Untitled.pdf (3.123Mb)

Document technical information

Format pdf
Size 3.3 MB
First found Aug 23, 2016

Document content analysis

Category Also themed
Language
English
Type
not defined
Concepts
no text concepts found

Organizations

Places

Transcript

CIIANGl};S I
LEPJ)ERS'
CAP ABILI'I'I
DES
PImC:rr;PTIONS OF IN'1'E;RNS
AS POTEN'rIAL 'J7EACE8HS IN THE
~1JOINT~3
TEACHER CORPS PROJEC'I'
A Field Heport
Presented to
The School of Graduate Studies
Drake University
I:n Partial
of
Ifillmen t
e Requirements for the Desree
star of Science in Education
,T':l.rJUH"
S' 1 70
I
CAPi\BILI'rIES AS POTENTIAL 'fEAGHH::HS IN
DES IvIOINES
'l'EACIIE:t1 CORPS PROJECT
by
Verda J. Heger
Approved by Committee:
e Studies
'1'Aj~~LE
OF' C
I ..
i,~;~
P
C AP
J
RC))){JC rr
1
2
The Problem
or
Statement
r-~
the problem
c
2
Importance of Study
Det'ini ti on
p
3
Terms Used
0 ...
?
'reacher Corps
J
:l
Interns
J
ream Leader •
j
1.
I
Procedures •
4
Selection of sample
4
cedure.
"T
~esting
Anal
)1
J
is of data
j
7
(ni tati 0113
LT
Literature of
acher
to Studies
Per~sor1ulity
Sumrn3.ry
~nd
Success in
c.r
achi
1
•
1
I
1 roc
19
13\11"'8
1. etlan
0
the
g9.m
Ie
lLL
PAGE
Analysis of data •
Analysis of Data
Differences in team leader evaluations
21
22
22
Correlations between California Psychologi­
cal Inventory and Team Leader evaluations.
IV.
, CONCV
IONS, PJIJD RECOMj'!JENDATIONS •
30
34
Restatement of the Problem
34
ProcedDres
3S
Summary of Findings
36
Conclusions
Recommendations .
i3IBLIOGFIAPHY
x: .
38
40
p
I.
ferences between September, 1968, and
Eay, 1969, Sc ores on 'ream Leader Eva1ua ti on
Worksheets for All Interns in the Des Moines
Area Teacher Corps Project .
23
II. Differences between September, 1968, and
May, 1969, Scores Team Leader Evaluation
1ifJorksbeets for Interns :i..n Team A in the
Des Moines Area Teacher Corps Project
25
Ill. Differences between September, 1968, and
0
-,
T
L,ea d er --,
1
.
!'lay, 10'
/0.1,
::Scores
onc'eam
t'.:.ov9._uatJ.on
1rJorks heets for In terns in 'ream 13 in tbe
Des Moines Area Teacher Corps Project
26
Differences between September, 1968, and May,
1969, Scores on Team Leader Evaluation
\~lorksheets for Interns in Team C in the
Des
ines Area Teacher Corps Project
?7
'!
1\T
V •
...l...
'\l.
I)i
rences ~between Se!~)tember, 1963, and
1969, Scor~es OJ]
arn Le
er :~~:vzllu9.,tion
i''.Jiay ~
he ts for Interns in
am D in the
ines Area Teacher Corps Project
Brences between September, 19Gb, and May,
am Leader
uation
heats
r Interns in Team E in the
Din 8 Area '[eacher Corps Project
",7';­
\./ J.< •
lS69, Scores on
I .
'j..L
I
~
ffara cas between September, 1
,and
t
Scores orl
am Leader Evaluqtion
8
e ts
acher Corps Project
Rank~dirference
~~:ln - i foronco
Dri "Lil
r'rii,d
,'.:j C CJ r C3 ::1
h
(-~\:1 rn
Correlqtion
olo;:i cal I
VGntC)I~
ElrJd
C8rrelqtion b tweetl Scores
PE1
e
T
I
'1 d
c,lor~
r
E'
I
c
11:'.:8
fl1
'1
tor
D rj
;11iC
C) r
-­
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The preparation of effective teachers for the nation's
schools has long been a challenge of teacher trainina institu­
tions in this country.
In recent years, another dimension of
concern has been added in preparing adequate teachers for the
inner-city schools.
One of the
pro~rams
developed by the Congress of the
United States to meet this specific challenge has been the
'J'e'3.ChfJr Corps program of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and
more recently continued under the Education Professions
Geve10Dment Act.
r"!(~sent
tirne the
TI--:'rougl1 its "shakylt beginnings until tbe
~reacbel"a
Corps
ha~
firEiflcial, and organizational.
met
at
1119..l"1Y'
prol)lerns, social,
as emerped is a new
odel for teacher education by local school districts and
t e t.ac or training institutions.
is study is an evaluation of one yearfs pro ress of
in tern s in one
coo
e]~~t
on wLt
roject in the Greater Des
the College of Educqtion at Drake Universit
~
&
2
I .
PI10BLE:f1i
Statement of the problen:..
It \-J'as the purpose of this
study to determine whether Interns
the Teacher Corpa
actually display changes in their capabilities as teachers
over the period of an academic year in a positive direction
in the opinIon of their supervisors, the 'Team Leade.rs.
A
sscond emphasis of the study was to determine if the Interns'
scores on the California Psychological Inventory would cor­
relate sipnificantly with the Team Leaders' evaluations at
the end of the first year of in-service.
II.
~ucb
STUDY
Ii!POHT
effort and emphasis has been placed on the educa­
dis8dvmltan'ec1 children.
tio:n
rne
training of teachers
11 have specialized skills and attitudes in workinR
t i ern
i~
cI J'~C 1 e 8
rainin[~
•
of these teacher:s is a
ex ensive in time and money.
tD be
8UCCC8'Sl~ul I.Cl bis
~tte
1~
t
'-<
t
SUCC()S~1o
rJ fl
~Yilt]
'1
r
fir)d an
.'11"'
eff'Dr~t8 to
r 'j
u-1 ...
u""-
0 \ "'"v'f e;
~...
~',
.iL
It is therefore important
predict whether a student (Intsrn)
10 t
S ,i{ 1.. 1.], S
roject which
~
;J.~L~~~)
ot
1Y·)
".~_• _!.'j- ~~ ,f_~~
o.-!
~.
.•Y:>,
becorne a. teacher
'1,J
"
1. f'. P.,
............... '
t_ I"'l,".'::'; I' r-j _i. YJ
',7
~
v'
A..
-',
•
11 be
ether hiS'
lDd
is study is qn
strument l..Jhic r, could pre let Intenls'
o-~s
purp\.l."lr<.'
J_ _
Lv
~-~·t-~rw
Lie
v
~(j
trainin .
Vl~
1~\.~
~hQ
0!~v
q_~.n
-"~
..
~.9_)
~I~
~.~,_­
i
--
-].~
-.~
3
III.
OF TEHJVlS tfS}T;D
designed to recruit upper classmen or graduates and train
them within a two-year period as teachers in disadvantaged
scbools.
It was created by Title V-3 of the Higher Education
Act of 1965 and consists primarily of a number of locally
planned, can trolled, and operated programs.
tlTeac her Corps it
will bereafter r'ofer to the program in operation in connec­
t i on wi th Drake Uni vers i ty and Des Jvloines area sch ools .
Interns.
are
takin~
r:ch~)ols
Interns are typically college graduates who
courses at the university and are serving in
in disadvanta"Jed areas to prepare themselves as
Int rns serve on a team of five to six in a schoel
for two years.
ader.
W1C
serves
~s
Each team of Interns has a Team Leader
the Interns' liaison between the se
university, and the
nei~hborhood.
Team Ie
01, the
ers are teachers
wJ_th several years' experience workinq with children from low
i.rJcorne l'axnilies.
4
IV.
PROCEDURES
Selection of sample.
Des Moines
The Teacher Corps program in the
area admitted thirty-seven college graduates from
the local areg as well as from other parts of the nation as
acher Corpsmen.
Admission was based on the applicant's
baving a grade-point average of
2.5
or better, a Miller
Analogy Test Score of 28K or better.
In lieu of' the IVIiller
lmalogy 'rest, a Graduate Record Examination score of' 1000 ieJ·as
required.
8
local applicants were also interviewed by the
Director of the Des Moines area Teacher Corps.
Thirty-five
Corps members beg'ill in-service training in September, 1968,
the first year of in-service.
with thirty-four complet
Only the scores from those Interns who finished the first year
cf in-service trairlin
were used.
T'he Interns c'10re assigned to six sep3rate tS'3.ms com­
poseej of five or six Interns
edure.
e~chJ
with a
During the Pre-service trainin£
the California Psycholorical Inventory was
in .ILl y, 1
ini9tered to qll of the Interns.
'ldcJr'i'.l2Sed
rinctpl1lly to pers::mality chQracteristlc8 importcu:Jt
or soc1al livin
,'f.
n
rhe inventory is intended
tr'u0-f'11se~
and social interaction.
itorn
'Ul
ip'hteon sc
(33.
e CPI cDnt'lLDS
firet month of in-service, September, 1963,
t h
III
'3. de
r
\rJorksheet" fer
sheet
h~d
S
CJ
mpIe ted
n ~;v 3.1u q
t i ~J J:l "h Y Pro r~ ram S t'1 f f
of the Irlterl1S in his
88.Cn
f~urteen
'In
te9.m
5
items which were divided into the three
c JlteiZories of te':3.ching skills,
interperson~l
skills,
'l-ile]
The Team Leaders responded by ratinz
''It' r'lting indicated t'1'1t the Intern Has extremely poor in
The Team
Le~ders
te~m ~~ain
A"r~].lysi9
d·'l~~l.
J.f
1
'J
n
t
t
t
r
(3
in M~y, 1969.
.1-
'r]
O('(3nC
teet
~:·J'lEi
D13.Ge
~e~n3
of two correlqted
Sq~
las.
\1'11UG
of' t
opternber, 1-=j6 , scores,
Ifferences b tween
1
Evaluation Worksheet for
V3,1\)':1t.i.:)n
t
. !
~nother
tern in his
f-l··-,
P
completed
te
2C;Qre
CDr'
q
t
= 15 -
t
s-D
'iny individ,J:ll:D
rn (.
"
;'<0
'­
th
I
6
the deviation of a difference score from the mean of the
difference scores, tbatjs,
d=D=D.
b difference
was calculated by subtracting algebraically the total score
in September from tbe total score in May.
d
erences was computed from which tbe
. . np
ull:cerences
were found.
~
A mean of the
devi~tions
of the
These deviations were then squared;
the 8um was found: and the above formulae were applied.
The t table was used to determine if the value was sig­
nificant at the
.0S
level in a one-tailed test.
A t ratio was also determined for the differences
between the mea.ns of the September and l"1ay scores for each
ai' the six teams.
The second part of the study was a correlation of
te Interns'
total scores on the Cal
ornia Psychological
terns' total scores on the Evaluation
Inventory and the
iorksh et as rated by the Team Leaders in
Interns \.Jere ran
r~n!{-dif'
renee
ter the difforence
1).
l.
e
d according to their total CPT score, and
score.
to t,hei:r: total
ace 0 f·· '".i in
Spea.rmqrl
y, 1969.
n
JuLltord,
cation (New fork:
cDrrel~tiGn
8
method was a plied
had been determined.
~3tati8tic3
in
1
8
2
7
2
formula
' . .'
C
isp-_.1 -
b ~.D
N (r~2 - 1) . 'rile rho (p)
coefficient was
omp:lre d to th e 'table of val ues of ra-n k-d ifference coef­
ficlents to determine if it were significant at the
.O~
level in a two-tailed test.
v•
LDlIT A'rI ONS
This study was limited in scope as only one Teachsr
Coros project was involved.
The sample available for study
was small, not great enough to infer a population mean from
the sampling mean.
A further limitation of the study was the personnel
who were evaluati
the Interns on the Team Leader Evalua­
8se
evaluators had no traini
this evalu tive instrument.
limited in
reli~bility
rhe evaluations then were
because of the instrument used.
fhe
valU:ltive instpument wan recommended by the Teacher C8ros
() t' i
,~
e,
strict of Columbia.
£
CHAP'.rE;R II
0 '-"
J.
LI'TERA'rURE
1"-1
1
1
e leacner 00rps 13 a recent :J developed program
,r'j.
,"
..
ich has not undergone a great deal or evaluation at this
time.
Toererore t is chapter will be a description or the
'lchar Corps (mc its objectives plus
Hili
survey of studies
9
ch have been made oJ' interns and student teacbers
~onality
per­
I
scores in relationship to classroom success.
I.
LITERATURE OF TEACHER CORPS
The Teacher Corps was established in 1965 as a national
roaram to prepare inexperienced college graduates for a
career DC teachin,"! disaova...'1ta7ed children.
bills were
eo to form the Corps.
e
ace Corps
ret~urned
District of Colum
q
0
r'C)
!~Jj.s~dV~lr)t
9.
r- 8
?]~ "',L
1~ 1:::- y
1
cor~)s
P ''1t,-t~
.
pUblic schools.
1-'"1"
U l, (j
_._0
U
1
!J
n t~'1eir~
in the 11ashin?ton,
Senator
ned
of experienced teachers who would teach in
L
00
()PO'ld
'3.,
V~lunteers
eo are,].s ('o,r one o,r
3. S
Isor}
Senator Gaylord
11 which would provide an internsbip pro ram
introduced a
or
sepaY"ate
T1;..J'O
'G1rJD
'.~.r.'~-~;r
-::-
_-'..
!_ •~.1
en~b18
ye'3.rS
·.,..·-,~,.·.' U'I.JC:·.
n,
,-'".'. .
li
'".)11
. .,.~t.~
, . .:jj.:~.t
l.- - '
~-' -
]",0
.. ,,:~
~.
--
-)
•
c lIe es qnd univ r2itj_
.ro p,lms of te9.ch r pr"(~p<lrrlti
OD ..
a11c)
(3)
to
to
£
9
help the schools become more involved in the community.}
'Ihe program is etructu.rec1 to provide teams of five to
seven interns :ll:i a team who t'l.re led by a.n experienced teacher
from tbe scbool system.
Teacher Corps team ",yorks as a
~:ihe
unit part tlme in the schools, part time in the neighboring
community, and part time in study towards a master 1 s degree
teacher certification at the local university.
and
The Corps
1s providinp tbe interns with three experiences most
teachers do not have:
disadvant
actual experience teaching
ed children in their regular schools, personal
knowledge of the particular community and relevant university
training closely tied to their school experience.
1
In the schools the Interns first work with small
qrocps of c ildren or provide tutoring to individuals.
Later
special materials and
d
v81~o
qre~s,
)"1
the Interns meet re
8
e the problems as they
r
e]
th
i
In such
hiuh interest units
_1
fe classroom situ tions.
1
yt'Th e
an"
::l
Ce d.. C h eI~
• - , .-0:;:'
JOr)
L-l
ex[. :3t:eps,U
Or~)3 =
nn OV:l ti on,
("\
r'\ 1 l-e:':;;;-;;
V1,..,J-.LJ,-, ~ f:~~G<....J
~8S0ciqti~n
0
t
r
,,,-,
f ....
Y"l
v"1.
nC)r18
\j
o f'
PJ.f3.Ce
to
L:)e
ir--~
ellA
;.'~~,-.__
l~ h ("lp
__
__
Colle os
iJC
(_~,
iMmediate
is one, comes when they are students, not when they
Is S LH'J nand
1-
They
The cultural shock,
Cor:: the culture as it rea
r~e
~n
ereby cettin
~re,
di8qdvanta~ed
:ill,
.~~_ ".,,_y~ (~l
if
t
(~9~rboo
l:~d tJ ~
!:~, t
,--.:l.
f~r
i
23C
Drl
l-c
10
s t an d ·be·1-' ore LJtl8lr own c 1 asses
<..1'
EI.S
regll 1 ar LJeactlers. 1
.1.-
I
The team leader serves as the interns' liaison
between the school, the university, and the neighborhood.
oversees intern teaching-- and offers sugQesticns
~.~.
fOl'"
works closely with the principal, the
cooperatiniZ teachers, and the school district coordinators
in Ul'3.1cirw: the program r·elevant and in reaching out to the
children in the area.
Generally the team leader needs
skills in administration and adult leadershiP.2
The team
leader then is in a key position in the proqram.
The Teacher Corps program begins with an intensive
trainin~
Pre-service
and orientation both for Interns and
Toam Leaders before the teams begin working in local
EJC
el.pes
L
'1'h e P y'8- 8 crvi oe training a.t the uni vers i ty
DaIs.
e
tlje
TIei
.,
Intern for teachinR and prOV1G8S
hborhood
i11
which he will work.
rou2hcut the Pre-
service trainina of eiuht to thirteen weeks, the prospective
Cc r l) s
em b e r 8 e v '31 Ll ate the ms e 1 ve S':lXl d t h G i r pro cT e 2 [3
ev~lu~_ted
thG
by others of the proQram staffe
orps memhers is
tr!ads
UC:Jt)l)l),
d
3.
re
D9..l. 801ectiCJD of
qt the end of this trairling
ea1th,
}rl1. t
lr
3.D
orps
lCJD ), p.12.
\r~
ice of'
I&• • • •- - - - - - -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •I.I~1 6 1 _
11
.
.
instltute.
1
~.
Many, however, do not know how to evaluate
themselves or others to determine if they are capable of
il!mdlinf~
,jobs in the most difficult schools in the United
"But there is some promise that the Teacher Corps
will help develop systems for testing a person's potential
r)
before makinr.:! the investment in his training.
for teach
ilL
In evaluating the first cycle corpsmembers' experi­
enees the National Teacher Corps asked all corpsmen and
team leaders who had completed the two-year period to answer
a termination questionnaire.
Questions dealt with demographic
distribution of the Corps members, reasons for joining the
Corps and their expectations of earning a degree and cer­
tification.
t
Other areas covered in the questionnaire were
e quality of communications, the role of the Interns and
st
~C
interpretation of that rols, Intern innovations, and
'The
lAJork.
eorn uni
questi~m
whicb was pertinent to this
nIt' you Here to recruit neVi! interns for
acher Corps, which factors Hould weiRh most heavily
the
in your selsction of potential interns?"]
ertOt]
Sc cal of
1~3ych ~1try,
irteen choice8
!rGach~r .Corps,
Prep~red
s and Plans for the
ture,
~--'-'-~--"-Office of
ucation (
1
shin ton:
), p. 7.
")
(- f} r' 'J. h f.lfn ,
1-'rhe
n ~.~
!I
'
(10
:lcher Corps:
VJ,-lshir},~ftor) JSetl
6 a,.n d 7
io
ext Step,
II
01 of~ Fsychi.'ltl")y,DC-
~.
1
cit.,
12
m9.turitJ'~'
Here listed:
per::made
0
stabilitv,
ability
to cODvince and
v
v
ther people, organi zing and admini 8 trati 'Ie
a.bility, v.Jil1inl-snessto vwrk ha.rd, personal vJa.rmth and
" t 'Y, illS"
h Gegree
1
s en8l' +
,.,l Vl
, . ty,
In te 1'1'
, l:?:ence, adaptablll
.p
01.
l'
,
creativity, previous contact with disadvantaged, from a
minority group education major, and Hother".
Of' these area.s
Lhe Interns Y'eplied that llpersonal 1,oJarmth and sensi tivi tyn
was the most important factor with
74
per cent of the
respondents choosing it as livery important lf •
•~ ~ ,
ana, ' t a wLLilngness
+-",0
>
l"naro II were eactJ' c h,osen '
wor{
oy7i C-' per
ll;"TatIJrl' t~r/"''''',a'D'
;- 1l' t,,!!
J
L. - --'
. tY
portan t!l.
.1 _
,
.. '
On the same question,
t8.n t
3
f!
If :
~
J..J
J.S the f'ourtb 1'1an.1{iI1g very importa.nt
G
!lAdaptabilityH
i~actor,
c'nO'c<An
'-''JCO!
l,.""" '-~'i...i
,-_
--':'.-..J,
(67 per cen't).
the Team Leaders! responses
'
' ! "'very lmporr
arne ~'Dur
i' actors Here ctJDsen
as b
eln~
ersonal ,.j,arrnth and ssnsitivitytt 90 per cent;
8SB
to
nara,
l'
>
wor~
>'
II
8/b per CeJ1t;
84
86
per cen t.
sss four characteristics were included in the eval­
~JqtiDn
forms which were sllPveyed in this report.
!arvey
oldnlan studied nineteen Corps members at the
i
~rter ~hettD
~)rCvi.OU2
COD2l11.
teachin
study
ol~
J
rio
fOUtlG
-Ch3.t the i.nterns
o"f
tested
experience, scored hi?her than a
idw8stern teachers on
achic\TUl1iOn t, domin!lnCe ,'lutonorny ~nd chancre.
t~le
variables
£
13
different personality patterns from some of the teachers
alre
y
in the
1
system.~
The Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory revealed that interns
I
atti tudes changed in an
'JndesLrable direction after tbe teaching experience.
is qui te probable,
I'
,,,,,rote Goldman,
"It
lfthat such changes in
Ittitudes reflect a mot'e realistic conception rather than
the idealized version of teaching that prospective teachers
lend to
I I.
LITEHA'FlJRE
PT~RTAINING
iro
AJ\TI) iSTJCCESS IN'
STUDI
C)~F
Pl~RS()
j\IJliT'~{
Tl~~AC}III\fG
Carol LeFevre reported tbat studies have found tbat
stud en t; te aetl ers rated as
II
effec ti va!! liare friend Ii er, exe r­
aised strict control in the classroom, bad more oositive
dad a rnean
ere and cli.spla;red
ltrnos
tr
1
le v.Ji
1
.....')
c
r~E3,tf
7),
i~_
,~illingness
The nine
Ibid .
l,\(J\I,iet-J
to 9.ec~apt
cti\.te!1 student
the Be 001 authority structure.
ate:s, Octo1J8r~, 196[3 •
J C":lr~ c 1 I!E:
(1
unusual
itional authority patterns./
~jr}eo,nlf'o.r~t
C,'lr~()
all
ully structured classroom
---------------14
Zimlles and others found tbat an unstrLlctured
instrument such as himself, was a better predictor of
teacher per_formJ.nce than a structured personality and
att1tl:loe test, tbe lviinnesota Teacher-Attitude Inventory. 1
Also reported was the study made by Koskenniem,
eikkinen, and Alikoski.
They isolated three character­
18tic8 of the unsuccessful teacher in Finland.
These
eharacteristics l,,-Jere "negative attitude t01,.;[ard children,
lIH'eakneS8 in planning and thought,
fIJI careers.!!
a7Jd
II
f!
"previous unSL1ccess­
Eowever they did not discover a means of
predicting the unsL.:lccessful candidate.
2
Sand ren and Schmidt made an attempt to find a rela­
tionsbip bet1tJeen student teachers
I
scores on the I'Hp..rJeso
ache.p Attitude Inventory and the students
St,. d eD t
port as
e scores
01]
the
l
1 t
d 'Dy-oelr
t'·
CDmp~eve.
scores on the
. "
t
I
J.
crl~lceaCDer8.J
were divided into thirds and the
port score for the members of the upper
a,.Dd lower
thir~ds
aI' the fvT'TAI groups
\\T9re
conlpEired tCJ see
whether critic teachers rated student teachers with high
Ln
1 -,-
.1.t
1'-OJ
(J
•
ttar teachers 'l::.h,9.r}
thos(~
~vhose
IvI'fAT scc)res
a---------­
_
1
r'
-L-.'
T
.e11
'.,.,ras
i'ound.
this comparison, no apparent relationship
ey did find that attitudes of student
teachers toward scbool work and children did improve during
the
rst week of student teaching and tbe last week of
student
teachin~.
An inv8S ti
ti em was
DF3.0e
by Gord
on into the rela­
tionsbip between teacher personality, as measured by both
the Edwards Personal Preference Scbedule and the Tburstone
Temperament Schedule, and the emotional climate of the class­
room as measured by the OScAR. l
The sample IN"aS composed of
teaching interns in Florida elementary and secondary scbools,
a:.J
of Hhom Hore currently enrolled at the University of
orida.
S
f\mr areas
Here examined:
tor's in teach
f)'lilty
(3) abj.lity of teach
2
(1) Patterns of por-
intorns; (2) relationships
interns to be sensitive to the
ersanal meanin23 of pupil behavior; and (4)
tionship
0.["
personalit
e interrela­
tors, classroom behaviors, and
sensitivity to pupil behavior.
le~j
to s ub­
"
onship betweerl observed Gl-assroorn
i
.,
l
I r~-'J
and
c
schedules.
-----------------­
.;
16
l\.n
. oth e p
8
tu dY
t:) y'e 1 ate pers anal! ty
t t.emptinFt
Cae tors \--rich teachi:nr:r beh:lviors was made by Fiorga.n and
T
~·,1
1'\1
a
h
.C~ 1
aeru c"r
"D.L.1 •
_0
eir purpose was to determine if selected
pers anal i ty::md creativity factors related to classroom
behaviors of student teachers who were seniors in a sixweek program of social studies student teaching.
They also
at tem p ted to determine 1 r stud ent teach ers changed tbe pro-
Dortion of their time spent in various classroom behaviors
during the student teaching period.
b
Personality was measured
the Guilford-Zimmerman 'remperament Survey, with creativity
being measured by the Creativity Self-Rating Scale by Feld­
busen.
Classroom behaviors were recorded usinQ the Flanders
Interact50n Analysis
HeccH'd
which has ten caten:ori88 of
be av ors one of which is to be recorded for a short perj_od
O'~_-,
t.. 'line 1
:]',y
Fln
r
1
,- ••
oosei~Ve.
,i l : :·Q1'
r
",
:--.. 1" .·"1'
i:'..e-
ca-l-',t
"'~
r·~·_l[
,at~,'_u"D.s·"n,l·
0..
eo
_ '''~I:--
classroom behavior categ
1e
f',:,,\',',lnrJ
..e-._",,_
c,r
encour:l osl! "dth the Personality3,nd Creative
11
r ,0.,'"
1.•.
,({~_
tors of'
ere was no siqnificant chanIT8 in the
"
.1
oero{:3rhoff,
iJC
'lV
flrJ
d
f.., I,
1'''(3 ·'.1 t
i
'I
o. 6
i
i!St3.~)=--,lity
eir
latio ship to Per­
cLors,n The tTOUPllal of Educatj,onal
ors cl.nd
bru
,
1
.L
,_
17
roportionate distribution of time devoted to the ten
behavioral categories from the first week to the last
week of student teaching.
sca~e
Only one factor of the behavioral
was found to be related to personality and creativity
scales.
T e preceding studies concerned with the relation­
Shl.p of penJonali ty trai ts and teaching skills found Ii ttle
or
DO
signi
cant relationship between them.
One study
( organ and Woederhoff's) did find that there was a cbfulae
in student teachers' behaviors in the classroom after a
period of student teaching.
There were no studies avail-
'3.ble Hhich assessed the cha.YJge in teachers
I
atti tudes over
a period of a school year.
l~d1t-Jards
D
.1.
C
h .9.Y} q (j i n t e ,9, c b c r
e e t J. r; P' 3 • 1
1'0
conducted a study to determine the amount
1\ t
8
t a t tit u des a f" t e r
(=1
S
er i e3
0
r
p -9..D e 1
. en t a1
the 3 Q P ,~-ln e 1 rn e e tin "'1' s the ex per liT]
-2­
p
r
Q
U
P
air successful practices with underprivileged
oree
ey attempted to assess findinrs from the
behQv50ral sciences which could enhance thej.r practices.
lA
the er1d
·'!r'o
'1
fl
1
TJ i
.,
I\..
:1
.r (.:~
. 2
Dr
th(~
Gcrrn both
the
te~_-~t
the (~)cperinJent8.1 ai'1d the cODtr"tGJ
of '3.ttitudcs
Lv the
'J
''In
~luthar.
d Cult u.p:11
-
£
lt3
rhera were no signi
cant di
erences between the scores of
;!ov.rever, he found
-9.
Il
va lid reliable instru­
ment whicb is available to test teacher attitudes which are
1
rclevan t tD teaching ut:H3erprivileged cbildren. lIIII.
SUlVlhARI
'T'he research cited has attempted to carr-slate per­
sonality factors with teaching skills and classroom
behaviors.
Morgan and Woardarhoff found a relationship
')ct..reen the personality factor of "ascendance,1l !!thought­
ro~'s
ebavior~al
oreativi ty,
n
q
1I
and "fleXibility!! and the
11
•
category oIprals8s or encourages'
x'esE)'lrchers round no such relationship.
Other
Another study
es of student teachers
uri
the student teachir'g period.
~~-------
1L
CIT
III
DA'fA
The purpose 01' this chapter 1tJas to analyze and interret the data to answer the question of whether Interns in
the Teacher Corps actually display changes
a positive
direction in their capabilities over the period of
em i c yo ar as eval U':3. ted by their
LeaderE!,
8
[LYl
aca­
upervis ors, the 'Team
on the EV,':lluation \rJorksheet.
The second question
:,,;a8 Hhether the Interns' scopes on the California Psycholof!­
ieal Inventory would correlate with the
arn Le9.derg'
the end of the first year of In-service.
PEG
elect on
t.h,e
s~Jrnple
....-..­
-~,~~._'-
..
rhirty-s8ven c011078
admitted Into ttJB Teacher Corps Pre-Service training at
1
,\~ .G0
I~,
P'J
tJ
:::l.ll 0
f
lte
/}
•~.·-ll·~r·
• ,
Hecord
-.L- _
.£\..•..
~I ·'lo
:A.,
_ (
f3:~)(El.rr;
~~\."
7~.a
'" ~--; . " jJ'
n'itiotJ
Scare of
_ ,
seQ.po of lC\CC)c
e Ioe:]l
the
ts
tl~e
thirt -seve
s
~hQ
were
~dmi
cd
_._-------------1
lng, thirty-five Corps members besan
in September, 1968, with thirty-four
cornoleting tbe first
from
~he
,~lr
of in-service.
Only the scores
thirty-four who completed the first year of 1n­
sopvice training were used.
No score was available for one
Intern for the September, 1968, Team Leader Evaluation.
He,
thorefore, was net included in the study of the differences
the Team Leaders' Evaluations.
Interns were assigned to six separate teams
the
C8n'lposed of five or six Interns each, with a Team Leader.
or purposes of this study the teams have been
desi~nated
a2 A, B, C, D, E, and F, with each Intern identified by a
n!Jmher within that team.
:ju~inq
1
the California
tTuly, 1
the Pre-service training
administered to all of the Interns.
inanc8, Capacity for StattlS,
t:J.nee,
11 . . . '·;eID·U,
\' rn
.1'
rl
t
L 6] 1. e e t u '~11
("
e inventory cant
. . . . 'l .
~oclaOl_lt
C u f1 f
b
:;~
0 l<"ll~-]
1. t y' ,
,
sponsibllity,
rCSS10D,
1 - ontrol,
Inventory was
Psycholo~ical
("''I
r-. .........,
~vul
s
:Fcise,
SOCilliz~tion,
Corrty~un31itYJ
ievement by Independence,
G
-2------------
..
21
the first month of In-serviee, September, 1968,
.IYJ
the
aIr
aders completed an "8valuation by Program Staff
:/JOI'Ksheet
ll
for e'3.cb of tbe Interns in bis team.
The VJork­
sbeet had fourteen items which were divided in the three
cats 01'1e8 of teaching skills, interpersonal skills, and
emotional mltuI>ity.
The Team Leaders responded by rati.ng
each Intern fop each item on a scale from fllll to 1110" •
.4
indicatina that the Intern was extremely poor
that skill; a !110 ft ratinf! indicated an extT'emely
PC]
tin (~ .
'Ih e Team Lead ers c ample ted ana tb Br
)3;V9.JIJ3 ti
sheet for each Intern in his team in May, 1969.
900d
on ':Jork­
(A copy of
tbe Evaluation vlorksheet is included :in the Appendix.)
'To te·g t
;~,
9, Evalultion
1
'._.l.
U
-'
forrnulci to compute
G
that
not sirnificantIv
-~/
rF;ater than the E;eptember, 1
D
the null hypothesis
13, scores a.!: test Has made
e Vfllue
U3.1S:1 di 'ferencf~ score for -'l.1'1Y individ ~11~
D equals the
difTcH'ence obtained: )-<0 equa13
ell:
r;
error or the mean difference.
ard
r
I~O.l"i
G
t,
e
diffeI""ence
8
the nW3n
forrrulri
or
,
,
L:Cl8
l~JaS
t
22
ce was calculated by subtracting algebraically
the total score in
A moan
ptember from the total score in May.
the di rerenees was computed from wbicb the devia­
OL
tons of the differences were found.
then squ9.recl;
applied.
These deviations were
t,he sum lrJas found; and the above formulae ",Jere
The t table was used to determine if tbe value was
sisnificant at tbe .05 level in a one-tailed test.
ftj\If1L~,[SIS
115
from the Evaluation by Program Staff Worksheet as completad
the Team Leaders were totaled for each Intern for tbe
by
~.
oep'cernoer,
rt
•
t on.
~y
SCQ
the
t
nd~~nl~~~~a~l'~n
-t'~Q
U~L.l-' &:; l,i1"0"" LJ~Uj~ a'n~
u
de.
lQ
1a
"L/-OL.J,
(:;;l:,-
r_,
~_~,J.
C!.,1'
J
lQ o/9.. .p.1rl~.,.,.irl_·;R~_P.~v
'-'"'­
.-.}'
....
......
n
differences between the September scores and the
B
were com uted
rng :irl
rst for all the Interns, then for
e separate teams.
e difference between
the two correlated samples was tested with a t t68t
with the formula,
.L,
t =
15 - )"0
S­D
1
\10
Lrr
J.;
rone
rl0
[J
1
.rences ror,: '3.11
the di
wh
, as discussed above.
C
terns
i.Ll
is nat 91 r1iCic'lnt at t e
*
23
'l'ABLB I
SCORES
====-- ========================
September
- Intern
C3
tiJ.
v,+
31
196e
1969
Dif'fer­
ence (D)
75
95
110
35
lIe
118
102
121
89
107
126
HIO
f36
100
I~l
D5
May
C1
116
98
113
12Lt
126
13Lf.
106
98
21
20
19
18
lL~
14
11
7
3.B
1/+ •
3
lIZ'
115
j
L
1
3
135
137
c:'
~,
lIB
103
97
130
l_ (::'0
<
1
o
/
/
/
00/
)
.e
33.64
7
i •
1
J
•
3.2L1
'J
-.L
-1.2
-3.2
~
.L •
le.2/-I­
- ':l
.2
I:'
'1
-,"Joe::
--S.:2
-5.2
,-...
Ci/
9
1.8
1 R
Ll-6.24
33 . 6L~
l() •
OL~
'~
S.8
2.3
9B
11;3
OLt­
8
8
7
130
128
()i
1
. b).
96. eLl­
3
11 (,
1 ;:~o
163. BIJr
163.84
/..,
46 ..24­
13,5
127
12.B
12.8
392. eLf.
353.)+Ll­
316" 8L~
282.24.
6.8
b.B
5.8
119
117
16.8
12.<3
111+2.LlJ~
n7.~
;l
112
110
.4.2
33.8
19.8
18.8
17.8
"'--',
GU
- '1 .. r::
-10
12
.'-1-.1.
1
-
D
:";optern
~
:~l~; t ~ pr_~~_ _l
"_1__(_)
l1L~
d
for'en c e (_D~~
yo
':,1b_E_}
93. r;
d__L
- 2(: . ~;
-L'1
.<
1
-21~7
121
L;..
~26*7
:-39
712.89
7 J 98 eLf.
-27.2
77
4
_
,l~q2 •
.2
-25.5
Z
i
20lU.04
N :: 33
~
2.7b
---"-. ====:=================
...,.... '1'
.J.,
I­
U
rerC8 oetween the Se
i
te~
rn
1
-. L •
not
re
.
1.:3
~~i
n C)
nifiCjn
.
3 1~'
...
~"
n 11 1 C 3.n
,
r
,
.["8 I J
1
l~e,
'f'ersnc
-
a
'PABLE II
, 1 0/ 6Av,
MAV
.......
,
ll
J9b'O
_
/
Fori
VJO~RKSlrEIGTS
DIf.:S
Pii 0 tT8":C?
_-:;;;.~~.:::==
..
~~
==
..::x-c,.-
p tember
Hay
Di.ffer-
Intern
i96S
1969
ence
A2.
112
9Lf.
103
110
_ ...... /
~)e
Al
1\3
98
101
6 r':;
69
99
A4
Ai)
./
89
CD)
'7
,!
4­....,
-L
\
-Lj..
-10
ct·l
+8
+C::
6tl­
./
2C::
-1
1
-3
-9
Q
~et.2
l
I\J =- 5
x ot
di {feren ces
5-:::
ll'di.
\
N(N -1)
D
dl
2
:tl
==
-
:=.
3
2
~/
/
81
==
180
1
t==
scores for the Interns in
Lll
D-.Jlq
S.D
:::
-.333
eam B are tabulated in
1e Ill.
di
l,orences is 6.3.
he t value is
l~gl
which is not siq­
26
'T/t13LE III
DI
t"'jl:[n
1 ql-..R
1969,
Ti;VALUArn
1:JORKSm~E'rS FOR
,
-
/' ......}.--
,
_ ir'-"j
,
IN
DES Nor
CORPS PJiOJECT
September
Intern
1
-:; c::
~
,.J ./
86
:-\
May
1968
118
130
126
20
134
8
110
130
3"'""
117
13C
Hi-. 7
1.7
216.09
~
FJ,Q
~. ,,' I
.49
7
.7
"'
c.
-1- ' - - "{
J
-LI-.3
16.49
.-j+
-10.]
lC6.09
r'
13S
137
126
1J
jr,::
/
nC.
Differ-­
ence CD)
1969
/
~,
1. 69
1\1=6
x or differences
=
Z; d(2
N(N-l)
~
1[1
lJ
it
e
OYl::J
Ie
.'J
l~:,
t"rn
b.3
D -/'0
3.24­
s-D
the differences between
e '1rn C.
0 r~
L'
e mean
The value of
1.
,n
-=
1)1
C:
1"") U
1
CJot
0
~,
8s1S 1S
~ne
the differenc s is
as computed from
here ore
v~l.u~tiJns
'I'
:,i'l
r, 1
Septem er,
in
y"
"'
f~~y,
ct,-~(~
1
27
IV
.~ ~,-'-~"P
~--~
,
'":"~'1)
j-Wr;
1 '"' I. /()
,~'10d,
rrro
]
'"t
',,!ORKSHEErrS FOR
C
DES
TEACH-SR CORPS PROJECT
,Septer~ber
Intern
'ly
1968
AREA
Dif'fer­
ence(D)
1969
d·(
110
116
100
16.6
2.6
lC6
275.5t)
-L~ . L~
6.76
19.36
19.36
--10.L+.
108.16
1
I
-4-. L~
98
C2
96 QI,
,.'
--'.-'---------------­
t=
c
{it
(-
r~es
o:r~
'Jrirrj})
flre
snO\>JD
15 -f o
5
in T"J,ble \l·.
"
rences is
i'he t
'JrJ
r-rnu L;1,
::-)
ur
~:~,
Ul
- j.
=3.97
S1
i 8 -. lil hThl
c: 'J n
11
C)
t
en
v~llue,
r.lS
13 not si nifiC9.nt
(~r' e l e t e d
0r
U ':1 tn
[)
e
0
CJrrJ
~:'he
ute
n 11
rrorrJ the
.a_--------------_
I1111111111. ._ _. .
• • • •_
1
pt
196(3
I:nt.ern
126
11J
127
118
121
T)S
D]
DL~_
Db
T)2
r'
jVIay
-, Of
~'"-'.'~"-
.. ~
'-'
~._'
ILj.
124128
118
11
1
0
77
-4~.
o
.
101
1 7I 6
ILl- .6
309.76
213.16
Lj. • 6
21.16
J ,6
12.96
1632.16
.
-Lj.O .. L~
t= D- ';uo
S­D
u1
==
-3'1
srenc s between the Septemb r, 1
are
1
:1
d. l
_.: : -===========--::::'"'':--:::-:=-:=-=-=-::::-=
-
..
,--~---,--_."-
Differ­
ences (D)
Ej.C)
:::. lO.ifb
---""-_ ....
a
_1/0/
9,
3
b O~:Jrl in
L.
s nos
51
ificqnt.
•
29
T
VI
, 1968,
StClptemoer
___
I~.~~.~_·
e_~n ~.
f--lay
p~~rI. ()
})"83
'iJor-m:SB'n:E:TS
PHO
T
Di Lfer­
ence CD)
. 1968
1969
102
121
107
19
9r..:;
92
90
-2
-Lt
d9
97
96
98
1
,-'
·c:
~
·
-3 · 5
-7
- '"' ·
·
1...LlJ
'-1
70 . .)
96.5
d't
~
-1 ·
-8
,-'
0.-,
./
'-.
j
;r'
-26
~~
j
1969,
d·( 2
3(lO
3L~2
·
·25
?'~
~-'
2·
T2
~(I
, . , ....J
· 2.
~.j
650 · 25
·
--~ '--'
1
)
N=b
x of
d i f fer enee S
S-~!\/ Ld L L
D
V
N(N-l)
== -. 5
~ 6,93
ible VII,
'let (J
':lY,
J.
the di
s-D
~ -.07L
3Juation
I ,
V'111](;
L
niCi aJlt
1
n-/'fo
ranees between the 3eptember,
()
e
.1..
t=-
0
.!,
'3.3
~i
fsrence between
Cow()utec
fr:)i!l
th~3
t~e
fO.rm 19., is
S DtemCer,
30
lJI
1968,
Aj,m IVIAY,
1 0"-9
jU
,
1::JO RI{SI{;~.2/rs F'OR
===-~=-=-=~,,:--:=-=-=====================
in tern
- - - - - - - -
Seq cernber
1 0 6 .:.'-~
-~--~----
(.
,j
May
1969
11~)
1
fJi f.fer­
115
108
c:'
120
3
13 ..S
1[\2.25
)
1)
1
~
lIB
11 1-!-
d·l
eDces (D)
---'-,../.
63
_:::< c::
78.5
'--.-/
c::
.,j
8. ,S
-2
-20.5
-21
93.5
II
-10
-lO.S
100
~
,225
_1
.~)
110.2~;
...l... ~/
N::c 6
872.0
rere nee s
X ot
di f
5 D:::
\/ L d i 2
= - 10 . 5
t= D-~o =-.31:>1
S­D
2 9. 0 b
_
N(N-l)
'Dr~r'c~l
itioD
L
't;
'J'Jn;
t
81.i: rniQ
L e 1 () t
(~, Pi; S t
Lihe
S
'1
rd lif
second problem whicb
P8YC~"Dlopicql InV811GOr
cor
the
2
ld
u
(CPT)
wa3
corr81~ted
e'l~T)
let d it}
l
.25
72.2 l)
a, ,
1
()
/
.
The
en
cDFPel1tj
c
t~le
11
POth'2E~is
1 h
scores
orrel~tI.Qn
w~s
etho
II
-------------------------­
a
31
e nul
tJ,.y"pothcsic:' \tJO!~11d
L
'be re.1ect(~d
.
~
.05
ificant at the
stu
~r
f'
t-he
-­
r! 'l"-J(}- co
sopar~te
''ll'e
total:3d far each Intern.
rank-difference correlation
cpr
r~nks
(r
p
;J,
=:
e
w~s
were
score.
Interns were also ranked according to their
or e '\te
cpr
The individuals were then ranked
est to lowest according to their
t
The
, 1969,
pair of ranks for each Intern the differ­
determined.
h difference was squared
t:ctq) :)f' the squ"l.red differeDces Has found.
t}-'le paJl -eji
renee coer
'rhe f01­
cient of correlation):
b L D2
N(f\J2-1)
L
e
'1
~
.. £\
renee correll
r,'lni.{-O II
on b twos
. e
s 2
i
for I n t err}
tie
t
')un
In
u
t
different from the
T e scores from the eighteen scales on the
H/J
.
C 1 (Hi;
2pplied for each of the sexes.
WdS
ence i
f"1
level of confidence on a two­
ince the CPT nor-ens for' men
e women, a
,'1'
0:',
" :
jSllB.nti t
sum
t
lS
the
fro rer1C 83
e V'·1 ue o f ?
rna cae
'"
•
Cf~
CC)}~
li.!rI01>J
P3 YCFIOLOGICAL
SCOIl8S
Or~
I,;;e,.c,;cTn"",r,-"
o t'll
Intern
CPT
'l'LF:
Scope
Score
R
2
------~----------------------~---------/ r
b;J
Al~.
1
2
22
21
,+!~_1
'I:::
J. ~J
13
169
A3
101
D1
-,
1- J~)
1\2
119
:J
8
18
C2
106
115
93
6
lLl­
13
8
7
11
8
17
4
1
9
10
11
~
./
12
9
13
6
12
7
77
21
C) .. '---,
J~.97
Ie?
Ii
1
l!.l~O
'1,..J
511
--'
7r3.S
510
D6
507
S06
S
1
_l
L~77
,-4-
,.)
"
')
j
'3
,-J
.2$
~./
4r/
5
16
169
1-1-
6L+.
16
81
19
9
10
1
20
10
100
6
3
",,'
/
9
o
/
.
r-,"'"
. :::.~>
")
r
q
.2S
'1 '7'
~L
18
11
1....LL....J.
?l
l :)
9
1
~
/
:)
20
21
C)
22
,../
1
1
3
lJ~ ~
,
1.
2.
2
.,
i
19
I
h
...!..\...--"
N = 22
p:=
-.3 75­
33
T
Ie IX prosents the rank-difference correlation
etweeD tne scores aD the CPI and the scores on the TLE
for
ttlG
'The
-\frameD Interns.
'3.nd CL~.
ces
0
.Lei')
the
difference in rank
of
V'3.ue
[AiaS
Interns had rank-differ­
Fj. ve
e differences squared totaled
tvJJ.
snee cae ficient is
:'h""
1'::tr~e3t
(rho) was computed.
176 from
The rilllk-differ­
.3C:li:; .,{bicn is too small to be significant.
1:ull hy c)thesis tt1'3.t there is no correlation can not be
rejected.
TA3LE IX
C1~ CCRRELA:TIOl\f f3f~(r~/r8'~I'\; SCOPI»
L'l. PSYCHOLOGICAL I
'I AND
:-;
-"
()
OJ\
or\f
iT'
ot':1J
CP
TL 2
S C re
('.
,.)
R
1
118
qn
1 l 7
"
12 0
l.1..
{",
" -,J.
':)
"
!:~2
7,
/1- ,)
_i~()6
~
...J
L~
(
q (1
i
2
C·
L-::
.
'/
0
7
1
1
i
9
.L
] 1 t)
N =: 12
p
=- 1­
p
~
2
c­
'I
~,.
7
1
c
1 C
1 2
J
11
Ci
I L
.,
I c:-
D
D
l
0
7.
I
j
,-'
~.
,-'
c
/"
~
.'
II
.,.
II
2
.
?
~
"S
,-'
C-
.'
3
?"
b
1 ()
L~
-..--;
l.j..
,+
~.
/
."
LL
"
")
)
~
q
9
2:D 2
::::;
176
bL:D 2
fJ-::= .3<15
N( ~~~: LL~::,.~,c~ ,=-~_~ ::::=.:::.:==::;=c;.::.",,:=.=-=o::==:=-:::==:::::::::.=:::::":::::.c:==:'::=:':
A$3
;3
e
1, C
e
.L-b.one.L
iT'
CI
1
July, 1969.
vorps
y>"
RECOfJllViI:BNDA'I'IONS
.
pro,~ram
n.
oegan lnues
,
•
ines in
irty-seven graduate students were admitted
tJ the program at that time.
Of the thirty-seven graduate
students admitted, thirty-five students were assigned to
teams of five or six Interns with a Team Leader as a liaison
per'son.
After
'1
year of th e Te9.c h er Corps program in th e
Dines area, many kinds of evaluation are necessary.
Des
This study is part of the evaluation
the In terns
I
prOizress.
I .
PROE~L
It was the pur ose
this study to determine whether
re was '{ 8i nific8Ilt positive difference bet\.reen the
and the Interng
19
1 fl
.i'l
t
•
• -.
Slr!rl11>le,~Ilt
as obtained from the
'
t­ 101"1
~
Cor~I"Ile.La
1
L
Y'\
J8Lk"J8C:Zlj
H.nl
n! '"'­
u~_r~
4--
T
Leaders
~~ +" -..
LLJi. J
'.:.'::
rY"'l"'"
,.11:::5
f
f
scopes
uaticn
r
r'
C,.. f,'..
~.'.~~' ,:;-:i
r
--.:,,­.
.-.:::
n
•.
0 -',i­
D ~.C>.
~'-
+-.,0
t e Ir1terns' scores on
~lrn
1.->
'ld
r~
lU'lti:JYl
sheet
9.S
complete
in
PHOCEDUHES
In
review of' related
8.
11"
~
i-era+-i,Jre'
t'he ,18
h" t ory an,d
u
u
description of Teacher Corps was piven.
The research which
was cited found little relationship between personality
factors and student teachers' behavior in classrooms.
One
study by T'"Orrrarl and \'Joerderhoff did find a relationship
cate~ory
betweon personality factors and a behavioral
tlpraises or encourages.!!
of
Other studies cited found some
c anee in student teachers' attitudes after student teach-
i rw, b lJ t an 0 t
r stu d Y f 0 un dna s i
~n i
f i e'an t
c i-j
e in the
proportionate distribution of time devoted to different
behaviors behJeen the beginnin,;! and end of student teachinQ'
perl d"
ata
o
or the study were obtained from administration
the California Psychological Inventory
til r
,
..
1
sac
1, C)
.'
Y,
~
1
!
t)
t e
,
am Leaders! Evaluation Worksheets for
Int rn cam 1eted in September, 1968, and again in May,
C)
j.
re~C8
A test to determine the di
J,es t"as
'1
' ' ~:'~fJn-'
' ,
r'I~~L'lteri
.,..
J
3ppJ.~L9a
t
:)
t. ~".~, e·
'..I.
T.v t"j
•. (1
J
A t,
,Q
__ ~
between two cor­
0-
,q
f
-
c
'1C!
q
'-,
LIC:l(jcr~s
'r'
!
1
-,
I 1 3. ~- ,; .- --.-.,
t~V'l_._,-_'_
LJ.!(}lJ
e-:
t..
rJ
r~ 1".(,-~
'".~ I" ",_'--~~
F~
,-"-
rlv~::l. t' ~~
t')
Q,­
0
b t 3. i
fl e 6
p
36
I
e analysis of data to determine if the Interns bad
e ~3in:nificant ;;~ains durinp: the In-service period failed
rn
to s
ow statistically 8i
Interns' scores on the
ifieant pains.
In comparing the
ptember, 1968, Evaluation Work­
s eet fwd their scores on the May, 1968, Evaluation Work­
s eet, no 3i
10ficant difference betvJeen the two means
In studyin
t
e
-OOJ'A']···
...... 1':
1-..
tSElYYJ,
t-Anlbp""
.L,
u,-",-_·
......
"'JaS
the differences between tbe means of
lo(~FJ~
7u"
1969, evaluations for each
and
or18 team, rrearn C, did ITlake a si
ificant flain.
FuYJother
am B, made gains v.rhicb t'lfere significant at tbe .10
team,
lev
l)U t,
level est
tn i s prob
iIi ty was greater thEl.n tba t s ignifi canee
lished by the investipatol' and was thus too hi
to rej ct t e null
po
esis that there is no difference
8tWB n the means.
In
\~JD')l
e
8.11
a predictive instrument \fJhich
o-.CJ'ort to
3.id in tho seleetiorl of
ibit
u c ssful teachin
Cor~ps
rnernbers rnost like
-aif
skills, a
e rank of the In erns
q
n.i I
'.:U1tl
lot
tel
ru
ivC'.
tilO
It
ir C 1 scores failed t
vari:1ble of
Hh lu t
eir
r~lJ'lk
renee
to
correl~-
accordin~
correlate
to
Slg­
on tbe
corre].dtLon for t e w
en
W3
>
37
e statistical analyses, except in one ins
1 e (;
9. i
f
t CJ
s if! 11 if i
3 .. [) \·Jln y
nificqnt correlations be
cant d i
ee,
renees between or 8ig­
en scores.
IV.
CONeL
IONS
In compoJring the two evaluations ol'bhe Interns'
skills, r;D
.~'if"nific~'lnt
evaluations.
Sspternber and
ts
1'8
ere
,q:n?e ..
perhaps they
t e &'11 8 too hi g bon the fir s t
: Ij
.
t t
r
~lC
~i?ht
t h '8 Y
q U El I rt to ~j,
(T,
ss
re was
\~]~
~Qt
flO
a si
1
j
v '3.1 ua t i ;) n •
be that as the Team Leaders became
have
oJ" a
01"'1
the Interns on
8vslu~ted
tea,coer.
ificant corre11tion betw£)en the
ative for the
t
cor f' (j J.1·J
:;
8
ers
iudQsd beginninR enthusiasm as competence.
lan~tjon
,', f­
)
Ffard in rz the a ttri butes and teacbing
a possibility that the other Team 1e
18
the i r
r'r
Each Team Leader made 8ub­
One Team Leao:3r'g eva.luatioru3 slIol-Jed a sLmificant
s lei Ils .
C
difference Has found between the
1 I"
(: '\J;hf-£.3· ·
eLi)
n and positive for the
W"l C'f
(.'
"...
1.
t. ,',i
1 : : ; : ; : 1 . . _.~.
-;.'. _ n, ' ;'"""".;
- j ~.
'~r
.
x p.'
0.,
- - ~~ ­
:.j.·. ll
oj
s
§
38
haviors over a period of student teaching or internship
ch,g.n(~es
01fJ8Ver,
tudes toward
i.n atti­
were found.
teachin~
or
'L,,".ur.TI m,TS
V •
As a result of this study the following recommenda­
t cns are suggested for further study:
1.
A second study similar to tbis should be made at
tne end of tbe second year of the Teacher Corps
Program in Des Moines.
2.
,'lnother 'Jtudy
terns.
01"
caul
).
f\
more
c
ould be made lrlith a larger sample
8
duct the same research.
r811~ble
i
tUG
CO.e
;)
u ture
the
C
scores.
th
I to devel.op selective
[eac er
Ii
irzht be
t,drrls,
nl
e
e
tJ de'torn! ne the ccnsistenc
y' ,
t
(J (J
1:­
tudes.
ht be mqde to find the cor:rela.tions between
e CPI"wd
:JCQ.los
me~sure
instrument m1.Qht be used to
e Interns' performance and at
t
i.
acher Corps Centers
Possibly several
P
ou 1 (j
con uc e
<II
of
'1
•
39
7.
_"r~m
0
8(~rT::tti()n of :!nrJivicJlJ9.1 Intern's scores on the
C I, some scopes seem to be outstanding in predict­
ir(t fu ure perforrnaJ.lce.
10\-J
One Intern vJho scor'sd very
on certain scales, has asked to ,oe transferred
to ana
er
acher Corps Project.
other
Int3rrlS WhD resigned from Teacher Corps scored much
"
.
~QW3r
on
' ,
t08
- ., lnt;ern
- ,
L'Durt()
''lnd
lin.
1 •
t
'1
~GmmUna~l~J\I'
'-
WnO
scoreo,
--, ,
scale
tnan any
,.LOVJer
"
on
I'~
t'
o~her.
.. - ., . t
II
'l1eSpOnSlbl.ll~:J
dropped out of Teacher Corps after
the Pre-service training.
?urther research is
necessary to determine the predictability of sucb
behaviors by the CFI.
•
]31 BLI OGRAPHf
OGiiA}'l:]. '{
'31
!~ull:CoY'C]
I~d
,
y)und~amenl;al
LT.
Dca ti. on.
Le<'evPG,
Statistics in Ps,ycholoRY and
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.
New iork:
il'2eacher Cll'lracteristics and Careers,f!
Hesearch, XXXVII, no. 4 (1967),
C3.rDl.
,~eview oJ'~i:ducaticnal
1,1=:-'1
"2.7-­
-t- ,,-" /' ·-r _/
,
IIlI
, II~.e'y,
,;(3
, ' ,LOH8L_.
~ l
n
'"
•
l
'va l 'J.J.ornla rsycnO.Loglca,.
I! I'
L.
~ental
Sixth
C<
•
Measurements Yearbook.
The}ryphon Press, 1965.
el,fJerS(:J'!:
Celeste, and Loche VanAtta.
cColl0u;?h,
C·3ptS.
e~/J
;'c:raH-
D.rlc{:
B.
t~ook
11
-'
t Dry,
lnven
II
ghland Park,
­
Statistical Con­
Company, 1963-.­
PERIODIC~tlLS
and Cultural
ental "2:duca­
_-&-._-----
n
n
Co
rU~lry t
1- c;
19
,
1-;
h
LJ, t
;prLn
11
h:3.r~:lct(Jristics of
, .
n
UC3.t.lon,
c{chur
r'
(}i
1
11
Implic~l-
PredictivG
alidity of the innesot9. re9.cher
rltory," (.rC)u~n~~_l of _3-cn~E:
), 1-.. ---------­
1
-..;,
It
"',
LJ
'1[1
; i
•
C}ood -)~e£lch r9 i3.YJzt
i
1 ta
PP':ln, L
1e
1 J j rJ
.r~'ln
f'
•
~
tellectual
Derd
~{Xl d
:'h
j'
t
r­
U C .1­
»
t nor,
n:Surnrner on a
Dt
r ternb r lf~, 1968.
_LX'J..
DCK,
!l;ieprint from Look
~'_:~i,:lz~~Ele, ~3e
dice, AD
S tll,t?
iV8 New
aehers a
tter
LXX{II (September, 1968), 10.
!1
~:)'1rldp'rGl1,
aIle
.-
( ....
{n'!,,~ l~'i"J
::i'l... lj.L-l.ii:::
T..-l6' llrld Louis 1. Scbrnidt.
nDoes Practice
tl-t-+:·~
';0
vul.ljUCJvS TOlofard Teach Lng?" J Durna.l of
~.., ' .......) 7 0
",I:J1L
'"-,,
I
......
X (1956),
~,'~~duea,tio,na~-l, l~eSea.l"lC,b, Xl~
--_
-~.-
..
_-_.-
-_._-­
rtT~~Je 'reacb~3r (jor~p3,it
673::eO.~--··~--··----
Reprll1t frorn lrcner-i c arc I~duca.tion,
b,
1 q ;'.).
83 t.
i d f~lrr] fln ,
Is,H
'1
8 D Y) ,
_
;"
'3
acb er Corps:
~lrninCl It Like It.
I\T (I~)],3.,7, 1969), ge­
G3~~3:l. __ ar~3.zin,e,
Phi Delta
\,,.1 ..
(C)etober,
ext Ste
J,
Dp.
t· :)n
1
/'
1--181'1 t
-:..
y ....
30ciation of Colleges
8
8
-3cher
ftrne ric '3l1
on, 1
r, 1
J
uc r
~~._._.~--
un
t 1 ,-)
for
iJca
a:3 h :i n fJ t
J.t) :
l3
D.
ICHOFICHE
Variables
ERIC
-
&
ltPPENDIX
/
/
Intern
/
/
lHrrJe
or
/ ~/
arne of person evaluating
Team le'lc3er
/
/
Positi;m
Sncloseo are a list of characteristics considered to
t:e :1rnport'wt in ".Jerking effectively 1lJit the child from a
Dverty-income bac round.
During the preliminary evalua­
tiDn circle the number wbich most closely applies to the
:LntGrn~or tss.rr leader' being assessed.
Also fill in the
nr::di in'3J"'>
comments and examples. Do the same during the
fin31 eva1uqtion.
If you dontt know, or have not had the
Dr ortunity to observe the characteristics as applied to the
intsrn or tea~ leader, so indicate.
to
o.r
'iJ!t! dor::re? ~~if illterest tn the hNor1·c,
of en lJsiqsm, deaic~tion, enerqy, initi~tive,
~
~_'", v ~" r ,~ J1 C (~
e'-' J U ,y ,:J '" n
i. fl (!., l,"Y C1 r ·Y.: f 8
r (.-.i '.:".,ri tho u t
I.:::,
n t eqsil di8COJrq~erl, needs
- .....
~ .1 ~
11inin~J
~)n t
t
0\,,1
Q
-....i
"l::
V'
~J ~~.r.
1.
-'
,
L
.-
....
_._.~-"-.~ .-
-~ L 1
j ' - ' ..... n
t .. j
'j
_...
--
'. "-" -
- ....,
r
~)nl.
i s nee
to
y~
~
J
,
-
-
.
~
q
q
10
7
'>
._------------ --------- ---­
Lt
J
6
'"'
/
extr(3Dl 1y pDor aoes
toJOyl
I.i"'"'.i q
.....
C1
:\"1h it
3 3 '1 r
Gxtrerle 1
ui te
'- 3rd­
i
,V
lV
i.~OI'"t k,'­
t')·'l;~O
in
ot by
i­
0
7
q
1 :,.
-------------------
-
.Pre "J. .
----
nr v
•
""~.
"'!
1'"
_LlTIlr~
.•.
mm l..-..l.
"'n..
(1
·J\.
u.
_
L
'"
l.lu
an d Exam p 1e s
~--
•
•
I-
Gpe-!J.t·LV~~~
-
',""
"
1--
t
J)(3rn:)I1S u r a e s
.
.
lf03.glnEi
t'lan,
resourcel'ulness,
-C'
originqlity, innovation in developing ideas, materials,
et c ter~, for i.nteresting, new, different activities
i volvinu cnildren.
Den't kno 111T
1
2
)
J
extremely
some­
\>Jh at
uncrea­
creative
tive
j
C '")fnrn erJ t S
i
j
'7
(
8
q ui te
crea­
tive
about
'lver­
e
9
lr,
,,;
hi Q'h 1." J'T
ere a­
ti ve
nIl
,
b
2
,
6
'1 .l
--~"--'--
n
L :,3
..
~----'~----'--","""" -~
a,n d
es
311 d
,9
7
10
~
'7
4-!
t3[3Dect; ~----""
J'or..- IrldividlJ8.1
J):i..ff"ler'enC(~jS - COT)Cerr1
fOT' the r:::ro'tlth
-'~'<=--"-,-----,~ ,
- .----'._~---,
(,
-development, rreedom and independence of.' others, places few
restrictions on otb;:;rs, makes I'ehT dernands, communicates
respect I'DI' ideas a.nd opinions dif rent from his OitJn, encour­
a as
c,rs to think :£'01' themselves, supports creativity.
°
Pre lim inar.f.
Don't kn 014
2
1
3
4
6
7
extremely
quite
about
in tolerant intolerant average
8
quite
re2­
pect­
ful
9
10
extremely
respectful of
individual
differences
]Jal
Don't 1rno"J
2
1
3
4
Preliminary Comments and Examples
,lin 1
C;jl11rnen ,~S
and
I)
6
7
8
9
1...L 11
L/
----.~
Ability co ..--If;: ~itQ. !l~.~ Cc)mmunity tremely interested in
t~j(:; inl'luence or' the community and home on the child's lea.rn­
LeV', show!! initiative in reaching out to the community,
accepted easily and quickly by the people, gets people excited
and involved.
PreLiminar,y
2
4-
3
5
6
7
8
uDI...rilling
3Jld
unable
to Hork
about
aver­
age
SbOW3
little
interest
Hi th
qUite
inter­
ested
g
10
works
capably in
the
cDmmunity
cornrnuni ty
nal
:D011
f
t kn OltJ
.
1~~·:--]14~T
.trs
.J.l".Llj.·:.~_
in31
1
"
~n~.,~.,lP
~~." ..
- IJ.lv-~
-
(: mments
~nd
i
3
[:"-
and
4-
S
6
.-,
{
~
8
g
10
E~X9.rnDles
,
?xamples
g
----..­
49
Al;Llj,t1. to CDrmr!!~~nis:ate tablishes I'apport with children,
rnotiv'ltes them tD
e in me'lningfLJl learning experiences,
and c reate s
of friendline3 s and re spec t in the
clflssroom.
Don I t kn OVJ
..:.:8:....-__0L.l_ _-=1~O~.
.=1:--_......:::2:...--_-..d.3:...-_...::4:t.·_ _LS:..-_-:::6
7r...i_ _
_
highly
80metimes
success~.rul
unable communicates about
to
8DccessavercDmmunicate
fully
e
ful
children
F' inal
.
1-2-- 3
4
ppelim"nar,Y Comments and examples
.
.7
0
at
quite communicating
successwith
.
7
!
8
9
10
------.
50
.
iTorl-IJOS S8S.3 ~1.ye
~cceptance
"'..
.
lr<J£l,rrntn
Transmi ts a feeling of genlJine, ltJarm
to all those around him.
re 1 im irn.rv
___
..
., _ _
Don 1 t
~.....J.:L_
kn Ol'l
.:.::1~__-=:2~_ _d.3 _ _-:4I._ _~S:....__.;:.6
extremely
cold
somewhat
cold, aloof
7L.'_ _..::8
neither
o.~J _ _.:::l.:::O~_
qui te
extremel,]
l-J 3. rm
liEl.rm
"Jarl'l1
nor
cold
nal
Donrt know
1
" n
1.
t
2
3
IG8
4
,
7
8
9
10
..•.
,
-
"''''nq-itl've to tlr. a f'eell'n~Q
- "e.1:;
- ' " "·J~.L
"'F,", moou,
cetera of others and is able to communicate this sensitivity
'me] unders tan din"! to th em and react :In an appropriate
u
r, C 'IJ_~~:.'.:-::_~
r"t"'s T;t"-'in<1rt.h
hC
:.=~'~
ma.~oner
.L '"
:
.,II"
..L
J
•
•
nIt lm 01.-1
____.-=
.e:..1
2'__-"'"'__--'--.__
3
)+
.5
extreme
lack
of'
quite
unempa­
thetic
ernp:3.th~y
6
7
--'
about
average
in
empathy
8
0
-'-_----':.::.c:._
_
J
10
quite
empatbetic
highly
empa­
thetic
inal
Don I t
kn CI'VI
.
-1-' _'-.:::":"=:---'-3--""'4~---;:;J5r---'"'Ib, -'7
Pre1imin ':l~ Commen ts and Examples
. In'll
Ies
:
8
f'o
'4
/
10
Preliminary
Dor1
,u
.j.-
len C)1.'If
2
1
3
)+
~
--'
fll in9..1
DC)Il
,C
l{rl Ql..J
1
Prelimin~ry
2
3
4
7
5
a
/
10
.
.
6
8
Quite
unusual
comrnitrrlent
sincere
and
dedication
about
average
extremely quite ininsincere sincere
~--
6
7
8
9
10
Comments and Examples
n
S3
Ab:llitY.. to AosorJ~ ![os~ilit:l - Ability t;:) \t!ithstancJ hostile
-;-/1ij_·,lbusive attacks wlthout r8;ject:1.rw tbe other oerson.
~~~s not become defensive, hostile, ;r turn the ~ther person
o 1'.
1,i s tens, at temp ts to unders tand wh at be is saying but
particularly hi3.r~~8?~S for saying it. Does not bear a
ru ~e, is not Vlndlctlve.
1
Don I t i{n:Jw
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
extreme
little
about
quite
ability to averaD'e capable
ability
absorb
in
of
to absorb hostility hos tili ty absorb­
h08tility
inQ
10
highly
l'lCk of'
capable of
absorbi
hos­
tility
hos­
tility
1\
LJ
n
f
j.
v
1
3
and Examoles
--,~,,~
[111
(:loY')
J
....
o• •
f'.1
q
~_
'.in d
6
7
8
9
10
S4
otic:Jnal
'lL'H""
b"lS
lljrjnm"'ut -
oDstl'ates abi1i ty to make sound reC1Bluns
8 i tuati on and al.JareneS8 of'
tion
Hi judgment, not influenced by emotional
~~d '~ 0;] ~~~;.ri ties of the tote.1
c':)n~3equence8.
need s •
? P8 litnina.r;r
-_._--'
ex remely
immature
quite
immature
about
avera28
quite mature ex­
judrment
tremely
m9. tU.'r8
D nit LcncH.J
4
c; ornmen ts
_._-_
.........., ..
'1
__
._~
and
6
7
8
a
10
l? rellmin'':l.ry
l.Jnn
t
t
f{nOH
1
2
':l
-'
4
r::'
<'
6
7
about
average
quite
ext remel y
irre 1 rre­
s ponsi ble spons ible
8
9
q uite
10
higbl y
re s pon­
s ible
irres ODS i ble
irlal
Dor}
I
t
knoVJ
1
11 J
c:.
'{
J
1 e:~
II
.....
?
-"
6
7
B
9
..
i--o-­
56
to adjust to new situa­
P.re limin~H'Y
Don 1 t
2
1
kno\oJ
4
3
extreme
sh OlrJS
lack of
ttle
ability
to
adapt
5
1~l.
ability
to
adap t
6
7
about
B
Q
/
quite
adaptable
avera~8
10
extreme y
aoa.pt'3.b e
na1
._~._--------
e) f)
I 4-
-~~_.~--
:
Prelimjnar\
-~~~------_.
'1
--~----
-
.
:
lcrl () ,,oJ
2
C~mment8
..
'_~-_"'_~'''---'-'-
3
4
and Examples
~
./
6
'7
r
8
n
/
10
57
Don I t
knOhT
4
1
6
extremely
ineffective quite
in conflict inef­
sit tJ at i on s fective
,
7
abcut
average
q
U
9
qui te
effec­
10
highly
effective
tive
in
dealinr:
conflict
j
'11
~-'-"-'--'
l
2
6
3
les
']:.T}
7
8
Q/
10
5-'P
c}
At~L.J-1~;L _t=:o
t!~.' e \:),c, tab 11
problems vIi tl1 3.uthorLty or
s
--XbJ:8 t o work ei'fecti vely within the
:}ys tern.
ay ens
ree and question, but does not rebel.
pleres dLCt'et>enees cY'eatively and constructively, vlith an
atternrd~ to unders ta.nd triG system,. the viel4points of those
~Lr} ,':iLl tl"~' OJ".L t
a~nd the Y;eas OTIS for doing things as they are
d :Jn8 •
't
1
2
-_._-,-'---'---_.-.'-
l{[lOVI
"
relJels
a(~'ajns t
dire c ti on
1
c
_L
~]•.
-~'-'~-~.'-
2
n
t,,,
J
....
Lj-
'"'
./
/
b
to
a,ccopt
direction
q
,
I ""
;
qui te
able
to
Horks
construc­
tively
accept
with
direction direction
c:
-'
1e8
"~
about
I i t tie
'1bi1i t
4
.,
r..(,
7
:
I
0
7
8
a
/
10
59
Abili t ] ~o !In(J~rstand., and Coun~el -:: Readily empathetic witb
::-~'oblenl[J ofrecen~ college g:ra.duates and beginning
~~;ch rs, i70::tS . onr.s \o]ell Hi th young people, tries to- stimu­
'J;t~ a b9.1'lDce oetlrJeen idealism and rushing into a situation
t;oo quickly, 8.\('].i1'1 le to listen, perceptive, and ready witb
, ~~t' J~~Ja
SugQ8stions.
-'-u
_
o,-..r;nat::.ruc..
LJ,.I..I.....
­
Pre lim .Ln3.r:.;L
_.'--_._-­
7
completely
unatle to
sbows
about
little
establiSh interest
r'lpport
in
vIi th
under­
interns
stand­
8
9
quite
understanding
average
ta.ke8
leader­
ship
in
achievin~
rapport
in£!
interns
a1
r)Qn ' t
O"v-J
1
'-'
-,~~,,"-,~-
(:;
~l
-,~-" ,~
2
3
les
I
4-
r:
/
:
6
7
8
9
Iv
-
60
.Ab~:ll
ttY tD ,"jrjrJ~J' fJanhwful E)olutioYls to Problems - Perce ves
81 tuatlcns -;c(~ately, '3ttempts - to bring disagreeing part es
tDC'Ather, est']blis!Y)s means of communication, uses new
re8~urce8,
salves problems.
and
Fr'eliminarv
~
-
4
,
Dorl t
-Kt101.I\l
1
2
3
4
J
'""'
is
s ome-
unable
to
solve
8
7
quite
has
average
8lJCCeSS-
ful
amount
v'loa t
9
10
hi ly
8uccess­
ful
of
success
successI'ul
problems
6
at
solving
problems
a1
J)orJ
,t
:
nOlA]
2
1
Frelirrjjn::1.r~
in'J
-_._.~._--_.-
.~
j
4
Comments and Examples
'lD
cJ
;OJ
L,
j
6
7
8
9
10
61
'l~ fl·.lC1r=.\r c !
,,--'
, C :~.'" ~.
¥------­ -----­
:I' co a' rrl
.-
-"-~
C~ctively Dsmcmstrate Teaching 'fechniques _ A
F'
' " >
'. nr
l' '" t , ]
,
L,(:-acCJc::"j
J8 c.assroom, KnoWs hotor to
('3'~~'~~ntP
learnl'na
Y'" 0' 1
I." --.. ~tudents and fDlIO'.,;f tilis up with meaninQflJl
_~.
~
..I..:. .....
.e'I~y~priences,
ccmtrc;ls
class,
arid
able
to
communicate
techniques
t
d
_
..
..
';;'itv to
l1.D.:,)::.::..---"~. - - . -:--'-;-\->18 :lnd
V
.A
"
l~U
J
'-:L
0.
lo..;;
oJ
-
.
" Y 1 ' j. . ' p r n
lJ.lu
J
1):=;r1
,f'
81.l.8c'tliTe
f
t
....
Q
1...:
--
. "
bV
d8n10n~)tI'atJon an
~
o TtJ
.::::l:...-_~2~ _ _~-,,,,,"<
extremely
ineffective
teacher
_•.
.
explanatlon.
+__~S,-·
1....
6
sh ows
average
little
71.-'_ _.:. 8__-,9__..:1:...(,:...)_
in
effec­
ability
in the
classroom
tive­
ness
qui te
effec­
tive
in tbe
very effec­
class­
teacbirw
techniques
room
Dor] , t
OltJ
J
1
4
.
".
"r"""'" :J'".,n,nments and Examples
:...£...
L 1 ~=---~
'. Ii '.1
tive at
demons tr'lt­
ing
n t,8
·l,niJ
?
)
?
tJ
7
8
9
10
62
Preliminar Y
Don't
_1
_____"'·3~ _ __..:lI-L=___....L.5__~6
~f
completely
uninter­
.=eq ted
in
shot-JS
little
interest
neilI
techniques
'7.!...!_ _
about
avora0'e
arnount
of
interest
~B:.......__QL;_ _...::l::..:O=__f_
quite
inter­
ested
extremely
interested
in
in
irmovati VB
innova­ techniques
tion
Final
Don't
1
2
3
4
F'relimin3.ry CD;Tirnen ts and Examples
6
7
8
9
10

Similar documents

×

Report this document