not have this opportunity.

Considerable variation was reported from one teacher training institution

to another. At the College of Great Falls, Rocky JVbuntain College, and

Northern JVbntana College more than ninety per cent of the student teachers

met with their college supervisor before starting to student teach. At

Carroll College, Eastern Montana College, and the University of Montana

more than two-thirds of the student teachers participated in such a meet

ing. At Western Montana College 46.1 per cent attended conferences with

their college supervisor prior to student teaching, while at Montana State

University only 28.2 per cent did so.

The classroom visit is the heart of the college supervisor's rela

tionship with the student teacher. It is here he finds what the student

teacher has been doing and confirms, or fails to confirm, what has been

reported to him by the cooperating teacher and the administrator of the

cooperating school. Four per cent of the student teachers reported they

were not visited by a college supervisor during their student teaching

experience. Of those who were visited, 6.7 per cent received but one vis

it, 33.2 per cent were visited twice, 23.0 per cent were observed three

times by their supervisor, 16.9 per cent had four supervisory observations

and 20.2 per cent were visited five or more times. Half of those report

ing no visit from the college supervisor also stated their college super

visor did visit the school but did not come to the classroom. The most

89common procedure reported for Carroll College and Montana State University

was two visits. Northern Montana College and the University of Montana

students most often indicated they were supervised on three occasions

while all others reported the most common procedure was five or more vis

its from the college supervisor.

Closely allied with the number of visits was the length of time the

college supervisor spent in the classroom on his visit. Responses and

comments of student teachers indicated this varied from five minutes spent

outside the classroom door to one-half day in the classroom. In 46.0 per

cent of the cases reported, the visit lasted for the full lesson presented

by the student teacher. Exactly one-third were reported to have remained

in the classroom for a fifteen to thirty minute period, while 10.8 per

cent observed for less than fifteen minutes. More than one class period

was observed by 9.9 per cent of the college supervisors.

As in the case of elementary student teachers, three-fourths of the

shorter visits were made by college supervisors who made frequent super

visory visits and two-thirds of the longer supervisory visits were made by

college supervisors who visited once or twice.

A number of student teachers complained that visits by the college

supervisor were too short. Most common procedure reported was the visit of

at least one full class period, except at Northern Montana College and the

University of Montana where the fifteen to thirty minute visit prevailed.

Some student teachers were supervised by as many as four different

college supervisors, although the most common procedure was a single col

lege supervisor, reported in 75.8 per cent of the cases. Most often the

90

student teachers who were visited by more than one college supervisor

were those in more specialized programs such as special education, dis

tributive education, and industrial arts. Also receiving visits from

more than one individual were those in program such as home economics

and agriculture which were partially funded by state and federal monies

specifically requiring a subject matter specialist to visit the classes.

The conferences held by the college supervisor are a vital part of

the student teaching program, A variety of approaches were used in sched

uling conferences with student teachers with the most common being report

ed as having been held after the classroom visitation. This occurred in

51.A per cent of the cases reported and was followed by 38.9 per cent who

had a conference both before and after the observation of the classroom

presentation. In 4.8 per cent of the cases, conferences were held before

seeing the student in action and in the remaining 4.9 per cent no confer

ences were held. A few student teachers indicated that the cooperating

teacher was present for the entire conference with the college supervisor.

The most common procedures, however, were that the cooperating teacher was

present for part of the conference or not present at all. The length of

the conferences varied from a few minutes to more than an hour. Mdst con

ferences were either less than ten minutes in length, 43.2 per cent, or

from ten to thirty minutes, 46.0 per cent.

An inverse relationship was noted between the number of visits of

the college supervisor and the length of the conferences held with the

student teacher. Those who visited most often were most likely to hold

shorter conferences with the student teacher than were those who supervised

91less frequently.

Students from Montana State University and Western Montana College

reported they were usually informed of forthcoming, visits of the college

supervisor. Students from Carroll College and Rocky Mbuntain College usu

ally were not informed of impending visits. Students from the other four

institutions were occasionally informed of the supervisory visits which

were about to be made.

In addition to conferences with their college supervisors, most

student teachers also had conferences with their cooperating teachers and

the administrator of the cooperating school. More than seventy per cent

of the student teachers met with their cooperating teacher each day for a

conference which was about evenly divided between planning and evaluation.

The conferences most often, 47.8 per cent of the time, were from ten to

thirty minutes in length. Almost as many conferences, 43.2 per cent, were

less than ten minutes in length with the rest lasting from thirty to sixty

minutes. Thirteen per cent of the student teachers qualified their ans

wers as to the length and nature of the conference by indicating they

seldom had a conference but when they did it fit the above patterns.

Slightly more than half of the student teachers had conferences

with the administrator of the cooperating school and half of those who did

have such a conference reported the conference was purely social in nature.

Next in frequency was the conference concerning school procedures followed

by discussions of classroom visits made by the administrator. Only 28.0

per cent of the student teachers reported they had been visited in the

classroom by the school administrator.

92Attitudes of Student Teachers Toward Various Phases

of the Student Teaching Program

Some questions in the questionnaire sent to the secondary student

teachers were designed to reveal attitudes they possessed toward various

phases of the student teaching program. Additional insights into atti

tudes were obtained from the comments and suggestions offered by the per

sons who returned the questionnaire.

Lesson plans. A key to the success of a student teacher is the

degree to which he has prepared himself to meet his class. The lesson

plan is the instrument used to guide the presentation of the material the

instructor has to present. The presentation is limited by the academic

background of the individual and the methodology used to communicate the

basic concepts to the class.

, Slightly more than half, 54,3 per cent, of the secondary student

teachers submitted lesson plans to their cooperating teacher before class

each day. Another 23.7 per cent did so on occasion and 7.5 per cent did

so for the first few units only. No lesson plans were ever submitted to

the cooperating teacher by 14.9 per cent of the student teachers. Lesson

plans were returned with neither written nor oral comments in 14.7 per cent

of the cases reported. The attitudes of student teachers were in close

agreement with the actual practices reported. A slight majority, 54.6 per

cent, stated they felt lesson plans were necessary for successful teach

ing, while 27.2 per cent felt they were helpful but too time consuming to

be of much practical value. Others, 12.2 per cent, believed lesson plans

to be necessary for the first few units only and 6.0 per cent felt lesson

93plans had no value.

Table 16 compares the views held by student teachers about lesson

plans with attitudes student teachers thought the cooperating teachers with

whom they worked had toward lesson plans.

TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES OF STUDENT TEACHERS AND THEIR OPINIONS OF COOPERATING TEACHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD LESSON PLANS

AttitudeStudentteacher

Cooperatingteacher

Necessary for successful teaching 54.6% 48.2%

Helpful but too time consuming 27.2 16.3

Necessary for the first few units only 12.2 15.1

Of relatively little value 6.0 20.4

Student teachers thought that they placed a greater emphasis on the

necessity of lesson plans than did their cooperating teachers. While only

6.0 per cent of the student teachers believed lesson plans were of little

value, over twenty per cent believed their cooperating teachers saw little

value in the use of lesson plans in teaching.

Academic and professional preparation. Comments and replies of

student teachers indicated that academic excellence and competencies in

the various phases of professional preparation facilitated success in stu

dent teaching.

94Academic preparation was classified as being excellent by 41.1 per

cent of the student teachers. An additional 45.4 per cent felt they had

received adequate preparation prior to participating in student teaching.

Only 11.9 per cent felt they were somewhat insufficient in academic train

ing and 1.6 per cent classified their academic preparation as very insuf

ficient.

Table 17 provides a means of comparison of attitudes of student

teachers toward their preparation in their major field of specialization,

their minor field and their education or professional course sequence.

TABLE 17. A COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES TOWARD PREPARATION IN ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL SEQUENCES, AS VIEWED BY STUDENT TEACHERS

AttitudeAcademic maj or

Academicminor

Professionalsequence

Excellent 41.1% 22.0% 10.5%

Adequate 45.4 50.5 53.2

Somewhat insufficient 11.9 20.0 26.3

Very insufficient 1.6 7.5 10.0

Four times as many student teachers believed their academic prep

aration in their major was excellent as believed their educational course

sequence was excellent preparation. Twice as many student teachers be

lieved they were excellently prepared in their major as believed this to

be true for their minor. In the academic major the ratio was 25 to I when

95

comparing those who felt the preparation was excellent to those who felt

it was very insufficient. In comparing the same two categories for the

academic minor the ratio was three to one and in the profesional sequence

the ratio was one to one.

Several student teachers expressed the opinion that they were

pleased that they had student taught in the fall so that they had an

opportunity to return to campus and strengthen areas in which they had

discovered weaknesses„

Only at the College of Great Falls did all student teachers report

they felt adequately or excellently prepared in the education sequence.

Student teachers from Rocky Mountain College were divided three to one on

whether their preparation in education was adequate and at Carroll College

one-half of the student teachers reported they felt they were insufficient

ly prepared in this category. At all other institutions less than twenty

per cent indicated their educational preparation was insufficient.

The questions pertaining to preparation of student teachers elicited

more volunteered responses than any other group of questions. The comments

fell into three general categories: those which were complimentary; those

which were derogatory; and those which were in the nature of suggestions

for improvement. These comments are summarized in Table 18, page 96.

Examination of Table 18, page 96, indicates that unfavorable com

ments far exceeded favorable comments. Mcst common favorable comments

dealt with the practicality and the value of education courses. The prin

cipal suggestion made was to eliminate courses which were taken while the

person was student teaching. Other comments indicated dissatisfaction with

96TABLE 18. COMMENTS OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS ON THEIR EDUCATION COURSE

SEQUENCES

Comments and suggestions Number

FAVORABLE COMMENTS

Mr. is tops 6Education courses were generally excellent

UNFAVORABLE COMMENTS

i

Courses were too impractical and not related to theclassroom 18

Education courses in general were of little or no value 9Instruction in education courses is poorFour weeks of orientation to student teaching before

4

going out to student teach is not a good idea Fifty to 75 per cent of all education courses should

4

be eliminated

SUGGESTIONS

3

Eliminate courses taken while student teaching fulltime

Have more education courses taught after student11

teachingHave more education courses taught before student 5

teaching 3Provide more opportunity to observe good teaching 2Provide more courses in the study of the child 2

Have a program in which students can serve as teacher Iaides before student teaching 2

Include more educational psychology 2Have two professional quarters IHave more orientation to student teaching Require all student teachers to take psychological

I

tests before student teaching IRequire more speech IPresent more on employment procedures I

97required education courses offered in the evenings for persons who were

student teaching. Comments characterized these courses as being loaded

with written work which students deemed of little value. Students ob

jected to the time required both in attending the classes and in doing

assignments for the class since it used time they felt could be used to

greater advantage in preparation of lessons for the classes in which they

were doing their student teaching. Examination of Table 18, page 96,

also indicates some responses were in direct opposition to others as

illustrated by the comments: education courses were of little value and

education courses were generally excellent; and have more education

courses before student teaching and have more education courses after

student teaching.

To further pursue the student teachers' attitudes toward and

assessment of their training, they were asked to indicate the areas of

greatest strength and weakness in their major and minor fields. Table 19,

page 98, summarizes the replies received.

Student teachers believed the strength in' their major was in the

subject matter preparation and the major deficiency was methodology. In

the minor the strength also was in the subject matter preparation, but to

a lesser degree.

98TABLE 19. A COMPARISON OF ACADEMIC STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Category MethodologySubjectmatter

Related.background All None

Academic strength in major 19.1% '60.9% 19.1% 0.7% 0.2%

Academic deficiency in major 54.5 9.7 34.0 1.4 0.4

Academic strength in minor ■ 36.8 44.1 18.2 0.0 0.8

Academic deficiency in minor 29.0 33.7 35.5 1.8 0.0

Student teachers were also asked to assess the strengths and weak

nesses of their preparation in their professional course sequence. Table

20 compares the relative strengths and weaknesses of five general areas

of the educational preparation of prospective teachers.

TABLE 20. EDUCATION COURSE SEQUENCE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

Category Strength Weakness

Lesson plan construction 40.8% 16.8%

Audio-visual usage 19.4 14.8


Grade determination 6.4 11.0

Practical application of theory 17.7 47.9

99In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the educational course

sequence, one category in each case stood out from the rest.. The main

area of strength indicated was lesson plan construction, while the princi

pal weakness was practical application of theory.

While one category stood out from the rest, it did not constitute

a majority response of student teachers. To determine if there was a

variation from one teacher training institution to another, a cross com

parison of strengths and weaknesses in academic and profesional fields at

each college or university is presented in Table 21, page 100. In each

case, just the one category is indicated which had the highest percentage

of returns on the questionnaires sent to the secondary student teachers.

Examination of Table 21 indicates variations did exist between the

different teacher training institutions of the state. Carroll College

student teachers assessed their greatest academic strength as 'related

background knowledge1 while all other students rated 'subject matter

preparation' as the major strength of their program.

Further examination of Table 21 indicates methodology was the most

commonly held weakness of the teacher preparation program and was so desig

nated at six of the eight teacher training institutions. While five insti

tutions were rated strongest in lesson plan construction one, Western

Montana College, was rated most deficient in this area. Practical appli

cation of theory was rated both as the greatest strength and greatest

weakness by the secondary student teachers from Northern Montana College.

Students from Western Montana College indicated their greatest strength

was in the field of audio-visual usage, while this was classified as the

100major deficiency of the programs at the College of Great Falls and Rocky

Mountain College.

TABLE 21. A CROSS COMPARISON OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES IN ACADEMIC AND EDUCATION PREPARATION AT TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN MONTANA

Teacher training institutionAcademicstrength

Academicweakness

Educationstrength

Educationweakness

Carroll College Related ba ckgr.

Methodology

Lessonplans

Practicalapplic.

Eastern Montana College Subjectmatter

Methodology

Lessonplans

Practicalapplic.

College of Great Falls Subjectmatter

Related backgr.

Lessonplans

Audiovisual

Montana State University Subjectmatter

Relatedbackgr.

Lessonplans

Practicalapplic.

Northern Montana College Subjectmatter

Methodology .

Practicalapplic.

Practicalapplic.

Rocky Mountain College Subjectmatter

Methodology

Practicalapplic.

Audiovisual

University of Montana Subjectmatter

Methodology

Lessonplans

Practicalapplic.

Western Montana College Subjectmatter

Methodology

Audiovisual

Lessonplans

Five general areas or courses are frequently included in the pre

student teaching preparation of student teachers'. The area reported as

being of greatest help to the student teacher during his student teaching

was the pre-student teaching observation. This was the choice of 38.6 per

101cent of the student teachers and was followed by 34-2 per cent who placed

greatest value oh their training in educational methods. Audio-visual

usage, educational psychology, and tests and measurements followed with

10.2 per cent, 9.9 per cent, and 7.1 per cent, respectively. A number of

student teachers volunteered the opinion that audio-visual usage should be

required before a person is allowed to student teach. Several others' ex

pressed the same opinion about tests and measurements but qualified it by

adding that the course should be more oriented toward the teaching situ

ation.

Replies of student teachers indicated that two general approaches

were used in teaching methods courses. Either one course was taught which

combined subject matter methods and educational methods or'separate courses

were taught and the student teacher usually took a methods course in his

major, another in his minor, and a third in educational methods. General

dissatisfaction was expressed by many of the student teachers who offered

various criticisms and suggestions pertaining to methods courses. Some of

the comments are listed below. Only those comments which appeared more

than once are included in the list.

a. Major methods classes were very poorly taught.

b. There should be a greater amount of methods in the major.

c . Mfethods courses were offered in the minor but not taken by a number of persons.

d. Education methods were poorly taught.

e. Education methods textbook and materials were outdated.

f. Methods courses were of little or no value.

102

g . Methods courses were very unrealistic and impractical.

h. More material should be presented on discipline.

i. Methods courses should be taught before student teaching.

j. The course coh'tains; too much busy work.

k. Instructors teach like they tell us not to teach.

l . All methods courses should be eliminated.

m. There should be additional methods courses after student teaching.

n. Greater stress should be placed on building a teaching file.

o . Former student teachers should be used in methods courses as resource persons.

p . More material is needed on test construction and motivation.

q. More presentations are needed in methods classes.

Student teachers were asked to assess the degree of duplication

which existed in the methods courses they had taken. The division of re

plies was quite even with 25.5 per cent reporting little or no duplication,

27.5 per cent placing the amount of duplication at less than twenty per

cent, an additional 26.1 per cent placing the duplication at greater than

twenty per cent but less than fifty per cent, and the remaining 20.9 per

cent felt their methods courses contained duplication in excess of fifty

per cent. Six student teachers reported they thought all methods courses

were alike.

Students from Eastern Montana College and Carroll College indicated

they usually took just one methods course, although some indicated they

had taken more than one and others indicated they had more than one avail

able but chose to take only one. Table 22, page 103, compares the amount

103

of duplication in methods courses at each teacher training institution as

assessed by the secondary student teachers from that institution.

TABLE 22. PER CENT OF DUPLICATION IN METHODS COURSES AT TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS IN MONTANA

CC EMC ■ CGF MSU NMC RMC UM WMC.

Little or no duplication 71.4 25.0 25.0 22.6 29.4 33.3 25.0 19.0

Less than twenty per cent duplication 0.0 25.0 50.0 24.2 26.5 16.7 32.9 24.3

Twenty to fifty per cent duplication 28.6 32.5 0 .0 27.4 32.3 33.3 23.9 - 35.1

More than fifty per cent duplication 0.0 17.5 25.0 25.8 11.8 16.7 18.2 21.6

The least amount of duplication in methods courses, as reported by

student teachers who completed more than one such course, was at Carroll

College. A majority of student teachers at Carroll College, the College

of Great Falls, Northern Montana College, and the University of Montana

reported less than twenty per cent duplication in methods courses. Eastern

Montana College and Rocky Mountain College students were evenly divided

with half of the students reporting less than twenty per cent duplicationI

and half reporting more than twenty per cent duplication. Only at Western

Montana College and at Montana State University did a majority of students

report that the amount of duplication exceeded twenty per cent.

104

Student teachers were asked questions which would assess their opin

ion as to whether a course derived its value or lack of value due to the

nature of the method of instruction or the nature of the course content.

Student teachers from the three private colleges— Carroll College, College

of Great Falls, and Rocky Mountain College— reported in the majority that

the courses they rated most valuable were most valuable due to the nature

of the content. The student teachers from each of the five public insti

tutions had majorities assigning the value of their best courses to the

nature of instruction. When the situation was reversed and student teach

ers were asked to assess the reason their least valuable course was so

rated, all but the student teachers from Northern Montana College indicated

the reason to be the nature of the instruction.

Case studies. Each student teaching program required that a study

of an individual student be conducted. Although the name of the study may

have differed from one institution to another, the content expected was

similar. Student teachers were asked to express their views on the value

of the case study in the student teaching program. The case study was

viewed as a valuable tool in teaching by 12.8 per cent of the student

teachers. It was seen as being helpful, but too time consuming, by 15.8

per cent of the individuals responding to the questionnaire. Another 38.7

per cent replied that it was helpful in understanding children and the re

maining 32.7 per cent classified the case study as being of relatively

little value.

Five student teachers volunteered the information that they thought

the case study would be of value if the student teaching experience was

105

greater in length while a similar number stated they thought it has so

little value that it should be eliminated. One comment which provided an

analytic view of the case study pointed out that the value of the case

study in student teaching lies in what it is supposed to accomplish. If

it was supposed to be a detailed analysis of an individual, it had little

value. However, if its purpose was to acquaint student teachers with

possible sources of information about their students and to point out

that students do have problems and are different, then it had a definite

place in the student teaching program. It was further pointed out that

the purpose should be explained to student teachers before they go out

in the field.

Procedures. The off-campus student teaching center Is used ex

clusively in secondary education in Montana. Many factors are considered

in assigning student teachers. Some factors vary from institution to

institution due to local conditions and beliefs. One such factor con

cerns assigning a student teacher to the school from which he graduated.

Four times as many secondary student teachers felt that being assigned to

the school from which they had graduated was a handicap as believed it to

be an advantage. It was viewed as immaterial by 42.5 per cent of the re

spondents. However, only 29.4 per cent replied that student teachers

should not be allowed to student teach in such a situation. An additional

29.8 per cent gave approval to this procedure only if the school was a

large school.

Some student teachers commuted to the cooperating school in which

they did their student teaching. More than two-thirds, 68.7 per cent,

106

chose the categories ' sometimes1 or 1 usually1 as causing problems for the

student teacher.

Student teachers were assigned to student teach in the fall, winter,

spring, and summer. Comments by student teachers pointed out advantages

and disadvantages of the different times. No favorable comments were

stated about student teaching in the summer. Student teachers were asked

to indicate when they did their student teaching and also to give their

preference as to the time of the year which offers the best view of the

teaching situation. Table 23 compares the answers to the two questions.

TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF WHEN STUDENT TEACHING WAS DONE WITH EXPRESSED PREFERENCES

Time of year When done When preferred

Fall 48.1% 76.3%

Winter 24.5 17.7

Spring 26.5 5.5

Summer 0.9 0.0

In actual practice approximately half of the student teachers did

their student teaching in the fall and the rest were divided between winter

and spring. Student teachers' replies placed a descending value on the

time of student teaching as the year progressed. Some of the■comments of

student teachers which summarized their reactions to the different times

of the year for student teaching are listed on page 107.

107

a. Student teaching in the fall introduces you to the problems and procedures of starting school.

b. The cooperating teacher was reluctant to let me take over the class in the fall until she had organized the class for the year as she wanted, it.

c. Students are more eager to learn in the fall.

d . Winter student teaching gives you the feeling you are stepping into the middle' of something and you are not sure you belong.

e. Spring gives you the opportunity to see how school closes.

f. There are too many activities.going on in the spring which are disruptive to teaching.

g. Little is accomplished in the way of teaching after the start of the month of May.

h. Never have anyone student teach in the summer. We had five students and four student teachers in the class.

The length of the student teaching experience at the time of the

study varied in length from 5 to IS weeks and included both full and half

day assignments. Variations existed in length of time from quarter to

quarter within an institution and between elementary and secondary educa

tion programs. Secondary student teachers, unlike any other group in the

study, favored the six week session of student teaching. Although the

41.0 per cent who preferred this length was the largest group, it was by

no means dominant over the other choices. A nine week student teaching

experience was the choice of 28.5 per cent, 12 weeks was preferred by

22.7 per cent, 18 weeks by 6.5 per cent, and 1.3 per cent stated they would

like to see a full year of student teaching.

No clear preference was expressed by student teachers as to whether

student teaching should be done at the beginning of the senior year, later

108in the senior year, or after all course work had been completed. Some

who believed it best to student teach at the beginning of the senior year

stated that this procedure would allow returning to college to strengthen

areas of weakness. Some who preferred the student teaching after comple

tion of course work felt that they would have been better prepared to

student teach if they had finished all work first. Favoring the student

teaching at the beginning of the senior year were 33.2 per cent of the

student teachers as compared to 34-9 per cent who believed finishing

course work first was best and 31.9 per cent who chose to student teach

later in the senior year. Student teachers from different teacher train

ing institutions had different preferences. Those from Carroll College,

Montana State University, and Northern Montana College most often preferred

student teaching at the beginning of the senior year. The choice most

often made by students from Eastern Montana College, the College of Great

Falls, Rocky Mountain College, and the University of Montana was 'after all

course work had been completed'. Western Montana College student teachers

selected the period 'sometime later in the senior year'.

Generally, student teachers expressed unsolicited comments most

often about the length of student teaching. Thirty-nine individuals stated

they would have liked to have had a longer period of student teaching com

pared to two who stated they thought the length of the student teaching

experience was too long. Both of the latter were in programs which assign

ed student teachers for a full quarter of student teaching.

Cooperating teachers. Student teachers were asked two questions

which were directed at assessing the nature of the teaching they observed

109

in the classes of their cooperating teachers and at assessing the reasons

they believed the cooperating teacher agreed to serve in that capacity.

The teaching observed in the classes of the cooperating teachers

was characterized by 3.5 per cent as having had no apparent organization.

Another 33-6 per cent viewed the teaching observed as being oriented to

ward a textbook presentation. The remaining 62.9 per cent of the observa

tions were characterized as being evenly divided between being based on

teacher-developed units and as being built on developing understanding of

basic concepts of the subject being taught.

Secondary student teachers were given five choices to characterize

the reasons they felt the cooperating teacher accepted a student teacher.

Three of the reasons were non-professional in nature and, unlike replies

of elementary student teachers, the responses of secondary student teach

ers placed only a minority of the cooperating teachers in these three

categories. Cooperating teachers were believed to have accepted a student

teacher for the opportunity of making extra money by 5.3 per cent of those

responding. Cooperating teachers were viewed as looking for someone to

share their load by 18.0 per cent of the student teachers while 4-5 per

cent thought the person with whom they worked thought the job was a chore.

The majority of the cooperating teachers were characterized as either

feeling an obligation to the teaching profession, 41.6 per cent, or as

looking on working with a prospective teacher as an opportunity to learn,

30.5 per cent.

College supervisors. Responses to specific items in the question

naire and volunteered comments indicated that student teachers were not

HOalways in agreement with procedures used by the college supervisors.

Responses of secondary student teachers and comments made indicated

that the majority of student teachers would prefer to know ahead of time

of forthcoming visits, that the visits should be on a weekly basis, and

that the college supervisor should arrive before the start of the class

and reamin for the presentation of the entire lesson. Although 84.2 per

cent held the latter view, only 58.4 per cent reported that this was the

procedure used by their college supervisor. The remainder reported that

26.4 per cent of the time the visit was for half of the lesson and in

15.0 per cent of the cases the visit was either less than ten minutes or

they were not visited at all by a college supervisor. The first visit

was viewed as a disturbing influence on the class by 7.2 per cent' of the)

student teachers and as a necessary evil by another 10.0 per cent. Other

student teachers, 51.4 per cent, felt nervous anticipation, 13.3 per cent

felt pleasurable anticipation, and 18.3 per cent viewed the college super

visor as a resource person.

The relationship between the college supervisor and the cooperating

teacher affected the student teacher since several student teachers raised

the question of what the student teacher is supposed to do when the col- '

lege supervisor and the cooperating teacher disagree on procedures. Stu

dent teachers made statements that in some cases the cooperating teacher

told them they had to satisfy the college supervisor but they would find

the method was not practical. In other cases the student teacher was in

structed by the college supervisor to work with the cooperating teacher

but should understand that some of the procedures were not the best

Ill

approach. Student teachers felt that 57.4 per cent of the cooperating

teachers welcomed the visit of the college supervisor, that 38.9 per cent

were indifferent to the visit, and that 3.7 per cent actually resented the

visit.

A statement of one student teacher who questioned the value of the

college supervisor visiting the class if no conference was held after the

classroom observation was characteristic of the statements of other stu

dent teachers about the conference with the college supervisor. Others

were disappointed that they did not have an opportunity to secure answers

to questions they had anticipated obtaining from the representative of

their college or university. More than one-third, 36.8 per cent, thought

they did not have sufficient conference time with the college supervisor.

Use of audio and visual devices. The training of prospective teach

ers includes the use of various materials which are helpful in teaching.

Many such devices are available in most schools. Table 24, page 112, lists

some of the more common devices and "the degree to which they were available

and used by student teachers.

Flannel boards and flip charts were found least often in the schools

in which secondary student teachers did their student teaching. The most

commonly used devices, when available, were the film projector, record

player, and overhead projector. Least used, when available, were the slide

projector, opaque projector, and filmstrip projector. Secondary student

teachers indicated they thought the least feasible audio-visual devices to

use in the student teaching situation in which they were placed were the

flannel board, tape recorder, and flip charts.

112

TABLE 24. PER CENT OF AVAILABILITY AND USAGE OF AUDIO AND VISUAL DEVICES

DeviceAvailable- not used

Available-used

Notavailable

Notfeasible

Tape recorder 34.6 28.3 19.8 17.3

Record player 36.0 45.7 7.7 10.6

Film projector 38.4 53.6 2.4 5.6

Filmstrip projector 56.8 27.6 7.9 7.7

Slide projector 56.3 20.0 14.4 9.3

Opaque projector 47.8 13.8 27.2 11.1

Overhead projector 39.4 44.3 11.4 4.9

Flannel board 29.1 11.3 37.4 22.2

Flip charts 25.7 22.8 34.4 17.1

Other personnel. During the stay in a community while student

teaching, student teachers not only had contact with the administrator

of the cooperating school and with their cooperating teachers but also

they were in contact with' other staff members, the student body, and

with member's of the community in which the cooperating school was located.

Table 25, page 113, offers a comparison of attitudes of these various

groups as assessed by the student teacher.

While student teachers felt they were accepted by all of the groups

in which they were in constant contact, they reported the greatest accept

ance was by their cooperating teachers and other staff members who were

more often both enthusiastic and helpful. Combined totals for indifferent

113

acceptance and being tolerated indicated that student teachers felt the

community members and the administrators of the school in which they

student taught were the least enthusiastic.

TABLE 25. ATTITUDE OF ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS

Attitude StaffCooperatingteacher

Administrator

Studentbody Community

Tolerated 3.9% 4.3% 4.5% 4.3% 3.1%

Indifferent acceptance 7.7 3.7 11.0 9.7 18.5

General acceptance 32.5 26.7 42.8 51.9 61.9

Enthusiastic, helpful acceptance -55.9 65.3 41.7 34.1 16.5

Student teachers offered a number of comments about selection of

the teacher with whom they were expected to work. Eleven offered the

general suggestion that greater effort should be used to select good coop

erating teachers. A number of others stated the reason their cooperating

teacher agreed to have a student teacher was so they could unload some of

their work. Several felt that the cooperating teachers were too inflex

ible and were not permissive enough in allowing the student teacher to try

new or different approaches. Others thought greater effort should be made

to match the personalities of student teachers and the person with whom

they would work. A number of persons reported they thought their cooper

ating teachers were wonderful to work with and did a fine job.

114

General statements offered by student teachers indicated that, in

general, student teaching was a most worthwhile and satisfying experience.

CHAPTER V

EXAMINATION OF COOPERATING TEACHER RESPONSES

The cooperating teacher is in a position to exert considerable

influence on the development of the prospective teacher who is partici

pating in the student teaching experience. Student teachers enumerated

many instances of practices they felt had merit and some they did not

desire to incorporate into their teaching patterns. Because of this dir

ect and constant influence, student teachers felt that every effort should

be made to secure master teachers to fill the position of cooperating

teacher.

The same questionnaire (Appendix:247-248) was sent to both elemen

tary and secondary cooperating teachers. While their jobs differed in

some respects, the information desired was essentially the same. For pur

poses of comparison, however, the returns of the two groups were tabulated

separately.

General Information

Montana schools, at the time of the study, varied in size from more

than 2,000 enrollment to rural schools with one or two teachers. Table 26,

page 116, shows the distribution of elementary and secondary cooperating

teachers in schools of various size by number and percentage.

Nearly one-half of the secondary teachers responding taught in the

larger schools of the state, while the greatest percentage -of elementary

teachers were in the middle classification. In both cases, all.sizes of

schools had representation.

116

TABLE 26. NUMBER AND PER CENT OF COOPERATING TEACHERS IN VARIOUS SIZE SCHOOLS

EnrollmentNumber of secondary

Per cent of secondary

Number of elementary

Per cent of elementary

0-100 27 4.2 14 4.9

101-300 121 18.8 79 27/7

301-500 96 14.9 107 37.6

501-700 81 12.6 46 16.1

701 or greater 318 49.5 39 13.7

Totals 643 100.0 285 100.0

In the teaching profession teachers are usually paid according to

the amount of training and experience they have attained. Cooperating

teachers were asked to state the highest degree earned and the amount of

teaching experience they had. A bachelor's degree was the highest degree

possessed by 64.7 per cent of the teachers in secondary schools and by

74.1 per cent of those teaching in the elementary grades. A master's

degree had been earned by 34.8 per cent of the secondary teachers as- com

pared to 20.2 per cent of those who taught on the elementary school level.

Non-degree teachers were more often found in the elementary school by a

margin of 5.7 per cent to 0.5 per cent. Although secondary school teach

ers had attained a greater percentage of advanced degrees, elementary

teachers serving in the capacity of cooperating teachers had a greater

117

number of years teaching experience. Table 27 compares the experience of

the two groups.

TABLE 27. NUMBER OF YEARS TEACHING EXPERIENCE OF COOPERATING TEACHERS

Number of years taught Secondary Elementary

Less than three 7.4% 4.9%

Three to five 21.2 11.6

Six to ten 28.1 19.3

More than ten 43.2 64.2

Nearly two-thirds" of the elementary cooperating teachers had taught

more than ten years compared to less than half of the secondary persons

who had that much experience. .Since the study was conducted after the

completion of the school year, the category of 'less than three1 shows

that many student teachers worked with cooperating teachers who had not

previously taught or who had taught one year prior to the 1966-67 school

year.

Since most teacher training programs were divided into various

levels of training, cooperating teachers were asked to indicate the level

at which they taught to provide background for the study. More elementary

cooperating teachers, 62.3 per cent, taught in the lower four grades than

taught in grades five through eight. In secondary 25.7 per cent taught in

separate junior high schools as compared to 74.3 per cent' in separate high

118

schools. The information was secured for general background and does not

present a clear cut picture well enough to classify some instructors as

junior high teachers. Those who teach the seventh and eighth grades in an

8-4 system would tend to classify themselves as elementary teachers while

those in a 6-3-3 or 6-6 system would more likely consider themselves as

secondary teachers. On the same basis, ninth grade teachers in an 8-4

system would be considered as secondary people while those in a 6-3-3

system would be classified as junior high school teachers.

Procedures of the Student Teaching Program

Some student teachers indicated that their cooperating teacher did

not seem very enthused over having had a student teacher assigned to them.

Cooperating teachers were asked if they were given a choice as to whether

or not they were desirous of working with a student .teacher. In secondary

schools 41.2 per cent reported they were given no choice. Twenty-five per

cent of elementary teachers also indicated they were not consulted before

having a student teacher assigned to them. Since it was the principal of

the school who assigned the student teacher, the results showed that the

elementary principal was more likely to query his staff on this point.

Just as student teachers expressed a desire to know as soon as

possible the conditions of their assignment, so did cooperating teachers

comment that they could better prepare for a student teacher if they knew

earlier that they were to work with the prospective teacher. Slightly more

than half, 50.3 per cent in secondary and 56.1 per cent in elementary

119

-education^ were informed of the assignment at least a month prior to the

arrival of the student teacher. An additional 11.3 per cent in the secon

dary schools and 17.5 per cent in the elementary schools were informed of

their role as cooperating teacher before school started. The remaining

38.4 per cent of junior and senior high school teachers and 26.4 per cent

of grade school teachers did not know of the assignment until- shortly be

fore the arrival of the student teacher. Six cooperating teachers volun

teered the comment that they did not know they had been assigned to work

with a student teacher until the student teacher walked into the classroom

and introduced himself.

In meeting with representatives from the various teacher training

institutions prior to formulating the questionnaire, the writer found two

views were expressed about the pre-student teaching experience. One idea

was that this period of observation was an excellent opportunity for the

student teacher and cooperating teacher to become acquainted and thereby-

facilitated the student teaching experience. Proponents of this view be

lieved the observation should be done in the same school as the student

teaching and with the same teachers if possible. Opposing this approach

were those who thought the two experiences should be in different schools

to provide a broader background of types of schools. Secondary school

■ cooperating teachers reported that both experiences were conducted with

the same teacher in 42.4 per cent of the assignments. In elementary edu

cation the percentage for the same procedure was 36.6.

Some student teachers were assigned to schools from which they had

graduated. Some of the assignments were in secondary and some in elementary

120

schools. Twenty-three individuals offered the comment that fewer problems

were likely to arise at the elementary level than at the secondary level

when such assignments were made. Less than one-fourth of the cooperating

teachers were in favor of discontinuing the procedure of assigning student

teachers to the school from which they had graduated. An additional one-

third of the respondents qualified their answers on the procedure by

approving such assignments if the school had a large enrollment.

Procedures of the college supervisor. Student teachers, on occa

sion, reported they were involved in situations in which the cooperating/

teacher and the college supervisor disagreed on procedures and practices

or who failed to establish rapport over real or imagined situations. The

nature and frequency of visits of the college supervisor was indicated as

a possible reason for this occurrence. One cooperating teacher indicated

that the only contact he had had with the college supervisor was by tele

phone, Several teachers mentioned that the representative of■the teacher

training institution visited the school but did not visit the classroom.

Still others complained that they were not contacted by the college super

visor or did not have a conference about the student teacher. The most

common comment was that the college supervisor made insufficient visits to

the cooperating school. The average number of visits by the supervisor,

as reported by the cooperating teachers, was three in secondary and four

in elementary. Because of the infrequency of visits and the limited con

tact during the visits, the college supervisor depended upon the cooperat

ing teacher to help him assess the rate of progress of the student teachers.

The majority of cooperating teachers recognized this need for communication

121

and expressed a preference for conferences held both before and after the

classroom visit by the college representative. The most common procedure

used was a ten to thirty minute conference held after the visit to the

classroom, although 34 cooperating teachers, 3.7 per cent, were never con

tacted by the college supervisor, hbre of the elementary cooperating

teachers rated the conferences as productive than did secondary teachers

by a margin of 63.4 to 48.3 per cent. The visits were classified as being

general in nature by 45.3 and 31.5 per cent of the secondary and elementary

cooperating teachers, respectively. A small percentage of all cooperating

teachers, 2.5, categorized the conference with the college supervisor as

social in nature and a slightly higher percentage, 3.3, characterized the

meeting as a waste of time. In all but a few instances, the student teach

er was present for all or part of the conference.

The actual procedure used by college supervisors to notify cooper

ating teachers of forthcoming visits closely approximated the procedure

deemed best by the cooperating teachers. At the elementary level 69.1

per cent of the cooperating teachers were usually informed of the impend

ing visit compared to '55.2 per cent at the secondary level.

One purpose of the cooperating teacher conference with the college

supervisor was the evaluation of the student teacher, both on the perfor

mance observed and for the entire student teaching experience. Various

procedures were used to arrive at the grade determined by the college

supervisor. The secondary cooperating teachers discussed a grade with the

college supervisor in only 28.0 per cent of the cases as compared to the

42.0 per cent who did so for elementary student teachers. An additional

12227.0 per cent of the teachers in secondary schools and 22.1 per cent in

the elementary schools recommended a grade for the student teacher. 'In

secondary, 22.2 per cent mailed a grade to the teacher training institu

tion as did 14.5 per cent of the elementary cooperating teachers. More

than one-fifth of the teachers in each category replied there had been no

communication on the final grade for their student teacher. A majority

of cooperating teachers replied they were satisfied with the procedure

used for grading student teachers. Some thought that they should have a

greater voice in the final grade, while others held the view that there

should be a greater sharing of the responsibility. A few believed it was

the responsibility of the college supervisor to assume a greater part in

the grade determination. A number of comments were offered by cooperating

teachers which pertained to the grading practices and procedures. Those

comments which appeared most often are listed below.

a. I do not know on what basis the student teacher was graded.

b . The evaluation sheets are poorly constructed.

c . Cooperating teachers should have some voice in the grade.

d. Student teachers should be marked pass or fail.

e . I never heard what grade my student teacher received.

f . The views of the cooperating teacher are ignored.

g. Student teachers seem to be graded more on past performance than on their teaching ability.

h. Greater emphasis seems to be placed on the log or notebook than on classroom performance.

Cooperating teachers were in general agreement that the number of

visits and conferences should be increased to one a week or at least one

123every two weeks. It was also felt that the college supervisor should be

obligated to arrive before the lesson and remain for the entire presenta

tion. This latter view was shared by 82.4 per cent of the secondary people

and 91.0 per cent of those in elementary education. In actual practice,

this procedure was followed by 53.6 per cent of the secondary supervisors

and 66.5 per cent of those supervising elementary student teachers. While

a large majority of cooperating teachers welcomed the visit of the college

supervisor, 16.0 per cent in secondary and 6.9 per cent in elementary said

they were indifferent to the visit. The visit was resented by 0.5 per cent

of the secondary cooperating teachers and 1.8 per cent of the elementary

people.

A number of teachers on the secondary level thought that the col

lege supervisor would be of greater help to the student teacher if he were

trained in the subject matter area in which he was supervising. Several

supported this view with statements that those specialists who did visit

spent more time in the classroom and in conference with the student teacher

than did the non-specialist or general supervisor.

Procedures of the cooperating school administrator. Some adminis

trators of cooperating schools were reported as making it a practice to

visit the classroom of the student teacher while others were characterized

as remaining completely aloof from the student teaching program. The ele

mentary student teacher was much more likely to have his work observed by

an administrator sometime during his student teaching experience than was

the secondary student teacher. Although 71.3 per cent of elementary coop

erating teachers reported their administrator saw the student teacher in

124action, only 39.6 per cent of their secondary counterparts so reported.

Since secondary schools usually are larger than elementary schools in

enrollment and since there were three times as many secondary student

teachers, time was a factor in the number of visits made by the adminis

trator. A procedure reported in a number of cases was the combined visit

of the administrator and college supervisor. In two instances, cooper

ating teachers stated the college supervisor and the administrator visited

the classroom together and talked to each other the entire time and were

a disturbing influence. A majority of the cooperating teachers conferred

with the administrator about the student teacher with whom they were work

ing. The procedure was more common in elementary schools where it oc

curred in 83.7 per cent of the situations than it was in secondary where

63.9 per cent of the cooperating teachers discussed the student teacher

with the administrator. The general conference, mostly favorable in nature,

predominated at both levels of teaching. Conferences of this type were

held by $8.8 per cent of the secondary cooperating teachers and 55.4 per

cent of the teachers at the elementary level. Secondary and elementary

teachers characterized 29.1 per cent of the conferences with the adminis

trator as being concerned with the ability of the student teacher. The

remaining conferences were concerned with discipline problems in the class

room of the student teacher or with problems of adjustment of the student

teacher to the classroom.

Conference procedures. More than ninety per cent of the conferences

between student teachers and cooperating teachers involved planning and

evaluation. In some cases separate conferences were held to plan and

125

structure the learning situation for a forthcoming class and to evaluate

a lesson which had been presented. More often the two separate processes

were combined into one conference. Daily conferences were used by 85»9

per cent of the secondary cooperating teachers and by 90.4 per cent of

the elementary people. The remaining percentage of conferences were di

vided evenly between weekly, semi-weekly, and occasional meetings with

the student teachers. One student teacher who had one cooperating teacher

who met with her on a daily basis and another cooperating teacher with

whom she met occasionally summed up the comments of many student teachers.

She felt she had made maximum use of one cooperating teacher's experience

and knowledge of materials in planning and had gained a great deal from

the evaluations of her work given to her by her more conscientious cooper

ating teacher.

Cooperating teachers indicated that conferences generally lasted

from ten to thirty minutes both in secondary and elementary schools. A

slightly higher percentage of secondary conferences were less than ten

minutes in length than was the case in the elementary programs.

Student Teacher Preparation

Comments of cooperating teachers on the preparation of student

teachers ranged from decided disapproval in which all student teachers

were characterized as poorly prepared to full approval with teacher train

ing institutions being complimented on the quality of the training. Ap

proximately seventy per cent of the secondary student teachers were

126described as adequately or excellently prepared in their academic field and

more than eighty per cent of elementary student teachers were similarly

characterized, Both the secondary and elementary cooperating teachers felt

that the professional or educational sequence of preparation of student

teachers was superior to the academic preparation. The 79.2 per cent of

secondary cooperating teachers and the 82.5 per cent of elementary cooper

ating teachers who rated the educational preparation as adequate or excel

lent not only exceeded their rating of the academic preparation but also

reversed the ratings given the two fields by student teachers.

Although cooperating teachers believed the education course prep

aration of student teachers was generally adequate or excellent, they rec

ognized that deficiencies did exist in some specific areas. Secondary

cooperating teachers believed the weakest area in the preparation of stu

dent teachers to be evenly divided between methodology and related back

ground knowledge. Each category was selected by 36.2 per cent of the

respondents with the remaining 27.6 per cent ranking subject matter com

petence as the prime deficiency. Elementary cooperating teachers believed

the major deficiency to be methodology in 43.6 per cent of the situations,

followed by 38.5 per cent selecting related background knowledge and 17.9

per cent subject matter knowledge. Both groups rated subject matter know

ledge as the greatest strength of the program of academic preparation. Not

all groups were in agreement, however, since several cooperating teachers

included strongly worded statements to the effect that something was wrong

with the preparation of student teachers when they are expected to teach

grammar in the secondary schools and receive no training in grammar in

127their college preparation. Other frequent statements included some of the

comments listed below:

a. Girls' physical education teachers are poorly prepared.

b. Student teachers are well prepared in their major but very poorly prepared in the minor area.

c. The student teacher had never had any contact with the age group she was trying to teach.

d . The student teacher had never heard of or seen copies of a high school text since graduating from high school.

e. Student teachers need more methodology.

Cooperating teachers were asked to evaluate various phases of the

educational preparation of student teachers as well as the academic areas,

Table 28, page 128, compares the strengths and weaknesses of the elementary

and secondary programs of preparation in a number of areas usually included

in the course ,of study. The figures represent the per cent of cooperating

teachers who assessed each area as the principal area of strength or weak

ness in the training program.

Secondary and elementary cooperating teachers were in close agree

ment on the various points covered in Table 28. Both agreed that the area

in which student teachers needed the greatest amount of additional training

was the practical application of what they had been taught. Both also

agreed that the area in which the student teacher exhibited the greatest

degree of competence was in the construction of lesson plans.

Many cooperating teachers, both at the elementary and secondary

levels, commented that the lesson plan was the key to successful teaching.

A greater percentage of elementary cooperating teachers, 73.5 per cent,

128required the student teacher to submit a lesson plan for approval before

each class. At the secondary level, 59.7 per cent of the student teachers

did so. Lesson plans were handed in occasionally by 20.9 per cent of

secondary student teachers and 14.3 per cent of elementary student teach

ers and for the first few units only by 7.5 per cent and 8.2 per cent,

respectively. Lesson plans were not required to be submitted by 8.5 per

cent of secondary cooperating teachers and 3.9 per cent of elementary

cooperating teachers.

TABLE 28. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE PREPARATION OF SECONDARY AND ELEMENTARY STUDENT TEACHERS

Area of preparationSecondaryweakness

Secondarystrength

Elementaryweakness

Elementarystrength

Lesson plan construction 13.1% 53.5% 14.8% 58.9%Audio-visual usage 12.6 12.5 16.3 15.2

Test construction 14.1 9.5 10.0 3.7

Grade determination 11.8 7.6 11.1 4-4

Practical application 48.3 16.9 47.8 17.8

Cooperating teachers were presented four choices with which to cate

gorize their attitudes toward the use of lesson plans. The attitude most

commonly selected at both levels of teaching was. 1 lesson plans are neces

sary for successful teaching' . In secondary schools 6.4.4 per cent of the

cooperating teachers chose this category while 68.9 per cent of their

129elementary counterparts made this same selection. The second most common

response in each group was ’necessary for the first few units only' which

was selected by 16.4 per cent in secondary and 19.1 per cent in elementary

schools. This was followed by 15.1 per cent and 11.3 per cent choosing

'helpful but too time consuming' and 8.5 per cent and 0.7 per cent check

ing 'little value'. Less than ten per cent of the student teachers were

categorized as being reluctant or unwilling to take suggestions or advice

on the lesson plans which were submitted.

Cooperating teachers offered many comments on the preparation of

student teachers„ Most of the comments were critical in nature or were in

the form of suggestions. A few of the comments are similar to those on

page 127 but were given in reply to different questions and are included

in both listings. Only those comments which were volunteered by a number

of individuals are included in the list below.

a. Courses in education are too impractical.

b. Too many courses in education are required.

c . Education courses are useless.

d. Methods courses are of absolutely no value.

e. Student teachers need more training in teaching reading.

f. The student teaching log should be eliminated.

g. Classes required while student teaching full time should be eliminated.

h . Student teachers say education courses are dull and boring.

i . The poorest teaching is done at the college level.

130j. Student teachers need more work on:

everythingdisciplinegetting down to student levelmethodologyobservationgrade determinationwriting on the chalkboardtest construction

Audio and Visual Device Usage

Most schools had a variety of audio and visual devices available for

classroom usage. Cooperating teachers, like student teachers, differed in

the degree to which the devices were utilized. Table 29, page 131, com

pares the use to which secondary and elementary cooperating teachers found

the devices were used by the student teachers with whom they worked.

Examination of Table 29 reveals a number of facts about audio and

visual devices and their usage. Elementary student teachers were reported

to have consistently used the devices to a greater degree even when they

were less frequently available. The devices most often used by elementary

people were the record player, film projector, and filmstrip projector

while those in secondary education more often used film projectors, over

head projectors, and filmstrip projectors. Two of the three most commonly

used— film projectors and filmstrip projectors— were common to both groups.

Further examination of Table 29 indicates that secondary persons

were more prone to consider the various devices as not feasible to use than

were elementary personnel. Of the nine devices listed, five— record play

ers, film projectors, filmstrip projectors, flannel boards,, and flip

131

charts— were more often available in elementary schools, while the remain

ing four devices were more frequently at the disposal of teachers in the

secondary schools.

TABLE 29. AVAILABILITY AND USAGE OF AUDIO AND VISUAL DEVICES BY STUDENT TEACHERS

Device LevelAvailable- not used

Available-used

Notavailable:

Notfeasible

Tape recorder Sec. 52.4% 18.9% 7.0% 21.7%Elem. 48.2 32.9 11.1 7.9

Record player Sec. 45.7 33.3 3.3 17.6Elem. 19.6 77.5 0.0 2.9

Film projector Sec. 40.3 48.0 2.1 13.6Elem. 26.8 69.3 1.1 2.9

Filmstrip projector Sec. 50.3 35.2 3.5 11.0Elem. 31.1 63.2 2.9 2.9

Slide projector Sec. 54.9 14.2 15.3 . 15.5Elem. 42.2 25.8 23.6 8.4

Opaque projector Sec. 43.6 9.1 20.5 26.8Elem. 38.9 17.2 34.4 9.5

Overhead projector Sec. 45.4 38.1 8.7 7.8Elem. 32.2 49.3 12.7 5.8

Flannel board Sec. 17.0 9.2 52.8 21.0Elem. 21.7 52.3 15.9 10.1

.Flip charts Sec. 17.1 20.4 ' 45.7 16.8

,

Elem. 18.2 37.2 36.1 8.4

132Attitudes of Cooperating Teachers

The attitudes of the cooperating teacher are important in that they

possibly will determine the degree to which the objectives of the student

'teaching program will be carried out both in the area of procedural phases

of the program and in the relationships established between members of the

student teaching team. These attitudes have been derived from the teacher's

training, the educational tone of the school, the teacher's classroom ex

perience, and the nature of the previous contacts with the student teaching

program.

Most student teachers reported they observed for a time before

assuming control or partial control of the class. One cooperating teacher

described this period as a chance for the student teacher to get used to

the pupils and' as a chance for the student to get accustomed to the stu

dent teacher. All Montana student teaching programs recommended a period

of observation and, according to the individuals contacted at each teacher

training institution, the optimum period suggested was one to two weeks.

Cooperating teachers stated the length of the period of observation varied

with the nature and type of class, the ability of the student teacher, the

time of the year in which student teaching started, and the individual be

liefs of the teacher. Some student teachers bagan to teach the first day

of contact with the class because 4.8 per cent of secondary cooperating

teachers and 6.0 per cent in elementary believed that the period of obser

vation was unnecessary. Although not listed as a category, 15 teachers

stated that two to three days was a sufficient amount of observation. The

133

most frequently marked response was the one week period of observation

which was preferred by 53.5 per cent of the secondary and 4-8.8 per cent

of the elementary cooperating teachers. A two week period was the ex

pressed preference of 37.3 per cent of the secondary and 37.7 per cent

of the elementary cooperating teachers. A small percentage, 4.6 and 7.5,

respectively, favored three weeks of observation before attempting active

management of the class.

In secondary schools, a large majority of cooperating teachers,

75.2 per cent, thought student teachers should continue to teach the rest

of the time in the cooperating school once they had started. A procedure

whereby the student teacher and cooperating teacher alternated units was

preferred by 19.5 per cent, while the remaining 5.3 per cent thought one

unit taught was sufficient experience for the student teacher. Elementary

cooperating teachers ranked the choices in the same order although one•

plan did not dominate. Continuing to teach for the remainder of the stu

dent teaching experience was chosen by 51.2 per cent as compared to the

44.5 per cent who preferred the procedure in which the student teacher and

the cooperating teacher alternated units. Only 4.3 per cent favored hav

ing the student teacher just teach one unit.

Almost one-fourth, 24.8 per cent, of the elementary cooperating

teachers believed they should be present at all times when the student

teacher was teaching the class. Only 0.7 per cent expressed the view that

the cooperating teacher need never be present.. Fewer persons in secondary

schools, 10.8 per cent, believed in the constant presence of the cooperat

ing teacher and more, 6.0 per cent, thought the student teacher could be

134

left alone at all times. The remaining majority expressed the view that

the cooperating teacher should be present part of the time while the stu

dent teacher was handling the class. A number of teachers qualified their

choice of the latter category by adding that the cooperating teacher should

be available when not present. More than seventy per cent of all cooper

ating teachers believed the student teacher should start in the area of

his greatest strength rather than in the area of least preparation.

Two statements appeared most commonly among the comments of cooper

ating teachers concerning the case studies required of many student teach

ers. One comment concerned the ethics evidenced by student teachers. A

number reported student teachers examined confidential records and then

discussed what they had found with non-professionals who were not associ

ated with the case. The other common comment concerned the value of the

case study, particularly when considering the time factor in student teach

ing. The case study was viewed as a valuable tool in teaching by 9.5 per

cent of the secondary and 10.9 per cent of the elementary cooperating

teachers. The case study was classified as helpful in understanding child

ren by 42.6 per cent of the secondary and 52.7 per cent of the elementary

cooperating teachers. It was agreed by 19.8 per cent of the secondary

teachers and 22.2 per cent of the elementary teachers that, while helpful,

case studies required too much time. Little value was attached to case

studies by 28.1 per cent and 14.2 per cent,, respectively.

Cooperating teachers at both levels were in agreement that they

preferred the fall as the best time for student teaching with the second

choice being winter. Only about five per cent of all cooperating teachers

135

preferred to have the student teacher in the spring of the year.

Cooperating teachers at the two levels, elementary and secondary,

differed on the optimum length of the student teaching experience. Table

30 presents their views.

TABLE 30. OPTIMUM LENGTH OE THE STUDENT TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Length Secondary Elementary

Six weeks 27.7% 11.7%Nine weeks 47.1 35;5

Twelve weeks 17.0 43.6

Eighteen weeks 8.2 9.24-

As viewed by secondary cooperating teachers, nine weeks is the best

length of the student teaching period compared to a twelve week period

favored by elementary cooperating teachers. The majority of those in

schools at the secondary level preferred nine weeks or less while the

preference of those in elementary schools was twelve weeks or longer.

While the great majority of cooperating teachers felt the amount of

actual teaching time was satisfactory, more who did not think so thought

it should be lengthened than thought it should be shortened.

Persons who served as cooperating teachers did so for a variety of

reasons. Cooperating teachers were asked to indicate the reason they

functioned in this capacity. Table 31, page 136, summarizes the responses

136and provides a basis for comparison between elementary and secondary

teachers.

TABLE 31. REASONS FOR SERVING AS A COOPERATING TEACHER

Reason Secondary■ Elementary

A chore 4.0% 1.5%An opportunity to learn 26.8 52.9

An obligation to the profession 62.2 43.4

Someone to share the load 5.3 1.8

A chance to pick up some money 1.7 0.4

Although the principal reason indicated by each group was different,

the totals for the top two choices in each group approximated each other.

The two views which were dominant were reasons which would be classified

as positive or professional reasons.

Considerable difference of opinion about non-teaching duties was

evident from comments made by cooperating teachers. Not only were the

comments quite numerous but also they were definite and forceful in many

cases. Some cooperating teachers accepted the non-teaching duties more

or less graciously as an unpleasant part of the job. Others felt that all

such duties and activities should be assigned to non-certified personnel

or should be considered as extra work and teachers should be reimbursed for

the time spent in doing them. Despite the reactions voiced, more than

137

eighty-five per cent of all cooperating teachers thought student teachers

should be assigned to extracurricular activities and 75.7 per cent of sec

ondary teachers and 88.9 per cent of elementary cooperating teachers thought

student teachers should be assigned non-teaching duties. Table 32 summar

izes the views on assignment of student teachers to various activities.

TABLE 32. PER CENT OF COOPERATING TEACHERS APPROVING ASSIGNMENT OF STUDENT TEACHERS TO VARIOUS NON-TEACHING ACTIVITIES

Activity Secondary Elementary

Homeroom supervision 84.9 95.3Registration 47.0 71.7Noon duty 70.1 88.9Detention 50.6 55.8Hall duty 74.3 87.6

Chaperoning dances 56.3 39.3Interscholastic athletics 48.3 52.9Intramural athletics 53.9 59.2Ticket selling 39.4 43.7Study hall supervision 78.3 78.1

Marking report cards 67.8 49.5Class meetings 78.9 86.0Playground supervision 78.4 94.9Club meetings 71.8 64.OGuidance 52.4 60.3

Only one activity, ticket selling, was in the minority in both

groups. Each group had two other activities in which the majority felt

student teachers should participate but was opposed by teachers at the

other level of teaching. Secondary teachers approved and elementary teach

ers disapproved, of assigning student teachers to chaperoning dances and

138marking report cards. The opposite situation existed in which elementary

cooperating teachers approved the assignment and secondary cooperating

teachers did not. This was in the categories of assignment to extracurric

ular activities and registration. A number of individuals added qualifying

statements to the effect that while student teachers should be assigned to

the activities it should be as a participant-observer or as an observer

and not as the individual with total responsibility for the activity.

Different groups with whom the student teacher came in contact re

acted toward student teachers differently. Cooperating teachers were asked

to assess the attitudes of acceptance of these various groups. Table 33.

shows the responses received.

TABLE 33. ATTITUDES OF ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS BY DIFFERENT GROUPS

Attitude Level Staff Administrator Students Community

Tolerance Sec. 3.2% 2.6% 7.2% 3.9%Ele m. 2.8 2.5 0.7 3.2

Indifferent acceptance Sec. 3.1 ■ 6.0 10.5 19.2Ele m. 1.0 4.0 2.9 10.1

General acceptance Sec. 53.5 52.2 63.8 68.7Elem. 41.8 39.0 53.0 - - 71.1

Enthusiastic, helpful Sec. 40.2 39.1 18.5 8.1acceptance Elem. 54.4 54.5 43.4 15.5

Elementary cooperating teachers reported their students were enthus

iastic about accepting a student teacher. Secondary school cooperating

teachers believed student teachers were generally accepted by students.

Elementary cooperating teachers also rated the degree of acceptance of

student teachers higher for all groups than did the secondary cooperating

teachers. Student teachers were quite well accepted by a large majority

of the individuals in all of the groups with which they had contact.

139

CHAPTER H

EXAMNA TI ON OF ADMNISTRATOR RESPONSES

Student teachers were usually assigned to their student teaching

center through contact with the administrative offices of the cooperating

school. In most cases the prospective school was .contacted by the direc

tor of student teaching who inquired about possible assignments of student

teachers. In some instances the administrator of the school contacted the

teacher training institution to make known the availability of student

teaching stations. It was through the administrator's office that mater

ials and information pertinent to the student teaching program were dis

tributed to the cooperating teachers by the college or university. The

administrator was usually the individual to whom student teachers first

reported upon their arrival at the school. He was the individual to whom

the cooperating teacher was responsible.

General Information

Questionnaires (Appendix:250-251) were sent to the administrative

officers of 225 cooperating schools. Replies were received from 160 indi

viduals or 71.6 per cent of the recipients. Of those returned, 20.4 per

cent were from superintendents who also served as principal of either the

elementary or high school. Responses from high school principals made up

28.7 per cent of the returns, while junior high school principals and ele

mentary principals contributed 10.8 per cent and 40.1 per cent of the ques

tionnaires returned, respectively. Some high school principals were con

nected with schools including grades 7 through 12, others with grades 10

141

through 12 and still other with grades 9 through 12. Some high school

principals served under an administrator of a combined secondary and ele

mentary system while others were the chief administrative officer of a

county high school system. Junior high school principals were involved in

grades seven and eight or in grades seven, eight, and nine. Elementary

principals served in schools which varied from four to eight levels of

instruction. Because of this overlap in job responsibilities at various

levels and because of the dual role of some of the participants in the

study, it was decided not to divide administrators into separate categories

when tabulating results.

An advanced degree beyond the baccalaureate degree had been earned

by 93.6 per cent of the individuals serving in the capacity of administra

tor of some school. Almost three-fourths, 74.7 per cent, did not have

teaching responsibilities in addition to their administrative duties. Of.

those who did teach, 42.7 per cent had teaching assignments which required

less than one-fourth of their time, 32.4 per cent spent between one-fourth

and one-half of their time in teaching and 24.9 per cent taught more than

one-half time.


Cooperating teachers were assigned to work with student teachers

through the administrative offices of their school. More than ninety-five

per cent of the administrators in the study stated that the assignments to

individual teachers were not made until the teacher had been contacted and

had agreed to accept the assignment. Administrators selected persons who

142

'would serve as cooperating teachers by a variety of methods. The procedure

used most often was the assignment to experienced teachers as was done in

63 = 8 per cent of the schools. Only master teachers were assigned to work

with student teachers according to 14.8 per cent of the administrators.

Other methods used included rotation among the staff, 12.8 per cent; assign

ment at the request of a teacher, 6.0 per cent; and a request by a teacher

training institution for a specific teacher, 2.7 per cent.

Acccording to their comments, administrators agreed that some teach

ers are recognized as master teachers by the administration, the staff, and

the community in which they serve. The master teacher was more often re

quested by the teacher training institution to work with a student teacher.

Some administrators mentioned that these teachers could be overloaded with

student teachers if the school did not adopt a policy limiting the number

assigned to any one teacher. One administrator countered community criti

cism of the practice of assigning more than one student teacher during the

year to the same teacher by pointing out that the manner in which a master

teacher used a student teacher more than compensated for the loss of con

tact between the instructor and his class. Of those administrators reply

ing to the questionnaire, 54.9 per cent approved the procedure of assigning

more than one student teacher per year to their staff members.

Administrative procedures related to the student teaching program.

Over the years most schools have assigned teachers to a variety of super

visory activities which have little or no connection to the classroom

teaching situation. A series of questions were posed to the administrators

to determine to which of these activities student teachers should be

143

assigned. Table 34 summarizes the responses to those questions.

TABLE 34. VIEWS OF ADMINISTRATORS ON ASSIGNING STUDENT TEACHERS TO NONTEACHING DUTIES

Activity Favoring Opposing

Homeroom supervision 62.2% 37.8%Registration 30.3 69.7Noon duty 58.0 42.0Detention 19.2 80.8Hall duty 58.9 41.1

Chaperoning dances 26.9 73.1Interscholastic athletics 31:4 68.6Intramural athletics 37.2 62.8Ticket selling 17.6 82.4Study hall supervision 49.4 50.6

Marking report cards 34.4 65.6Class meetings 50.0 50.0Playground supervision 60.6 39.4Club meetings 42.9 57.1Guidance 23.4 76.6

The majority of administrators indicated that they did not believe

the student teacher should be assigned to most non-teaching duties. Only

in a few activities did a small majority favor student teacher participa

tion and in each case it was an activity which was conducted during the

regular school day. In addition, each was an activity generally accepted

as being a part of the duties of the regular classroom teacher. However,

when asked if student teachers should be assigned to non-teaching duties,

administrators of 82.1 per cent of the schools answered in the affirmative.

Similarly, 90.4 replied in favor of assigning student teachers to

144

extracurricular activities

The cooperating school administrator, as the educational leader of

his school, helped determine the policy of the degree to which the student

teacher participated in the overall classroom situation. No clear cut

degree of unanimity was evidenced by administrators concerning the per .

cent of the day to which student teachers should be assigned to classroom

and other organized activities. The largest percentage, 40.6, felt that

the student teacher should be assigned for three-fourths of the school day.

The smallest percentage, 9.4? favored the plan whereby the student teacher

was assigned the entire day. In between were 18.8 per cent who believed

the most beneficial procedure to be two-thirds of the day and 31.2 per

cent who designated half days as the best situation.

One of the responsibilities of the principal of a school is the

supervision of teachers, including the classroom visitation and the follow

up conference. Administrators were asked if they felt this procedure

should be extended to the student teacher. An affirmative answer was given

by 62.9 per cent of those serving as principals as opposed to 15.4 per cent

who replied in the negative. The remaining portion of the group thought

the visit should be initiated by a request either from the instructor, 20.5

per cent, or the student teacher, 1.3 per cent.

Prior to the beginning of teaching the student teacher serves as an

aide to the teacher during a period of observation. Some administrators,

2.5 per cent, believed this observation period to be unnecessary. Another

8.0 per cent thought this period should be three weeks in length. Less

extreme views were expressed by 59.6 per cent who placed the optimum length

145

at two weeks and 38.9 per cent who chose the one week period of observa

tion as best for the student teacher.

A few administrators thought the student teacher should start to

teach in his minor area of preparation, although the majority were evenly

divided between starting in the major area and starting in both areas at

the same time. A similar division was noted in the procedure once the

student teacher started to teach, A few administrators, 5.8 per cent,

expressed the belief that it was sufficient for the student teacher to

teach one unit, The rest of the administrators were evenly divided between

the two procedures of alternating units with the cooperating teacher and

continuing to teach for the remaining portion of the stay in the cooperat

ing school.

Close to two-thirds of the respondents were opposed to the use of

the case study in the student teaching experience although the reasons for

the opposition were varied and included: too time consuming, 23.7 per cent;

of little value, 22.4 per cent; inexperience of the student teacher, 16.4

per cent; and the conviction that case studies were the responsibility of

the guidance department, 1.3 per cent.

The ultimate goal in the placement of student teachers in a student

teaching situation has been to provide the maximum positive experience with

the fewest possible detractors from this opportunity to gain necessary ori

entation to the teaching profession. A slight majority, 51.3 per cent, of

the administrators believed that commuting, to the student teaching center

was detrimental to the maximum attainment of the benefits of the student

teaching experience. The assignment of student teachers to the school from

146which they had graduated was a practice which met with the disfavor of 29.2

per cent of the cooperating school administrators, About one-half of those

who approved the procedure qualified their approval by limiting assignment

to such schools only if the schools were large schools.

Administrators were in a position to assess the disruptive influ

ences which occurred during the various periods of the school year. Some

administrators mentioned that the fall period had the disruptive influ

ences of registration, organization for the year, and football games. The

first two were viewed as good learning experiences for the student teacher.

Disruptive activities which reduced the teaching time for student teachers

during the winter quarter were semester tests, review for semester tests,

and basketball games and tournaments„ Activities included by administra

tors as causing loss of class time in the spring were track meets, music

festivals, speech meets, semester tests, and the many closing-of-school

functions. One-fourth of the administrators viewed one period of the year

as good as another in which to student teach. Of those who did express a

choice, twice as many chose fall as selected winter and spring combined.

Forty per cent of the heads of cooperating schools believed the best

length for the student teaching experience to be nine weeks with the rest

evenly divided between 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Several volunteered opinions

that they thought the year long intern program, should be a goal toward

which to aim. Others thought there should be more than one student teach

ing experience, including two who thought student teachers should have such

an opportunity for six weeks in each of their four years of college.

147

Montana cooperating teachers received a small monetary honorarium

for serving in that capacity, Montana administrators generally viewed this

stipend as a token of appreciation although one-fourth thought it was in

sufficient and a small percentage, 8.2 per cent, expressed the opinion that

any remuneration was unnecessary.

Cooperating teachers worked with their student teachers to plan and

present lessons to the various classes taught during the student teaching

experience. Administrators were queried as to their views on lesson

planning and were asked to assess the attitudes held by their teachers

about the value of plans. Table 35 compares the two views.

TABLE 35 - ADMINISTRATOR AND COOPERATING TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD LESSON PLANS AS ASSESSED BY ADMINISTRATORS

Attitude Administrators Teachers

Necessary for successful teaching 83.4% 68.4%Helpful but too time consuming 5.1 20.3

Necessary for the first few units only 6.8 5.1


The administrator, as educational leader of his school, placed a

greater value on the necessity for adequate planning than he believed his

staff did.

148Procedures of the cooperating teacher. Cooperating teachers were

involved in a number of procedures which pertained to the student teacher

but were not directly related to the classroom presentation. These in

cluded the procedures of classroom supervision, the nature and length of

conferences, and when the conferences were to be held. Administrators

were asked their views to provide a base for later comparison with the

actual practices used and the views held by other members of the student

teaching team.

Most administrators? 82.4 per cent, felt the cooperating teacher

should remain in the classroom the first day the student teacher took over

active management of the class. Thereafter the cooperating teacher should

be in the classroom on frequent occasions thereby providing supervision

but allowing the student teacher some opportunity for class management

through his own efforts„ One administrator stated that the cooperating

teacher should never be in the classroom while the student teacher was

teaching and six believed the teacher should always be present„ Several

administrators qualified their choice by indicating they thought the coop

erating teacher should be available at all times when not in the classroom

with the student teacher.

Administrators were in almost total agreement that the conference

between the student teacher and cooperating teacher should be a combina

tion of planning and evaluation and should include provisions for answer

ing questions, offering advice, and giving instructions. All but 10.1 per

cent placed the optimum length of the conference at thirty minutes or as

needed to handle the problems and planning necessary. The 10.1 per cent

149

not in agreement believed that the conference could be handled in ten

minutes. In the opinion of 80„8 per cent of the administrators, confer

ences should be held both before and after the classroom presentation. Of

the rest, 17.2 per cent thought a conference after the lesson was suffi

cient and 2.0 per cent indicated their preference for a single conference

held before the lesson was presented to the students.

When asked why they thought their staff members served in the capac

ity of a cooperating teacher, 77.9 per cent of the administrators felt

they did so because of an obligation they believed they owed the teaching

profession. An additional 8.3 per cent of the instructors were character

ized as using the opportunity of working with a student teacher as a means

of learning of new and different approaches to their work. The remaining

13.7 per cent of the administrators were evenly divided in thinking that

most cooperating teachers served in that capacity because it was an oppor

tunity to share their load, earn some extra money, or just viewed the

process as a chore.

Procedures involving the college supervisor. The relationship

established between the college supervisor and the administrator of the

cooperating school determined the extent to which lines of communication

were developed between the teacher training institution and the cooperat

ing school. Some administrators and cooperating teachers stated they

believed they should be better informed of exactly what the objectives were

of the teacher training program of the institution with which they cooper

ated. Almost ninety per cent of the administrators expressed a desire to

have a conference with the college supervisor sometime during the visit to

150the cooperating school. Table 36 compares the scheduling of conferences

between the college supervisor and the administrator as to actual proce

dures which were used and the procedures the administrators would prefer

be used.

TABLE 36. A COMPARISON OF CONFERENCE PROCEDURES USED AND DESIRED BY ADMINISTRATORS IN MEETING WITH COLLEGE SUPERVISORS

Time of conference Actual procedure Desired procedure

Before the classroom visit 16.1% 13.2%After the classroom visit 24.8 37.0

Both before and after visit 47.7 33.3

No conference 11.4 11.7

From Table 36 it can be seen that more administrators would like to

have a conference after the college supervisor has completed his classroom

visitation and would further like to reduce the number of conferences held

prior to observing the student teacher in action.

In over half of the schools, the administrator believed the college

supervisor should, notify him that he had arrived and would be supervising

the student teacher. Approximately one-third, 32.1 per cent, stated they

would like to be notified if it was convenient for the college supervisor

to do so. A number of administrators qualified the latter response to the

extent they would definitely prefer notification of the initial visit of

the college supervisor. Although some of the remaining portion of the

151

group of administrators placed the same qualification on the first visit,

15-4 per cent indicated that it was immaterial to them if the college sup

ervisor let them know- of his presence. In addition to the majority of the

administrators indicating a preference that they be made aware of the ar

rival of the college supervisor, a slight majority preferred, in addition,

to be notified of the time of forthcoming visitations.

Different teacher training institutions based their supervisory pat

terns on a varying number of visits. Administrators were asked to indicate

the number of visits made by the college supervisors and to also state the

number they believed to be, desirable. Table 37 presents, the comparison.

TABLE 37. A COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF VISITS OF THE COLLEGE SUPERVISOR WITH THE NUMBER BELIEVED BEST BY ADMINISTRATORS

Frequency of visits Actual Best

Once during student teaching 3.3% 0.7%

Twice during student teaching 30.7 10.7

Every three weeks 26.1 16.4

Every two weeks 20.9 37.1

Weekly 19.0 35.0

Administrators expressed a preference for an increased number of

supervisory visits by the college supervisor. In actual practice, the

weekly and bi-weekly visits were used in visiting less than forty per cent

of the student teachers. Administrators' responses indicated that 72.1

152per cent would prefer the more frequent visits. Some administrators com

mented that the number of visits should depend in part upon the ability of

the student teacher. Several also remarked that some college supervisors

should never visit the cooperating school since they did more harm than

good to both public relations and the student teacher„

As part of the supervisory visit the college supervisor confers with

the cooperating teacher with whom the student teacher is working. Some of

the administrators, 41.9 per cent, indicated they believed the conference

to be most worthwhile if the student teacher was present. Another 45.8

per cent believed this the best procedure if the student teacher was having

some difficulty. The college supervisor also confers with the student

teacher. More than eighty per cent of the administrators thought the pro

cedure most beneficial to the student teacher was the conference which in

cluded the cooperating teacher for part of the discussion.

The rapport established between the college supervisor and the

teacher who works with the student teacher affects the atmosphere in which

the student teaching is conducted. Student teachers reported that these

two individuals did not always agree on procedures. Administrators were

asked to appraise the attitudes of their staff members toward the college

supervisor’s visit. " Only a small percentage, 2.7, felt their staff was

generally resentful of the visit of the representative of the teacher train

ing institution. Several others commented that, while not a general feel

ing of the staff, resentment was present to varying degrees among some of

the members. Most, 78.5 per cent, believed their teachers welcomed the

visit while 18.8 per cent assessed the attitude to be one of indifference.

153

Attitudes

An. important factor in the success of the student teacher was the

attitude of the individuals with whom he worked and with whom he came in

contact. The attitudes of these groups, as evaluated by the administrator,

are summarized in Table 38.

TABLE 38. ATTITUDES OF OTHER GROUPS TOWARD STUDENT TEACHERS AS ASSESSED BY COOPERATING SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS

Attitude StaffCooperatingteachers Students Community

Tolerance 1.3% 0.6% 0.6% 5.1%Indifferent acceptance 0.6 0 .6 3.2 14.1

General acceptance 56.3 54.1 80.3 72.4

Enthusiastic, helpful acceptance 41.8 44.6 15.9 8.3

The majority of administrators believed that all groups possessed an

attitude of general acceptance and that cooperating teachers and other

staff members showed greater enthusiasm and helpfulness than the other two

groups.

Several administrators volunteered the information that part of the

success of the student teaching program and the attitudes of the groups in

volved were the result of conscious effort on the part of the administra

tion and staff to sell the program to the student body and the community.

CHAPTER VIT

EXAMINATION OF COLLEGE SUPERVISOR RESPONSES

Responses arid comments of college supervisors indicated they per

ceived the role of the position in which they served in different ways.

Variation also existed in the manner in which the supervisor of student

teachers was associated with the teacher training institution. These

included: regular teaching staff members of the education department;

regular teaching staff members of academic fields; off-campus regular

staff members; retired teachers and administrators hired on a part-time

basis; full-time student teacher supervisors; and graduate students at

the doctoral level. Another variation occurred in the job responsibil

ities of the individuals since some supervised elementary student teach

ers, others supervised secondary student teachers and still others worked

with persons at both levels of teaching. Some college supervisors super

vised only in one specific subject matter area while others were primarily

assigned to one field but also did some related and non-related subject

supervision. Some visited student teachers in only the college community

while others traveled thousands of miles in a single month. Other varia

tions existed in the number of visits, the nature of conferences, grading

procedures, and grading philosophy. Differences also existed in the number

of student teachers assigned to the college supervisor.

The sources of the variations, as pointed out to the writer in per

sonal interviews with directors of student teaching, were traceable in part

to efforts to synthesize the philosophies of supervision by subject matter

specialists and educational specialists while considering the economic and

155

geographical problems of the state of Montana„ The questionnaire

(Appendix:253-256) sent to the college supervisors was designed to deter

mine the extent of these problems and their effect on student teachers.

The instrument was sent to 68 college supervisors from the eight

teacher training institutions. Of the 59 who replied, 37.9 per cent super

vised both elementary and secondary student teachers, 36.2 per cent worked

with secondary students, and 28.1 per cent visited elementary student

teachers. Although elementary student teachers made up only 28.1 per cent

of the participants in the student teaching program, 63.8 per cent of the

college supervisors did some supervision of that group. As far as educa

tional training, the .group of supervisors included 42.4 per cent who held

doctorates, 52.5 per cent who had earned master's degrees, and 5.1 per

cent with a bachelor's degree. Fifty of the 59 responding to the ques

tionnaire were regular staff members and nine were graduate students or

part-time supervisors. Because of the relatively small number of college

supervisors compared to the other groups in the study and because of the

degree of overlap in job responsibilities, the replies were not separated

into different groups.


Different teacher training programs had different policies concern

ing the number of times a student teacher was visited by the college super

visor. Part of the variation was due to geographical distribution of the

student teachers throughout the state, part was due to the differences in

156length of the student teaching experience and part resulted from the degree

of usage of subject matter specialists as college supervisors. The average

number of supervisory visits reported by the college supervisors ranged

from two to five. Four or more visits were made by 67.8 per cent of the

supervisors. Two or three visits were reported by 32.3 per cent of the

college supervisors. The only supervisors who reported two visits to the

cooperating school to observe the student teacher were ten college super

visors from Montana State University.

Each teacher training institution attempted to establish some degree

of consistency within its own program of supervision by conducting a pre

student teaching conference for its staff members. Some of the effective

ness of this procedure was lost since 23.2 per cent reported they did not

attend the session and an additional 9.1 per cent did not believe the con

ference was worthwhile.

The number of student teachers assigned to a college supervisor

varied from fewer than five to more than twenty depending upon the degree

to which supervision of student teachers made up the total assignment of

the person doing the supervision. Several college supervisors commented

that they thought a better balance could be achieved between the number of

student teachers and the teaching load.

An important aspect of the student teaching, program was the visit

to the cooperating school which provided an opportunity for the college

supervisor to confer with the administrator, observe the student teacher

in action, and confer with the cooperating teacher and the student teacher.

Here, again, there was considerable variation in procedures used by one

157

teacher training institution representative when compared to another.

•Notification of the school of forthcoming visits was a policy always car

ried out by 4.0.7 per cent of the college supervisors and usually done by

33.9 per cent. The remaining 25.4 per cent reported they seldom or never

sent such notification. A greater consistency of operation was seen in

the procedures used by the college supervisors upon arrival at the cooper

ating school. The administrator was contacted immediately upon arrival by

64.4 per cent of the college supervisors. This procedure was usually fol

lowed by an additional 23.7 per cent. Administrators were contacted some

times by 8.5 per cent and seldom by 3.4 per cent. Half stated they not

only contacted the administrator but also had a ten .to thirty minute

conference with him. The conferences were classified as being productive,

about student teaching, and aimed at cementing good public relations.

Only one college supervisor reported he never notified the school of his

visit, contacted the administrator, or had any kind of a visit or confer

ence with the administrator.

One 1 purpose of the visit of the college supervisor was to establish

a basis for evaluation of the student teacher. The method used for deter

mining the grade for the student teacher was quite evenly divided between

three different procedures: 32.8 per cent of the grades were determined by

the college supervisor with recommendations from the cooperating teacher;

32.8 per cent were determined by the college supervisor using the rating

sheet of the cooperating teacher as a guide; and 34.4 per cent reached

mutual agreement through a conference with the cooperating teacher. The

majority, 8l.l per cent, believed the procedure they were using was

158satisfactory. Some college supervisors„ 15.1 per cent, thought there

should be a greater.sharing of the responsibility. One college super- •

vsior thought he should have a greater voice in the determination of the

grade and one thought the cooperating teacher should participate to a

greater extent. More than sixteen per cent volunteered the information

that they felt the student teacher should not be given a grade but should

be rated either passing or failing on their performance.

Most student teachers learned of their grade in student teaching

from the regular college grade slip issued by their college or university.

This was the method used by 5'5.4 per cent of the college supervisors.

Another common method, used by 39.3 per cent, was to inform the student

teacher of his grade during a conference on campus after the close of the

student teaching experience. The remaining 5.3 per cent stated that stu

dent teachers were informed of their grade by the director of student

teaching.

Procedures involving the cooperating school administrator. Most

college supervisors were concerned with the quality of the teaching ability

of the cooperating teachers and the degree to which these individuals un

derstood the student teaching program. The supervisors were asked to esti

mate, from their experience, what per cent of the student teachers were

assigned to the best cooperating teachers by the administrators. Almost

one-half of the college supervisors, 48.2 per cent, thought the adminis

trators had placed three of every four student teachers with the best pos

sible cooperating teacher. Only 12.5 per cent believed that as few as one-

half of the student teachers were assigned to cooperating teachers best

159able to serve in that capacity. The remaining 39.3 per cent assessed op

timum placement to have occurred in ninety per cent of the assignments.

College supervisors also reported they thought assignments were made on the

basis of a rotating schedule by the administrators. In addition to the

68.4 per cent who thought this procedure was used by some administrators,

28.6 per cent believed some were assigned to the staff members adminis

trators thought needed help. Several college supervisors commented that

there was a definite need for improvement in the assignment of student

teachers and that a closer contact with the classroom situation by the

administrator might help in this area. Visits to the classroom of the stu

dent teacher were recommended by 73.7 per cent of the college supervisors.

Procedures involving the cooperating teacher. The objective of

both the cooperating teacher and the college supervisor was to help' the

student teacher create the most favorable learning situation for the stu

dent teacher and the students of the cooperating school. Just as there

were a variety of opinions on the optimum procedures employed by the ad

ministrator, so were there differences in views on the procedures which

could best be used by the cooperating teacher.

College supervisors believed the cooperating teacher should be in

the classroom the first day the' student teacher assumed management of the

class and thereafter should attempt to achieve a balance between super

vised and unsupervised teaching for the remainder of the term. All but

two of the college supervisors believed the cooperating teacher should be

present part of the time. Comments indicated,that the amount of time

should be related to the capabilities of the student teacher.

160

More than ninety per cent of the college supervisors viewed the con

ference as an integral part of the supervision of the student teacher. One

comment pointed out that supervision without a conference was worthless

and a conference on evaluation was impossible without the classroom visit.

In addition to planning and evaluation, college supervisors felt the con

ference should make provision for student teachers to receive advice and

instruction and for the answering of questions the student teachers might

have. Most college supervisors generally believed the conference could

accomplish its goals in 30 minutes.

In addition to the conferences held with the student teacher, the

cooperating teacher usually conferred with the college supervisor at some

time during his presence in the cooperating school. College supervisors

expressed a preference for conferring with the cooperating teacher both

before and after observing the student teacher in action. While 62.7 per

cent preferred this procedure and used it, an additional 30.5 per cent

found that a shortage of time limited them to one conference held after

the classroom visit. Regardless of the procedure used, 84.7 per cent of

the college supervisors rated the conference with the cooperating teacher

as productive. The rest felt the conference was general but did not char

acterize it as either a waste of time or social in nature.

With teacher training programs increasing in size and with some per

sons desiring a longer period of student teaching, college supervisors were

asked their opinion on increasing the number of available stations by hav

ing cooperating teachers work with more than one student teacher during the

school year. Three-fourths of the college supervisors believed that the

satisfactory cooperating teacher could work with more than one student

teacher. One college supervisor pointed out that a consideration should

be the number of student teachers the pupils in the cooperating school had

as instructors.

Supervisors thought that most cooperating teachers, 73.7 per cent,

accepted a student teacher because they felt an obligation to the teaching

profession. An additional 15.8 per cent were characterized as viewing the

student teacher as a means of learning new and different approaches. The

rest were evenly divided between looking upon serving as a cooperating

teacher as a chore, a chance to lighten their teaching load, or an oppor

tunity to earn some extra money. Most cooperating teachers were viewed as

looking upon the remuneration received as a token of appreciation. Only

20.4 per cent of the college supervisors thought teachers believed the

amount insufficient. One college supervisor believed most cooperating

teachers thought the honorarium was unnecessary.

The college supervisors believed their visits were welcomed by the

cooperating teachers and characterized the visits as being appreciated as

shown by the enthusiasm and cooperation exhibited. One representative of

a teacher training institution thought that, in general, cooperating teach

ers were indifferent to the visits. None felt they were resented by the

teachers in the cooperating schools.

Procedures involving the student teacher. Student teachers were in

volved in many procedures and activities during their student teaching ex

perience, some of which were determined by the teacher training institution,

some by the cooperating teacher, some by the college supervisor, and still

162others by the administrator of the cooperating school. Student teachers

commented that at times they were given procedural directions by one mem

ber of the student teaching team which were in partial or total conflict

with those given by another member of the team. An attempt was made to

determine some of the conflicting views held on procedures.

College supervisors were asked to express their opinions about the

time of the school year which they believed offered the best view of the

teaching situation to the student teacher. Not a single reply favored the

spring although 29.8 per cent thought there was little difference between

fall, winter, and spring. Fall was assessed as the best time to student

teacher by 59.6 per cent of the college supervisors and winter by 10.5 per

cent.

A greater degree of difference existed on the length of the student

teaching experience with suggestions offered by college supervisors which

varied from three weeks to a full year of student teaching. Little differ

ence was noted on the length of student teaching specified by elementary

and secondary student teacher supervisors. Nearly half, 48.3 per cent, felt

nine weeks was the optimum length while the second most frequent selection

was the 31.0 per cent favoring a twelve week period. A six week student

teaching period was the choice of 13.8 per cent and an eighteen week exper

ience was the choice of 6.9 per cent.

Considerable disagreement occurred in response to the desired length

of the period of observation immediately preceding student teaching. Re

plies ranged from no observation to a three week period with each view sup

ported by 1.8 per cent of the respondents. A maximum of two days was the

163selection of 24.5 per cent of the college supervisors, while 42.1 per cent

favored one week and 29.8 per cent chose the two week period as being best.

A majority of college supervisors felt the student teacher should start to

teach in his major first as opposed to the 21.8 per cent who believed they

should start in the major and minor at the same time. Once the student

teacher has started to teach, a majority believed they should alternate

units with the cooperating teacher. The 58.6 per cent who made up this

majority differed from the predominant view of all other groups who be

lieved student teachers should continue to teach until the end of their

student teaching experience. This predominant view of other groups was

supported by 36.2 per cent of the college supervisors. The remaining por

tion of the group of college supervisors, 5.2 per cent, favored the teach

ing of a single unit.

The weekly and bi-weekly visits to the student teaching center were

deemed best by 57.6 and 30.5 per cent of the supervisors, respectively.

Others favored visits every three weeks, once during student teaching,

and twice during student teaching. An inverse relationship existed be

tween the length of the visit made to the school and the percentage of

college supervisors who supported that length. The one hour visit was

the choice of 53.4 per cent, while 24.1 per cent chose the two hour visit

as best, 17.2 per cent preferred that a half day be spent with the student

teacher, and 5.2 per cent thought the entire day should be spent at the

cooperating school.

As part of the visit to the cooperating school to observe the stu

dent teacher in action, the college supervisor usually met with the student

164

teacher to assess the degree of progress being made, to evaluate observed

performance and to act as a resource person for future planning. Super

visors were near unanimity in characterizing the conferences as being

productive. Only one college supervisor felt that student teachers gen

erally were reluctant to take suggestions. All others found them to be

either willing, 42.4 per cent, or very willing, 55.9 per cent, to accept

advice and constructive criticism.

The college supervisor-student teacher conference was characterized

as most productive if devoted to a combination of planning and evaluation.

College supervisors were asked to compare their views of lesson plans with

the views they believed were held by their student teachers. Table 39

compares the two views.

TABLE 39. A COMPARISON OF THE VALUE PLACED ON LESSON PLANS BI COLLEGE SUPERVISORS AND BY STUDENT TEACHERS

AttitudeAttitude of college supervisors

Attitude of student teachers

Necessary for successful teaching 88.1% 47.8%Helpful but too time consuming 3.4 40.3

Necessary for the first few units 6.8 10.2


The totals for the first two categories in the table approximate

each other although the individual categories differ considerably. Several

16$college supervisors commented that student teachers reacted against the

use of lesson plans because their cooperating teachers insisted on long,

detailed plans.

College supervisors viewed the length of the student teacher con

ference differently. A majority, 55.2 per cent, felt the planning and

evaluation could be accomplished in a conference which lasted from ten to

thirty minutes while more than one-third, 36.2 per cent, thought the con

ference should be from thirty to sixty minutes in length. Four college

supervisors stated that it need not exceed ten minutes and one believed

it required at least an hour..

Some supervisors of student teachers placed particular emphasis on

the conference held on campus following the conclusion of student' teach

ing by characterizing it as the most valuable portion of the student teach

ing experience. Not all student teachers, however, had a conference with

their college supervisor upon returning to the campus. The procedure of

holding such conferences was a standard practice of 54.4 per cent of the

college supervisors and was the approach usually followed by another 24.6

per cent. Such conferences were never held by 12.3 per cent of the super

visors and only occasionally by another 8.8 per cent.

Some student teachers commuted to the cooperating school in which

they did their student teaching to avoid establishing a second residence

away from their college community. While the procedure was not uncommon,

college supervisors were not in favor of the procedure. Almost eighty

per cent felt it usually, or sometimes, hindered on-the-job training.

Similarly, 25.0 per cent of the college supervisors felt the experience

166did not reach optimum benefits if the student teaching was done in the

school from which the student teacher had graduated. An additional 42.9

per cent perceived the degree of interference as diminishing with the

increase in the size of the school and qualified their answers by indi

cating the procedure would be satisfactory if the school was large.

Others withheld approval only for teaching in the high school from which

one had graduated but believed the practice was satisfactory for elemen

tary student teachers.

One college supervisor stated that one of the big problems of stu

dent teaching was the placement of an innovative student teacher with a

person who was tradition bound in his teaching. College supervisors re

ported, by a margin greater than six to one, that student teachers were

much more willing to experiment with new procedures and materials than

were the teachers under whom they served. Students were rated more inter

ested in using audio and visual devices than were the cooperating teachers

by a four to one margin. Student teachers interviewed prior to the initi

ation of the study voiced opinions that-a greater degree of consistency

should be established in the work expected from the student teachers. A

slight majority of the college supervisors, 54.5 per cent, believed stu

dent teachers should be assigned to classes and other duties for three-

fourths of the school day. Others were divided as to whether assignment

for one-half, two-thirds, or the entire day was the best procedure. The

student teaching experience should, in the opinion of 91.2 per cent of the

college supervisors, include assignment to extracurricular activities and

they further indicated, through volunteered responses, that the assignment

167should not be one which entailed total responsibility for the activity.

To a lesser degree, 79.6 per cent, college supervisors also favored assign

ment to such non-teaching duties as noon duty, hall duty, playground super

vision, and ticket selling. Table 40 summarizes the views of college

supervisors on specific non-teaching duties.

TABLE 40. COLLEGE SUPERVISOR OPINIONS ON ADVISABILITY OF ASSIGNING STUDENT TEACHERS TO NON-TEACHING ACTIVITIES

Activity For Against

Homeroom supervision 91.5% 8.5%Registration 50.8 49.2Noon duty 84.7 15.3Detention 44.1 55.9Hall duty 77.6 22.4

Chaperoning dances 58.6 41.4Interscholastic athletics 59.6 40.4Intramural athletics 77.2 22.8Ticket selling 44.6 55.4Study hall supervision 81.0 19.0

Marking report cards 62.7 37.3Class meetings 86.2 13.8Playground supervision 91.5 8.5Club meetings 79.3 20.7Guidance 49.1 50.9

College supervisors were requested to evaluate the placement of

their student teachers with cooperating teachers. A majority of college

supervisors, 63.2 per cent, thought that more than ninety per cent of all

student teachers were placed in satisfactory situations. Only 5.3 per cent

168of the college supervisors thought the percentage of satisfactory place

ments was as low as fifty per cent. Of those students who were rated as

having had an unsatisfactory student teaching experience, the largest num

ber of college supervisors placed the reason for the poor experience as due

to problems of class management. Other reasons contributing to unsatis

factory student teaching experiences were, in the order of their frequency

of occurrence: preparation of the student teacher; attitude of the student

teacher; a clash of personalities between the student teacher and the

cooperating teacher; and the attitude of the cooperating teacher. The

percentages of the responses ranged from a high of 29.0 per cent for class

management to a low of 10.9 per cent for the attitude of the cooperating

teacher.

The major contributing factor, as assessed by the college supervis

ors, to lack of success in student teaching was the preparation of the

student teacher. Table 41, page 169, presents the evaluation of the prep

aration in subject matter for elementary student teachers, secondary

majors, and secondary minors. These are also compared with the evaluation

of the preparation in the educational sequence. Only those supervising

elementary student teachers evaluated elementary preparation and only those

supervising secondary student teachers participated in that evaluation.

According to the college supervisors, a greater percentage of ele

mentary student teachers received excellent preparation than did those in

the other categories. College supervisors assessed the preparation as

being best in the major fields of secondary student teachers followed by

the academic preparation of elementary student teachers. The professional

169course work preparation was rated third despite the fact that those doing the rating were the ones charged with the responsibility of teaching that

phase of the preparation. A majority of the supervisors believed the

academic preparation in the minor areas was less than adequate. Several

recommended the minor be dropped.

TABLE 41. ' EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHER PREPARATION

EvaluationElementaryacademic

Secondarymajor

Secondaryminor

Educationsequence

Excellent 33.2# 23.8# 0 .0# 19.6#Adequate 51.5 71.4 46.5 57.1

Somewhat insufficient 9.1 2.4 48.8 19.6 .Very insufficient 6.1 2.4 4.7 3.6

The adequacy of the academic preparation was examined further to aid

in determining areas of strength and weakness. Table 42, page 170, compares

the areas of strength of preparation.

The strength of the academic preparation was assessed as being in ,

the subject matter competence of student teachers. Opinion was evenly

divided between related background material and methodology. .Several col

lege supervisors expressed the view that there was a need to strengthen

reading ability and to develop a greater understanding of reading problems.

170

TABLE 42. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF STUDENT TEACHERS

Area Strength Weakness

Methodology ' 16.7% 43.6%

Subject matter competence 75.9 9.1

Related background material 7.4 47.3

College supervisors evaluated the educational course sequence on

the same basis as their evaluation of the academic areas. The evaluations

are shown in Table 43.

TABLE 43. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE EDUCATION COURSE SEQUENCE

Area Strength Weakness

Lesson plan construction 64.7% 14.8%

Use of audio-visual devices 15.7 13.0


Grade determination 0.0 1.9

Practical application 13.7 61.1

A high degree of agreement was evidenced on a single facet of

strength and of weakness.■ College supervisors believed the greatest

strength in the education preparation to be lesson plan construction and

171

the greatest weakness to be the practical application of theory. Montana

State University student teachers were ranked higher than those from other

teacher training institutions in usage of audio-visual devices and those

from Eastern Montana College were ranked at the top in test construction.

Reading again entered into recommendations when four college supervisors

stated that secondary student teachers should be required to complete a

course in the teaching of reading. Other comments related to the educa

tional preparation included: have more practice before theory is intro

duced; have more practical experience included in preparation; arrange for

more contact with children of the age group to be taught; eliminate dupli

cation; and develop a professional quarter.

College supervisors were asked to express an opinion on the per cent

of the student teachers they had observed whom they would be eager or re

luctant to hire if they were in the position of personnel officer for a

school system. Table 44? page 172, compares the two categories.

Combining totals, it becomes evident that college supervisors would

be eager to employ more than half of the student teachers and would be very

reluctant to hire one-fourth of them.

172

TABLE 44. PROPORTION OF STUDENT TEACHERS COLLEGE SUPERVISORS WOULD BE EAGER TO HIRE OR WOULD HIRE ONLY IN AN EMERGENCY

Proportion of student teachers

Per cent of college supervisors who would

Be eager to hire Hire in emergency only

Nearly all 15.3% 3.4%Three-fourths 55.9 6.8

One -ha If 15.3 1.7

One-fourth 11.9 33.9

One-tenth 1.7 54.2

Attitudes

College supervisors, as well as other recipients of questionnaires,

were asked to assess the attitude of key groups in the student teaching

program on acceptance of the student teacher. Table 45, page 173, presents

the assessment of attitudes of staff members of the cooperating schools,

administrators, and cooperating teachers.

College supervisors believed that student teachers were generally

accepted by all personnel in the cooperating school, but that greater

enthusiasm was expressed by the cooperating teachers and other staff

members than by the administration. Comments of the college supervisors

depicted the attitude of a number of administrators to be that of accept

ing student teachers because it was expected and that perhaps they owed

173

something to their graduates and to education in general. Other comments

indicated that some administrators did not appreciate having the student

teachers but that it did offer a supply of prospective teachers for future

employment by the school system.

TABLE 45. ATTITUDE OF ACCEPTANCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS AS ASSESSED BY COLLEGE SUPERVISORS

Attitude StaffCooperatingteachers Adminis trators

Tolerance .. 1.7% 0.0% 3.4%

Indifferent acceptance O.G 0.0 27.1

General acceptance 64.4 47.5 40.7

Enthusiastic, helpful acceptance 33.9 52.5 28.8

CHAPTER VIII

A STATISTICAL COMPARISON OF RESPONSES OF ALL GROUPS

In the preceding five chapters the results of the five individual

questionnaires were reported and comparisons drawn within- each group be

tween different responses to each question. This chapter was designed to

re-examine the questions and compare the responses of different groups to

the same question. A basic assumption of the study has been that those

areas of disagreement between groups were possible sources of problems for

student teachers. The responses have been analyzed according to the stat

istical model developed on page 14 in the first chapter. Each area which

may be supportive of the recommendations and conclusions have been sub

jected to statistical treatment to determine the significance at the .05

or higher level of confidence. Some questions were common to' all five

questionnaires and in such cases comparisons were made on that basis.

Some of the questions involved only two, three, or four groups and in such

cases they were compared. Still other questions were individual in nature

and appeared on only one of the instruments. The latter were treated in

the preceding five chapters and were only used in this chapter where they

lent supportive evidence.

General Information

In Montana the students who were involved in the student teaching

phase of the teacher preparation programs were primarily females. While

the secondary programs enrolled an approximately equal number of men and

women, the women outnumbered the men by a margin of ten to one in elementary

175

education. The individuals in both elementary and secondary student teach

ing programs were drawn from all different sizes of high schools. There

was no statistically significant difference between the number of secondary

and elementary student teachers who had graduated from any one size school.

The procedures followed by each group when registering at their

teacher training institution were the same with registration at the regular

time the most common, followed by early registration, registration by mail,

and late registration. Secondary student teachers differed significantly

at the .01 level from elementary student teachers in the number of credits

carried in addition to their student teaching. In secondary education,

61.6 per cent of the student teachers carried some credits in addition to

student teaching as compared to 46.2 per cent of the elementary student

teachers. Both groups of student teachers were informed of the grade for

student teaching most often by the regular college grade slip, followed in

order by learning of the grade from the college supervisor, the cooperating

teacher, and the director of student teaching.

Cooperating teachers received a modest honorarium for serving in

that capacity. Both college supervisors and administrators were in agree

ment that most cooperating teachers viewed the remuneration as a token of

appreciation. Although the degree to which concensus was reached was higher

among the college supervisors, it did not differ significantly from the

views of the cooperating school administrators. These two groups differed

significantly at the .05 level on the feasibility of a cooperating teacher

working with more than one student teacher per year. The percentage of

college supervisors who so believed was 74.1 as compared to the 54.9 per

176

cent of the' administrators who held a corresponding view.

The Student Teacher

Fall was the most commonly used portion of the school year for the

student teaching experience. Approximately one-half of the student teach

ers participated in the student teaching program during the fall quarter

or semester. No significant difference was noted between the' percentage

of secondary and elementary student teachers who did their student teach

ing in the fall. In both groups, in addition to fall being the most

common period, summer was used sparingly and only in cases of individuals

who, for various reasons, could not student teach during the regular year.

At the secondary level, the second most commonly used period was spring,

while in elementary it was winter. A significantly greater percentage,

at the .01 level, of elementary student teachers did their student teach-

in their college community. The largest portion of secondary student

teachers did their student teaching in student teaching centers which were

neither located in the college community nor their home town. No signifi

cant difference existed in the percentage of the groups who student taught

in their home community.

More than three-fourths of each group of student teachers knew the

community in which they were to teach at least a month before the start of

the experience. However, a significantly greater percentage, at the .01

level, of secondary Student teachers did not know the specific subject area

or grade level with which they were to work until their arrival at the

cooperating school. A slight majority of secondary student teachers, 51.9

177per cent, knew with whom they were to work a month or more before starting

the student teaching experience as compared to the 44.1 per cent of the

students in elementary programs. The difference was significant at the

.05 level. A majority of student teachers at each level attended a pre

student teaching orientation period in the cooperating school either in

the fall before school started or at some other time during the school

year. There was no significant difference between the two groups.p'

Secondary student teachers were assigned for a greater percentage

of the day to organized classroom and non-classroom activities than were

elementary student teachers. The difference was significant at the .01

level with 70.9 per cent of the secondary and 50.0 per cent of the elemen

tary student teachers assigned for two-thirds of the day. While a compar

able number of student teachers in each group did not observe in the class

room prior to the quarter or semester in which they did their student

teaching,ia.significantly greater number, at the .05 level, of secondary

student teachers who did observe also did their student teaching in the

same school. Little variation between groups was noted on the- amount of ■

observation done during the student teaching experience before starting to

student teach. In secondary education 80.2 per cent of the student teach

ers started to teach during the first or second week, while at the elemen

tary level the corresponding percentage was 79.0.

The administrators expressed a majority opinion that the period of

observation immediately preceding the start of student teaching should be

longer than one week. This differed significantly from all other groups

at the .01 level. No significant difference was noted between the responses

178

of the student teachers, cooperating teachers, and college supervisors, all

of whom believed the period of observation should be less than .one week in

length.

The student teacher worked under three different categories of sup

ervisory personnel: the cooperating school administrator; the cooperating

teacher; and the college supervisor. Little agreement was noted within or

between the four groups involved with secondary education on whether the

student teacher should start to teach in his major or should start to teach

in both the major and the minor at the same time. A significantly greater

percentage, at the .05 level, of the college supervisors and the cooperat

ing teachers thought the best policy was to start in the major. The same

significant difference was noted by the greater number of student teachers

and administrators who thought student teachers should begin to teach in

both the major and minor at the same time.

Student teachers and the cooperating teachers under whom they served

were asked to indicate if they thought the actual number of hours the stu

dent teacher taught was sufficient. At the secondary level there was agree

ment that the time spent teaching was a satisfactory amount. However, of

those who did not agree, there was a significant difference between the two

groups on the reason for disagreeing. A significantly greater number, at

the .05 level, of student teachers thought that too many hours had been

spent while an equally significant difference was noted in the greater num

ber of cooperating teachers who thought that too few hours had been spent

in student teaching. A statistically greater number, at the .05 level, of

elementary student teachers were satisfied with the procedure followed than

179were those in secondary education.

Each individual contacted in the study was asked to indicate which

procedure was the best to follow once student teaching had started. The

choices were: continuing to teach until the end of the student teaching

experience; alternating units with the cooperating teacher; or teaching

one unit and returning the class to the cooperating teacher. All groups,

except the college supervisors, agreed that the best procedure was the one

which involved continuous teaching. Although the degree of agreement var

ied from one group to another, the differences were not significant when

comparing secondary cooperating teachers with secondary student teachers

or when comparing administrators, elementary cooperating teachers, and

elementary student teachers. A significantly greater percentage, at the

.01 level, of secondary students favored the continuous program than did

the administrators and elementary students. The latter, in turn, were

significantly different from the college supervisors with the difference

also being significant at the .01 level. College supervisors believed the

plan of alternating units with the cooperating teacher was the best plan

and differed significantly at the .01 level from all other groups for this

activity. The actual procedure followed by the student teachers at each

level agreed with the method of operation they deemed to be best.

Variations existed in different student teaching programs in respect

to time of the year the teaching was done, the length of time the student

spent in the cooperating school and when in the college sequence student

teaching was done. A majority of individuals in each group expressed a

preference for the fall period of student teaching. Table 46, page 180,

180compares the responses of the different groups.

TABLE 46. OPTIMUM TIME OF THE YEAR FOR STUDENT TEACHING

Time

Sec.studentteacher

Elem.studentteacher

Collegesupervisor

Administrator

Sec.coop.teacher

Elem.coop.teacher

Fall 58.8% 69.6% 59.6% 49.4% 46.9% 52.9%Winter 13.6 8.7 10.5 17.9 30.6 23.2

Spring 4.5 2.9 0.0 ' 7.7 5.9 5.0

No difference 23.1 18.8 29.9 25.0 16.6' 18.9

In each group the largest number of individuals indicated fall was

the best time to student teach. A statistically significant difference, at

the .01 level, existed between elementary student teachers when compared

to the administrators and to the two groups of cooperating teachers. The

difference was significant at the .05 level when compared to the college

supervisors and secondary student teachers. A significantly higher per

centage of cooperating teachers indicated that winter was the best time to

student teach than did any of the other groups.

Elementary student teachers and elementary cooperating teachers pre-

• ferred a twelve to eighteen week period for student teaching compared to

the majorities of the other groups who viewed the six to nine week student

teaching period as best. The differences in preferences were significant

at the .05 level. A significantly greater percentage of elementary student

181

teachers and administrators than members of the other four groups believed

student teaching was best done at the beginning of the senior year. A

significantly greater percentage of secondary student teachers believed it

best to student teach after all course work had been completed. In each

case the difference was significant at the .05 level. Although some sig

nificant differences did exist, no one choice dominated. Within each group

the choices were spread over the three possible answers in such a manner

that no one answer was a majority opinion.

Two items in the questionnaire were related to student teaching in

the school from which the student teacher had graduated. A significantly

greater percentage, at the .01 level, of all student teachers felt it was

a handicap than did their cooperating teachers. Similarly, a greater num

ber of student teachers also thought it was an advantage, at the same de

gree of significance, although in both cases a minority of student teach

ers were involved. A majority of cooperating teachers, administrators,

college supervisors, and elementary student teachers thought that teaching

in the school from which one had graduated was immaterial. No significant

differences were noted among the responses of the six groups as to whether

student teachers should be allowed to teach in the school from which they

had graduated. Answers were evenly divided between giving assent, negative

answers, and conditional assent. While a majority of each group felt that

commuting to the student teaching center usually or sometimes caused prob

lems, a significantly greater number, at the .05 level, of college super

visors and a lesser percentage of administrators, also significant at this

level, held this view.

182

Lesson Plans

Each group was queried as to the views of the cooperating teacher

toward lesson plans. Cooperating teachers, administrators, and college

supervisors were in statistical agreement that the majority of cooperating

teachers felt lesson plans were necessary for successful teaching. While

the two groups of student teachers were in agreement with each other, they

differed significantly at the .01 level from the views of the other groups.

More than two-thirds of the college supervisors and administrators agreed

with the large majority of cooperating teachers who assessed the cooperat

ing teachers as placing a high value on lesson plans. Less than half of

the student teachers thought the cooperating teacher believed lesson plans

to be necessary for successful teaching. The difference was significant at

the .01 level. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of student

teachers than any other group believed cooperating teachers viewed lesson

plans as having little value. This, too, was significant at the .01 level.

In addition, each group was asked to indicate their views on lesson

plans, Table 47, page 183, compares the views expressed by each group.

College supervisors and administrators placed a significantly great

er value on lesson plans than did the other groups. The difference was

significant at the .01 level. Cooperating teachers differed at the .01

level from student teachers, and secondary student teachers differed from

elementary student teachers at the .05 level.

183TABLE 47- THE VALUE OF LESSON PLANS

Sec.coop.teachers

Elem.coop.teachers

Sec.studentteachers

Elem.studentteachers

Administrators

Collegesupervisors

Necessary for successful teaching 64.4% 68.9% 54.6% 44.9% 83.4% 88.1%

Helpful but too time consuming 15.1 11.3 27.2 27.5 5.1 3.4

Necessary for first few units 16.4 19.1 12.2 24.2 7.0 6.8 -

Little value 4.1 0.7 6.0 3.4 2.5 1.7

A significantly different percentage of elementary student teachers

reported that they received both written and oral suggestions about their

lesson plans from their cooperating teacher than did secondary student

teachers. The difference was significant at the .05 level with more stu

dent teachers in the elementary grades receiving both types of suggestions.

In neither group of student teachers did the majority receive such help.

More than one-fourth of the secondary student teachers indicated they re

ceived neither written nor oral suggestions. This was a greater number

than those reported by elementary student teachers and differed signifi

cantly at the .01 level.

A slight majority of student teachers at each level submitted les

son plans to their cooperating teachers before each lesson. The two groups

of student teachers did not differ from each other significantly. A sig

nificantly greater percentage, at the .05 level, of elementary cooperating

184

teachers stated they had the student teachers hand in lesson plans before

each lesson than student teachers at that level reported doing so. No sig

nificant difference was noted between the responses of secondary student

teachers and secondary cooperating teachers.

Academic and Professional Preparation

The degree of adequacy of academic preparation of student teachers

was assessed by the student teachers, college supervisors, and cooperating

teachers. A significantly greater percentage, at the .05 level, of college

supervisors rated the academic preparation of student teachers as adequate

or excellent as compared to the evaluation placed on their preparation by

the student teachers. Similarly, a significantly greater percentage, at

the ,01 level, of student teachers assessed the academic preparation as

adequate or excellent than did secondary cooperating teachers.

No significant difference was found between the views of the student

teachers and the cooperating teachers at the elementary level. College

supervisors, again, placed a higher evaluation on the academic preparation

than did the cooperating teachers and the student teachers. The differ

ence was significant at the .01 level.

In secondary education all groups indicated that subject matter com

petence was the greatest strength in the preparation of the student teach

er . The college supervisor, however, differed significantly from each of

the other groups at the .01 level with a higher percentage, 75.4. Elemen

tary student teachers and cooperating teachers were in agreement with each

185other but had less than a majority who believed subject matter competence

was the strongest point in the training of prospective teachers.

Considerable disagreement existed between the three groups in re

porting the greatest deficiency in the academic preparation at the secon

dary level. Student teachers' believed the greatest deficiency was in

methodology; a majority of college supervisors thought it was in related

background material, while cooperating teachers were evenly divided between

the two areas. In each case, the one group differed significantly from the

other two at the .01 level.

The same three questions were included in the questionnaires con

cerning the educational course sequence as were used for the academic prep

aration. Elementary cooperating teachers and college supervisors did not

differ significantly from each other in the number who believed the educa

tion course preparation of elementary student teachers was adequate or

excellent. Significantly fewer elementary student teachers, at the .01

level, believed their preparation was adequate or excellent than did

either the college supervisors or the cooperating teachers.

All groups indicated that lesson plan construction was the greatest

strength of the educational preparation, although the number of college

supervisors concurring were significantly lower at the .01 level than

the other groups who were in agreement with each other. In addition, a

significantly greater number of secondary student teachers chose the cate

gory of 1 test construction' as the greatest strength. This differed at the

.01 level from all other groups.

186In assessing the weakness of the educational preparation, each group

chose 1 practical application' as the greatest deficiency. While there was

no significant difference between the replies of most groups, college sup

ervisors differed from all the others sufficiently to be significant at the

.01 level. Another area of weakness in the educational preparation was

concerned with the procedure used by the student teacher to determine

grades for his students, A significantly smaller percentage of college

supervisors, at the .05 level, and a significantly higher percentage of

elementary student teachers, at the ,05 level, assessed this area as a

weakness than did any of the other groups.

Secondary student teachers indicated that the most valuable course

in the education sequence was the pre-student teaching period of observa

tion followed by the course in educational methods. The elementary student

teachers chose the same two categories but in reverse order. A signifi

cantly higher percentage of elementary people chose the methods course

than did secondary. Tests and measurements and audio-visual courses were

selected by a significantly Ijigher percentage of those student teaching

in secondary schools. In each case the difference was significant at the

.05 level. No significant difference was found at this level between the

two groups in the selection of courses in observation and educational psy

chology. A majority of student teachers expressed the belief that the

value of a course, or lack of value, was due to the nature of the instruc

tion rather than the nature of the course content. The elementary student

teacher majority was significantly higher at the .05 level. Most students

were required to complete more than one course in methods of instruction.

187

Student teachers at the secondary level, were evenly divided in choosing

the various categories which characterized the degree of duplication which

existed in the courses. In comparing the responses'to the replies of ele

mentary student teachers, a significant difference at the .01 level was

noted in the number of elementary persons who formed the greater percen

tage who believed there was from twenty to fifty per cent duplication.

A greater percentage of secondary student teachers indicated there was

little or no duplication in their methods courses as compared to elemen

tary replies. This difference, too, was significant at the .01 level.

No significant difference was found at the .05 level between the numbers

of the two groups who indicated duplication was less than twenty per cent

or more than fifty per cent. Nearly half, 49.5 per cent, of the elementary

student teachers thought the duplication ranged from twenty to fifty per

cent.

Activities

Cooperating teachers, cooperating school administrators, and college

supervisors were asked to check a list of 15 activities which ordinarily

are found in most high schools. They were asked to indicate those to which

they thought the secondary student teacher should be assigned. Secondary

student teachers were' asked to indicate those in which they actually did

participate. Table 48, page 188, offers a tabulation of the responses re

ceived from the various groups.

188TABLE 48. PARTICIPATION IN NON-CLASSROOM DUTIES AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL

Activity

Sec.studentteachers

Collegesupervisors

Administrators

Sec.coop.teachers

Homeroom supervision 41.1% 91.5% 62.2% 84.9%Chaperoning dances 12.4 • 58.6 26.9 56.3Interscholastic athletics 19.9 59.6 31.4 48.3Intramurals 15.6 77.2 37.2 53.3Study hall supervision 40.6 81.0 49.4 78.3

Registration 19.2 50.8 30.3 47.0Noon duty 49.6 84.7 58.0 70.1Detention 17.8 44« I 19.2 50.6Hall duty 34.6 77.6 58.9 74.3Ticket selling 13.0 44.6 17.6 39.4

Nkrking report cards. 51.5 62.7 34.3 67.8Class meetings 35.3 86.2 50.0 78.9Playground supervision 6.3 91.5 90.6 78.4Club meetings 31.5 . 79.3 42.9 71.8Guidance 23.6 49.1 23.4 52.4

The only activity in which a majority of the student teachers par

ticipated was the marking of report cards although members of the supervis

ory team ranked this activity well down the list as a recommended part of

the student teaching experience„ The activity in which fewest student

teachers participated was supervision of playground activities which was

an activity included in the top three choices of the three groups of sup

ervisory personnel. In no activity did the degree of participation of the

student teachers exceed the percentage of cooperating teachers or college

supervisors who thought the activity worthy of inclusion in the program.

Only in the categories of 'marking report cards’ and 1 guidance services’

189did the degree to which student teachers took an active role exceed the

percentage of administrators who though they should participate. In every

category except playground supervision a significantly larger percentage

of admininstrators thought student teachers should be assigned to the vari

ous non-classroom activities than student teachers who actually partici

pated in the activities. The differences were significant at the .01

level. A significant difference at the .05 level existed between the

greater number of college supervisors who believed that student teachers

should participate in intramural programs, supervision of students during

the noon hour, and playground supervision than did cooperating teachers.

Table 49 presents a similar comparison of 10 activities of elemen

tary student teachers.

TABLE 49. PARTICIPATION IN NON-CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES BY ELEMENTARY STUDENT 'TEACHERS

Activity

-Elem. stud, teachers

Collegesupervisors

Administrators

Elem. coop, teachers

Registration 34.9% 50.8% 30.3% 71.7%Noon duty 84.6 84.7 58.0 88.9Detention 47.8 44» I 19.2 55.8Hall duty 68.3 77.6 58.9 87.6Ticket selling 13.7 44.6 17.6 43.7

Nhrking report cards 31.5 62.7 34.4 49.5Class meetings 56.7 86.2 50.0 86.0Playground supervision 94.2 91.5 90.6 94.9Club meetings 22.9 79.3 42.9 64.OGuidance 22.0 49.1 23.4 60.3

190A significantly greater number of elementary cooperating teachers,

at the ,01 level, believed student teachers should participate in each of

the activities listed in Table 49 with the exception of the category en

title 1 playground supervision'. The cooperating teachers did not differ

from college supervisors and administrators in that category because of

the near unanimity of opinion of all three groups. Elementary cooperating

teachers also differed from elementary student teachers at the same level

of significance in all categories except those of supervision of the noon

period activities and playground activities.

Table 50 compares the activities in which elementary and secondary

student teachers actually did participate.

TABLE '50. STUDENT TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN NON-CLASSROOM ACTIVITIES

ActivitySecondary student teachers

Elementary student teachers

•Registration 19.2% 34.9%Noon duty 49.6 84.6Detention 17.8 47.8Hall duty 34.6 68.3Ticket selling 13.0 13.7

Report card marking 51.5 31.5Class meetings 35.3 56.7Playground supervision 6.3 94.2Playground supervision 31.5 22.9Guidance 23.6 22.0

A significantly greater percentage, at the .01 level, of elementary

student teachers reported they participated in noon duty, detention, hall

191

duty, class meetings, and playground supervision. At the same level of

significance, a larger number of secondary student teachers indicated they

had participated in marking report cards and club meetings. No significant

difference was found between the two groups at the .05 level for ticket

selling and guidance.

In response to a question concerning their beliefs about assigning

student teachers to extracurricular activities, more than three-fourths of

each group stated that they thought such assignments should be made. At

the .05 level, a significantly greater number of cooperating teachers,

college supervisors, and administrators replied in the affirmative than

either group of student teachers. A greater percentage of the student

teachers thought they should be assigned to such non-teaching duties as

ticket selling, fee collection, noon duty, and hall duty than thought they

should be assigned to extracurricular activities.

The Case Study

The case study was a required portion of the student teaching ex

perience of most student teaching programs. In some programs it was called

by other names such as a study of the individual child or of an atypical

student. Regardless of the particular title given to the project, a des

criptive narrative was called for in the terminal report which the student

teacher was expected to complete. Each group was asked to indicate which

of the answers supplied best corresponded with the view of the case study

held by the individual completing the questionnaire. Nearly forty per cent

192of all cooperating teachers and student teachers thought the case study-

helpful in understanding children. A significantly greater number, at the

.01 level, of college supervisor's than administrators rated the case study

as a valuable tool in teaching. The administrators, in turn, replied in

significantly greater numbers, also at the .01 level, to this choice than

did either student teachers or cooperating teachers. No significant dif

ference at the .05 level existed between the replies of administrators,

cooperating teachers, and student teachers on the choice which indicated

they thought the case study was of little value, although each group dif

fered significantly, at the .01 level, from the group of college supervis

ors which had few replies to that response. Of all replies, 25.3 per cent

expressed the opinion that the case study had little value.

The Cooperating Teacher

The cooperating teacher was the individual who had the greatest

degree of contact with the student teacher during the student teaching ex

perience. Nhny individuals served in the capacity of cooperating teacher.

Some were on the staff of large schools; other taught in small schools.

Some were enthusiastic about the program and others indicated, through

their comments, that they were disenchanted with serving in the capacity

of cooperating teachers. In all, a variety of individuals in a variety of

subjects at various levels worked with the prospective teachers who were

assigned to them.

Almost all, 94.7 per cent, of the administrators indicated that the

cooperating teacher was asked if he or she wished to serve as a cooperating

193teacher before a student teacher was assigned to that particular indivi

dual. This was significantly higher at the .01 level than the 75.0 per

cent of elementary cooperating teachers and 58.8 per cent of secondary

cooperating teachers who said they had been asked by their administrators.

The difference between the two groups of cooperating teachers also was

significant at the same level. More than one-third, 34.8 per cent, of the

cooperating teachers who had student teachers in the fall did not know

they were to have a student teacher until the start of school. This was

statistically greater at the .01 level than the number of administrators

who reported they did not inform their teachers until that time.

A majority of secondary cooperating teachers, administrators, and

college supervisors thought that cooperating teachers accepted a student

teacher because of an obligation to the teaching profession. This, too,

was the predominant view held by secondary student teachers, although not

a majority opinion. A majority of elementary cooperating teachers thought

their group looked upon the assignment as an opportunity to learn while

most elementary student teachers thought the teachers with whom they worked

viewed it as an opportunity to get someone to share their teaching respons

ibilities. Statistically, the greater number of elementary cooperating

teachers replying to the response 'an opportunity to learn' was signifi

cantly different from the replies of all other groups. The difference was

significant at the .01 level. Also, at the .01 level, the relative number

of administrators, secondary cooperating teachers, and college supervisors

was greater than all the student teachers on the point of viewing the posi

tion of cooperating teacher as an obligation to the profession'. A greater

194

number of secondary student teachers, as well as elementary student teach

ers , thought that cooperating teachers primarily viewed the cooperating

teacher responsibility as an opportunity to share their load. These two

groups differed from all other groups significantly at the .05 and .01

levels, respectively.

The first day the student teachers taught a class in the cooperat

ing school they were usually supervised by the cooperating teacher. More

than eighty per cent of the college supervisors, administrators, and ele

mentary student teachers thought this should be the procedure on that day.

This differed at the .01 level from the 67.3 per cent of the secondary stu

dent teachers who were in agreement with that policy. In actual practice

there was no significant difference between what elementary student teach

ers thought should be the practice and what actually was the procedure.

Theory exceeded practice at the .01 level in secondary education on this

point. Statistically, the greater number of elementary student teachers

supervised on the first day of teaching differed from the number of secon

dary student teachers who were supervised, at the .01 level. Most student

teachers were permitted to teach unsupervised frequently or occasionally

after the first day. The 28.1 per cent of secondary student teachers who

reported they were allowed to teach without supervision at all times dif

fered significantly at the .01 level from the number of elementary student

teachers who were never supervised. A significantly greater percentage,

at the .01 level, of secondary student teachers than any other group be

lieved this to be the proper procedure. Opposed to this view were the

greater percentage of cooperating teachers who believed the student teacher

195should never be allowed to teach without the cooperating teacher being in

the room. The 14.8 per cent of the cooperating teacher group differed

significantly at the .01 level from all other groups.

A significantly greater percentage, at the .01 level, of secondary

cooperating teachers and student teachers differed from their elementary

counterparts concerning the procedure used once the student teacher had

started to teach. More than three-fourths of the persons at the secondary

level believed the procedure best suited to the program to be one of con

tinuing to teach once the student teacher had started. Approximately one-

half of the persons in elementary education agreed with the secondary

people about this procedure. No significant difference was noted between

the views held by secondary cooperating teachers and secondary student

teachers or between those of the elementary cooperating teachers and stu-

,dent teachers. College supervisors and school administrators were in agree

ment with the views of those involved in the elementary program.

Generally, as part of the student teaching experience, the college

supervisors and the cooperating teachers conferred and compared notes on

what they observed when visiting the classroom of the student teacher. The

majority of college supervisors felt these conferences were productive.

This differed from the cooperating teachers at the .01 level. A signifi

cantly higher percentage of elementary cooperating teachers agreed with the

college supervisors than did secondary cooperating teachers. A signifi

cantly greater percentage, at the .01 level, of secondary cooperating

teachers classified the visits as being general.

196More than one-third of all student teachers thought the teaching

they had observed was textbook oriented. There was no significant differ

ence between the views of student teachers at the two levels of teaching.

A significantly greater percentage of elementary student teachers, however,

thought the teaching they had observed dealt with developing an understand

ing of basic concepts, This differed significantly from the views of the

secondary student teachers at the .01 level. The same statistical differ

ence existed between the views of the two groups of student teachers on

the amount of teaching they had observed which could be classified as being

based on teacher developed units. The greater number so classified were

at the secondary level.

The Administrator

The administrator, who frequently served in the dual capacity of

teacher and principal or principal and superintendent, often found time

to visit the classroom of the student teacher. Some visited the classroom

a number of times while others who did find time to visit the classes did

so on only one occasion. Approximately half of the administrators did not'

visit the student teacher to observe him in action. A significantly great

er number of visits were made at the elementary level than at the secon

dary level. The difference was significant at the .01 level. - No signifi

cant difference was noted between the views of the college supervisors

and the administrators on whether or not the administrator should visit

the classroom of the student teacher. In both groups a large majority

197believed the administrator should visit the student teacher while he was

teaching. Smaller, but equal, percentages of each group agreed on the pro

cedure which called for the administrator to wait for an invitation before

visiting the classroom.

The College Supervisor

The college supervisor was the connecting link between the teacher

training institution and the cooperating school. His visits to the school

varied in length depending upon the number of student teachers he had to

supervise, the distance he had to travel to the student teaching center,

the teaching load he carried in addition to his supervisory work, the

policy of the institution he represented, and the ability of the student

teacher and the cooperating teacher.

No consistent policy was evident from the results of the question

naire concerning the notification of the school administrator, the cooper

ating teacher or student teacher of forthcoming visits, although a signi

ficantly greater number of elementary cooperating teachers indicated that

they were informed of the visit than did secondary cooperating teachers.

The difference was significant at the .05 level. Better than forty per

cent of the college supervisors indicated they did not inform the schools

that they were coming to supervise the student teacher.

Most of the elementary student teachers, 93.2 per cent, had but one

college supervisor. This figure was significantly greater at the .01 level

than the number of secondary student teachers who reported being visited

198by only one college supervisor. The 24.2 per cent of secondary student

teachers who stated they had more than one college supervisor generally had

two although several reported having had three or four. Nineteen indivi

duals were not visited by a representative from a teacher training insti

tution although no significant difference existed between the student

teachers at the elementary and secondary levels.

Upon arrival at the cooperating school, most college supervisors

reported to the office of the administrator to inform him of their pre

sence in the building. More than one-fourth of the college supervisors,

however, stated they seldom or never followed that procedure. Although

only 40.7 per cent of the college supervisors always informed the adminis

trator of their arrival, 64-4 per cent thought it should be done. A ma

jority of the administrators preferred to be notified of the arrival of

the representative of the teacher training institution. A significantly

greater number of student teachers at both levels and cooperating teachers

in elementary schools preferred to be informed in advance of the visits of

the college supervisor than did the administrators and secondary student

teachers. The difference in each case was significant at the .05 level.

No significant difference existed between the expressed desires on this

point between the two groups of student' teachers.

More student teachers than college supervisors believed the weekly

visit of the college supervisor was the best procedure to be followed in

supervising student teachers than thought the alternate or every third week

visit was best. A few believed one or two visits to be sufficient. At

the .01 level, a significant difference was noted between college

199supervisors favoring the weekly visits as compared to the smaller number

of administrators and cooperating teachers who held similar views. Still

fewer student teachers held the same view and differed significantly from

the latter two groups at the .05 level. In actual practice more than two-

thirds of the elementary student teachers reported four or more visits

from the college supervisor. This differed significantly at the .01 level

from the number of secondary student teachers who reported that many vis

its. In each case the reports were substantiated by the corresponding

reports from the cooperating teachers at the respective level. All college

supervisors, except ten from Montana State University, reported they vis

ited each student at least three times. However, 83 student teachers from

the other seven teacher training institutions reported they were super

vised once or twice or were not visited at all. While secondary student

teachers received fewer visits from their supervisors, the visits gener

ally were of greater length. A signifcantly greater number of secondary

student teachers received visits which were longer than a full class period

than did elementary student teachers. This difference was significant at

the .05 level. Here, again, the reports of the student teachers were sub

stantiated by the replies of the cooperating teachers at the corresponding

level of instruction. The majority of student teachers and cooperating

teachers indicated that the most common procedure used by the college sup

ervisors was to arrive before class and stay for the full presentation of

the lesson to the class. No significant difference was noted between any

two of the four groups. More than eighty per cent of the administrators

and both groups of student teachers and cooperating teachers believed this

200to be the best procedure.

Some teacher training institutions included a pre-student teaching

seminar for student teachers immediately before going to the student teach

ing center to participate in the student teaching experience. The seminar

was conducted by the college supervisor who would be supervising the stu

dent teaching. Some college supervisors met with their student teachers

before they entered the student teaching center although it was not part

of the regular program of the teacher training institution. Still others

did not meet their student teachers until the first visit to the cooperat

ing school. A majority of the secondary student teachers did meet with

their college supervisor before the student teaching experience began.

This majority differed in number significantly at the .01 level from the

minority of elementary student teachers who had the same opportunity.

The first visit of the college supervisor was viewed with nervous

anticipation by the student teachers. A significantly greater number, at

the .01 level, of elementary student teachers felt that way than did those

at the secondary level. No significant difference was noted between college

supervisors, administrators, and elementary cooperating teachers who thought

student teachers awaited the first visit of the college supervisor with

nervousness. Fewer secondary cooperating teachers made the same assess

ment and differed from the above mentioned groups at the .05 level. A

significant difference at the .01 level was found between the greater num

ber of secondary student teachers who looked upon the college supervisor

as a resource person than the smaller number of elementary student teachers

who held the same view. Elementary student teachers reported they were

201

more relaxed during the second visit of the college supervisor while secon

dary student teachers viewed the second visit the same as the first.

Each group was asked to assess the attitude of the cooperating teach

er toward the visit of the college supervisor. A majority of persons in

each group thought the visit was welcomed by the cooperating teacher. How

ever, a significantly greater number of elementary student teachers than

any other group reported they thought the cooperating teacher resented the

college supervisor's visit. The difference, in each case, was significant

at the .01 level. More secondary student teachers thought the cooperating

teachers were indifferent to the visit than did elementary student teach

ers. More student teachers and admininstrators thought the cooperating

teachers were indifferent to the visits than did the cooperating teachers.

The difference was significant at the .01 level for each comparison.

The Conference

Conferences were an integral part of the student teaching program.

A conference was both possible, and likely, between any two members of the

student teaching team. No significant difference was found in comparing

time of occurrence and length of the conference at the elementary and se

condary levels. Both groups reported the most common procedure was to

hold conferences both before and after the visit to the classroom by the

college supervisor and that the conference usually lasted from ten to

thirty minutes.

A significant difference at the .01 level was noted between the two

groups of cooperating teachers on the procedure used to determine a grade

202for the student teacher. A significantly greater number of elementary

cooperating teachers discussed the grade at a conference with the college

supervisor. The difference was significant at the .05 level.

Cooperating teachers generally had a conference with the administra

tor about the student teacher with whom they were working. This conference

was more common at the elementary level than in the secondary program. The

83.7 per cent of elementary teachers who reported such conferences differed

significantly from the 63.9 per cent of secondary teachers at the .01 lev

el. In the elementary program the number who conferred with the adminis

trator about problems of discipline, ability, and adjustment of the student

teacher to the classroom situation was higher and differed at the .01 level

from the secondary program.

The student teacher also conferred with the college supervisor dur

ing his visit. While the cooperating teachers conferred most frequently

both before and after the classroom visit, the student teachers most fre

quently met with the college supervisor after the visit to the classroom.

A significantly greater number of secondary student teachers, however, did

have a conference both before and after than did their elementary counter

parts. A greater number of student teachers at the elementary level indi

cated they had conferences neither before nor after the classroom visit.

In both cases the difference was significant at the .01 level. Although

4-0.4 per cent of all student teachers reported the conference with the col

lege supervisor lasted less than ten minutes, only 6.9 per cent of the

college supervisors"placed the time involved in the conference with the

student teacher at that length. Conversely, 36.2 per cent of the college

203supervisors indicated the conference with the student teachers lasted be

tween thirty and sixty minutes. Only 7.6 per cent of the student teachers

depicted the conference with the college supervisor as a thirty to sixty

minute conference. In both cases the difference was significant at the

.01 level. Generally the student teacher was present during all or part

of the conference between the cooperating teacher and the college supervis

or. The cooperating teacher, however, was present during less than half

of the occasions when the college supervisor met with the student teacher.

No significant difference was noted, in either case, between the proce

dures used in the secondary and elementary student teaching programs.

Approximately two-thirds of the student teachers in each group believed

they had sufficient time to confer with the college supervisor.

A significantly greater number, at the .01 level, of elementary

student teachers conferred with the administrator of the cooperating school

than did those in the secondary program. The reasons for the visits dif

fered in the two student teaching programs. In the elementary schools, a

greater number, significant at the .01 level, of student teachers had a

conference about a classroom visit. Also significant at the .01 level was

the greater number of secondary student teachers who conferred with the

administrator about school procedures.

The conferences held between the student teacher and the cooperat

ing teacher varied in length from less than ten minutes to more than an

hour. Both groups reported the most common length of the conference to be

from ten to thirty minutes. A significantly greater number of student

teachers stated they had conferences less than ten minutes in length than

204did cooperating teachers while more cooperating teachers stated they had

conferences exceeding thirty minutes'. In both instances the difference was

significant at the .01 level. Secondary student teachers had more confer

ences lasting less than ten minutes than did elementary student teachers.

This difference, too, was significant at the .01 level. All groups in

cluded in the study agreed that there should be no specified length for

the conference but that it should be as long as needed.

Although over three-fourths of both groups of student teachers re

ported they had daily conferences with the cooperating teacher, a signifi

cantly greater number of elementary student teachers so reported. At the

secondary level, a significantly greater number of cooperating teachers

reported daily conferences than did the student teachers. In both cases

the difference was significant at the .01 level. At the same level of

confidence, a significantly greater percentage of student teachers seldom

had conferences with their cooperating teacher than was reported by the

cooperating teachers. At the .05 confidence level, a difference was noted

between secondary student teachers and the other groups in the study in the

number believing the conferences between the student teacher and the coop

erating teacher should be held only after the classroom presentation. All-

groups were in agreement that the nature of the conference should be partly

planning and partly devoted to evaluation, and that provision should be

made for giving instructions and advice, and for answering questions. More

than eighty per cent of the student teachers thought they had sufficient

time in conference with the cooperating teacher. No significant difference

was noted between the replies of the two groups of student teachers.

20$

Attitudes

Each group in the study was asked to assess the degree of acceptance

of the student teachers by various persons and personnel related to the

student teaching program and student teaching center.

In assessing the attitude of the administrator of the cooperating

school toward student teachers, the category most often chosen by secon

dary students and cooperating teachers and college supervisors was that

of 'general acceptance'. Both elementary student teachers and cooperat

ing teachers most often characterized the attitude of the administrator

as that of enthusiastic, helpful acceptance. The following significant

differences were noted at the .01 level: a greater number of elementary

student teachers found the administrator to be enthusiastic and helpful;

more elementary cooperating teachers than their secondary colleagues as

sessed the administrator as helpful and enthusiastic; a greater percentage

of college supervisors characterized the administrators as indifferently

accepting student teachers than did any other group; and no significant

difference was noted in the number in each group who thought administrators

tolerated the presence of student teachers.

Four of the six groups, all but elementary student teachers and

elementary cooperating teachers, thought the student body generally accept

ed the student teachers with whom they were associated. The two elemen

tary groups thought students accepted the student teachers with enthusi

asm. The difference between the four groups and the two groups was

significant at the .01 level in both cases.

206All five groups queried had a majority of responses assessing the

acceptance of the student teachers by the community as being 'general ac

ceptance'. College supervisors were not included in.this category since

they were considered too remote from the community to be able to give a

valid assessment.

Both groups of student teachers and the elementary cooperating teach

ers thought the student teachers were accepted with enthusiasm by the staffs

of the cooperating schools. The other three groups— secondary cooperating

teachers, administrators, and college supervisors— thought that staff '

members generally accepted the prospective teachers who served in their

schools. The difference was significant at the .01 level as was the dif

ference in views between the student teachers and the administrators on

the same classification. The greater number of cooperating teachers who

believed the staff showed enthusiasm in their acceptance differed at the

.05 level from the college supervisors and administrators who concurred.

No difference which was significant statistically was evident between the

totals for all cooperating teachers when compared to all student teachers.

More than two-thirds of all student teachers thought they were

accepted enthusiastically by the teachers under whom they served. A small

er majority of college supervisors were in agreement with that opinion.

Administrators placed the degree of acceptance of student teachers by

cooperating teachers at the general acceptance level. Significant differ

ences at the .01 level were noted between student teachers and administra

tors, student teachers and college supervisors, and between elementary

student teachers and secondary student teachers. In each case the group

207listed first had a larger number of replies choosing the category 'enthus

iastic and helpful acceptance'.

In general, attitudes of acceptance, like attitudes toward various

phases and procedures of the student teaching program, evidenced consider

able variation from one group to another. Close to one hundred of the

variations from one group to another, were significant at the .05 or .01

level.

t

CHAPTER IX

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It was the purpose of this study to determine some of the problems

of student teachers who had participated in the teacher training programs

and student teaching programs of the eight teacher training institutions

located in Montana. ■ The study was concerned with the problems of student

teachers caused by the mechanical or procedural aspects of the student

teaching program and by various attitudes of the personnel of the student

teaching team. The growth patterns of the teacher training programs dur

ing the past decade have been instrumental■in.initiating some institutional

changes. Projected enrollments indicate the need for change has not and

will not cease in the near future. This study revealed some of the prob

lems and indicated some directions changes should take.

Summary

The major problem of this study was: (l) to determine what problems

student teachers had which were related to procedures used by the various

teacher training institutions in the training, placement, supervision, and

evaluation of student teachers; (2) to determine attitudes toward the pro

gram and personnel which caused problems for student teachers; and (3) to

provide guidelines for the resolution of the problems which existed.

The literature and research in the field of student teaching was

found to be primarily focused in three directions: (l) evaluation of pro

grams of teacher preparation at specific institutions; (2) detailed exam

ination of the roles of the various members of the supervisory team involved

in the student teaching program; and (3) recommended patterns of method

ology for use in the teaching process. Research and literature specific

ally relating to problems of student teachers was found to be at a minimum.

That which was located related primarily to the problems involved in class

room presentations and in classroom management. The lack of reported re

search and literature was a motivational force in the selection of this

study.

The study was initiated by the writer after visiting the campuses

of the eight teacher training institutions in Montana and conferring with

the director of student teaching or the person serving in that capacity

at that time. Suggestions were solicited for the direction the study

should take and for procedures which would facilitate its completion. Ele

mentary and secondary student teachers, cooperating teachers, college sup

ervisors, and administrators were contacted to give further direction to

the study. Five questionnaires were developed which were oriented toward

the particular position of the recipient on the student teaching team and

each instrument was related to the other four. Fifty-five individuals

completed the sample questionnaires and offered suggestions for clarity

and additional areas which they thought would help determine problems of

student teachers. The revised questionnaires were mailed to all persons

who had participated in the student teaching program during the 1966-67

school year as a student teacher, cooperating teacher, college supervisor,

or cooperating school administrator. Replies were received from 1,889 of

the 2,611 individuals who were sent questionnaires. The return was 72.3

per cent of the number sent. The questionnaires were comprehensive and

289

218varied in length from 6I items on the questionnaire sent to administrators

to 139 items on the secondary student teacher instrument. (Appendix:235-

253) Respondents were urged to include comments.

Summary of Findings

1. Approximately one-half of the student teachers did their stu

dent teaching in the fall and approximately three-fourths of the persons

in the study believed the fall was the best time in which to student teach.

2. A majority of elementary student teachers did their student

teaching in their college community. A majority of secondary student

teachers did their student teaching in a community other than the college

community.

3. Seven times as many individuals in the study thopght it was a

handicap to student teach in the school from which the student teacher had

graduated as thought it was an advantage. A majority of the individuals in

the study believed that commuting to the student teaching center sometimes

or usually caused problems.

4. One of every five student teachers did not know where he was to

student teach until a week or less before he was to start. One of every

six did not know the subject area and over one-half did not know the speci

fic subject matter until that time.

5. One of every six student teachers did not observe in a classroom

prior to the student teaching experience and two of every five did not

attend an orientation period at the school in which they were to do.their

211

student teaching.

6. More than one-fourth of the student teachers taught one-half

days or less. Secondary student teachers taught a greater percentage of

the day but elementary student teachers taught a greater number of days.

7. The six to nine week period of student teaching was preferred

by secondary student teachers, college supervisors, administrators, and

secondary cooperating teachers. The twelve to eighteen week period was

the choice of elementary student teachers and elementary cooperating

teachers.

8. A majority of all groups thought the student teacher should

start to student teach in his area of major concentration rather than in

both the major and the minor at the same time. All groups, except the

college supervisors, believed the best procedure in student teaching was

to continue teaching once started. College supervisors preferred that

the student teacher alternate units with the cooperating teacher.

9. A majority of the individuals .in the study thought the one week

period of observation prior to starting to student teach was best.

10. Of those student teachers who thought student teaching was too

short, three-fourths taught six weeks. Of those who thought student teach

ing was too long, three-fourths taught twelve or more weeks.

11. Despite the fact that lesson plan construction was considered

the greatest strength of the educational preparation by student teachers,

one of every six student teachers thought lesson plans were of little val

ue. One of every five student teachers thought their cooperating teacher

placed little value on lesson plans.

21212. A large majority of the cooperating teachers, administrators,

and college supervisors indicated they believed lesson plans were necessary

for successful teaching. This was the most commonly held view by student

teachers, but was the view of less than the majority.

13. One of every six student teachers received neither written nor

oral suggestions concerning their lesson plans from their cooperating

teachers.

14. More than eighty-four per cent of the student teachers and

college supervisors thought the academic preparation of the student teacher

was adequate or excellent as compared to 72.© per cent of the cooperating

teachers who expressed similar views. Methodology in the academic prepar

ation was assessed as the greatest weakness of the academic training.

15. Cooperating teachers rated the educational or professional

preparation as superior to the academic preparation of student teachers.

Student teachers and college supervisors believed the student teachers had

received better training in the academic fields than in their educational

course sequence.

lb. Individuals serving as cooperating teachers and college super

visors agreed with student teachers that the greatest strength of the edu

cational preparation was lesson plan construction. Student teachers were

assessed as being weakest in the practical application of theory. The

reasons for the weakness in practical application of theory were charac

terized by comments of college supervisors and cooperating teachers as:

lack of familiarity with the classroom situation at the time most education

and academic courses were taken; unfamiliarity with the age group being

213

taught; lack of breadth of personal experience which could be related to

the classroom; lack of cumulative experience gained in the classroom; and

lack of knowledge of the background of the students in the cooperating

school. The courses selected as being of greatest value were pre-student

teaching observation and educational methods.

17. Student teachers judged college courses to have had value or

lack of value due to the nature of the instruction rather than the nature

of the course content.

18. College supervisors believed student teachers made greater use

of audio and visual devices than did their cooperating teachers. In addi

tion, student teachers were described as being more willing to experiment

than were cooperating teachers.

19. Cooperating teachers more often described the use of audio and

visual devices as not feasible to use than did the student teachers. Stu

dent teachers more often depicted the devices as not being available in the

cooperating school than did the cooperating teachers.

20. Approximately three-fourths of all student teachers indicated

they preferred to be assigned to extracurricular activities and other non

classroom duties such as hall duty, playground supervision, ticket selling,

and noon duty. A majority of college supervisors, cooperating teachers,

and cooperating school administrators concurred. The only activity in

which a majority of student teachers participated was in the marking of

report cards.

21. • Approximately one-half of the individuals in the study believed

the case study to be a valuable tool in teaching while the other half

214

considered them to be too time consuming or of little value to the student

teacher.

22. Although 94*3 per cent of the cooperating school administra

tors indicated that the cooperating teachers were asked if they wanted to

work with a student teacher before one was assigned, only 63.6 per cent of

the cooperating teachers stated they were asked.

23. Although 34*2 per cent of the cooperating teachers stated they

did not know they were to be assigned a student teacher until school

started, only 18.6 per cent of the administrators said they waited until

that time to inform their teachers of the assignment.

24. A majority of the college supervisors, secondary cooperating

teachers and administrators felt the reason cooperating teachers agreed to

work with student teachers was because they felt an obligation to the pro

fession. A majority of elementary cooperating teachers reported they did

so because the experience provided them with an opportunity to learn. A

majority of the elementary student teachers thought their cooperating

teachers served in that capacity because it offered the cooperating teacher

an opportunity to share their teaching load.

25. College supervisors and administrators thought the cooperating

teachers looked upon the remuneration received as a token of appreciation.

26. A greater percentage of elementary cooperating teachers re

mained in the classroom the first day the student teacher taught than did

secondary cooperating teachers. One-fourth of the elementary student

teachers stated that the cooperating teacher was never out of the room

when the student teacher was in charge of the class. One-fourth of the

215

secondary student teachers reported theIr cooperating teacher never was in

the room while the student teacher was teaching.

27. Five of every six student teachers at the secondary level re

ported they continued to teach the remainder of the term once they had

started. A majority of elementary student teachers indicated they alter

nated units with the cooperating teacher.

28. One-half of the cooperating teachers felt their conferences

with the college supervisor were productive.

29. One-third of the student teachers described the teaching they

observed as being oriented toward a textbook presentation.

30. A majority of college supervisors and cooperating school admin

istrators thought it would be a satisfactory procedure for cooperating

teachers to work with more than one student teacher during the school year.

31. More than forty per cent of the college supervisors reported

they never informed the cooperating teacher of forthcoming visits, although

a majority of the cooperating teachers preferred to be made aware of the

visit.

32. Less than forty per cent of the secondary student teachers were

observed in the classroom by the administrator of the school, although more

than seventy per cent of the elementary student teachers were visited.

33. A majority of cooperating school administrators indicated they

preferred to be notified of the arrival of the college supervisor although

a majority of the college supervisors did not follow this procedure.

34. Two-thirds of the college supervisors stated they visited the

student teachers four or more times. Two-thirds of the student teachers

216reported they had less than four visits and approximately ten per cent

indicated they had only one visit or were not visited at all.

35. The weekly visit was preferred by all groups in the study

except the cooperating school administrator who preferred the college

supervisor visit every two weeks.

36. Forty per cent of the college supervisors indicated they vis

ited less than a full lesson in their visit to the classroom of the stu

dent teacher. More than eighty-five per cent of all groups thought the

college supervisor should observe the full lesson.

37. More than one-half of the elementary student teachers and more

than one-third of the secondary student teachers did not meet with their

college supervisors before going to the student teaching center.

38. Five per cent of the student teachers, 2.5 per cent of the ad

ministrators, and 1.0 per cent of the cooperating teachers reported that

cooperating teachers resented the visit of the college supervisor. Stu

dent teachers, 34.5 per cent; administrators, 18.8 per cent; and the

cooperating teachers, 13.0 per cent, depicted cooperating teachers as

being indifferent to the visits of the college supervisor. No college

supervisor felt he was resented and only one thought cooperating teachers

were generally indifferent.

39. Less than one-third of the cooperating,teachers discussed a

grade with the college supervisors.

40. Fifty student teachers, 5.6 per cent, and 49 cooperating teach

ers, 5.1 per cent, reported they had no conference of any kind with the

college supervisor.

217

41. One-third of the cooperating teachers reported the conferences

with the college supervisor were less than ten minutes in length. One-

third of the student teachers reported the conferences with the college

supervisor were less than ten minutes in length.

42. One of every six student teachers reported they had confer

ences with their cooperating teachers once a week or less frequently.

43. Administrators of the cooperating schools were characterized

as being tolerant or indifferent toward student teachers by 12.8 per cent

of the student teachers and 30.5 per cent of the college supervisors.

44. Communities, students, and staff members generally accepted

student teachers while almost three-fourths of the cooperating teachers

were described as enthusiastically accepting student teachers,

Conclusions

I. A number of student teaching centers were used by more than

one teacher training institution. Illustrative’ of the duplication was the

Helena School system which served as a student teaching center for Montana

State University, Western Montana College, University of Montana, and

Carroll College during the 1966-67 school year. During one visit to the

high school, while supervising student teachers, the writer encountered

three other college supervisors. It was not inconceivable that as many

as ten college supervisors could have been visiting the school system on

that day. There could have been four general secondary supervisors, four

at the elementary level and two subject matter specialists. It was equally

218

possible that each had been supplied individual transportation.•

Conclusion; a needless waste of funds for travel and per diem as well as

inefficient utilization of staff time characterized the program of super

vision of student teachers. z"\-

2. Comments and answers to questions by the respondents to the

questionnaires made it evident that some members of the student teaching

team were not aware of the objectives of the student teaching program and

did not understand the reasons underlying certain procedures of the pro

gram. Illustrative of the comments which indicated lack of clarity on

various phases of the student teaching program were questions asked by the

respondents on returned questionnaires or on accompanying letters:

a. What is the purpose of the log?

b . Gn what basis are student teachers graded?

c . Why do student teachers I get from different colleges student teach for different lengths of time?

d. Why are some student teachers supervised by college supervisors from academic departments and others by education staff members?

e . When we evaluate student teachers on the rating sheets, do we compare them to other student teachers, first year staff members or experienced teachers?

f. How is the amount of money paid to the teacher figured out?

go Does the college have a policy on how often the supervising teacher should allow the student teacher to teach alone? Our principal says never.

h. Why don't the colleges let us know earlier that we are going to have a student teacher?

i. How does the college screen student teachers? The one I had never should have been allowed to student teach.

219j . Should student teachers be assigned to study halls and extra

curricular activities?

This was further substantiated by questions asked of the writer when he was

in the field supervising student teachers. Conclusion: administrators and

cooperating teachers could do a better job of serving the student teaching

program if they better understood the purposes and procedures of the stu

dent teaching program.

3. The college supervisor has an important role in the student

teaching program. For maximum communication and benefit to the student

teaching program, concensus should be approached as closely as possible in

defining the role of the college supervisor. Indicative of the lack of

concensus were the variety of opinions expressed concerning:

a. frequency of visits

b . length of visits

c . attitudes of the college supervisor as perceived by administrators and cooperating teachers

d. the nature of the conferences

e. the attitude of the college supervisor toward serving in that role

f . the small percentage of student teachers who viewed the college supervisor as a resource person

g. public relations procedures not followed by college supervisors

Conclusion: a considerable gap existed between the role of college supervis

or as perceived by the person serving in that capacity and the way in which

the role was perceived by other members of the student teaching team.

4. Lists of college supervisors supplied t'o the writer by the vari

ous teacher training institutions were almost identical to the listings of

220staff members of the education department. In essence this equated teach

ing competence with supervisory ability.

Some college supervisors consistently made infrequent visits, short

visits, failed to hold conferences with the student teacher or cooperating

teacher on visits to the student teaching center, failed to contact the

administrator, and did not hold conferences with student teachers after

the completion of student teaching. Visits and conferences of some col

lege supervisors'were rated as unproductive. Comments illustrative of the

lack of competence of some college supervisors included:

a. My college supervisor was a mess.

b. The college supervisor listened outside the classroom door for five minutes.

c. My college supervisor visited class for a few minutes and offered two comments: I dressed well and had nice handwriting,

d. One college supervisor was great, the other was terrible.

e . If you knew my college supervisor, you would see why I was glad he only came once.

f . After four weeks with no visit from the college supervisor I called and asked when she was coming.

g. I never saw my college supervisor.

Conclusion: a number of college supervisors are incompetent to serve in

that capacity due to lack of ability, interest, or skill in communication.

5. Thirty-eight per cent of the student teachers felt their prep

aration in the education course sequence was somewhat or very insufficient.

Although a majority of student teachers thought lesson plan construction

was the greatest strength of the educational preparation, the majority did

not think they were necessary for successful teaching. The course selected

221as being the most valuable was the observation period in which they par

ticipated during some quarter or semester prior to student teaching. One

of every five student teachers said methods classes contained more than

fifty per cent duplication when compared to other methods courses. One of

every three student teachers felt the duplication was between twenty and

fifty per cent. Courses were rated valuable or lacking in value due to

the nature of the instruction rather than the nature of the course content.

A majority of student teachers felt inadequately prepared in their minor

or less competent than in their major. Methodology was rated as the

weakest area of the academic preparation. Many derogatory remarks, see

Table 18, page 96, were directed at the program of preparation.

Conclusion: most student teachers expressed some dissatisfaction or dis

pleasure with some phases of their preparation for student teaching.

6. Forty per cent of all individuals in the study did not believe,

for various reasons, that lesson plans were necessary for successful teach

ing. Comments of student teachers indicated that different cooperating

teachers and college supervisors viewed lesson plans as varying from a

mental picture of what one planned to do, to a listing of the principal

ideas to be covered, to a five or six page typed, detailed plan.

Conclusion: considerable disagreement existed between the groups involved

in the study on what constituted a lesson plan. The disagreement also

existed within ea'ch group as to the content of the lesson plan. A lack

of concensus was also evident on the value of lesson plans.

7. Some student teachers taught less than five weeks while others

participated in an eighteen week program of student teaching. Some student

222teachers taught two classes in one subject while others taught as many as

six classes in four subjects. Some student teachers taught only in their

major while others taught only in their minor and most taught in boi h.

Some student teachers taught classes outside of their majors or minors.

Some student teachers were assigned a multitude of non-classroom duties,

others did not participate in any. Some student teachers were required

to enroll in classes, in the evening or on Saturdays, while student teach

ing full time, while others were not. Some student teachers did their

student teaching under the supervision of first year teachers. Some stu

dent teachers met with their college supervisors before going to the coop

erating school. Some student teachers had conferences with their college

supervisors on campus after the completion of student teaching. Some stu

dent teachers attended an orientation program at the cooperating school

where they were informed of local rules and procedures. Some student

teachers were never allowed to teach unsupervised while others were never

supervised. Some student teachers were notified of their student teaching

center, cooperating teacher, subjects they were to teach, and specific

subject matter several months before starting to student teach while others

did not know until a week or less before or until arrival at the cooperat

ing school. Some cooperating teachers did not know they were to have a

student teacher until the student teacher introduced himself to the teacher.

Conclusion: Problem causing inconsistencies existed in the student teach

ing programs which were in no way designed to meet individual needs and

differences of student teachers. Certain other procedures which were con

sistent appeared to have relatively little value.

2238. Student teachers were generally well accepted by students, the

community and the staff of the cooperating school. Administrators were

less enthusiastic about the student teaching program. Elementary student

teachers were generally accepted with more enthusiasm than were those in

secondary programs.

9. Cooperating teachers placed a significantly lower value on

lesson plans than did administrators of the schools in which they taught.

Some teachers indicated they served as cooperating teachers because of

remuneration. Some teachers stated they looked upon the student teacher

as someone with whom they could share their lead. Other teachers replied

that they viewed serving as a cooperating teacher as a chore. Still other

cooperating teachers characterized their own teaching as textbook oriented

rather than on developing basic concepts or on teacher developed units.

In addition, one-third of all cooperating teachers were character

ized as being textbook oriented in their teaching. One-fourth of secon

dary student teachers were never supervised by their cooperating teachers.

One-fourth of all elementary student teachers never had an opportunity to

teach without supervision. One of every six student teachers had confer

ences with their cooperating teacher on a weekly or less frequent basis.

Cooperating teachers differed significantly from administrators on the

efficiency of administrative procedures used by the administrator. All

groups thought the administrator of the cooperating school should observe

the student teacher in action but did not do so as frequently as judged

necessary. Only a small percentage of student teachers who taught in win

ter or spring received orientation to the cooperating school from the

224administrator. Some student teachers who student taught in the fall did

not receive an orientation to the school.

No evidence appeared in the study in the way of responsescomments,

or letters that indicated that administrators of cooperating schools carried

on any effective evaluation of student teaching programs and personnel in

their schools.

Conclusion: a need for improvement exists in cooperating schools in the

areas of administrative procedures, orientation, evaluation of staff and

program, and in awareness by the administrator of practices and procedures

used by cooperating teachers.

10. The writer frequently found, from personal experience, inter

views with directors of student teaching, and letters and comments accom

panying returned questionnaires that: materials which were sent to the

cooperating schools did not reach the cooperating teachers; materials

received by the cooperating teachers were not understood; certain proce

dures of the college supervisor and the teacher training institution were

not clearly understood and inadvertently hampered good public relations;

administrators failed to inform teacher training institutions of resigna

tions of persons who were to serve as cooperating teachers; teachers were

not informed of assignment of student teachers; student teachers were not

informed of assignments early enough; student teachers did not know of

local rules and regulations covering different procedures; student teachers

did not know of the availability of materials and aids to teaching; stu

dents were not informed of the status of student teachers; cooperating

teachers were not consulted on grading procedures or informed of the grades

22$given to the student teachers with whom they worked; and college super

visors were unaware of desired procedures in the cooperating school and

in their own program of student teaching.

Most of the illustrations included above existed in a minority of

cases or were the results of individual actions. However, the frequency

of occurrence plus the needlessness of the occurrence indicated that a

lack of communication was prevalent in the student teaching program.

Conclusion: the single greatest problem-causing factor in the student

teaching program has been the failure to establish clear, two-way lines

of communication between the teacher training institutions and the

cooperating schools and between various members of the student teaching

team.

Re commendations

This study has combined breadth and depth in the examination of the

student teaching program in Montana, Numerous findings and conclusions

have been presented. The writer emphatically believes the evidence pre

sented is conclusive to a degree that it offers a mandate for action.

It is imperative that this action be taken to increase the effectiveness

of present programs and to meet demands of the growing and changing student

teaching programs in the state.

In view of the findings and conclusions reached, the following

recommendations are made:

226

I. Investigation should be instituted to determine the feasibil

ity of employing a number of full time off-campus supervisors of student

teachers. These resident supervisors, in such student teaching centers

as Great Falls, Helena, Butte, Anaconda-Deer Lodge, and other similar

shared centers could supervise student teachers from all teacher training

institutions, This would eliminate a considerable amount of travel and

per diem as well as releasing staff members for teaching, advising, and

supervision in areas not covered by the off-campus supervisors. It would

further aid those subject matter specialists who are supervising under

reimbursed programs by relieving them of the necessity of supervising

non-reimbursed subject matter areas. The supervisor, shared cooperatively

without a specific teacher training institution designation, would elimin

ate the possibility of persons feeling it was not fair to be supervised

by a representative from another teacher training institution.

Additional investigation should be instituted to determine the

feasibility of a central state office which would assign student teachers

to student teaching centers for all teacher training institutions. Pilot

programs should be tried in the assignment of student teachers in pairs

to a single cooperating teacher. The student teachers could be from the

same institution or from different institutions. The assignment of two

student teachers, one with a major and one with a minor in the same sub

ject, to the same cooperating teacher should be investigated as a means

of supplementing the preparation of the student teacher with the minor.

The two student teachers could each teach one class on an individual basis

and teach one class with the cooperating teacher on a team teaching basis

227with the' cooperating teacher serving as the master teacher and the student

teachers in charge of the small group discussions.

Investigation should be initiated into the possibility of using an

entire department of a large school as a center of placement for six to

ten student teachers who are majoring in the specialty of that department.

This arrangement offers the possibility of experience in team teaching,

small discussion groups, microteaching, and the supervision of the student

teachers by a representative of the teacher training institution who is a

specialist in that subject area. It also offers opportunities for depart

mental staff to cooperatively plan with a number of student teachers and

the college subject matter specialist for the presentation of new and dif

ferent approaches in that field of study. Similar assignments could be

made on the elementary level to foster and encourage, cooperative planning

and experimentation.

2. Further investigation should be made into the feasibility of

offering either a graduate course or workshop for cooperating teachers and

administrators which would be designed to acquaint the participants with

the goals and objectives of the student teaching program. Understanding

of the program and the theoretical aspects of supervising student teachers

could be developed. Four possible approaches should be investigated for

feasibility and desireability.

a. An on-campus course offered during the summer session for graduate credit.

b . An extension course offered during the year in the communities in which student teaching centers are located.

c. A full time workshop offered on campus for one or two weeks prior to or following summer sessions.

228d. An evening course taught by the cooperative off-campus student

teacher supervisor in the community of his residence.

Investigation should be conducted to determine if such a course

should be_ general in nature or oriented toward different levels of teach

ing, different areas of subject matter, or confined to classroom teachers

with separate courses offered for administrators.

Prior to the initiating of such courses or workshops, departmental

administrative officers from the various teacher training institutions

should cooperatively plan the goals and objectives of the course and arrive

at an agreed concept of the course content.

3. Additional research and review of literature should be carried

on to determine how the role of college supervisor is perceived by each of

the members of the student teaching team. Steps then should be taken to

close the gaps in the existing perception of the role of the college super

visor.

4. Administrative heads of education departments should include

student teacher supervision in the job description furnished to applicants

for positions on the staff of the department. A seminar or training pro

gram should be developed at each teacher training institution to develop

the competencies needed for the position and to explain the procedures used

by that institution in their program. It Is imperative that administrative

heads of departments make an immediate concerted effort to evaluate the

competency of each staff member serving as a college supervisor to deter

mine if he or she is making a positive contribution to the student teaching

program and to the public image desired by the institution. Those with

229greater competencies in other areas should be assigned te those areas of

endeavor. Those incompetent in other areas in addition to supervision of

student teachers should be replaced.

5. Since more than one-half of the student teachers indicated there

was at least twenty per cent duplication in the methods courses, since more

than one-third of the student teachers felt they had insufficient prepara

tion in their education course sequence, since student teachers placed

relatively little value on the necessity of lesson plans, and since stu

dent teachers relate the value of a course to the instructor rather than

to the course content, it is strongly recommended that a careful look be

taken at the sequence of courses which constitutes the professional prep

aration of prospective teachers.

Further exploration should be conducted into the cooperative planning

of a single methods course taught by a team of specialists in methodology

and individuals competent in each subject matter area along mutually agreed

and cooperatively developed guidelines. All courses should be examined to

determine if they are accomplishing what they were designed to accomplish.

Further, if teacher training institutions expect teachers in student teach

ing centers to accept student teachers and aid in their training and if

administrators are expected to hire the graduates of the teacher training

institutions, concerted effort should be expended to make greater use of

these individuals in the evaluation of the program of preparation.

A careful examination should be made of the minor area of concentra

tion to see if it has outlasted its usefulness. Education departments

should- carefully examine the minor areas to determine if, through the

230addition of required courses and the addition of numerous prerequisites,

some departments have not, in effect, increased the scope of the minor to

the point where it rivals the major in magnitude and seriously handicaps

the individual student teacher from attaining the desired depth of training

in his chosen major field of concentration.

6. Cooperative research and study should be conducted to examine

the views of the various members of the student teaching team and the

staffs of the various teacher training institutions to determine the con

tent and form of an adequate lesson plan. Cooperating teachers, college

supervisors, cooperating school administrators, and student teachers should

meet with instructors of methods courses to cooperatively develop the

guidelines for form and content of the lessen plan. Guidelines developed

should be such that they satisfy the greatest number of members of the

student teaching team and should be comprehensive enough to be of value

and realistic enough that the time involved in their development does not

preclude their usage.

7. Each teacher training institution should evaluate its own pro

gram of student teaching for inconsistencies within the program and for

practices which no longer are or ever were of much value. Some of the

phases and practices■which are in need of examination are listed below:

a. The log or student teaching notebook

b. The case study or study of an atypical student

c. Assignment of student teachers to schools to which they can and do commute

d. Assignment of student teachers to schools from which they graduated

231e „ Length of the student teaching program

f. The number of supervisory visits

go The use of subject matter specialists as college supervisors

ho Notification of student teachers of assignment to the student teaching center, cooperating teacher, and subject area

i . Grading procedures and philosophy and notification of grades

j o The professional quarter or semester

In addition to the evaluation of their own program, each teacher

training institution should extend lines of communication to other teacher

training institutions to determine research and experimentation being con

ducted at other institutions.

8. Each teacher training institution should attempt to determine

the reasons why 10.9 per cent of the student teaching team in cooperating

schools are tolerant or indifferent to the student teachers. Attempts

should be made to determine why student teachers at the elementary level

are accepted by the staff and administration with greater enthusiasm than

are those at the secondary level.

9. It is strongly recommended that cooperating school administra

tors make a concerted effort to improve certain facets of the student

teaching program in their schools to bring about the following changes:

a. More careful selection of cooperating teachers and improvement in administrative procedures of notification of assignment

b . Increased cognizance and better assessment of practices and procedures used by their staff members working with student teachers

c. A greater awareness on the part of the administrator of the existing attitudes of his staff toward various portions of the student teaching and general education programs of his school.

232d . Increased observation of the student teacher in action and

availability for conferences with student teachers.

e. A cooperatively planned program of in-service training for cooperating teachers which utilizes the knowledge of superior cooperating teachers, experienced administrators, college personnel, and recognized experts in the field.

10. It is recommended that a concerted effort be made by each teacher

training institution to determine the lines of communication which are

operating ineffectually for that institution with its student teaching

centers and the personnel of those centers. Each teacher training insti

tution should further examine the degree to which it has and could commun

icate with other colleges and universities of the state who are engaged

in preparing teachers. Efforts should be made to standardize the programs'

within the limitations of local communities, needs of their students, and

experimental programs.

Each institution should study the possibility of developing new

and more effective means of communication between members of the student ■

teaching team. Ways of increasing the degree of acceptance of student

teachers and the studentteaching program within each institution by the

cooperating schools and their personnel and by the general public should

be explored by all of the teacher training institutions.

APPENDIX

Appendix A

Cover Letter Sent to All Participants

IJune, 1967

Dear Fellow Educator:A research project concerning student teaching is being conducted

under the joint sponsorship of the School of Education, Montana State University and the writer of this letter. The purpose of this research is to define attitudes and opinions commonly held by college supervisors, administrators, cooperating teachers and student teachers concerning problems of student teachers.

Enclosed is one of five questionnaires which are being sent to elementary student teachers, secondary student teachers, cooperating teachers, cooperating school administrators and college supervisors.A questionnaire will be sent to all persons who participated in the student teaching program this past school year from all eight teacher preparation institutions in the state of Montana.

It is quite generally agreed that student teaching is a vital part of the teacher preparation program. Any problems student teachers have which detract from the experience make it less worthwhile.

The enclosed questionnaire is not an evaluation of any individual, cooperating school or teacher preparation program. Information obtained will not be used as such. The study is designed to ascertain the present situation in Montana and to develop criteria for improved programs of teacher preparation.

Since the validity of the study depends upon a high percentage of returns, may I respectfully request your assistance. As a present or future member of the teaching profession, I hope you will take fifteen to thirty minutes and complete the enclosed questionnaire. A separate answer sheet is enclosed so the replies can be machine tabulated.Please note that pencil should be used to answer the questions and that answer blanks run across the page on the answer sheet.

A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed with the questionnaire for your convenience. Please feel free to enclose a sheet of recommendations.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.Sincerely

George F. Stagg School of Education Reid HallMontana State University Bozeman, Montana

Appendix B

Elementary Student Teacher Questionnaire

237

Elementary Student Teacher Questionnaire

Name__________ _____________________ College_______Name of the school in which you did your student teaching— _ _ City or town in which this school is lorated

1.2.

3 .

4

6.

9.

IL

16 .

(b ) f e m a le A ge(a) u n d e r 21(b) 21 - 23(c) 24 - 30(d) o v e r 30

M a r i t a l e ta tu e(a ) m a r r i e d(b ) s in g le(c ) d iv o r c e d(d ) w id o w o r w id o w e r

T im e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g d o n e(a ) f a l l(b ) w in te r(c ) s p r in g(d) s u m m e r

L e v e l o f s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(a) g r a d e s I to 6(b) g r a d e s 7 o r 8

P l a c e o f s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(a) h o m e to w n(b) y o u r c o l le g e c o m m u n ity(c ) b o th(d) n e i th e r

D id you s tu d e n t t e a c h in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h y o u g r a d u a te d ?(a ) y e s fb ) no

D id y o u d o y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in th e s c h o o l in w h ic h y o u d id y o u r o b s e r v a t io n ?(a) y e s(b ) no(c) d id n o t o b s e r v e

S is e o f th e h ig h s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h y o u g r a d u a te d .(a ) u n d e r 50(b ) SI - 100(c ) 101 - 300(d ) 301 - 500(a ) o v e r 500W e re y o u g iv e n a p r e f e r e n c e in y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g c o m m u n ity ?'a ) y e s(b ) no

I f g iv e n a p r e f e r e n c e , w e r e you a s s ig n e d to th e c o m m u n ity o f y o u r

(a ) y e s

H ow lo n g a h e a d o f t im e w e r e you n o t i f ie d o f th e c o m m u n ity a s s ig n e d .(a ) a q u a r t e r o r lo n g e r b e f o r e(b) a m o n th b e f o r e(c ) a w e e k b e f o r e(d) l e s s t h a n a w e e k b e f o r e W hen w e r e y o u n o t i f ie d w h o y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s w o u ld b e ?(a ) a q u a r t e r o r lo n g e r b e f o r e(b ) a m o n th b e f o r e(c ) a w e e k b e f o r e(d) u p o n a r r i v a l a t th e s c h o o l W e re y o u in v i te d to th e p r e - s c h o o l o r i e n t a t i o n ?(a) p r e - s c h o o l in fa ll

(c ) p r e - s tu d e n t t e a c h in g o th e r th a n in th e f a l l

I f y o u d id y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in a c o m m u n ity o th e r th a n y o u r c o l le g e c o m m u n ity , d id y o u -(a ) c o m m u te(b) l iv e w ith p a r e n t s(c ) l iv e w ith f r i e n d s(d) s e c u r e p r i v a t e l iv in g q u a r t e r s(e ) l iv e d in m y c o l le g e c o m m u n ityIf y o u s e c u r e d p r i v a t e l iv in g q u a r t e r s , w a s t h i s d o n e -fa ) t h r o u g h th e c o l le g e(b ) t h r o u g h th e c o o p e r a t in g sc h o o l

(c ) th ro u g h y o u r o w n e f f o r t s 38.(d) l iv e d in m y c o l le g e c o m m u n ity

17. W hen d id y o u f i r s t l e a r n w h ic h g r a d e s y o u w e r e to te a c h ?(a ) m o r e th a n a m o n th b e f o r e(b) b e tw e e n a m o n th a n d a w e e k b e f o r e(c ) l e s s th a n a w e e k b e f o r e(d ) a f t e r a r r i v a l a t th e s c h o o l 39.

18. D id y o u s t a r t te a c h in g -(a ) th e f i r s t w e e k (d) th e f o u r th w e e k(b ) th e e e c te d w e e k (e ) f i f t h o r l a t e r w ee !(c ) th e t h i r d w e e k

19. D id y o u s t a r t t o t e a c h in th e a r e a o f y o u r g r e a t e s t p r e p a r a t i o n ?

(b ) Yee 4 ° ‘20 . O n ce y o u s t a r t e d to te a c h in y o u r f i r s t

a s s ig n m e n t d id y o u -(a ) t e a c h th e r e m a i n d e r o f y o u r t e r m(b ) a l t e r n a t e w i th th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r(c ) t e a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e 41.

c l a s s to th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r21. D id y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r r e m a in

in th e ro o m th e f i r s t d a y y o u ta u g h t?(a ) y e s(b) no

2 2 . D id th e f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r p e r m i ty o u to te a c h w ith o u t b e in g in th e 42 .ro o m w ith y o u ?

(b) f r e q u e n t ly(c ) o c c a s s io n a l ly(d) s e ld o m( • ) n e v e r 4 3 .

I n d ic a t e i f y o u p a r t i c ip a t e d in th e fo llo w in g :

Y e s N o A c t iv i ty2 3 . (a ) (b) r e g i s t r a t i o n2 4 . (a ) (b) n o o n d u ty2 5 . (a ) (b) d e te n t io n 442 6 . (a ) (b) h a l l d u ty27 . (a ) (b) t i c k e t s e l l i n g2 8 . (a ) (b) m a r k in g r e p o r t c a r d s2 9 . (a ) (b) c l a s s m e e t in g s3 0 . (a ) (b) p l a y g ro u n d s u p e r v i s io n 4 5 .31. (a ) (b) c lu b m e e t in g s3 2 . #a ) (b ) g u id a n c e s e r v i c e s3 3 . W h a t p e r c e n t o f th e s c h o o l d a y

w e r e y o u s c h e d u le d f o r c l a s s e s a n do th e r a s s ig n e d d u t i e s in y o u r f i r s t a s s ig n m e n t?(a ) l e s s th a n 50%(b) a b o u t 50%(c ) a b o u t 75%(d) n e a r ly 100%

3 4 . D id y o u r e g i s t e r a t y o u r c o l l e g e -la ) a t r e g u l a r r e g i s t r a t i o n ^(b) a t e a r l y r e g i s t r a t i o n(c) a t l a te r e g i s t r a t i o n(d) b y m a i l

3 5 . H ow m a n y c r e d i t s o th e r th a n s tu d e n t t e a c h in g d id y o u c a r r y d u r in g th e q u a r t e r o r s e m e s t e r o f y o u r s tu d e n t te a c h in g ?

(b) l e s s th a n s ix(c ) s e v e n to e le v e n 49(d) tw e lv e to f i f te e n(a) o v e r f i f te e n

3 6 . D id y o u m a k e a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r y o u r H o u s in g in y o u r c o l le g e c o m m u n ity - la ) b e f o r e s tu d e n t te a c h in g(b) a f t e r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(c) d u r in g s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(d) s a m e h o u s in g f o r b o th(e ) d id n o t r e t u r n to c a m p u s

37 . D id y o u m e e t w ith y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o rin h is o r h e r o f f ic ia l c a p a c i ty p r i o r to 51.d o in g y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g ?(a) y e s(b) no

How m a n y t i m e s w e r e y o u s u p e r v i s e d by y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?

(c ) t h r e e t i m e s(d) f o u r t im e s(e) m o r e th a n f o u r t i m e sW h at w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th o f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s c l a s s r o o m v i s i t s ?(a ) l e s s th a n 15 m in u te s (e ) n o v i s i t(b) 15 to 30 m in u te s(c ) 30 m in u te s t o a n h o u r(d ) m o r e t h a n a n h o u r (*) n o v i s i tD id y o u c o n f e r w i th th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r th e d a y o f th e v i s i t - fa ) b e f o r e th e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t(b) a f t e r th e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t(c ) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r(d) n e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e rHow m a n y c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s v i s i te d

(a ) n o n e

(d) t h r e e(e ) f o u r o r m o r eW as y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r p r e s e n t

d u r in g c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?

(b) scene of the time(c ) a l l o f t h e t im eT h e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s c o n f e r e n c e

u s u a l ly l a s t e d -(a ) l e s s th a n t e n m i n u t e s(b) 10 to 30 m in u te s(c ) 30 to 60 m in u te s(d) o v e r 60 m in u te s(e ) n o c o n f e r e n c eW e re y o u in f o r m e d o f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s v i s i t s a t l e a s t a d a y a h e a d o f t im e ?(a) n o (c ) s o m e t im e s(b) a lw a y s (d ) s e ld o mW e re y o u in f o r m e d o f y o u r g r a d e in s tu d e n t te a c h in g b y -(a ) y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r(b) y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r(c ) r e g u l a r c o l le g e g r a d e s l ip(d) d i r e c t o r o f s tu d e n t te a c h in g

D id y o u h a v e a n y c o n f e r e n c e s w ith th e p r in c ip a l in h i e c a p a c i ty a #a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r ?(a ) y e s(b) noW as th e n a tu r e o f th e c o n f e r e n c e p r i m a r i l y(a ) s o c ia l(b) r e l a t e d to t h e c l a s s r o o m v is i t(c ) r e l a t e d to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s(d ) n o c o n f e r e n c e sD id th e s c h o o l a d m i n i s t r a t o r o b s e r v e a n y o f y o u r c l a s s e s ?(a ) no(b) o n c e(c) m o r e th a n o n c eD id y o u s u b m i t l e s s o n p la n s to y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r p r i o r to e a c h

(a) y e s (c ) s o m e t im e s0>) no (d ) f i r s t few u n i t s o n lyC o n c e rn in g y o u r l e s s o n p la n s , d id y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r -(a ) o f f e r w r i t t e n e u g g e e t io n a(b) o f f e r o r a l s u g g e s t io n s(c ) f a i l to o f f e r a n y s u g g e s t io n s(d) o f f e r b o th w r i t t e n a n d o r a l s u g g e s t io n s H ow o f t e r d id y o u c o n f e r w ith y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i ly (c ) tw ic e a w e e k(b) w e e k ly (d) s e ld o m

238

5 2 . H ow o f te n d id y o u c o n f e r w i th y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i ly(b) w e e k ly(c) tw ic e a w e e k(d ) s e ld o m(e) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d t e a c h e r

5 3 . H ow o t t e r d id y o u c o n f e r w ith y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i ly(b) w e e k ly(c ) tw ic e a w e e k(d) s e ld o m(e) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

5 4 . W hat w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th o f y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 30 m in u te s

5 5 . W h at w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th o f y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 3 0 m in u te s(d) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d te a c h e r

56 . W h a t w a s t h e a v e r a g e le n g th o f y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b ) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 30 m in u te s(d ) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

5 7 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b) m o s t l y d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c ) e v e n ly d iv id e d b e tw e e n p la n n in g

a n d e v a lu a t io n(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e

5 8 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w i th y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b) m o s t ly d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c ) e v e n ly d iv id e d b e tw e e n p la n n in g

a n d e v a lu a t io n(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e(e) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d t e a c h e r

5 9 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b) m o s t ly d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c ) e v e n ly d iv id e d b e tw e e n p la n n in g

a n d e v a lu a t io n(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e(e ) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

60 . D id you f e e l y o u r a c a d e m ic p r e p a r a t i o n

(a ) v e r y in s u f f ic ie n t(b) s o m e w h a t i n s u f f ic ie n t(c ) a d e q u a te(d) e x c e l le n t

61. D id y o u f e e l y o u r p r e p a r a t i o n in y o u r e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r o g r a m w a s te ) v e r y i n s u f f ic ie n t(b ) s o m e w h a t in s u f f ic ie n t(c ) a d e q u a te(d ) e x c e l le n t

6 2 . W h at d o y o u f e e l w a s y o u r g r e a t e s t d e f ic ie n c y in y o u r a c a d e m ic p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) m e th o d o lo g y(b) g e n e r a l s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e(d) o n e s p e c i f ic a r e a

6 3 . W hat d o y o u f e e l w a s y o u r g r e a t e s t a r e a o f s t r e n g th in y o u r e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r o g r a m(a) m e th o d o lo g y(b) g e n e r a l s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c ) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e(d) o n e s p e c i f ic a r e a

6 4 . W h at d o y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a o f w e a k n e s s in y o u r e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a ) l e s s o n a n d u n i t p l a n c o n s t r u c t io n(b) u s e o f a u d io - v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s(c ) t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n(d) g r a d e d e t e r m in a t io n(e) p r a c t i c a l a p p l ic a t io n o f th e o r y

6 5 . W hat d o you f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a o f s t r e n g th in y o u r e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) l e s s o n a n d u n i t p la n c o n s t r u c t io n(b) u s e o f a u d io - v i s u a l

m a t e r i a l s(c ) t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n(d) g r a d e d e te r m in a t io n(e) p r a c t i c a l a p p l ic a t io n o f th e o r y

6 6 . W h ich of th e fo llo w in g c o u r s e s w a s of g r e a t e s t v a lu e to y o u in y o u r s tu d e n t te a c h in g ?(a) e d u c a t io n a l p s y c h o lo g y(b ) p r e - s tu d e n t te a c h in g o b s e r v a t io n(c ) e d u c a t io n a l m e th o d s(d ) a u d io - v i s u a l(e ) t e s t s a n d m e a s u r e m e n t s

6 7 . In th o s e c o u r s e s w h ic h w e r e th e g r e a t e s t h e lp to y o u in p r e p a r i n g you f o r s tu d e n t te a c h in g , d o y o u f e e l th e y w e r e m o s t h e lp fu l d u e to t h e ta ) n a tu r e o f th e c o u r s e c o n te n t(b) n a tu r e o f th e m e th o d of

i n s t r u c t io n68 . In th o s e c o u r s e s w h ic h w e r e th e l e a s t

h e lp , do y o u f e e l th e y w e r e l e a s t h e lp fu l d u e to la ) th e n a tu r e o f th e c o n te n t(b) th e n a tu r e o f th e m e th o d of

in s t r u c t io n6 9 . H ow m u c h d u p l ic a t io n e x i s t e d in

th e m e th o d s c o u r s e s y o u to o k ?(a) l i t t l e o r n o d u p l ic a t io n(b) s o m e b u t l e s s th a n 20%(c) 20 to 50% d u p l ic a t io n(d) o v e r 50% d u p l ic a t io n

7 0 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e s t a f f o f th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

71. T h e a t t i tu d e o f y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s w a s

(a) t o l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

7 2 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e a d m in i s t r a t i o n of th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l t o w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e o f:(a) to l e r a n c e(b) in d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c ) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d ) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

7 3 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e s tu d e n t b o d y o f th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c ) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

7 4 . T h e c o m m u n ity in w h ic h th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l i s lo c a te d h a s a n a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s w h ic h c a n b e s t b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a ) t o l e r a n c e(b) in d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

7 5 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g m o s t c lo s e ly r e f l e c t s y o u r v ie w s c o n c e rn in g th e p e r io d o f o b s e r v a t io n im m e d ia te ly p r e c e d in g y o u r s t a r t i n g to te a c h ?(a) o b s e r v e o n e w e e k(b) o b s e r v e tw o w e e k s(c ) o b s e r v e t h r e e w e e k s(d) s t a r t to t e a c h im m e d ia te ly

7 6 . O n c e th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r h a s s t a r t e d to te a c h , h e s h o u ld -(a ) t e a c h th e r e m a i n d e r o f h i s t e r m(b) a l t e r n a t e u n i te w ith th e

c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r(c ) te a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e

c l a s s to th e c o o p e r a t in g te a c h e r7 7 . T h e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p r o g r a m is b e s t

s e r v e d i f th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r - fa ) i s p r e s e n t a t a l l t im e s(b) i s p r e s e n t o n e - h a l f th e t im e(c) i s n o t p r e s e n t

7 8 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w ith y o u r v ie w s o f l e s s o n p la n s ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l te a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n su m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n i ts(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

7 9 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w ith y o u r v ie w s c o n c e r n in g c a s e s tu d i e s r e q u i r e d in s o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p r o g r a m s ?(a) a v a lu a b le to o l in te a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g

f o r t h e i r v a lu e(c) h e lp fu l in g a in in g a n u n d e r s ta n d in g

o f d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f s tu d e n ts(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

8 0 . S o m e s tu d e n ts t e a c h in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h th e y w e r e g r a d u a te d .D o y o u v ie w t h i s a s :(a ) a d v a n ta g e o u s to th e s tu d e n t

t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e(b) a h a n d ic a p(c ) i m m a t e r i a l

81. S o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c o m m u te to th e c o m m u n ity i n w h ic h th e y d o t h e i r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g . Doy o u f e e l t h i s h i n d e r s o n - th e - jo b p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) u s u a l ly (c ) s e ld o m(b) s o m e t im e s (d ) no

8 2 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a llo w e d to d o t h e i r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h th e y w e r e g r a d u a te d ?(*> y e«(b) y e s , i f l a r g e s c h o o l(c ) y e s , i f s m a l l s c h o o l

8 3 . W h ich p o r t io n o f th e s h c o o l y e a r o f f e r s th e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s iv e v iew o f th e te a c h in g s i t u a t io n ?(a) fall(b) w in t e r(c ) s p r in g(d) n o d i f f e r e n c e

8 4 . T h e o p t im u m t o t a l l e n g th o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e I s -(a ) s ix w e e k s(b) n in e w e e k s(c) tw e lv e w e e k s(d ) e ig h te e n w e e k s

239

8 5 . S tu d e n t te a c h in g w o u ld b e m o s t w o r th w h i le if d o n e -fa ) a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e

■ e n io r y e a r(b) d u r in g th e s e n i o r y e a r(c ) a f t e r th e c o m p le t io n of

a l l c o u r s e w o rk8 6 . A p p r o x im a te ly how m a n y to t a l h o u r s d id you

a c tu a l ly te a c h d u r in g y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g ?(a ) l e s s th a n 20 h o u r s(b) 20 to 46 h o u r s(c ) 40 t o 60 h o u r s(d) 60 to 80 h o u r s(e ) m o r e th a n 80 h o u r s

8 7 . D o y o u f e e l t h i s a m o u n t w a s :(a ) to o few(b ) to o m a n y(c ) a b o u t r ig h t

8 8 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in s o m e e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t y ?(a ) y e s(b ) n o

8 9 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in d u t i e s a s h a l l d u ty , lu n c h d u ty , t i c k e t s e l l i n g , f e e c o l l e c t io n , e f c , ?(a ) y e s(b ) no

9 0 . T h e p u r p o s e o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e

ta ) to r e c e i v e a d v ic e a n d in s t r u c t io n(b) to a n s w e r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r q u e s t io n s(c ) a c o m b in a t io n o f th e tw o

91. T h e o p t im u m l e n g th of th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e i s -(a ) 10 m in u te s(b) 30 m in u te s(c ) 60 m in u te s(d) a s n e e d e d

9 2 . S tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t in g te a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s s h o u ld b e h e ld -(a) p r i o r to th e l e s s o n(b) fo l lo w in g th e l e s s o n(c) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r th e le s s o n

T h e n u m b e r o f t e a c h in g a id e a v a i l a b l e to t e a c h e r s v a r i e s in d i f f e r e n t s c h o o ls . P l e a s e c h e c k th e a p p r o p r i a t e b la n k s , (c h e c k o n ly o n e f o r e a c h n u m b e r )

T e a c h in g A id A v a i la b le D id U se N o t A v a i la b le N e t F e a s ib l e

93 . T a p e R e c o r d e r (a) (b) (d)9 4 . R e c o r d p l a y e r (a ) (b) (d)95 . F i lm P r o j e c t o r (a) (b) (d)96 . F i l m S t r ip P r o j e c t o r (a) (b) (d)97 . S l id e P r o j e c t o r (a ) (b) (d)98 . O p a q u e P r o j e c t o r (a ) (b) (d)99 . O v e r h e a d P r o j e c t o r (a ) (b) (d)

100. F la n n e l B o a rd (a) (b) (d)101. F l ip C h a r t s (a) (b) (d)

102. W h ic h o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t e x p r e s s e d th e v ie w s o f y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r a b o u t l e s s o n p la n s ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c ) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n i te(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

103. W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g b e s t e x p r e s s e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r a b o u t l e s s o n p l a n e ?(a) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c ) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n i te(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e(e) d id n o t h a v e tw o t e a c h e r s

104. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t e x p r e s s e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r a b o u t l e s s o n p la n e ?(a) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l te a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n i te(d ) of r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e(e ) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

105. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c h a r a c t e r i s e s th e t e a c h in g y o u o b s e r v e d ?(a ) b u i l t o n u n d e r s ta n d in g b a s i c

c o n c e p ts(b) o r i e n t e d to w a rd te x tb o o k

p r e s e n t a t i o n s(c ) b a s e d on t e a c h e r d e v e lo p e d u n i t s(d) no a p p a r e n t o r g a n i s a t i o n

106. D o y o u th in k c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s lo o k u p o n s e r v in g in t h i s c a p a c i ty a s(a ) a c h o r e(b ) a n o b l ig a t io n to th e p r o f e s s io n(c) s o m e o n e to t a k e p a r t o f t h e i r lo a d(d ) a n o p p o r tu n i ty to le a r n(e) a c h a n c e to p ic k u p s o m e m o n e y

107. W hat i s y o u r p r e f e r e n c e c o n c e rn in g n o t i f ic a t io n o f v i s i t s o f th ec o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) p r e f e r to k n o w a h e a d o f t im e(b) p r e f e r n o t to know a h e a d o f t im e(c ) n o p r e f e r e n c e

108. H ow o f te n d o y o u f e e l th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s h o u ld v i s i t y o u ?(a) w e e k ly(b) e v e r y tw o w e e k s(c ) e v e r y t h r e e w e e k s(d ) o n c e d u r in g s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(e ) tw ic e d u r in g s tu d e n t t e a c h in g

109. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g c o r r e s p o n d s w i th y o u r v ie w s o n v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) s h o u ld a r r i v e b e f o r e c l a s s a n d

r e m a in f o r th e f u l l l e s s o n(b) s h o u ld v i s i t f i r s t h a lf o f l e s s o n(c ) s h o u ld v i s i t l a s t h a l f o f l e s s o n(d) s h o u ld l im i t v i s i t to 10 m in u te s

HO. D id y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ia l a r r i v e b e f o r e c l a s s a n d r e m a in

f o r th e fu l l l e s s o n(b) v i s i t th e f i r s t h a l f th e l e s s o n(c ) v i s i t th e l a s t h a l f th e l e s s o n(d ) l i m i t h i s v i s i t to 10 m in u te s

1U. H ow d id y o u v ie w th e f i r s t v i s i t o f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) w ith n e r v o u s a n t ic ip a t io n(b) a s a n e c e s s a r y e v i l(c ) w ith p l e a s u r a b l e a n t ic ip a t io n(d) a s a d i s tu r b in g in f lu e n c e(e) a s a r e s o u r c e p e r s o n

112. H ow d id y o u v ie w th e s e c o n d v i s i t o f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a) th e s a m e a s th e f i r s t(b) w ith m o r e r e l a x e d a n t ic ip a t io n(c) w ith l e s s a n t ic ip a t io n(d) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d v i s i t

113. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r f i r s t c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r a b o u t th e v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t(c ) i n d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t(d) n o v i s i t

114. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g v ie w s b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r a b o u tth e v i s i t s o f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t(c ) in d i f f e r e n t t o th e v i s i t(d) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d t e a c h e r

115. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g v ie w s b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r a b o u t th e v i s i t s o r y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t(c ) i n d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t(d) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

116. S h o u ld th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r r e m a in in th e c l a s s r o o m th e f i r s t d a y a s tu d e n t t e a c h e r t e a c h e s ?(a ) y e s(b) no

117. W hat p e r c e n t o f th e d a y w e r e you s c h e d u le d f o r c l a s s e s a n d o th e r d u t ie s in y o u r s e c o n d a s s ig n m e n t?(a ) l e s s th a n 50%(b) a b o u t 50%(c) a b o u t 75%(d) n e a r l y 100%

118. C o n c e rn in g l e s s o n p l a n s - d id y o u r se c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r(a ) o f f e r w r i t t e n s u g g e s t io n s(b) o f f e r o r a l s u g g e s t io n s(c ) f a i l to o f f e r s u g g e s t io n s(d) o f f e r b o th w r i t t e n a n d o r a l s u g g e s t io n s

119. D id y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r r e m a in in th e r o o m th e f i r s t d a y y o u ta u g h t?(a ) y e s(b ) no(c) h a d n o s e c o n d t e a c h e r

2kO

120 . D id y o u r s e c o n d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r p e r m i t y o u to t e a c h w ith o u t b e in g in th e r o o m w ith y o u ?(a ) a lw a y s(b) f r e q u e n t ly(c ) o c c a s s io n a l ly(d) s e ld o m

121. D o y o u f e e l y o u h a d e n o u g h c o n f e r e n c e t im e w i th y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s ?(a ) y e s(b ) no

122. D o y o u f e e l y o u h a d e n o u g h c o n f e r e n c e t im e w i th y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) y e s(b) no

123. W hat w a s th e a p p r o x im a tee n r o l lm e n t in th e s c h o o l in w h ic h y o u p r a c t i c e t a u g h t ?(a ) u n d e r 100(b ) 101 - 300(c) 301 - 500(d) 501 - 700(e) o v e r 700

Appendix C

Secondary Student Teacher Questionnaire

21*2Secondary Student Teacher Questionnaire

Name_______________________________College--------Name of school in which you student taughtCity or town in which this school is located_________________Subjects taught-... .Majnr Sai-nnH major or minor--

1. (a ) m a le (ti) f e m a le

2. A ge(a) u n d e r 21(b) 21 - 23(c) 24 - 30(d) o v e r 30

3. M a r i t a l s ta tu e(a ) m a r r i e d(b) s in g le(c) d iv o r c e d(d) w id o w o r w id o w e r

4. W hen w a s s tu d e n t t e a c h in g d o n e ?(a) f a l l(b ) w in te r(c ) s p r in g(d) s u m m e r

5 . L e v e l o f te a c h in g(a) j u n io r h ig h(b) h ig h sc h o o l

6. P l a c e o f s tu d e n t te a c h in g(a ) . .h o m e to w n(b) y o u r c o l le g e c o m m u n ity(c ) b o th(d) n e i th e r

7 . D id you s tu d e n t t e a c h in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h you g r a d u a te d ?(a) y e s(b) no

8. D id y o u d o y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in th e s c h o o l you o b s e r v e d ?(a) y e s(b) no(c) d id n o t o b s e r v e

9. S iz e o f th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h you w e r e g r a d u a te d .(a) u n d e r 50(b) 51 - 100(c) 101 - 300(d) 301 - 500(e) o v e r 500

10. W e re you g iv e n a p r e f e r e n c e in y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g c o m m u n ity ?

11. If g iv e n a p r e f e r e n c e , w e r e you a s s ig n e d to th e c o m m in i ty o f y o u r c h o ic e ?(a) y e s(b) no

12. H ow lo n g b e f o r e w e r e you n o t i f ie d of y o u r c o m m u n ity a s s ig n m e n t ?(a ) a q u a r t e r o r lo n g e r b e f o r e(b) m o n th b e fo re(c ) w e e k b e fo re(d) l e s s th a n a w e e k b e f o r e

13. W hen w e r e y o u n o t i f ie d w h o y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s w o u ld b e ?(a) a q u a r t e r o r lo n g e r b e fo re(b) m o n th b e fo re(c ) w e e k b e fo re(d) l e s s th a n a w e e k b e f o r e

14. W e re y o u in v i te d to p r e - s c h o o l o r i e n t a t i o n ?(a) p r e - s c h o o l i n f a l l

(c ) p r e - s t u d e n t t e a c h in g o r i e n t a t i o n o th e r th a n in th e f a l l

15. If y o u d id y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in a c o m m u n ity o th e r th a n y o u r c o l le g e c o m m u n ity , d id you -(a ) c o m m u te(b) l iv e w ith p a r e n t s o r r e l a t i v e s(c ) l iv e w ith f r i e n d s(d) s e c u r e p r iv a t e l iv in g q u a r t e r s(e ) s tu d e n t ta u g h t in c o l le g e c o m m u n ity

16. If y o u s e c u r e d p r i v a t e l iv in g q u a r t e r s , w a s t h i s d o n e -la ) th ro u g h th e c o l le g e(b) th ro u g h th e c o o p e r a t in g sc h o o l

(c ) t h r o u g h e f f o r t s o f y o u r ow n(d) s tu d e n t t a u g h t in c o l le g e c o m m u n ity

17. W hen d id y o u f i r s t l e a r n w h ic h s u b je c t a r e a you w o u ld te a c h ?(a) m o r e th a n a m o n th a h e a d(b) a w e e k to a m o n th(c) l e s s th a n a w e e k b e f o r e(d) a f t e r a r r i v a l a t th e s c h o o l

18. W hen d id you l e a r n th e s p e c i f i c s u b je c t m a t t e r you w e r e g o in g to te a c h ?(a) m o r e th a n a m o n th a h e a d(b) b e tw e e n a w e e k a n d a m o n th a h e a d(c) l e s s th a n a w e e k a h e a d(d) a f t e r a r r i v a l a t th e s c h o o l

19. H ow m a n y c l a s s e s w e r e y o u a s s ig n e d in y o u r m a j o r f ie ld ?(a ) n o n e

(d) t h r e e(e ) f o u r o r m o r e

20 . H ow m a n y c l a s s e s w e r e y o u a s s ig n e d in y o u r s e c o n d m a j o r o r m in o r ?(*) no n e(b) o n e(c) tw o(d) t h r e e(e ) fo u r o r m o r e

21. H ow m a n y c l a s s e s w e r e y o u a s s ig n e d o u ts id e o f y o u r m a j o r o r m in o r ?(a ) n o n e

(d) t h r e e(e ) f o u r o r m o r e22. In y o u r m a j o r , d id y o u s t a r t to te a c h d u r in g th e -(a ) f i r s t w e e k(b) s e c o n d w e e k(c) t h i r d w e e k(d) fo u r th w e e k(e) f i f th o r l a t e r w e e k

2 3 . In y o u r s e c o n d m a j o r o r m in o r d id you s t a r t to t e a c h d u r in g th e -(a) f i r s t w e e k(b) s e c o n d w e e k(c) t h i r d w e e k(d) fo u r th w e e k(e) f if th o r l a t e r w e e k

24 . O n ce y o u s t a r t e d to te a c h in y o u r m a jo r d id y o u -(a) te a c h th e r e m a i n d e r o f y o u r t e r m(b) a l t e r n a t e u n i t s w ith th e c o o p e r a t in g

(c) te a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e c l a s s to th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r

25 . D id y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m a jo r r e m a in in th e r o o m th e f i r s t d a y y o u ta u g h t?(a) y e s(b) no

26 . D id y o u r m a j o r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r p e r m i t you to t e a c h w ith o u t b e in g in th e r o o m w ithy o u ?

(a) a lw a y s(b) f r e q u e n t ly(c ) o c c a s io n a l ly(d) s e ld o m(e) n e v e r

P l e a s e in d ic a te th e fo l lo w in g in w h ic h you p a r t i c ip a t e d .

A c t iv i ty

27. (a ) (b) I I

28. (a ) (b) r e g i s t r a t i o n29. (a) (b) n o o n d u ty30. (a) (b) d e te n t io n3 L (a) lb) h a l l d u ty

32 . (a ) (b) c h a p e r o n in g d a n c e s33 . (a ) (b) a t h l e t i c s - i n t e r s c h o la s t i c34. (a ) (b) a t h l e t i c s - i n t r a m u r a l35 . (a ) (b) t i c k e t s e l l in g36 . (a ) (b) s tu d y h a l l s u p e r v is io n37 . (a ) (b) m a r k in g r e p o r t c a r d s38. (a ) (b) c l a s s m e e t in g s39. (a ) (b) p l a y g ro u n d s u p e r v is io n4 0 . (a ) (b) c lu b m e e t in g s41. (a ) (b) g u id a n c e s e r v i c e s

4 2 . H ow m a n y p e r io d s p e r d a y w e r e you s c h e d u le d f o r c l a s s e s a n d o th e r

(a ) t h r e e o r l e s s(b) fo u r(c ) f iv e(d) s ix(e ) s e v e n o r m o r e

4 3 . How m a n y p e r io d s p e r d a y w e r e th e r e in y o u r c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l?(a ) f iv e(b) s ix(c ) seven(d) e ig h t(e ) n in e

44 . D id y o u r e g i s t e r a t y o u r c o l le g e - la ) a t r e g u l a r r e g i s t r a t i o n(b) a t e a r l y r e g i s t r a t i o n(c) a t l a te r e g i s t r a t i o n(d) b y m a i l

45 . W h ile s tu d e n t te a c h in g , how m a n y o th e r c r e d i t s d id you c a r r y in th a t q u a r t e r o r s e m e s t e r ?(a) n o n e(b) l e s s th a n s ix(c ) s e v e n to e l e v e n(d) tw e lv e to f i f te e n(e) m o r e th a n f i f te e n

4 6 . D id y o u m a k e a r r a n g e m e n t s fo r y o u r h o u s in g in y o u r c o l le g e c o m m u n ity - la ) b e f o r e s tu d e n t te a c h in g(b ) a f t e r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(c) d u r in g s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(d) s a m e f o r b o th(e ) d id n o t r e t u r n to th e c a m p u s

4 7 . D id y o u m e e t w ith y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r in h i s o f f ic ia l c a p a c i ty b e f o r e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g ?(a) y e s(b) no

4 8 . H ow m a n y t i m e s w e r e y o u s u p e r v is e d by y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?

(b) tw ic e(c ) t h r e e t im e s(d) f o u r t i m e s(e) m o r e th a n f o u r t im e s

4 9 . W h at w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th of y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r 's c l a s s v i s i t s ?(a) l e s s th a n f i f te e n m in u te s(b) 15 to 30 m in u te s(c ) th e fu l l c l a s s p e r io d(d) m o r e th a n o n e c l a s s p e r io d(e) n o v is i t

5 0 . H ow m a n y c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s v i s i te d

(a) n o n e

(d) t h r e e(e ) fo u r o r m o r e

51. D id y o u c o n f e r w i th y o u r c o lle g e s u p e r v i s o r th e d a y o f h ie v i s i t - la ) b e f o r e h e v i s i t e d c l a s s(b) a f t e r h e v i s i t e d c l a s s(c ) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r(d) n e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r

2h3

SZ. W as y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r p r e s e n t d u r in g t h e s e c o n f e r e n c e s ?

(b) p a r t o f th e t im e(c) a l l o f th e t im e

5 3 . T h e c o n f e r e n c e w ith th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r u s u a l ly I a s te d -(a ) t e n m in u te s o r l e s s(b) 10 to 30 m in u te s(c ) 30 to 60 m in u te s(d) o v e r 60 m in u te s(e ) n o c o n f e r e n c e

5 4 . W e re y o u in f o r m e d of y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s ' v i s i t s a t l e a s t ad a y a h e a d o f t im e ?(a) n o (c ) s o m e t in e s(b) a lw a y s (d) s e ld o m

5 5 . W e re y o u in f o r m e d o f y o u r g r a d e in s tu d e n t t e a c h in g b y -fa ) y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r(b) y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r(c ) r e g u l a r c o l le g e g ra d e s l ip(d) d i r e c t o r o f s tu d e n t te a c h in g

56 D id y o u h a v e a n y c o n f e r e n c e s w ith th ep r in c ip a l in h i s c a p a c i ty a s a d m i n i s t r a t o r ?(*) y e s(b) no

5 7 . W as th e n a tu r e o f th e c o n f e r e n c e p r l m a r i l y -(a ) s o c ia l(b) a b o u t a c l a s s r o o m v i s i t(c ) a b o u t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e d u r e s(d) no c o n f e r e n c e

5 8 . D id th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o b s e r v e a n y o f y o u r c l a s s e s ?

(b ) o n c e(c) m o r e th a n o n c e

5 9 . D id you s u b m it l e s s o n p la n s to y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r b e f o r e e a c h c l a s s ?(a ) y e s (c ) s o m e t im e s(b) n o (d) f i r s t few u n i te o n ly

6 0 . H ow o f te n d id you c o n f e r w i th y o u r m a j o r f ie ld c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i lyfb) w e e k ly(c) tw ic e a w e e k(d) s e ld o m

61. H ow o f te n d id y o u c o n f e r w ith y o u r m in o r f ie ld c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i ly(b) w e e k ly(c) tw ic e a w e e k(d) s e ld o m

6 2 . How o f te n d id y o u c o n fe r w ith y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i ly(b) w e e k ly(c ) tw ic e a w e e k(d) s e ld o m(e) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

6 3 . W hat w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th o f y o u r c o n f e r e n c e w ith y o u r m a j o r f ie ld c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 30 m in u te s

6 4 . W hat w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th of y o u r c o n f e r e n c e w ith y o u r m in o r f ie ld c o o p e r a t in g te a c h e K ?(a) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 30 m in u te s(d) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d t e a c h e r

65 . W hat w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th o f y o u r c o n f e r e n c e w ith y o u r t h i r d t e a c h e r ?(a) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b ) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 30 m in u te s(d) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

6 6 . C o n c e rn in g y o u r l e s s o n p l a n s , d idth e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m a j o r -fa ) o f f e r w r i t t e n s u g g e s t io n s(b) o f f e r o r a l s u g g e s t io n s(c ) f a l l to o f f e r a n y s u g g e s t io n s(d) b o th w r i t t e n a n d o r a l s u g g e s t io n s

67 W h ich of th e fo llo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e sy o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m a j o r f ie ld ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b) m o s t l y d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c ) e v e n ly d iv id e d b e tw e e n p la n n in g

a n d e v a lu a t io n(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e

68 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m in o r f i e ld ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b) m o s t ly d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c) e v e n ly d iv id e d b e tw e e n p la n n in g

a n d e v a lu a t io n(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e(e) h a d o n ly o n e c o o p e r a t io n t e a c h e r

69 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith y o u r th i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c) e v e n ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g

a n d e v a lu a t io n(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e(e) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d t e a c h e r

7 0 . D id y o u f in d y o u r p r e p a r a t i o n in y o u r m a j o r f ie ld w a s -(a ) v e r y i n s u f f ic ie n t(b) s o m e w h a t in s u f f ic ie n t(c ) a d e q u a te(d) e x c e l le n t

71. D id y o u f in d y o u r p r e p a r a t i o n in y o u r s e c o n d m a j o r o r m in o r w a s -(a ) v e r y in s u f f ic ie n t(b) s o m e w h a t i n s u f f ic ie n t(c ) a d e q u a te(d) e x c e l le n t

7 2 . D id y o u f in d y o u r p r e p a r a t i o n in y o u r e d u c a t io n s e q u e n c e w a S -(a ) v e r y in s u f f ic ie n t(b) s o m e w h a t in s u i f ic ie n t(c ) a d e q u a te(d) e x c e l le n t

73 w h a t d o y o u f e e l w a s y o u r g r e a t e s t d e f ic ie n c y in y o u r m a j o r f i e ld ?(a ) m e th o d o lo g y(b) s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e

7 4 . W h at d id y o u f e e l w a s y o u r g r e a t e s ta r e a of s t r e n g th in y o u r m a j o r f ie ld ?(a ) m e th o d o lo g y(b) s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g efc ) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e

75 w h a t d id y o u f e e l w a s y o u r g r e a t e s t d e f ic ie n c y in y o u r m in o r f ie ld ?(a ) m e th o d o lo g y(b) s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e

7 6 . W hat d o y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a o f s t r e n g th in y o u r m in o r ?(a) m e th o d o lo g y(b) s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e

7 7 . W hich do y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a of w e a k n e s s in y o u r e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) l e s s o n and u n i t p la n c o n s t r u c t io nfb) u s e o f a u d io - v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s(c ) t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n(d) g r a d e d e t e r m in a t io n(e) p r a c t i c a l a p p l ic a t io n o f th e o r y

7 8 . W h ich d o y o u f e e l w a s y o u r g r e a t e s t a r e a o f s t r e n g th ih y o u r e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n ?(h) l e s s o n p la n c o n s t r u c t io n fb) u s e o f a u d io - v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s(c ) t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n(d) g r a d e d e t e r m in a t io n(e) p r a c t i c a l a p p l ic a t io n o f th e o r y

7 9 . W hich o f th e fo llo w in g c o u r s e s w a s o f g r e a t e s t v a lu e to y o u ?(a ) e d u c a t io n a l p s y c h o lo g y(b) p r e - s tu d e n t t e a c h in g o b s e r v a t io n(c) e d u c a t io n a l m e th o d s(d) a u d io - v i s u a l(e ) t e s t s a n d m e a s u r e m e n t

8 0 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g w a s o f g r e a t e s t v a lu e t o y o u in y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g ?(a) m e th o d s c o u r s e in y o u r m a jo r(b) m e th o d s c o u r s e in y o u r m in o r(c ) m e th o d s c o u r s e in e d u c a t io n

81. In th o s e c o u r s e s y o u f e e l w e r e of g r e a t e s t h e lp in y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p r e p a r a t i o n , d o y o u f e e l th e y w e r e m o s t h e lp fu l d u e t o la ) th e n a tu r e o f th e c o u r s e c o n te n t(b) th e n a tu r e o f th e m e th o d of

i n s t r u c t io n

8 2 . In th o s e c o u r s e s you f e e l w e r e of l e a s t h e lp to y o u in y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p r e p a r a t i o n , d o y o u f e e l th e y w e r e l e a s t h e lp fu l d u e to -(a ) th e n a tu r e o f th e c o u r s e c o n te n t(b) th e n a tu r e o f th e m e th o d of

i n s t r u c t io n

8 3 . How m u c h d u p l ic a t io n e x i s t e d in th e m e th o d s c o u r s e s y o u to o k ?(a) to o k o n ly o n e m e th o d s c o u r s e(b) l i t t l e o r n o d u p l ic a t io n(c) s o m e , b u t l e s s th a n 20%

d u p l ic a t io n(d) 20 to 50% d u p l ic a t io n(e) o v e r 50% d u p l ic a t io n

8 4 . T h e a t t i t u d e s o f t h e s t a f f m e m b e r s o f th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t be d e s c r ib e d a s o n e of:(a ) t o l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

8 5 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f y o u r c o o p e r a t in gt e a c h e r in y o u r m a j o r to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r c a n b e s t b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a ) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n t h u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

8 6 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e a d m in i s t r a t i o n of th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r i b e d a s one of:(a ) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

8 7 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e s tu d e n t b o d y of th e c o o p e r a t in g s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t be d e s c r ib e d a s o n e of:(a ) t o l e r a n c e(b) In d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

8 8 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e c o m m u n ity o f th e c o o p e r a t in g a c h o o l to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r ib e d a s o ne

(a) t o l e r n a c e(b ) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

8 9 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g m o s t c lo s e ly r e f l e c t s y o u r v ie w s c o n c e r n in g th e p e r io d o f o b s e r v a t io n im m e d ia te ly p r e c e d in g y o u r s t a r t i n g to te a c h ?(a) o b s e r v e o n e w e e k(b) o b s e r v e tw o w e e k s(c ) o b s e r v e t h r e e w e e k s(d) s t a r t to te a c h im m e d ia te ly

9 0 .O n ce th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r h a s s t a r t e d to te a c h , h e sh o u ld - fa ) t e a c h th e r e m a i n d e r o f h i s t e r m(b) a l t e r n a t e u n i t s w ith th e

c o o p e r a t in g te a c h e r(c ) t e a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e

c l a s s to th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r91. T h e s tu d e n t te a c h in g p r o g r a m c a n b e s t

b e s e r v e d if th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r - fa ) i s p r e s e n t a t a l l t im e s(b) i s p r e s e n t o n e - h a l f th e t im e(c) i s n o t p r e s e n t

9 2 . T h e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e is b e s t s e r v e d w h e n th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s t a r t s to te a c h -(a ) in h i s m a j o r f i r s t(b) in h i s m in o r f i r s t(c ) in b o th a t th e s a m e t im e

9 3 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s to y o u r v ie w s o f l e s s o n p l a n s ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l te a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n ite(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

9 4 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s to y o u r v ie w s c o n c e r n in g c a s e s tu d ie s r e q u i r e d in s o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p r o g r a m s ?(a) a v a lu a b le to o l in t e a c h in g(b ) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g

f o r t h e i r v a lu e(c) h e lp fu l in u n d e r s ta n d in g d i f f e r e n t

ty p e s o f s tu d e n ts(d ) o r r e l a t i v e l y Ii t t l e v a lu e

9 5 . S o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s te a c h in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h th e y g r a d u a te d .D o y o u v ie w th i s a s :(a ) a d v a n ta g e o u s(b) a h a n d ic a p(c) i m m a t e r i a l

9 6 . S o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c o m m u te to th e c o m m u n ity in w h ic h th e y d o t h e i r s tu d e n t te a c h in g . Do y o u f e e l th i s h in d e r s o n - th e - jo b p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) u s u a l ly (c ) s e ld o m(b) s o m e t i m e s tf) n e v e r

9 7 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a llo w e d to d o t h e i r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h th e y g r a d u a te d ?

(b) y e s , i f a l a r g e s c h o o l(c ) y e s , if s m a l l s c h o o l(d) no

98 . W h ich p o r t io n of th e s c h o o l y e a r o f f e r s th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r th e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s iv e v ie w o f th e te a c h in g s i t u a t io n ?(a ) f a l l (c ) s p r in g(b) w in te r (d) n o d if f e r e n c e

9 9 . T h e o p t im u m to ta l le n g th of th e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e i s :(a ) s ix w e e k s(b) n in e w e e k s

(c ) tw e lv e w e e k s(d) e ig h te e n w e e k s

100. S tu d e n t t e a c h in g w o u ld b e m o s t w o r th w h i le i f d o n e -fa ) a t th e b e g in n in g of th e

s e n io r y e a r(b) d u r in g th e s e n io r y e a r(c ) a f t e r c o m p le t io n o f a l l

c o u r s e w o rk101. A p p r o x im a te ly how m a n y to t a l h o u r s

d id y o u a c tu a l ly te a c h d u r in gy o u r s tu d e n t te a c h in g ?(a) l e s s th a n 20 h o u r s(b ) 20 to 40 h o u r s(c ) 40 to 60 h o u r s(d) 60 to 80 h o u r s(e ) o v e r 80 h o u r s

102. D o y o u f e e l t h i s a m o u n t w a s -(a ) to o few(b) to o m a n y(c) a b o u t r ig h t

103. S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s be a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in s o m e e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t y ?(a ) y e s(b) no

104. S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s be a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in s u c h d u t ie sa s h a l l d u ty , lu n c h d u ty , t i c k e t s e l l in g , f e e c o l le c t io n , e t c . ?(a ) y e s(b) n o

105. T h e p u r p o s e o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e ta ) to r e c e iv e a d v ic e a n d i n s t r u c t io n(b) to a n s w e r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r

q u e s t io n s(c ) a c o m b in a t io n o f th e tw o

106. T h e o p t im u m le n g th o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e ta ) 10 m in u te s(b) 30 m in u te s(c ) 60 m in u te s(d) a s n e e d e d

107. S tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s s h o u ld b e h e ld -(a ) p r i o r to th e l e s s o n(b) fo llo w in g th e l e s s o n(c) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r th e l e s s o n

108. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c h a r a c t e r i s e s th e v ie w s a b o u t l e s s o n p la n s h e ld b y th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m a j o r ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c ) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n i ts(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

109. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c h a r a c t e r i s e s th e v ie w s a b o u t l e s s o n p la n s h e ld b y y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m in o r ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l

t e a c h in g(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few u n i t s(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

HO. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s tc h a r a c t e r i s e s th e v ie w s a b o u t l e s s o n p la n s h e ld b y y o u r t h i r d s u p e r v i s in g t e a c h e r ?

(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l te a c h in g

(b) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y f o r th e f i r s t few

(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e(e) d id n o t h a v e t h r e e t e a c h e r s

111. W hich o f t h e fo l lo w in g b e s t c h a r a c t e r i s e s th e te a c h in g you o b s e r v e d ?(a ) b u i l t o n u n d e r s t a n d in g b a s ic

c o n c e p ts(b) o r i e n t e d to w a r d te x tb o o k

p r e s e n ta t i o n(c) b a s e d o n t e a c h e r d e v e lo p e d u n ite(d) n o a p p a r e n t o r g a n iz a t io n

112. Do y o u th in k c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r slo o k u p o n s e r v in g in th a t c a p a c i ty a s -(a ) a c h o r e

(b) a n o p p o r tu n i ty to le a r n(c) a n o b l ig a t io n to th e p r o f e s s io n(d) s o m e o n e to t a k e p a r t o f t h e i r

(e ) a c h a n c e to p ic k u p s o m e m o n e y113. W hat i s y o u r p r e f e r e n c e c o n c e rn in g

n o t i f ic a t io n o f v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) p r e f e r to know a h e a d o f t im e(b) p r e f e r n o t to know a h e a d o f t im e(c ) n o p r e f e r e n c e

114. How o f te n d o y o u f e e l th e c o l le g es u p e r v i s o r s h o u ld v i s i t y o u ?(a) w e e k ly(b) e v e r y tw o w e e k s(c) e v e r y t h r e e w e e k s(d) o n c e d u r in g s tu d e n t te a c h in g(e) tw ic e d u r in g s tu d e n t te a c h in g

115. W hich b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w ith y o u rv ie w s o n c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s v i s i t s ?(a ) s h o u ld a r r i v e b e f o r e c l a s s and

r e m a i n th e fu l l p e r io d(b) s h o u ld v i s i t th e f i r s t h a lf

th e c l a s s p e r io d(c) s h o u ld v i s i t th e l a s t h a lf

th e c l a s s p e r io d(d) s h o u ld l im i t th e v i s i t to 10 m in u te s

116. W h ich c h a r a c t e r i z e s th e a c tu a lp r o c e d u r e fo llo w e d b y y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) a r r i v e d p r i o r to c l a s s and

r e m a in e d th e fu l l p e r io d(b) v i s i t e d th e f i r s t h a l f th e

(c ) v i s i t e d th e l a s t h a l f th e c l a s s(d) v i s i t e d th e c l a s s f o r te n m in u te s(e ) d id n o t v i s i t

117. How d id y o u v ie w th e f i r s t v i s i to f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) w ith n e r v o u s a n t ic ip a t io n(b) a s a n e c e s s a r y e v i l(c ) w ith p l e a s u r a b l e a n t ic ip a t io n(d) a s a d i s tu r b in g in f lu e n c e(e) a s a r e s o u r c e p e r s o n

118. How d id y o u v ie w th e s e c o n d v i s i to f y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) th e s a m e a s th e f i r s t v i s i t(b) w ith m o r e r e l a x e d a n t ic ip a t io n(c) w ith l e s s a n t ic ip a t io n(d) d id n o t h a v e a s e c o n d v i s i t

119. W hich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s tc h a r a c t e r i z e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m a jo r c o n c e r n in g th e v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t(c ) i n d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t

120. W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e s th e v ie w s of y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m in o r t o w a r d th e v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t(c ) i n d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t

121. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s tc h a r a c t e r i z e s th e v ie w s o f y o u r t h i r d c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t

C h e c k o n ly o n e in e a c h c a s e -

T e a c h in g A id A v a i la b le

123. T a p e r e c o r d e r (a)124. R e c o r d p l a y e r (a)125. F i lm p r o j e c to r (a)126. F i lm s t r i p p r o j e c t o r (a)127. S lid e p r o j e c t o r (a)128. O p aq u e p r o j e c t o r (a )129. O v e rh e a d p r o j e c t o r (a)130. F la n n e l b o a r d (a)131. F l ip c h a r t (a)

132. T h e a t t i t u d e o f y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m in o r to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r ib e d a s

(a) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

133. O n ce y o u s t a r t e d to te a c h in y o u r m in o r , d id y o u -(a ) te a c h th e r e m a in d e r o f y o u r t e r m(b) a l t e r n a t e u n i t s w ith th e c o o p e ra t in g(c) te a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e c l a s s

to th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r134. D id y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r

m in o r r e m a in in th e ro o m th e f i r s t d a y ?

Iii r135. D id y o u r m in o r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r

m i l you to te a c h w ith o u t b e in g inro o m w ith y o u ?

(a) a lw a y s(b) f r e q u e n t ly(c ) o c c a s io n a l ly(d) s e ld o m(e) n e v e r

(c ) in d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t(d) d id n o t h a v e a t h i r d te a c h e r

122. S h o u ld c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s r e m a in in th e r o o m th e f i r s t d a y th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r t e a c h e s ?(a ) y e s (b) no

D id U se N o t A v a i la b le N ot F e a s ib l e

(b) (c ) (d)(b) Ce) (d)(b) (c ) (d)(b) (c ) (d) Ibl (c ) (d)Ibl (Cl Id) Ibl (=1 Id) (b | (c ) (d) Ib l (Cl |d )

136. D o y o u b e l ie v e you h a d en o u g h c o n f e r e n c e t im e w ith y o u r c o o p e ra t in g

(a) y e s(b) no

137. Do you f e e l you h a d s u f f ic ie n t c o n f e r e n c e t im e w ith y o u r c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) y e s(b) no

138. C o n c e rn in g l e s s o n p la n s , d id y o u r c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r in y o u r m in o r - fa ) o f f e r w r i t t e n s u g g e n tio n s(b) o f f e r o r a l su g g e n t io n s(c ) f a i l to o f f e r s u g g e s t io n s(d) o f f e r b o th o r a l a n d w r i t te n

s u g g e s t io n s139. W hat w a s th e a p p r o x im a te

e n r o l lm e n t in th e s c h o o l in w h ic h y o u s tu d e n t t a u g h t?(a ) u n d e r 100(b) 101-300(c) 3 01 -500(d) 50 1 -7 0 0(e) o v e r 700

P l e a s e in d ic a te a n y s u g g e s t io n s you m ig h t h a v e w h ic h w o u ld im p r o v e th e te a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n p r o g r a m .

Appendix D

Cooperating Teacher Questionnaire

2lt7

Cooperating Teacher QuestionnaireName-- Mr. Mrs. Miss.Name of School___ ____________________ City or TownFor which college or university did yousupervise student teachers this past year_______________

1. E n r o l lm e n t in s c h o o l(a ) u n d e r 100(b) 101 to 300(c) 301 to 500(d) 501 to 700(e) o v e r 700

2. H ig h e s t d e g r e e h e ld(a ) n o n e(b) b a c h e lo r(c ) m a s t e r(d) d o c to r a l

3. G r a d e le v e l(a ) e l e m e n t a r y 1-4(b) e l e m e n t a r y 5 -8(c) s e p a r a t e j u n io r h ig h(d) h ig h sc h o o l

4 . Y e a r s ta u g h t(a ) l e s s th a n th r e e(b) 3 to 5(c ) 6 to 10(d) o v e r 10

5 . W e re y o u g iv e n a c h o ic e a s to w h e th e r you w is h e d to s u p e r v i s e a s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) y e s(b) no

6. H ow lo n g a h e a d o f t im e w e r e youn o t i f ie d y o u w o u ld h a v e a s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) a t l e a s t tw o m o n th s b e fo re(b) a t l e a s t a m o n th b e f o r e(c ) l e s s th a n a m o n th b e f o r e s c h o o l(d) w h e n s c h o o l s t a r t e d

7 . D id th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r d o h e r p r e -s tu d e n t t e a c h in g o b s e r v a t io n w ith y o u ?(a) y e s(b) no

8 . H ow m a n y v i s i t s d id you h a v e f r o m th ec o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) no n e

(d) t h r e e(e ) f o u r o r m o r e

9. D id y o u c o n f e r w ith th e c o l le g es u p e r v i s o r ia l p r i o r to th e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t(b) a f t e r th e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t(c ) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r(d ) n e i th e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r

10. Y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r u s u a l ly l a s t e d -(a ) 10 m in u te s o r l e s s(b ) 10 -3 0 m in u te s(c ) 3 0 -6 0 m in u te s(d) o v e r 60 m in u te s(e ) n o c o n f e r e n c e

11. How w o u ld y o u c l a s s i f y y o u r v i s i t s w ith th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) p r o d u c t iv e(b) g e n e r a l(c ) w a s t e o f t im e(d ) p u r e ly s o c ia l

12. W as th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r p r e s e n t d u r in g th e s e c o n f e r e n c e s ?(a ) a lw a y s(b) s o m e t im e s

13. W e re y o u in f o r m e d o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r 's v i s i t a t l e a s t a d a y b e f o r e th e v i s i t ?(a ) y e s(b) no

14. D id y o u c o n fe r w ith th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r o n th e g r a d e to be g iv e n th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) d i s c u s s e d a g r a d e

(b) r e c o m m e n d e d a g r a d e(c) m a i l e d in a g r a d e(d) n o c o m m u n ic a t io n o n a g r a d e A r e y o u s a t i s f i e d w i th th e g r a d in g p r o c e d u r e n o w u s e d ?(a) y e s(b) n o - s h o u ld b e m o r e th e

c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r 's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y(c ) no - s h o u ld b e m o r e th e c o l le g e

s u p e r v i s o r 's r e s p o n s ib i l i t y(d) n o - s h o u ld be g r e a t e r s h a r in g

o f th e r e s p o n s ib i l i t yD id y o u r a d m i n i s t r a t o r o b s e r v e th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r in . c l a s s ?(a) y e s

W hat w a s th e n a tu r e o f th e c o n f e r e n c e s you h a d w ith th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r a b o u t

th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) h a d n o n e(b) g e n e r a l - b u t m o s t l y f a v o r a b le(c ) c o n c e r n e d w i th p r o b le m s of

d i s c ip l in e(d ) c o n c e r n e d w i th s tu d e n t t e a c h e r 's

a b i l i t y

(e ) c o n c e r n e d w ith p r o b le m s o f a d ju s tm e n t

18. H ow o f t e r d id you c o n f e r w ith th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) d a i ly(b) w e e k ly(c ) tw ic e a w e e k(d) s e ld o m

19. W e re l e s s o n p la n s s u b m i t te d to y o u p r i o r to e a c h l e s s o n ?(a) y e s (c ) s o m e t im e s(b) no (d) f i r s t few u n i t s o n ly

2 0 . T o w h a t d e g r e e w a s th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r w il l in g to i n c o r p o r a t e s u g g e s t io n s in to th e l e s s o n p la n ?(a) v e r y w il l in g(b) r e lu c t a n t ly(c ) a t y o u r i n s i s t e n c e

21. W ia t w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g th of y o u r c o n f e r e n c e w ith th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) l e s s th a n 10 m in u te s(b) b e tw e e n 10 a n d 30 m in u te s(c ) m o r e th a n 30 m in u te s

22 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u r c o n f e r e n c e s w ith th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) m o s t ly d e v o te d to p la n n in g(b) m o s t ly d e v o te d to e v a lu a t io n(c) a b o u t e v e n ly d iv id e d(d) s e ld o m h a d a c o n f e r e n c e

23 . D id you f e e l th e s u b je c t m a t t e r p r e p a r a t i o n o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r

(a) v e r y in s u f f ic e n t(b) s o m e w h a t i n s u f f ic ie n t(c) a d e q u a te(d) e x c e l le n t

24 . D id y o u f e e l th e e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r

(a ) v e r y in s u f f ic ie n t(b) in s u f f ic ie n t(c ) a d e q u a te(d) e x c e l le n t

25 . W hat d o y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t d e f ic ie n c y in th e s u b je c t m a t t e r p r e p a r a t i o n o f y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) m e th o d o lo g y(b) s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d m a t e r i a l

2 6 . W hat d o y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a o f s t r e n g t h in th e s u b je c t m a t t e r p r e p a r a t i o n o f y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) m e th o d o lo g y(b) s u b je c t m a t t e r k n o w le d g e(c) r e l a t e d b a c k g ro u n d k n o w le d g e

27. W hat do y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a o f w e a k n e s s in th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r 's e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) l e s s o n a n d u n i t p la n c o n s t r u c t io n(b) u s e o f a u d io - v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s(c ) t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n(d) g r a d e d e t e r m in a t io n(e) p r a c t i c a l a p p l ic a t io n o f th e o r y

28. W hat do y o u f e e l w a s th e g r e a t e s t a r e a o f s t r e n g th in y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r 's e d u c a t io n c o u r s e p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) l e s s o n a n d u n i t p la n c o n s t r u c t io n(b) u s e o f a u d io - v i s u a l s(c ) t e s t c o n s t r u c t io n(d) g r a d e d e t e r m in a t io n(e) p r a c t i c a l a p p l ic a t io n o f th e o r y

29. T h e a t t i t u d e s of th e s t a f f m e m b e r s of y o u r s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a) t o l e r a n c e(b) in d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c ) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

30 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f y o u r s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a ) t o l e r a n c e(b) in d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp f u l a c c e p ta n c e

31. T h e a t t i t u d e o f th e s tu d e n t b o d y of y o u r s c h o o l to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r i b e d a s o n e of:(a ) t o l e r a n c e(b) in d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n t h u s i a s t i c , h e lp f u l a c c e p ta n c e

32 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f y o u r c o m m u n i ty to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r ib e d

(a) t o l e r a n c e(b) in d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n t h u s i a s t i c , h e lp fu l a c c e p ta n c e

33 . W h ich o f t h e fo l lo w in g m o s t c lo s e ly r e f l e c t s y o u r v ie w s c o n c e r n in g th e p e r io d o f o b s e r v a t io n im m e d ia te ly p r e c e d in g th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s t a r t i n g to te a c h ?(a) o b s e r v e o n e w e e k(b) o b s e r v e tw o w e e k s(c) o b s e r v e t h r e e w e e k s(d) s t a r t to t e a c h im m e d ia t e ly

34 . O n c e a s a t i s f a c t o r y s tu d e n t t e a c h e r h a s s t a r t e d to t e a c h , h e sh o u ld -la ) te a c h th e r e m a i n d e r of h is

(b) a l t e r n a t e u n i t s w ith th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r

(c ) te a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e c l a s s to th e c o o p e r a t in g te a c h e r

35. T h e s tu d e n t te a c h in g p r o g r a m c a n b e s t b e s e r v e d i f th e c o o p e ra t in g

(a) i s p r e s e n t a t a l l t im e s(b) i s p r e s e n t h a l f th e t im e(c) i s n o t p r e s e n t

36 . T h e s tu d e n t te a c h in g p r o g r a m i s b e s t s e r v e d i f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s t a r t s to te a c h f i r s t in -la ) h i s m a j o r a r e a o f c o n c e n t r a t io n

21*8

(b) h ie m in o r a r e a o f c o n c e n t r a t io n(c) bo th

37 . W h ic h o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t a g r e e s w i th y o u r v ie w s on l e s s o n p la n s ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l

t e a c h in g(b ) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y fo r th e f i r s t few u n ite(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

38. W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w ith y o u r v ie w s o n c a s e s tu d i e s r e q u i r e d in s o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p r o g r a m s ?(a) a v a lu a b le to o l in t e a c h in g(b ) h e lp fu l , b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g

f o r t h e i r v a lu e(c) h e lp fu l in u n d e r s ta n d in g d i f f e r e n t

ty p e s o f s tu d e n ts(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

39 . S o m e s tu d e n ts d o t h e i r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in s c h o o ls f r o m w h ic h th e y g r a d u a te d .D o you v ie w th i s a s -(a ) a d v a n ta g e o u s to th e s tu d e n t

t e a c h in g e x p e r ie n c e(b) a h a n d ic a p(c) im m a t e r i a l

4 0 . S o m e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c o m m u te to th e c o m m u n ity in w h ic h th e y do t h e i r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g . Do y o u f e e l t h i s h in d e r s o n - t h e - jo b p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) u s u a l ly (c ) s e ld o m(b) s o m e t im e s (d) no

41. W h ich p o r t i o n o f th e s c h o o l y e a r o f f e r sth e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r th e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s iv e v ie w o f th e t e a c h in g s i tu a t io n ?(a) f a l l(b) w in te r(c ) s p r in g(d) no d i f f e r e n c e

4 2 . T h e o p t im u m to ta l l e n g th o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e ie -(a ) s ix w e e k s(b) n in e w e e k s(c ) tw e lv e w e e k s(d ) e ig h te e n w e e k s

4 3 . S tu d e n t t e a c h in g w o u ld b e m o s t w o r th w h ile if d o n e - fa ) a t th e b e g in n in g of th e s e n io r

(b ) d u r in g th e s e n io r y e a r(c ) a f t e r c o m p le t io n o f a l l

c o u r s e w o rk

4 4 . A p p r o x im a te ly h o w m a n y to t a l h o u r s d id y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r a c tu a l ly te a c h d u r in g h ie s tu d e n t t e a c h in g e x p e r ie n c e ?(a ) l e s s th a n 20 c l a s s h o u r s(b ) 20 to 4 0 c l a s s h o u r s(c ) 4 0 to 60 c l a s s h o u r s(d ) 60 to 80 c l a s s h o u r s(e ) m o r e th a n 8 0 c l a s s h o u r s

4 5 . D o you f e e l t h i s a m o u n t w a e -(a ) to o few(b) to o m a n y(c) a b o u t r ig h t

4 6 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a s s ig n e dto a s s i s t in e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s ?(a ) y e s(b) no

4 7 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in s u c h d u t ie s a s h a l l d u ty , lu n c h d u ty , t i c k e t s e l l in g , fe e c o l l e c t io n , e t c . ?(a ) y e s(b ) no

4 8 . T h e p u r p o s e o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e ta ) to r e c e iv e a d v ic e a n d i n s t r u c t io n(b) to a n s w e r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r


4 9 . T h e o p t im u m le n g th o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g te a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e ta ) 10 m in u te s(b) 30 m in u te s(c ) 60 m in u te s(d) a s n e e d e d

50 . S tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s s h o u ld b e h e ld -(*) p r i o r to th e l e s s o n(b) fo llo w in g th e l e s s o n(c) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r th e l e s s o n

51. Do c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s lo o k u p o n s e r v in g a s c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s a s(a ) a c h o re(b) a n o p p o r tu n i ty to le a r n(c) a n o b l ig a t io n to th e p r o f e s s io n(d) so m e o n e to s h a r e t h e i r lo a d(e ) a c h a n c e to p ic k u p s o m e m o n e y

5 2 . W h at i s y o u r p r e f e r e n c e c o n c e rn in g n o t i f ic a t io n o f v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?

(a ) p r e f e r to know a h e a d o f t im e(b) p r e f e r n o t to know a h e a d o f t im e(c) no p r e f e r e n c e

5 3 . H ow o f te n d o y o u f e e l th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s h o u ld v i s i t ?(a ) w e e k ly(b) e v e r y tw o w e e k s(c) e v e r y t h r e e w e e k s(d) o n c e d u r in g s tu d e n t te a c h in g(e) tw ic e d u r in g s tu d e n t te a c h in g

5 4 . W hich b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w ith y o u r v ie w s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r 's

(a) s h o u ld a r r i v e p r i o r to c l a s s a n d s t a y f o r th e f u l l l e s s o n

(b) s h o u ld v i s i t th e f i r s t h a lf o f th e c l a s s

(c ) s h o u ld v i s i t th e l a s t h a l f o f th e c l a s s

(d) s h o u ld l im i t th e v i s i t to te n m in u te s

5 5 . W hich o f th e fo llo w in g c h a r a c t e r i z e s th e a c tu a l p r o c e d u r e u s e d by th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a) a r r i v e d p r i o r to c l a s s and

r e m a in e d f o r th e fu l l l e s s o n(b) v i s i t e d th e f i r s t h a lf th e c l a s s(c ) v i s i t e d th e l a s t h a l f th e c l a s s(d) v i s i t e d c l a s s fo r te n m in u te s(e ) d id n o t v i s i t th e c l a s s

56 . How d id th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r v ie w th e f i r s t v i s i t o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) w ith n e r v o u s a n t ic ip a t io n(b) a s a n e c e s s a r y e v i l(c ) w ith p l e a s u r a b l e a n t ic ip a t io n(d) a s a d i s tu r b in g in f lu e n c e(e ) a s a r e s o u r c e p e r s o n

5 7 . H ow d id th e s tu d e n t v ie w o th e r v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) th e s a m e a s t h e f i r s t(b) w ith m o r e r e l a x e d a n t ic ip a t io n(c) w ith l e s s a n t ic ip a t io n(d) t h e r e w e r e n o a d d i t i o n a l v i s i t s

5 8 . W h ich o f th e fo llo w in g b e s t a g r e e s w ith y o u r v ie w s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r 's v i s i t s ?(a) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e d th e v i s i t(c ) in d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t

T h e n u m b e r o f t e a c h in g a id s a v a i la b le to t e a c h e r s v a r i e s in d i f f e r e n t s c h o o ls . P l e a s e a n s w e r th e fo llo w in g c o n c e r n in g u s e b y y o u r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r . C h e c k o n ly o n e f o r e a c h q u e s t io n .

T e a c h in g A id A v a i la b le D id U se N o t A v a i la b le N o t F e a s i b l e

5 9 . T a p e R e c o r d e r (*) (b) (c) (d)6 0 . R e c o r d P l a y e r (a) (b) (c) (d)61. F i lm P r o j e c t o r (a) (b) (C) (d)6 2 . F i lm S t r ip P r o j e c t o r (a ) (b) (C) (d)6 3 . S l id e P r o j e c t o r (a) (b) (C) (d)6 4 . O p a q u e P r o j e c t o r (a) (b) (C) (d)6 5 . O v e rh e a d P r o j e c t o r (a) (b) (C) (d)6 6 . F l a n n e l B o a rd (a) (b) (C) (d)6 7 . F l i p C h a r t s (a) (b) (C) (d)

P l e a s e in d ic a te in w h ic h o f th e f o llo w in g s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s s h o u ld p a r t i c ip a t e .

Y es N o A c tiv i ty Y es No A c tiv i ty 83 . W hat w a s th e a v e r a g e le n g tn of th e c o lle g e

68. (a) (b) H o m e ro o m s u p e r v i s io n 7 6 . (a) (b) T ic k e t s e l l i n gs u p e r v i s o r 's v i s i t ?(a ) l e s s th a n 15 m in u te s

69. (a) (b) R e g is t r a t io n 7 7 . (a) (b) S tu d y h a l l s u p e r v i s io n (b) 15 -3 0 m in u te s70 . (a) (b) N oon d u ty 78 . (a) (b) M a rk in g r e p o r t c a r d s

C la s s m e e t in g s

(c) fu l l l e s s o n71. (a) (b) D e te n tio n 79 . (a) (b) (d) m o r e th a n o n e l e s s o n72. (a ) (b) H a ll d u ty 80 . (a) (b) P la y g r o u n d s u p e r v i s io n (e) no v i s i t7 3 . (a) (b) C h a p e ro n in g d a n c e s 81. (a) (b) C lu b m e e t in g s 84 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e p e r m i t t e d to7 4 . (a) (b) A th le t ic s - i n t e r s c h o l a s t i c 8 2 . (b) (b) G u id a n c e s e r v i c e s do t h e i r s tu d e n t t e a c h in g in th e s c h o o l75 . (a) (b) A th l e t i c s - i n t r a m u r a l f r o m w h ic h th e y g r a d u a te d ?

(a) y e s(b) y e s , i f a l a r g e s c h o o l(c ) y e s , i f a s m a l l s c h o o l(d) no

Appendix E

Administrator Questionnaire

250

Administrator QuestionnaireName = Mr. Mrs. Miss----------------------Name of School. . , . City.

I . W hat i e y o u r p o s i t io n ?(a) s u p e r in t e n d e n t(b ) h ig h s c h o o l p r in c ip a l(c ) j u n i o r h ig h p r in c ip a l(d) e l e m e n t a r y p r in c ip a l

2 H ig h e s t d e g r e e h e ld(a ) b a c h e lo r(b) m a s t e r(c ) d o c to r(d) s p e c i a l i s t

3 . D o y o u h a v e a n y te a c h in g a s s ig n m e n t?(a ) n o(b) l e s s th a n 1 /4 t im e(c) b e tw e e n 1 /4 a n d 1 /2 t im e(d ) m o r e th a n 1 /2 t im e

4 . M ay y o u r t e a c h e r s r e q u e s t th a t th e ya r e n o t a s s ig n e d a s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) y e s(b) no

5 . O n w h a t b a s i s a r e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r sa s s ig n e d to y o u r t e a c h e r s ?(a ) a t t e a c h e r 's r e q u e s t(b) e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s o n ly(c ) m a s t e r t e a c h e r s o n ly(d) r o t a t i o n a m o n g s ta f f(e ) r e q u e s t f o r s p e c i f i c t e a c h e r

6. M ay a t e a c h e r b e a s s ig n e d m o r e th a no n e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r a y e a r ?(a ) y e s(b) no

7 . W hen a r e y o u r t e a c h e r s n o t i f ie d th e ya r e t o h a v e a s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) a t l e a s t tw o m o n th s b e f o r e(b) a t l e a s t a m o n th b e f o r e(c ) a s so o n a s i t i s k n o w n(d) a t p r e - s c h o o l o r i e n t a t i o n

P l e a s e c h e c k w h ic h o f th e fo llo w in ga c t i v i t i e s s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s a r ea s s ig n e d .

Y e s A c t iv i ty8. (a ) (b) H o m e ro o m s u p e r v i s io n9. (a) (b) R e g i s t r a t i o n

10. (a ) (b) N o o n d u ty11. (a) (b) D e te n t io n12. (a) (b) H a l l d u ty13. (a ) (b) C h a p e r o n in g d a n c e s14. (a) (b) A th le t ic s - i n t e r s c h o l a s t i c15. (a) (b) A th l e t i c s - i n t r a m u r a l16. (a ) (b) T i c l e t s e l l in g17. (a) (b) S tu d y h a l l s u p e r v i s io n18. (a ) (b) M a rk in g r e p o r t c a r d s19. (a) (b) C la s s m e e t in g s20. (a) (b) P la y g r o u n d s u p e r v i s io n21. (a) (b) C lu b m e e t in g s22 . (a) (b) G u id a n c e s e r v i c e s

23 . W hat p e r c e n t o f th e d a y s h o u ld th es tu d e n t t e a c h e r b e a s s ig n e d c l a s s e d a n d o th e r o r g a n iz e d g ro u p a c t i v i t i e s ?

(a ) 50%(b) 67%(c ) 75%(d) 100%

24 . D o e s th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r n o tify y o u o f h i s a r r i v a l a t y o u r s c h o o l?(a ) a lw a y s(b) u s u a l ly(c ) s e ld o m(d) n e v e r

2 5 . D o y o u fee l th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s h o u ld n o t i fy y o u o f h i s a r r i v a l a t y o u r s c h o o l?(a ) a lw a y s(b) i f c o n v e n ie n t(c ) i m m a t e r i a l

26 . W hat i s th e a v e r a g e n u m b e r o f v i s i t s th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r m a k e s f o r e a c h s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) o n e(b) tw o(c) t h r e e(d) fo u r(e ) m o r e th a n f o u r

2 7 . T h e a v e r a g e le n g th of t im e s p e n t in y o u r s c h o o l b y th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r o n e a c h v i s i t i s -(a ) o n e h o u r(b) tw o h o u r s(c ) o n e - h a l f d a y(d) th e fu l l d a y

2 8 . D o y o u u s u a l ly c o n fe r w i th th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r o n h i s v i s i t s to y o u r s c h o o l?(a ) b e f o r e h i s c l a s s r o o m v i s i t a t i o n(b) a f t e r h i e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t a t i o n(c ) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r(d) n e i th e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r

2 9 . D o y o u f e e l a c o n f e r e n c e b e tw e e n y o u a n d th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r i s

(a ) b e f o r e th e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t a t i o n(b) a f t e r th e c l a s s r o o m v i s i t a t i o n(c ) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r(d) n e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r

30 . D o y o u f e e l t h e r e s h o u ld b e a c o n f e r e n c e b e tw e e n y o u . th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r , th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r and th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) y e s(b) no(c) o n ly if p r o b le m s a r i s e

31. D o y o u f e e l th e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s h o u ld v i s i t th e c l a s s r o o m of t h e s tu d e n t

(a ) y e s(b ) n o t g e n e r a l l y(c ) o n ly a t th e r e q u e s t o f th e

c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r(d) o n ly a t th e r e q u e s t o f th e

s tu d e n t t e a c h e r32 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f y o u r s t a f f to w a rd

s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t be d e s c r i b e d a s o n e o ffs) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp f u l a c c e p ta n c e

33 . T h e a t t i t u d e o f c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s to w a r d s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t be d e s c r ib e d a s o n e o f -(a ) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp f u l a c c e p ta n c e

34 . T h e a t t i t u d e of th e s tu d e n t b o d y to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r ib e d a s o n e o f -(a ) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp f u l a c c e p ta n c e

35 . T h e a t t i tu d e o f y o u r c o m m u n ity to w a rd s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s c a n b e s t b e d e s c r ib e d a s o n e o f -(a ) to l e r a n c e(b) i n d i f f e r e n t a c c e p ta n c e(c) g e n e r a l a c c e p ta n c e(d) e n th u s i a s t i c , h e lp f u l a c c e p ta n c e

36 . W hich o f th e fo llo w in g m o s t c lo s e ly r e f l e c t s y o u r v ie w s c o n c e r n in g th e le n g th o f th e p e r io d o f o b s e r v a t io n im m e d ia te ly p r e c e d in g th e s t a r t o f s tu d e n t t e a c h in g ?(a ) o b s e r v e o n e w e e k(b) o b s e r v e tw o w e e k s(c) o b s e r v e t h r e e w e e k s(d) s t a r t to te a c h im m e d ia t e ly

37 . O n ce a s a t i s f a c t o r y s tu d e n t t e a c h e r h a s s t a r t e d to te a c h , h e s h o u ld -(a ) t e a c h c o n t in u o u s ly th e r e s t o f h i s

s tu d e n t t e a c h in g p e r io d(b) a l t e r n a t e u n i te w i th th e s u p e r v i s in g

(c) t e a c h o n e u n i t a n d r e t u r n th e c l a s s to th e s u p e r v i s in g t e a c h e r

38 . T h e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s h o u ld re . in th e r o o m th e f i r s t d a y th e s tu d e n . t e a c h e r t e a c h e s .(a ) y e s(b) no

39 . T h e s tu d e n t te a c h in g p r o g r a m c a n b e s t s e r v e d i f t h e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r is(a ) a lw a y s p r e s e n t(b) u s u a l ly p r e s e n t(c ) o c c a s io n a l ly p r e s e n t(d) s e ld o m p r e s e n t(e ) n e v e r p r e s e n t

4 0 . T h e s tu d e n t te a c h in g p r o g r a m i s b e s t s e r v e d w h e n th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s t a r t s to te a c h in -fa ) h i s m a j o r a r e a o f c o n c e n t r a t io n(b) h i e m in o r a r e a o f c o n c e n t r a t io n

41. W h ich o f th e f o l lo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w i th y o u r v ie w s o n l e s s o n a n d u n it p la n e ?(a ) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h in g(b) h e lp f u l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c) n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e f i r s t few u n i te(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

4 2 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w i th th e v ie w s o f y o u r s t a f f a b o u t l e s s o n a n d u n i t p la n e ?(a) n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s f u l t e a c h in g(b ) h e lp fu l b u t to o t im e c o n s u m in g(c ) n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e f i r s t few u n i ts(d) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e

4 3 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g c o in c id e s w ith y o u r v ie w s of a s tu d e n t t e a c h e r c o n d u c tin g a c a s e s tu d y ?(a) a v a lu a b le t o o l i n t e a c h in g(b) h e lp f u l b u t to o t i m e c o n s u m in g f o r

(c ) o f r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e v a lu e(d) s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s a r e to o in e x p e r ie n c e d

to c o n d u c t a c a s e s tu d y(e) th a t i s w h y w e h a v e g u id a n c e c o u n s e lo r s

4 4 . S o m e s tu d e n t s c o m m u te t o th e c o m m u n ity in w h ic h th e y d o t h e i r s tu d e n t te a c h in g .D o y o u f e e l t h i s h i n d e r s o n - th e - jo b p r e p a r a t i o n ?(a) y e s (b ) no

4 5 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a llo w e d to do t h e i r s tu d e n t te a c h in g in th e s c h o o l f r o m w h ic h th e y g r a d u a te d ?(a) y e a(b) y e s , i f l a r g e s c h o o l(c ) y e s . i f s m a l l s c h o o l(d) no

4 6 . W h ich p o r t io n o f th e s c h o o l y e a r o f f e r s t h e m o s t c o m p r e h e n s iv e v iew o f th e te a c h in g s i t u a t io n ?(a) f a l l(b ) w in t e r(c ) s p r in g(d) n o d i f f e r e n c e

4 7 . T h e o p t im u m l e n g th o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h in g e x p e r i e n c e i s -(a ) s i x w e e k s(b) n in e w e e k s(c) tw e lv e w e e k s(d) e ig h te e n w e e k s

4 8 . S tu d e n t te a c h in g w o u ld b e m o s t w o r th w h i le i f d o n e -fa ) a t th e b e g in n in g o f th e s e n io r

(b) d u r in g th e s e n io r y e a r(c ) a f t e r th e c o m p le t io n o f a l l

c o u r s e w o r k .

4 9 . T h e p u r p o s e o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e ta ) to g iv e a d v ic e a n d in s t r u c t io n(b) to a n s w e r s tu d e n t t e a c h e r


251

5 0 . T h e o p t im u m le n g th o f th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e l a ta ) 10 m in u te s(b) 30 m l n u te s(c ) 60 m i n u te s(d) a s n e e d e d

51. S tu d e n t t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r c o n f e r e n c e s s h o u ld b e h e ld -(a ) p r i o r to th e l e s s o n(b) fo l lo w in g th e l e s s o n(c ) b o th b e f o r e a n d a f t e r th e l e s s o n

5 2 . W h ich o f th e fo l lo w in g e x p r e s s e s y o u r v ie w s o f th e r e m u n e r a t io n c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s r e c e i v e ?(a) a to k e n o f a p p r e c i a t i o n(b) u n n e c e s s a r y(c ) in s u f f ic ie n t

5 3 . D o y o u th in k t e a c h e r s lo o k u p o n s e r v in g a s c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s a s -(a ) a c h o r e(b ) a n o p p o r tu n i ty t o l e a r n(c ) a n o b l ig a t io n to th e p r o f e s s io n(d) s o m e o n e to t a k e p a r t o f t h e i r lo a d(e) a c h a n c e to p ic k u p s o m e e x t r a m o n e y

5 4 . W h at i s y o u r p r e f e r e n c e c o n c e r n in g n o t i f ic a t i o n o f f o r th c o m in g v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) p r e f e r to k now a h e a d o f t im e(b) p r e f e r n o t to know a h e a d o f t im e(c ) n o p r e f e r e n c e

5 5 . H ow o f te n d o y o u f e e l th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s h o u ld v i s i t t h e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r ?(a ) w e e k ly(b ) e v e r y tw o w e e k s(c) e v e r y t h r e e w e e k s(d ) o n c e d u r in g s tu d e n t t e a c h in g(e) tw ic e d u r in g s tu d e n t t e a c h in g

5 6 . W h ich b e s t c o r r e s p o n d s w ith y o u r v ie w s on c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r v i s i t s ?(a ) s h o u ld a r r i v e b e f o r e c l a s s a n d r e m a in

th e fu l l p e r io d(b) s h o u ld v i s i t th e f i r s t h a l f o f th e c l a s s(c ) s h o u ld v i s i t th e l a s t h a l f o f th e c l a s s(d ) s h o u ld l im i t th e v i s i t to te n m i n u te s

* 7 . W h ich b e s t c h a r a c t e r i s e s th e v ie w s o f y o u rc o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r s c o n c e r n in g th e v i s i t s o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) r e s e n t f u l(b) w e lc o m e th e v i s i t(c ) in d i f f e r e n t to th e v i s i t

5 8 . H ow do you b e l ie v e th e s tu d e n t t e a c h e r v ie w s th e f i r s t v i s i t o f th e c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r ?(a ) w i th n e r v o u s a n t ic ip a t io n(b) a s a n e c e s s a r y e v i l(c ) w ith p l e a s u r a b l e a n t ic ip a t io n(c) a s a d i s tu r b in g in f lu e n c e(e) a s a r e s o u r s e p e r s o n

5 9 . S h o u ld th e c o o p e r a t in g t e a c h e r b e p r e s e n t d u r in g c o n f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n s tu d e n t t e a c h e r a n d c o l le g e s u p e r v i s o r s ?

(b) p a r t o f th e t im e(c ) a l l o f th e t im e

6 0 . S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s ?(a ) y e s(b) no

61. S h o u ld s tu d e n t t e a c h e r s b e a s s ig n e d to a s s i s t in s u c h d u t ie s a s h a l l d u ty , lu n c h d u ty , t i c k e t s e l l in g , f e e c o l le c t io n , e tc .(») y e s (b ) no

Appendix F

College Supervisor Questionnaire

253

College Supervisor QuestionnaireName Mr. Mrs. Miss.College or University for whom you supervised-

1. Level of supervision(a) elementary(b) secondary(c) both

2. Are you on the resident staff forthe institution for w h o m you did supervision?(a) yes (b) no

3. What is your highest degree:(a) bachelors(b) masters(c) doctors

4. What was the average number of visits you made to each student teacher?fa) one(b) two(c) three(d) four(e) more than four

5. Did you attend a pre-supervisionmeeting or seminar at the college for w h o m you did supervision?(a) yes (b) no

6. Do you feel such a meeting or seminarwould be worthwhile?(a) yes (b) no

7. How many student teachers did youhave under your supervision any one quarter or semester?(a) I to 5 (c) 16 to 20(b) 6 to 10 (d) more than 20

8. Do you feel this number should beta) 1 - 5 (d) 16 - 20(b) 6-10 (e) more than 20(c) 11 - 15

9. When you visit a cooperating schooldo you confer with the administrator about the student teachers in that school?(a) always (c) seldom(b) usually (d) never

10. When you visit a cooperating school do you contact the advinistrator upon your

(a) always (d) seldom(b) usually (e) never(c) sometimes

11. If you conferred with the administrators about student teachers, did the conferences usually last-fa) less than 10 minutes(b) 10 to 30 minutes(c) longer than 30 minutes(d) no conference

12. Would you classify these visits as-(a) productive(b) general(c) waste of time fd) purely social(e) primarily public relations

15. Was the student teacher present whenyou conferred with the cooperating teacher? fa) always (c) seldom(b) frequently (d) never

16. Of those student teaching experiences you would classify as being unsatisfactory, would you say the major reason was:(a) attitude of the student teacher(b) attitude of the cooperating teacher(c) clash of personalitiesfd) preparation of the student teacher(e) classroom management and overall

perception of the teaching situation17. In an over-all evaluation of the student

teaching situation, about what percent of your student teachers do you believe were placed in a satisfactory situation?(a) 90% or more(b) 75 to 90%(c) 50 to 75% fd) 25 to 50%(e) less than 25%

18. Do you notify the school of your forthcoming visits?(a) always(b) usually(c) seldom(d) never

19. Do you notify the student teacher and/or the cooperating teacher of your forthcoming visits?(a) always(b) usually(c) seldom(d) never

20. Do you feel a satisfactory cooperating teacher should be permitted to have more one student teacher a year?(a) yes(b) no

21. Do you feel that usually administrators assign student teachers to their best teachers?(a) 90% or more of the time (c) 50%(b) 75% (d) 25%

22. Do you feel some administrators assign student teachers to their staffs on a rotation basis?(a) yes(b) no

23. Do you feel some administrators assign student teachers to their staff on a basis that the cooperating teacher isin need of assistance?(a) yes(b) no

Please check which of the following activities student teachers should be assigned.

teacher- Yei No Activityfa) prior to the classroom visit (b) following the classroom visit 24. (s) 0>) homeroom supervision(c) both before and after the visit 25. (s) (b) registrationHow would you describe the attitude of 26. (s) (b) noon dutymost cooperating teachers toward your 27. (s) (b) detentionvisit? 28. (S) (b) hall duty(a) resentful (d) enthusiastic 29. (S) (b) chaperoning dances(b) indifferent (e) cooperative 30. (s) (b) athletics - inter scholastic(c) appreciative 31. (s) (b) athletics - intramural

25h

32. (a) (b) ticket selling33. (a) (b) study hall supervision34. (a) (b) marking report cards35. (a) (b) class meetings36. (a) (b) playground supervision37. (a) (b) club meetings38. (a) (b) guidance services39. What percent of the day should student

teachers be assigned to classes and other organized group activities?(a) 50%(b) 67%(c) 75%(d) 100%

40. What is the average amount of time you spend in each school for each student teacher on each visit?(a) one hour(b) two hours(c) one-half day(d) the full day

41. Do you feel the administrator shouldvisit the classroom of the student teacher?(a) yes(b) not generally(c) only at the request of the cooperating

(d) only at the request of the student teacher

42. The general attitude of staff members of cooperating schools toward student teachers can be best characterized as one of:(a) tolerance(b) indifferent acceptance(c) general acceptance(d) enthusiastic, helpful acceptance

43. The general attitude of the administrator of the cooperating school can best be characterized as one of:(a) tolerance(b) indifferent acceptance(c) general acceptance(d) enthusiastic, helpful acceptance

44. The general attitude of the cooperating teachers can best be characterized as one of:(a) tolerance(b) indifferent acceptance(c) general acceptance(d) enthusiastic, helpful acceptance

45. Which of the following most closely reflects your views concerning the length of the period of observation immediately preceding the student teacher taking active charge of the class:(a) observe one week(b) observe two weeks(c) observe three weeks(d) start to teach immediately(e) observe I or 2 days

46. Once a satistactory student teacher has started to teach, the most favorable procedure in to have the student teacher- fa) teach continuously the rest of his

student teaching term(b) alternate unite with the cooperating

(c) teach one unit and return the class to the supervising teacher

47. The cooperating teacher should usually remain in the room the first day the student teacher takes over the class.(a) yes (b) no

48. Should the cooperating teacner be in the classroom when the student teacher is teaching?(a) always (d) seldom(b) usually (e) never(c) occasionally

49. The student teaching program is best served if the student teacher starts to teach in:(a) this major area of concentration(b) his minor area of concentration(c) both

50. Which of the following best corresponds with your views on written lesson and unit plans?(a) necessary for successful teaching(b) helpful but too time consuming(c) necessary for the first few units(d) of relatively little value

51. Which of the following best corresponds with the views of cooperating teachers about written lesson and unit plans?(a) necessary for successful teaching(b) helpful but too time consxim ing(c) necessary for the first few units(d) of relatively little value

52. Which of the following best corresponds with the views of the student teachers about lesson and unit plans?(a) necessary for successful teaching(b) helpful but too time consuming(c) necessary for the first few units(d) of relatively little value

53. Some student teaching programs require a student teacher to do a case study.Do you view this as:(a) a valuable tool in teaching(b) helpful but too time consuming

for its value(c) of relatively little value(d) student teachers are too inexperi

enced to conduct a case study(e) that is why we have guidance

counselors54. Some students commute to the community

in which they do their student teachingDo you feel this hinders on-the-job preparation?(a) usually (c) seldom(b) sometimes (d) no

55. Should student teachers be allowed to do student teaching in the school from which they graduated?(a) yes(b) yes, if a large school(c) yes, if a small school(d) no

56. Which portion of the school year offers the most comprehensive view ofthe teaching situation for the student teacher?(a) fall (c) spring(b) winter (d) no difference

2 #

57. The op t im u m length of the to ta l sutdent teach ing e x p e r ie n c e is:(a) s ix w eeks(b) nine w eeks(c) twelve w eeks(d) e igh teen w eeks

58. Student teach ing would be m o s t w o r th while of done-fa) at the beginning of the se n io r

y e a r(b) d u r ing the s e n io r y e a r(c) a f t e r c o m ple t ion of a l l c o u r s e w ork

59. The p u rp o se of the s tuden t t e a c h e r - coo p e ra t in g t e a c h e r c o n fe ren ce should be(a) to give adv ice and in s t ru c t io n(b) to a n s w e r s tuden t t e a c h e r ques t io n s(c) a com bina t ion of the two

60. The o p t im u m length of the s tudent t e a c h e r - coo p e ra t in g t e a c h e r c o n fe ren ce u su a l ly is(a) 10 m in u te s (c) 60 m in u te s(b) 30 m in u te s

61. Student t e a c h e r - c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r c o n fe re n c e s should g e n e ra l ly be he ld -(a) p r i o r to the l e s so n(b) a f t e r the l e s s o n(c) both b e fo re and a f te r the l e s so n

62. Which of the following e x p r e s s e s the v iews of c o o p e ra t in g t e a c h e r s about the r e m u n e ra t i o n they r e c e iv e ?(a) a token of a p p re c ia t io n(b) u n n e c e s s a ry(c) insuff ic ien t

63. Do you think m o s t t e a c h e r s look upon s e rv in g a s coo p e ra t in g t e a c h e r s as(a) a cho re(b) an oppor tun ity to le a rn(c) an ob liga tion to the p ro fe s s io n(d) som e one to take p a r t of t h e i r load(e) a chance to pick up e x t r a m oney

64. How often do you fee l the college s u p e rv i s o r should v is i t the s tudent t e a c h e r ?(a) weekly(b) e v e ry two w eeks(c) e v e ry th r e e w eeks(d) once d u r ing student teach ing(e) tw ice du r in g student teach ing

65. How do you be l ieve the s tudent t e a c h e r v iews your f i r s t v is i t?(a) w ith n e rv o u s an t ic ipa t ion(b) an a n e c e s s a r y evil(c) w ith p l e a s u ra b l e an t ic ipa t ion(d) a s a d is tu rb in g influence(e) a s a r e s o u r c e p e r s o n

66. Would you c la s s i fy your c o n fe re n c e s with co o pera t ing t e a c h e r s as :(a) p roduc t ive(b) g e n e ra l(c) w a s te of t im e(d) p u re ly so c ia l

67. Would you c la s s i fy your v i s i t s w ith the s tuden t t e a c h e r as :(a) p roduc t ive(b) g e n e ra l(c) w a s te of t im e(d) p u re ly soc ia l

68. How w as the g r a d e fo r s tudent teaching d e te rm in e d ?(a) by m u tu a l a g r e e m e n t with the

co o pera t ing t e a c h e r(b) your d e c is io n taking in to

c o n s id e ra t io n the coopera t ing t e a c h e r ' s reco m m e n d a t io n

(c) Your o b s e rv a t io n s p lus the ra t ing sh e e ts of the co o pera t ing t e a c h e r s

(d) coo p e ra t in g t e a c h e r reco m m e n d a t io n s only

69. How w e r e your s tuden t t e a c h e r s in fo rm ed of t h e i r g rad e in s tuden t teach ing?(a) in fo rm ed by you(b) in fo rm ed by co o pera t ing te a c h e r s(c) in fo rm ed by r e g u la r college g rade

sl ip(d) in fo rm ed by d i r e c t o r of

s tudent teach ing70. A re you s a t is f ie d w ith the grad ing

p ro c e d u re now u se d ?(a) yes(b) no - should be m o r e the r e s p o n s ib i l i ty

of the co l lege su p e rv i s o r(c) no - should be m o r e the r e s p o n s ib i l i ty

of the c o o p e ra t in g t e a c h e r s(d) no - should be g r e a t e r s h a r in g of the

r e s p o n s ib i l i ty71. To what d e g re e w e r e s tudent t e a c h e r s

w il l ing to i n c o r p o ra t e suggest ions into th e i r l e s s o n p la n s ?(a) v e ry wil l ing(b) willing(c) r e lu c ta n t(d) a t your in s i s t a n c e

7 2. Which of the following b es t d e s c r ib e s the n a tu re of the c o n fe ren ces you held with the s tuden t t e a c h e r s ?(a) m o s t ly devoted to planning(b) m o s t ly devoted to evaluation(c) evenly d iv ided betw een planning

and eva lua t ion(d) se ldom had a co n fe ren ce

73. Which of th e following b es t d e s c r ib e s the n a tu re of the s tuden t t e a c h e r - coopera t ing t e a c h e r confe rence as it should be?(a) m o s t ly devoted to planning(b) m o s t ly devoted to evaluation(c) evenly div ided betw een planning and

evaluation74. If you w e r e in a p o s i t io n to h i r e s tudent

t e a c h e r s to t e a c h fo r you, what p e r cent of those you o b s e rv e d would you be e a g e r to h i r e ?(a) n e a r ly 100%(b) 75%(c) 50%(d) 25%(e) 10% o r l e s s

75. If you w e r e in a posi t io n to h i r e s tudent t e a c h e r s to t e a c h fo r you, what p e r c e n t t

would you not choose o r only choose in an e m e rg e n c y ?(a) n e a r ly 100%(b) 75%(c) 50%(d) 25%(e) 10% o r l e s s

2$6

76. If you observed elementary school student teachers, do you feel their subject matter preparation was:(a) very insufficient(b) insufficient(c) adequate(d) excellent(e) did not observe elementary student

teachers77. If you observed secondary student

teachers, do you feel their subject matter preparation in their major was:(a) very insufficient(b) insufficient(c) adequate(d) excellent(e) did not observe secondary student

teachers78. If you observed secondary student

teachers, do you feel their subject matter preparation in their minor was:(a) very insufficient(b) insufficient(c) adequate(d) excellent(e) did not observe secondary student

teachers

79. Do you feel the education course preparation of your student teachers was:(a) very insufficient(b) insufficient(c) adequate(d) excellent

80. What do you feel was the greatest single weakness in subject matter preparation?(a) methodology(b) subject matter knowledge(c) related background knowledge

81. What do you feel was the greatest strength in subject matter preparation?(a) methodology(b) subject matter knowledge(c) related background knowledge

82. What do you deel was the greatest area of weakness in the education course preparation?(a) lessen and unit plan construction(b) use of audio-visual materials(c) test construction(d) grade determination(e) practical application of theory

83. What do you feel was the greatest area of strength in the education course preparation?(a) lesson and unit plan construction(b) use of audio-visuals(c) test construction(d) grade determination(e) practical application of theory

85. Generally do you find student teachers more or less eager and willing to experiment with new approaches than the cooperating teacher?(a) student teacher more eager(b) student teacher less eager

86. What was the average length of your conference with the student teacher at the cooperating school.(a) 10 minutes or less(b) 10-30 minutes(c) 30-60 minutes(d) over 60 minutes(e) no conference

87. Do you hold on-campus individual conferences with your student teachers after the completion of student teaching?(a) no(b) usually(c) occasionally(d) always

88. Should student teachers be assigned to assist in extracurricular activities?(a) yes(b) no

89. Should student teachers be assigned to assist in such duties as hall duty, lunch duty, ticket selling, fee collection, etc?(a) yes(b) no

Please indicate any suggestions you mighthave which would improve the teacher preparationprogram.

84. Generally, do you find student teachers more or less interested in using audio -visual materials than the cooperating teacher?(a) student more interested(b) student less interested

LITERATURE -CONSULTED

1. Amidon, Edmund, and Hunter, Elizabeth, Improving Teaching: TheAnalysis of Classroom Verbal Interaction, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1963.

2. Andrews, Leonard O., Student Teaching, New York Center for AppliedResearch in Education, New York, 1964.

3. Barnes, Fred P., Research for the Practitioner in Education,Department of Elementary School Principals, National Education Association, Washington, D.C., 1964.

4. Batchelder, Howard T.; McGlasson, Maurice; and Schorling, Raleigh,Student Teaching in Secondary Schools, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1964.

5. Beggs, Walter K., The Education of Teachers, The Center for AppliedResearch in Education, Inc., New York, 1965.

6. Bennett, Carson M., and Hill, Robert E., ”A Comparison of SelectedPersonality Characteristics of Responders and Non-Responders to a Mailed Questionnaire Study," Journal of Educational Research 58:178-80, December, 1964.

7. Blair, Lois C., and Erickson, Paul, The Student Teacher1 s Experiencesin the Community, Association for Student Teaching, bul. no. 21, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1964.

8. Broudy,■ Harry, The Education of Teachers: An Address to the AdvisoryCouncil in Teacher Education, Urbana, Illinois (no date).

9. Brumbaugh, Robert B,.; Hoedt, Kenneth C.; and Beisel, William H.. Jr.,"Teacher Dogmatism and Perceptual Accuracy," Journal of Educational Research 58:420-422, May, 1965.

10. Burns, Paul C., and Brown, Daniel H., The Student Teacher EvaluatesPupil Progress, Association for Student Teaching, bul. no.'19, Iowa State Teachers' College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1962.

11. Burr, James B.; Harding, Lowrey W.; and Jacobs, Leland B., StudentTeaching in the Elementary School, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York, 1950.

12. Butts, R. Freeman, A Cultural History of Western Education, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1955.

13. Chaltas, John G., "Student Teaching: Assignment or Misassignment,"Journal of Teacher Education 16:311-318, September, 1965.

25814. Clarke, Gerald E., "Window or Mirror," New York State Education 53:14-

15, March, 1966.

15. Clothier, Grant, and Wyatt, Nita, Case Studies in Student Teaching,Association for Student-Teaching, bul. no. 18, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1962.

16. Conant, James B.,- The Education of American Teachers, McGraw-HillBook Company, New York, 1963'.

17. Craig, James Ralph, Effects■of Returning Two Weeks Late to College onthe Scholastic Achievement of Student Teachers, Unpublished master's thesis, Library, Montana State University, Bozeman,1961.

18. Crowe, Lester Donald, and Crowe, Alice, The Student Teacher in theSecondary School, D. McKay Co., New York, 1964.

19. Cummings, John R., and Wright, Roscoe E., "A New Approach to StudentTeacher Evaluation," Montana Education 42:25-26, September,1965.

20. Devor, John W., The Experience of Student Teaching, The MacmillanCompany, New York, 1964.

21. Drayer, Adam M. , Rroblems and Methods in High School Teaching, D. C.Heath and Company, Boston, 1963.

.22. Drumhiller, Sidney J., and Paris, John, "An Effective Approach forIncorporating Teaching Experience in Methods Courses," Jpnrnal of Teacher Education 17:290-2953 Fall, 1966.

23. Durrance, Charles L., and Blake, Garth K., "Selecting DirectingTeachers," Florida Education 38:17-18, May, 1961.

24. Edwards, Helen E., A Ma,jor Role of the College Supervisor, Associationfor Student Teaching, bul. no. 16, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1961.

25. Fergusen, George A., Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education,McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1966.

26. Forte, Imogens, and Shearron, Gilbert, Remaking the World of CareerTeachers, National Committee on Teacher Education and Professional Standards, National Education Association, Washington, D.C., 1966.

27. Good, Carter V., editor, Dictionary of Education, McGraw-Hill BookCompany, Inc., New York, 1945.

Filmed as receivedwithout page(s) 259

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS

26028. Goodlad9 John I., "An Analysis of Professional Laboratory Experiences'

in the Education of Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education 16:262-270, September, 1965.

29. Grim, Paul R., and Michaelis, John U., The Student Teacher in the -x Secondary School, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New York, 1953.

30. Grue, Milo, A Description and Evaluation of the Montana. State College'Student Teacher Training Program - Conducted in Manhattan Schools, Unpublished master's thesis, Library, Montana State University, Bozeman, 1963.

31. Harper, Charles•A., A Century of Public Teacher Education, NationalEducation Association, Washington, D.C., 1939.

32. Hayes, Robert B ., chairman, Professional Growth Inservice of theSupervising Teacher, Forty-fifth Yearbook of the Association

. for Student Teaching, William C. Brown Co., Inc., Dubuque,1966.

33. Hoover, Kenneth; Kaiser, L. HI; and Podlich, William F. Jr., "AComparison of Expressed Teaching Strengths Before and After Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education 16:324-328, September,-1965.

34. Hutson, P. W., "Comments on Teacher Education," Education 85:413-420, March, 1965.

35. Ingle, Robert B., and Robinson, Edward W., "An Examination of theValue of Classroom Observation for Prospective Teachers,"Journal of Teacher Education 16:456-460, December, 1965.

36. Inlow, Gail M., "A Comparative Study of Student Teaching Practices,"Journal of Experimental Education 28:337, June, i960.

37. Jones, Rodney M., "Off-Campus Student Teaching Programs - Their Sizeand Importance," Journal of Teacher Education 11:513? December,1960.

38. Kuhl, Raymond E., "Time for Student Teaching," Journal of TeacherEducation 12:44, March, 1961

39'. Lantz, Donald L., "Changes in Student Teacher Concept of Self andOthers," Journal of Teacher Education 15:200-203, June, 1964.

Lindsey, Margaret, and Gruhn, William T., Student Teaching in the Elementary School, The Ronald Press Company, New York, 1957.

40.

261

41. Marks, Eli S., "Some Sampling Problems in Educational Research,"Journal of Educational Psychology 42:58, February, 1951.

42. - Mathis, Claude, and Park, Young Horn, "Some Factors Relating toSuccess in Student Teaching," Journal of Educational Research54:420 422, May, 1965.

43'. McGuire, Vincent; Myers, Robert B.; and Durrance, Charles L., Your Student Teaching in the Secondary School, Allyn and Bacon,Inc., Boston, 1959.

44. Meeker, Alice M., Teachers at Work in the Elementary School, TheBobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., New York, 1963.

45. Milner, Ernest J., editor, The Supervising Teacher, Thirty-eighthYearbook of the Association for Student Teaching,William C.

• Brown Co., Dubuque, 1959.

46. Milner, Ernest J., You and Your Student Teacher, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1954.

47. ' Moffitt, John Clifton, In-Service Education of Teachers, The Centerfor Applied Research in Education, Inc., Washington, D.C.,

- 1963.48. Nash, Curtis, and Lofthouse, Ynonne, compilers, New Developments,

Research, and Experimentation in Professional Laboratory Experience, Association for Student Teaching, bul. no. 22,Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, 1964.

49. Newsome, George L.; Gentry, Harold W.; and Stephens, Lester D.,"Changes in Consistency of Educational Ideas Attributable to Student Teaching Experiences," Journal of Teacher Education 16:319-323, September, 1965.

50. O 1 Hanlon, James P., "Considerations About Student Teaching,"Educational Forum 31:339-343, March, 1967.

51. Perrodin, Alex F., "In Support of Supervising Teacher EducationPrograms," Journal of Teacher Education 12:36, March, 1961.

52. Perrodin, Alex F., Student Teacher Reader, Rand-McNally and Company,Chicago, 1966.

•53. Pfeiffer, Robert B., chairman, The College Supervisor: Conflict andChallenge, Forty-third Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, William C. Brown Co., Inc., Dubuque, 1964.

4

26254». Pitkin, Walter J., "Too Many People: Can Educators Find the Answer?"

Phi Delta Kappan 49:475, Phy, 1968

55. Preparing Teachers of Secondary Schools, Report of a Post-Baccalaureate Program Leading to a Master of Education Degree, Pilot Study II, Jos. S . Butterwick, director, Temple University, 1959.

56. Reilly, Howard E., Student Teachers: Two Years After, Association forStudent Teaching, bul. no. 24, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, 1965.

57. Rummel, J. Francis, An Introduction to Research Procedures inEducation, Harper and Brothers, Publishers, New York, 1958.

58. Schorling, Raleigh, and BatcheIder, Howard T., Student Teaching inSecondary Schools, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York,1959.

59. Schultz, Raymond E., Student Teaching in the Secondary Schools: AGuide to Effective Practice, Harcourt-Brace, New York, 1959.

60.. Schunk, Bernadene, editor, The Outlook in Student Teaching, Forty- first Yearbook of the Association for Student Teaching, William C. Brown Co., Inc., Dubuque, 1962.

61. Sharpe, Donald M., "Threshold to the Profession," National EducationAssociation Journal 54=33-35, April, 1965.

62. Sheldon, H. D., State Normal School Systems of the United States,University of'Oregpn, Eugene, November, 1905.

63. Smith, Emmett D . , and Qulller,_ Gordon, Research and ProfessionalExperiences in Teacher'Education, Association for Student Teaching, bull no,. 20, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, 1963. '

64. Steeves, Frank!., "Crucial Issues in Student Teaching," Journal ofTeacher Education.16:307-310, September, 1965.

65. Steeves, Frank L., You111 Have Fun in Student Teaching: An Orientation to Student Teaching, Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis,1955.

66. Veldman, Donald J., and Peck, Robert F., "The Influence of Teacherand Pupil Sex on Pupil Evaluation of Student Teaching,"Journal of Secondary Education 15:393-396, December, 1964.

26367. Wagner, William S.; Hughes, Vergil H.; and Corcoran, Gertrude B.,

Student Teaching: A Mission of the Elementary and Secondary Schools, Association for Student Teaching, bul. no. 13, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Rapids, I960.

68. Wiggins, Sam P., The Student Teacher in Action, Allyn and Bacon,Boston, 1957.

69. Wolfgramm, Harold F., "Cooperating Teachers Look at Student TeachingJournal of Secondary Education 41:9-16, January, 1966.

70. Wolfgramm, Harold F., "Tips for Cooperating Teachers," PeabodyJournal of Education 44:171-176, ’ November, 1966.

71. Woodring, Paul, New Directions in Teacher Education, The Fund for theAdvancement of Education, New York, 1957.

72. Woodruff, Asahel Davis, Student Teaching Today: A Survey Report ofSelected Aspects of Student Teaching, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Washington, D.C., I960.

73. Yauch, Wilbur A.; Bartels, Martin H.; and Morris, Emmet, TheBeginning Teacher, Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1955.

3 1762

D378 Stl 3 cop. 2

Stagg, G. i.Problems of

student teachers

NAMe AND AO7 /, ^ /V

V •K ^

/;yF

UtL 3)319 St V3

a

problems of student teachers by george fred stagg

Documents