The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on ...

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

8-1971

The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on Student The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on Student

Perception of Teacher Performance Perception of Teacher Performance

James E. Bultman Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Bultman, James E., "The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on Student Perception of Teacher Performance" (1971). Dissertations. 3024. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3024

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F3024&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/803?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F3024&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3024?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F3024&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



THE EFFECTS OF MDLTIPLE EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGIES ON STUDENT PERCEPTION

OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE

by

James E. Bultman

A D isserta tio n Submitted to the

Faculty of the Graduate College in p a r t ia l fu lf illm en t

of theDegree of Doctor of Education

Western Michigan U niversity Kalamazoo, Michigan

August 1971

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Several people have made important and su b stan tia l contribu

tio n s toward the completion of th ia d is s e r ta tio n . Nÿ' sincere

appreciation is extended to Doctors James Davenport, Charles

Helgesen, and James Bosco fo r th e ir assis tan ce and encouragement

while supervising th is p ro je c t. Their unique e f fo r ts , as well as

those of maiQT others a t Western Michigan U niversity, have been

e s se n tia l to th is undertaking.

Deserving of a spec ia l tr ib u te are the adm in istra to rs , teachers,

and students in the th ree cooperating school d i s t r i c t s . The

implementation of th is experiment was dependent on th e i r cooperation.

Indebtedness to the Mott Foundation i s a lso recognized. The

fin a n c ia l assistance o f a generous Fellowship and the opportunity

fo r a stim ulating p rofessional experience were instrum ental in

prompting the p u rsu it of doctoral study.

F in a lly , to my w ife, M artie, and our ch ild ren . Matt and Heather,

my deepest g ra titu d e fo r th e i r understanding and patience during th is

endeavor.

James E. Bultman

i i

R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

7 1 - 3 0 , 0 1 8

BULTMAN, James E., 1941-THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGIES ON STUDENT PERCEPTION OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE.

Western Michigan University, Ed.D., 1971 Education, teacher training

U niversity Microfilms, A XEROX C om pany, Ann Arbor, M ichigan

TH IS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED

R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e copyrigh t ow ner. F u rth e r rep roduction prohibited w ithout perm issio n .

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... ü

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................... v i

LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................... v i i i

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ......................................... 1

O bjectives of the S tudy............................................. 4

Major Questions Which Were Investigated . . . . 8

D efin ition of Terms..................................................... 10

Importance of the S tudy........................ H

Lim itations of the S tu d y .................... 14

Assumptions.................................................... 14

Organization of the R e p o r t ..................................... 15

Summary.............................................................................. 16

I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . 17

Pedagogical V ariety in Teaching........................ . 17

V iab ility of Student Rating of TeacherPerformance ................................ 25

Student Opinion Feedback fo r T eachers................. 38

M otivation of Log A c t i v i t y ..................................... 41

Function of the C o n s u l ta n t ..................................... 45

I II RESEARCH DESIGN, SETTING, AND PROCEDURES . . . . 50

Review of the Problem................................................. 50

i l l


iv

Major Questions Which Were Investigated ................ 52

S pecific Questions Which Were Investigated . . . 52

Design of the S tu d y ..............................................................57

S election of the I n s t r u m e n ts ..........................................59

The S e t t i n g ..............................................................................66

P r o c e d u re s ........................................ 67

S election of the Sam ple................................................ 70

Adm inistration of the Instrument ............................ 73

D escription of the T rea tm en ts ......................................... 75

C ollection and Organization of the D a ta ..................... 80

IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA............................. 83

Students’ Overall Perceptions of Teachers , , . . 84

Students' Perceptions of Their Teachers' Variety in T each ing ..........................................................................92

Open-Ended P artic ip an t Responses ............................. 106

The C hecklist L o g ................................................................I l l

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 116

Review of the Problem ........................................................116

Review of Procedures Used In the S t u d y ................... 117

Summary of the Findings ............................................ H®

Conclusions ........................................................................120

Recommendations ........................................................122

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 127

APPENDIXES . .....................................................................................................136

A Student Opinion Questionnaire . . ............................. 137

B Teacher P ro file ................................................................. 139


V

G Tabular Summation...............................................................14.1

D F e e d b a c k ............................................................................... 142

E Checklist L o g .......................................................................143

F Cover L e t t e r ............................................................... 146

G Computer Program ............................................................... 147

H Student Perception Averages fo r All QuestionnaireItems, Pre and P o s t ..........................................................149

I Feedback Group Open-Ended Response.............................. 153

J Log Group Open-Ended R esponse................................ . 154

K Planning Group Open-Ended Response..... ......................... 155

L Combination Group Open-Ended Response ...................... 156

M Teacher Self-Perception Averages fo r All Questionn aire Item s, Pre and P o s t 157


LIST OF TABLES

table page

1 Overview of the Five Treatment Groups . . . . . . . 52

2 R e lia b ili ty of Items on Biyan's Student OpinionQ u e s tio n n a ire .................................... 63

3 Summary Data fo r Overall P re te s t Measure . . . . . 85

A Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P re te s t Measure . 85

5 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pro- to P o sttest) fo rOverall Means ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

6 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o sttes t) fo r*" Overall Means, Based on D ifferences in the

Control G ro u p ................................................ 89

7 Summary Data fo r Overall P o s tte s t Measure .................. 89

8 Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P o stte s t Measure . 90

9 Overall P o s tte s t Between Group 1-values • .................. 90

10 Analysis of Variance fo r Overall Change ScoreMeasure . ......................................................................... 91

11 Summary Data fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teachin g ," of the P re test M e a s u r e ..................................... 93

12 Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Varietyin Teaching," of the P re te s t Measure......................... 93

13 P re te s t Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine,"Variety in Teaching" ..................................................... 94

14 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o sttest) fo r~ SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching".......................... 95

15 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r** SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," Based on

D ifferences in the Control Group................................. 97

16 Summary Data fo r SOQ. Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching ," of the P o stte s t M easu re ..................................... 98

Vi


v i l

TABLE PAGE

17 Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ. Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the P o stte s t Measure ................. 99

18 P o stte s t Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching” .....................................

19 Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the Change Score Measui’e . . . 100

20 Change Score Between Group t-va lues fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching" .....................................


LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE page

1 Teacher R o l e ...................................................................... 18

2 Research Paradigm............................................................... 58

3 Group B—Incidence of Educational MethodologyEmployment vs. Time ............................ 112

U Group C—Incidence of Educational MethodologyEmployment vs. T i m e ................................................ 113

5 Group D ~Incidence of Educational MethodologyEmployment vs. Time .................................... 113

v i i i


CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

Educators have long been concerned about the q u a lity of teacher

performance. Building p rin c ip a ls in p a r tic u la r generally regard i t

as one of th e i r primary re sp o n s ib il i t ie s . The I960 ASCD Yearbook^

e n title d Leadership fo r Improving In stru c tio n s ta ted the follow ing;

"Although the major focus of a l l adm inistra tive e f fo r t is based upon the improvement of in s tru c tio n , there must be some means of f ix in g re sp o n s ib ility fo r the in s tru c tio n a l leadersh ip in each building s ta f f . This is the p r in c ip a l 's major function ."

Since the core of in s tru c tio n a l e f fo r t takes place a t the classroom

lev e l i t i s appropriate th a t attem pts fo r improvement hinge on the

performance of classroom teachers.^

More recen tly the public secto r has become concerned about the

q u a lity of teacher performance. In Michigan th is concern can be

traced , in part a t le a s t , to the inception in 1965 of c o lle c tiv e

bargaining which resu lted in the sp ira lin g of teach ers ' s a la r ie s .^

iR ass, Glen (Chairman), Leadership fo r Improving In s tru c tio n . I960 Yearbook of the Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington: The Association, I960, p. 33.

^ loc . c i t . , pp. 97, 164-.

^Rehmus, Charles, The Economic R esults of Teacher Bargaining; M ichigan's F ir s t Two Y ears. The In s t i tu te of In d u s tr ia l R ela tions, Michigan S ta te U niversity , Lansing, Michigan, May, 1968, p . 13.


P rio r to th a t time i t i s probable th a t , although the public did not

appreciate poor teaching, they recognized th a t perhaps the perform

ance was commensurate with the sa la ry . Today, however, with in

creased taxes necessita ted by higher s a la r ie s the public has begun

to ra ise soma questions. There is considerable sentiment among tax

payers th a t improved teacher performance should accompany increasing1 2teacher pay ra is e s . * The general public knows enough about the

systems approach to re a liz e th a t Increased inputs should produce

b e tte r outputs. A ccountability has become the fa v o rite word to

describe th is re la tio n sh ip between inputs and outputs, resources and

r e s u l ts . In a recent publication of the Phi Delta Kappan. devoted

sp e c if ic a lly to the topic of acco u n tab ility , Lieberman^ c ited the

growing national in te re s t in accoun tab ility and i t s apparent linkage

with increased education budgets. I t should not be assumed th a t

teacher performance is the only fac e t of the acco u n tab ility issue in

education; the performances of both policy making personnel and

supervisory personnel are a lso involved. However, Lopez^ asserted

th a t teacher performance i s perhaps the most basic and the most

^Cote, William E ., "Commission May J o l t Working World of S tate Teachers." The Grand Rapids P ress . LXXVIII (June 7 , 1970), 10-E.

% o te , William E ,, "Mllliltan Plan Would Oust Poor Teachers." The F lin t Jo u rn a l. XGIV (December 21, 1969), 1.

^Lieberman, lijrron, "An Overview of A ccountability ." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (December 1970), 194-5.

4Lopo3, F e lix M., "A ccountability in Education." Phi D elta Kappan. LII (December 1970), 232-5.


3

p e rtin en t of a l l accoun tab ility phases. Regardless of the re la tiv e

importance afforded the various phases of acco u n tab ility in education

i t is unmistakably c lea r th a t the increased emphasis has permeated

the area of teacher performance.

Two fundamental p o s s ib i l i t ie s e x is t fo r re c tify in g th is teacher

performance dilemma. F i r s t would be the attempt to improve the per

formance of present f a c u l t ie s . Secondly, by a process of dism issal

and se le c tiv e recruitm ent present f a c u lt ie s or p a rts thereo f could

be replaced. Admittedly, the l a t t e r p o s s ib i l i ty is a long-range

proposition .

With the mandatory enactment in I 964 of the permissive Michigan

Tenure Act of 1937, came p ro tec tion to teachers against u n fa ir d is

m issal p rac tice s . For school d i s t r i c t s the e f fe c t has been the v ir

tu a l im possib ility of term inating teacher co n trac ts . In describing

the s itu a tio n , s ta te educational columnist Cote^ concluded:

’’S ta te law does give much p ro tec tio n to teachers under the tenure a c t and various court ru lin g s . The idea of the law was to p ro tec t teachers from unreasonable p o l i t ic a l or o ther influence. The p ra c tic a l r e s u l t , though, has been th a t i t i s almost impossible now to f i r e a teacher unless he has been convicted of a crime or caught in a public scandal.”

S im ilarly , the 1960 ASCD Yearbook^ reported :

"The school adm in istrato r w ill need to be constan tly v ig ila n t against the p o s s ib il i ty of s ta f f in g the system with u n f it and incompetent people whom he cannot dism iss because of tenure policy p ro v is io n s.”

Oftentimes lengthy (3 years) and co s tly ($33,000) le g a l procedures

^Cote, ’’M illikan Plan Would Oust Poor Teachers," op. c i t .

% ass , op. c i t . , p . 120.


Buch aa the one in Royal Oak, Michigan,^ are the re s u l ts of e f fo r ts

to dismiss s ta f f members. There has been l i t t l e help from the teach

ing profession in discharging in fe r io r teach ers. Rather, a general

fa i lu re of teachers to police th e ir own ranks has been a negative2

fa c to r in reso lv ing the dilemma.

Obviously th is means th a t in order to improve the overa ll

competency of s ta f f , school systems w ill most l ik e ly find more v iab le

the p o s s ib ili ty of improving th e i r present fa c u lt ie s than dism issing

the "undesirables" and re c ru itin g new ones.

I t was in an attem pt to provide emperical evidence fo r the

possible improvement of teachers in se rv ice , as perceived by s tu

dents, th a t the present in v estig a tio n was conducted.

O bjectives of the Study

The primary purpose of th is study was to determine i f teachers

could modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances by

employing m ultiple educational methodologies in classroom presen

ta tio n s . For example, would i t be possible fo r a teach er, by employ

ing a v a rie ty of teaching methods and in s tru c tio n a l devices already

a t h is d isposal, to modify student perceptions of h is teaching per

formance? A secondary objective was to a sce rta in the r e la tiv e

"S tate Unit Okays Teacher's F irin g ." The F lin tJournal. XGIV (November 5, 1969), 53.

^Hummel, Charlton G., "A Right Only i f Deserved." NBA Journal. XLI (January I960), 67.


effec tiveness of four experimental treatm ents in helping a teacher

to modify student perceptions of h is teaching performance. S pecific

a l ly , which of four experimental treatm ents were more and which were

le ss e ffec tiv e in aid ing a teacher to modify h is student-perceived

performance? A d e ta iled descrip tion of the four treatm ents w ill be

given in Chapter I I I , but to f a c i l i t a t e an i n i t i a l understanding of

the study a b r ie f account i s presented here.

As a means of accomplishing the ob jectives of th is study four

experimental groups, each employing a prescribed treatm ent, and one

con tro l group were formed. Teachers in treatm ent group A received

w ritten feedback regarding student perceptions of th e i r teaching per

formances, The feedback data were compiled from an adapted form of

the Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) . (Appendix A), adm inistered

as a p re te s t to the c lasses of teachers in th is group. The feedback

consisted of a graphical descrip tion (Appendix B) and a tab u la r sum

mation (Appendix C) of student perceptions of the te a c h e r 's perform

ance, Also included was an informative statem ent (Appendix D) on

possible use of the feedback.

The treatm ent fo r teachers in group B was to m aintain a record

of the various in s tru c tio n a l methodologies they employed in th e ir

teaching, A check lis t log (Appendix E) of educational methodologies,

l i s t in g both in s tru c tio n a l devices and teaching methods, was provided

fo r th is purpose. At the conclusion of each day teachers in th is

group were to in d ica te , by means of the log, which devices and

methods they had employed in th e ir teaching th a t day. To a id the

teacher in making consis ten t and mutually exclusive checks of the


devices and methods employed, operational d escrip tio n s of various

methodologies were included with the log. The functiona l use of the

log was thoroughly explained to each teacher p r io r to the commence

ment of the experiment.

Teachers in treatm ent group C met ind iv idually with a consult

ant fo r approximately one hour each week to make plans fo r the

employment of m ultiple educational methodologies in th e i r teaching.

The consultant was sk ille d in the use of a v a rie ty of methodologies

and planned teaching s tra teg y with the teacher. Paramount a. ?ntion

was given to the use of a v a rie ty o f in s tru c tio n a l methodologies,

both from day to day and a lso during any given day. The ro le of the

consultant was most frequen tly to suggest the av a ilab le methods fo r

p resen ta tion and whenever possib le to encourage th e teacher to t ry

d iffe re n t and varied methodologies in lesson p resen ta tio n s . Par

t ic ip a n ts in th is group a lso maintained the ch eck lis t log previously

described.

A combination of the treatm ents used in groups A, B, and C was

u til iz e d by teachers in group D.

A f i f t h group of teach ers , group E, was incorporated as a

contro l group.

For ease in reference group A was called the feedback group,

group B was designated the log group, group C was named the planning

group, group D was labeled the combination group, and group E was

termed the control group.

To fu rth e r c la r ify the various group "treatm ents” an ou tlin e

synopsis of each group is presented here.


Synopsee of the f iv e groups;

A. The feedback group

The teacher; Received feedback inform ation from the SOQ

p re te s t.

B. The log group

The teacher; Maintained a ch eck lis t log of h is teaching

methodologies,

C. The planning group

The teacher;

1, Maintained a ch eck lis t log of h is teaching methodologies.

2. Planned with a consultan t fo r the employment of multiple

educational methodologies.

D. The combination group

The teacher;

1. Received feedback inform ation from the SOQ p re te s t .

2. Maintained a ch eck lis t log of h is teaching methodologies.

3. Planned with a consultant fo r the employment of m ultiple

educational methodologies.

E. The control group

The teacher; Experienced no experimental treatm ent.

The c r ite r io n measure fo r th is study was student perception of

teacher performance. An adapted form of the Student Opinion Ques

tionnaire (SOQ) was used to measure the e ffec tiv en ess of the various

group treatm ents in modifying student perceptions of teacher

performances. Items in the SOQ are based on the previous extensive


8

in v estig a tio n s of Bryan,^ A more d e ta iled account of the v ia b i l i ty

of student ra tin g of teacher performance generally and of Bryan's

instrument in p a r tic u la r i s included in Chapters I I and I I I of th is

rep o rt.

Major Questions Which Were Investigated

In an attempt to carry out the ob jectives of th is study i t was

d esirab le to Investigate several p e rtin en t questions. These questions

were focused b as ica lly on two major areas; (1) the success of cer

ta in experimental group treatm ents in helping teachers to modify

student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances and (2) the re

la tiv e success of the group treatm ents in helping teachers to modify

student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances. Rationale fo r

the supposition th a t the employment of m ultip le in s tru c tio n a l

methodologies would improve the performance of teachers as per

ceived by students is presented in the sec tion of Chapter I I en

t i t l e d "Pedagogical V ariety in Teaching,"

Because student perception of teacher performance was the de

pendent variab le and the employment of m ultip le in s tru c tio n a l

methodologies was the independent variab le in th is study i t was

reasoned th a t studen ts ' perceptions of the te a c h e r 's overall

^Bryan, Roy C,, Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions to High School Teachers, Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center, Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1968, pp, 2-3,


teaching performance as well as students* perceptions of the

te a c h e r 's v a rie ty in teaching should both be investigated with re

spect to the two major areas c ited above. C erta in ly i t would be

c ru c ia l to the purposes of the study to determine whether or not

each of the prescribed treatm ent groups was e ffe c tiv e in helping

teachers to modify student perceptions of th e i r ov era ll teaching per

formances. Of no le ss importance would be the d e s ir a b i l i ty of in

v es tig a tin g a question to a sce rta in the re la t iv e e ffec tiveness of

the various group treatm ents in helping teachers to modify student

perceptions of th e ir overa ll teaching performances. S im ilarly , the

determ ination of whether or not each of the prescribed treatm ent

groups was e ffec tiv e in helping teachers to modify student per

ceptions of th e ir "v arie ty in teaching" as well as the re la tiv e

effectiveness of the groups in helping teachers to modify student

perceptions of th e ir "v a rie ty in teaching" were deemed important to

the study ob jectives.

A fter in te ra c tio n and discussion with several key people in

volved in the study, but most impoi-tantly with the committee members

supervising th is p ro je c t, an exploration of the follow ing four major

questions was considered worthwhile and fe a s ib le in focusing the

in v estig a tio n on the study ob jectives:

1. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in

overa ll student perception of teacher performance from p re- to

p o s tte s t measure?

I t was an tic ip a ted th a t the research e f fo r t would provide evi

dence to show whether in f a c t a teacher could modify h is ov era ll


10

student-peroeived performance by p a r tic ip a tin g in the prescribed

trea tm en ts.

2. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups on the

overall p o s tte s t measure?

Due to the f a c t th a t the prescribed treatm ents varied both in

nature and degree i t was expected th a t th is in v estig a tio n would

determine the re la t iv e effectiveness of the various treatm ents in

modifying the te a c h e r 's performance as perceived by h is s tuden ts.


student perception of the teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item

nine, SOQ) from p re- to p o s tte s t measure?

In th a t the prime independent variab le was the use of a v a rie ty

of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies, the study was designed to evaluate the

ex tent to which students perceived a d ifference in th is aspect of the

te a c h e r 's performance.

4. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups fo r

"v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOQ) on the p o s tte s t measure?

I t was an tic ipa ted th a t the research e f fo r t would give ind i

cation of the r e la tiv e e ffec tiveness of the treatm ents in modifying

the s tuden ts ' perceptions of the teach ers ' v a rie ty in in s tru c tio n a l

methodology.

D efin ition of Terms

The terms th a t are used frequen tly throughout the rep o rt are

defined fo r purposes of th is experiment as follow s:


11

Average and below average perceived teachers are those teachers

whose overa ll mean scores on the Student Opinion Questionnaire

p re te s t were le ss than the mean score of the population from which

the teachers came. Furthermore, these teach ers’ p re te s t scores on

item nine of the SOQ. "v arie ty in teaching ," were le ss than the mean

score of the population from which the teachers came. These teachers

were randomly assigned to the experimental treatm ents.

The ch eck lis t log (Appendix E) is the form l i s t in g the various edu

ca tio n a l methodologies availab le fo r teachers. O perational defin

it io n s of the methodologies together with spaces fo r checking dates

of use are a part of th is form. I t was maintained by teachers in

experimental groups B, C, and D,

Educational methodology re fe rs to both non-human in s tru c tio n a l

devices such as p ro jec to rs , record p layers, and tape recorders; and

also human teaching methods such as le c tu re , d iscussion , and ro le

p lay in g .1

Feedback (Appendixes B, C, and D) re fe rs to the w ritten information

provided fo r the teacher re la tiv e to student responses on the

questionnaire.

Gage, N. L ., "Teacher Methods." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th e d ., London: The MacmillanCompany, 1969, p. 1446.


12

F ield experiment la the term used to describe "a research e f fo r t In

a r e a l i s t i c s itu a tio n in which Independent v ariab les are manipulated

under as ca re fu lly contro lled conditions aa po ssib le ."^

An image p ro file (Appendixes B and C) is the composite of a l l

w ritten feedback.

The term in s tru c tio n a l methodology is used interchangeably with

educational methodology.

Teaching methods are "patterns of teacher behavior th a t are recur

re n t , applicable to various sub ject m atters , c h a ra c te r is tic of more

than one teacher, and re levan t to lea rn in g ."^

Teaching stra tegy is the se lec tio n of appropriate educational method

ologies fo r in s tru c tio n .

A self-contained classroom, fo r purposes of th is study, is a lea rn

ing s itu a tio n where one teacher i s responsib le fo r more than f i f t y

percent of the learn ing a c t iv i t ie s fo r those students assigned to

him. The se ttin g is prim arily confined to a s ing le classroom.

Importance of the Study

This study should be of importance to those concerned with the

process of education. For those educators who have as th e ir primary

^K erlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: H olt, R inehart, and Winston, In c ., 1965, p. 382.

pop. c i t .


13

re sp o n s ib ility an influencing of the pedagogical dimension of teach

ing the study should prove p a r tic u la r ly im portant. In th is time of

increased accoun tab ility i t would be desirab le to know whether, and

to what ex ten t, teachers could modify th e i r perceived e ffec tiv en ess.

The e f fo r t described in th is repo rt was an attem pt to a s s is t teachers

in modifying th e ir student-perceived perforaiances by the re la t iv e ly

modest means of adapting and re fin in g the teach ers ' educational

methods and s tra te g ie s . Should the find ings of th is stu^r in d ica te

th a t teachers can modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching per

formances by employing a v arie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies,

there would be im plications fo r the development and m odification of

both p re-serv ice and in -se rv ice teacher education programs. Such

data could render fea s ib le a more meaningful e f fo r t by department

and grade group chairmen, p r in c ip a ls , and curriculum supervisors to

aid th e ir colleagues in the pedagogical aspects of teaching. Based

on the re su lts of th is study, teachers, as concerned p ro fessio n a ls ,

might be inclined to modify teaching behavior with respect to th e ir

in s tru c tio n a l methodologies.

S p ec ific a lly , th is f ie ld experiment d e a lt only with f i r s t ,

second, and th ird -y ea r upper elementary teachers in suburban upper

elementary classrooms. Teachers p a r tic ip a tin g in the experimental

phase of the study were those who scored average or below average on

a w ritten evaluation e l ic i t in g student perceptions of teacher per

formance. The populations to which genera liza tions could be made,

then, would be to those populations s im ila r in nature to the one

described here and in the "se ttin g " of Chapter I I I .


14

L lœ itatlona of the Study

This f ie ld experiment had lim ita tio n s which are re a d ily apparent.

One lim ita tio n was the f a c t th a t , although f if ty - fo u r teachers

p a rtic ip a ted in the i n i t i a l phase of the p ro je c t, only f if te e n

teachers were involved in the experimental phase» The p ra c tic a l

considerations of tim e, personnel, and f in a n c ia l resources did not

make fe a s ib le the expansion of th is number. Secondly, the duration

of the experiment was fo r approximately e igh t weeks during the

second semester of the 1969-70 school year. I t i s possible th a t

th is period of time was not su ff ic ie n t to maximally change teacher

performances and subsequent student perceptions or th a t some long

term e ffe c ts of the experiment were not evident when the SOQ p o s tte s t

had been adm inistered. F in a lly , the e ffe c ts of the planning sessions

were dependent on the e f fo r ts of a s ing le consultan t and h is success

in e s tab lish in g the necessary rapport with ind iv idual teachers to

influence th e ir use of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies.

Assumptions

There were two b asic assumptions underlying th is in v estig a tio n ;

the f i r s t pertained to the data gathering instrum ent while the

second re la te d to s tu d en ts ' perceptions.

In the absence of d e f in ite and agreed on c r i te r ia of teacher

competence i t is d i f f i c u l t to e s ta b lish d ire c t proof th a t an in s tru

ment designed to rev ea l the q u a lity of a teach er’ s performance


15

a c tu a lly measures what i t purports to measure,^ Bryan's instrum ent,

however, has been used extensively fo r both research and evaluation

purposes and is composed of items which ere termed "e ssen tia l char

a c te r is t ic s of e ffe c tiv e t e a c h e r s . F o r the p resen t study Bryan's

instrument was adapted only fo r the purpose of increasing i t s under-

s ta n d a b ility a t the elementary le v e l. The adaptation was acceptable

to teachers in the f i e ld , a panel of docto ra l studen ts , and the

committee supervising th is p ro je c t. Based on the above consider

a tions the adapted instrum ent was assumed to be appropriate as a

measure of student perception of teacher performance,

A second assumption of the study was th a t there is a meaningful

re la tio n sh ip between the s tu d en ts ' re a l perceptions of th e i r te a ch e r 's

performance and the s tu d en ts ' perceptions as e l ic i te d by the c r i te r io n

measures of teacher performance included in the adapted form of the

sog.

Organization of the Report

Beyond the p resent chap ter, th is rep o rt w ill be presented in the

following manner: Chapter I I , Review of Related L ite ra tu re and

Research, w ill include an examination of l i t e r a tu r e and stud ies

pertin en t to th is experiment. Reviewed under major headings w ill be

%owsam, Robert B ., Who's ^ Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation. Burlingame, C a lifo rn ia ; C alifo rn ia Teachers A ssociation, I960, p. 38.

^ ry a n , Roy C ., ^ Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center. Western Migbigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1967, p. 12.


16

the to p ics e n tit le d pedagogical v a r ie ty in teaching, v ia b i l i ty of

student ra tin g of teach ers , student opinion feedback fo r teachers,

m otivation of log a c t iv i ty , and function of the consu ltan t.

Following a b r ie f review of the problem and a l i s t in g of the

questions to be in v estig a ted . Chapter I I I w ill focus on the research

design of the study, the se ttin g , and the procedures used in con

ducting the f ie ld experiment. Included w ill be the methods used in

Instrument se lec tio n , sample se le c tio n , and adm inistration of the

instrum ent. Also presented w ill be a d e ta iled d escrip tio n of the

various group treatm en ts. An account of the procedures used in

co llec tin g and organising the data w ill conclude Chapter I I I ,

Research Design, S e ttin g , and Procedures.

Chapter IV, P resen tation and Analysis of the Data, w ill contain

the re s u l ts and an analysis of the data co llec ted in accordance with

the purposes of th is in v estig a tio n .

Presented in Chapter V, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations,

w ill be a review of the problem and procedures used, a summary of the

findings of the in v estig a tio n , conclusions, and recommendations.

Summary

This chapter has Included a statem ent of the problem, the

ob jectives of the study, and the major questions which were invest

igated to provide data on the problem under consideration. Also

contained here were the d e f in itio n s of frequen tly used terms to

gether with the importance, l im ita tio n s , and assumptions of the

study. F in a lly , th is beginning chapter included an overview of the

e n tire rep o rt.


CHAPTER I I

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

Information garnered from re la ted l i te r a tu r e and research

s tud ies p ertin en t to the in v estig a tio n under consideration w ill be

presented under the following major headings; (1) Pedagogical

V ariety in Teaching; (2) V iab ility of Student Rating of Teacher

Performance; (3) Student Opinion Feedback fo r Teachers; (A) Moti

vation of Log A ctiv ity and (5) Function of the Consultant.

Pedagogical V ariety in Teaching

There are th ree generally accepted dimensions to the te a c h e r 's

ro le ; ( l) h is id e n tif ic a tio n with studen ts, (2) h is knowledge of

sub ject m atter, and (3) h is pedagogy or in s tru c tio n a l methods s k i l ls .

Anderson^ dep icts th is s itu a tio n with the diagram shown in Figure 1.

In ten tio n a lly , in s tru c tio n a l methods (pedagogy) occupies the math

em atically most s ig n if ic a n t (Pythagorean Theorem) p a rt o f the t r i

angle, fo r Anderson purports i t to be the dimension on which the

te a c h e r 's p rofessional repu ta tion depends. Colman likew ise recog

nizes these three dimensions but focuses prim arily on the te ac h e r 's

^Anderson, Robert H., Teaching in a World of Change. New York: Harcourt. Brace, and World, In c ., 1966, p. 19.

^Colman, John E ., The Master Teachers and the Art of Teaching. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967, p. 5.

17


use of varied in s tru c tio n a l methodologies.

18

Curriculum

Pedagogy Knowledge

TeacherLearnerId e n t if ic a t i on

Figure 1

Teacher Role

Beck^ recen tly conducted a research study with over two thousand

six th-grade students to determine, v ia a one hundred-item question

n a ire , th e i r perceptions of e ffec tiv e teachers. Pupil perceptions

were described along fiv e dimensions of teacher m erit: e ffec tiv e ,

cognitive, d isc ip lin a ry , m otivational, and innovative ( f le x ib i l i ty

and use o f various teaching methods). He concluded a f te r fac to r

analysis th a t the six th-grade students tended to perceive the

^Beck, William R ,, "Pupil Perception of Teacher M erit: A FactorAnalysis of Five Postulated Dimensions." Journal of Educational Research. LXI (November 1967), 127.


19

e ffe c tiv e teacher as a "warm, frien d ly , and supportive person who

communicates c lea rly , m otivates and d isc ip lin es pupils e f fe c tiv e ly ,

and is f le x ib le in methodology." Using id en tic a l s ta t i s t i c a l methods

about f iv e years e a r l ie r Gupta^ had discovered s im ila r fa c to rs with

high loadings. In another study S prin tha ll^ and h is asso c ia tes

focused on "cognitive f le x ib i l i ty " as opposed to " r ig id i ty ." They

summarized:

"Among teacher educators there is support fo r the general notion th a t f le x ib i l i ty or conceptual openness i s both a d esirab le and d if fe re n tia tin g q u a lity in teaching. For example, Goodlad has suggested th a t f le x ib le teaching behavior is most re levan t to e ffec tiv e classroom performance . . . .T ra n s la te d to the classroom, th is ( r ig id i ty as opposed to f le x ib i l i ty ) would re su lt in the employment of one teaching method u n t i l well a f te r i t s p a r tic u la r con tribu tion has been u til iz e d e ffe c tiv e ly . The cognitively r ig id teacher would miss the cues th a t another method was needed,"

In conclusion the authors of the study suppoidied the basic hypothesis

th a t e ffec tiv e teaching and cognitive f le x ib i l i ty were r e la te d .

Most studies to date in th is area have attempted to determine

what co n s titu tes an e ffe c tiv e teacher, but few have attempted to

change the studen ts ' perceptions of the teacher. Review of the

l i te r a tu r e uncovered no research th a t attempted to a l t e r student

perceptions of teachers through the use of in s tru c tio n a l methodolo

g ie s . Yet, Gaga^ says th a t research in in s tru c tio n a l methodologies

^Gupta, Promila, "A Study of Cognitive Merit of Teachers." D isse rta tio n A bstracts. XXI (April 1961), 2983.

2 sp rln th a ll, Norman A., Whiteley, John M., and Mosher, Ralph L ., "A Study of Teacher E ffec tiveness." The Journal of Teacher Education. XVII (Spring 1966), 94.

^Gage, N. L ., "A nalytical Approach to Research on In s tru c tio n a l Methods." Phi Delta Kgggan, XLIX (June 1968), 601.


20

co n s titu te s one of the most important and promising areas in edu

ca tio n , He claims i t i s a neglected and undernourished area of

research . Noted educational th e o r is t , Bruner,^ too , s ta te s th a t

"more than ever before we are concerned with the nature of the

educational p ro cess .. .w ith the techniques and devices th a t can be

used to improve the educational e n te rp rise ."

From data received a t the Student Reaction Center a t Western

Michigan U niversity, Bryan^ has shown th a t secondary school teachers

f a l l short of student expectations more in the areas of v a rie ty of

teaching procedures and in te re s t-s tim u la tio n than in any other ca te

go ries. Using Bryan's instrum ent, the Student Opinion Q uestionnaire,

in a recent study, Lauroesch^ and h is colleagues showed th a t v a rie ty

in teaching ran)ced ten th out of twelve items on mean score. In

another study, th is time a t the elementary le v e l, Koskenniemi^ re

ported th a t "most unsuccessful teachers appeared to lack s e n s it iv ity

and understanding of ch ild re n 's thinking and a tt i tu d e s and to exh ib it

low capacity fo r e ffec tiv e s tru c tu rin g of in s tru c tio n a l a c t iv i t ie s

^Bruner, Jerome, "The New Educational Technology." Revolution in Teaching. New York; Bantom Books, 1962, p. 1.

^Bryan, Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions to High School Teachers, op. c i t . , p. 8.

•^Lauroesch, William P ., P ere ira , P e ter D., and Ryan, Kevin A., The Use of Student Feedback in Teacher T rain ing . P ro jec t No. 8-E-115, U.S. Office of Education, U niversity of Chicago, Chicago, 1969, p. 20.

^Koskenniemi, M atti, The Development of Young Elementary School Teachers: A Follow-up Study. H elsinki; S arja ser B. Nidetom, 1965,p. 138.


21

(pedagogy)." Furthermore, Amidon and Flanders^ have found th a t

b e tte r teachers showed v a r ie ty in p a tte rn s of teaching behavior

while p a tte rns th a t were s im ila r and consis ten t characterized the

poorer teacher. Grobman^ asked college students to l i s t what they

hoped they would never do in the classroom. One of the prominent

answers was the a n ti th e s is of v a rie ty in teaching.

Following a study focusing d ire c tly on teaching methods a t the

co lleg ia te lev e l, Drayer^ came to th is conclusion:

" I t would appear th a t college students admire e ffec tiv e methods and techniques f a r more than any other s ing le q u a lif ic a tio n possessed by th e i r in s tru c to rs ....A lth o u g h many fac to rs contribute to success as a college teacher, the one outstanding fa c to r which con tribu tes to a successfu l learn ing s itu a tio n is the in s tru c to r 's knowledge of and s k i l l in methods of teaching. Conversely, lack of th is Icnowledge and s k i l l seems to be the ch ief fa c to r re sponsible fo r f a i lu re to achieve a desirab le learn ing atm osphere....S tudents th ink the most successful in s tru c to rs are those who use e ffec tiv e methods."

The importance afforded v a rie ty in teaching methodology is not

a new dimension in teaching. H is to r ic a lly ,^ Herbert (1776-1&41),

the famous German educational psychologist, deplored the exclusive

use of a single teaching method and instead recommended the employment

^Amidon, Edmond J . and Flanders, Ned A., "Research on Teacher Behavior." The Role o f the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis: Paul S. Amidon and A ssociates, 1963, p. 55.

%robman, Hulda, "To See Ourselves as Others See Us." Childhood Education. XLV (March 1969), 397.

% rayer, Adam M., "Students' Views of the Q ualifica tions of Their Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September 1961), 339.

h u g h es , James Monroe, Education in America. New York: Harperand Row Publishers, 1970, p. 205.


22

of a wider range of learn ing a c t iv i t i e s . Likewise,^ P esta lozz i

(1746-1827), the Swiss educational reform er, emphasized teaching

methodologies th a t would elim inate the mechanical and ro u tin e .

I t i s not l ik e ly th a t educators w ill find in the l i te r a tu r e

anyone purporting the v ir tu e s of a single best teaching method. The

premise th a t no method is best in any absolute sense was accepted fo rn

th is study. Clark and S ta rr commented as follow s:

"Any claim th a t a s ing le method or approach to the teaching of any subject is the best way to teach th a t subject has the elements of quackery la te n t in it....H o w ev er, the teacher who has mastery over a large sto re of teaching techniques w ill find him self ready to provide the ta c t ic s necessary fo r almost any s itu a tio n ."

Wallen and Travers^ su b stan tia te th is p o sitio n by claiming, on the

b asis of research in the f ie ld , th a t "teaching methods d o n 't seem to

make much d if fe re n c e .. .th e re is hardly any d ire c t evidence to favor

one method over ano ther." However, they^ also comment:

"The w rite rs see the g rea t need a t the p resen t time fo r an attem pt to design a teaching method which makes as much use as possible of a wide range of learn ing p rin c ip le s . V/hen th is is done, th ere may be some hope of find ing a teaching method which is d e f in ite ly and markedly superio r to others which have not been thus system atically designed. There is a p o s s ib il i ty th a t many d if fe re n t teaching methods might be designed which would make use of many p r in c ip le s ."

l ib id .

^Clark, Leonard H. and S ta r r , Irv ing S ., Secondary School Teaching Methods. New York; The Macmillan Company, 1967, p. 14.

3Wallen, Norman and Travers, Robert, "Analysis and Investigation

of Teaching Methods." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago; Rand McNally and Company, 1963, p. 484.

4 loc. c i t . , p. 500.


23

la i t not lo g ic a l, then, to speculate th a t an e c le c tic approach,

u t i l iz in g many methods with th e i r unique inherent learning p rin c ip le s ,

might be a ju s t i f ia b le approach? The premise then becomes th a t ,

although there appears to be no one best teaching method in any

absolute sense, i t i s equally as c e rta in th a t some methods are b e tte r

than others in given s itu a tio n s . Support fo r th is contention comes

from Gage^ who concludes as follows a f te r a survey of research on

teaching methods:

"Although p o sitiv e re su lts remain hard to come by, some can be c ited to ind ica te th a t , depending on which teaching methods are considered, they can make a d ifference in educational outcomes."

Furthermore, he^ says th a t there are some advantages of ce rta in

methods of teaching over others and th a t i f employed on "s tra teg ic"

occasions, these advantages can outweigh the disadvantages.

McKeachie, too , claims th a t "a conclusion th a t i t does not make any

difference which methods are used is c lea rly u n ju s tif ie d . Rather,

recent research suggests th a t decisions about teaching methods do

have important consequences."

The need fo r a study to incorporate the l i te r a tu r e and research

cited above was apparent. Envisioned was a study th a t would not try

to p i t one method against another or attem pt to show the e fficacy of

^Gage, "Teacher Methods," op. c i t . , p. 1A4-7.

^ loc . c i t . , p. 14.5 6 .

^McKeachie, W. J . , "Research on Teaching a t the College and U niversity Level." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. K. L, Gage, Chicago; Rand McNally and Company, 1963, p. 1162.


24

a sing le method of teaching, but ra th e r one th a t would focus on the

use of many educational methodologies already a t a te a ch e r 's d is

posal. The study would attem pt to determine the re su lta n t e ffe c ts

i f teachers would u t i l iz e the av ailab le methods and media instead

of allowing them to go unused. Smith, Krouse, and Atkinson'^

address th is poin t sp e c if ic a lly in th e ir d iscussion of the master

teacher;

"The master teacher w ill be fu lly aware of a l l m ateria ls and a ids a t h is d isposal to fu rth e r the educational program. The outstanding teacher knows th a t various techniques must be used in teach ing . He w ill use many of these when they are appropriate to the lesson a t hand. The outstanding teacher w ill use committee work on occasion; he w ill lec tu re on ocassion and he w ill use f ie ld t r ip s on occasion. In f a c t , the outstanding teacher uses every device or technique he knows about, but he uses them a t various times and fo r sp ec ific pu rposes.. . .C h a rac te ris tic s th a t id en tify a master teacher are a lso found in teachers of le s s e r a b i l i ty ; the d if ference is one of degree."

Such a study as the one described above was the In ten t of th is

endeavor. With the use of a v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methods i t

was an tic ipa ted th a t improved teaching performance would re s u l t .

The ra tio n a le fo r th is hypothesis was based on the importance

afforded the pedagogical dimension by w rite rs in the f ie ld and the

p o ten tia l a m u ltip lic ity of educational methods gave fo r curing

o ther classroom i l l s . This ra tio n a le was not unlike th a t of

^ S tree te r , Edward 0 , , "Teacher Competency and Classroom Use of Educational Media." Audiovisual In s tru c tio n . XIV (January 1969), 60.

^Smith, Edward, Krouse, S tanley, and Atkinson, Mark, The Educator's Encyclopedia. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey ; P ren tice- H all In c ., 1967, pp. 400-1.


25Gardner^ who p o sits the idea th a t a healthy socie ty should be char

ac te rized by p luralism , v a rie ty , and a lte rn a tiv e s . So a healthy

teaching s itu a tio n should espouse many methods th a t incorporate

varied learning p rin c ip le s .

V iab ility of Student Rating of Teacher Performance

The v ia b i l i ty of student ra tin g of teacher performance has

received increasingly favorable comments in recen t l i t e r a tu r e . His

to r ic a l ly , student ra tin g s of teachers were f i r s t reported in 19232 3and achieved considerable a tten tio n beginning in the 1930's . *

Opposition to the p rac tice of student ra tin g s can read ily be under

stood by educators who are fam ilia r with the area of teacher evalu

a tio n . In separate a r t ic le s Amatora^ and Callahan^ s im ila rly

id en tify some of the arguments against i t s use:

^Gardner, John W,, The Recovery of Confidence. New York: W. W.Norton and Company In c ., 1970, p. 55.

^O liver, Wilmont F ., The Relative E ffectiveness of Inform ational Feedback About Supervisory and Student Reactions With Beginning and Experienced Vocational Teachers. P ro ject No. 6-8327, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rutgers, the S ta te U niversity, New Brunswick, New Jersey , 1967, p. 17.

^Amatora, S is te r Mary, "Teacher Rating by Younger P up ils ." Journal of Teacher Education. V (June 1954/, 149.

4 ib id .

^Callahan, S te rlin g G ., "Is Teacher Rating by Students a Sound P ractice"? School and S ociety . LXIX (February 1949), 96.


26

1. Students are too immature to render va lid judgments.

2. Students' "halo e ffe c t" o ffs e ts v a lid ity . (Halo is defined

by English and English^ as "the tendency in making an estim ate or

ra tin g of one c h a ra c te r is tic of a person to be influenced by another

c h a ra c te r is tic or by one's general impression of th a t person."

3. Students' responses are ta in te d with emotional incidents

such as grades, teacher a t t i tu d e s , and d isc ip lin e .

4. Students' anonymous remarks are irre sp o n sib le .

5. Teacher morale is lowered.

Howsam id en tified y e t another reason fo r the apparent dichotomy

between evidence and p rac tice when he sa id :

"Despite the favorable evidence, there i s widespread resis tan ce to the use of pupil ra tin g s probably a r is in g out of the respective ro les of student and teacher in our cu ltu re ."

Amatora^ fu rth e r c la r i f ie d the s itu a tio n :

"The f i r s t impulse of the u n in itia te d is usually one of aversion; whereas those who have had some acquaintance with i t s procedures, who have studied i t s pros and cons, who have ac tu a lly p a rtic ip a te d in such s tu d ies are often favorable and a t times even en th u sia s tic in th e i r endorsement of the p ra c tic e ."

The advantages accruing to student ra tin g s are s im ila rly e a s ily

^English, H. B. and English, Ava C ., A Comprehensive D ictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms. New York: Longmans,Green and Company, 1958, p. 236.

^Howsara, Robert B ., "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folk lore."The National Elementary P rin c ip a l. XLIII (November 1963), 16.

^Amatora, op. c i t .


27

id e n tif ie d . Amatora^ and Callahan^ again note almost id en tic a l

arguments of proponents;

1. Students are frank .

2. Students d a ily occupy s tra te g ic positions to see both the

good and the bad of a te a c h e r 's performance.

3 . S tudents' perceptions of teachers are important to subse

quent study.

U* Students provide inform ation, not ava ilab le through other

means, with ease, economy, and convenience.

5. Student c r itic ism is good and help fu l in determining peda

gogical d efic ien cies and b e tte r teacher p erso n a lity .

Pupil ra tin g s have been the subject of a considerable amount of

research in recent y ears . With few exceptions the p rac tice has been

favorably endorsed. Howsam rep o rts on th is research as follow s:

"With remarkable consistency the findings have shown th a t pupils are able to make more v a lid and re lia b le ra tin g s of teachers than any o ther group, including adm in istra to rs , supervisors, and experts . Teachers in these stud ies have found the pupil ra tin g s to be f a i r and accu ra te ."

E a rlie r , Howsarn had found four types of ra tin g scales to be commonly

l lo c . c i t . , p . 150.

^Callahan, op. c i t . , p . 99.

%owsam, "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folk lore," op. c i t .

^Howsam, Who's g Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation, op. c i t . , pp. 31-5.


28

used in research on teacher performance. He dismissed s e lf - ra tin g s

because they were too b iased , peer ra tin g s because there was marginal

evidence fo r colleagues, and supervisor and adm inistrator ra tin g s

because of low c o rre la tio n and b ia s . In h is review of stud ies How-

8am found only student ra tin g s to be favorably endorsed. Hickmott^

constructed a fo rty -e ig h t-item instrum ent fo r obtaining student

opinions of teach ers. She reported th a t co rre la tio n s fo r the

various groups of fo u rth , f i f t h , and six th-grade students obtained

by the chance-half method ranged from .91-.99 . The almost unanimous

acclaim of teachers regarding the fa irn e ss of student responses was

supportive of Bryan's e a r l i e r work.^ Amatora^ did research with

pupil ra tin g s in grades four to e ig h t using a f iv e point scale to

determine student perception of teacher performance on seven c r ite r io n

areas. She concluded th a t elementary pup ils are f a i r ly s tab le in

th e ir ra tin g of teachers and show a s a tis fa c to ry degree of both

agreement and d iscrim ination . S p li t -h a lf r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging

from .86-.96 were reported on the seven item s.

In a monumental attem pt to discover c r i te r ia fo r determining

teacher m erit, McCall^ conducted a statew ide study fo r the North

Carolina S ta te Board of Education. Pupil gain scores on a v a rie ty

of t e s t s were accepted as being the c r i te r io n measure of teacher

Hickmott, Susan, "An Instrument fo r Obtaining Student Opinions of Teachers in Interm ediate Grades." Unpublished M aster's Thesis,The Ohio S tate U niversity , Columbus, Ohio, 19A7, p. 60.

^ loc. c i t . , p. AA*■^Amatora, op. c i t . , p. 152.M cC all, William A ., Measurement of Teacher M erit. Raleigh,

North Carolina: North Carolina S ta te Board of Education, 1952, p . 27.


29

m erit. The judgment of several groups of ra te rs on various teacher

t r a i t s led him to th is conclusion:

"At l a s t we find some p ro fessionally competent judges of teaching s k i l l , namely, the teach ers ' p u p ils , especia lly a f te r they have been taught by the teacher fo r nearly a year. Out of the mouths of ch ildren comes more accurate judgment of teachers than th a t rendered by th e i r peers o r superv isors, and, i f our c r i te r io n is v a lid , they appear to have a t ru e r idea of what co n stitu tes good te ich in g than professors of education."

One of the pioneers in research on student ra tin g of teachers

has been Reramers with h is work on the Purdue Rating Scale fo r

In s tru c tio n .^ This scale has been the too l of research since the2

1920's and has led Remmers to conclude th a t "student evaluation is

a u sefu l, convenient, r e l ia b le means of se lf-su p erv isio n and s e lf -

improvement fo r the teach er." Major generaliza tions from researches

on th is scale follow ;^

"1. R e lia b ili ty of ra tin g s of teachers by students i s a function of the number of r a te r s , in accordance with the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. I f 25 or more student ra tin g s are averaged, they are as re lia b le as the b e tte r educational and mental te s t s a t present av a ilab le .

2 . Grades of students have l i t t l e i f any re la tio n sh ip to th e i r ra tin g s of in s tru c to rs who assigned the grades.

3 . Alumni 10 years a f te r graduation agree very c lose ly (rank order rho = .92) with on-campus students on the re la tiv e importance of 10 teacher c h a ra c te r is t ic s .

A* Alumni 10 years a f te r graduation agree su b s ta n tia lly ( r 's ranging from .AO to ,68) with on-campus students in th e i r average ra tin g s of the same in s tru c to rs .

^Rammers. H. H., "Rating Methods in Research on teach ing ." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNallyand Company, 19^3, p. 33&.

2loc. c i t . , p. 367.

2 ib id .


30

5. Halo e f fe c t , i f present in ra tin g s by such instrum ents as the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n , i s s u ff ic ie n t to ra ise the in t e r t r a i t co rre la tio n s to un ity when corrected fo r unr e l ia b i l i ty of the ra tin g s . Evidence ind ica tes th a t students discrim inate re lia b ly among d iffe re n t aspects of the te a ch e r 's personality and the course.

6. L i t t le i f any re la tio n sh ip e x is ts between stu d en ts ' ra tin g s of the teacher and the d if f ic u l ty of the course.

7. In a given college or u n iv e rsity , wide and important departmental d ifferences in teaching effec tiveness may e x is t as judged by student opinion.

8. The sex of student ra te rs bears l i t t l e or no re la tio n sh ip to th e i r ra tin g s of teachers.

9. The cost in time and money of obtaining student ra tin g s of teachers is low. In f a c t , i t i s considerably lower than the cost of adm inistering a ty p ica l standarized educational t e s t o f some comprehensiveness.

10. Popularity in ex trac lass a c t iv i t ie s of the teacher is probably not appreciably re la te d to student ra tin g s of th a t teacher.

11. Teachers with le s s than fiv e y ea rs ' experience tend to be rated lower than teachers with more than e ig h t y ears ' experience.

12. The sex of the teacher is in general unrelated to the r a t ings received.

13. There is a low but s ig n if ic a n t p o s itiv e re la tio n sh ip ( r “ .20) between the mean ob jec tive ly measured achievement of an in s tru c to r 's students (with scholastic a b i l i ty held constant) and s tu d en ts ' ra tin g s of college chemistry teachers.

14. Students are more favorable than in s tru c to rs to student ra tin g of in s tru c to rs , but more in s tru c to rs than students have noticed improvement in th e i r teaching as a r e s u l t of student ra tin g s ."

Miklich^ recen tly completed a v a lid a tio n study of the Purdue

iM iklich, Donald R ., "An Experimental V alidation Study of the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n ." Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXIX (w inter 1969), 966.


31

Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n and s ta ted ;

"We may conclude with some confidence th a t students can make v a lid ra tin g s with the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n or s im ila r kinds of sca le s ."

Davenport^ likew ise concluded th a t " i t can be s ta ted with a f a i r

degree of confidence th a t pupils are competent to ra te teachers, and

th a t th e i r ra tin g s are re lia b le and v a lid , and th a t the ra tin g s of

pupils have no d e le te rio u s e ffe c ts on e ith e r pupil or teacher morale."

General comments l ik e "research ind ica tes th a t very re a l value

may be attached to pupil perception of teacher e ffectiveness as evi

dence in the evaluation of teachers" from Beok^ and "students consti

tu te a pool of re lia b le observers who are in a favorable position to

observe changes in the behavior of th e i r teachers since they are3

present every day" from Oliver are undoubtedly instrum ental in the

growing trend toward the use of student ra tin g s of teacher e ffe c tiv e

n ess.^

The concepts of ra tin g and evaluation can hardly be discussed

ap art from the consideration of c r i te r i a upon which these judgments

^Davenport, Kenneth, "An Investiga tion of Pupil Ratings of C ertain Teacher P rac tic e s ." Purdue Studies in Higher Education. XLIX (January 194A), 12.

p*Beck, op. c i t .

^O liver, op. c i t . , p. 5.

^American A ssociation of School A dm inistrators, Who's a Good Teacher? Washington D.C.: American A ssociation of School Administ r a to r s , 1961, p. 32.


32

are mada. Fatt u , ^ M itzel,^ and KerlingoiP among o th ers , p o s it

pessim istic views of past research e f fo r ts to y ie ld meaningful,

measurable c r i te r ia of teacher e ffec tiv en ess. Yet, the d esire to

press forward has captivated the e f fo r ts of many. The ra tio n a le

behind such e f fo r ts was r e a l i s t ic a l ly summarized in an a r t ic le by

the American Association of School A dm inistrators;^

"This study is approached with the f u l l re a liz a tio n th a t there i s no absolute ce rta in ty anywhere in human a f f a i r s .The fee lin g s , b e l ie f s , and psychological reactions of in d iv iduals, p a r tic u la r ly as they are re la ted to the d e lic a te and in tr ic a te process of teaching and learn ing , cannot be r ig id ly defined and categorized lik e inanimate p a r tic le s of physical m atter. But to delay action u n t i l such ce rta in ty has been achieved would be to delay action fo rever. Moral ob ligation r e s ts upon a l l of us to press forward in the way th a t a l l ava ilab le evidence ind icates is more probably tru e than any o th er."

Ryans,^ too , expressed the ra tio n a le behind h is ambitious en

deavor, since ca lled the "single most extensive study of teachers

to da te":^

"While extreme caution should be taken in guarding against an overgeneralised p ic tu re of the good or e ffe c tiv e teach er, or

^Fattu , Nicholas A., "What Research Says About Teacher E ffec tiveness," HEA Journal. L (October 1961), 56.

^M itael, Harold E ., "Teacher E ffectiveness." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. C. W. H arris , 3d e d ., London; The Macm illan Company, I960, p. 14.81,

^K erlinger, Fred N ., "The Factor S tructure and Content of Perceptions of Desirable C h arac te ris tic s of Teachers." Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXVII (Autumn 1967), 643.

^American A ssociation of School A dm inistrators, op. c i t . , p. 1.

5Ryans, David G., C h arac teristics of Teachers. Washington B.C.; American Council on Education, I960, p. 366.

^Qetaels, J . W. and Jackson P. W., "The Teacher's P ersonality and C h arac te ris tic s ." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed, H. L, Gage, Chicago; Rand McNally and"Tompany, l953, p. 56b.


33

the opposite exem plified by the in fe r io r or in e ffec tiv e teacher, the re su lts of a v a rie ty of in v estig a tio n s do poin t to c e r ta in recu rring descrip tions which may have some v a lid ity in so fa r as contemporary cu ltu re in the United S ta tes is concerned. C ertain ly the evidence suggests leads and clues which provide s ta r t in g po in ts fo r thinking about teacher competencies and fo r more in tensive in v estig a tio n s which open the way fo r more adequate conceptualizing about teacher performance."

Ryans^ study of teacher c h a ra c te r is tic s has drawn considerable

a tten tio n and support. Three dimensions or c r i te r ia of classroom

behavior were Id e n tif ied :

"Pattern Xq.* Understanding, f r ie n d ly vs. a loo f, egocentric , re s t r ic te d teacher behavior.

P attern Y^: Responsible, busin ess lik e , system atic vs.evading, unplanned, slipshod teacher behavior.

P attern Z^: S tim ulating , im aginative, surgent or en th u sias ticvs. d u ll , rou tine teacher behavior."

These th ree dimensions were id e n tifie d by surveying the l i t e r a tu r e ,

analyzing " c r i t ic a l incidents" in teaching, and id en tify in g the

c lu s te rs in fa c to r an a ly s is . In a more recen t study by Crawford and

Bradshaw the e ffe c tiv e teacher c h a ra c te r is tic s determined v ia three

hundred student papers "corresponded c lo se ly to those of Ryans in

i 960 which presumably represented a consensus of the American Council

on Education." K erlinger^ s im ila rly s ta te s th a t "there are three

p rin c ip a l fac to rs underlying perceptions of desirab le t r a i t s of

^op. c i t . , p . 77.

^Crawford, P. L, and Bradshaw, H. L ., "Perception o f Characteris t ic s of Effective U niversity Teachers: A Scaling A nalysis." Educa tional and Psychological Measurement. XXVIII (Winter 1968), 1081.

% erlin g e r, op. c i t . , p . 6 5 4 .


34

teachers. These th ree fa c to rs , moreover, resemble Ryans’ Xq- Yq- Zq

p a tte rn s ."

Research l i te r a tu r e has in the past divided c r i te r ia of e ffec

tiveness in to presage, process, and product c r i te r ia .^ Presage

c r i te r ia include fac to rs which teachers bring with them to the c la ss

room. Years of teaching experience, p r io r p reparation , in te llig e n c e ,

and so c ia l s k i l l s might be such fa c to rs . M itzel^ commented on the

nature of presage c r i te r i a ;

"In a sense they a re pseudo c r i te r i a , fo r th e i r relevance depends on an assumed or con jectural re la tio n sh ip to o ther c r i te r i a , e i th e r process or product. Precedent fo rces th e ir consideration as c r i t e r i a , since the bulk of research on teacher competence has employed dependent variab les which f i t in to th is category."

3Soar described process c r i te r i a in the following manner:

"Process c r i te r ia are aspects of the classroom operation which are deemed worthwhile in th e ir own r ig h t , although they may not be d ire c tly re la ted to the outcomes of education, the product c r i te r i a . These process c r i te r ia are most o ften measures of classroom clim ate or ty p ica l s itu a tio n s involving the soc ia l in te ra c tio n of students and teachers. Other examples would be the extent to which teachers d isc ip lin e students e ffe c tiv e ly , m aintain rapport with s tuden ts. "

To th is Mitael'^ added th a t as process c r i te r ia n e ith e r student nor

teacher behavior should be studied in iso la tio n . "The in te ra c tio n

Ip ianders, Ned A, and Simon, A nita, "Teacher E ffectiveness."The Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4 th e d ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969, pp. 1425-32.

^M itzel, op. c i t . , p . 1484.3Soar, Robert S ., "Methodological Problems in P redic ting Teacher

E ffectiveness." Journal of Experimental Education. XXXII (Spring 1964), 289.

^ p , c i t .


35

between them appears to be the dominant aspect of the whole process

of lea rn in g .” Bryan^ extended th is reasoning when he said :

"One is thinking in terms of process c r i te r ia when he concludes th a t improved student reactions means improved teacher e ffec tiv en ess. Other th ings being equal, the teacher who conducts c lasses th a t students find challenging and in te r esting is more e ffe c tiv e than the one who conducts c lasses th a t bore s tu d en ts . The teacher who gets cooperation in the p ru su it of classroom objectives is more e ffec tiv e than one who f a i l s to ge t studen ts to concentrate on classroombusiness, and the teacher who is admired and respected ismore e ffec tiv e than one who is feared or regarded with contempt. *'

Product c r i te r ia re fe r to measured growth or gains in students re

su ltin g from e f fo r ts of the teacher. F a ttu ,^ in h is manuscript

preparation fo r the American A ssociation of School A dm inistrators,

ap tly described th is c r i te r io n area when he concluded:

•'Despite f i f t y years of continued development in the f ie ld of educational measurement, s a tis fa c to ry te s t s of achievement e x is t only in a few of the basic s k i l l s a reas. Adequate measures of so c ia l and emotional adjustm ents, cu ltu ra l apprecia tions, or a t t i tu d e s e s se n tia l to democratic liv in g are not ye t av a ila b le . Though elaborate s ta t i s t i c a l and experimental methods have been developed, there is no one who can demonstrate a s c ie n tif ic way of making use of p u p il- gain c r i te r ia in measuring teacher e ffe c tiv e n e ss .”

Howsam,^ too, addressed him self to product c r i te r ia :

•'There is only one f u l ly defensib le c r i te r io n fo r judging teacher e ffec tiv en ess ; the ultim ate c r i te r io n is r e s u l t .Since i t i s not p resen tly fe a s ib le to re ly on the ultim ate c r i te r io n of e ffec tiv en ess , i t becomes necessary to attem pt to develop interm ediate or proximate c r i t e r i a . These are

^Bryan, A Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. op. c i t . , p. 11.

2American Association of School A dm inistrators, op. c i t . , p. 19.

howsam, "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and F o lk lo re ,” op. c i t . ,p. 15.


36

the ones th a t can be demonstrated or assumed to be c lose ly re la te d to u ltim ate c r i te r ia ."

Upon concluding th a t of the three major c r i te r ia only process c r i

t e r ia were p resen tly of p ra c tic a l use in the te a ch e r 's e f fo r t fo r

improved e ffec tiv en ess , Bryan^ launched a major e f fo r t to provide

teachers with student opinions of teacher performance. These e f fo r ts

culminated in the development of the Student Opinion Questionnaire

(SOQ) and i t s subsequent d is tr ib u tio n through the Student Reaction

Center a t Western Michigan U niversity. The questionnaire has been

revised and i s now ca lled the Teacher Image Q uestionnaire. while

the cen ter has expanded i t s scope and has been renamed the Educator

Feedback Center.2

Lauroesch claims th a t over a period of th i r ty years Bryan has

developed the most re lia b le procedure fo r s o lic i t in g student opinion

of teacher performance. Bryan's twelve-item instrument has been

used nationwide in both research and in -se rv ice e f fo r ts . I t has been3 /shown to be re l ia b le , v a lid , and reasonably free from halo e f fe c t . *

The questionnaire items represent "e sse n tia l c h a ra c te r is tic s of

e ffe c tiv e teachers" and were selected only a f te r a carefu l study of

appropriate research in v estig a tio n s . Of s ignal importance in th is

regard was the previously mentioned study of Ryans.

^Bryan, A Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. op, c i t . , p. 11.

^Lauroesch, op. c i t . , p . 5.3

op. c i t . , pp. 10, 12.

4op. c i t . , p. 6,


37

Ryans^ d escrip tio n of the e ffec tiv e behaviors of teachers was la rg e ly

incorporated in the SOQ. With respect to the re la tio n between teacher

e ffec tiveness and student reactions Bryan^ concluded:

"Many educators believe th a t improved student reactions means improved teacher e ffec tiv en ess. The research by Ryans and others led to the conclusion th a t e ffec tiv e teachers ex h ib it to a favorable degree, q u a li t ie s lik e those specified in the Student Opinion Q uestionnaire."

Coats^ has fa c to r analyzed the re su lts of over fo rty thousand student

responses on the SOQ. He found one fa c to r , which he labeled teacher

charisma, to account fo r about s ix ty percent of the variance. The

other fo rty percent of the variance was independent of the charisma

fa c to r and most l ik e ly represented a f a i r ly objective measure of

student judgment. Coats added th a t "teacher charisma is probably a

function of teacher e ffec tiv en ess ." Alas, Coats had received con

s is te n t requests from boards of education p r io r to the 1970 school

year to adm inister the SOQ fo r purposes of m erit ra tin g . Although

the teacher e ffec tiveness c r i te r ia dilemma is s t i l l bothersome fo r

many educators, the above-mentioned use of th is instrum ent has made

more common i t s designation as an instrum ent fo r measuring teacher

^Ryans, op. c i t . , p . 82.

^Bryan, Roy C. , Reactions to Teachers by Students. P aren ts, and A dm inistrators. Cooperative Research P ro ject No. 668, U.S. Office of Education, Department of H ealth, Education, and Welfare, Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1962, p . 7.

^Coata, William D., "Student Perceptions of Teachers~A Factor A nalytic Study." Paper presented a t the American Research Associa tio n Conference, M inneapolis, Minnesota, March 6 , 1970, p. 8.


38

e ffec tiv en ess.

Many p re- and p o s tte s t designed stud ies such as the one carried

out here do not attem pt to engage in any absolute evaluation of teacher

e ffec tiv en ess. Ho attem pt was made a t comparison with ex ternal

standards. Rather, the effec tiveness of various group treatm ents

was determined by changes in students* pre- and p o s tte s t opinions.

As such the e f fo r t was v a lid in i t s s o l ic i ta t io n of student per

ceptions of teacher performance.

Student Opinion Feedback fo r Teachers

The ra tio n a le fo r hypothesizing changes in teacher behavior

based on student opinion feedback has been offered by many w rite rs .^

Gage, Runlcel, and C hatterjee claimed an imbalance was estab lished

which prompted the teacher to move in d irec tio n s of co rrection .

Osgood and Tonnenbaum re fe rred to th is same phenomenon as incongruity,

F estinger as dissonance. Given time follow ing feedback, subjects

w ill ad ju st th e i r behavior to re s to re consistency or equilibrium .

Many have espoused the concept of feedback as an aid in improv

ing teacher performance. Not in frequently teachers have engaged of

th e i r own v o litio n in attem pts to get feedback from students regarding

th e i r teaching. In explaining the b en efits of such a c tiv ity Tedesco^

^aw , R. W. and Gage, N. L ., "Effect of Feedback from Teachers to P rin c ip a ls ." Journal of Educational Pavchology. LVIII (June 1967), 181.

^Tedesco, Phyliss Reynolds, "An 'A* fo r Teacher." The In s tru c to r . U n (October 1959), 89.


39

sa id , " I read those papers f iv e tim es. I learned more about my

teaching methods th a t evening than I would have in a year of course

work." Wright and Sherman^ also agreed:

"Whatever may be the te a ch e r 's evaluation of h e rse lf or a superv iso r's evaluation of her, n e ith er can compare with p u p ils ' perceptions of the teacher as a way to find out what pupils are responding to ."

Other attem pts a t providing teacher feedback have become more

systematized such as the e f fo r ts a t Purdue, Stanford, and Western

Michigan U n iv e rsitie s . In h is doctoral d is s e r ta tio n a t Stanford,

Aubertine^ found th a t p a rtic ip a n ts valued most the feedback ea s ie s t

to obtain , namely th a t from students. Ryan,^ studying a t the same

in s t i tu t io n , also found th a t p re-serv ice teachers perceived student

feedback to be more b en efic ia l than th a t from other sources.

A fter reviewing m ateria l in the f ie ld and p rio r to conducting

a study using Bryan's instrum ent, Lauroesch^ and h is associa tes con

cluded th a t " th ir ty years of research and development have indicated

th a t student feedback is a useful and re lia b le means fo r improving

and d ire c tin g behavioral change in teach ers." In a study conducted

^Wright, Benjamin and Sherman, Barbara, "Love and Mastery in the C hild 's Image." School Review. LXXIII (Summer 1965), 89.

^Aubertine, H. E ., "An experiment in the Set Induction Process and I t s Application in Teaching." D isserta tio n A bstracts . XXV (January 1965), 3987.

%yan, Kevin A., "The Use of S tudents' W ritten Feedback in Changing the Behavior of Beginning Secondary School Teachers." D isse rta tio n A bstracts : The Humanities and Social Sciences. XXVII (January-Feb-ruary 1967), 2089-A.

^Lauroesch, op. c i t . , p . 1.


40

with a USOE grant Bryan^ found th a t "the feedback of information

about student reac tions can be used by many teachers as a means of

improving effectiveness os seen by s tuden ts." F ifty-seven percent

of s ix ty experimental teachers made a s ta t i s t i c a l ly s ig n if ic a n t gain

on one or more questions as compared with twenty-four percent of the

f if ty -n in e non-experimental teachers. Ninety-two percent o f the2

experimental group teachers said the feedback was h e lp fu l. O liver

used Bryan's instrument in a recent study and drew these conclusions:

"1. Inform ational feedback from students is e ffec tiv e in changing teacher behavior.

2, Student feedback is more e ffec tiv e in changing teacher behavior than supervisory feedback.

3. The u t i l iz a t io n of student feedback as a means of improving teacher behavior should be used to a g rea te r ex ten t."

3McCall's previously c ited and comprehensive study in North Carolina

ind icates th a t fo r tra in in g teachers in service "a su b stan tia l gain

could be secured by tho simple device of having pupils give a confi

d en tia l ra tin g of th e i r teachers a t the end of the school year."

I t is apparent from the l i te ra tu r e and research s tud ies th a t

student feedback is b en efic ia l fo r many teachers in bringing about

improved teacher performance as perceived by studen ts. I t has con

s is te n tly been regarded as more valuable than th a t of supervisors,

^Bryan, Reactions to Teachers by S tudents. P aren ts, and Administra to r s . op. c i t . , p . 43.

^O liver, op. c i t . , pp. 47-8,

^McCall, op. c i t . , p . 37.


41

r e l ia b le , and reasonably free from the influence of "halo ." To the

ex tent th a t ra tin g instrum ents incorporate items c h a ra c te r is tic of

e ffe c tiv e teachers, the feedback could be expected to Improve the

effectiveness of many teachers as perceived by students.

M otivation of Log A ctiv ity

I t was expected th a t teachers m aintaining the check lis t log

would be motivated as a re su lt of th a t log to improve th e ir v arie ty

in teaching. The ra tio n a le fo r th is expectation came la rg e ly from

the psychology of m otivation. Well-documented in the annals of

educational and so c ia l psychology was the complexity and importance

of m otivation as a p red isposition fo r c e r ta in behavior. From an

examination of m otivation theory l i te r a tu r e three s a lie n t fea tu res

of the log were read ily apparent:

1. The log provided p a rtic ip a n ts with the stimulus or m otivation

to perform in ways commensurate with th e i r own personal expectations

fo r f u l f i l l i n g a given ro le .

2. The log provided p a rtic ip an ts with the stim ulus or motivation

to perform in ways commensurate with th e i r own perceptions of o th ers '

ro le expectations fo r them.

3. The log provided an account of past a c t iv i t ie s as an aid to

fu tu re desired performance. Each of these fea tu res is here expanded

in tu rn as i t p erta in s to the check list log of th is study.

Kretch and C rutchfield^ describe the s ta te of m otivation as "the

iK retch, David and C rutchfield , Richard S ., Elements of Psychology, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959, p. 6.


42

most s tr ik in g fea tu re of the person 's experience of s e l f . ” Addition

a l ly , they s ta te ;

"The person perceives disturbances and d efic ien c ies with respect to him self and h is surroundings. He fe e ls needs and d es ire s , he s e ts goals and forms in ten tio n s , he exe rc ises choice and w ill . In response to these m otivations the person a c ts ,"

The mere presence of the log creates an awareness, a knowledge of

ex is tin g in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. Whatever m otivations and

subsequent actions taken by the teacher a t th is point are most l ik e ly

a response to the discrepancy between what he fe e ls h is v a rie ty in

teaching is (the s e lf - re a l image of h is performance with respect to

th is v a rie ty c r ite r io n ) and what he fee ls i t ought to be (the s e lf

idea l image of h is performance with respect to th is v a rie ty c r i te r io n ) .

Mouly^ claims th a t the s e lf - id e a l "represents h is standards of con

duct based upon h is in te rp re ta tio n s of the ro le p rescrip tio n s re

layed to him .. . . " I t was intended th a t the log would be a fa c to r

in the te a ch e r 's own ro le p rescrip tio n with respect to h is v a rie ty

in teaching.2

In th e i r discussion of motives Kretch and C rutchfield id e n ti

f ie d two basic types of motives, deficiency motives and abundancy

m otives. Among others the former v a rie ty was characterized by "need

to remove d e f ic its " and might be described as tension-reduction

behavior. The l a t t e r v a rie ty is characterized by "desires to know.

^Mouly, George J , , Psychology fo r E ffective Teaching. New York; H olt, R inehart, and Winston In c ., 1968, p . 111.

2op. c i t . , p . 278.


43

understand, le a rn , c rea te , a c h ie v e ...” and might be accompanied by-

tension increase. A dditionally , Kretch and C rutchfield^ s ta te ;

"Every individual i s characterized by both deficiency and abundancy m otivations. But the re la tiv e weighting of the two varies widely among ind iv iduals. Some persons are mainly dominated by th e i r needs, with d es ires impoverished; in others needs may be subsid iary and desires have f u l l range. Almost every a c tiv ity we fin d people engaged in can express e i th e r deficiency m otivation or abundancy m otivation .”

I t i s probable, then, th a t the ex ternal stimulus provided by the log

motivated p a rtic ip a n ts to ac t in ways to a l le v ia te d e fic ien c ie s . In

accord with the d iscussion of Kretch and C rutchfie ld th ere could

have been varying motives underlying the ac tio n , but undoubtedly any

response would have been d irected toward equilibrium —a "homeostasis”

of the soc ia l environment—in an attempt by the indiv idual to reduce

the imbalance, defic iency , or incongruity p re c ip ita te d by the log.

In addition to the above lin e of reasoning i t is e n tire ly poss

ib le th a t the p a rtic ip a n ts received personal reinforcement merely

from m aintaining the ch eck lis t log . According to th is explanation,

based on behavioral psychology, p a rtic ip a n ts would have been moti

vated to repeat the behavior (v arie ty in methodologies) fo r which

reinforcement was possib le through checking the log.

A second fea tu re of the log which was id e n tif ied previously

d e a lt with the stimulus provided by i t to perform according to the

expectations of o thers. To the ex tent th a t p a rtic ip a n ts f e l t an

achievement-evaluation type of m otivation the log provided a form of

su rveillance of th e i r in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. In e f fe c t , the

log was an ex ternal au th o rity imposed on the teachers with respect to

l ib id .


a

th e i r in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. I t was l ik e ly th a t the fa c to r of

ex ternal au th o rity was not a dominating force because the researcher

did not represent a power figu re or occupy an au th o rity p o sitio n with

respect to the teacher p a r tic ip a n ts . However, the m otivation to

please the researcher might well have been s im ila r to the ac tion of

p leasing a superior.

The th ird and f in a l fea tu re of the log was the opportunity i t

provided to account in a system atic way fo r methodologies employed

and to use th is record as a guide fo r determining fu tu re methods.

The log was suggestive in th a t i t l i s te d many possib le methods from

which to choose in planning teaching s tra teg y . In th is respect i t

was s im ila r to the ra tio n a le underlying a ca tegoriza tion of questions

featured in a book by Sanders.^ He claimed th a t " a f te r a teacher

stud ies the taxonomy he is lik e ly to o ffe r h is students a g rea te r

v a rie ty of in te l le c tu a l experiences than he did before." The com

parable use of the log fo stered a cognition of what was availab le

and what had been used. Festinger^ re fe rs to the d isp a r ity between

cognitions which e x is t simultaneously fo r a person as cognitive

dissonance. His reference to cognitive dissonance as a motivating

s ta te r e la te s th is f in a l fea tu re of the log to the f i r s t ;

^Sanders, Norris M., Classroom Questions: V/hat Kinds? New York:Harper and Row, 1966, p . 6.

pF estinger, Leon, "Cognitive Dissonance as a M otivating S ta te ."

Psychology in A dm inistration, ed. Timothy W. C ostello and Sheldon S. Zalkind, Englewood C lif f s , New Jersey; P ren tice-H all, In c ., 1963, p. 170.


45

"I wish to hypothesize th a t the existence of cognitive dissonance is comparable to any other need s ta te . Ju st as hunger is m otivating, cognitive dissonance is m otivating. Cognitive dissonance w ill give r is e to a c t iv i ty oriented toward or elim inating the d issonance.”^

The e n tire s itu a tio n posited here i s not unlike th a t of teachers

requiring students to keep a log of th e ir a c t iv i t i e s , p rin c ip a ls

requiring teachers to m aintain a plan book, or employers requ iring

employees to account fo r th e ir endeavors v ia a time log. In a l l

cases the th ree -fo ld fea tu res of the log e x is t as described above.

To make use of the log in re la tio n to these th ree fea tu res was the

in ten t behind the in troduction of th is v ariab le in to the f ie ld

experiment.

Function of the Consultant

T rad itio n a lly the ro le of the supervisor in education has been

considered a lin e p o sitio n ; supervision has been assumed by a person

occupying an adm inistrative post. The nature of th is supervision2

was la rg e ly inspection , E lsbree, McNally, and Wynn described as

follows th is s itu a tio n :

"In i t s e a r l ie s t form, supervision meant inspecting the work of the te a c h e r .. . . Inspection was not an attem pt to help teachers improve in s tru c tio n . I t was designed to determine whether or not teachers did what they were supposed to do, and i f they d id n 't , to replace them with teachers who would."

The supervision of in s tru c tio n next passed through a period in the

l lo c . c i t . , p . 171.

^Elsbree, W illard S ., McNally, Harold J . , and Wynn, Richard, Elementary School Admini a t r a t ion and Supervision. New York: American Book Company, 1967, p . 140.


46

early decades of th is centuiy of •’teaching the teachers how to do

i t . " l E xp lic it in th is concept of supervision was the idea th a t the

supervisor knew best how to teach and th ere fo re should attempt to

indoctrinate the s ta f f in h is superio r methods. D esirable as i t may

be fo r the supervisor to possess th is su p erio rity i t i s very doubtful

th a t the intended outcome was often rea lized . With the increased

quantity and q u a lity of p re-serv ice p reparation teachers generally

bring a degree of expertise to the educational scene. A recognition

of th is fa c t has prompted a s h if t to the idea of supervision as

democratic leadership whereby the supervisor and teacher together

explore the means of improving the to ta l teach ing-learn ing s itu a tio n ,

Mason^ likew ise concurs th a t supervision i s assis tan ce ra th e r than

inspection.

Although the remnants of past supervisory p rac tice s t i l l lin g e r

too frequently , i t has become increasingly popular fo r the supervisor

to be looked upon as a helper. This ro le of helper or consultant is3

described by Goldberg:

"As a c a ta ly s t the supervisor causes a s itu a tio n to come about—to be the prime mover, y e t to create a fee lin g in the teacher th a t th is was an e f fo r t on h is p a r t ."

E lsbree, McNally, and Wynn' s ta te unequivocally th a t "the task

of in s tru c tio n a l improvement in the lo ca l school i s inescapably the

^loc. c i t . , p. 1 4 2 .

^Mason, Barbara T ., "Supervisor or Curriculum S p e c ia lis t." Educational Leadership. XXVII (January 1970), 401.

•^Goldberg, H arris P ., "The Education of the Science Supervisor." School Science and Mathematics. LXX (May 1970), 363.

4Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, op. c i t . , p. 167.


47

responsibility of the principal.” Although it is generally accepted

that this is the principal’s primary function, the administrivia of

his position too frequently mitigate against its top priority. Many

school systems now havo special supervisory services to handle or

share this responsibility with the principal.

The objective behind supervision, in its broadest sense, is the

process of improving instruction.^ Sometimes the principal alone

functions in this capacity; in other cases personnel with various

titles assume this function. These instructional specialists might

be called elementary school supervisors, coordinators, consultants,

subject matter specialists, curriculum coordinators, or grade group

chairman, to mention a few. In almost every instance they desire

to be looked upon as "service” personnel with staff rather than line

responsibilities. Their emphasis is upon in-service education and

assistance for the classroom te a ch er .W it h respect to the con

sultant's responsibility Spain, Drummond, and Goodlad^ conclude that

"the focus is upon teacher improvement, with children's betterment

a hoped-for outcome, rather than upon direct contact with individual

Heald, James E ., "Supervision." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th e d ., London: The MacmillanCompapy, 1969, p. 1394.

2Spain, Charles, Drummond, Harold, and Goodlad, John, Educational

Leadership and the Elementary P rin c ip a l. New York: Rinehart andCompany, In c ., 1956, p. 227.

% ason, op. c i t . , p . 403.

^op. c i t .


48

ch ild ren ." In a research study a t the six th-grade le v e l, Ginther^

found evidence to support the theory th a t consultan ts working with

teachers ra th e r than students produced b e tte r gain scores in student

achievement. This ind icated a g rea te r impact by consultants i f th e ir

e f fo r ts were with teachers ra th e r than with students.

That there is disagreement over whether supervision should come2

from a lin e or s ta f f p o sitio n i s well known. The d is tin c tio n

between the ro le of s ta f f and lin e personnel can perhaps best be

i l lu s tr a te d with th is statem ent regarding the re sp o n s ib ility of the

lin e adm in istrato r:

"The p r in c ip a l 's re sp o n s ib ility is to help weak teachers who are not on tenure as much as he can. I f a f te r two or three years of working with them, he is convinced th a t they are un likely to become reasonably s a tis fa c to ry teachers, he w ill have to dismiss them."^

Because the s ta f f personnel are not u ltim ate ly responsible fo r d is

m issal procedures i t i s perhaps eas ie r fo r them to divorce themselves

from the inspection ro le of long ago and assume the more contemporary

ro le of dynamic democratic leadership in working with teachers to

improve the to ta l teach ing-learn ing s itu a tio n . Kason^ is more

adamant in her support of the in s tru c tio n a l s p e c ia lis t :

^Ginther, John R ., "Achievement in S ixth Grade Science Associa ted With Two In s tru c tio n a l Roles of Science Consultants." Journal of Educational Research. LVII (September 1963), 30.

^Heald, op. c i t .

^Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, op. c i t . , p. 167.

^Mason, op. c i t . , p . 403.


49

"The p rofessional personnel who work with teachers in the area of curriculum should be ca lled curriculum s p e c ia lis ts because nf the negative connotations of the word supervisor . . . .When teachers are held accountable fo r the re su lts ra th e r than the methods, they w ill welcome, even seek ou t, those s p e c ia lis ts who they th ink can help them secure the best r e s u l ts . I th ink they w ill c a l l f i r s t fo r consu ltan ts , curriculum s p e c ia l is ts , anyone with a t i t l e th a t does not convey the idea o f in sp ec tio n .”

Judging from the prevalence of the p rac tice of engaging the

serv ices of consu lta tive personnel who function in a s ta f f p o s itio n ,

th e i r e f fo r ts must be considered b en e f ic ia l. Based on the

l i t e r a t u r e ^ t h e i r ro le might best be considered complementary

to th a t of the build ing p rin c ip a l, ra th e r than pre-empting him of

the opportunity to function in th a t capacity . Although the l i te r a tu r e

i s rep le te with the favorable re s u lts of in -se rv ice education gen

e ra l ly ,^ no d ire c t research evidence was uncovered which would

document the improvement of teacher performance through the e f fo r ts

of the s ta f f s p e c ia l is t .

^ G riff ith s , Daniel E ., e t . a l . . Organizing Schools fo r E ffective Education. D anville, I l l in o i s ; In te rs ta te P rin te rs and Publishers, 1962, p . 172.

2Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, op. c i t . , 113.

^Dean, S tu art E ,, Elementary School A dm inistration and Organiz a tio n . U.S. Office of Education B u lle tin I960, No. 11, Government P rin ting O ffice, Washington D.C., I960, p. 99.

^C hildress, Jack, "In-Service Education of Teachers." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th e d ., London; The Macmillan Company, 1969, p. 650.


CHAPTER I I I

RESEARCH DESIGN, SETTING, AND PROCEDURES

This chapter of the repo rt w ill focus on the research design of

the study, the s e tt in g , and the procedures used in conducting the

f ie ld experiment. Included w ill be the methods used in instrum ent

se le c tio n , sample se le c tio n , and the adm in istra tion of the in s tru

ment. Also presented w ill be a d e ta iled d escrip tio n of the various

group treatm ents. An account of the procedures used in co llec tin g

and organizing the data w ill conclude the chapter.

Review of the Problem


could modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances hy

employing m ultip le educational methodologies in th e i r teaching. A

secondary objective was to a sc e rta in the re la tiv e e ffec tiveness of

four experimental treatm ents in helping a teacher to modify student

perceptions of h is teaching performance.

Five groups of teach ers, employing prescribed experimental

treatm ents, were formed in an attempt to gather data p e rtin e n t to

the ob jectives of th is in v es tig a tio n . Teachers in experimental group

A, re fe rred to as the feedback group, received w ritten feedback from

students regarding student perceptions of th e ir teaching performances.

The treatm ent fo r teachers in group B, the log group, was to maintain

a ch eck lis t log of the various in s tru c tio n a l methodologies they

50


51

employed in th e i r teaching. Teachers in group C, known as the plan

ning group, met weekly with a consultant to make plans fo r the

employment of m ultip le educational methodologies in th e ir teaching.

P artic ip an ts in th is group a lso maintained the ch eck lis t log. A

combination of the treatm ents used in groups A, B, and C was u tiliz e d

by teachers in group D. In ad d itio n , a f i f t h group of teachers,

group E, was used as a con tro l group. An overview of these fiv e

groups i s shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Overview of the Five Treatment Groups

Groups Treatment* Number of Teachers

Number of Students

Grades

Group A F 3 77 4 , 4 , 6

Group B L 3 77 4 , 4 , 6

Group C LP 3 72 4, 5, 6

Group D FLP 3 67 4, 6 , 6

Group E G 3 77 4, 5, 6

Total 15 370

®F-—Feedback L—Log ?—Planning C—Control

The c r i te r io n measure fo r obtaining the data was an adapted form

of Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire (Appendix A).


52

Major Questions Which Were Investigated

Formulated below are the major questions which were in v e s ti

gated in an attempt to carry out the ob jectives of th is study;


ov era ll student perception of teacher performance from pre- to

p o s tte s t measure?

2. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ce between groups on the

overa ll p o s tte s t measure?


student perception of the teachers* "v a rie ty in teaching" (item nine,

SOQ) from p re- to p o s tte s t measure?

Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ce between groups fo r

"v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOQ.) on the p o s tte s t measure?

Specific Questions Which Were Investigated

Emanating from the four major questions included in the pre

ceding section were th i r ty component questions which are here enumer

ated . Questions la through le p e rta in to major question 1 while

questions 2a through 2j r e fe r to major question 2. Likewise ques

tio n s 3a through 3e apply to major question 3 and questions 4a

through 4j re la te to major question 4.

la ; Was the overa ll student perception of teacher performance

fo r teachers in group A (w ritten feedback) more favorable on the

p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

lb : Was the overall student perception of teacher performance


53

fo r teachers in group B (log maintenance) more favorable on the


Ic : Was the ov era ll student perception of teacher performance

fo r teachers in group C (employment of m ultiple educational method

ologies and log maintenance) more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure

than on the p re te s t measure?

Id : Was the ov era ll student perception of teacher performance

fo r teachers in group D (employment of m ultiple educational methodol

og ies, log maintenance, and w ritten feedback) more favorable on the


le : Was the overa ll student perception of teacher performance

fo r teachers in group E (contro l) s im ila r on the p re- and p o s tte s t

measures?

2a: Was the w ritten feedback of student perception of teacher

performance (group A) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in

helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is teaching per

formance?

2b: Was the maintenance of the check lis t log of various educa

tio n a l methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l

in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is teaching

performance?

2c: Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies

and log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l

in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is teaching per

formance?

2d: Was the employment of a combination of feedback, log


54

maintenance, and m ultip le educational methodologies (group D) more

e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify

student perception of h is teaching performance?

2e: Was the maintenance of a check lis t log of various educational

methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than w ritten feedback alone

(group a) in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is

teaching performance?

2 f; Was the employment, of m ultip le educational methodologies

supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than

w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify

student perception of h is teaching performance?

2g: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies

supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student

perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than

w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify s tu

dent perception of h is teaching performance?

2h; Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies

supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than the

maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a teacher

to modify student perception of h is teaching performance?

21: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies


perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than the


to modify student perception of h is teaching performance?

2 j : Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies


55

BUpplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student


employment of m ultip le educational methodologies and log maintenance

alone (group C) in helping a teacher to modify student perception of

h is teaching performance?

3a: Was student perception of teacher performance regarding

"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group A (w ritten feedback) more

favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

3b; Was student perception of teacher performance regarding

"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group B (log maintenance) more

favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

3c: Was student perception of teacher performance regarding

"v arie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group C (employment of m ultiple

educational methodologies and log maintenance) more favorable on the


3d: Was student perception of teacher performance regarding

"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group D (employment of m ultiple

educational methodologies, log maintenance, and w ritten feedback)

more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

3e; Was student perception of teacher performance regarding

"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group E (control) sim ilar on

the p re- and p o s tte s t measures?

A&i Was the w ritten feedback of student perception of teacher

performance (group A) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in

helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in

teaching"?


56

4b; Waa the maintenance of the ch eck lis t log of various educa

t io n a l methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l

in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in

teaching'*?

4c: Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies

and log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l

in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "varie ty in

teaching"?

4d: Was the employment of a combination of feedback, log main

tenance, and m ultiple educational methodologies (group D) more effec

t iv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify student

perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?

4e: Was the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log of various educa

t io n a l methodologies (group B) more e ffe c tiv e than w ritten feedback

alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify student perception

of h is "varie ty in teaching"?

4 f : Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies

supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than


student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?

4g: Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies


perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than


student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching'*?

4h: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies


57

supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than the


to modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?

4,1: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies




to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?

4j : Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies



employment of m ultip le educational methodologies and log maintenance

alone (group C) in helping a teacher to modify student perception

of h is "varie ty in teaching"?

Design of the Study

The design of th is study i s commonly called a "true experimental

design."^ I t is labeled "true" because the researcher was able to

randomly assign sub jec ts to treatm ent groups. Because the in v estig a to r

was able to manipulate an independent v ariab le while measuring the con

comitant v a ria tio n on a dependent v ariab le th is in v estig a tio n can ap tly

be designated as an "experiment." The p re te s t—treatm ent—p o s tte s t

sequence with an accompanying contro l group as used in th is experiment

^K erlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, op. c i t . , p. 290.


5Ô

i s ca lled the " c la s s ic a l design" of research .^ The research paradigm

fo r the study i s shown in Figure 2, L e tte rs "A", "B", "C", "D", and

"E" designate the various groups with th e i r accompanying experimental

treatm ents. Representing p re - and p o s tte s t scores are the l e t t e r s

"X" and "Y" resp ec tiv e ly .

4-

Figure 2

Research Paradigm

The independent v ariab le was the type of treatm ent provided the

teachers in each of the groups. The c r i te r io n measure employed to

c o lle c t data on the dependent variab le was the score on the w ritten

measure of student perception of teacher performance, the Student

Opinion Q uestionnaire. Three teachers were randomly assigned by

lo t te ry to each of the groups. Thus, there were approximately sev

en ty -five subjects fo r each treatm ent group (th ree c lasses of approxi

mately tw enty-five studen ts each).

l lo c . c i t . , p . 309.


59

The design and ra tio n a le of the experiment necessita ted the

se le c tio n of teachers fo r the experimental phase who were capable of

showing improvement on the student perception scores of th e i r teaching

performance. Much of the ra tio n a le fo r th is decision was based on the

previously c ited study of Ryan^ where he reported no s ig n if ic an t

change because the studen ts ' high i n i t i a l perception of the teacher’s

performance pre-empted th a t p o s s ib i l i ty . Hence, in add ition to pro

viding a necessary component in the change score on the basis of pre

p o s tto s t d a ta , the p re te s t measure was used as a means fo r se lec ting

teachers with Improvement p o s s ib i l i t ie s . The design called fo r f if te e n

such teach ers, th ree each fo r the f iv e groups.

S election of the Instruments

The means fo r gathering the data p e rtin e n t to the experiment

became a c ru c ia l fa c to r in the study. I t was necessary to be able

to measure the e f fe c t, i f any, of the experimental treatm ent on the

teach er’s performance. To assess th is e ffe c t i t was desirab le to get

an i n i t i a l ind ication of teacher performance as well as a f in a l determ

in a tio n . This would provide a measurement of the net change in

teacher performance during the course of the experiment.

Several p o s s ib i l i t ie s ex isted fo r obtaining th is p re-post in

form ation on the performances of the teachers. In add ition to the

se lec tio n of an appropriate data gathering instrument i t was necessary

to simultaneously consider by whom the evaluation could best be made.

^Ryan, op. c i t . , p . 2089-A.


60

In h is review of research stud ies on the top ic of teacher evaluation,

Howsam was most favorably impressed with classroom observation

s tu d ies . Use of a teacher behavior c la s s if ic a tio n system such as

F landers,2 the c r i t i c a l incidents technique, or an evaluation device

s im ila r in nature to the common and widely used school d i s t r i c t eval

uation instrum ents were a l l p o s s ib i l i t ie s .^ With respect to a c la ss

room ob80rv er(s) there were two fundamental a l te rn a tiv e s . One possi

b i l i t y was to use an obaerver(s) fo re ign to the c la s s ; a school d is

t r i c t or build ing ad m in ls tra to r(s ) , o r an observer(s) selected by the

researcher were a l l fe a s ib le in th is regard. The o ther a lte rn a tiv e

was to have teacher performance evaluated by observer(s) reg u la rly

w itnessing the teacher in ac tio n . These observers were, of course,

the s tuden ts. Available resourses and the encouraging l i te r a tu r e

previously c ited in Chapter I I of th is report p rec ip ita te d a pursu it

of student evaluation of teacher performance.

I n i t i a l ly , a carefu l examination of cu rren tly used teacher

evaluation forms in several public school systems was made. The items

fo r evaluation corresponded well with the c h a ra c te r is tic s of master

%owsam. Who's £ Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation, op. c i t . , pp. 15-39.

pFlanders, Ned A., In te rac tio n Analysis in the Classroom; ^

Manual fo r Observers. Ann Arbor; U niversity of Michigan, 1966, p. 7.

^op. c i t . , p. 29.


61

teachers in The Educator's Encyclopedia^ and a lso a l i s t of teacher

expectations by Davenport.^ Following th is examination, an analysis

of the measuring devices availab le in Euros' Mental Measurement Year

book.^ and a survey of the l i te r a tu r e c ited in Chapter I I , the Student

Opinion Questionnaire (Appendix A) from the Educator Feedback Center

a t Western Michigan U niversity was considered an appropriate data

gathering instrum ent to be adapted fo r use by upper elementary

students. The was designed to e l i c i t student perceptions of

teachers on twelve c r i te r io n measures of teacher performance. These

measures together with th e i r r e l ia b i l i ty co e ffic ien ts are shown in

Table 2. The r e l i a b i l i t y co e ffic ien ts on the various items as

reported by Bryan^ ranged from .77 - .95. These co e ffic ien ts were

co rre la ted by tak ing the averages of student responses from chance

halves of the c lasses of f i f t y randomly se lected secondary school

teachers. Furthermore, studies^ show co n sis ten t t e s t - r e te s t s ta

b i l i ty of the te a c h e r 's image unless well d irec ted e f fo r ts to change i t

have been expended. The o b je c tiv ity of the instrum ent should y ie ld

^Smith, Edward, Krouse, Stanley, and Atkinson, Mark, The Educato r 's Encyclopedia. Englewood C lif f s , New Jersey ; P rentice-H all In c ., 1967, p. 401.

^Davenport, James A llie , "Perceived In s t i tu t io n a l and S elf Role Expectations of Hackensack Teachers." Unpublished D octor's d isse rta t io n , Columbia U niversity , New York, New York, 1964, pp. 152-4.

^Buros, Oscar Krisen (Ed.), The S ixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. New Jersey: The Gryphon P ress, 1965, pp. 691-711.

^Bryan, Soma Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions tfO High School Teachers. op. c i t . , p . 3.

^Bryan, Roy C ., "The Teacher's Image i s Stubbornly S tab le ,"The Clearing House. XL (April 1966), 461.


62

a p e rfe c t scorer r e l i a b i l i t y of 1.00.

Table 2

R e lia b il i ty of Items on Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire

ItemNo.

Item R e lia b il i tyC oeffic ien t

1 Knowledge of Subject .87

2 C la rity o f Explanations .82

3 Fairness .84

4 Control .95

5 A ttitude Toward Students .88

6 A bility to Stim ulate In te re s t .87

7 A ttitude Toward Subject .90

8 A ttitude Toward Student Opinions .86

9 Variety in Teaching Procedures .91

10 Encouragement of Student P a rtic ip a tio n .77

11 Sense of Humor .91

12 Planning and Preparation .90

The face v a lid ity of the instrument was deemed acceptable in

th a t the items were " e sse n tia l c h a ra c te r is tic s of e ffe c tiv e teachers.

According to Bryan the items were selected only after a careful study

of many appropriate research reports of qualities possessed by effective

iB iyan, ^ Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. op. c i t . , p. 12.


63

teachers* Of s ignal importance in th is regard was the study con

ducted by Ryans.^ Continued examination and rev ision of th is in s tru

ment over a period of severa l years has maintained th is content v a lid

i ty . Analyses of the re s u l ts of the instrument have shown v a r ia b i l i ty

in student response between teachers and d iscrim inatory power among te s t 2

item s. Clark was convinced of the v ia b i l i ty of the instrum ent when

he concluded th a t "Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) is

undoubtedly the most r e l ia b le and usefu l instrument th a t e x is ts fo r

measuring studen ts ' opinions of th e i r teach ers,"

This instrum entf however, was designed fo r use in grades 7-12

and consequently required an adaptation fo r use by upper elementary

studen ts. Permission from the Educator Feedback Center a t Western

Michigan U niversity was sought fo r th is adaptation and permission

was granted. This endeavor was based prim arily on Bryan's o rig in a l

instrum ent, but a lso gave consideration to the rev isions made by

Goats, Bryan's successor as d ire c to r of the Educator Feedback Center,

and Tobin. In consu lta tion with several elementary school teachers

the instrument was adapted fo r upper elementary use. Permission was

received from the superintendent, bu ild ing p rin c ip a l, and teachers in

one of the p a r tic ip a tin g d i s t r i c t s to f ie ld t e s t the instrum ent fo r

understandability a t an upper elementary le v e l. Subsequently, twelve

^Ryans, op. c i t . , pp. 1-416.

Zciark, P h ill ip A., "The E ffects of Student Opinion Feedback, In te rac tio n Analysis Feedback, Research-Based Statements and Group Guidance in Modifying Teacher Image." Unpublished D octor's d is se rta t io n , Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970, p . 2.


6-4

randomly selected fo u rth - and f if th -y e a r students from a non-graded

elementaiy school were employed fo r th is p a rt of the study. Each of

these students reported ind iv idually to a conference room in th e ir

building where an attem pt was made to a sce rta in each s tu d e n t's under

standing of the adapted SOQ. Each student was given a copy of the

adapted SOQ and asked to follow along as the researcher read each

item aloud. At the conclusion of each item the student was asked to

t e l l in h is own words the meaning of the question . The student was

not asked to answer the question, but ra th e r to s ta te in h is own

words what he thought the question asked.

Each of the sessions with the twelve students was taped so th a t

the responses could be judged fo r u nderstandab ility by a panel of

th ree doctoral students studying in the area of educational leader

sh ip . Using a scoring sheet sp ec ific a lly designed fo r th a t purpose,

the panel of judges unanimously agreed th a t the students were success

fu lly able to comprehend the questionnaire item s.

Some minor changes based on the recommendations of the judges

were made to reduce ambiguity in the adapted SOQ. P rio r to d ra ftin g

the f in a l instrument fo r p rin tin g , the suggestions of committee mem

bers regarding ambiguity, c la r i ty , and the con tinu ity of question to

answer were incorporated in the instrum ent. To insure appropriate

scaling the book e n ti t le d Scales fo r the Measurement of A ttitudes ty

Shaw and Wright^ was consulted. The f in a l d ra f t was mutually

^Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M., Scales fo r the Measurement of A ttitu d es . New York; McGraw-Hill, 1967, pp. 1-604.


65

acceptable to the committee, the elementary teachers whose aid was

s o lic ite d , the panel of judges, and the researcher.

A second instrum ent, the ch eck lis t log of educational methodol

ogies (Appendix E), was used by teachers in experimental groups B, C,

and D. I t was refined s p e c if ic a lly fo r th is study. The i n i t i a l

check lis t was developed in cooperation with a group of prospective

teachers in an educational methods c lass taught by the researcher a t

Hope College in 1969. P rio r to completing th is form an examination

was made of several general education methods textbooks, the Encyclo

pedia of Educational Research, the Handbook of Research on Teaching.

The Educator'a Encyclopedia, and the Dictionary of Education. This

was done in an e f fo r t to be exhaustive with respec t to the inclusion

of major methodologies and also to aid in opera tionally describing

those methods which might be ambiguous. Minor changes in content

and form were made a f te r consulting the l i t e r a tu r e .

The log was f ie ld te s ted by the same group of fo u rth - and f i f t h -

grade teachers whose serv ices were rendered in the I n i t i a l te s tin g of

the adapted SOQ. They found the form to be fu n c tio n a l, a minor impos

i t io n on th e i r tim e, and of considerable p o ten tia l value fo r p a r t ic i

pating teachers. Their suggestions regarding form, as well as those

of the committee, were incorporated in the f in a l instrum ent.

The log was maintained as p a r t of the experimental treatm ent

fo r teachers in groups C and D. I t was the only treatm ent fo r

teachers in group B. In addition to th is function with regard to the

independent variab le the log served as an in d ic a to r of the degree to


66

which the independent v ariab le was manipulated.

The S etting

This f ie ld experiment was implemented in th ree contiguous

suburban school d i s t r i c t s in southeastern Michigan. Selected be

cause of s im ila r ity in membership, cost per membership p u p il, valu

a tio n per p u p il, and geographic lo ca tio n , the th ree d i s t r i c t s were

frequently considered comparable by superintendents w ithin the in te r

mediate school d i s t r i c t . 1 Each of the d i s t r i c t s had experienced

su b stan tia l growth during the f iv e years Just preceding the study.

This growth was due to the not uncommon exodus of white middle c lass

fam ilies from an adjacent in tegrated in d u s tr ia l c i ty . The popula

tio n of each of the d i s t r i c t s was almost exclusively w hite. Although

to be sure there were v is ib le d ifferences in the socio-economic back

ground of the fam ilies resid ing w ithin the various school attendance

areas w ithin each of the d i s t r i c t s , these d ifferences were believed

minimal in comparison with the d ifferences inherent in la rg e d i s t r i c t s

with accompanying in n e r-c ity schools. The research of Tobin^ supports

th is notion th a t school se ttin g is a fa c to r in student perception of

teacher performance. Working with a s im ila r instrum ent a t comparable

^Department of Adm inistrative Services, School D is tr ic t S ta t is t i c a l Inform ation. Genesee Interm ediate School D is tr ic t , F l in t , Michigan, 1969, pp. 1-15.

^ o b in , Michael Frederick, "Perceptions of Beginning and Experienced Teachers in Inner City and Suburban Elementary Schools." Unpublished Doctor’s d is s e r ta tio n . Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970, p. 105.


67

age le v e ls he found th a t suburban teachers were viewed more favor

ably than were inner c ity teachers. Because the p a rtitio n in g of sub

je c ts based on se ttin g was not a p a rt of the design of th is study,

th is attem pt a t homogeneity w ithin the se ttin g was considered

important in the control of v ariab les .

Procedures

Following committee approval of the d is s e r ta tio n prospectus in

ea rly December of 1969 a personal contact was made with the superin

tendent in each of the prospective d i s t r i c t s . The experiment was

described in d e ta il and two of the superintendents gave Immediate

approval fo r the study. In accord with the designated teacher c r i

te r ia fo r the study these two superintendents provided the names of

teachers who were in th e i r f i r s t , second, or th ird year of teaching

and were assigned to a fo u rth , f i f t h , or six th-grade self-con tained

classroom. Also provided were the names of the corresponding build

ing p rin c ip a ls . A dditionally , permission was granted to contact p rin

c ip a ls and teachers personally . The th ird superintendent gave his

immediate approval, but withheld permission to proceed fu rth e r pend

ing board approval as d ic ta ted by school policy . Following the sub

m ission to the board of a prescribed complex w ritten descrip tion of

the experiment, approval was granted by a designated board committee

in ea rly January of 1970. At th is point names of teachers meeting

the study c r i te r ia and also the names of the corresponding building

p rin c ip a ls were provided by the th ird school d i s t r i c t superintendent.


68

He, too , gave permission to contact teachers and p rin c ip a ls person

a l ly . Time was arranged on the agenda a t the next p r in c ip a ls ’ meet

ing in each of the th ree d i s t r i c t s . The study was again explained in

d e ta i l and the names of teachers meeting the estab lished c r i te r ia

were v e rified by the p rin c ip a ls . The p rin c ip a ls ' ro les in the

experiment were minimal. I t was deemed d es irab le , however, fo r them

to be informed of the nature of the study and to s o l ic i t th e i r coop

e ra tio n in procedural m atters. Obviously, the d e ta ils of the study

as explained to the p rin c ip a ls were not to be shared with th e ir

teaching s ta f f s . The p rin c ip a ls aided in the scheduling of indiv id

ual appointments with the researcher and the teachers. Their in

s tru c tio n s were simply to "inform ind iv idually each of the e lig ib le

teachers in your build ing th a t an appointment had been made fo r them

with a researcher to discuss a research p ro jec t on such and such a

date a t such and such a tim e."

The names of f i f ty - fo u r teachers meeting the estab lished c r i te r ia

of the study were received from the th ree d i s t r i c t s . The teach ers '

assignments were in twenty-one d iffe re n t bu ild ings. In an attem pt to

elim inate any peer group pressure, e i th e r to p a rtic ip a te or to re fra in

from p a r tic ip a tin g , ind iv idual appointments were arranged through the

respective building p rin c ip a ls with each of the f if ty - fo u r teachers.

These appointments were scheduled a t the various school build ings

both before and a f te r school and also during the teach ers ' planning

periods throughout the school day.

An introductory cover l e t t e r (Appendix F) from each o f the


69

d i s t r i c t superintendents was presented to each teacher a t the time of

the i n i t i a l con tacts. The f if ty - fo u r prospective p a rtic ip a n ts were

ind iv id u ally informed of the following inform ation;

1. That the study d ea lt with the nature of the in s tru c tio n a l

process.

2. That the in v es tig a to r was requesting the te a c h e r 's volun

ta ry perm ission, as a prelim inary phase of the study, to personally

adm inister to th e ir c la ss the adapted Student Opinion Q uestionnaire.

The teachers were fu r th e r informed th a t the questionnaire asked the

students what they thought about the q u a lity of th e ir te a c h e r 's per

formance.

3 . That there would be anonymity with respect to p a r tic ip a tio n

and re su lts of the study,

U. That teachers would receive feedback from the student re

sponses in the form of a graph and a lso a tab u la r summation of each

of the th ir te e n item s. In add ition , assurance was given th a t the

re su lts would he returned to the teachers personally and not shared

with anyone e lse .

5. That there was approximately a tw enty-five percent chance

th a t those teachers p a r tic ip a tin g in the i n i t i a l phase would be selected

to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the experiment. A dditionally , the teachers

were to ld th a t, i f se lec ted , th e ir ro le in the experiment would be

fu rth e r delineated a t th a t time and continued p a rtic ip a tio n would

again be voluntary.

The candidates were a lso informed of the teacher c r i te r i a and


70

the s e tt in g , including the endorsement of the study by the respective

boards and adm in istra tions.

The favorable response by teachers contacted fo r p a rtic ip a tio n

in the prelim inary phase of the study was one hundred percent.

I n i t i a l ly , th is complete cooperation was important from a mere

numbers standpoint. Had only h a lf of the e lig ib le teachers chosen

to p a r tic ip a te , fo r example, the p ro b ab ility of g e ttin g enough

teachers capable of showing improvement on the perception scores

would have been d ra s t ic a l ly reduced. Secondly, had several teachers

not decided to p a r tic ip a te i t could have been reasoned th a t these

teachers were rep resen ta tiv e of a given type of teacher. S p ec ific a lly ,

i t was feared th a t those teachers who perceived themselves poorly

might decline p a r tic ip a tio n in the experiment, thus elim inating a

desirab le ca lib re of teacher fo r th is study. T his, then, could have

rendered invalid subsequent g en e ra lisa tio n s . The one hundred percent

cooperation insured th a t c e r ta in types of teachers did not withdraw

from the experiment.

S e lec tion of the Sample

Those teachers in the th ree d i s t r i c t s who were cu rren tly in th e ir

f i r s t , second, or th ird year of teaching and were p resen tly assigned

to a fo u rth , f i f t h , or sisrbh-grade se lf-con tained classroom were

asked to p a r tic ip a te in the i n i t i a l phase of the study. In an e f fo r t

to contro l the p red ic tab le extraneous e rro r variance the teachers

selected were as homogeneous as p o ssib le .^ Teachers in th e ir f i r s t

^K erlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, op. c i t . , p. 284,


71

th ree years of teaching share a commonality in th a t th ree years

represen ts the maximum time allowable as a probationary teacher ( i . e .

without achieving tenure s ta tu s ) . This experience lev e l was also

co n sis ten t with the c la s s if ic a t io n of experienced teachers in recent

s tu d ies by Tobin^ and by O liver and Tuckman.^ Researchers in both of

these s tud ies operationally defined experienced teachers as those

having in excess of th ree years teaching experience. I t was also

assumed th a t teachers who had not taught extensively would be b e tte r

able to adapt to the manipulation of the independent v ariab le and

hence maximize the desired experimental variance.

The add itio n al degree of homogeneity afforded by se lec tin g only

upper elementary or interm ediate school teachers (fou rth , f i f t h , and

s ix th grades) was s im ila rly considered. Discussions with professional

educators, both in the f ie ld and a t the u n iv e rsity , prompted the

se le c tio n of th is p a r t ic u la r lev e l of teacher as opposed to the jun io r

or sen ior high school le v e l. Early elementary teach ers, of course,

were elim inated fo r obvious reasons inherent in th e ir s tuden ts ' in

a b i l i ty to read or s u ff ic ie n tly comprehend items on the data gather

ing device. Among the more important reasons behind the decision fo r

upper elementary classrooms as opposed to ju n io r or sen io r high school

classrooms were the follow ing:

lop . c i t . , p. 8.

%uckman, B. W. and O liver, W. F . , "Effectiveness of Feedback to Teachers as a Function of Source." Journal of Educational Psychology. LIX (August 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 9 8 .


72

1. Elementary teachers generally experience more opportunity to

plan with o ther professional educators and hence would be more

accustomed to the type of planning required in the experiment.

2. Elementary teachers spend more time with the same group of

students than th e ir secondary counterparts and hence would have more

opportunity to manipulate the independent v a riab le .

3 . Elementary teachers as a group would in a l l p ro b ab ility

be le s s threatened and more open to methodological suggestions than

the secondary school subject m atter s p e c ia lis t .

4-. Elementary teachers represent a la rg e r population teaching

s im ila r content than in the secondary s itu a tio n s .

5. Elementary teachers are located in many more buildings hence

the r is k of contamination among the various group treatm ents could be

reduced.

F in a lly , the d is tin c tio n was made between self-con tained and

other types of classrooms. In th a t the assorted team teaching and

c lu s te r approaches represented a s ig n if ic a n t departure from the one

teacher—one classroom concept, the preceding d is tin c tio n was deemed

necessary. Allowances were made, in accord with the d e fin itio n of

terms, fo r the inclusion of teachers who b as ica lly adhered to the

se lf-con ta ined concept, but made provisions fo r the teaching of

spec ia l sub jec ts by another teacher. F ifty -fo u r teachers in the

three d i s t r i c t s met the above c r i te r ia and subsequently were asked

to p a r tic ip a te in the experiment.

In th a t the prime independent variab le was the use of a v a rie ty

of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies (item nine, "v arie ty in teach ing ," on


73

the SOQ) the f if ty - fo u r consenting teachers were f i r s t ranked from

h ighest to lowest on student perception of th e i r "varie ty in teaching."

Beginning with the f if ty - fo u r th ranked teacher and working upward

f if te e n teachers were se lec ted who scored below the population mean

on both item nine and the overa ll questionnaire score. A minor except

ion to th is se lec tio n order format was made to insure th a t no more

than two teachers from any one building were included in the experi

mental phase. The names of these f if te e n teachers were then placed

in a hat and randomly assigned by lo t te ry to the f iv e groups. The

assignment of teachers in the same building to d iffe re n t groups

was not allowed. Randomization in the se lec tio n of the f if te e n

teachers, as an aid in minimizing the unpredictable e rro r variance,

was not advisable because of the re la t iv e ly few teachers receiving

low student perception scores and thus the inherent p o te n tia lity of

losing some of the most d esirab le teachers fo r the experiment.^

The predicted e rro r variance was con tro lled fo r by choosing homo

geneous subjects in the o rig in a l population, employing random assign

ment of teachers to treatm ents, and providing fo r the use of pre

p o s tte s t change scores fo r p a rtic ip a tin g teachers as a p art of the2

s t a t i s t i c a l design.

Adm inistration of the Instrument

The adapted Student Opinion Questionnaire was adm inistered


^ loc. c i t . , p. 284.


74

personally by the researcher to the classrooms of the f if ty - fo u r

p a r tic ip a tin g teachers on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of two

consecutive weeks in February and March. This time of year more than

met the suggestion of the Feedback Center th a t students have a mini

mum of nine weeks to become adequately acquainted with the teacher

before completing the SOQ.^ Teachers were asked to leave the c lass

room and to complete a color-coded copy of the same questionnaire

th a t was given to s tu d en ts . The in v estig a to r then administered the

questionnaire to the c lass by reading the in s tru c tio n s and the ques

tio n s aloud as students followed along. A s lig h t pause was made a t

the conclusion of each of the th ir te e n items to allow students the

necessary time to s e le c t an answer. This type of adm inistration

was considered advisable fo r th is age group by a l l individuals

involved in the prelim inary planning of the study and especia lly the

classroom teach ers. T his, then, warranted i t s adm inistration by one

indiv idual who would read the in s tru c tio n s and questionnaire items

in a consisten t manner being carefu l to elim inate irre g u la r voice

emphases and f lu c tu a tio n s .

At the conclusion of the adm inistration students were asked to

record the l a s t four d ig its of th e ir phone number in the lower r ig h t

hand corner of the back side of the questionnaire . Those without

telephone numbers were asked to record the s tr e e t number of th e ir

place of residence. Students were to ld th a t th is would in no way

^Biyan, Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions i2. High School Teachers, op, c i t , , p. 13.


75id en tify them as ind iv iduals, but would merely allow the researcher

to match present papers with fu tu re papers should the questionnaire

be adm inistered to them again. This was a necessary step in the event

th a t the s ta t i s t i c a l treatm ent required an analysis of the pre

p o s tte s t scores of ind iv iduals. Total time fo r the adm inistration

of the data gathering instrument to a c lass was approximately f if te e n

minutes.

Following the experimental treatm ent the same questionnaire was

readm inistered to the c lasses of the f if te e n teachers who had been

randomly assigned to the various experimental treatm ents. This post

t e s t adm inistration during the f i r s t week in May p ara lle led id e n ti

ca lly procedures employed in the adm inistration of the p re te s t .

D escription of the Treatments

Teachers who were randond.y assigned to each of the f iv e groups

received d iffe re n t treatm ents. There were th ree d is t in c t types of

treatm ent: The feedback (F ), the log maintenance (L ), and the

in s tru c tio n a l planning (P). The combination group, u t i l iz in g a l l

of the above treatm ents (FLP) and the contro l group (C), together

with the treatm ent groups mentioned above, comprised the five d if f e r

ent groups.

Were a l l of the possib le combinations of treatm ents to have been

iso la ted i t wou].d have necessita ted eight d if fe re n t groups. To f a c i l

i ta te a v isu a liza tio n of these possible combinations they are here

presented using l e t t e r abbreviations fo r the various treatm ents: C,

F, L, P, FL, FP, LP, FLP.


76

Three basic reasons prevented the inclusion of a l l e ig h t groups

and necessita ted a p r io r i ty choosing. F i r s t , to deplete the possible

combinations would have required a sample of tw enty-four teachers,

almost h a lf of the f if ty - fo u r teachers in the population. The prob

a b i l i ty of finding th is number who would, on the p re te s t , score below

the population means on "varie ty in teaching" and "overall" was not

promising. Hence to include twenty-four teachers in the experimental

phase would run the r is k of v io la tin g the premise th a t the teachers

in the sample were not highly perceived on e ith e r of the two above-

mentioned scores. Secondly, the resources av a ilab le fo r the experi

ment in time, personnel, and finances, would not allow fo r the plan

ning sessions necessita ted by h a lf of the e ig h t groups (P, FP, LP,

and FLP). Thirdly, the maintenance of the ch eck lis t log was envisioned

from the inception of the study as an im portant and inherent aid in

the in s tru c tio n a l planning sessions and consequently would have only

re lu c tan tly been deleted from th a t treatm ent. In consu lta tion with

the doctoral committee the following groups were se lected as the most

desirab le from the standpoint of iso la tin g v a r ia b le s , the most feas ib le

from the standpoint of availab le resources, and the most consonant with

respect to the purposes of the experiment. Selected were the control

group; the feedback group; the log group; the planning and log group;

and the planning, log , and feedback group. A d e ta iled descrip tion

of each of these groups follows:

Control group ; The contro l group teachers were randomly assigned to

the treatm ent. They were informed personally th a t they had been


77

selected to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the experiment. All agreed to

p a r tic ip a te . The ro le which they were to play was to give the

researcher permission to readm iniater the Student Opinion Question

naire to th e i r c lass during the f i r s t week in May.

Some consideration was given to the adm inistration of a placebo

to equalize the Hawthorne e ffe c t among the basic groups. The placebo

considered was fo r the researcher to meet with the con tro l group

teachers ind iv idually and discuss top ics foreign to the experiment.

However, several reasons prompted the discarding of th is consider

a tio n . F i r s t , the teachers in th is group were to ld th a t they were

a p a rt of the experiment, had seen end in fa c t completed the ques

tio n n a ire form previously , and were to ld th a t th e i r c lasses would

be given the questionnaire again. The s itu a tio n , then , provided

them f i r s t with the fee lin g of p a r tic ip a tio n and ad d itio n a lly the

c r i te r io n of measurement fo r which they could attempt Improvement

i f they so desired . Secondly, there were two other groups who also

were not g e ttin g the "personal meetings" and fo r whom such meetings

were not d esirab le in conjunction with the intended purpose of the

feedback and log. Third ly , i f the personal meetings proved to be

p a rt of the reason behind a change in student perception , the re su lt

could be ind ica tiv e of desired supervisory behavior by p rin c ip a ls ,

superv isors, and colleagues. F ina lly , the Hawthorne e f fe c t among

those responsible fo r scoring, namely the s tuden ts, v/as equalized

among groups because teacher involvement in an experimental study

was not made known to studen ts.


78

Feedback group; The feedback group of teachers was informed person

a lly th a t they had been selected to p a r tic ip a te fu r th e r in the exper

iment and th a t they had been randomly assigned to th is treatm ent.

All agreed to p a r tic ip a te fu r th e r . These teachers were given the

feedback information (Appendixes B, C, and D) and to ld th a t th e ir

c lasses would be readm inistered the SOQ during the f i r s t week in May.

Log group; Teachers in the log group were informed personally th a t

they had been selected to p a r tic ip a te fu r th e r in the experiment and

th a t they had been randomly assigned to th is treatm ent. All agreed

to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r . The d irec tio n s fo r opera tiona liz ing the

ch eck lis t log were explained ind iv idually in d e ta i l to each of these

teach ers. Each teacher was given the necessary forms to m aintain the

log fo r the f i r s t four weeks of the experiment and a lso the phone

number of the in v estig a to r should problems have a r ise n . One week

in to the experiment a check was made with each of the teachers to

uncover any procedural d i f f i c u l t i e s . Midway through the experiment

another check was made and the necessary forms delivered to complete

the f in a l four weeks of the experiment. No procedural d i f f ic u l t ie s

were experienced by any of these teachers during any port of the

experiment.

Planning group ; Teachers in the planning group were also informed

personally of th e ir se lec tio n and random assignment to th is p a r tic

u la r treatm ent group. All agreed to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the

experiment. I t was explained th a t teachers in th is group were to

m aintain a check list log of th e i r in s tru c tio n a l methodologies and

also to meet ind iv idually with a person sk ille d in the employment


79

of educational methodologies fo r approximately one hour weekly fo r

e igh t weeks. The d ire c tio n s fo r opera tionaliz ing the ch eck lis t log

were explained in a fashion s im ila r to th a t of the log group. The

planning sessions began the week p r io r to March 16, which marked

the beginning of the experiment. During the hour of weekly planning

the teacher and the consultant worked together planning in s tru c tio n a l

methodology and teaching s tra teg y fo r the ensuing week. Paramount

a tten tio n was given to the use of a v a rie ty of educational methods,

both from day to day and also during any given day. These sessions

did not t ry to p i t one method against another or attempt to show the

efficacy of a single method of teaching. Rather, the planning tha t

took place focused on teachers using many educational methods a t th e ir

d isposal, both human and technolog ical, to bear on the s itu a tio n a t

hand. Obviously, such items as the a v a i la b i l i ty of m ateria ls , the

time a llo ted fo r p resen ta tion , the co llec tiv e c h a ra c te r is tic s of the

students and the teacher, and the subject m atter to be presented

played s ig n if ic an t ro le s in the se lec tio n of the in s tru c tio n a l

methods and the te a c h e r 's s tra teg y . Also of no small consequence

was the necessary rapport estab lished between the teacher and the

consultan t. Understandably, the researcher had no au tho rity with

which to force the use of various methodologies. His ro le was most

frequently to suggest the availab le methods fo r p resen tation and

whenever possib le to encourage the teacher to t ry d iffe ren t and

varied methodologies. The analysis of the ch eck lis t log was invalu

able in th is regard. On occasion the consultant did a s s is t the


80

teacher in find ing and preparing m ateria ls and in the operation of

equipment p r io r to i t s use in the classroom. On no occasion did

the consultant take p a r t in any classroom p resen ta tio n . The opportun

i ty to plan fo r in s tru c tio n in th is way was, in the opinion of the

consultant, a mutually sa tis fy in g and successful endeavor.

Combination group ; A ll teachers randomly assigned to the combination

group agreed to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the experiment. These teachers

were informed personally of th e ir se lec tio n and th e i r fu rth e r ro le in

the experiment was ou tlined . Teachers in th is group received the com

bined treatm ents of groups A, B, and G. They were given the feedback

from student p re te s ts , were in structed in the use of the check lis t

log , and maintained i t during the experiment. F in a lly , these teachers

met with a person sk ille d in the employment of educational methodologies

fo r one hour weekly during the experiment. These sessions were s im ila r

to those in group B except th a t i t was a lso possib le here to incor

porate the feedback information in the planning. Again, the researcher

believed mutually rewarding the challenge of meaningfully planning fo r

the process of in s tru c tio n .

C ollection and Organization of the Data

A fter the adm inistration of the p re te s t a graphical teacher

p ro file (Appendix B) and a tab u la r summation (Appendix C) of student

responses were compiled fo r each of the f i f ty - fo u r p a r tic ip a tin g

teach ers. In accord with the design of the experiment the three

teachers in group A, the feedback group, and the th ree teachers in


81

group D, the combination group, were given feedback inform ation as

p art of th e ir proscribed treatm ents. The p re te s t information fo r

the other fo rty -e ig h t teachers was withheld u n ti l the conclusion

of the experiment. Following the adm inistration of the p o a tte s t

to the c lasses of the f i f te e n teachers p a r tic ip a tin g in the exper

imental phase of the study, a graphical teacher p ro file and a tabu

l a r summation of student p o s tte s t scores were compiled fo r these

experimental phase teach ers. Teachers p a rtic ip a tin g in th is ex

perimental phase were then given both p re - and p o s tte s t feedback

inform ation. The th ir ty -n in e teachers p a r tic ip a tin g only in the

i n i t i a l phase of the study were a lso given a t th is time the p re te s t

information previously compiled fo r them. The feedback inform ation

here described was promised to a l l p a r tic ip a n ts when they agreed to

p a r tic ip a te in the study.

The pre-and p o s tte s t data from the f if te e n teachers p a r t ic i

pating in the experimental phase of the study were organized fo r

ana ly sis . S tudents' p re - and p o s tte s t responses were matched ly

using the telephone code number the students had provided. The

responses of those students who were absent from e ith e r the p re-

or p o s tte s t adm in istra tion were discarded leaving only the responses

of students who were present fo r both the p re- and p o s tte s t adminis

tra t io n s , Data from the s tu d en ts ' p re- and p o s tte s t responses were

keypunched in to 370 data processing cards. A computer program was

selected th a t would provide the s t a t i s t i c a l information necessary


82

fo r ana lysis according to the research design described e a r l ie r in

th is chapter (Appendix G). Chapter IV w ill include the p resen ta tion

and analyses of these d a ta .


CHARTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This chapter w ill include the p resen ta tion and analysis of the

data which were co llec ted to carry out the ob jectives of th is experi

ment. The primary ob jective was to determine i f teachers could

modify student perceptions of th e ir teaching performances by employ

ing m ultiple educational methodologies in classroom p resen ta tio n s.

The s t a t i s t i c a l model used to t e s t fo r s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences from

pre- to p o s tte s t measures was the t - t e s t .

A secondary ob jective of the experiment was to a sc e rta in the

re la tiv e effectiveness of four experimental treatm ents in helping a

teacher to modify student perceptions of h is teaching performance.

To te s t fo r d ifferences among groups a one-way analysis of variance

s t a t i s t i c a l model was used. This model simultaneously compares the

means of two or more groups by con trasting the variance between

groups with the variance w ithin groups.^ Results from an analysis

of variance are presented in the form of F -ra tio s .

The format of th is chapter follows the sequence of the "Major

Questions to be Investigated" and the "Specific Questions to be

Investigated" presented in Chapter I I I . Findings fo r questions la - le

and 3a-3e are reported in the form of t - t e s t s . Analysis of variance

models are used to repo rt the findings fo r questions 2a-2j and 4 a -4 j•


83


84

Students' Overall Perceptions of Teachers

Major questions one and two of th is study d ea lt with s tu d en ts’

o v era ll perceptions of teachers as e l ic i te d by the th ir te e n c r i te r io n

items of the adapted Student Opinion Q uestionnaire. P rio r to p resen t

ing the data which could provide answers to these questions i t was

advisable to determine i f th ere were s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences between

groups on the overall p re te s t measure. This determ ination was needed

before i t could be assumed th a t the random assignment of teachers to

groups did in fa c t provide s ta r t in g po in ts which were not s ig n if ic a n tly

d if fe re n t. The data in Table 3 in d ica te th a t the ov era ll mean scores

fo r the f iv e groups ranged from a low of 3.37 to a high of 3.63.

C learly shovm in the F -ra tio of Table 4, however, is the fa c t th a t

th is d ifference i s not a s ig n if ic a n t one. The F -ra tio of 1.80 fo r

the analysis of variance does not exceed the tab le value of 2.40 fo r

the d is tr ib u tio n of F a t the ,05 lev e l of s ig n ifican ce . Thus i t was

possible to assume th a t the random assignment of teachers to groups

did in fa c t provide s ta r t in g po in ts which were not s ig n if ic a n tly

d iffe re n t.

Major question one with i t s f iv e component p a rts sought to

determine whether th ere was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in overa ll

student perception of teacher performance from p re- to p o s tte s t

measure fo r each of the f iv e groups.

Question la : Was the overa ll student perception of teacher

performance fo r teachers in group A (w ritten feedback) more favor

able on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?


85

Table 3

Summary Data fo r O verall P re te s t Measure

Group K Mean Standard Deviation

A 77 3.54 .588

B 77 3.63 .570

C 72 3.45 .574

D 67 3.37 .738

E 77 3.53 ,707

Table 4

Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P re te s t Measure

Source df SS MS F

Betweengroupsvariance 4 501.628 125.407 1.800®

Withingroupsvariance 365 25,424.382 69.655

Totals 369 25,926.011

®Table value is 2.40 a t the .05 lev e l of s ign ificance


86

The data suggest th a t teachers In the feedback group were not

more favorably perceived by th e i r students a f te r the experimental

treatm ent of receiving student feedback regarding th e ir teaching

performances. On the contrary the re su lts shown in Table 5 approach

a s ig n if ic an t d iffe ren ce , but in the d ire c tio n opposite to th a t

expected. The overall mean score fo r teachers in th is group de

creased from an i n i t i a l mean of 3.54 to a f in a l mean of 3.37.

Table 5

t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r Overall Means

Group N P re te s t mean P o s tte s t moan t-sco re of change P

A 77 3.54 3.37 1.97 M.S.*

B 77 3.63 3.68 0.67 N.S.

C 72 3.45 3.56 1.36 N.S.

D 67 3.37 3.35 0.13 N.S.

E 77 3.53 3.47 0.93 N.S.

®Table value is 2.00 a t the .05 lev e l of sign ificance

Question lb ; Was the o v era ll student perception of teacher per

formance fo r teachers in group B (log maintenance) more favorable on

the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

The data shown in Table 5 in d ica te th a t student perceptions were

not s ig n if ic a n tly more favorable on the overa ll p o s tte s t measure. The

experimental treatm ent of log maintenance fo r th is group of teachers


87

was not s ig n if ic a n tly successful in helping them improve student per

ceptions of th e ir overall teaching performances. The increase in

overall mean score from 3.63 to 3.68 produced a ;t-score of 0.67,

short of the 2.00 value needed fo r sign ificance a t the .05 le v e l.

Question Ic : Was the overall student perception of teachers in

group G (employment of m ultiple educational methodologies and log

maintenance) more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the pre

te s t measure?

Table 5 ind ica tes th a t the overall mean scores fo r teachers in

group C increased from 3.-45 to 3.56. This was the best gain made by

any of the four experimental groups. The t-sc o re of 1.36, however,

did not exceed the value necessary fo r sign ificance a t the .05 le v e l.

According to the data student perceptions of teachers employing

m ultiple educational methodologies and log maintenance were not

s ig n if ic a n tly more favorable a f te r the experimental treatm ent.

Question Id : Was the overall student perception of teacher per

formance fo r teachers in group D (employment of m ultip le educational

methodologies, log maintenance, and w ritten feedback) more favorable

on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

The data in Table 5 ind icate th a t the overall mean scores fo r

teachers in th is group decreased from 3.37 to 3 .35. Obviously, th is

s lig h t decrease was not a s ig n if ic an t d iffe ren ce . C learly d ic ta ted

by the re su lts is a negative response to the above question.

Question le ; Was the overall student perception of teacher

performance fo r teachers in group E (contro l) s im ila r on the p re-

and p o s tte s t measures?


88

Reference to Table 5 in d ica tes th a t th ere was a s im ila r ity on

the pre- and p o s tte s t measures fo r teachers in the control group.

The data show th a t a decrease in overa ll mean score from 3.53 to 3.47

occurred during the course of the experiment. This decrease in mean

score, however, was not s ta t i s t i c a l ly s ig n if ic a n t.

A more meaningful p ic tu re of d ifferences between the various

group p re- and p o s tte s t measures could perhaps be rea lized by

computing ^ - te s ts of change scores (pre- to p o s tte s t) based on d if fe r

ences in the control group ra th e r than the departure from aero as done

in Table 5.^ The re s u l ts of such computations are shorn in Table 6.

Since the control group change in mean was a negative one the i-sco res

of those groups showing a p o s itiv e change (groups B and C) might be

expected to be la rg e r. Correspondingly, the t-sco res fo r those

groups showing a negative change (groups A and D) might be expected

to be sm aller than the i.-8cores shown in Table 5 which did not take

in to account the d ifferences in the contro l group. When analyzed

in the manner presented in Table 6 the re su lts s t i l l ind icate no

s ig n if ic a n t re su lts a t the .05 le v e l.

Major question two, with i t s ten component p a r ts , sought to

determine whether there was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups

on the overall p o s tte s t measure.

The data in Tables 7 and 8 Ind icate th a t the analysis of v ari

ance computed fo r the overall p o s tte s t measure revealed a s ig n ifican t

d ifference between group means. A fu rth e r ana lysis of th is difference

^loc. c i t . , p. 309.


89

Table 6

t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r Overall Means Based on D ifferences in the Control Group

Group N P re te s t Mean P o stte s t Mean t-sco re of Change p

A 77 3.54 3.37 0 .9 2 N.S.

B 77 3.63 3.68 1.13 N.S.

C 72 3.45 3 .5 6 1.63 N.S.

D 67 3.37 3.35 0.54 N.S.

E 77 3.53 3 .4 7 0.00 N.S.

Table 7

Summary Data fo r Overall P o s tte s t Measure

Group N P o stte s t Mean Standard Deviation

A 77 3.37 .798

B 77 3.68 .6 5 3

C 72 3 .5 6 .690

D 67 3.35 .672

E 77 3 .4 7 .802


90

Table 8

Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P o s tte s t Measure

Source df SS MS F

Betweengroupsvariance 4 936.742 234.185 2.58»


Totals 369 34,033.039

®Table value i s 2.40 a t the .05 lev e l of s ign ificance

was made possible by computing the overall p o s tte s t between group

t-v a lu e s . These data , shown in Table 9, in d ica te th a t the s ig n if ic a n t

F -ra tio computed fo r Table 8 can be a ttr ib u te d in large p a rt to the

d ifferences between the p o s tte s t means of groups A and B and groups

B and D. However, a reanalysis of the data in Tables 3 and 4

Table 9

Overall P o s tte s t Between Group t-v a lu es

Group A B C D E

B 2.636*

C 1.499 -1.144

D -0.135 -2.950» -1.733

E 0.731 -1.827 -0.728 0.892 0.000

®Table value is 2.61 a t the .01 lev e l of sign ificance


91

ind icates th a t the overa ll p re te s t mean scores were not id e n tic a l .

Consequently, an ana lysis of variance using p re - to p o s tte s t change

scores ra th e r than an analysis of variance using p o s tte e t scores alone

might give a more r e a l i s t i c ind ica tion of changes accruing from the

experimental treatm ent. The design of the experiment whereby the

p re - and p o s tte s t scores of indiv iduals were paired made possib le

such an analysis using change score data .

These data are presented in Table 10 and in d ica te th a t th ere

were no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences in the effec tiveness of one group

over another in changing student perceptions of teacher performance.

Table 10

Analysis of Variance fo r Overall Change Score Measure

Source df ss MS F

Betweengroupsvariance U 590.976 174.744 1.923*


T otals 369 28,639.433

®Table value i s 2.39 a t the .05 lev e l of s ign ificance

Based on the lack of significance of the F -ra tio shown in Table

10, responses to questions 2a-2 j, comparing each treatm ent group in

tu rn with every other treatm ent group would a l l be s im ila r; No


92

treatm ent was found to be s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffe c tiv e than any other

in changing overall student perceptions of teacher performance.

Students' Perceptions of Their Teachers' "Variety in Teaching"

Major questions three and four of th is study d e a lt with student

perception of teacher performance re la tin g sp e c if ic a lly to th e teach

e r s ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOO) . P rio r to presenting

the data which could provide answers to these questions i t was deemed

advisable to determine i f there were s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ces between

groups on SOQ item nine, "varie ty in teaching" of the p re te s t

measure. This determ ination was needed before i t could be assumed

th a t the random assignment of teachers to groups did in fa c t provide

s ta r t in g points which were not s ig n if ic a n tly d if fe re n t.

The data in Table 11 in d ica te th a t the mean scores on SOQ item

nine, "varie ty in teach ing ," fo r the f iv e groups ranged from a low

of 2.97 to a high of 3.54-. Moreover, the F -ra tio of 2.61 shown in

Table 12 exceeds s lig h tly the tab le value of 2.40 fo r the d is tr ib u

tio n of F a t the .05 lev e l of s ig n ifican ce . These data suggest th a t

th ere was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in group means fo r SOQ item nine

on the p re te s t measure. Thus i t was impossible to assume th a t the

random assignment of teachers to groups did in f a c t provide s ta r tin g

poin ts which were not s ig n if ic a n tly d if fe re n t.

A fu rth e r analysis of th is d ifference is made possib le by com

puting the between group t-va lues fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in

teach ing ," These d a ta , shown in Table 13, in d ica te th a t the s ig

n if ic a n t F -ra tio computed fo r Table 12, can be a ttr ib u te d in large


93

p a rt to the d iffe rences between the p re te s t means of groups B and

D and groups D and E. This fa c t w ill be taken in to consideration

when analyzing group p o s tte s t means on SOQ item nine, "varie ty in

teach ing ."

Table 11

Summary Data fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the P re te s t Measure

Group N Mean Standard Deviation

A 77 3.22 1.42

B 77 3.54 1.17

0 72 3.17 1.19

D 67 2.97 1.52

E 77 3.54 1.26

Table 12

Analysis of variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching,"of the P re te s t Measure

Source df SS MS F

Betweengroupsvariance 4 18.331 4.582 2.61*

Withingroupsvariance 365 639.368 1.751

Totals 369 657.700

“Table value is 2.40 a t the .05 lev e l of sign ificance


94

Major question th re e , with i t s f iv e component p a r ts , sought

to determine whether th e re was a s ig n if ic an t d ifference in student

perceptions of the te a ch e rs ' "varie ty in teaching" from p re- to

p o s tte s t measure fo r each of the f iv e groups.

Table 13

P re te st Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching"

Group A B C D E

B 1.539

C -0.249 -1.946

D -1.016 -2.549® -0.847

E 1.488 0.000 1.867 2.465® 0.000

®Table value i s 1.98 a t the .05 lev e l of sign ificance

Question 3a; Was student perception of teacher performance

regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group A (w ritten

feedback) more favorable on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t measure?

The data suggest th a t teachers in the feedback group were not

more favorably perceived by th e ir students a f te r the experim ental

treatm ent of receiving student feedback regarding th e i r teaching

performance. On the contrary the re su lts shown in Table 14 in d ica te

a drop in mean score fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in teach ing ," from

3.22 to 3.14. This was not, however, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t

change.


95

Question 3b: Was student perception of teacher performance

regarding "varie ty In teaching" fo r teachers In group B (log mainte

nance) more favorable on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t measure?

Table 14

i - t e a t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r SOQ Item Nine"Variety in Teaching"

Group N P re te s t Mean P o stte s t Mean i-s c o re of Change p

A 77 3.22 3.14 0.43 N.S

B 77 3.54 4.54 6.71 .001'

C 72 3.17 4.25 7.09 .001'

D 67 2.97 4.07 6.70 .001'

E 77 3.54 3.36 0.98 N.S.

®Table value i s 3.4-6 a t the .001 le v e l of sign ificance

According to the data in Table 14 teachers in the log group were

more favorably perceived by th e ir students on the p o s tte s t measure

than on the p re te s t measure. The change in mean score on SOQ item

nine from 3.54 to 4.54 produced a t-sc o re of 6.71 which exceeded the

tab le value of 3.46 necessary for sign ificance a t the .001 le v e l.

These data ind icate th a t teachers m aintaining the ch eck lis t log effected

a s ig n if ic a n t improvement in student perception of th e ir "varie ty in

teaching" during the course of the experiment.

Question 3c: Was student perception of teacher performance

regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group C (employment


96

of educational methodologies and log maintenance) more favorable on

the p o a tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?

The data in Table lU reveal th a t student perception was Indeed

more favorable on the p o a tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure.

The improvement of the mean score on SOQ item nine from 3.17 to 4.25

produced a t-sco re of 7.09 which was s ig n if ic a n t a t the ,001 le v e l.

Thus, teachers who employed a v a rie ty of educational methodologies

and maintained the ch eck lis t log showed s ig n if ic a n tly Improved s tu

dent perceptions of th e i r "varie ty in teaching ."

Question 3d: Was student perception of teacher performance

regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group D (employment

o f m ultiple educational methodologies, log maintenance, and w ritten

feedback) more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t

measure?

According to the data in Table 14 student perception fo r teachers

in group D was more favorable on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t .

The p re te s t mean of 2,97 on SOQ item nine was increased to 4.07 on

the p o a tte s t. S ig n ifican t a t the .001 lev e l was the re su lta n t t-sco re

of 6.70. The data suggest th a t teachers in the combination group

ware able to s ig n if ic a n tly change student perceptions of th e ir

"varie ty in teach ing ."

Question 3e: Was student perception of teacher performance

regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group E (control)

s im ila r on the p re- and p o s tte s t measures?

The data in Table 14 ind ica te th a t the mean score fo r teachers

in the control group decreased from 3.54 to 3 .36 , However, the 0,98


97

t-sco re computed fo r th is decrease did not exceed the ta b le value of

2.00 needed fo r s ign ificance a t the ,05 le v e l. Thus, an affirm ative

answer can be given fo r question 3e.

A more meaningful p ic tu re of d ifferen ces between the various

group p re - and p o s tte s t measures regarding SOQ item nine, "v arie ty

in teaching ," could perhaps be rea lized by computing t - t e s t s of

change scores (p re- to p o s tte s t) based on d ifferences in the control

group ra th e r than the departure from zero as done in Table 14-.^ The

re su lts of such computations are displayed in Table 15. When analyzed

in th is manner the re su lts s t i l l show sig n ifican ce a t the .001 lev e l

fo r groups B, G, and D.

Table 15

i - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," Based on

D ifferences in the Control Group

Group N P re te st Mean P o stte s t Mean l-s c o re of Change p

A 77 3.22 3.14 0.40 N.S.

B 77 3.54 4.54 4.95 .001°

C 72 3.17 4.25 5.21 .001°

D 67 2.97 4.07 5.10 .001°

E 77 3.54 3.36 0.00 N.S.

®Table value i s 3.46 a t the .001 le v e l of s ign ificance

lib id .


98

Major question fo u r, with i t s ten component p a r ts , sought to

determine whether th ere was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups

on the p o s tte s t measure fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in teaching."

The data in Tables 16 and 17 in d ica te th a t the analysis of

variance computed fo r the SOQ item nine p o s tte s t measure revealed a

s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups.

Table l6

Summary Data fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching," of the P o stte s t Measure

Group N P o stte s t Mean Standard Deviation

A 77 3.14 1.42

B 77 4.54 0.64

C 72 4.25 1.06

D 67 4.07 1.04

E 77 3.36 1.39

A fu rth e r ana lysis of the d ifference i s made possib le by comput

ing the p o a tte s t between group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in

teaching ," These d a ta , shown in Table 18, in d ica te th a t the s ig n if i

cant F -ra tio computed fo r Table 17 can be a ttr ib u te d to the d ifferences

between the p o s tte s t means of groups A and B, A and C, A and D, B and

C, B and D, B and E, C and E, and D and E.

However, a rean a ly sis of the data in Table 12 ind ica tes th a t

there were s ig n if ic a n t d iffe rences on the ana lysis of variance of the


99

Table 17

Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the P o sttea t Measure

Source df SS MS F

Betweengroupsvariance 4 108.778 27,194 20.32®


T otals 369 597.243

®Table value i s 3.37 a t the .01 lev e l of significance

Table 18

P o stte s t Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching"

Group A B C D E

B 7.856^

C 5 . 319b -2.059®

D 4 .4 00b - 3 . 297b -0.974

E 0.969 - 6 . 7 5 9b -4.328b 3 . 415b 0 0 0 0

®Table value i s 1.98 a t the .05 lev e l o f sign ificance

^ a b le value i s 2 .6 1 a t the .0 1 le v e l of sign ificance


100

p re te s t measure fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in teaching ." Consequently,

an analysis of variance using p re- to p o a tte s t change scores ra th e r

than an analysis of variance using p o s tte s t scores alone could give

a more r e a l i s t ic in d ica tio n of changes accruing from the experimental

treatm ent. The design of the experiment whereby the p re- and p o s tte s t

scores of individuals were paired made possib le such an analysis using

change score data.

Those data are presented in Table 19 and in d ica te th a t there

were s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences in the e ffec tiveness of one group t r e a t

ment over another in changing student perceptions of teacher per

formance. The analysis of variance produces an F -ra tio of 15.34,

exceeding the tab le value of 3.37 needed fo r sign ificance a t the .01

lev e l.

Table 19

Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the Change Score Measure

Source df SS MS F

Betweengroupsvariance U 128.187 3 2 .0 4 6 1 5 .335®


T otals 369 890.943

®Table value i s 3.37 fo r sign ificance a t the .01 lev e l


101

The re su lts of the change score between group J^-values fo r

’’v a rie ty in teaching" shown in Table 20 confirm the above analysis

and provide in s ig h t on d ifferences between sp ec ific paired combin

ations of groups. With regai-d to sp ec ific questions , compar

ing each treatm ent group in tu rn with every o ther treatm ent group,

a summarization would be appropriate.

Tables 15, 19, and 20 c le a rly ind ica te th a t groups B, C, and D

were s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffe c tiv e (.01 lev e l) than groups A and E

in e ffec tin g change in student perceptions of th e i r teach ers '

"v arie ty in teach ing ." Furthermore, no s ig n if ic a n t d ifference was

found between groups A and E. F in a lly , no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences

were found between groups B, C, and D, a l l of which were successful

(.001 lev e l of sign ificance) in e ffec tin g a change from p re- to

p o a tte s t measure.

A more d e ta iled analysis of each paired comparison (sp ec ific

questions Aa-Aj) follow s:

Table 20

Change Score Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine,"V ariety in Teaching"

Group A B G D E

B -A.612®

C -A.885° -0.390

D -A.791® -0.A71 -0.09A

E O.AOO A.950° 5.206® 5.099° 0.000

®Tablo value i s 3.A6 a t the .001 lev e l of sign ificance


102

Question 4a: Was the w ritten feedback of student perception of

teacher performance (group A) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l

in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "varie ty in

teaching"?

The re su lts of the t - t e s t shown in Table 20 c le a r ly ind icate

th a t there was not a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups A and E in

modifying student perception of the teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching."

An examination of the p re - and p o s tte s t means fo r the two groups d is

played in Table 15 reveals th a t both groups showed a decrease in mean

score with the feedback group le ss negative than the control group.

Question 4b: Was the maintenance of the ch eck lis t log of various

educational methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent

a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is

"varie ty in teaching"?

Displayed in Table 20 i s a ^/-value of 4.950, ind ica ting a d if fe r

ence in group means s ig n if ic a n t a t the .001 le v e l. While group E

decreased in mean score from pre- to p o s tte s t (3.54 to 3 .36 ), Table

15 shows th a t qu ite the contrary was tru e fo r group B. The log group

increased from a p re te s t mean of 3.54 to a p o s tte s t mean of 4.54.

An affirm ative answer can be given fo r question 4b.

Question 4c: Was the employment of m ultiple educational method

ologies and log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent

a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify student perception of his

"v a rie ty in teaching"?

The t-va lues in Table 20 reveal a d ifference in group means s ig

n if ic a n t a t the .001 le v e l. Mean scores in Table 15 show an increase


103

from 3.17 to ^.25 during the course of the experiment. The planning

group treatm ent was indeed more e ffe c tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in


teaching."

Question 4d: Was the employment of a combination of feedback,

log maintenance, and m ultip le educational methodologies (group D)

more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a teacher to

modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?

Once again an a ffirm ativ e answer can be given based on the s ig

n if ic a n t t-v a lu e shown in Table 20. The t-va lue of 5.099 i s s ig n if i

cant a t the .001 le v e l . Increasing from a p re te s t mean of 2.97 to

a p o s tto s t mean of 4.07 as shown in Table 15, the combination group

was c le a r ly more e ffe c tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a

teacher to modify studen t perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching ."

Question 4o: Was the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log of various

educational methodologies (group B) more e ffe c tiv e than w ritten feed

back alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify student perception

of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?

The data in Table 20 in d ica te a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between

the two group means a t the ,001 le v e l. While the feedback group de

creased in mean score from 3.22 to 3.14 from pre- to p o s tte s t , the

re su lts in Table 15 reveal th a t the log group increased in mean

score from 3.54 to 4 .54. Consequently, an affirm ative answer can

be given fo r question 4@.

Question 4 f : Was the employment of m ultiple educational method

ologies supplemented w ith log maintenance (group C) more e ffe c tiv e


104

than w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify


A t-v a lu e of 4.885 fo r th is comparison again exceeds the tab le

value of 3 .4 6 needed fo r sign ificance a t the .001 lev e l. The planning

group showed a large increase in mean score from p re- to p o a tte s t

while the feedback group decreased s lig h tly . The re su lts ind ica te

th a t the planning group was more e ffe c tiv e than the feedback group

in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in

teach ing ."

Question 4g: Was the employment of m ultip le educational method

ologies supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of

student perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e

than w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify


C learly demonstrated in Table 20 is the g rea te r e ffectiveness

of the combination group in comparison with the feedback group in


teach ing ." The t-v a lu e of 4.791 is s ig n if ic a n t a t the .001 le v e l.

The la rg e increase in mean score of the combination group (2.97-4*07)

from p re- to p o s tte s t while the feedback group was decreasing s lig h tly

accounted fo r the s ig n if ic a n t d iffe rence .

Question 4h; Was the employment of m ultip le educational method

ologies supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffe c tiv e

than the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a

teacher to modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?


105

The ré su lta of Table 20 show th a t there was not a s ig n if ic a n t

d ifference between the two groups. The data in Table 15 ind ica te

th a t both groups were very e ffe c tiv e (.001 level) in improving from

p re- to p o s tte s t . The planning group and the log group were about

equally e ffec tiv e in helping a teacher to modify student perception

of h is "v arie ty in teach ing ."

Question ^ i: Was the employment of m ultiple educational method



than the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping

a teacher to modify student perception of h is "varie ty in teaching"?

A negative response must be given to the above question. The

i-v a lu e of 0.A71 shown in Table 20 is f a r le s s than th a t needed fo r

s ig n ifican ce . Although the data in Table 15 ind ica te th a t both group

treatm ents were e ffe c tiv e (.001) in helping a teacher to modify

student perception of h is "varie ty in teach ing ," ne ith er was s ig n if i

can tly more e ffec tiv e than the other.

Question Aj: Was the employment of m ultiple educational method



than the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies and log

maintenance alone (group C) in helping a teacher to modify student

perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?

Once again the comparison was made between two highly e ffec tiv e

group treatm ents as shown in Table 15. The ^-vnlue of 0.09A in Table


106

20 in d ica tes th a t there was not a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between the

two groups. The combination and planning groups were about equally

e ffe c tiv e in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is

"v arie ty in teaching."

In add ition to the above p resen ta tion of d a ta , student perception

averages fo r a l l questionnaire item s, pre and p ost, w ill be included

in tab u la r form in Appendix H. This summation provides information

by indiv idual teacher and by the f iv e group treatm ents.

Open-Ended P a rtic ip an t Responses

At the conclusion of the experiment each of the teachers in the

experimental groups was asked to comment about the e f fe c t , i f any, of

the experimental "treatm ent" on th e ir teaching during the course of

the f ie ld experiment. An open-ended form was used fo r gathering th is

inform ation (Appendixes I , J , K, and L ). The data co llected from

th is form were summarized fo r each experimental group and are here

presented.

Teachers in the feedback group, group A, were f i r s t asked to

comment about the e f fe c t , i f any, of the feedback on th e ir teaching

during the course of the experiment. One of the teachers in th is

group indicated th a t the feedback was used f i r s t as a means of

analyzing teacher performance and secondly as an aid in attem pting

to improve in areas where th a t performance was perceived poorly by

studen ts. Two of the teachers indicated th a t the inform ation was used

very l i t t l e . One teacher in th is group, whose performance was per

ceived much le s s favorably on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t.


107

indicated th a t adm inistrative pressure (not re la ted to the experi

ment) to improve classroom control became a primary ob jec tive .

Students in th is classroom perceived an improvement in classroom

control as revealed on the p o s tte s t, but with a re su lta n t le ss

favorable overall perception.

Teachers in group A were also asked fo r general comments about

the f ie ld experiment. While two of these teachers revealed th a t the

feedback inform ation was helpfu l and re fle c te d accurately the opinions

of th e ir studen ts, one of the teachers, who tr ie d nothing d iffe re n t

as a re su lt of the feedback, f e l t th a t the student in te rp re ta tio n of

some questions was "somewhat d iffe re n t than th a t of ad u lts ."

Teachers in group B, the log group, were asked to comment f i r s t

on the e f fe c t of the ch eck lis t log on th e i r teaching during the

course of the f ie ld experiment. The responses were a l l s im ila r in

nature. These teachers indicated th a t the maintenance of the log

made them aware of what methods they were using and sei'ved as a

challenge to employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of methods in th e ir teaching.

Some of the comments recorded were as follow s:

"The check lis t log made me aware of exactly what methods and equipment I was using."

"I found th a t I t r ie d to use d if fe re n t types of teaching techniques because I f e l t I was in a ru t doing the same th ings over and o v er."

"Being confronted with the ch eck lis t log each afternoon and i t s wide v a rie ty of teaching devices and m ateria ls made i t challenging to t ry as many as p o ssib le ."

The general comments of teachers in group B about the f ie ld exper

iment were varied . Two of the teachers expressed again the value of


108

experimenting with a v a rie ty of methods. One teacher said :

"Some methods lik e ro le-p laying helped teach a tti tu d e s ra th e r than the s k i l l . Because of th is experience I find I am teaching more indiv idual children ra th e r than fa c ts of a su b jec t."

The th ird teacher in th is group commented on the p re te s t and indicated

th a t some students reacted too strongly to the idea of "grading" the

teacher.

F inally , a l l teachers in th is group wore asked whether they had

employed a g rea ter v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies during than

p rio r to the experiment. All answered a ffirm ativ e ly with one teacher

ind ica ting th a t more in s tru c tio n a l devices would have been used had

they been availab le or in working order.

Teachers in the planning group, group C, were f i r s t asked to

comment on the e f fe c t , i f any, of the ch eck lis t log on th e ir teaching.

The responses were s im ila r to those expressed by teachers in group B

in th a t the awareness of what was being used and the challenge to

employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of methods were both mentioned. One of the

teachers offered th is comment:

"Over a period of time you would notice a trend in methods and equipment th a t was employed in teaching. The ch eck lis t helped you to notice these trends and to see where improvement or change was needed."

In response to the e ffe c t of the weekly planning sessions,

teachers in th is group indicated th a t the exp loration of new ideas

and methods fo r lesson p resen tations was most b e n e fic ia l. Some of

the comments follow:

"The weekly planning sessions played an important p a rt in developing new ideas and methods to be used, which otherwise would have been skipped."


109

"Some good ideas were suggested in the planning sessions.They helped promote more v a rie ty ."

Only one of the teachers in th is group responded in a general

way about the experiment. Recorded was th is reac tion :

"I f e e l th a t the experiment was a huge success. In forcing myself to use a g re a te r number of teaching methods and m ateria ls than would normally have been used, I found th a t every day I was try in g to do something d if fe re n t in c la ss .This not only increased my in te re s t in teaching, but I also fe e l increased the in te re s ts of my studen ts ."

All teachers in group C responded a ffirm ativ e ly to the question,

"Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r

v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p rio r to the experiment"?

Teachers in group D, the combination group, were asked to comment

about the e f fe c t of the feedback, the check lis t log , and the weekly

planning sessions on th e i r teaching during the course of the ex

periment. The reactions of these teachers to the feedback informa

tio n were a l l favorable. P rim arily i t s benefit was viewed as pro

viding an in s ig h t in to areas on which e f fo r ts fo r improvement could

be concentrated. Also mentioned was the se lf-ev a lu a tio n which

followed the inspection of the feedback inform ation.

Sim ilar to the comments of teachers in group B were the remarks

of group D teachers about the check lis t log . The awareness the log

created of what methods the teachers were using and also of what

methods were availab le was the most popular response. There were

some add itional re f le c tio n s :

"1 believe using the check lis t log has helped me provide a more well-rounded curriculum and more learn ing experiences fo r jny ch ild ren ."


110

"With the day to day record I found myself doing a b e tte r job of planning and enjoying th a t task fo r the f i r s t tim e. The re su lt was a g rea te r v a rie ty of teaching techniques."

"...w hen the experiment was over I missed the p ic tu re of my e f fo r ts which the ch eck lis t log provided."

Several comments were made about the weekly planning sessions

by teachers in group D. In add ition to the opportunity these

sessions afforded fo r exploring the various p o s s ib i l i t ie s fo r lesson

presen tations teachers indicated th a t these sessions were helpfu l in

planning fo r the implementation of some of these methodologies in

th e i r c la sse s . I t was also noted th a t these planning sessions aided

in a fam ilia r iz a tio n of methods and m ateria ls not previously used by

the teacher. Some of the more p e rtin en t reactions were recorded as

follow s;

"The weekly planning sessions were ben efic ia l in th a t I received helpfu l suggestions in areas where I was not ce r ta in how to proceed. I believe the sessions helped fami l i a r i z e me with methods I had not previously used. I used the opaque p ro jec to r fo r the f i r s t time and attempted several science experiments which I had not previously done."

"These planning sessions proved to be of value in th a t some suggestions were offered as to how I could implement some of the teaching methods and in s tru c tio n a l devices in the log ."

The general comments about the experiment by teachers in th is

group were very favorable. Perhaps the best ind ica tion of these

teach ers ' reactions are the d ire c t quotations of th e i r comments about

the experiment:

"In a l l , I would say the experiment has been a most b en efic ia l experience fo r me and, hopefully, fo r the ch ild ren . I f e e l the ch ildren gained more incentive fo r learning and more a b i l i ty to th ink and find out th ings fo r themselves."


I l l

"I believe th is was a very worthwhile experience fo r me as a teacher. I believe i t has had a g reat e f fe c t on ay plans in the fu tu re as to how I can make the classroom more in te r e s tin g fo r my s tu d e n ts .”

was very glad to have p a rtic ip a ted in the experiment.The experiment forced me to evaluate what I was doing in the classroom .”

F in a lly , the teachers in th is combination group were asked

whether they had employed a g rea te r v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l method

ologies during than p r io r to the experiment. A ll responded in the

a ffirm ativ e .

In addition to the above p resen ta tion of data teachers ' s e l f -

perception averages fo r a l l questionnaire item s, pre and p o st, w ill

be included in tab u la r form in Appendix M. This summation provides

inform ation by ind iv idual teacher and by the f iv e group treatm ents.

The C hecklist Log

In add ition to serving as a vehicle fo r m otivating teachers to

employ a v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies the ch eck lis t log

a lso indicated the degree to which teachers used the various educa

t io n a l methodologies. Nine teach ers, th ree each in groups B, C, and

D, maintained the log as a p a rt or a l l of th e ir experimental t r e a t

ment. To give some in d ica tio n of past performance with respect to

the in s tru c tio n a l methodologies these nine teachers were asked a t

the beginning of the experiment to re c a l l and record the methodol

ogies used during the week p rio r to the commencement of the experi

ment. During the next e igh t weeks the teachers were asked to check

d a ily the in s tru c tio n a l methodologies used in th e i r teaching. They


112

were a lso asked to c irc le the check i f a methodology employed during

the experiment had not previously been used during the school year.

At the conclusion of the experiment the ch eck lis t log indicated the

frequency and v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodology u t i l i s a t io n .

Trends and p a tte rns were apparent fo r each teacher as well as fo r

each group.

To f a c i l i t a t e an analysis of the ch eck lis t log graphs i l l u s

t ra tin g the teach ers’ use of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies are pre

sented in Figures 3, A, and 5. Each graph in d ica tes the degree

of teacher methodology use fo r the th ree teachers in the group a t

th ree times during the experiment. The i n i t i a l reading was taken

during the fiv e day period p rio r to the commencement of the ex

periment, the second reading during a f iv e day in te rv a l a t the

Figure 3

( 0)(2 )

(2 )

Teacher 1

Teacher 2

Teacher 3

Group B—Incidence of Educational Methodology Employment v s. Time

®This upper c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c tional devices and teacher methods

b rh is lower c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c tional devices


113

50t•• ( 11)

iq

t1

Teacher 1

Teacher 2

Teacher 3

Figure 4

Group C—Incidence of Educational Methodology Employment v s . Time®This upper c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c t

ional devices and teacher methods

^ h i s lower c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c tional devices

401

20

10

(7)

(7)

Teacher 1

Teacher 2

Teacher 3

Figure 5

Group D—Incidence of Educational Methodology Employment vs. Time®This upper c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c t

ional devices and teacher methods

^This lower c lu s te r rep resen ts use of in s tru c tional devices


lu

midway po in t in the experiment, and the f in a l reading during the

l a s t week of the experiment. These three time periods are desig

nated t]^, tg and t^ resp ec tiv e ly , and are p lo tted along the abscissas

of the graphs. Numerical scores representing a q u an tita tiv e measure

of the use of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies are p lo tted along the

ord inates of the graphs. These numerical scores were obtained by

summing the following po in t designations fo r methodology employment;

1 . Two poin ts were awarded fo r the f i r s t tJjne a spec ific

methodology was employed during the f iv e day period.

2. One poin t was awarded fo r each succeeding time th a t the

same methodology was employed during the f iv e day period.

3. A fiv e point bonus was awarded fo r use during the fiv e day

period of a methodology not previously employed by the teacher

during the current school year.

This point system was used so that variety as well as mere quantity

of methodology use was rewarded.

Each graph has two c lu s te rs of three lin es each. The lower

c lu s te r represen ts the use of in s tru c tio n a l devices during the

experiment while the upper lev e l c lu s te r represen ts the to ta l of

both in s tru c tio n a l devices and teaching methods ( in s tru c tio n a l

methodologies). Indicated in parentheses behind the upper level

l in e s i s the number of methodologies employed by th a t teacher during

the experiment fo r the f i r s t time of the current school year.

Care should be taken in the in te rp re ta tio n of the graphs since

they represent readings a t only th ree one-week in te rv a ls of the


115

experiment. This care should esp ec ia lly be exercised with respect to

the i n i t i a l time in te rv a l since the checks here were recorded from

rec o lle c tio n . Nonetheless, the graphs are believed to be ind icative

of the re la t iv e degree of methodology employment during the experi

ment.

The graph of group B, the log group, would seem to suggest th a t

these teachers increased th e i r to ta l methodology use only s lig h tly

during the experiment. The use of in s tru c tio n a l devices, however,

was increased considerably. A look a t the actual ch eck lis t logs

reveals generally a more varied and le ss routine use of the various

educational methodologies as the experiment progresses. The three

teachers in th is group used during the experiment only four method

ologies not employed previously during the school year.

The graph of group C, the planning group, in d ica tes a decided

increase in both to ta l methodology employment and the use of in

s tru c tio n a l devices. A more sca tte red ra th e r than l in e a r p a tte rn

of the ch eck lis t log fu rth e r reveals a more varied use of in s tru c t

ional methodologies. The three teachers in th is group used during

the experiment a to ta l of twenty-four methodologies not previously

employed during the school year.

F in a lly , the graph of group D, the combination group, also

shows a marked increase in to ta l methodology use. Though e r ra t ic

in p a tte rn the use of in s tru c tio n a l devices also increased s lig h tly .

The th ree teachers in the combination group employed during the

experiment a to ta l of twenty-one methodologies not previously used

during the school year.


CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This f in a l chapter of the rep o rt contains a review of the

problem and procedures, a summarization of the major find ings, and

a p resen ta tion of the conclusions. Also included are recommend

a tions fo r possible use of the data as well as recommendations fo r

fu rth e r research .

Review of the Problem


could modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances by

employing m ultiple educational methodologies in th e ir teaching. A

secondary objective was to a sce rta in the r e la t iv e effectiveness of

four experimental treatm ents in helping a teacher to modify student

perceptions of h is teaching performance. Five groups of teach ers,

employing prescribed treatm ents, were formed in an attempt to gather

data p e rtin en t to the ob jectives of the in v estig a tio n . Teachers in

experimental group A, re fe rred to as the feedback group, received

w ritten feedback from students regarding student perceptions of th e ir

teaching performances. The treatm ent fo r teachers in group B, the

log group, was to m aintain a ch eck lis t log of the various in s tru c

tio n a l methodologies they employed in th e ir teaching. Teachers in

group C, known as the planning group, met weekly with a consultant

to make plans fo r the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies

116


117

in th e i r teaching. P a rtic ip an ts in th is group a lso maintained the

ch eck lis t log. A combination of the treatm ents used in groups A, B,

and C was u til iz e d by teachers in group D. In add ition a f i f t h group

of teach ers, group E, was used as a contro l group.

The c r ite r io n measure fo r obtaining the data was an adapted form

of Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire (Appendix A).

In order to carry out the objectives of th is study four major

questions were in v estig a ted :


overa ll student perception of teacher performance from pre- to post

t e s t measure?

2. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups on the

ov era ll p o s tte s t measure?


student perception of the teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item

n ine, SOQ) from p re- to p o s tte s t measure?

4. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups fo r

"v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOQ) on the p o s tte s t measure?

Review of the Procedures Used in the Study

The design of th is experiment followed the sequence of p re te s t—

treatm ent—p o s tte s t. As such the experiment p a ra lle led the c la s s ic a l

design of research . An adapted form of the SOQ was adm inistered as a

p re te s t and also as a p o s tte s t following various experimental t r e a t

ments during an eight-week in te rv a l. The s t a t i s t i c a l model used to

t e s t fo r s ig n if ic an t d ifferences from pre- to p o s tte s t measure was


118

the jt-test« To t e s t fo r s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences among groups a

one-way analysis of variance s t a t i s t i c a l model was selected as most

appropriate .

This f ie ld experiment was implemented in th ree sim ilar contig

uous school d i s t r i c t s in southeastern Michigan. F ifty -fo u r teachers

in the th ree d i s t r i c t s who were cu rren tly in th e ir f i r s t , second, or

th ird year of teaching and were p resen tly assigned to a fo u rth , f i f t h ,

or six th-grade se lf-con ta ined classroom were asked to p a rtic ip a te

in the i n i t i a l phase of the study. Following the adm inistration of

the adapted SOQ p re te s t f if te e n teachers, capable of showing improve

ment with respect to student perceptions of th e ir teaching perform

ances, were randomly assigned to the f iv e treatm ent groups. These

f if te e n teachers, th ree each in the f iv e groups, then employed the

prescribed treatm ents previously described. At the conclusion of

the eight-week treatm ent period the adapted SOQ was administered as

a p o s tte s t . The pre- and p o s tte s t data provided by the 370 students

of the f if te e n experimental phase teachers were keypunched in to data

processing cards and a computer program was selected th a t would y ie ld

the necessary s ta t i s t i c a l inform ation in accord with the design of

the study. These data made possib le analyses re la ted to four major

questions and th i r ty component questions.

Summary of the Findings

The re su lts of the th i r ty sp ec ific questions studied in th is

experiment were presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. The findings


119

re la te d to the four major questions of th is in v estig a tio n are

summarized as follows:

1. The re su lts of the in v estig a tio n indicated th a t none of the

f iv e groups recorded a s ig n if ic a n t change in overa ll student per

ception of teacher performance from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.

2. With respect to the re la t iv e e ffec tiv en ess of the four

experimental groups in modifying ov era ll student perception of

teacher performance the study revealed no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ces.

3. The in v estig a tio n revealed several s ig n if ic a n t changes in

s tuden ts ' perceptions o f th e ir teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item

nine, SOg). The log group, the planning group, and the combination

group a l l showed s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences a t the .001 lev e l from

p re- to p o s tte s t measure. N either the feedback group nor the control

group showed s ig n if ic a n t improvements regarding s tu d e n ts '. perceptions

of th e ir teachers ' "v a rie ty in teaching ."

4. Analysis of the data designed to reveal d ifferences in the

r e la tiv e effectiveness of the four experimental groups in modifying

studen ts ' perceptions of th e ir teach ers ' "v a rie ty in teaching"

indicates th a t d ifferences did e x is t a t the .01 lev e l of sign ificance .

The log, planning, and combination groups were a l l s ig n if ic a n tly

more e ffec tiv e in modifying s tu d en ts ' perceptions regarding the

teach ers ' "varie ty in teaching" than e ith e r the feedback or contro l

group. There was no s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between the con tro l group

and the feedback group. A dditionally , no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences

were found between the log , planning, and combination groups, a l l of

which were successful (.001 lev e l of s ig n ifican ce ), in e ffec tin g a


120

change from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.

5. The data gathered from teacher p a rtic ip a n ts ind icate th a t

value was seen in the use of feedback, maintenance of the log , and

weekly planning sessions with a person sk ille d in the use of a

v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. Feedback was c ited as being

valuable with respect to an analysis of teacher performance. The

ch eck lis t log was seen as being b en e fic ia l fo r de tecting rou tine use

of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies while a t the same time challenging

the teacher to employ a v a rie ty of methods in h is teaching. F ina lly ,

the planning sessions were most b en e fic ia l in a s s is tin g teachers

to t ry new and varied methodologies in lesson p resen ta tions.

6. An analysis of the ch eck lis t log ind ica tes th a t a l l groups

u t i l iz in g the log increased th e i r v a rie ty in teaching. A ll teachers

in these groups (B, C, and D) a lso indicated they had employed more

educational methodologies during than p r io r to the experiment.

Teachers planning with a consultant (groups C and D), however,

u t i l iz e d much more frequen tly in s tru c tio n a l methodologies not pre

viously used during the school year.

7. The one-hundred percent p a r tic ip a tio n response of the f i f ty -

four teachers contacted would seem to ind ica te th a t upper elementary

teachers are eager to p a r tic ip a te in s tu d ies re la ted to the improve

ment of the teach ing-learn ing process.

Conclusions

To the extent th a t the techniques employed may be v a lid , the

follow ing conclusions seem ju s t i f ie d :


121

1. None of the experimental groups was s ig n if ic a n tly e ffec tiv e

in modifying s tuden ts ' o v era ll perceptions of teach ers ' performances

from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.

2. No group was s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffec tiv e than any o ther

group in modifying s tu d en ts ' ov era ll perceptions of teach ers ' per

formances from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.

3. The feedback group treatm ent was in e ffec tiv e in helping a

teacher to modify student perceptions of h is "v arie ty in teaching."

4. The log group, the planning group, and the combination

group were a l l s ig n if ic a n tly e ffe c tiv e in helping a teacher to modify

student perceptions o f h is "v arie ty in teaching ."

5. Of the th ree groups (log , planning, and combination)

successful in helping a teacher to modify student perceptions of h is

"v arie ty in teaching" none was s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffec tiv e than the

other two groups.

6. Teachers in the experimental groups viewed favorably the

feedback inform ation, the maintenance of the log , and the weekly

planning sessions.

7. The log, planning, and combination groups a l l showed a

trend toward more methodology usage as the experiment progressed.

8. The groups receiv ing consu lta tive assis tan ce in methodology

use (the planning and combination groups) employed fa r more method

ologies not previously used during the school year than the log group.

9. Students are capable of d iscerning change in a te a ch e r 's

e f fo r ts fo r improvement and th is student perception can be e lic i te d


122

on a form such as the adapted Student Opinion Q uestionnaire.

10, Upper elementary teachers were w illing and eager p a rtic ip a n ts

in the experiment.

In summary the experimental treatm ents employed seemed to be

in e ffe c tiv e in s ig n if ic a n tly modifying s tuden ts ' overa ll perceptions

of th e ir teach ers ' performances. Three of the experimental groups

(log , planning, and combination), however, appeared to be s ig n if i

can tly e ffec tiv e in modifying studen ts ' perceptions of th e ir

teach ers ' "varie ty in teaching."

Recommendations

This section of the repo rt w ill focus on the p roposition of

recommendations in two areas: The f i r s t w ill be to suggest possible

use of the data by those concerned with the pedagogical dimension of

teaching. A second area w ill be to present im plications of th is

study fo r fu rth e r research .

A primary find ing of th is experiment was th a t , under the con

d itio n s of th is experiment, the employment of m ultip le educational

methodologies seemed in e ffec tiv e in modifying student perception of

ov era ll teaching performance. Consequently, personnel in teacher

preparation in s t i tu t io n s , p rin c ip a ls , and curriculum superv isors,

should be re lu c ta n t to view the employment of m ultip le educational

methodologies as a panacea fo r curing other classroom i l l s or

improving overall teacher performance as perceived by s tuden ts.

A second important find ing of th is study was th a t th ree t r e a t

ment groups were capable of e ffec tin g a s ig n if ic a n t improvement


123

in student perception of teach ers ' "v a rie ty in teach ing ," Of the

three successful group treatm ents the log maintenance is obviously

the le a s t co stly in time and personnel and, th e re fo re , perhaps the

most ea s ily implemented. R esults o f the study would support the

contention th a t by having cu rren t teaching s ta f f s maintain the log

studen ts ' perceptions of a te a c h e r 's "v a rie ty in teaching" could be

expected to improve. The planning group treatm ent, combining plan

ning with a consultan t and log maintenance, a lso appears to have a

decided p o sitiv e e f fe c t on s tuden ts ' perceptions of a te a ch e r 's

"varie ty in teach ing ." Though more co s tly in time and personnel

th is treatm ent has the added fea tu re of being e ffec tiv e in g e ttin g

teachers to t ry new methodologies in th e i r teaching . The combination

group, u t i l iz in g feedback, log maintenance, and planning should also

be considered a very d e f in ite and e ffe c tiv e in -se rv ice p o s s ib il i ty .

No special b en efits were found to accrue to the combination group as

opposed to the planning group. I t is l ik e ly , however, th a t an analysis

of the feedback inform ation could provide the readiness and m otivation

needed fo r in -se rv ice tra in in g aimed a t the improvement of teacher

performances. I t i s recommended th a t instrum ents such as those

used in th is study could be u ti l iz e d fo r the purposes s ta ted above.

Personnel responsible fo r both p re-serv ice and in -serv ice

education might f in d more v iab le the procedure of placing a concerted

e f fo r t on a given area of teacher performance with the goal in mind

of improving th a t one f a c e t , ra th e r than taking a more global approach

toward improvement. Improvement in o ther areas most l ik e ly would


124

requ ire ad d itio n a l concerted e f fo r ts again aimed sp e c if ic a lly a t

improving th a t one fa c e t of the to ta l performance.

A dditionally , i t would appear th a t i f teachers are to attempt

the employment of new methodologies the suggestions and re in fo rce

ment of consu lta tive type personnel would be b en e fic ia l.

With regard to the im plications of th is study fo r fu rth e r re

search i t i s apparent th a t s tud ies designed to go beyond the scope

of the present in v estig a tio n would be advantageous in the quest fo r

improving teacher performance.

I t would seem to be of value to repeat the basic th ru s t of th is

experiment on a la rg e r sca le . Previously mentioned as a lim ita tio n

of the study was the small number of experimental group teachers.

A team of researchers might fin d i t fea s ib le to increase th is number

and make broader g en era lisa tio n s than were possib le in th is ex

periment. A fu rth e r recommendation would be to p a r t i t io n teachers

on the q u a lity of th e i r i n i t i a l student-perceived performances. Such

a study might a lso be conducted over a longer period of time than

th a t a l lo t te d fo r th is experiment. F in a lly , i f a fu tu re study were

ca rried out on a la rg e r scale and on a long itud ina l basis i t might

be possib le to determine the net improvement of a teacher ap art from

the la s tin g i n i t i a l perceptions of studen ts. For example, i f the

image i s "stubbornly s ta b le ," teachers desirous of improvement f i r s t

f in d i t necessary to erase i n i t i a l perceptions of a given group of

studen ts. I f , however, on a la rg e r sca le , teachers were ra ted midway

through a given year, p a rtic ip a te d in a concerted e f fo r t to change a


125

given fa c e t of th e i r performance, and then were rated again ty an

other c la ss midway through a second year, i t would not be necessary

to erase the opinions of the f i r s t group of students in computing

the ne t improvement of a te a c h e r 's performance.

Although the present study showed th a t with a concerted e f fo r t

teachers were able to improve student perceptions of th e ir "varie ty

in teach ing ," i t a lso revealed th a t a manipulation of th is one item

did not improve student perceptions of the teach ers ' overa ll per

formances. Two questions might m erit add itio n al study: Is i t poss

ib le to improve on o ther commonly accepted c r i te r i a o f teacher

e ffec tiveness with a concerted e f fo r t and does a manipulation of

one such c r i te r io n hold a key fo r improving student perceptions of

the teach ers ' ov era ll performances?

One obvious concern generated by th is experiment is the incon

clusiveness of the b en e fit of feedback inform ation. Many stud ies

previously c ited in the re la ted l i te r a tu r e sec tion of th is report

have espoused i t s e ffec tiv en ess , Bryan^ tempered h is findings

somewhat l%r re fe rr in g to the te ac h e r 's image as "stubbornly s ta b le ."

Lauroesch^ found, as th is study d id , th a t teachers receiving feedback

over a short period of time ac tu a lly decreased in student-perceived

^Bryan, Roy C ., "The Teacher's Image is Stubbornly S tab le ." The Clearing House. XL (A pril 1966), A59.

2Lauroesch, op. c i t . , p. 2.


126

e ffec tiv en ess. Is i t possib le th a t teacher q u a lity i s a fa c to r in

improving teacher performance? In sh o rt, i s th ere a d ifference in

the re la tiv e effectiveness of feedback in modifying the performance

of above average, average, or below average teachers as perceived by

students?

Another consideration regarding feedback deals with the time

element. Is eight weeks follow ing the reception of feedback in

formation too short a time to re g is te r s ig n if ic a n t changes in student

perception?

The enthusiasm displayed by both teachers and adm inistrators

fo r th is study a t the upper elementaiy lev e l hopefully is ind ica tiv e

of possible re c e p tiv ity fo r fu tu re s tu d ies of th is kind. A meaning

fu l comparison could be gained by a re p lic a tio n of th is experiment

a t the senior high le v e l.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

127


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alterman, Rolland A. (A ssistan t D irec to r), Michigan School Administ ra to r s Concept of Teacher Competency. Teacher Education P ro jec t. Central Michigan U niversity , Mt. P leasant, Michigan, 1963. Pp. 28.

Amatora, S is te r Mary, "Teacher Rating By Younger P upils." Journal of Teacher Education. V (June 1954), 149-52,

American Association of School A dm inistrators, Who's a Good Teacher? Washington D.C.: American Association of School A dm inistrators, 1961.Pp. 54.

Amidon, Edmond J . and F landers, Ned A., "Research on Teacher Behavior." The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis; Paul S.Amidon and A ssociates, 1963. Pp. 68.

Anderson, Robert H., Teaching in a World of Change. New York: Har-court. Brace, and World, In c ., 1966. Pp. x i + 180.

Aubertine, H, E ., "An Experiment in the Set Induction Process and I ts A pplication in Teaching." D isse rta tio n A bstracts . XXV (January 1965), 3987.

Barr, A. S ., "Problems Associated With Measurement and P redic tion of Teacher Success." Journal of Educational Research. LI (May 1958), 695-9.

Beck, William R ., "Pupil Perception of Teacher M erit; A Factor Analy s is of Five Postulated Dimensions." Journal of Educational Research. LXI (November 1967), 127-8,

Brady, E lizabeth H. and Richardson, Sybil K., "How Do Children View the Teacher"? Childhood Education. XXXVI (November 1959), 111-2.

Brown, Bob Burton, "Observer-Judge Ratings of Teacher Competence." Childhood Education. XLIV (November 1967), 205-7.

Bruner, Jerome, "The New Educational Technology." Revolution in Teaching. New York; Bantom Books, 1962. Pp. 7.

Bryan, Roy C ., "As Students See Their Teachers." NEA Journal. LVII (April 1968), 20-1.

Bryan, Roy C ., Reactions to Teachers by S tudents. Parents. and Adminis t r a to r s . Cooperative Research P roject No. 668, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health Education and Welfare, Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1962. Pp. 58.

128


129

Bryan, Roy C., ^ Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center. Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1967. Pp. 15.

Bryan, Roy C., Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions W High School Teachers. Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center. Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1968. Pp. 15.

Bryan, Roy C., "The Teacher's Image is Stubbornly S tab le ." The Clearing House. XL (April 1966), 459-61.

Buros, Oscar Krisen (E d .), The S ixth Mental Measurement Yearbook.New Jersey; The Gryphon P ress, 196>5. Pp. 691-711.

Callahan, S te rlin g G ., "Is Teacher Rating by Students a Sound Practice"? School and S ociety . LXIX (February 1949), 98-100.

C hildress, Jack, "In -serv ice Education of Teachers." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4 th e d ., London: The Macm illan Company, 1969. Pp. 645-54.

Clark, Leonard H. and S ta r r , Irv ing S ., Secondary School Teaching Methods. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967. Pp. x + 501.

Clark, P h illip A., "The E ffects of Student Opinion Feedback, In te raction Analysis Feedback, Research-Based Statements and Group Guidance in Modifying Teacher Image." Unpublished D octor's d is se r ta tio n . Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970, Pp. iv + 186.

Coats, William D., "Student Perceptions of Teachers—A Factor Analytic Study." Paper presented a t the American Educational Research Associa tio n Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 6, 1970. Pp. 10,

Colman, John E ., The Master Teachers and the Art of Teaching. New York; Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967. Pp. 180.

Cosgrove, Don J . , "Diagnostic Rating of Teacher Perfoi-mance." Journal of Educational Psychology. L (October 1959), 200-4.

Cote, William E ., "Commission May J o lt Working World of S tate Teachers." The Grand Rapids P ress. LXXVIII (June 7, 1970), 10-E.

Cote, William E ., "M illikan Plan Would Oust Poor Teachers." The F lin t Journal. XCIV (December 21, 1969), 1.

Crawford, P. L. and Bradshaw, H. L ., "Perception of C h arac te ristics of E ffective U niversity Teachers: A Scaling A nalysis." Educational andPsychological Measurement. XXVIII (Winter 1968), 1079-85.


130

Davenport, James A llie , "Perceived In s t i tu t io n a l and S elf Role Expecta tio n s of Hackensack Teachers." Unpublished D octor's d is s e r ta tio n , Columbia U niversity , New York, New York, 1964. Pp. x i i i + 160.

Davenport, Kenneth, "An Investiga tion of Pupil Ratings of C ertain Teacher P rac tices ." Purdue Studies in Higher Education. XLIX (January 1944), 9-61.

Daw, R. W. and Gage, N. L ., "Effect of Feedback from Teachers to P rin c ip a ls ." Journal of Educational Psychology. LVIII (June 1967), 181-3.

Dean, S tuart E ., Elementary School Adm inistration and O rganization.U.S. Office of Education B u lle tin I960, No. 11, Government P rin ting O ffice, Washington B.C., I960. Pp. xv + 126.

Department of A dm inistrative Services, School D is tr ic t S ta t i s t ic a l Inform ation. Genesee Interm ediate School D is tr ic t , F l in t , Michigan, 1969. Pp. 35.

Domas, S. and Tiedman, D. V., "Teacher Competence; An Annotated Bibliography." Journal of Experimental Education. XIX (December 1950), 100-218.

Drayer, Adam M., "Students' Views of the Q ualifica tions of Their Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September 1961),333-41.

Ebel, Robert L. (E d .), Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 4th ed ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Pp. x x v iii + 1522.

E lsbree, W illard S ., McNally, Harold J . , and Wynn, Richard, Elementary School Adm inistration and Supervision. New York; American Book Company, 1967. Pp. v i i i + 520.

English, H. B. and English, Ava C., ^ Comprehensive D ictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytic Terms. New York; Longmans, Green and Company, 1958. Pp. x iv + 594.

F a ttu , Nicholas A., "VJhat Research Says About Teacher E ffectiveness." NEA Journal. L (October I 96I ) , 55-6.

F estingar, Leon, "Cognitive Dissonance as a Motivating S ta te ." Psychology in A dm inistration. ed. Timothy W. C ostello and Sheldon S. Zalkind, Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey ; P ren tice-H all, In c ., 1963. Pp. 170-9.

F landers, Ned A., In te rac tio n Analysis in the Classroom; A Manual fo r Observers. Ann Arbor: U niversity of Michigan, 19^4. Pp. 45.


131

Flanders, Ned A. and Simon, Anita, "Teacher E ffectiveness." The Encyclopedia of Educational Research. ed. Robert L. Ebel, Ath e d ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Pp. 1423-37.

Gage, N. L., "Analytical Approach to Research on Instructional Methods." Phi Delta Kappan. XLIX (June 1968), 601-6.

Gage, N. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: RandMcNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 1218.

Gage, N. L ., "Teacher Methods." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, Ath ed., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969.Pp. 1AA6-58.

Gardner, John W., The Recovery of Confidence. New York: W. W. Nortonand Company, Inc., 1970. Pp. 189.

G etzels, J . W, and Jackson, P. W., "The Teacher's P ersonality andC h arac te ris tic s ." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage,Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 506-82.

Ginther, John R ., "Achievement in S ixth Grade Science Associated With Two In s tru c tio n a l Roles of Science Consultants." Journal of Educatio n a l Research. LVII (September 1963), 28-33.

Goldberg, H arris P ., "The Education of the Science Supervisor."School Science and Mathematics. LXX (May 1970), 363-5.

Good, C arter V. (E d .), D ictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-H ill Book Company, In c ., 1959. Pp. xxv ii + 676.

Griffiths, Daniel E., et. al.. Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers,1962. Pp. X + 338.

Grobman, Hulda, "To See Ourselves as Others See Us." Childhood Education. XLV (March 1969), 396-7.

Gupta, Promila, "A Study of Cognitive Merit of Teachers." D isserta tio n A bstrac ts . XXI (April 1961), 2983.

Hass, Glen (Chairman), Leadership fo r Improving In s tru c tio n . I960 Yearbook of the A ssociation fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington: The A ssociation, I 96O. Pp. x + 198.

Hawkins, Edward and Stoops, Emery, "Objectives and Subjective Identif ic a tio n of Outstanding Elementary Teachers." The Journal of Educational Research. LIX (April 1966), 3AA-6.


132

Hays, William L ., S ta t i s t i c s fo r Psychologists. New York: H olt, Rineh a rt and Winston, In c ., 1963. Pp. xvi + 719.

Heald, James E ., "Supervision." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed, Robert L. Ebel, 4 th e d ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969.Pp. 1394-1400.

Hickmott, Susan, "An Instrument fo r Obtaining Student Opinions of Teachers in Interm ediate Grades." Unpublished M aster's th e s is . The Ohio S ta te U niversity , Columbus, Ohio, 1947. Pp. 65.

Hoel, Paul G., Elementary S ta t i s t i c s . Now York: John Wiley and Sons,In c ., i 9 6 0 . Pp. y i i + 2 6 1 .

Howsam, Robert B ., "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folk lore." The National Elementary P r in c ip a l. XLIII (November 1963), 6-18.

Howsam, Robert B ., Who's a Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation. Burlingame, C alifo rn ia ; C alifo rn ia Teachers A ssociation, I960. Pp. 48.

Hughes, James Monroe, Education in America. Hew York: Harper andRow Publishers, 1970. Pp. xvi + 638.

Hummel, Charlton G., "A Right Only i f Deserved." NEA Jou rnal. XLI (January I960), 67.

K erlinger, Fred N ., "The Factor S tructu re and Content of Perceptions of D esirable C h a rac te ris tic s of Teachers." Educational and Psycho log ical Measurement. XXVII (Autumn 1967), 643-56.

K erlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York:H olt, R inehart, and Winston In c ., 1965. Pp. s ix + 739.

Koskenniemi, M atti, The Development of Young Elementary School Teachers : A Follow-up Study. H elsinki: S a rja se r B. Nidetom, 1965.Pp. 635.

Kretch, David and C ru tchfie ld , Richard S ., Elements of Psychology.New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959. Pp. xxi + 700.

Lauroesch, William P ., P ere ira , Peter D., and Ryan, Kevin A., The Use of Student Feedback in Teacher T rain ing . P ro jec t Ho. 8-E-115,U.S. Office of Education, U niversity of Chicago, Chicago, 1969.Pp. v + 3 4 .

Lieberman, % ron, "An Overview of A ccountability ." Phi D elta Kappan.LII (December 1970), 194-5.


133

Lopez, F elix M., "A ccountability in Education." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (December 1970), 231-5.

_, "Martin Teacher's Dismissal Protested." The FlintJou rnal. XCV (April 17, 1970), 53.

Mason, Barbara T ., "Supervisor or Curriculum S p e c ia lis t." Educational Leadership. XXVII (January 1970), 401-3.

McCall, William A., Measurement of Teacher M erit. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina S ta te Board of Education, 1952. Pp. 40.

McKeachie, W. J . , "Research on Teaching a t the College and University Level." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 1118-72.

M iklich, Donald R ., "An Experimental V alidation Study of the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n ." Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXIX (w inter 1969), 963-7.

M itzel, Harold E ., "Teacher E ffectiveness." Encyclopedia of Educa tional Research, ed. C. W. H arris , 3d e d ., London: The MacmillanCompany, I960. Pp. 1481-5.

M itzel, Harold E. and Combs, Arthur W., "Can We Measure Good Teaching O bjectively"? NEA Jo u rn a l. L III (January 1964), 34-6.

Mouly, George J . , Psychology fo r E ffective Teaching. New York: H olt,R inehart, and Winston, In c ., 1968. Pp. x i i + 639.

O liver, Wilmont P ., The R elative E ffectiveness of Inform ational Feedback About Supervisory ano( Student Reactions With Beginning and Experienced Vocational Teachers. P ro ject No. 6-8327, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rutgers, the S ta te U niversity , New Brunswick, New Jersey , 1967. Pp. v i i + 71.

Raths, Louis, "What is a Good Teacher"? Childhood Education. XL (May 1964), 451-6.

Rehraus, Charles, The Economic Results of Teacher Bargaining: Michigan* 3 F i r s t Two Years. The In s t i tu te of In d u s tria l R elation ,Michigan S ta te U niversity , Lansing, May, 1961. Pp. 16.

Remmers, H. H., "Rating Methods in Research on Teaching." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 329-78.

Remmers, H. H. (Chairman, American Educational Research A ssociation), "Second Report of the Committee on the C rite r ia of Teacher E ffectiveness." Journal of Educational Research. XLVI (May 1953), 641-58.


134

Rowannetta, Allen S ., "Role and Function of Supervisors and Curriculum Workers." Educational Leadership. XXII (January 1966), 330-3.

Ryan, Kevin A., "The Use of Students' W ritten Feedback in Changing the Behavior of Beginning Secondary School Teachers." D isserta tio n A bstracts ; The Humanities and Social Sciences. XXVII (January- February 196?), 2089-A.

Ryans, David G ., "An Assessment of Teacher Behavior and In stru c tio n ," Review of Educational Research. XXXIII (October 1963), 415-41.

Ryans, David G ., C h arac te ris tics of Teachers. Washington D.C.; American Council on Education, I960. Pp. x x i i i + 416.

Saadeh, Irahim Q., "Teacher Effectiveness or Classroom E fficiency: ANew D irection in the Evaluation of Teaching." Journal of Teacher Education. XXI (Spring 1970), 73-88.

Sanders, N orris M., Classroom Questions: What Kinds? New York:Harper and Row, 1966. Pp. 173.

Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M., Scales fo r the Measurement of A ttitu d es . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Pp. x x ii + 604.

Smith, Edward, Krouse, Stanley, and Atkinson, Mark, The Educator* sEncyclopedia. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey: P rentice-H all In c .,1967. Pp. x i i i + 914.

Soar, Robert S ., "Methodological Problems in P redicting Teacher E ffectiveness." Journal of Experimental Education. XXXII (Spring 1964), 287-91.

Spain, Charles, Drummond, Harold, and Goodlad, John, Educational Leadership and the Elementary P rin c ip a l. New York: Rinehart andCompany, In c ., 1956. Pp. x + 371.

S p rin th a ll, Norman A., Whitely, John M., and Mosher, Ralph L ., "A Study of Teacher E ffectiveness." The Journal of Teacher Education. XVII (Spring 1966), 93-106.

, "S tate Unit Okays Teacher's F irin g ." The F lin t Journal. XCIV (November 5, 1969), 53.

S tre e te r , Edward G., "Teacher Competency and Classroom Use of Educatio n a l Media." Audiovisual In s tru c tio n . XIV (January 1969), 60-2.

T agiuri, Renato, "Person Perception." In te rn a tio n a l Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. S i l l s , XI, London: The MacmillanCompany, 1968. Pp. $60-7.


133

Tedesco, Phyliss Reynolds, "An 'A' fo r Teacher." The In s tru c to r .LXn (October 1959), 89.

Tobin, Michael F rederick, "Perceptions of Beginning and Experienced Teachers in Inner City and Suburban Elementary Schools." Unpublished D octor's d is se r ta tio n . Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970. Pp. ix + 132.

Tuckman, B. W. and O liver, W. P ., "E ffectiveness of Feedback to Teachers as a Function of Source." Journal of Educational Psychology. LIX (August 1968), 297-301.

Wallen, Norman and Travers, Robert, "Analysis and Investigation of Teaching Methods." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 448-505.

Wiersma, William, Research Methods in Education; An In troduction . Philadelphia: J . B. L ippincott Company, 1969. Pp. xvi + 412.

Wright, Benjamin and Sherman, Barbara, "Love and Mastery in the Childs Image." School Review. LXXIII (Summer 1965), 89-101.


APPENDIXES

136


APPENDIX A

Student Opinion Questionnaire

Follow along with ms as I read the in s tru c tio n s aloud. There should be no ta lk in g . This i s not a t e s t . There are no r ig h t or wrong answers. Please answer the questions honestly . Do not give your name. N either your teacher nor anyone e lse a t your school w ill ever see your answers.

All your answers w ill be sealed in th is envelope and taken fo r scoring. Your teacher w ill receive a summary of the answers by the students in your o la ss . Your teacher wants you to answer each question honestly . The summary w ill help her to know what the class lik e s and d is lik e s about her teaching. This could help her become a b e t te r teacher,

CIRCLE THE ANSWER WHICH BEST GRADES YOUR TEACHER'S:

Example A, APPEARilNCE: (Does your teacher wear nice clothes?)

POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT

Example B. FENIIANSHIF: (How well does your teacher w rite on theboard?)


1. ' KNO\>/LEDGE: (How well" does your teacher understand the lessonsshe teaches to you?)


2. EXPLANATIONS: (How v e il does your teacher explain the lessonsto the class?)


3. FAIRNESS : ( Is your teacher f a i r with a l l pupils?)


CONTROL: (How well do pupils behave fo r your teacher?)


T. SUCCESS IN KEEPING YOUR ATTENTION: (Does your teacher make thelessons in te re s tin g ?)


137


138

6. ENTHUSIASM; (Does your teacher l ik e to teach?)


7 } CONSIDERATION : ( is your teacher kind toward a l l pupils inyour c lass?)


8. ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENTS; (Does your teacher lik e you?)


9. VARIETY IN TEACHING; (Does your teacher usually teach the same way day a f te r day o r does she o ften t ry d if fe re n t ways to present lessons?) (motion p ic tu re s , tape recorders, record p layers, c h a rts , overhead p ro je c to rs , student rep o rts , small group p ro je c ts , guest speakers, dem onstrations, f ie ld t r ip s , e tc .)


ÏÔI ENCOURAGEMENT OF STUDE3JT PARTICIPATION; (Does your teacher l ik e students to ask questions?)


11. siSNSE OF HUMOR; (Does your teacher laugh with the class?)


12. PLANNING;(Does your teacher make good plans fo r the use ofc la ss time so th a t l i t t l e time i s wasted?)


13. ASSIGNMENTS; (Does your teacher make your homework enjoyable?)


A. What i s the ONE th ing th a t you l ik e MOST about your teacher?

B. What i s the ONE th ing th a t you l ik e LEAST about your teacher?


APPENDH B

Teacher P ro file

Teacher Grade No, of Students. Date

scalesteos

scaleaverage

ITEMS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

EXCELLENT 5.0A, 9A.8A.7A.6A.5

_A,A__A.3 ...A. 2A.l

GOOD A.O3.93.83.73,6 1

.3,5 J._3,4 __ J. 3 .3 .

3 .23 .1 .

AVERAGE .3 ,0 . . .2 .92.82.72.62.52.A ' .! . . .

2.32.22,1.

FAIR 2,01.91.81.71.6

.1.5

__1,3

139


APPENDIX B (continued)

scalesteos

scaleaverage

IT0MS1 2 ? 4 ‘7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1.21.1

POOR 1.0

KEY TO ITEMS

1. KNOWLEDGE 8. ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENTS ____2. EXPLANATIONS ____ 9. VARIETY3. FAIRNESS ____ 10. STUDENT PARTICIPATION ____4* CONTROL ___ _ 11. SENSE OF HUMOR ____5. INTEREST ____ 12. PLANNING6. ENTHUSIASM . 13. ASSIGNMENTS7. CONSIDERATION ____ 14. MEAN OF AVERAGES 1-13____

A. Strengths l i s te d by a s ig n if ic an t number of studen ts:

B. Weaknesses l i s te d by a s ig n if ic a n t number of studentss

1^0


APPENDIX G

Tabular Summation

SCALESTEPS

ODES'noN1 2 ? 4 6 7 8 9 10 111 12. ._11__

ExcellentGoodAverageF a irPoorTOTALS

l a


APPENDH D

Feedback

Enclosed is a com pilation of student responses to the question-,

n a ire given recen tly to your c la ss . At the top of the page you w ill

no tice a graph. This graph is an average of student responses to

questions 1-13 of the Student Opinion Q uestionnaire. A key to the

items in the questionnaire and an average fo r each appears a t the

bottom of the page. Note what your c lass perceives to be your

s treng ths and weaknesses, paying p a r tic u la r a tte n tio n to those

items which appear too low. Hopefully th is inform ation w ill suggest

areas in which you may wish to make a sp ec ia l e f fo r t to change your

students* perceptions.

142


APPENDIX E

Checklist Log

Inetructions

You have been selected to p a rtic ip a te in an add itional phase of the to ta l f ie ld experiment previously described. Your cooperation i s deeply appreciated and an e sse n tia l and s ig n if ic a n t part of the experimental study.

During the e igh t weeks of the experiment you are asked to m aintain a check lis t or "log" of the various in s tru c tio n a l methods you employ.The methods and devices l is te d on the attached sheet are commonly accepted in the l i te r a tu r e and in p rac tice as appropriate in s tru c tio n a l techniques.

Your specific instructions are;

1) At the end of each day check the methods and or devices used during th a t day. (Only one check par item per day, even though used more than once)

2) I t i s possib le th a t an in s tru c tio n a l device (Group I) would be used in conjunction with a teaching method (Group I I ) ,For example, the overhead p ro jec to r might be used in a lec tu re type p resen ta tion . In instances of th is type a check should be made fo r the overhead p ro jec to r and fo r the lec tu re .

3) The p o s s ib i l i ty also e x is ts th a t more than one teaching method (Group I I ) might be employed during a given learning experience. In th is case check only the method which is predominant and not check the method which i s employed in c id en ta lly . For example, a teacher conducts a d iscussion type p resen ta tion . During the course of the d iscussion a few questions are asked. The discussion is the predominant method employed and th is category should be checked. The questions are inc id en ta l to the discussion and the question- answer category should not, be checked.

To aid you in making consisten t and mutually exclusive checks the following operational descrip tions are offered fo r items which may not be se lf-exp lanato ry ;

1A3


lU

DISCUSSION; Group in te ra c tio n characterized by a free exchange of views and ideas by p a r tic ip a n ts . Oral two-way communication during which learn ers examine, consider, and compare fa c ts and reasoning. Sometimes called group thinking aloud.

DRILL; Commonly referred to as re c ita t io n or p rac tice usually fo r the purpose of automatic r e c a l l . Examples would be sp e llin g , rou tine math problems, one word question-answer, workbooks, e tc . Oftentimes follows the p a tte rn of assignment - study - rep o rt.

INDEPENDENT STUDY; A major planned learning experience in which astudent can proceed in accord with h is own in i t i a t iv e and a b i l i ty using the teacher as a resource. Not the d a ily , ro u tin e , unplanned type of study or reading a student often pursues while waiting fo r classm ates to f in is h assigned work.

LABORATORY; D irect experience with m ateria ls p e rtin e n t to the area of study. Usually associated with science lesso n s, but not necessarily so.

LECTURE: Oral one-way communication, p rim arily teacher ta lk . Anexposition of fa c ts or knowledge by a teacher.

PROBLEM SOLVING; Closely a l l ie d with learning by discovery and the s c ie n ti f ic method. I t involves the thought process of lo g ica l and c r i t i c a l thinlcing th a t re su lts from a doubt, a p erp lex ity , a problem or an observation. The recognition of a problem is followed sequen tia lly by an inspection of possib le so lu tions, the employment of a given so lu tion , and the evaluation of i t s success in solving the problem.

QUESTION-ANSWER: Open-ended c r i t i c a l app ra isa l type of questions. Frequently used in a well-planned sequence to develop major concepts. Not one word answer type of questions.


145

MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGIES

I . INSTRUCTIONAL DEVICES

A) Educational samea8mm cartrid g e p ro jec to r !

C) F ilm strip p ro jecto rD) Motion p ic tu re p ro jec to rS) Opaque p ro lecto rF) Overhead p ro jec to rG) Programmed in s tru c tio nH) Radio ...............................I) Record playerJ) S lide p ro jec to rK) Tape recorderLl TelevisionM) Chart, globe, model, e tc . |N) Other (specify)

. —---

a) DemonstrationB) DiscussionC) D rill ( re c ita tio n )D) Evaluation — Review

Test, Q uiz..............

E) F ield TripF) Group methods — Debate

PanelP ro ject

Small group d iscussionG independent studyH) Individual reportI) LaboratoryJ) LectureK) Guest speaker . .

L) Problem solving Idiscovery)M) Question-AnswerN) Role playingO) Teacher-pupil planningP) . Team teaching (ad hoc)Q) Other (specify)

.


APPENDIX F

Cover L e tte r

Fellow Educator;

This l e t t e r is w ritten to introduce to you Mr. James Bultman. Jim is cu rren tly a Mott Doctoral Fellow working th ru Western Michigan U niversity . Previously he has been a teacher, p rin c ip a l and college pro fesso r.

We have reviewed the research study proposed by Mr. Bultman and believ e i t to be s ig n if ic a n t and noteworthy fo r us as educators. Jim assures us th a t the anonymity of p a rtic ip a n ts and th e i r ind iv idual r e s u l ts w ill be honored.

Because of the experimental nature of the study you should understand th a t i t is not possib le to reveal c e r ta in p a rts of the study a t the o u tse t. I t is not an tic ip a ted th a t p a r tic ip a tio n in the study w ill in any way be an im position on your time.

In th a t education is in need of enlightening research s tu d ies and because the proposed research i s leg itim ate and worthy of our part ic ip a tio n you are urged to give i t your carefu l consideration .

S incerely ,

Superintendent of Schools

146


APPENDIX G

Computer Program

Hope College S ta t i s t i c a l Programs Manual MNSTRVariance Analysis

MNSTR: One-Way Analysis of Variance with Within-GroupC orrelations and Between-Group t-T es ts

1. GENERAL DESCRIPIIGN

a. This program sim ultaneously computes an F - s ta t i s t ic fo r a One-Way Analysis of Variance between groups fo r each v a riab le . Also included in the output are d is tr ib u tio n s t a t i s t i c s , within-group c o rre la tio n s , and between-group t-v a lu e s .

b. The output co n sis ts of (fo r each v a r ia b le ) :

For each group and to ta l group1) Mean2) Standai-d dev iation3) Estimate of population standard dev iation4.) Estimate of population variance5) Standard E rror of the Mean6) C orrelation Matrix7) t - t e s t of d iffe ren ce from zero fo r the Mean

For to ta l group only8) Pooled Within-Group C orrelation Matrix

Analyses between groups9) Analysis of Variance tab le fo r each variab le consisting

of source, sum of squares, degrees of freedom, mean squares, and F -ra tio .

10) t - t e s t between each group fo r each v ariab le using the common mean square as the e rro r term.

11) t - t e s t between each group fo r each variab le usingseparate e r ro r terms; the e r ro r term being computed byusing only the two groups in question.

c . Lim iations:

1) The number of variab les must not exceed 25.2) The number o f groups must not exceed 32,767.3) The number o f subjects per group must not exceed 32,767,

147


148

4) I f the number of groups exceeds 25 the between group j j- te s ts w ill not be p rin ted ,

2 . Authors: Dee Norton, Ph.D.Department of Psychology S ta te U niversity of Iowa

andB ill Snider, Ph.D.U niversity Computer Center S ta te U niversity of Iowa(Modified fo r use with the IBM 1130 hy George

Bishop, Hope College)


APPENDIX H

Student Perception Averages fo r A ll Questionnaire Item s, Pre and Post

Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E

pre 1 4 .3 4.0 3.7 3 .9 3.9post 4 .3 4.5 3.6 3.9 3.8

1 pre 2 4 .0 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.4post 3.8 4.5 4.0 3.6 3.3

pre 3 4 .0 4.3 3.6 3.7 4.0post 3.5 3.8 4.0 3 .4 4.0

pre 1 4 .0 3.8 2.9 3.8 3.9post 4 .0 3 .7 2.6 4 .0 3.8

2 pre 2 3 .8 4 .0 3 .8 3 .8 3.7post 3 .6 4 .0 3.7 3.7 3.3

pre 3 3 .9 4.0 3.5 3 .9 3.8post 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.1 3,7

pre 1 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.4post 2 .9 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.4

3 pre 2 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.5post 2 .9 4.1 3.2 2.8 2.7

pre 3 3.7 3.7 3.1 2,1 3.8post 2.5 2.3 3.0 1.8 3.6

pre 1 3.5 2.9 2.3 3.3 3.1post 4 .0 3.2 2 .3 3.2 3.6

4 pre 2 3 .0 3 .2 2 .9 1.9 2.5post 3.2 3.0 3.2 2.4 2.7

pre 3 3.0 3 .0 2.6 2.9 2.1post 3.5 2.6 3.6 2.5 2.4

pre 1 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0post 3 .8 4.1 2.7 3.8 3.3

149


APPENDIX H (continued)


5 pre 2 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.7post 3.2 4 .0 3.8 2 .9 3.2

pre 3 3.5 2 .9 3.8 3.2 3.7post 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.6 3.7

pre 1 4 .0 4.0 4 .6 3.8post 4 .1 4.0 3.8 3.8 4 .0

6 pre 2 3.7 4.3 4 .0 3.7 3.8post 3 .9 4.3 3 .7 3.5 3.6

pre 3 3 .8 4.2 4 .0 3 .9 3.9post 3.0 3.8 4.2 3.6 4.2

pre 1 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.6post 3.0 3 .9 3.4 3.6 3.4

7 pre 2 3 .4 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.5post 3.2 3.8 3.5 2.8 2.9

pre 3 3 .5 4.1 3 .0 3 .2 3.7post 2.4 3 .4 3.2 2.6 3.8

pre 1 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.9post 3 .6 3.5 3 .3 3.7 3.6

8 pre 2 3.5 4.1 4 .0 3.5 3.5post 3.2 4 .0 3 .6 3.2 3.1

pre 3 3 .6 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.8post 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.3 4 .3

pre 1 2.8 3.5 2 .6 3.2 3.9post 2.5 4.5 3.7 4 .3 3 .4

9 pre 2 3.7 3.2 3.7 3 .4 3.5post 3 .6 4 .9 4.3 4 .1 3.7

pre 3 3.1 3.8 3.2 1.9 3.3post 3.3 4 .4 4.8 3.7 3.0

150




pre 1 3.5 3.8 3 .4 4.3 3 .8post 3 .6 3.9 4 .2 4 .4 3.6

10 pre 2 4.2 3.0 3.8 3.4 3.8post 4 .3 2.9 3 .9 3.8 3.5

pre 3 3.5 4.3 4.1 3.2 3.9post 3.2 4.1 4.7 3.1 4 .2

pre 1 3.8 4 .0 3.9 3.9 3.4post 4 .4 4.3 4 .0 4.1 ' 3 .8

11 pre 2 3.5 3.7 4.5 2.8 3.3post 3 .3 4.5 4.3 2.9 3.3

pre 3 2.8 3.6 3.3 4 .4 2 .9post 2 .4 3 .6 3.1 4.4 3.6

pre 1 4.1 3.7 3.5 4.5 4 .0post 4 .3 4.1 3.5 4 .0 3.5

12 pre 2 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.9post 3.8 4 .0 3.5 3.7 3.8

pre 3 4 .2 3 .9 3.8 2.7 3 .4post 4 .3 3.8 4 .2 3.1 3.3

pre 1 3 .4 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7post 2 .9 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.8

13 pre 2 2 .4 3.1 2.2 2.2 3.3post 3.1 3.1 2.6 1 .9 2.7

pre 3 2.0 2.0 2.2 1 .4 3.6post 2.0 2.0 2.6 1.7 3.6

pre 1 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.6post 3.7 3 .9 3 .4 3.8 3.5

151




T pre 2 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.5post 3.5 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.2

pre 3 3 .4 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.5post 3 .0 3 .4 3.7 3.0 3.6

Question Key: ( l) Knowledge, (2) Explanations, (3) F airness, (4) Cont r o l , (5) In te re s t , (6) Enthusiasm, (7) Consideration, (8) A ttitude toward s tuden ts, (9) V ariety, (10) Student p a r tic ip a tio n , ( l l ) Sense of humor, (12) Planning, (13) Assignments, (T) Mean of a l l questions

152


APPENDIX I

Feedback Group Open-Ended Response

Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f apy) of the experimental "treat* ment" on your teaching during the course of the experiment.

Feedback:

General comments you wish to make about the f ie ld experiment:

153


APPENDIX J

Log Group Open-Ended Response

Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f any) of the experimental " tre a tment" on your teaching during the course of the experiment.

C hecklist log:


Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p r io r to the experiment? (YES or NO)

15U


APPENDIX K

Planning Group Open-Ended Response

Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f any) of the experimental " tre a tment" on your teaching during the course of the experiment.

C hecklist log:

Weekly planning sessions:


Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r v a r ie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p r io r to the experiment? (YES or NO)

155


APPENDIX L

Combination Group Open-Ended Reaponse

Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f any) of the experimental " t re a tment" on your teaching during the course of the f ie ld experiment.

Feedback:

C hecklist log:

Weekly planning sessions:


Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p r io r to the experiment? (YES or NO)

156


APPENDIX M

Teacher S elf-percep tion Averages fo r All Questionnaire Items, Pre and Post

Question Teacher Group A Group B Group G Group D Group E

pre 1 4.0 4.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0post 4 .0 3.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0

1 pre 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4 .0post 4 .0 4.0 4.0 3 .0 4 .0

pre 3 4 .0 3.0 4 .0 4.0 3.0post 4 .0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0

pre 1 4 .0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0post 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0

2 pre 2 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4.0 3 .0post 4 .0 3.0 4.0 3 .0 3 .0

pre 1 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3 .0 4 .0post 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0

3 pre 2 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0post 3 .0 4 .0 3.0 4 .0 4.0

pre 3 2.0 3 .0 5.0 4 .0 2.0post 3.0 3.0 4.0 4 .0 2.0

pre 1 5.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4 .0

4 pre 2 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0post 3 .0 5.0 4.0 3 .0 2.0

pre 3 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0post 3.0 3 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0

157

R eproduced with perrrission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

APPENDIX M (continued)


pre 1 4.0 3 .0 3 .0 2.0 3.0post 4 .0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0

5 pre 2 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0post 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 ,0

pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0post 3.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 2.0

pre 1 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 2.0 4 .0post 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 5.0

6 pre 2 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4 .0post 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 3 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 2 .0 4 .0post 4 .0 4.0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 1 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0

7 pre 2 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 5.0post 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4.0 4 .0 3.0post 2.0 3.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 1 4.0 5.0 4 .0 3 .0 5.0post 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0

8 pre 2 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0post 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 3 3.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0post 3 .0 3 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0

pre 1 3.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 4 .0post 2.0 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0

158




9 pro 2 A.O 4.0 3.0 3 .0 4 .0post A.O 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 3 3.0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 4 .0post A.O 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0

pre 1 4 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4 .0

10 pre 2 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 5.0post 5.0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0

pre 3 4 .0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0post 3 .0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

pre 1 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0

11 pre 2 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0post 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 4 .0 3 .0

pre 3 4 .0 4 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0post 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 5.0 4.0

pre 1 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3 .0

12 pre 2 3 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 2.0post 3 .0 4.0 3 .0 3 .0 2.0

pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 3.0 3 .0post 3 .0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3 .0

pre 1 4 .0 2.0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0post 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0

13 pre 2 2.0 4.0 3 .0 2.0 3.0post 4 .0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0 2.0

pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0post 2 .0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0

159




pre 1 4 .0 3.8 3.2 2.9 3.8post 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.7

T pre 2 3.6 4.1 3.4 3 .4 3.7post 3 .8 3.9 3.5 3 .6 3 .4

pre 3 3.2 3.3 4.2 3.7 3 .2post 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.1 3.3

Question Key: ( l) Knowledge, (2) Explanations, (3) Fairness, (A) Cont r o l , (5 ) In te re s t , (6) Enthusiasm, (7) Consideration, (8) A ttitude toward studen ts, (9) V ariety , (10) Student p a r tic ip a tio n , (11) Sense of humor, (12) Planning, (13) Assignments, (T) Mean of a l l questions

160


The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on ...

Documents

Transcript of The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on ...