7902129
FREEDMAN, MARK STEWART FOLLOW—UP OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION GRADUATES FROH A TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS.
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, PH.D., 1978
University. Microfilms International 300 n. zeeb r o a d , a n n a b b o r . mi <8 Some pages have small and indistinct p rin t Filmed in the best possible way. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. FOLLOW-UP OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION GRADUATES FROM A TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM: A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS DISSERTATION Presented-in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Mark S. Freedman, B.S., M.A. A ft * * * The Ohio State University 1978 Reading Committee: Approved By Dr. Daryl Siedentop Dr. Edward Coates Dr. Joseph Quaranta Idvi& ei School of Healtlji, Physical Education and Recreation For my parents... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Dr. Daryl Siedentop for his guidance in this effort and in my program the last two years. Behaviorally, I found him to be a fine source of reinforcement for my development in research and teaching. Dr. Charles Mand and Dr. Joseph Quaranta are both owed thanksi these visionary men allowed me to grow professionally within the programs they supervise. I also would like to thank Dr. Kevin Ryan and Dr. Mary Jensen for their time and help during my general examination. To my wife, Elaine, my thanks for the long hours involved in decoding a small mountain of data. To Gary DeVoss, a special thank you for "being there" during the days on the road. To Linda Arena, Bob Corran, Jane Crossman, and Garth McHattie, I am indebted for their time and effort during the collection of student teacher data. To Ron Perez, a debt of thanks for the computer work. This final draft was prepared by Linda Holsinger, and for her a iii million thanks would barely be enough. And, finally, to the subjects in schools all over Ohio, thanks for your willingness to participate and your commitments and devotions to teaching in our fine field. VITA August 27, 1951.... Born - New York City 19 7 3...... B.A., Political Science, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York 1973-1974-...... Assistant Athletic Director, Bard College, Annandale-on- Hudson, New York 19 74-19 76 ...... Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 1976 ...... M.A., Physical Education, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 1976-1978 Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1978- .. Assistant Professor, Department of Health and Physical Education, Rutgers University, Douglass College, New Brunswick, New Jersey PUBLICATIONS ,TSystematic Units of Instruction for a College Course in Intramurals." 2 7th Annual Conference Proceedings, National Intramural-Recreational Sports Association, 1976, 120-134. (With Crable, E. A.) The Physical Fitness Survey: Admini- strative Manual, Durham, North Carolina: IBEX Inc., 1976 . v FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Physical Education Studies in Teacher Education. Professor Daryl Siedentop Minor Field: Studies in Guidance and Counseling. Professor Joseph Quaranta TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii VITA V LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES xi Chapter I . INTRODUCTION...... 1 Statement of the Problem...... 6 Limitations of the Study...... 8 Assumptions of the Study...... 8 Definition of Special Terms...... 9 Summary...... 9 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE...... 11 Follow-up Studies in Teacher Education.. 12 Descriptive-Analytic Research...... 2 5 Other Pertinent Literature...... 32 Summary...... 36 III. SOURCES OF DATA, PROCEDURES. AND METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS...... 38 Subjects and Settings...... 38 Definition of Classroom Climates...... 50 Definition of Teacher Behaviors...... 52 Definition of Classroom Interactions.... 57 Description and Training of Observers... 61 Other Instrumentation Employed in the Study...... 6 3 Methods of Data Analysis...... 6 7 Summary...... 6 8 IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA...... 70 Reliability...... •...... 70 Inservice Teacher Observational Data.... 74 vii Chap ter Page Analysis of Inservice Teacher Observational Data 7 7 Inservice Teacher Attitude/Behavior Rating...... 99 Teacher Behavior Differences in Elementary and Secondary Settings...... 102 Student Teacher Observational Data...... 10 4 Student Teacher Attitude/Behavior Ratings...... 10 8 Results and Analysis of the Personal Interview...... 12 8 Summary of Interview Data...... 137 Combined Analysis of Results...... 138 Correlational Analysis...... 141 S ummary...... 142 V. SUMMATION OF THE STUDY...... 14 3 A Review of the Study...... 14 3 Conclusions...... 145 Future Follow-up Efforts...... 150 Recommendations for Further Study 15 5 APPENDICES...... 157 Appendix A ...... 158 Appendix B ...... 153 Appendix C ...... 178 Appendix D ...... 181 BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 212 viii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Summary Background Data Inservice Teachers*...... 41 2. Summary Background Data Student Teachers...... 4 3 3. Summary of Settings - Follow-up Subjects...... 44 4. Summary of Settings - Student Teachers...... 46 5. Interobserver Reliability 7 3 6. Inservice Teachers (17-30) Teacher Behaviors in the Natural Environment Percent of Total Intervals 7 5 7. Inservice Teachers (17-30) Classroom Climate and Teacher Interactions in the Natural Environment Percent of Total Intervals 7 6 8. Inservice Teachers (17-30) Mean Percent of Total Intervals for Behaviors, Climates, Interactions 7 9 9 . Median Response to the Attitude/ Behavior Questionnaire Inservice Teachers (17-3 0) ...... 101- 10. Student Teachers (1-16) Teacher Behaviors in the Natural Environment Percent of Total Intervals...... 105 11. Student Teachers (1-16) Classroom Climate and Teacher-Interactions in the Natural Environment Percent of Total Intervals...... 106 12. Student Teachers (1-16) Mean Percent of Total Intervals for Behaviors, Climates, Interactions...... 107 ±x i Table Page 13. Median Response to the Attitude/Behavior Questionnaire Student Teachers (1-16)...... 126 14. Inserviee Teachers-(17-30) Mean Percent Differences between Elementary Level (K-6) and Secondary Level (7-12) Teachers: Teacher Behaviors, Climates and Interactions...... 127 15. A Comparison of Mean Percent Differences between the Inservice Teachers (17-30) and the Student Teachers (1-16)...... 140 16. Mean Percent Differences for Teacher Behaviors and Classroom Climates: A Comparison between the Follow-up Study and the Stewart (19 77 ) Study...... 15 2 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Cassette Tape Recorder Program Format for Observation with TOS ...... 48 2. Teacher Observation System (TOS)...... 59 3. Attitude/Behavior Questionnaire...... 64 4. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Activity (A) and Manage CM)...... • • 80 5. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Conninst CC) and Instruct Cl)...... , . 6. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Individ Cl) and Class CC)...... 83 7. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Group CG) •••.84 8. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Lecture CLO) and Direct *(G)...... 87 9. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Listen (L) and Askquest (AQ)...... 88 10. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Ansquest (Q) and Nonfunct (NF)...... 89 11. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Monitor CM), and Maintain (MT)...... 90 12. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Spotting (SP) and Hustle CH) , , ,, , .91 13. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Posmodel (TM+) and Negmodel (TM-)...... , .92 14. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Gpraise CPG) and Spraise (PS)...... 93 15. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Nags CN) and Punish (P)...... 94 xi Figure Page 16. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Official CO) and Teapart (TP)...... 95 17. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Corrfeed (CF) and Pgfeed (G+)...... 96 18. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Ngfeed (G-) and Psfeed *(S+)...... 97 19. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Nsfeed (S-) and Skiltrac (S/C)...... 98 20. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Acivity (A) and Manage (M)...... 109 21. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Conninst (C) and Instruct (I)...... 110 22. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Individ (I) and Class (C)...... Ill 2 3. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Group ( G)...... 112 24. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Lecture (LO) and Direct (G)...... 113 25. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Listen (L) and Askquest (AQ)...... 114 26. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Askquest (Q) and Nonfunc (NF)...... 115 27. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Monitor (M) and Maintain (MT)...... 116 2 8. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Spotting (SP) and Hustle (H)...... 117 29. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Posmodel (TM+) and Negmodel (TM-)...... 118 30. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Gpraise (PG) and Spra'ise (PS)...... 119 31. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Nags (N) and Punish (P)...... 120 32. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Official (0) and Teapart (TP) ...... 121 xii Figure Page 33. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Corrfeed (CF) and Pgfeed (6+)...... 122 • 34. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Ngfeed (G-) and Psfeed (S+)...... 12 3 35. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Nsfeed (S-) and Skiltrac (S/C)...... 124 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In 19 75 the Ohio Department of Education released new standards and guidelines for the professional preparation of teachers. The new standards mandated that colleges and universities preparing teachers in Ohio redesign their pro grams, so as to be in compliance with the new guidelines by July 1, 1980 (Ohio Department of Education, 1975). One component of the new standards calls for the evaluation of teacher preparation programs. Guideline EDb-30 3-08 (A) states: Continuous study, development and improve ment of teacher education shall be evidenced and supported by a well-defined plan of evaluation which shall provide' for the follow-up of graduates. (p. 9) In response to this guideline The Ohio State University College of Education, under the auspices of the Teacher Education Redesign Advisory Committee (TERAC) initiated a follow-up study in the spring of 19 76. The major aim of the study was: To acquaint teacher education instruc tors with current views of life in elementary and secondary classrooms, thus creating better understanding of teachers' 1 methods and behaviors, and provide data useful in developing new curriculum and instructional materials. (Ohio Department of Education, 19 77) The original intent was to develop a checklist which focused upon perceived problems of teacher education graduates. Since the time of the initial study, the follow-up project at Ohio State has grown larger and more complex. In addition to attitudinal checklists, field observations of graduates, personal interviews and a variety of demographic instrumentation have been incorporated into the College's follow-up scheme. As the College proceeded with its follow-up program, this researcher had independently taken an interest in studying the teacher behavior of graduat'es from The Ohio State University physical education teacher preparation program. Some of the graduates of that program were participants in an experimental teacher education program called the "Block" program. Others had graduated from the "Traditional" program, but common to both program tracks was a sequentially arranged series of field experiences in elementary, secondary and adaptive physical education settings. Within the program considerable emphasis was placed upon listening and attending to student behavior, increasing positive feedback to student skill and social behavior, reducing inappropriate student behavior through the use of effective classroom management techniques and providing a variety of teaching models and styles (Department of Education, 1977). The reader should consult Appendix A for a description of the pre-service program in physical education. The most critical component of the follow-up of The Ohio State University physical education graduates was assumed by this researcher to be a description of their teaching in the natural environment. Through the use of descriptive observation, it would be possible to assess which teaching skills emphasized in the teacher education program were currently p a r t of the behavioral repertoire of its graduates who were teaching elementary and/or secondary physical education. The converse also was true. Were our graduates exhibiting behaviors that were not em phasized or deemed inappropriate in our teacher education program? Follow-up studies in the field of physical education teacher preparation are not abundant in the literature. A major limitation toward conducting these studies may be due to the demands upon faculty for training their current pre- service candidates. As undergraduate enrollment in teacher, preparation programs continues to drop (as is the current trend), perhaps more attention will be focused upon the follow-up efforts. The most noted research in the area of teacher educa tion follow-up is the model proposed by Sandefur (19 72). One study, peripherally related to follow-up, was undertaken by Lindsay, Morrison, and Kelley (1972). Their intent was to determine the level of professional obsolescence among public school physical educators. They found that 99% of 94% of the sample respectively, could not meet the standards of obsolescence established by a panel of experts in the areas of curriculum and methodology. Such paper and pencil efforts do not adequately describe the complete teaching behavior that should be of interest to the professional teacher educator. A credible follow-up study must focus upon the processes of teaching demonstrated by the graduates of the program under study. In the field of physical education the observa tional process is more difficult than classroom observation due to the great amount of nonverbal behavior and movement activities that occur in the gymnasium setting. Several researchers have modified existing teacher behavior observa tion instruments to fit the needs of physical education. Cheffers* (19 74) adaptation of the Flanders Interaction Analysis (FIAS) known as CAFIAS has been employed in at least 19 research efforts since 19 74. Batchelder and Cheffers (19 76) listed eight uses for CAFIAS (see Locke, 19 77) to which a ninth might be added "to provide summative evaluation information to physical education teacher preparation programs." Morgenegg (1977) modified the Bellack "Language of the Classroom" Instrument in his analysis.of physical education teachers in the Videotape Data Bank Project (Barrette and Anderson, 1978). Olson (19 78) is currently modifying the Observation System for Instructional Analysis (OSIA) (Hough and Duncan, 19 76) for use in physical education settings. OSIA has been extensively validated, and it offers great flexibility in the analysis of teacher behavior because the raw data coded in the classroom is then subjected to computer analysis. Descriptive teacher observation instruments have also been developed in the recent past to facilitate research that has had as its purpose the behavioral analysis of teaching. At The Ohio State University, behavior change studies have focused upon pre-service and student teachers (Currens, 1977' Boehm, 1974; McKenzie, 1976; Cotten, 1977; Cramer, 1977; Nelson, 1977). Each of these studies in volved the use of descriptive observation instruments which allowed the researchers to obtain reliable baseline data for subsequent experimental manipulations. While research in the pre-service area has remained a priority in physical education teacher programs, recent attention has also focused upon inservice teacher behavior. The Videotape Data Bank Project (19 78) involved the taping of 84- classes in five New York metropolitan counties. More modest efforts have been undertaken at Ohio State. Stewart (197 7) described presage and process characteristics of 12 inservice teachers in the Central Ohio area. Quarter- man’s (19 78) descriptive effort involved 24 elementary physical education teachers in Missouri. Moore (19 77) employed a descriptive observation system to assess the behavior of inservice teachers in a resident school camp. Given the extensive literature base and the numerous practical applications of descriptive observation in physical education settings, a framework has been developed for this research effort. This follow-up study intended to center on the collection of several sources of data. 1. A description of the teaching behavior of Ohio State physical education graduates. 2. A personal interview in which the graduate would have the opportunity to provide exten sive feedback about his/her pre-service experience and early inservice experience. 3. An attitude/behavior questionnaire con cerning the content of the pre-service program. 4-. Demographics regarding the school climate and other factors associated with the graduates' teaching experience. In addition similar data were also collected from student teachers currently enrolled in the Ohio State physical education teacher preparation program. These data will provide a comparative base for discussion following the presentation of the results in Chapter IV. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this descriptive-analytic study was five-fold. 1. To describe the behavior of physical educa tion teacher who were one- and two-year graduates of The Ohio State University, by observing their teaching in a natural setting. 7 2. To develop and suggest a follow-up model for graduates of physical education teacher preparation programs. 3. To describe the behavior of pre-service (student) teachers currently enrolled at The Ohio State University, by observing their teaching in a natural setting and to compare that behavior with that of the graduates who participated in the follow-up portion of the study. To expand the observational data base of physical education teacher behavior by employing a modification of a previously used observational system (see Stewart, 1977). 5. To’ provide a summative feedback to the teacher preparation program at Ohio State based upon the results of the study. There are four specific questions that this research will attempt to answer through the analysis of data sources employed in the study. 1. What teaching skills emphasized in the teacher preparation program of the graduates are a current part of their behavioral repertoire as observed in the natural setting? 2. What current behaviors do the graduates possess that were not emphasized in their teacher preparation program? 3. What are the major differences in observed teaching behaviors between graduates of the teacher preparation program and those currently student teaching in that program? 4. Are the behaviors and attitudes of the graduates and student teachers (assessed through observation, questionnaire, and in terview data) reflective of the goals and objectives of their teacher preparation program? 8 Limitations of the Study This study was limited by the following factors: 1. The study was limited to the observation of inservice and pre-service teachers from The Ohio State University physical education teacher preparation program during the spring of 19 78 . 2. The inservice teachers were graduates of the program from the period of March, 19 76, to August, 19 77. 3. The study was limited to public and private schools within the state of Ohio. 4. The study was limited to the observation of selected and precisely defined teacher behaviors. 5. The study was limited to observing each inservice teacher for a one-day period, for each pre-service teacher a one-week period. Assumptions of the Study The following were assumed to be true, relevant and fundamental to this study: 1. The teacher behaviors in this study were observable and measurable, and that the observers who recorded those behaviors did so in accordance with the behavioral definitions provided to them. 2. Teacher behaviors observed, within the limitations of the study, were representative of each teacher’s actual day-to-day teaching behavior. 3. The observed behaiors of the inservice and pre service teachers were assumed to be a repre sentative sample of behaviors normally occurring within the limits of the natural settings. 9 Definition of Special Terms Several terms employed throughout this study will have restricted and rather specific meanings. Included within these special terms are the behavioral definitions used in the observation instrument for the study. The reader is directed to Chapter III (pages 52-58) for those definitions. Other terms used frequently in the study are defined below. Inservice Teachers - Refers to teachers who are certified K-12 and are currently teaching physical education in the state of Ohio. Interval Recording - The observational recording of one of several predescribed behaviors, climates or interactions within a specified period of time. Pre-service Teachers - Refers to students currently enrolled (at the time of-this study) in The Ohio State University physical education teacher preparation program. The pre-service subjects in this study will be most commonly referred to as student teachers. Reactivity - Refers to the potentional disturbance of natural behavior patterns due to the inter jection of an observer in the natural setting. Reliability - This refers to the percentage of agreement between trained observers in the recording of observational data in the natural setting. Summary Within this chapter, a rationale was developed for the importance of a follow-up model for physical education teacher preparation. A brief overview of descritpive observation in the field of physical education was presented. The purpose of the study and the specific 10 questions to be addressed in later chapters were enumerated. Limitations, assumptions, and special terms were carefully delineated. The next chapter will review the related literature critical to the implementation of this study. The literature review will focus on these specific topics: 1. Follow-up studies, completed or in progress in the field of teacher education. 2. A brief account of descriptive-analytic research that has been conducted in teacher education (classroom research) and physical education teacher education. 3. Other pertinent literature associated with the study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Follow-up of graduates in teacher education appears to have a preach-but-not-practice history among insti tutions preparing teachers. Peer (19 78) indicated that while greater than 80% of teacher education institutions attribute value to the follow-up process, 42% of National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) accredited institutions do not conduct follow-up evaluations. Overall, Peer found that nearly 50% of all institutions responding in his study have no follow-up evaluations. The need for follow-up has been given added emphasis by NCATE. On January 1, 1979, a new NCATE guide line concerning follow-up goes into effect. The institution keeps abreast of emerging evaluation techniques and engages in systematic efforts to evaluate the quality of its graduates upon completion of their programs of study and after they enter the teaching profession. This evaluation includes evidence of their performance in relation to Drogram objectives. ( NCATE, 1978 ) This statement and the policy outlined by the Ohio State standards alluded to in Chapter I lend consider able urgency to recent and present follow-up investigations. That literature is covered in the first portion of this review. 11 12 Follow-up Studies in Teacher Education Prior to the late 19 60s the notion of evaluating teacher education graduates was not common. The extent to which institutions followed up their graduates was generally limited to mail questionnaires, usually conducted by college placement offices (Ayers, 19 78). With the release of the NCATE 19 70 standards, follow-up designs were mandated for institutions seeking NCATE accreditation or re-accreditation. Standard 5.1 reads: The ultimate criterion for juding a teacher education program is whether it produces competent graduates who enter the profession and perform effectively. An institution committed to the preparation of teachers engages in systematic efforts to evaluate the quality of its graduates... when they complete their programs of study, and after they enter the teaching pro fession. (Sandefur, 19 70, p. 1) Sandefur (19 70) proposed a follow-up model which has had considerable impact in teacher education. The original model consisted of four components: 1. Career Line Data 2. Direct Classroom Observation 3. Pupil, Peer and Administrator/Supervisor Evaluation 4. Standardized Measures The proposed instrumentation for the model included class room observation with one of three systems; The Flanders System of Interaction Analysis, Amidon and Hunter's Verbal Interaction Category System and the Hough System. Sandefur 13 also proposed the use of Ryan's Classroom Observation Record (COR). Other instrumentation suggested in the model were a Student Evaluation of Teaching designed by Veldman and Tuck and the California F-Scale (to measure pupil-gain). Sandefur's original model was based theoretically upon early teacher effectiveness research. Thus follow-up criteria, in his thinking, were to focus on these character istics of "good" teachers: 1. Good teaching utilizes maximal involvement of the student in direct experiential situations. 2. Good teaching encourages maximal 'freedom' for the student. 3. Good teachers tend to exhibit identifiable personal traits broadly characterized by warmth, a democratic attitude, affective awareness, and personal concern for students. (Sandefur, 19 70 , pp. M~8) Three applications of the Sandefur model appear in the literature. Sandefur and Adams (19 76) provided an interim report for the Journal of Teacher Education thematic issue on teacher effects. Forty graduates per year of Western Kentucky University were to be included in each year of the study, 2 0 elementary teachers and 2 0 secondary. (All taught in Kentucky.). Follow-ups of these graduates were to occur during the first, third and fifth years of teaching. In the interim report, data had been collected on 151 teachers. Instrumentation suggested by Sandefur in his original model was employed in the data collection process. 14 Sandefur and Adams designed the following methodology in this study: 1. Obtained a twenty-minute interaction analysis for each of two classroom visits. 2. Completed the Ryans' COR during each visit. 3. Administered a student evaluation of teaching during the second visit. 4. Collected opinion data from one peer and one principal. 5. Administered the California F-Scale. Each graduate and each student teacher involved in the study was observed twice, toward the end of the school year. Data analysis included correlations among variables and analysis of variance. The major correlational findings in the study were these. 1. A significant relationship between desirable teacher behaviors and positive evaluations , by supervisors and peers. \ 2. A positive relationship between teacher ratings and authoritarianism (from the F-Scale). 3. A significant relationship between desirable teacher behavior ratings and the degree of indirect teaching behavior occurring in the classroom. Analysis of variance findings tended to indicate that teachers demonstrating moderate indirect teaching be haviors received higher observer and student ratings than teachers who were more indirect or less indirect in their teaching approach. Sandefur and Adams were limited in their 15 generalizations because of small sample sizes, but this landmark study seemed to indicate that authoritarian teachers are more indirect, and teacher talk in the class room increased as the years of teaching experience in creased. Adams (19 78) updated the above study at a conference on follow-up held at The University of Texas in April, 19 78. Adams indicated that the Western Kentuckyfollow-up effort now included 26 3 teachers and that the number of variables had grown to well over 200. New instrumentation included the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the Teacher Concerns Check list. Data collection methodology has remained the same as in the past study. The data management of the follow- up effort has become more sophisticated and analysis features now included the use of computer packages such as OSIRIS, SPSS, and BMD. Adams found, through the use of the Teacher Concerns t Checklist, that the major problems perceived by first-year teachers in elementary and secondary positions were (1) teaching disrespectful students, (2) discipline, and (3) motivating students. These findings parallel the find ings of Fuller and flown (1975) and Ryan 01970). Adams also noted that there is a large drop off in teacher job retention from the first to the fifth year of teaching. This confirms the data presented by Joyce (1977). 16 Adams cited three major problems associated with the collection of follow-up data: 1. Lack of observers and lack of training time for those observers. 2. Problems; with record keeping 3. Public relations with the participants. Adams also pointed out that institutional response to the follow-up feedback has been less than satisfactory. He speculates that their is little interest in the data analyses and that findings are not translated into programmatic changes in teacher training. Ayers (19 78) has applied the Sandefur model at Tennessee Technological University, The method of data collection included mail surveys, personal interviews and field observation. Interactional analysis, the COR, the Tucker Teacher Feedback Form, the SET and the California F-Scale are all included in the Tennessee Tech model. Career line data included scores on the National Teacher Examination and the graduate's grade point average. Analysis modes included T-test, analysis of variance and correlational analysis. Ayers major findings were: 1. Graduates change little in terms of over all teaching behavior, there are few differences when a graduate is compared to his/her first to fourth year of teaching. 2. The teaching style develops early in the graduate's teaching career. 17 3. The less authoritarian graduates are overall better classroom teachers. (A contradiction to Sandefur and Adams (19 76) and Adams (19 78). 4. Major deficiencies among the graduates are problems with classroom control and effective use of learning resources. Problems associated with the follow-up effort are similar to those cited by Adams (1978). The data system has been inadequate. The dropout rate among the graduates from the study and from teaching has been high. Ayers also indicated that the teacher preparation programs at Tennessee Tech have not made full use of the feedback data. Finally, Ayers stated that the samples of teaching observed in the study may not be representative of what actually took place in the classroom. The state of Oregon has devoted a great deal of atten tion to the follow-up of teacher education graduates. Arends (19 78) has developed follow-up procedures in the area of secondary teacher preparation. The purpose of the University of Oregon follow-up is to "make informed judgments about the program effectiveness and the competencies of the graduates." Subjects of data Collection included graduates at the end of the first year of teaching, their principals, and/or supervisors. Subjects were selected based upon these criteria: (1) currently teaching in Oregon, (2) will ingness to voluntarily participate in an on-site observa tion, and (3) the principal agreed to have the observers at the school. 18 Instrumentation for the study included a post student teaching survey of self perceived teaching competencies, a principal interview, a teacher interview and classroom observation. Unfortunately, the type of '’systematic" observation instrument was not outlined in the source re viewed by this researcher. Arends1 findings are stated in terms of specific recommendations to the program group at The University of Oregon. He did, however, outline several strengths and weaknesses of his follow-up model that are relevant to this review. Arends found that a large amount of follow-up data could be collected with a small cost to the college of education. He also found that using faculty for on-site observations increased the likelihood that feedback in formation would be used, solving a chronic problem cited in Adams (1978) and Ayers (1978). Weaknesses included the great amount of high inference observational data, the lack of measures of graduate teacher effectiveness by measuring student achievement or class climates, and the lack of resources to more closely inspect independent (teacher presage) variables. Arends concluded that there is a need for intensive case studies in future teacher education follow-up models. Schalock (19 78) has conducted numerous follow-up studies of teacher education graduates for the Oregon College of Education (OCE). The original OCE studies were 19 designed to test the effectiveness of on-site versus mail versus telephone follow-up methodologies. In the 19 7 5 pilot study Schalock found that on-site visitations held a clear advantage over telephone and mail efforts, especially in terms of the amount and quality of information that could be collected. Schalock (19 78) stated: It is possible within a single day at a school to (a) observe a graduate teach on at least two separate occasions for a full class period:, (b) carry out inter views with the graduate, the graduate's principal, and students, and colleagues of the graduate with sufficient care that a reasonably detailed and ’cross validated1 check on the competence of the graduate as a first-year teacher can be gained; and (c) obtain the graduate's and the principal’s perception of the strengths and weaknesses of the pre paratory program. (p. 6) The 1976 OCE on-site follow-up included 24 graduates of the elementary education program. Data were collected within three areas, a judgment of interpersonal competence by the principal, a self-assessment by the graduate of his/ her teaching competence, • and a description by the graduate of major pupil outcomes over a two- to three-month period and evidence of that achievement. Schalock found that 19 of 2 2 (two subjects dropped out of the study) were judged by all concerned to be functioning as fully competent first-year teachers. Other findings of the study were elaborated as follows. 1. On*-site data collection was productive and cost effective. 20 2. A sample of thirty "mail-telephone” follow- up subjects produced data of insufficient quality and questionable validity. 3. Graduates in the on-site study couldn't provide pupil outcome (product) data over the two- to three-month period. In 19 76 and 19 77 secondary education follow-up studies were also undertaken at OCE. Schalock observed data collection was more complex because of subject matter differentiation and that costs for implementing the follow- up were underestimated. In 19 76-77 the secondary sample included data on five health and physical education majors. Judgments of competence by the OCE observers, the graduates, and the graduates' principals demonstrate a rather high degree of variability given the 7-point rating scale (see Schalock, Yee, and Steger, 19 77). Other OCE reports on follow-up include Schalock, Yee, and Steger (October, 1977) and Schalock, Steger, and Myer (19 77). Another Oregon study (University of Oregon) by Kehl (19 78) compared graduates of a fifth year resident teacher program with traditional graduates at the end of the first year of teaching. The resident program included planned supervision from university faculty and weekly seminars. The program goals of the resident program were summarized as : 1. The teacher has the ability to plan and prepare for instruction. 2. The teacher has the ability to perform teaching functions. 21 3. The teacher has the ability to obtain and use pupil achievement scores. 4. The teacher has the ability to relate effectively with pupils and peers. 5. The teacher has the ability to fulfill related professional responsibilities. The subjects in the resident program group included 21 elementary teachers; the contrast group (traditional graduates) included 22 elementary teachers. It should be noted that all taught within the state of Oregon. Subjects were selected by a stratified-random sample procedure. The subjects in the two groups did not graduate in the same year, the resident teachers were May, 1977 graduates, the contrast group, May, 1976 graduates. The methods of data collection included rating scales completed by university personnel, the graduates, and the school principals. Raters were asked to assess on a 5-point scale, the perceived competency of the graduates for 21 performance criteria in 5 broad clusters. The results of the study indicated that the resident teachers were rated more competent than the contrast group by all raters. The differences do not appear to be statistically significant, but they are consistent through out the range of competencies assessed by the raters. Personal interview results implied that the resident design of university supervision and practicum experiences ’’make strong contributions to teacher competence both in pre service training and in the resident year.” 22 Earp and Tanner (19 75) studied 112 graduates of North Texas State University (NTSU) in their first year of teaching. The study was conducted within inner-city and middle class (suburban) schools in the Dallas area. The NTSU teacher preparation program included a field-based and a campus-based teacher training program. This study attempted to measure the relationship of teaching success with the training mode (field versus campus), teaching locales, and grade level. Instrumentation used in the study included principal reports, classroom observation, and self-assessment tests. The classroom observation system used in the data collection was the Teacher Appraisal Inventory (TAI). Earp and Tanner concluded from this study that: 1. Teachers trained in the field fared better in first-year teaching than those trained on campus. 2. Successful student teaching in inner-city schools helped first-year teachers. 3. Teachers at the primary grade levels reacted more positively to the first year of teaching than did those teaching in the int erme di at e gra de s. The authors also speculated that the effectiveness of first- year teachers might be measured more appropriately through phenomenological research, as opposed to more traditional pupil product measures. This implies that a great deal of observation would be required to accurately describe the social context of the classroom, in addition to other 23 forms of ethnographic data collection. Adamson, Burke, and Cox (19 78) have developed a follow-up design to evaluate graduates of the Weber State College competency-based teacher education program. The researchers designed a 4-phase evaluation scheme to assess graduate reaction to the campus program once they had obtained teaching positions. The main instrument in the study was a teaching assessment form, a rating scale system completed by the supervisor and a peer. Other components of the proposed study (the researchers have just begun the main data collection phase) include a teacher self-inventory, pupil ratings, and a pre-post pupil effectiveness measure. Preliminary findings indicated that graduates felt the competencies learned in the Weber State program seemed to meet their needs as classroom teachers. These judgments were confirmed by .principals and supervising personnel. The components of the Weber State program rated as most effective for teacher preparation by the graduates included: (1) micro-teaching, (2) field experiences, (3) seminars, and (4) specially prepared monographs on teaching methods. Rated as least effective were the assign ment of repetitive readings and unsupervised peer teaching. Graduates also cited major problems with the program. These included problems with scheduling and logistics, lack of teaching methods learning experiences, and the need for more direct instruction from the Weber State teacher education faculty. 24 The Ohio State University (OSU) has had several follow- up studies conducted in the math/science teacher education area in the early 19 70s. These indluded seven Doctoral dissertations in science education (Sagness, 19 70; Brewington, 19 71; Cignetti, 19 71; Brown, 19 72 ; Swami, 19 75), Two have been conducted in math education (Graening, 19 71; Erb, 19 71). The purposes of these studies were to: 1. Determine the strengths and weak nesses of the science education program based on evaluation of teacher performance. 2. Determine what style(s) of teaching were used by recent graduates. 3. Determine the effects of school settings on graduate success in teaching. 4. Compare pre- and inservice teacher attitudes. CFollow-up studies in science ettuc-ati'onat The Ohio State University, no author, 19 78) The main instrument employed in the OSU science education follow-up studies was the Science Classroom Activities Checklist (SCACL) developed by Sagness (1970). Results from the various follow-up efforts indicated that school administrators were generally positive in their assessments of OSU math/science graduates. The graduates did maintain usage of the inquiry-oriented teaching approach stressed in the pre-service program. The follow-up studies have also produced productive feedback for the program design in general. A prime example has been the retention of broad-based field experiences viewed as extremely 25 valuable by the respondents to the SCACL instrument. Glass and Keith (1975) studied 52 0 graduates of the Iowa State University teacher education program. This study was designed to supply data on career patterns through a questionnaire format. They found that 75% of the respondents at some time taught full-time. The most useful teacher education experiences were ranked by the graduates. The rankings found student teaching rated first, with teaching methods, practicums, and educational psychol ogy also rated quite high. The sample which surveyed ten years back found that 5 3.1% of the respondents to still be teaching. Those who had left the teaching field for other professions and those who had never taught did find the preparation program use ful. The authors concluded: The teacher education graduates found the special abilities and aptitudes - developed in their subject matter majors to be a prime factor of importance in qualifying for non-academic professions. Specific changes recommended in this study included the increase of practical experience and application courses in teacher training and increased communication skills courses in the verbal and written areas. Descriptive-Analytic Research A recent Quest monograph (summer, 19 7 7) contained three articles that clearly propose research in physical 26 education take a great leap "backward," essentially re turning to the first step in what Rosenshine and Furst (19 73) labeled the descriptive-correlational-experimental loop in educational research. Locke (1977) stated the ease most eloquently. He advocated that "research on teaching, whether experiment or survey, shall describe events in meticulous detail and not engage in nominalism." He further stated that a descriptive data base should be established in physical education and that "we must resist the natural temptation to demand that all investigations take the form of power ful process/product studies...." Locke indicated that simple descriptive statistics such as bar graphs become a standard feature in descriptive-analytic research. Locke also bemoans the lack of programmatic research as a major impediment to the development of a cummulative body of knowledge in physical education. In that regard follow- up efforts such as those at Oregon College of Education and the Ohio State science/math studies are to be commended. Cooper’s (19 77) article in the same Quest monograph reinforced Locke’s appeal for more descriptive-analytic research in physical education. Cooper praised such qualitative research methods as participant observation, un structured interview, personal document inspection, and ethnographic techniques. While Cooper's ultimate direction for the future is within the realm of teacher effectiveness 27 research (through examination of process-product relation ships), she still saw the need for the expansion of the physical education data base. Until we develop an information bank of qualitative descriptions of the teaching- learning phenomenon, the statistical probability of testing the correct hypothesis is comparable to finding that needle in the haystack. (Cooper, 19 77) Cheffers (19 77) linked the thoughts of Locke and Cooper with many examples of practical applications of descriptive- analytic research. He traced the development of classroom observation research and differentiated between inductive and deductive observation systems. (A deductive-process system instrument will be employed in this study.) Cheffers attended to the validity and reliability of observational data and cited these measures as Ma continuing problem in education'5 (p. 23). Locke, Cheffers, and Cooper cited approximately 50 research studies that have employed descriptive observation systems in education and physical education. The purpose of this review is not to reiterate what has already been covered in detail, but instead to focus on the most recent studies that will have relevance to this research effort. Descriptive research through the use of behavior ob servation instruments in education had their origins in the late 19 30s and continued to be developed in the 1940s. Anderson (19 39), Lewin (1939), and Withall (1949) developed process type instruments to assess teacher verbal behavior 28 and classroom climate. The movement toward systematic observation was fully demonstrated with the 19 6 7 release of Mirrors for Behavior (Simon and Boyer, 1967), an anthology of over 70 observation instruments. In physical education the descriptive-analytic movement grew in the late 19 60s and early 19 70s. Anderson's (19 71) Quest article laid the groundwork for the dissemination of such research efforts. The most productive research has emerged under the guidance of Daryl Siedentop at Ohio State, John Cheffers at Boston University, and William Anderson at Columbia Teacher's College. Siedentop and his graduate students have focused on the behavioral analysis of teacher preparation, while Anderson and Cheffers have experimented with variations of the Flander's Interaction Analysis System. The most recent descriptive-analytic research in physical education included the massive Video-tape Data Bank study (19 78) directed by Anderson at Columbia Teacher's College. Five descriptive systems were employed in the data analysis. These included the BESTPED system designed by Laubach (1975), Anderson's (1974) descriptive system, Cheffers CAFIAS system, a modification of a descriptive analytic system developed by Fishman (19 73) and Morgenegg's modification of Bellack’s (19 66) Language of the Classroom Instrument. While it is nearly impossible to generalize findings from such a wide variety of instrumentation, Hurwitz (1978) 29 was able to find several common strands from the Data Bank research efforts. He found that: 1. Events in physical education classes occur at a rapid pace. 2. Teacher behaviors change at a faster pace than do student behaviors. 3. Teachers initiate a great majority of the interactions that occur in the gymnasium. 4. Teachers infrequently punish or correct student behavior, 5. Teachers interact with the full class more frequently than with individuals, although feedback is more often directed to individual students. 6. Teachers spent approximately 20% of their time managing the class, and only 36.3% of the time allowed for movement activity. 7. Feedback to motor performances tended to be general as opposed to specific. 8. Overall teacher behavior comparisons between elementary and secondary teachers illustrated very little overall variability. Quarterman (1978) described the behavior of 24 elementary physical educators in the state of Missouri. His purpose was to "analyze and describe elementary physical education teachers’ reactions to skill attempts and Glass behavior of students in their everyday setting" (p. 8). Quarterman’s instrument was a modification of the Tharp and Gallimore (19 75) and Siedentop and Hughley (1975) observa tion systems. Event recording was employed in the observa tion of teacher behaviors. 30 The major conclusions of the Quarterman study were: 1. Low rates of positive reactions by teachers. 2. High rates of management time. 3. Teacher disapprovals (nags, punishment, negative feedback) were greater than approvals. Stewart (19 77) described the behavior of 12 inservice teachers in central Ohio. His instrument, the Observation al Recording Record (ORR) which will be modified for this study, employed interval recording of teaching behaviors. Stewart focused his analysis on the description of process behaviors in the natural setting and the correlational analysis of selected presage-process relationships. Stewart's major findings were: 1. Positive teacher behavior increased with more years of physical education teaching experience. 2. Positive and negative feedback levels were greater at the elementary teaching level. 3. School location (urban versus suburban) correlated significantly with positive specific skill feedback. 4. Teaching level (elementary versus secondary) correlated significantly with positive- specific skill feedback. Good and Grouws (19 77) recently conducted a process- product study in fourth grade mathematics classrooms. The authors sought to identify effective versus ineffective teachers with a variety of observational instruments. Observations included an accounting of mathematic instruc tional time, low inference descriptions of teacher-student 31 interaction patterns, employing the Brophy-Good Dyadic System, high inference descriptions of student behavior and teacher behavior, and checklist data to describe materials and homework tasks. The product instrument was the total mathematics score from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. After a multivariate analysis was conducted, the results indicated that teaching effectiveness (based upon residual gain scores) was positively associated with student initiated behavior, whole class instruction, general clarity of instruction and feedback, a non- evaluative and relaxed learning environment which is task focused, high achievement expectations, and classrooms free from major behavioral disorders. Ethnographic and ecological studies also fit within the framework of descriptive-analytic research. Recently Berliner and Tikunoff (1976) and Doyle (19 77) have re ported results from ethnographic type studies. Berliner and Tikunoff established a recording methodology for class room observation in the California Beginning Teacher Study. Their purpose was to obtain ethnographic protocols of classroom events for subsequent concept development to identify more and less effective teachers. The results yielded well over 60 concept variables, many of which con trasted significantly between more and less effective teachers. Such concepts as "attending" and "monitoring 32 learning" seemed to characterize more effective teachers, while concepts such as "filling time" and’policing" de scribed less effective teachers included in the study. Doyle observed student teachers over a three-year period employing a naturalistic method of data collection. Student teachers were observed for full class periods, on the average once per week. Observations were collected in an anecdotal format for 5 8 subjects. Doyle found that the classroom experience for the student teacher was multi dimensional, events tended to occur simultaneously and that these two variables contributed to an unpredictability in the sequence of classroom events. Doyle found that the student teachers adapt strategies to become more congruent with the simultaneity and un predictability of the classroom. He labeled the adaptive strategies Cl) chunking, (2) differentiation, (3) overlap, (4) timing, and (5) rapid judgment. Doyle concluded that the ecological approach may provide a rich source of data for both pre-service and inservice teacher training. Other Pertinent Literature Qualitative data collection has become increasingly important in the descriptive analysis of teaching behavior. Several of the follow-up studies reviewed in the first portion of this chapter relied upon personal interview data as a source for program feedback (Ayers, 1978; Arends, 19 78; Schalock, 1978). 33 Other studies concerning teachers and teacher be haviors have relied upon personal interviews as a main data source. Lortie (19 75) designed an 8 8 item personal inter view schedule for his sociological study of school teachers. The purpose of the interview was to systematically analyze the work habits, opinions, and characteristics of 94 school teachers in the Boston metropolitan area. A random selection procedure was employed by Lortie to obtain the interviewees. All interviews were conducted in 19 63, usually at the respondent's home. Interviews were tape recorded for later analysis. The subjects were not aware of the content of the questions prior to the interview. LortLe indicated that several interviewers, aside from himself, aided in the data collection. The method of analysis was largely limited to the identification of "themes" or'"trends" due to the geographic specificity of the sample. Some of LortieTs major findings from the analysis of interview data were: 1. Teachers are very "present-tense" oriented, they do not view a teaching career in terms of stages. 2. Women teachers view teaching as a terminal goal, men reject teaching as an ultimate goal. 3. Teachers are likely to resist ideas that foster change. 4. Teachers, when viewed together, represent an occupational subculture which is characterized by conservatism, individualism, and presentism, 34 Kevin Ryan's (19 70) Don't Smile Until Christinas presents another approach to the qualitative analysis of teaching. Six first-year teachers provide written accounts of their initial teaching experiences. In summarizing these six accounts of day-to-day teaching, Ryan concluded that neophyte teachers are confronted with the "shock of the familiar." Ryan explained that a new teacher's shock derives from becoming an "actor" in a setting the teacher had previously spent some 16,000 hours as a member of the "audience." Ryan also mentioned two other factors which add to the complexity of the first-year teaching experience, discipline and conflicts. Discipline problems for the six teachers in these accounts centered on the ability to simply bring classes under control in order to teach. Con flicts stemmed from several sources: conflicts with students, conflicts with the community, conflicts in values. The importance of these six first-year teaching accounts are they allow researchers to identify commonalities from varied settings and experiences. Locke (1975) analyzed the social role of the physical education teacher through direct observation .in various gymnasia. He suggested that more direct observation is needed to find out what really goes on in physical educa tion classes. Locke argued that the "complexity1' of the gym is due to a number of contributing factors: class 35 size, highly variable learning rates, noise, and constraints of time. Locke viewed physical education teachers as "psychologically isolated" from other school teachers who spend little time with other adults. Locke summarized that the social role maladies of physical education teachers are in part due to the ecology of the setting. "Only in prisons, hospitals and mental institutions are so many people found continuously confined in so small a space" (p. 1]). Cusick (19 73) has conducted perhaps the most extensive qualitative study of school and teaching environments. En- rolled.asa student, Cusick observed in a high school setting. Cusick followed various "cliques" during his six-month stay at "Cowpens" High School. His main focus was upon students, but he made several generalizations about the behavior of the teachers during his stay. He found them to be extremely concerned with classroom control, committed to the notion of maintaining social distance between themselves and students,and teachers generally identified and formed judgments about students based upon social sub groupings or cliques. Massengale (19 75) has analyzed the occupational role conflict between teaching physical education and coaching. Massengale found a great deal of conflict existed between school organization expectations and personal-professional expectations. Many school administrators viewed the main role of the physical educator as coaching and winning as 36 opposed to teaching. Further sources of conflict stem from other school faculty. Those who oppose the coaching role will alienate, polarize, or exclude the teacher/coach from the hierarchy of the faculty. This occupational conflict will be examined in this present study, by directing personal interview questions about teacher/coach roles to the subjects. S ummary This chapter has examined literature relevant to the parameters of the study. The first portion of the review focused upon the follow-up efforts conducted in teacher education. The methodology and results of each study were presented. The second part of the review outlined a rationale for the emphasis of descriptive-analytic research in follow-up studies. The thoughts of Locke, Cheffers, and Cooper added considerable credence to that rationale, A short history of descriptive observation was presented, and the most recent descriptive-analytic efforts in physical educa tion and classroom teaching were reviewed. The final portion of the literature review focused upon qualitative sources of data. Methods reviewed in cluded personal interviews, personal written accounts, ethnographic accounts, and participant observation. 37 The literature reviewed in this chapter has produced a framework for the methodology of follow-up to be dis cussed in the next chapter. The literature review has in fluenced these methodological considerations for this study. 1. Follow-up data should be obtained from a variety of sources including the graduate, peers, and administrative personnel. 2. The collection of "teacher effectiveness" data is a difficult undertaking and should be avoided if precise instrumentation and controled conditions are not available. 3. Follow-up observations of graduates should be conducted on-site and should include a description of teacher process behaviors. 4. Observations can be completed in a single da y . 5. Qualitative data, such as personal inter views , are an important source of feedback from graduates and should be included in follow-up efforts. 6. The inclusion of student teachers in follow- up efforts provides a critical data base for future studies by providing teacher behavior process measures closest to the termination of the pre-service experience. 7. Feedback data to teacher education faculties should be presented in an uncomplicated manner, avoiding "educational" jargon. The following chapters will describe the methods employed in the study and present the results from observing in- service and pre-service teachers in natural teaching settings. CHAPTER III SOURCES OF DATA, PROCEDURES AND METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS The first section of this chapter will describe how the subjects for the study were selected and the settings in which the subjects were observed. In the second part of the chapter a description of the observation instrument and the training of observers to use that instrument is covered. A short discussion on the establishment of interobserver reliability is also covered in this section. The next section attends to the other instrumentation employed in the study. The final portion of Chapter III will describe the methods of data analysis to be used in Chapter IV. Subjects and Settings The total number of subjects for this study was thirty (N=30). This included fourteen graduates of The Ohio State University who were currently employed as teachers of physical education within the state of Ohio. Sixteen sub jects were pre-service teachers from The Ohio State University, who were student teaching in public schools in the greater Columbus, Ohio metropolitan area. Once contacted 38 39 all subjects participated on a voluntary basis, and each subject signed a human subjects consent form (see Appendix C). The selection of the follow-up subjects (inservice teachers) was a time consuming undertaking. Each subject had to meet several criteria: 1. To have graduated from Ohio State between March, 19 76 to August, 19 77. 2. To be teaching in an elementary and/or secondary school on at least a one-half time contract. 3. To be teaching in their certified area, physical education. 4. To be teaching within the state of Ohio. The procedure for obtaining the follow-up subjects was as follows: 1. The Education Placement Office at The Ohio State University provided the researcher with a list of those students who met the graduation criteria. This list had been constantly updated and was assumed to contain accurate employment data. 2. All those graduates who met criteria 2-4 above were selected as potential subjects for the study. 3. Subjects were contacted by telephone in the early spring of 19 78. They were informed as to the purpose and scope of the study and asked if they desired to participate. Those who agreed were asked to obtain final approval through their building principals. 4. Once administrative clearance was obtained, the researcher established a date on which the observation would be made and other pertinent data would be collected. The lists provided by the Placement Office indicated 18 2 students graduated from the physical education teacher preparation program between March, 19 76 and August, 19 77. Of tha-t total, 7 3 were men, 10 9 women. From the entire group, 19 were able to meet the criteria for selection as potential subjects for the study. Each of the 19 were con tacted and 16 agreed to serve as subjects for the study. One individual could not be contacted, two persons were no longer employed as teachers. After the field observations began, two subjects withdrew from the study, so the number of follow-up subjects was established at 14 in this portion of the study. Table 1 summarizes background data for each of the inservice teachers. The student teachers who participated in the study were selected based upon who their university supervisor was for the Spring Quarter of 1978. Four supervisors were selected to assist in the study. Each supervisor selected at random from all their assigned student teachers, four student teachers as potential subjects. All 16 student teachers a- greed to participate in the study. The only criteria es tablished for participation were that they be observed in three separate classes, fill out various questionnaire in struments which will be described later in this chapter, and participate in a personal interview. All subjects agreed, however, one subject would not allow the interview to be conducted. Table 2 summarizes background data on each of the 16 student teachers chosen for the study. 41 TABLZ 1 SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA INSERVICE TEACHERS Study Sex/ Years Obs Activity(ies) Grade Class Tyoe or ID Number Age Out Taught Sice Class 17 ? / 2 i* I 1 High Jump/Long 1 20 C Jumo 2 •1 * ft 3' 2U V* S uburban 3 Racauetball 6 25 c l 3 .4 /2 2 I T. Whirrlabail 2d u 2 If If i* 22 c Rural 3 II If u 19 c D M /2 3 1 1 Dodgebail 3 13 3 2 Calesthetics 7-3 13 3 3 Football Drills, Flag Urban Football 2d M /2 1* 1 i_ Teeball 3 25 C 2 Movement L 20 C (Spatial Awareness) 3 Movement • 2 Taaball : * J r Rural 2 ri •• : - - J / 2 3 T •S ^ A rc r » ^ r * ' 2 »f *f 7 * 0 n *EMR Class 3 Floor 7 35 c Suburban Hockey I»» M C * 22 -v. 2 i Aiekball 3 I 1* A 2 If It 7 25 G Suburban 3 Line Soccer 3 20 r* f d c /2 .3 j. i 3adminton 3 -1 0 _'5 ’w 2 It It 10 2 u. C If If Rural 3 9 ">•> u 2 1* • c / H l I ...... SoftSali j 25 2 it it 3 22 c 3 Indoor Game/ 9 35 c Blind Aware Rural ness A 25 c/21* 2 '1 ' Tennis/Teeball 3 2 !* Skills/Lew Games/Throwing Skills 2 Movement/Ball 1 19 r Skills *3 Striking Skills i+ 7 C 3all Throwing ♦Remedial Class Skills/Soatial Suburban Awareness 42 Study Sex/ Years Obs ActivityC ies) Grade Class Tyoe of ID dumber Age Out Taught Size Class 25 r/22 1 1 Crack 5 "Laid/ 3 23 r Relays 2 ii > t 3 20 C 3 it i t 5 23 c u i i i i 5 25 c Suburban 3 i i •! 5 27 c A 11 M/1 3 c, L Sortball 3 23 c *2 Running Skills 1-3 13 n *EMR Class Teeball Rural 3 Teeball l 25 r 23 : /IS — TJ--- Tennis 7 17 u S ub urban 2 f t I I 3 23 r Is 7/2u 2 1 Whifflebaii 5-3 22 C 2 Movement/Low ’ -7 17 C Gaines 3 ub urban 3 U •» I"• L ^ IS c 30 1/21 Voilevball * 30 '3 Suburban 2 i i >i 10 US V31+ Cade Obs = Observation Session !fur.bar 3 = 3oys 3 = Girls C = Coed 43 TABLE 2 SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA STUDENT TEACHERS Sex Age Obs. Activity . Grade Class Size 3/G/ L F 21 1 Manio. Skills 2 29 C 2 tt r» 1 25 C 3 Tennis 10 39 C 2 M 23 1 Obstacle Course 3 33 C 2 rt if 1+ 33 C 3 Field Dav 5 37 C 3 F 22 1 Mania, skills 1 C 2 Tennis 10 36 c 3 • Mania. Skills 26 c 4 t 23 1 Obstacle Course 3 3 7 c • ■7 If it 4 34 c 3 Softball 3 3U G 5 r 23 1 Volleyball au r 2 Track 5 Field 7 22 C Volleyball 3 Kickball 7 20 G 0 M ' ii 1 Volleyball 3 47 c 2 Track 5 Field i 24 C 3 If If 3 25 C Floor Hockev 7 F '22 1 Volleyball 7 45 c 2 Relays 5 20 c 3 Kickball 3 24 c 3 F 22 i Voiievball 3 2i t *2 Track S Field 3 11 c *EMR Class *3 Kickball 3-u 10 c * ^ r * 9 M 27 i. Coir 3-9 2 *1 If 3-9 22 c 3 Soccer 5 24 c (.A 10 F 22 J. Tracic i r i a l c ,J 23 ** 2 Swimming 10-11 10 w 3 If IV 10-12 12 r li M i i 1 throwing/Games 2 20 C 2 Softball 10-12 15 3 3 Fitness Testing 5 19 3 12 F i3 1 tasketball Skills t 29 t 2 n n 2 30 C 3 Movement 1 26 C 13 M 2i 1 track 5 Field 4 30 C 2 Manip. Skills 2 25 c 3 Track 5 Field 3 40 c Volleyball 14' r 51 1 Softball 1 2o G 2 Track 5 Field 5 41 G 3 Fitness Testing 3 29 O 15 M 23 Kickball 3 3& 3 2 Track I Field 3 36 a 3 Throwing Skills 3 29 c Kickball 15 F 2i i Track a Field 3 '"30 u 2 If It 4 19 C 3 »f It 0<* 33 c In the follow-up portion of this study, the subjects were observed for one school day. Table 3 summarizes the location of the school (urban, suburban or rural), the level of the school (elementary (K-6), junior high school (7-8) or senior high school (9-12). Also included in Table 3 are the settings for the classes observed for each subject (indoors or outdoors). TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF SETTINGS - FOLLOW-UP SUBJECTS (number of classes Subject Level Location Class Setting in parentheses) 17 Elem Suburban Racquetball Club (1) Indoor Multi-Purpose (2) 18 Elem Rural Indoor Gymnasium (3) 19 JHS Urban Indoor Gymnasium (1) Outdoor Grass Field (2) 20 Elem Rural Indoor Gymnasium (5) 21 JHS Suburban Indoor Gymnasium (3) 22 JHS Suburban Outdoor Grass Field (2) Indoor Multi-Purpose (1) 23 SHS Rural Indoor Gymnasium (3) 24 SHS Rural Outdoor Grass Field (1) Indoor Gymnasium (1) 25 Elem Suburban Indoor Multi-Purpose (3) 26 Elem Suburban Outdoor Cement Playground (5) 27 Elem Rural Outdoor Grass Field (3) 28 SHS Suburban Outdoor Tennis Courts (2) 29 Elem Suburban Indoor Gymnasium (3) 30 SHS Suburban Indoor Gymnasium (2) Each subject seemed to have adequate facilities and equipment for the activities observed in the study. Several of the subjects did point out that outdoor activities had been planned, but that inclement weather forced them to be indoors. Generally speaking, the activities selected by the 45 teachers were appropriate for the level of the students. In terms of safety all indoor and outdoor facilities were kept clean and free of debris. One teacher did allow the • students to play a brief game of tackle football without equipment, a questionable activity for a physical education class. A full day of observation and other data collection was planned for each follow-up subject in the study. Direct observational data were collected until at least 50 0 intervals could be obtained from the teacher. That number of intervals represents nearly one and on-half hours of observation. A typical day in the field for a follow-up subject is outlined below. 8:15-9:00 Arrive at school, contact building principal 8:30-9:00 Develop observation schedule with subject, distribute questionnaire instruments 9:0 0-9:30 Observe Session Number One 9:30-10:00 Observe Session Number Two 10:00-10:30 Break, collect questionnaires from supervisor and peer 10:30-11:15 Observe Session Number Three 11:15-12:00 Lunch 12:00-1:00 Conduct personal interview with subject The 16 student teachers all taught within the greater metropolitan Columbus area. Attempts were made to observe them at the elementary and secondary levels. Table 4 summarizes the settings for each of the student teachers. The number in parentheses following each level indicates the number of classes observed for the subject at that level. TABLE t SUMMARY OF SETTINGS - STUDENT TEACHERS S'uB ject Level Location Class Setting 1 Elen (2) Suburban Indoor Gymnasium C 3) SHS (1) 2 Elem (3) Suburban Outdoor Grass Field (3) 3 Elem (2) S uburban Indoor Gymnasium (3) SHS (1) it Elem (2) Suburban Outdoor Grass Field (3) JHS (3) 5 JHS (3) Urban Outdoor Grass Field Cl) Indoor Gymnasium (2) S Elem (2) Urban Multi-Purpose C 2) JHS Cl) Outdoor Track Cl) 7 Elem (2) Urban Indoor Multi-Purpose Cl) Indoor Gymnasium* Cl) Outdoor Track Cl) 8 Elem (1) Urban Outdoor Track Cl) Outdoor Grass Field Cl) Indoor Gymnasium Cl) 9 JHS (2) Urban Outdoor Grass Field C 3) Elem (1) 10 Elem Cl) Suburban Indoor Multi-Purpose Cl) SHS (2) C2) Elem (2) Suburban Indoor Multi-Purpose Cl) SHS Cl) Outdoor Grass Field C2) 12 Elem ( 3) Suburban Indoor Gymnasium C 3) 13 Elem C 2) Suburban Indoor Multi-Purpose C2 )• JHS Cl) Outdoor Grass Field Cl) lu Elem Cl) Suburban Outdoor Grass Field C2) JHS C 2) Indoor Multi-Purpose Cl) 15 Elem C 2) Suburban Outdoor Grass Field C 3) JHS Cl) 16 Elem C 3) Suburban Indoor Multi-Purpose C 2) Outdoor Track Cl) 47 As with the follow-up subjects, some classes originally planned for the outdoors were forced to be held indoors because of poor weather conditions. The activities conducted were appropriate to the grade level of the students in all cases. While some student teachers were required to teacher certain activities by their cooperating (master) teachers, each student teacher was allowed to select the manner and setting for the execution of instruction. The observation instrument employed in this study was entitled Teacher Observation System (TOS). The instrument is a modification of a similar observation system designed by Stewart (1977). Its general format is similar to an outdoor education observation instrument designed by Moore (19 77) and modified by McHattie (1978). The same format has also been employed in the observation of coaching behavior (Siedentop and Crossman, 19 78). The TOS focuses specifically on the observed behavior of physical education teachers. Interval recording is employed in the TOS, with the recording of the classroom climate, the behavior of the teacher, and the type of inter action the teacher had with the class coded each ten seconds. Each interval was of five second duration, five seconds to observe, then five seconds to record the pre- ceeding observation. The observers were provided with a pre programmed cassette audio tape recording to cue them to the proper interval for coding purposes. Figure 1, modified from Stewart (1977), illustrates this sequence. Behavior, Climate, Behavior, Climate, Behavior, Climate, Behavior, Climate, Interaction Interaction Interaction Interaction "OBSERVE” "RECORD 1«... "OBSERVE" "RECORD 10 0" Figure 1 Cassette Tape Recorder Program Format for Observation with TOS 49 A critical component of any interval recording system is the precise definition of the constructs of that instru ment. In this study each climate, behavior, and interaction was defined for the observers. The definitions were derived from a variety of observation instruments used in previous physical education teacher behavior studies and coaching studies (Anderson, 19 78; Siedentop and Hughley, 19 75; Tharp and Gallimore, 19 75; Stewart, 19 77). Stewart's definitions were most important because the TOS is essentially a modification of his instrument, The Observa tion Recording Record. One intent of this study was to streamline the Stewart instrument. Certain teacher behaviors were eliminated because an inspection of the Stewart data revealed negli gible or no observations of that particular behavior over the 11,00 0 intervals coded in his study. The behaviors eliminated were "physical contact," "Positive and negative student modeling," and "nasties." Two behaviors were added, "spotting" and "skill feedback/corrective track.” These are defined on pages 52-58. Additionally, the Stewart behavior "lecturing" was subdivided in the TOS into the behaviors "lecturing" and "giving directions." The teacher behavior "management" in the Stewart instrument was renamed "maintenance" in the TOS. Within the climate category, the "waiting" climate in the Stewart instrument was merged with "Management" in the TOS. 50 As stated before, the TOS allowed an observer to record in three categories; classroom climate, teacher behavior, and interaction. Listed on the following pages are the definitions for the climates, behaviors, and interactions observed in the natural setting during the course of this study. Definition of Classroom Climates Management. This refers to the period of time in class when, theoretically, the opportunity to learn is NOT present. During this time 51 percent or more of the students are involved in activities that are only indirectly related to the class learning activity or activities. In order to code in this category, 51 percent or more of the students must NOT be engaged in instruction, concurrent instruction, practice, or demonstration. Examples -students involved in changing activities or stations -students numbering off for an activity -teacher is calling roll -students are waiting for class to begin -students are waiting for instruction to begin or resume after a fire drill, public address announcement etc. -students are getting out or putting away equipment 51 Instruction. This refers to the period of time when the class is given the opportunity to learn without actual practice or activity. During this time students may receive information related to the objectives of the lesson either verbally or nonverbally (51% criterion applies). Examples -listening to a lecture -watching the teacher demonstrate a skill -watching a film or using other forms of media for explanation and/or demonstration purposes -participating in a class discussion or answering teacher questions related to the objectives of the lesson Activity. This refers to the period of time in class when the students are engaged in active movement or physical activity performances that are consistent with the objectives of the class (51% criterion applies). Examples -students are performing drills -students are performing calisthenics or exercises -students are participating in group or individual sports or games -students are waiting in line for a turn while activity continues Concurrent Instruction. This refers to the period of time during ACTIVITY that the teacher provides further in struction related to the activity or task. Concurrent instruction may occur on an individual or group basis. 52 Examples -the teacher re-explains a skill technique while the student is engaged in the activity -the teacher models a skill for the student(s) while they are attempting that skill or movement Definition of Teacher Behaviors Lecturing (LO). Refers to the times that the teacher gives facts or opinions about content or procedures. It is a time when the teacher could be expressing his ideas or the ideas of someone else. The teacher may lecture to one or many students. This behavior may occur in all climates. Giving Directions (G). Refers to the times the teacher directs a student or group of students to perform a task. The direction may be veral or nonverbal. If a teacher gives a verbal and nonverbal direction (e.g., go to the stairs and points at the same time), the verbal direction takes priority in coding. This behavior may occur in all climates. Listening (L). Refers to the times that a teacher listens to a student's question or response. The teacher may be listening to one student or a group or students. The teacher must be silent for the full interval. This behavior may occur in all climates. Asking Questions (AQ). Refers to the times that a teacher asks questions about content or procedures with the intent of obtaining a response. Rhetorical questions should 53 not be coded in this category. Questions may be individual or group oriented. This behavior may occur in all climates. Answering Questions (Q). Refers to the times that a teacher answers a student or group of students' questions. This behavior may occur in all climates. Nonfunctional (NF). Refers to the times that the teacher is engaged in behavior unrelated to the content or pro cedures of the class. Talking to a visitor or an observer are prime examples. This behavior may be recorded in all climates. Monitoring (M). Refers to the times that a teacher observes the class without reacting verbally to the behaviors of individuals in the class. The teacher must have eye contact with the class or individual(s) in the class to code in this category. Watching the class play a game is an example. This behavior may occur in all climates. Maintenance (MT). Refers to the times in which the teacher is engaged in activities that are indirectly related to the class objectives. These include such behaviors as calling roll, writing a hall pass, putting away or handing out equipment, grading papers, or administering first aid. This behavior may occur in all climates. Spotting (SP). Refers to the times that the teacher is assisting a student in the performance of a motor task with the intent of providing safe conditions for that student. If the teacher engages in verbal behavior while 54 spotting, the verbal behavior should receive priority for coding purposes. THIS BEHAVIOR MAY NOT OCCUR IN THE MANAGE MENT CLIMATE. H ustles (H). Re fers to the times that the teacher uses verbal statements or gestures to activate or intensify the motor performance of the student(s). Examples include such statements as RUN, RUN, RUN’., MOVE!, and GO, GO, GO! Encouraging clapping of the hands would also be considered a hustle. The tone o f the voice and general level of enthusiasm are extremely important in this category. Don't mistake these statements and gestures as negative or correc- tive skill feedback statements. THIS BEHAVIOR MAY NOT OCCUR IN THE MANAGEMENT CLIMATE. Teacher Modeling (TM+/-). Re fers to the times that the teacher demonstrates a skill behavior for one or many students. The teacher may model the skill correctly (positive) or incorrectly (negative). If verbal instruction accompanies a modeling behavior,' prioritize the modeling for coding purposes. This behavior may occur in all climates. Showing a student how to sit quietly would be considered a modeling behavior. Behavior Praise General (PG). Refers to the times the teacher provides positive or supportive statements or gestures to a behavior episode unrelated to motor skill performances. The statement must be limited to such utter ances as GOOD.', Okay.', or a pat on the back. This behavior 55 may occur in all climates. Behavior Praise Specific (PS). Same as behavior praise general except the statement contains information about the student performance in more exact terms. Examples include, "Tremendous class, you lined up beautifully" or "I like the way you are sitting still without talking, Judy." This behavior may occur in all climates. Nags (N). Refers to the times the teacher verbally or nonverbally scolds a student or group or students for un desirable behavior in a low intensity manner. Nags also include pleas to the class that they return to on-task behavior that go unheeded by the students. Examples of nags are: "I told you to get on line," "listen up, listen up," "quit it," "Didn't I say stop chattering" etc. Punishment (P). Refers to specific penalties imposed by the teacher to a student or group of students who exhibit disruptive or deviant behaviors. Examples include assigning a student to "time-out," sending a student to the office, paddling a student, having a student apologize to another student or the teacher. This behavior may occur in all climates. Teacher Participation (TP). Refers to the period of time that the teacher actively participates in a game or sport with the students. Any verbal behavior on the part of the teacher would take priority over this behavior. This behavior may occur in the ACTIVITY climate only. 56 Officiating CO). Refers to the times in which the teacher is actively refereeing a sport or game. Verbal behavior which entails rules, regulations or judgments about the sport or game should be coded officiating. This behavior may occur only in the ACTIVITY climate. Corrective Skill Feedback (CF)♦ Refers to the time in which the teacher provides verbal information about how a student may improve or adjust a motor skill performance during that performance or during a subsequent attempt. Examples are: "Keep your toes pointed," "Arch your back," "Next time bend your wrist a bit more." This behavior may occur during INSTRUCTION and ACTIVITY climates. General Skill Feedback (G+/-). (+)Refers to the times the teacher praises a student skill performance without referring to specifics of the performance. The information may be verbal or nonverbal, and it may be directed toward an individual, group, or the entire class. (-)Refers to a statement made by the teacher which is negative. These behaviors may occur in both INSTRUCTION and ACTIVITY climates. Examples (+) GREAT! GOOD! TERRIFIC! A wink. Thumbs up. (-) TERRIBLE! BAD JOB! Nodding the head no. Specific Skill Feedback (S+/-Q. Same as the previous category except that the praise or negative statement is supplemented with information directly related to the 57 performance of the motor skill. These behaviors may occur in both INSTRUCTION and ACTIVITY climates. Examples (+) Fine job, you followed through that time. (-) Bad shot, you miss hit the ball that time. Skill Feedback/Corrective Track (S/C). Refers to the times that the teacher provides general skill feedback (may be + or -) and immediately follows it with corrective state ments. Remember it is the linking together of the two statements in an immediate manner that allows us to code in this category. Examples Good, but next time bend your arm more.. Bad job, next time follow through on the ball. This behavior may not occur in the MANAGEMENT climate. Definition of Classroom Interactions Individual (I). Refers to the times that the teacher is verbally or nonverbally communicating, responding, or addressing a single class member. Group (G). Same as above except the teacher is inter acting with more than one student but not with the entire class. Class (C). Refers to the times the teacher addresses the entire class such as a lecture or monitoring a sport or game in which the entire class participates. 58 Male (M). Refers to the times the teacher interacts with a male or group of males. Female (F). Refers to the times the teacher interacts with a female or group of females. NOTE - If you are coding a coed class and a teacher interaction is with a coed group, simply code the letter "B." Figure 2 represents the instrument that was used by the observers to code the subjects. Each vertical series of three boxes labeled "C,M "B," and "I" corresponds to one interval, five seconds for observation, five seconds to record. The climates, behaviors and interactions are listed at the bottom and correspond to the definitions listed on the preceeding pages. Each TOS page was capable of handling 10 0 intervals or 16 minutes and 40 seconds of class time. Pre-programmed rests were not included. If an observer wanted to rest, he/she would allow the cassette tape to run and simply not code the intervals during that rest period. Five-second observation intervals are typical of many other interval systems found in teacher behavior and human behavior research. Intervals should usually last no longer than 30 seconds (Cooper, 1974), and considerable evidence demonstrates that short intervals are preferable when there are many behavior categories (Williams and Anadam, 197 3; Bijou, Peterson, and Ault, 19 73). In this study, each interval was limited to the coding of one climate, one behavior and one interaction. When this 59 NUMBER OF STUDENTS PAGE ______TEACHER OBSERVATION SYSTEM Observer Teacher School Claee Activity______Grade Start______Finish______Date______Rel. Y or N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 75 c B I >6 27 29 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 3^ 37 38 39 AO 41 42 43 44 45 ~46 4^ 43 49 50 C B I 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 61 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 1! 11 71 74 C B I 76 77 78 79 8Q 81 ,-82 83 _ 84 85 86 i. 1 08 il9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 91 100 C I B TTTT I CLIMATES BEHAVIORS BEHAVIORS (con't) INTERACTION Management M Lecturing U> Teacher Model TM (+/-) Individual Instruction I Giving Directions 0 Ech. Praise Gen. PG Group o h Activity A Listening L Beh. Praise Spe. PS Class Ask Question AQ iJttgi N Concurrent Answer Quest. Q Pun i stuoent P Male x x a a Instruction C Nonfunctional NF Teach. Participate TP Female • Monitoring M Officiating 0 Maintenance MT Skill Feedback CF Spotting SP Teacher Obc i ■n System .(TOS) is the case, priority coding must be established (Johnson and Bolstad, lSTU). Generally, the climate and interaction categories remain consistent throughout the interval. If there were a change, for the purposes of this study, observers were instructed to code the climate and interaction which occurred at the beginning of the interval. For the teacher behaviors priority coding was established. The priorities were as follows: 1. Teacher Modeling 2. Skill Feedbacks and Hustles 3. Behavior Feedbacks a. Punishment - Nags b. Behavior Praise 4-. Teacher Talk and Listening a. Lecturing b. Giving Directions c. Listening d. Asking Questions e. Answering Questions 5. Teacher Oriented Activities a. Monitoring b. Maintenance c. Non-functional d. Officiating e. Spotting f. Teacher Participation If two behaviors of the same priority level occured in the same interval, the observer was instructed to determine which behavior had the longer duration. 61 Description and Training of Observers Six individuals collected data for this study. Of the six, five were involved in the collection of the observation data employing the TOS. This researcher collected all observational data for the 1*+ follow-up subjects. Four graduate students of The Ohio State University, School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, collected the observational data for the 16 student teachers. Three of these observers were the university supervisors for the subjects they observed, while one observer was acting only as a coder. Three of the observers were male; two, female, All observers were enrolled in the Doctoral program in physical education at Ohio State. Four of the observers had had previous experience in observational recording, for one observer this was an initial experience. Training procedures commenced one month prior to the collection of field data. This sequence of events was followed during the training of the observers: 1. Each observer was provided with a manual explaining the TOS instrumentation including the definitions of all categories and behaviors. The observers were given one week to read the manual and familiarize them selves with its contents. 2. A training session was held in the Physical Education Teaching Learning Center (TLC) at Ohio State. During this session after each observer felt comfortable coding with TOS and had 62 adjusted to the interval sequence, each observer coded new tapes and reliability was compared to a criterion code sheet (coded by this researcher). 3. When an observer was able to obtain reliability agreements of .85 for climate and interactions .80 for teacher behaviors, he/she was permitted to begin coding his/ her subjects. These criterion levels are similar to those employed by Stewart (1977) and exceed the criterion suggested by Johnson and Bolstad (1974). Following the training, observers were asked to observe each subject (student teacher) on at least three different occasions. In any event each observer was to obtain a minimum of 500 intervals for each student teacher subject in the study. The 500 interval level was established to parallel the approximate.amount of data to be collected for each follow-up subject. During the course of the study, this researcher ob tained a reliability check with each of the other four observers. Due to time, travel, and scheduling limitations it was not possible to pair observers with each other, nor have one of the observers code with this researcher in the follow-up portion of the study. The procedure for obtaining inter-rater reliability was as follows: 1. A split jack was connected to the cassette deck so both observers would be cued to the same interval. 2. A full class session of at least 200 intervals was coded by both observers. 63 3. Reliability estimates were obtained by comparing codes for each observer interval by interval (see Dotson and Hawkins, 1975; Siedentop, 19 75). 4. Percent of agreement was obtained by using the following formula: number of intervals in agreement x 100 number of interval agreements + number of interval disagreements The results of the reliability checks in training and in field observations are reported in the next chapter. Other Instrumentation Employed in the Study In addition to observational data collected with the TOS, data were obtained through the use of questionnaires and personal interviews. For the follow-up subjects, data concerning their attitude and behavior toward certain physical education teaching skills was obtained through the instrument depicted in Figure 3. The same set of questions were posed to the subject's building supervisor (usually a principal) and one peer (another teacher in the school). The instrument shown in Figure 3 was developed by this researcher to assess the subjects' attitudes and behavior toward skills emphasized during their teacher preparation program. The content of the questions was derived from course syllabi and from teacher education faculty familiar with the program during the time the follow-up subjects were in the teacher preparation program. 1* I manage ehe claia la such a meaner du e she majority o f elm* U spent la Inscnicrfonal and/or activity situations,______2* 1 explain and/or demonstrate physical performance skill* using a minimum of performance points, (Centrally no greater dun three). 3* I provide positive feedback to student performance of Instructional activities, 4. I employ teaching styles appropriate to the learning activity. 5, I am able g o model correct sldll performance in a variety of sports, game,.and movement activities, 6, I am able to design a comprehensive unit plan for all physical education activities; 7. I can plan and execute Individualized programs for mentally retarded and/ or physically handicapped students. 3* I inform students of ehe objectives of my lessons, 9. I address pupils by their Sm or familiar names, 10, I mexplatn and/or redemoostnte skills to students who have obvious performance difficulties. 11, 1 avoid the use of physical and/or verbal abuse In deaifag with student behavior problems* 12, ! aak concent questions of else students that require more chan a yes or no response, 13, I am able a analyze errors In movement performance* of my students. 14, I attempt to maximise the amount of rime rntdeao are engaged la acrive movement. 15, I utilise physical education equipment chat allows scudemo to attain lesson objectives, ...... 10, 1 provide positive feedback for appropriate student social behavior. t7, I generally avoid ehe use of negative feedback to smdeat performance of Instructional activities. ~ 13, I have a effective speaking voice (Including adequate diction, loud projection, etc) 19. I employ a variety of media oo facilitate lesson objectives, («,{., task cards, dim poops, posters, photographs, arirreir, videotape, audiotape, record players), 20, 1 demonstrate consistency In dealing with inappropriate student behavior. Figure 3 Attitude/3ehavior Questionnaire OSU Colley* ot Education • Graduate & Faculty Follow Up Proj. i t t' ,tt'2 2 fIIII • Srii:* | * f I ft t ft 3 ft ft •9 ? 9 ft a - e 1-9 e i ; ft :• : e ft• » ! 4 ’ £! j! i'l t S 3ft ; t a ftI 9 ’ e *a ' t 5 iiss* •■si . -'3" 1- z <■; i •XK. <.Tehbtsft oTwmMt l hsso h hda dcto n. in p w p . edicatioa phydaal pioysm the phases my of for procedures all 3 '.-- vl frj i l I till • ' r i l e i ! j a i f c ' ; ■-•'•■ ii . * ..I i;alS*!.|iJ,ss!;sss | 1 SI *1 . f | » •) n : n ) • l r |i! ■'.. __ :®'i s * - ■ ^ ■t.L.f. ^ --■■ . duuneta 9UG-Z 5 = * • - * IB x < bahxvtonl bahxvtonl II. :t.»i------1*1 I‘t lr! j , ; i • 1 ■'1 i ; ; 1 ■ This instrument was also used to assess attitudes and behaviors of the student teachers in this study. The student teacher and one of his/her cooperating teachers responded in a manner similar to the follow-up subjects and their supervisors. Demographic data was also collected for each subject in this study. These instruments may be found in Appendix B. Selected items from these questionnaires will be used in a correlational analysis with certain teacher behaviors. A personal interview was conducted with each subject. (One student teacher refused to be interviewed.) The inter view schedules (see Appendix B) were developed in the early spring of 19 78 and pilot tested. After listening to the pilot interviews, the schedules were revised to eliminate or reward unclear questions and to incorporate questions of importance that had been omitted. The interview technique can yield data often ignored by more objective instrumentation (Schatzman and Strauss, 197 3). The intent of these interviews was to provide this researcher, and others interested in follow-up evaluation, detailed feedback about the physical education pre-service and early inservice teaching experience. The interview data were collected by this researcher and one other graduate student who was the primary author of the interview schedule. All interviews were audiotape 67 recorded with the consent of the subjects. The follow- up subject interviews were transcribed, the student teacher interviews were not transcribed. In Chapter IV interview data will be analyzed for major commonalities in responses among the interviewees. A full-scaled analysis is well beyond the scope of this research and should not be anticipated by the reader. Methods of Data Analysis Data analysis in descriptive studies is usually limited to the use of descriptive statistics such as measures of central tendency, mean differences, variance ranges, and percentages. Some studies include limited correlational analyses and non-parametric statistics to test such descriptive measures as mean differences. In this study all of the aforementioned statistics will be incorporated into the presentation of results in Chapter IV. The basic analytic mode for the observational data will be frequency of occurrence expressed in the percent of total intervals for each climate, behavior and interaction. Data will be presented in group and individual fashion. Percent of total intervals was obtained by counting the number of intervals for each behavior and then dividing that figure by the total number of coded intervals in that category. (Data Coding Forms may be found in Appendix C.) 68 Selected items from the demographic and attitude/ behavior instruments will be correlated with the observation instrument results. The purpose of the correlation analyses was to determine if certain presage and/or context variables (see Dunkin and Biddle, 19 74, pp. 38-42) have a demonstrable relationship to teacher process behaviors as measured by the TOS. All computational data for this study were analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 7.1 (Nie et al, 1975). The following sub-programs of SPSS were employed in the analyses: 1. Sub-program Condescriptive 2. Pearson Correlation and Non-Parametric Correlation 3. Sub-program T-Test Many of the graphs presented in Chapter IV were produced by a computer program package entitled PLOTALL (Klein, 19 76). Summary This chapter described the subjects and the settings in which those subjects were observed. Next a thorough discussion of the TOS was presented, including the definitions of category and behavior employed in that instrument. Training procedures and inter-rater reliability methods for observers were also discussed. The chapter concluded with a presentation of other instrumentation used in the study 69 and the methods of data analysis. Chapter IV will present the results of this study in the following format: 1. Inter-rater reliability results 2. Follow-up subject results 3. Student teacher results 4. Interview results 5. Combined analysis of results CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF DATA The chapter reports the results of data collected from observations of graduates and student teachers, results from the attitude/behavior questionnaire and from the personal interviews. Data will be reported in a summary format followed by topical discussions as they relate to the specific questions posed in Chapter I . Recently com pleted descriptive-analytic research studies will be drawn upon to provide a comparative base in these dis cussions. The first portion of Chapter IV presents the results of reliability checks conducted on the Teacher Observation System (TOS). Reliab ility Reliability in observational research refers to the amount of agreement between two observers coding with identical instruments. Disagreements generally occur when observers apply different criteria to the behavior they are observing. This factor re-emphasized the need for precise behavioral definitions. Johnson and Bolstad (19 74) 70 71 listed five problems that can reduce the amount of observer agreement. The first we have mentioned, lack of observer accuracy due to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of instrument definitions. Poor observer accuracy may also stem from improper coding or out of sequence coding. The prerecorded tape and split-jack system virtually eliminated out of sequence coding in this study. Other problems associated with observer agrrment, cited by Johnson and Bolstad, were error, reactive effects, instrument decay, and consensual drift. Of these four, consensual drift tends to be the most troublesome. Drift occurs when two observers tend to apply their own idiosyncratic interpretations to behavior, or they have developed a subtle series of cues for each other during observations. Most of these problems may be alleviated by rotating observer settings and pairings during the data collection process. The method used in this study to demonstrate inter observer agreement was to calculate the percent of agree ment, employing a formula suggested bv Bijou. Peterson, and Ault (19 6 8). Percent Agreement = Agreements______x 10 0 Agreement + Disagreement Agreements were counted for each interval by category. (Observers could agree on the climate but disagree on the behavior observed.) Disagreements included the coding of different climates, behaviors, or interactions within 72 an interval, or intervals in which an -observer or observers failed to code a behavior. This process has been labeled interval-by-interval agrrement (I-I) (Hawkins and Dotson, 1975). I-I agreement is the most prevalent reliability method used in observational recording. Table 5 reports the obtained reliability measures for each climate, behavior, and interaction coded with the TOS during the field checks with each of the four observers. The obtained reliabilities meet criterion levels established in the literature. Cheffers (19 77) set 80% as a legitimate level of agreement, Flanders (19 70) is within the same range, 75-80%. Hawkins and Dotson (19 75) suggested that chance probabilities of obtaining agreement should be presented by the researcher. In Table 5 those probabilities are reported for each instrument category. The agreement levels found in this study compare favorably to the results reported by Stewart (1977). His mean reliability for climate was 9 3.06 (compared to 90.9, training and '95.3, field check), and for behavior Stewart obtained 82.81 (compared to 82. 89 , training and 84-. 5, field check). Stewart did not empLqy the interaction data in his analysis. The comparative results indicate that the TOS and the Stewart instrument can be used successfully to collect reliable data from physical education teachers in the natural setting. TABLE 5 Interobserver Reliabiliry for Field Checks Observers » 1 I 3 4 Overall Climates 93.4 98.0 100 .0 91. 3 95 . 3 M 91.8 96.4 100.0 94.4 95.3 I 90. 0 100.0 100 .0 92 . 5 93. 5 A 91. 9 100 .0 100.0 91. 1 95.5 n 10 0 . 0 100 . 0 ft 34 . 5 32.5 Behaviors 32.4 38.3 35.3 35 .u 34.5 LO 31.1 91.0 100.0 72. 7 33.0 43 93.8 90.5 100.0 38.0 91. 3 L 35.7 50.0 71.4 30.0 76 .2 AQ 75.0 93.3 77.8 77. 3 84. 2 Q 75.0 83.3 33.3 ft 81.2 NF 30.0 10 0 . 0 75.0 33. 3 92 .4 M 34.2 87.5 37.1 33 . 3 95 .9 MT 90 .0 30.0 35.2 ft 34 .2 SP ** ft ft ft H 65. 7 100.0 33.3 ft 34 .6 TM+ 100.0 ft ft 33.9 92. 3 TM- 75.0 ft j. 50. 3 66.7 PG 56. 7 ft ft ft 66.7 PS 42.9 ft ft * 42 .9 M 65. 7 100 .0 * 100 .0 90 .0 ? ft 1 0 0 . 0 ft ft 100 .0 TP 75 .0 ft 100 .0 100.0 33 .3 0 30 .0 ft 100.0 ft 32 .4 CF 75.0 100.0 ft 35 . 7 35 . 7 G+ 33.3 ft 1 C 75.0 77.3 G- ft 100 .0 ft ft 100.0 S + 75.0 ft ft 6 6 . 7 70 .0 S- 50.0 ft ft 0 0 . 0 33.3 5/C 75.0 ft ft ft 75.0 Interactions 38 .4 95.2 93.0 90. 1 91. 8 C 92.3 89. 3 94.5 88.6 91.7 I 36.4 94. 4 95,5 93.8 93.1 G 38.2 95.3 90.0 35.7 90.0 ^indicates category not coded by either observer during the reliability check Chance Probability of Agreement climate =25.0 behavior = 4,17 interaction = 3 3.3 74 Inservice Teacher Observational Data Table 6 and Table 7 present the percent of total intervals for each behavior (Table 6) and each climate and interaction (Table 7) for each of the 14 graduates who participated in the study. A minimum of 500 intervals was obtained for each teacher; all told 7,948 intervals of data were coded in this portion of the study. Table 8 presents the mean percent of total intervals for each behavior, climate, and interaction from the TOS instrument. Figure 4 presents, in graphic form, an overall com parison of the 14 inservice teachers for total intervals spent in the management (M) and activity (A) climates. Figure 5 displays a similar comparison for the instruction (I) and concurrent instruction (C) climates. Blackened boxes represent those graduates teaching at the secondary level. The reader is also asked to note that in Figures 4-19 the x-axis of the scale is labeled 0.-15 . The study IDs for the graduates are 17-30. So, the first point on the graph represents subject 14, the last subject, 30. Figures 6 and 7 reflect the percent of total intervals that inservice teachers spent in the various interactions. (Figure 6 , class (C) interactions and individual (I) interactions and Figure 7 group (G) interactions.) Figures 8-19 present an overall comparison for the 24 teacher behaviors. Individual profiles for the subjects’ TABLE 6 Inservice Teachers (17-30) Teacher Behaviors in the Natural Environment Percent of Total Intervals 29 25 2_6 21 28 29 30 Behaviors 1 1 18 19 20 21 22 2J3 LO 19.26 16.71 10.93 08.89 16,75 12.09 10.60 11,79 15,02 19,92 20,20 19. 57 22,69 1 2 .63 6 07.55 11. 83 10.00 19,96 11.39 09. 79 09.79 11. 79 17. 25 29,22 20,20 07.9 8 15.29 09 .35 L 03.56 02. 32 03.70 05.63 02,01 0 2 . 88 09 .62 03,57 09.00 02,08 01.60 06.17 01,85 03, 77 AQ 09.61 05. 80 03.15 09,15 05.79 09.61 09 .99 08.75 10.22 09. 30 08,90 07.10 02,69 0 2 .9 8 g 01.97 00.23 09.07 03.91 01.00 02,30 00.68 01.96 02.29 01.56 01,00 07.29 02.02 03. 31 NF 03. 35 00.70 09.63 02,27 09,19 00,00 09,06 11.25 00,9 8 00.39 01,60 02,06 00,33 0 1 .86 H 20.13 10.90 29.81 32 .59 23.95 28.02 92,56 28.67 11.02 22 .79 03.20 32,71 21.00 95. 96 MT 19 .05 05.39 16.11 10.67 11. 39 09.98 10.93 13.09 09.90 06.51 10.00 15.33 11,09 09, 32 SP 01.68 00.00 00,00 00 .00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00,16 00.00 00 ,00 00.00 00.00 0 0 .00 11 00.63 01.86 01. 30 01.98 00,89 08.9 9 00.85 01.07 01 .92 00.78 02.60 00.13 02.02 0 2 .69 TM+ 02.73 01.16 00.50 01,18 01,89 00. 19 01.37 00.71 09,15 00. 39 09 ,80 00.75 09.59 0 0 .21 TM 00.00 00.00 00.00 00,15 00,00 00.00 00.00 00. 59 00,16 00,00 00,00 00.19 00.00 0 0 .21 PC 00.92 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.50 00.00 00.00 00.36 00.96 00.00 00.80 00.00 00.00 0 0 .00 PS 00 .92 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 06. 39 00.26 091.00 00.00 00,00 00 .00 N 05.95 03.99 01.66 02.58 03,69 00. 38 00.51 00.90 01.76 12,63 05.00 00. 75 05.71 0 0 .>ll P 00.92 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.17 00.00 00.00 00 ,00 00.00 00.52 00 .00 00.00 02.18 0 0 .00 TP 00.00 26.68 02,09 00.00 00.00 00.19 00.00 00.00 00. 32 00.00 09 . 80 0 0 . 00 01. 85 09, 76 0 00.00 06-73 08. 52 07.91 00.00 10.99 00.8 5 01.25 00.00 00.00 00.00 00,00 01.01 0 0 .00 OF 09 .90 03.99 01.66 00.89 03.52 02. 30 01 .03 01 .93 02.08 01.30 0 3,00 01. 31 02. 35 0 1 .Q'l fit 07.13 00.96 00,79 02.37 08.88 0 2 . 88 01 .59 00 .90 02.56 01.9 3 07.20 01. 31 01.18 0 2 ,90 G- 01.26 00.70 00. 37 00.00 02.01 00. 78 00.85 00,18 00.69 00.00 00 ,00 00.00 00.00 0 0 ,21 S* 09.90 00.2 3 00. 37 00.99 02 .01 02.50 00.51 01.07 06.2 3 00,52 09 ,80 01. 31 0 0 . 50 0 2 .28 S- 00.63 00.96 00.19 00.9 9 01.89 01.39 00.00 00.90 0 0 . 16 00.13 00.90 00.75 00.67 0 0 .62 S/C 01.97 00.00 00.19 00.15 02. 35 00,38 00. 39 00.00 02.90 00.26 02 ,90 00 .75 00.00 0 1 ,09 cn TABLE 7 Inservice Teaclieps (17-30) Classroom Climate and Teacher Interactions in the Natural Environment Percent of Total Intervals n 2ji 26 28 29 30 Climate 1 1 18 19 20 2JL 22 23 1 1 Management 27..85 45..58 46..70 33,,48 37. 35 30. 33 2 1 ,.20 45..71 31.,21 72 , 5 3 41 .94 39..81 37,.31 23..81 Instruction 10 .62 0 0 ..00 0 0 ..55 05..48 05..53 0 0 .38 00 .00 07..14 18,,00 09 .37 06 .45 0 0 ..00 14. 62 0 0 ..00 Activity 56..31 42..23 45. 59 57..63 37..19 6 8 .14 72..14 42 ..86 4 3.,63 17 .06 27 .51 53,.64 4 3..36 73..71 Conn. Instruct. 05..21 1 2 ..29 07,,16 03. 41 19,,93 0 1 .15 06..66 04 .,23 07. 16 01 .04 24 .00 06.,54 04.,71 0 2 ,.48 Interact ion Class 13.B>I 54.06 57.26 61.19 36.85 58.7 3 37.77 52.50 41.88 62.37 40,00 31.59 68.74 13.87 Individual 4 8. 35 35.27 29.65 28.74 51.42 27.26 38.80 35.00 4 3.79 22.66 63.21 44.11 26.55 2 7.54 Group 37.81 10.67 13.08 10.07 11.72 14.01 23.43 12.50 14.33 14.97 06.79 24.30 04.71 58.59 CD 77 behaviors are presented in Appendix D. The behaviors from the TOS have been subdivided into the following categories in those profiles. 1. Teacher Talk and Listening 2. Teacher Activities 3. Teacher Reactions to Skill 4. Teacher Reactions to Behavior 5. Teacher Modeling Analysis of Inservice Teacher Observational Data The first and second specific questions posed in Chapter I were stated as follows: What teaching skills emphasized in the teacher preparation program of the graduates are a current part of their behavioral repertoire as observed in the natural settings? What current behaviors do the graduates possess that were not emphasized in their teacher preparation program? One focus of the program was to reduce managerial time in an effort to increase time available for active movement and student practice. A general criteria level established in the program was that no more than 30% of a class session be devoted to management. Criterion levels for instruction were set at 10% and activity at 60% (Siedentop, 19 76). While these levels are not absolute standards, teaching strategies courses, micro-teaching experiences, and student teacher supervision stressed the importance of 78 reducing management time to a minimum. Table 8 presents the overall mean for management (M) intervals at 38.19% with a range from 21.2 0% to 72.5 3%. Generally speaking, graduates Cinservice teachers) spent more time in manage ment than stressed in their preparation program. Three of the teachers were below 30%, while seven exceeded 30% management by more than 5% total intervals (see Figure 4). One teacher (study ID HO) had a management occurrence of 72.53. If we remove that teacher's management, we obtain a mean of 35.55. That management occurrence is greater than the figure obtained in the Stewart (19 77) study of 2 8.07, but Quarterman (19 78) and Anderson (19 78) have reported management occurrences at 32.37% and 30.60% respectively. Instruction (I) occurrence among the inservice teachers was more variable than management occurrence percentages (see Figure 5). Instructional occurrence is also highly dependent upon the point at which an observa tion is made in any given unit or activity. In this study, most observations took place after the introduction of skills. The low occurrence of instructional intervals, x = 5.58, reflected this factor. This instructional occurrence percentage is lower than the occurrences re ported in other studies: Stewart, x = 10.35, Quarterman, x = 12.00, .and Anderson, x = 9.50. Activity (A) occurrence (Figure 4) was slightly lower than the 60% level stressed in the teacher preparation 79 TABLE 3 Inservice Teachers (17-30) Mean Percent of Total Intervals f,or Behaviors, Climates, Interactions Behavi.Si? * 5 ■ d. range LO lit. 79 4.06 3.90-22.69 G 12.56 5 . 35 4.35-24.22 L 3.41 1. 40 1.60- 6.17 AQ 5 .46 2.36 2.48-10.22 0 2 . 32 1 . 80 0.23- 7.29 NF 3.01 3. 39 0.00-11.25 M 25.19 11. 35 3. 20-45 .96 mt 10.9 3 3.00 5.34-16.11 s? 0. 13 0-45 3.00- 1.68 H 1.31 2.02 0.19- 3.41+ 1. 75 1.54 0.19- 4.80 TM 0.09 0. 15 0.00- 0.54 PC 0 .22 0 . 34 0.00- 0.96 PS 0. 56 1. 70 0.00- 5.40 N 3. 24 3. 32 0.38-12 .63 P 0 .24 0 .59 0 .0 0 - 2.13 T p 2 .30 7.06 0.00-25.53 0 2 :6 2 3.92 0.00-10 .94 CF 2.15 1.15 0.39- 4.40 G+ 2 .96 2. 73 0.46- 3.38 G- 0. 50 0 . 59 0 .0 0 - 2.01 3 + 1.94 1.92 0.23- 5.23 S- 0.51 0. 50 0.00- 1.34 S/C 0 . 34 0.94 0.00- 2.40 Climate 2 5 . - . range M 33. 19 12. 7 5 21. 20-72. 53 I 5.58 5.92 0.00-18.00 A 48.64 15 .26 17.06-73.71 C 7.57 6.59 1.04-24.30 Interaction 3 5. d • range C 45 .05 17. 27 13.34-68.74 I 36 . SO 10 .10 22. 66-53.21 G 18. 36 14. 30 4.71-58.59 For explanation of abbreviations see Chapter III, pages 52-58. iue . vrl Cmaio o Gauts o ciiy (A) Activity for Graduates of Comparison Overall 4. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS oj cn” o o to” o o CO a NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE a dMng (M) ’andManage CD MANAGE 48.64 X ACTIVITY* □ I secondary I 80 iue . vrl Cmaio o rdae fr onnt CC) Conninst for Graduates of Comparison Overall 5. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a o C\J o a o_ NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n Isrc (I) Instruct and □ C0NNINST □ 7.57 X □ INSTRUCT □ 5.58 X secondary I 81 82 program. When we combine the categories activity (A) and concurrent instruction (C), a mean percent of total inter vals of 5 6.21 is obtained. (Concurrent instruction only occurred during the activity climate.) This percent is closely reflective of the program goal of 6 0% activity time and very much in concert with activity occurrences obtained in the Stewart, Quarterman, and Anderson studies (61.74%, 55.63%, and 59.9% respectively). Interaction occurrences presented in Figures 6 and 7 indicate that the teachers in this study were similar in their class (C) and group (G) interactions, but the teachers demonstrated somewhat variable occurrences for « interactions with individual students. The stress upon individual interactions is linked to feedback. Increased teacher interaction with individual students is likely to increase the amount of feedback to skill and social be havior performances. Hurwitz (1978) in summarizing the Data Bank studies found that 77.3% of all feedbacks were within the context of individual interactions. In this study the correlation between total feedbacks and individual interactions was found to be .77 (p = .001). Intercorrelations of the various feedback behaviors from the TOS with individual interactions yielded significant correlation of .73 (with general praise (PG), .72 with positive general skill feedback (G+), *49 with negative general skill feedback (G-), .61 with positive specific iue . vrl Cmaio o Gauts o Idvd (I) Individ for Graduates of Comparison Overall 6. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a. LD- _ M C CM. a* NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n Cas CC) Class and CLASS a 45.05 X INDIVID I secondary 36.60 83 iue . vrl Cmaio o Gauts o Gop (G) Group for Graduates of Comparison Overall 7. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a a ru' o O C C>_ LD a CO o NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE GROUP □ secondary ■ skill feedback (S+) and .79 with skill feedback/corrective track (S/C). (All correlations significant beyond p = .05). It is interesting to note that the three teachers with the highest amount of individual interactions (Study IDs 17, 21, and 2 7) also possessed the three high est occurrences of feedbacks. In summarizing this dis cussion on interactions, it seems that those graduates who individualize"*fheir classroom interaction behavior (a skill stressed inthe teacher preparation program) are most successful in producing feedback statements. There are several items of interest that may be dis cussed regarding teacher behaviors. Within the teacher preparation program considerable emphasis was placed upon feedback. The focus was upon increasing positive and specific forms of skill feedback, reducing negative and corrective statements and increasing praise for appropriate student behavior. The first indicant (from inspection of Figures 17-19) is that occurrences of positive general (G+) and positive specific skills feedbacks (S+) are more variable than are negative forms of skill feedback for the 14 subjects. Praise statements for appropriate behavior are extremely low (Figure 14). Only one teacher of the 14 surpassed an occurrence of 1% of the total intervals for either general (PG) or specific praise (PS). To that extent, the emphasis upon behavior praise advocated in the program does 86 not seem to be present in the behavioral repertoire of some of the graduates. Returning to skill feedbacks, graduates do seem to be meeting certain standards established in the preparation program. One such standard was to use more of positive than negative feedbacks. Training rates vary from year to year, but, generally, the range has been three.,or four positive feedbacks for every one negative feedback. Graduates as a whole met that criteria, but were more successful with general as opposed to specific feedbacks. The mean occurrence of total intervals for positive-general feedbacks (G+) was 2.96 as compared to 0.50 for negative-general feedbacks (G-). The positive- specific feedback (S+) mean was 1.9*4, the negative (S-) , .61. Combined means indicated that the ratio of positive to negative feedbacks (combined) was *4:*45:1, which is in accordance with desirable levels stressed in the teacher preparation program. Other behavior categories coded in this study indicated that teachers prepared in the Ohio State program are not very different from those prepared in other programs, or those viewed in other studies. For instance, the mean total percent of intervals coded for monitoring (M) in this study was 2 5.19%, in the Anderson study a similar category "obser vation" had a mean of 20.50%. Teacher demonstrations or teacher modeling occur infrequently. Anderson observed iue . Oeal oprsn f rdae frLcue (LO) Lecture for Graduates of Comparison 8. . Overall Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS in- o 87 iue . vrl Cmaio o Gauts o Lse CL) Listen for Graduates of Comparison Overall 9. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS on- - O L o o NEVC TRHR 17-30 TERCHERS INSERVICE NEVC TRHR 17-30 TERCHERS INSERVICE n sqet (AQ) Askquest and LISTEN d 3,41 X flSKQUEST 5.46 secondary I 88 iue 0 Oeal oprsn fGauts o nqet (Q) Ansquest for Graduates of Comparison Overall 10. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS m- o. o O - D L NEVC TAHR 17 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n ofn (NF) Nonfunc and N0NFUNC □ CD flNSQUEST 3.01 X 2.32 X secondary I 89 iue 1 OealCmaio o rdae frMntr CM) Monitor for Graduates of Overall Comparison 11. Figure PCT. TOTHL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVAL Cf) o o cn a_ ISRIE ECES 17-30 TERCHERS -INSERVICE NEVC TRHR 17- TERCHERS INSERVICE n anan (MT) Maintain and MRINTRIN □ 10.93 X MONITOR □ 25.19 X secondary I 90 iue 2 Oeal oprsn fGauts o Sotn (SP) Spotting for Graduates of Comparison Overall 12. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS o o o - o. LD NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n ute (H) Hustle and HUSTLE □ SPOTTING □ 1.91 X 0.13 X secondary I 91 iue 3 -vrl Cmaio o rdae fr Posmodel for Graduates of Comparison -Overall 13. Figure PCT. T0TRL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a cn- - D L a H L O NEVC TAHR 17 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE T+ adNgoe (TM-) Negmodel and (TM+) HI P0SMODEL I 75 X NEGMODEL □ ■ secondary 92 93 CO CE m GPRRISE CC UJ X 0.22 I CE CJ 0_ a - a I secondary INSERVICE TERCHERS 17- CO -J CC □ SPRfllSE > CC UJ X 0.58 h- z ^ ,n- I— CJ CL. a INSERVICE TERCHERS 17-30 Figure 1U. Overall Comparison of Graduates for Gpraise (PG) and Spraise (PS) iue 5 Oeal oprsn fGauts o as (N) Nags for Graduates of Comparison Overall 15. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS in- _ o a (VI— NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n Pns *(P) Punish and □ NAGS □ 3.24 X PUNISH □ 0. 4 .2 0 X secondary • 9 94 iue 6 Oeal oprsno rdae fr fiil (0) Official for Graduates of Comparison Overall 16. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS in- a o o in C\J o a NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n epr (TP) Teapart and 0FFICIRL □ 2.62 X TERPRRT □ 2.90 X secondary ■ 95 iue 7 Oeal oprsn f rdae fr Corrfee for Graduates of Comparison Overall 17. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a - D L M C cn- CD-i NEVC TRHR 17-30 TERCHERS INSERVICE NEVC TRHR 17-30 TERCHERS INSERVICE C) n ged (G+) Pgfeed and (CF) PGFEED □ 2.96 X □ CORRFEED □ 2.16 X secondary I iue 8 Oeal oprsn f rdae frNfe (G-) Ngfeed for Graduates of Comparison Overall 18. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS . PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a o o in ru o NEVC TAHR 17 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n Pfe (S+) Psfeed and NGFEED □ E PSFEED X X 0.50 secondary I 97 iue 9 Oeal oprsn f rdae frNfe (S-) Nsfeed for Graduates of Comparison Overadl 19. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a a o o in a CM O 1 NEVC TAHR 17 TEACHERS INSERVICE NEVC TAHR 17-30 TEACHERS INSERVICE n Sita (S/C) Skiltrac and NSFEED □ 0.61 X m 0.84 X SKILTRflC secondary • 98 99 its occurrence just 2 38 times (over 80 classes) in his analysis of the Data Bank tapes. In this study modeling (TM+ and TM-) occurred 145 times in 46 observed classes. The mean occurrence of teacher modeling in this study of 1.84 was comparable to Stewart’s mean of 2.70. Negative modeling occurrence yielded identical percentages of .0 9% for both studies. A final behavior category of interest is nags (N) (Figure 15). In this portion of the study 13 of the 14 teachers nagged students more than they praised them. The program emphasis has been ’’catch them being good,” but these data indicate that graduates still react more fre quently to student inappropriate behavior (via nags) than they do with praise statements for appropriate behavior (PG or PS). In fact, the nag mean in this study was three times greater than the combined means for praise general and praise specific (3.24 versus 1.01). The Stewart study found a similar pattern between the means (1.72 versus 0.50). Quarterman found that nags outnumbered positive re actions to behavior in his study nearly twenty-fold! ■ Inservice Teacher Attitude/Behavior Ratings A questionnaire rating scale (see Chapter III, Figure 3) was administered to each graduate, his or her supervisor, and a fellow teacher (peer). The intent of the items was to assess the attitude of the respondents to certain com ponents of the preparation program at Ohio State. In 10 0 addition respondents (including the graduate) were asked to rate how accurately the statements described the be havior of the graduate. Table 9 presents the median response for each item. The median was selected as opposed to the mean for descriptive purposes because it is more sensitive to data obtained with rating scales. The stan dard deviation for each median rating is included in parentheses. (The content of the items may be found in Figure 3.) An inspection of Table 9 indicates that there was a great degree of concurrence among the three groups of respondents 'for many items on both the attitude and behavior descrip tion scales. Generally speaking, most respondents rated the components of the Ohio State preparation program as highly and/or somewhat desirable. In fact, based upon these grouped medians, not a single component was rated as undesirable. The least desirable attitude was in response to item 24, "The teacher monitors and/or assesses class room behavior through the use of a behavioral observation and recording system." Interestingly, the graduates rated this item less desirable than did supervisors or peers. (Median for graduates = 2.83 as opposed to 2.13 for super visors, 2.50 for peers.) The greatest variation between attitude and behavior occurred in item 7, "The teacher can plan and execute in dividualized programs for mentally retarded and/or 101 TABLE 9 Median Response to the Attitude/Behavior Questionnaire Inservice Teachers (17-30) Re- Graduate Supervi,sor Peer soonden? Item Median (s.d.) Median (s.d. ) 1 Median (S.d.) Attitude 3ehavior Attitude 3ehavior Attitude Behavior 1 1.00(0.0 ) 1. 2 3( .50) 1.14( 4 3 : 1. 3 3 ( •S1j 1.03( . 36) 1.14( .42) 2 1.33(1.14) 1.79(1.07) 2.00C .53) 1. 94( .62) 1 - 3 3 ( .92) 2.00( .96) 3 1.08( .36) 1.20( .47) 1.2 3( .36: 1. 33( .99) 1.14 ( .43) 1.20( .63) 4 1.14< .43) 1.50( .75) 1.14( .4 3 ; 1. 50 ( .34) 1. 04 ( .27) 1.14( .43) 5 1. 28( .50) 1.50( .52) 1.20(1. 0 2 : 1. 50( .91) 1. 2 0 ( .53) 1.14( .43) 3 1. 38( . 76) 1.50(1.05) 1.SO( .65: 1. 70 ( .95) 1. 2 9 ( . 55) I.S 0( .33) 7 1.56(1.00) 2.33(1.15) 1. 83(1. 0 4 : 2 .50 .99) 1. S0( .33) 2.5 3( .34 ) 3 1.50( .89) 2.00( .83) 1.33( .93) 1.93(1 .00) 1. 2 3( .50) 1.S7( .73) 9 1. 0 3( . 27) 1. 2 8( .50) 1.14( .si: 1.20 ( .94) 1.08 ( . 36) 1.00(0.0 ) 10 1. 03( . 27) 1.08( .36) 1.2 0 ( 5 3 : 1. 38( .95) 1.14 ( .61) 1. 2 9( .65) 11 i.38< .93) 1.67( .89) 1. 08( 36: 1. 0 4 ( .27) 1. 0 3 ( .33) 1.0 8( .36) 12 1.33< .65) 1.33( .77) 1.38( .9 3 ; 1.75(1 .00) 1.14 ( .61) 1. 23( .35 ) 13 1.14( .75) 1.2 3( .94) 1. 0 8( .sa: 1. 28( .65) 1.0 8( .33) 1.14( .51) 14 1. 04( .27) 1.50( .52) 1. 20( 35) 1.50(1.05) 1.14( .43) 1.14( .51) 15 1.0 8( .53) 1.23( .55) 1. 2 3 ( .so: 1. S0( . 34) 1. 0 4( .27) 1.04C .27) 15 1. 0 - ( . 2 "' 1.5 0( .52) 5 3 ) 1. 7 3 ( .35 3 1. 04( .2") 1.217 . - ' 17 1.54( .53) 2 . 0 0 C .73311.50(1. 1? 1. 73(1 . 11) 1.33(1 . ; 5) » . ' • f ■ ' 19 1. C 5 ( .36) 1. 2 3 (1. ^5 ): 1.2 ?( .50 5 1.2 if .50)1 1.0? ( .32; 1 . 1. - v . - : 13 1 . 5 5( . 2 2 ) 2.00(1.27) 1. 9 0 ( 5-: 2.52(1 .H a 7 3 ( . ” 2 / - . l> . ■ . : . 20 1. 0 3( .36 ) 1.90(1.25) 1. 14 ( .43)) 1. 30 ( .-7) 1.0 3 ( . 5 5) 1 .i-( .;=/ 21 2.25C .75) 2 . 38( .76) 1. 57( 72> 2 . 0 7( . 36) 1. 33( .77) 2. 0 7( . 73 ) 22 I.28( .65) 1.28( .50) 1.20( 47 )) 1. SO ( .34) 1. 0 4( .27) 1.20( .47) 23 1.08( .58) 1.28(1.15) 1.50 ( .65) 1. 67 ( .39) 1. 38( . 65) 1. 79 ( ..70 ) 24 2.33(1.23) 3.25(1.53) 2 . 1*3 .56: 2.33(1.09) 2 .50(1 .02) 2.79.(1.07) 25 2.10(1.20) 2.00(1.33) 2.2’Hl. ie: 2.36(1 .25) 1. 70 ( .80) 1.33(1.14) 26 1. 2 0( .63) 1.38( .51) 1. 72 ( .so) 1. 38( . 33) 1. 64( .63) 1.50 ( .65) 27 1.50 C .75) 2.50(1.08) 1.2 3( .50* 1.38( . 35) 1. 20( .76) 1.50(1.03) 23 i.70( .80) 2.25( .75) 1.67( .73) 2 .07( .98) 2.00(1 .03) 2.6 7( .94) 29 1.14C .61) 1.70(1.33) 1. 5 0( .75) 1.90(1.23) 1. 20 ( .76) 2.17(1.19) 30 1.00(0.0 ) 1.03( .49) 1.03( .36) 1.54 ( .63) 1. 0 3 ( .27) 1.14( .51) Response Code: 1 = highly desirable or very accuraction description to 5 = highly undesirable or very inaccurate description (3 = neutral) Refer to pages 64-65 for content of items. 10 2 physically handicapped students." This discrepancy may in part be due to the fact that just one of the graduates observed in this study was currently planning and executing individualized programs for handicapped students. Supervisors and peers alike indicated that graduates from Ohio State reflected the components of their prepara tion program in their day-to-day teaching behavior. The program stressed such behaviors as employing behavior modification techniques, using students' first names, and evaluating student performance based upon behavioral ob jectives (items 25, 9, and 21 respectively). Teacher Behavior Differences in Elementary and Secondary Settings A final set of results to be reported for the follow- up subjects pertain to grade level differences in behavior. Stewart (19 77) found that positive teacher behavior (hustles, praise, and skill feedbacks) decreased between elementary (10.59) and secondary physical education teach ers (6.25). Negative behavior (nags, nasties, punishment, and skill feedbacks) decreased in a similar manner (elementary, 3.31 &nd secondary, 0.78). In this study a similar trend was revealed between graduates teaching at the elementary versus the secondary level. Table 14 on page 127 presents percent of total intervals for all behaviors, climates, and interactions. 10 3 Mean differences are reported, those differences which were significantly different (analyzed by a t-test, n = 7 in both groups, p< .05) are noted by an asterisk. When the positive behaviors are combined from these data (H, PG, PS, G+, S+), the total percent of intervals for elementary teachers is 8.7, for secondary, 6.4. Negative behaviors (N,. P, G-, S-) yield a total interval percent of 6.5 for the elementary teachers and 2.6 for the secondary teachers. Again, these figures reinforce the trends found in the Stewart study, but still must be interpreted with caution. In fact, only one of the behaviors used in arriving at the above totals, nags (NO was statistically different. Other mean differences of statistical significance were giving directions (G), monitoring (M), positive teacher modeling (TM+), and the instruction climate (I). Elem entary teachers had greater total intervals of giving directions, modeling, and instruction, while the second- arey teachers had a significantly greater amount of monitoring intervals. Stewart found the instruction climate percent intervals to decrease between elementary and secondary teachers in a similar manner to the data re ported in this study. The Quarterman (19 78) study also found the mean instruction time to decrease between teach ers of grades one through four (16.3%) and teachers of grades five through eight (7.6%). 101+ Anderson’s (19 78) differences between elementary and secondary teachers partially affirm the results of this study. He found preparatory instruction and concurrent in struction greater among elementary teachers, but inter vening instruction (the equivalent of concurrent instruc tion in this study) to be greater at the secondary level. A review of Table 14 indicates that there is a smaller mean difference for the follow-up subjects in the concurrent instruction (C) climate. Anderson also found observing (monitoring (M)) greater at the secondary level. Student Teacher Observational Data The intent of collecting data for student teachers in this study was to provide a comparative and descriptive base with the follow-up subjects. Specific questions one and two posed in Chapter I do not apply to these subjects; therefore, results in this section will be reported in a summary manner without extensive analysis. The data will be used for comparative purposes beginning on page 138. Table 10 and Table 11 present the percent of total intervals for each behavior (Table 10) and each climate and interaction (Table 11) for each of the 16 student teachers who participated in the study. A minimum of 500 intervals was obtained for each student teacher. A total of 8,746 intervals were coded in this portion of the study. Table 12 present's the mean percent of total intervals TABLE 10 Student Teachers (1-16) Teacher1 Behaviors in the Natural Environment Percent' of To I a.I intervals Behaviors 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 0 9 10 11 12 I! 14 15 16 1.0 02..41 06,.17 02..52 03 .24 03 .94 07 ,05 07 ,40 05 , to 15 .09 11.75 04, ,98 05 .88 01 .45 01. 42 00..56 08..03 0. 21..89 2b..55 14..56 18..64 09,. 84 13..64 10 .12 1 1,40 12,.00 2 8.06 2 3.37 28 .01 26 .76 35. 57 37..97 19..31 1. 01 .67 04,.73 03..88 01 .62 03..40 07 .21 04 .69 02,,73 15,,42 03 .12 02 .75 04 .20 03 .53 03.,46 05. .26 01..74 At 1 01 .86 04, .87 04..47 04 ,.05 06 .44 05. . 17 02 .49 03 .53 04 .06 03 .60 02 .58 07 .00 03 .53 04. 67 08,.46 06..07 Q 01 .67 01..77 00..78 06.,32 02.. 86 04 ,.23 04 .40 02,.89 00,.58 01 .68 00..52 03 .64 02 .07 02..64 03..20 01..52 Nf 00 .7*1 03..10 01..55 01. .62 04..83 04, , 55 01 . 76 no., 64 0 3 .48 03 . 36 02,. 75 01 .68 00 .83 01..02 02.,44 00 ..87 H 39 .33 30..43 41. .36 40,.03 44 ..72 32..45 33 .00 18., 30 18..18 28..54 16 . 32 26 .61 2 3 .86 20..33 18..23 19..74 MT 08 . 16 03..99 06..60 13..29 14 ,.67 13.,48 03 .96 06..26 15 ,.60 0 2.88 14 ,.43 06 . 16 03 .73 03. 66 03. 95 00..87 HP 00..00 00..00 00., 19 00..32 00..00 00,, 31 00 .44 U0 .,00 00..00 00 ,00 00 ,.00 00 .00 00 .00 00,.20 00..00 00..00 II 00..93 04. 28 02,.33 02,.43 02 .66 02 ,.98 01 .76 05. .14 on.. 19 00..24 00. .52 00 . 56 04 .15 01..22 01,.88 02..60 TMt 0b ., 94 00.. 15 01,.94 00,, 32 00,.00 00..16 00 .15 0 1 .,78 (18.. 70 Ill,.68 ill,.20 04 . 20 0 1 . 37 02..44 01..69 05..21 TM- 01 .11 00.,00 02..91 00 .00 00..00 00..00 00 .00 Oil., 10 Oil ,.00 00.,00 Oil..00 00 .00 00 .00 01 .83 00. 56 00. .43 rr. 02 .23 02.. 36 00.,78 00..16 00 .18 00 .00 00 .15 00 ., in Oil.,1)0 00 .00 00..00 00 . 84 00 .41 00 .00 00 .19 00..65 i-:; 01.. 86 04 .. 87 00..58 03,,24 00..00 00..00 00 .00 Oil.,00 Oil.,00 00,.00 00 ..00 00 . 56 00 .00 00..00 00..00 00..00 N 02..23 00.. 74 03. 11 00,.49 02..68 04, .08 10 .70 Oil . 15 Oil . 00 on..24 01,,20 02 . 80 0 3. 32 02 .85 05..08 02 ..82 p 00.. 37 00 . 15 00,.00 00, .32 00 ..54 00 .63 00 .15 on..64 on. 00 00..00 00..69 00 .00 00 . 21 00 .00 00,.38 Oil.,00 TP 01.. 0G 00..15 07. 57 01,,46 00,.72 00. .00 11. 73 i -i. 74 no. 19 on,.00 00. 52 00 .00 00 .00 00 .00 pi,,69 0(1..00 0 00..00 00.. 15 00.,00 00. .00 01.,97 00..63 05 .43 in .,7 I 1 4. 12 (III..96 24. 05 00 .00 0 7.05 00 .81 01..69 0 1.. 52 Cl- 02..41 01. . 18 01..17 00.,81 00..00 00..00 00 .29 on ., 80 09 ,28. 08. 6 3 OJ ..55 01 .02 06 .84 11 .18 02,.63 06..94 Gt 00..00 01.,48 00..58 00. .81 00..00 01..41 00 .73 04 ,,49 0(1,,97 04 .,08 01 .90 0 3, 36 05 .0 1 05 .28 03.. 20 10 ,.20 tl- 00..00 00.,44 00, 00 00..00 00.. 36 00. 31 00 .15 on,,64 Oil, 00 00 ,.4 8 00,.34 00 .00 00 .62 00 .20 go,. 38 01,.52 St 01 .67 01..92 01,. 36 00.,00 00..00 00..78 00 .15 on..96 01 ..93 00.,72 00 ., 34 03 , 36 03 .53 00 .81 00 .56 08..24 S- 00.. 56 01 ..33 00. 97 00,,16 00..00 00., 78 00 . 29 0/ . 5 7 00 . 00 on.00 00 .,00 00 ,00 01 .04 00 .41 00,.00 00 .4 3 S/C 01 .11 01 . 88 00. 78 00,,65 00. 00 00. ,16 00 .00 00. HO 00. 19 00.,00 00 ,,00 00 .00 on . 2.1 00 .00 00 .00 01.. 30 H o CD taui.i: 11 Gtudunt Teachers (1-16) Classroom Climale and Teacher I ni .'i i.'t ions in the Natural Ciivii'onmcnl Percent i.| Tui i I Intervals 5 6 it 9 10 c 1i male 1 2 3 4 7 ix Xi 12 12 15 16 Management 21.,44 18. 46 14..53 26..90 25..57 33. 33 •I 1 . 3 1 r.t,. 16 11. 9 4 21..76 33. 33 10..00 18..66 15., 56 29., 83 11..51 1 n:; truct ion 13., 31 08. 12 15..12 7.,62 00..00 02..97 O n .. 2‘J in, . 15 09 .00 16..87 03.. 26 36 ..57 12 ..37 14.. 34 15..57 12..97 Activily 54..16 65..88 60..47 63,.86 73..02 56.. 34 53.. 58 61 .67 4 9 ,. 12 45..97 62 ..71 40,,57 68..97 69,.70 54 ,.60 66..53 Conn. Instruct. 11..09 07. 53 09..83 01,.62 01 .41 07.. 36 04 ., 82 i Interaction Class 69. >16 43.74 65.12 71.80 56.00 50.6'i 63.Ot! S »i . *11 34.54 36.09 ‘(3.1J 68.64 16.18 21.5*1 *12.85 11.06 Individual 13. 78 2*1. 75 18.22 22.0*1 32.19 31.53 25.58 34.*l*t 5*1.01 26 .57 27.49 ',*7.211 36.30 58. 33 35.15 71. 37 Group 16.76 31.52 16.67 06.16 11.81 17.83 10.74 11.15 11.45 37.34 29.38 14.16 47.52 20.13 22.00 17.57 10 7 TABLE 12 Student Teachers (1-16) Mean Percent of Total Intervals for Behaviors, iClimates, Interactions Behavior X s.d. range LO 5. 39 3.90 0.56-15.09 G 21. 04 8.87 9.84-37.97 L 3. 71 1.52 1.62- 7.21 AQ 4.55 1. 76 1.86- 8.46 Q 2 .54 1.57 0.52- 6.32 NG 2.20 1. 35 0 . 64- 4.83 M 28. 21 9.48 16 . 32-44. 72 MT 6.98 4. 50 0.87-14.67 SO 0.09 0 .15 0.00- 0.44 H 2.13 1. 51 0.19- 5.14 TM+ 2 .28 2 .49 0.00- 8,70 TM- 0 .44 0 .84 0.00- 2.91 PG 0 . 51 0 .75 0.00- 2.36 PS 0 .69 1.43 0.00- 4.87 N 3.17 2 . 89 0.00-10.70 P 0 .26 0.26 0.00- 0.69 TP 2.85 5.56 0.00-19,74 0 3. 85 6.54 0.00-24.05 CF 3.47 3. 75 0.00-11.18 G+ 2.77 2.73 0 .00-10.20 G- 0 . 34 0 .39 0.00- 1.52 S + 1.65 2.06 0.00- 8.54 S- 0 .54 0.69 0.00- 2.57 s/c 0 . 44 0.58 0.00- 1.88 Climate X s.d. range M 22. 46 8.57 11.51-41.30 I 12. 72 12. 5 7 0. 00-46 . 87 A 58. 20 9 .12 40.57-73.02 C .7. 51 7. 82 0 .00-29 .94 Interactions X s . d. range C 46.18 18. 63 11.06-71.80 I 33.68 15.28 13.78-71.37 G 20.14 11.09 6.16-47.52 For explanation of abbreviations, see Chapter III, pages 52-58. 10 8 for each behavior, climate, and interaction from the TOS instrument. The standard deviation and range are also in cluded in the table. The reader is directed to pages 52- 58 for an explanation of the category abbreviations. Figure 2 0 and Figure 21 present overall comparisons of the climates teacher by teacher. The mean percent of total intervals is also included in the figures. Figures 2 2 and 2 3 present overall comparisons of the interaction categories, Figures 24-35, comparisons of the various teacher behaviors. In these figures no differentiation is made between elementary and secondary teachers, because all but two of the teachers taught in both settings. The scale on the x-axis corresponds to the study ID of each student teacher. Student Teacher Attitude/Behavior Ratings A questionnaire rating scale (see Chapter III, Figure 3) was administered to each student teacher and the cooper ating (master) teacher. Table 13 presents the median re sponses and standard deviation of each item for both the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. The reader should refer to Figure 3 for the content of each item. A brief analysis of Table 13 indicates very few large median differences between student teacher and cooperating teacher responses. Item 24, "The teacher monitors and/or assesses classroom behavior through the use of a behavioral iue 0 Oeal oprsn f tdn Tahr for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 20. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS ! PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS o i o n _ o on o TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT ciiy A adMng CM) Manage and (A) Activity ACTIVITY □ 58.20 X 13MANAGE 8 4 . 2 2 X 109 iue 1 Oeal oprsn f tdn Tahr for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 21. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS P C T - TOTAL INTERVALS o o M C o <\j' cn O. o M C o cn a. TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT onnt C ad ntut (I) Instruct and CC) Conninst CD CONNINST 7.51 X □ INSTRUCT □ 12.72 X 110 iue 2 Oeal oprsn f tdn Tahr for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 22. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS O D L o O TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT nii () n Cas (C) Class and (I) Individ m 46.18 X □ INDIVID □ 33.68 X CLASS 111 iue . vrl Cmaio o Suet eces for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 2 3.Figure PCT. TQTRL INTERVALS a <\j“ O C o o TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT ru (G) Group GROUP Q 20. 4 .1 0 2 X iue 4 Oeal oprsno Suet eces for Teachers Studept of Comparison Overall 24. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS ' PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS O 1/5- O on _ o _ o a TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT etr (O ad iet (G) Direct and (LO) Lecture LECTURE □ DIRECT □ 5.39 X 21.04 X 113 C/O iue 5 Oeal oprsno Suet eces for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 25. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVAL Lo a in- SUET ECES 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT • TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT itn L adAkus (AQ) Askquest and (L) Listen rn RSKQUEST 4.55 X LISTEN □ 3.71 X 114 iue 6 Oeal oprsn f tdn Tahr for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 26. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a CM- in- TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT sqet Q adNnuc (NF) Nonfunc and CQ) Askquest RNSQUE5T 0 NONFUNC 0 2.54 X 2.20 X 115 iue 7 Oeal oprsno Suet eces for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 27. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS o o o a. O. C\J cn" o CM a cn _ o TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT oio C) n anan (MT) Maintain and CM) Monitor MONITOR □ 28.21 X G3 MRINTRIN 6.98 X 116. 117 0> in CE! □ SPOTTING X 0.09 I • I I— ; C J i i o - i j STUDENT TERCHERS 1-16 cn CO— CE □ HUSTLE X 2.13 CE h- 1— CJ Q_ a STUDENT TERCHERS 1-16 Figure 2 8. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Spotting (SP) and Hustle (H) iue 9 Oeal oprsn f tdn Tahr for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 29. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS O oj- TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT □ c- P cp- ■■ □ omdl T+ adNgoe (TM-) Negmodel and (TM+) Posmodel POSMQDEL □ 2.28 X NEGMGDEL □ 0.44 X 118 iue 0 OealCmaio o Suet eces for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 30. Figure PCT. TQTRL INTERVALS • PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a - J O a. - D L TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT pas (G ad pas (PS) Spraise and (PG) Gpraise GPRRISE □ SPRfllSE m 0.51 X 0.69 X 119 Figure 31. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Nags for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 31. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS o o a o O D L TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT N adPns (P) Punish and (N) NAGS □ PUNISH □ 3.17 X 0.26 X 120 iue 2 Oeal oprsn f tdn Tahr for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 32. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS l o a_ LD, n- a in- o in OJ o in_ j \ f TDN-ECES 1-16 STUDENT-TEACHERS TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT fiil 0 adTaat CTP) Teapart and (0) Official CD TEflPHRT 2.85 X OFFICIAL □ 3.85 X 121 12 2 cn cn B C0RRFEEO CC o_ 111 •—* X 3.47 CE O in- CJ Q_ o. STUDENT TERCHERS 1-16 cn _1 CE □ PGFEED > cc o UJ — ' X 2.77 I— 2 i—* CE I— C_J Q_ o STUDENT TERCHERS 1-16 Figure 33. Overall Comparison of Student Teachers for Corrfeed (CF) and Pgfeed (G+) Figure Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS a o a in- in 0 34-. TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT vrl Cmaio o Suet eces for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall ged G) n sed (S +Psfeed and ) (G-) Ngfeed 5 10 15 PSFEED □ NGFEED □ 1.65 x 0.34 x 12 3 iue 5 Oeal oprsn fSuet eces for Teachers Student of Comparison Overall 35. Figure PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS PCT. TOTAL INTERVALS - M ( o_ ' a in_ in' o - o ■ n o • • TDN TEACHERS STUDENT TDN TAHR 1-16 TEACHERS STUDENT sed S) n Sita (S/C) Skiltrac and (S-) Nsfeed 16' m SKILTRRC □ 0.54 X 0.44 x NSFEED 124 125 behavioral observation and recording system," received the least desirable response on the attitude portion of the scale. Large median discrepancies did emerge between student teachers and their cooperating teachers for items 8, 18, 24, and 2 8 on the behavior (accuracy) portion of the questionnaire. Cooperating teachers indicated that student teachers informed students of lesson objectives (item 8) more than the student teachers said'they did. (Median cooperating teachers 1.30, median student teachers, 2.25.) Student teachers also seemed to indicate that their speaking voice was effective (item 18), while cooperating teachers rated it less so, but still on the accurate side of the behavior scale. Item 24 indicates that student teachers felt they avoided the use of observation and recording techniques (rated somewhat inaccurate), while cooperating teachers rated the student teachers as users of such techniaues. In item 28, "The teacher allows the students to self- assess their own performance of instructional activities," once again cooperating teachers felt that the student teachers exhibited this technique more than the student teachers did; however, both groups of respondents were within the "somewhat accurate" portion of the scale over all. Both student teachers' and cooperating teachers' response patterns imply that these 16 student teachers TABLE 13 Median Responses to the* Attitude/3ehavior Questionnaire Student Teachers (1-iS) Resoondent Student Teacher Coooeratinz Teacher Item Median (s.d.) Median (s .d. ) Attitude Behavior Attitude 3ehavior 1 1.13C1 .00) 1. 30( . 50) 1.46(1 ■ 62) 1.50(1.18) 2 1.30(1 .14) 1.50( .72 ) 1.16(1 .25) 1. 50 ( . 72) 3 1.00C .0 ) 1.70( .50) 1.03( .25) 1. S3( .79) 4 1.0 7 C .34) 1.9 3( . 77) 1. 07( .54) 1. 30 ( .73) S 1.23C ,73) 1.30( .39) 1. 07( .01) 1. 50 ( .63) 3 1. 16 ( .58) 2.00( .93) 1.17( . 45 )l 1. 3C ( .73) 7 1.15 ( .40) 2.330 .97) 1. 07( .54)1 2 . 50 C . 315 3 1. 30C .31) 2.25(1.03) 1. 17( . 45) 1. 30( .53) 9 1.00(0 .0 ) 1.30( .32) 1.17( .43) 1. 23( . 31) 10 1.07( .34) 1.17( .30) 1.07( .34) 1. 2 3 ( .43) T_T_ 1. 30 ( .73) 1.39( .95) 1. 0 7( .34) 1.0 7( . 34) 12 1.2 3( .73) 1.83(1.12) 1.17( .72) 1.70 ( .84) 13 1.0 7( .50) 1. 5 3( .62) 1.0 3( .25) 1. 39 ( . 36 ) 14 1. 07( . 34) 1.23( .48) 1.00(0 .0 ) 1.17( .31) IS 1.12 ( .58) 1. 39( .31) 1.00(0 .0 ) 1. 2 3 ( .39) IS 1.0 7( . 34) 1.39( .89) 1.03( .25) 1.30 ( .63) 17 1.50(1.07) 1.88( .37) 1. 39 ( .89) 1. 30 ( .96) 18 1.03( .25) 1.50(1.05) 1.0 3( .25') 2.10(1 .25) 19 l.S0( .86) 2.79(1.07) 1.50( .91) 1. 90 ( .97) 20 1.0 3 ( .25) 1.90( .62) 1.12 ( .40) 1. 3 3( .33) 21 1. 72 ( .50) 2.00( .58) 1.17( .31) 1. 39 ( .53) 22 1.0 3 ( .25) 1.50( .52) 1.0 3( .25) 1. 39 ( .73) 23 1.2 3 ( .52) 1.9 3( .77) 1. 0 7 ( .50) 1. 79 ( . 75) 2 4 2.50(1.03) 3.75(1.41) 2 .50 ( .36) 2 .00(1 .22) 25 1.67C . 78) 2.10 (1. 2 5 ) 1. 39 ( .33) 2.16(1 . 14) 2 6 1.12 ( .40) 1. 30( .73) 1.17 ( . 50) 1. 75( .53) " 7 1.12 ( .58) 1.94( .53) 1.0 3( .25) 1.39(1 .20) 23 1. 30 ( .58) 2.25(1.03) 1.14 ( .53) 1.39(1 .01) 29 1 - 2 3 ( .96) 3.21(1.14) 1. 33( . 39) 3.00(1 . 10) 30 1.00(0 .0 ) 1.2 3( .48) 1.00(0 .0 ) 1.50(1 .00) Response Code: 1 = highly desirable or very accurate description to S = highly desirable or very inacurrate description (3 = neutral) Refer to pages SU-—6S for content of items. 12 7 TABLE 14 Inservice Teachers (17-30) Mean Percent Differences Between Elementary Level (K-6) and Secondary Level (7-12) Teachers: Teacher Behaviors, Climates and Interactions Elementary Secondary Mean Behavior X X Difference LO 16.3 12.8 4.0 (3 IS. 9 9.2 6.7* L 3.0 3.3 0.8 AQ 5.7 5.2 0 .5 Q 1. 7 2.3 1.2 >r? 1. 3 4. 7 3.4 M 17. a. 3 3.0 15.6* MT 3 . 7 12 . 2 2.5 SP 0 . 3 "o .0 0 . 3 H 1.6 2.2 0 .5 TM+ 2.7 0.3 1.3* TM 0.0 0.1 0.1 PC 0.3 0.1 0.2 PS 1.2 0.0 1.2 N 5.3 1.2 4 .1* P 0.4 0.0 0.4 TP 4. 3 1.0 3.3 0 2.2 3.1 0.9 CF 2.6 1.8 0 . 3 G+ . 3.2 2-7 0 . 5 G- 0.4 0 . o 0.2 S + 2.4 1. 4 1. 0 S- 0.4 0.3 0.4 S/C 0.9 0.7 0 . 2 *t-test, p < .05 Elementary Secondary Mean Climate x____ x Difference M *+1.4 35 .0 6. it I 9.2 1.9 7.3 A 41.1 55.2 15.1* C 3.3 5.9 1.4 *t-test, ? <.05 Elementary Secondary Mean Interaction x x_____ Difference • 48.9 41. 2 7.7 36.9 36. 3 0.6 14.2 22.5 3 . 3 12 8 exhibit behaviors and skills stressed in their pre-service preparation program. Results and Analysis of the Personal Interviews During this study 14 graduate (inservice teachers) interviews and 15 student teacher interviews were conduct ed by this researcher and one other graduate student. The interview schedules appear in Appendix B. The average length of the interviews was approximately 40 minutes, all subjects were cooperative and seemed relaxed during the interview sessions. The following discussion summarizes the results for both inservice and pre-service teachers. A great many subjects indicated they selected Ohio State for their undergraduate program because it was close to home and/or inexpensive. Among all the subjects, just two were offered athletic scholarships. Several re spondents indicated that their parents encouraged them to attend Ohio State. In these cases, at least one of the parents was an Ohio State alumnus. Two them&s predominated the respondents* answers when asked, "Why teaching, why physical education?" The first theme was a desire by the subjects to change the stereo typic physical educator image of "throwing out the ball." The other theme was the "sports-mindedness" of the subjects. Most respondents had participated in high school athletics, many were "gym leaders" during their secondary school 129 experiences. It is also interesting to note that the "follow in the footsteps" of the parents surfaced as a factor in these interviews. Four of the graduates had parents who were physical education teachers, three of the student teachers indicated their parents were teachers, two of them physical education teachers. A series of questions in both interview schedules focused on the respondents opinion of their overall pre paration, their methods courses, and'their philosophy and theory courses. Graduates, when viewed together, ex pressed overall satisfaction with their teacher prepara tion experiences. Criticisms were generally directed at matters peripheral to the curriculum. Three respondents felt the program should be more involved in job placement. Others criticized the difficulty they had in obtaining additional certifications in health and secondary content areas. Student teachers indicated a level of satisfaction comparable to the graduates. Host felt their earlier field experiences during elementary and secondary methods courses had benefited their student teaching experiences. A major criticism between both groups of respondents was that courses taken in the College of Education were less helpful than those taken in physical education. Criticism focused on the'sequencing of courses; several respondents indicated that courses taken at the College were repetitive of 130 material covered in their major program. Graduates were asked to rate the helpfulness of their methods courses for their day-to-day teaching. On the 1 through 10 scale, methods courses were generally rated between 6 and 10, the higher the rating the more helpful were the methods in the opinion of the respondent. Gradu ates felt that the exposure to different styles and models of teaching was a benefit. Criticisms centered on the lack of practicality in the presentation of teaching methods. As one respondent reflected, "The exposure to methods was good, but often it is hard to adapt them into specific teaching situations." Student teachers rated methods courses slightly higher than did graduates. Benefits of methods courses most often mentioned were writing lesson plans , organiza tion for lessons, and the exposure to students in elem entary and secondary field settings. Student teachers were most critical of repetition of content matter across methods courses, specifically models of teaching and the writing of behavioral objectives. The reactions to philosophy and theory courses were more varied than were methods' ratings between both groups of respondents. Many interviewees indicated that phil osophies could not be "taught" in a pre-service program. One respondent said, "Mine or any other teacher's philosophy is so individualistic that I don't really think 131 the courses I took helped in my day-to-day teaching." Theory courses were criticized for their lack of applica bility to the school setting. It was interesting to note that respondents were not specific in their answers, very few actually called a philosophy or theory course by name. An overwhelming consensus emerged from the question, "Looking back would you want the program to have been more practical or more theoretical." Of the 2 9 respondents 2 5 indicated more practical. Specific examples included such suggestions as more work with discipline problems, more field experience, more observation of "good" physical education teachers, and more practical experience dealing with equipment and facilities. Graduates and student teachers were both asked to identify areas either neglected or overemphasized in their pre-service experiences. The inservice teachers had a variety of responses to neglected area including: i 1. Work with discipline problems 2. Need for work with full-size EMR classes 3. Work with equipment and facilities problems 4. How to teach without adequate equipment Student teachers demonstrated a different response pattern. They were less "practical" in their answers. Many of the student teachers felt a course in the psychology of adolescence was needed in the program. On the practical side, dealing with behavior problems was cited as a neglected area. 132 In response to overemphasized areas in the program, graduates were less specific than student teachers. Generally, graduates indicated some philosophy and theory courses were repetitive. That response seems to be in concert with the desire for a more practical program. Stu dent teachers were critical of teaching strategies. Seven respondents mentioned that lesson plans and behavioral objectives were overly stressed in their preparation. Field experiences for graduates and student teachers seemed to have been the most valuable component of their pre-service preparation. Eleven student teachers and eight graduates indicated that some field experience (usually student teaching) was the most positive event they could remember from their preparation programs. The amount of field experience was usually rated between three and six (1 = too little; 5 = just about right; 10 = too much). Inservice teachers and student teachers rated the quality of field experiences quite high (1 = outstanding; 10 = miserable). Both groups praised the program for the types of placements and the overall fine performance of cooperating teachers. In fact, the quality of field experiences was usually ranked less favorably by a re spondent if he was critical of cooperating teachers. Early field experiences (elementary and secondary methods) were viewed as important experiences for subsequent student .133 teaching. When respondents ranked the quality of individual. field experiences, graduates and student teachers both consistently ranked the elementary methods field experience « as more outstanding than the secondary field experience. The major criticisms of field experiences varied within both groups of respondents. A common theme was the frustration felt in some field experiences due to "territory." Several respondents said that in certain in stances they were reluctant to try a new method or discipline a child in a manner different from the cooperat ing teacher. A series of interview questions focused upon the realities of working with other teachers, with students, with administrators, and with parents. The intent of the questions was to find how well the preparation program had prepared the subjects for dealing with these individ uals. A rating scale with 1 being "no preparation at all" to 10 being "excellent preparation" was employed in the interview. Graduates generally responded that they were pre pared to work with other physical education teachers but not as well Dreoared to work with other teachers in the school. Graduates rated "team teaching" as a valuable pre-service experience. Both groups indicated that work ing with other teachers was "something you learn in the field not in the classroom." Several graduates and 134 student teachers felt that field experiences (especially student teaching) should prepare them for working with other teachers, but, due to crowded teaching schedules and time limits, the opportunity was not present. Among all respondents, working with students re ceived the highest ratings. Graduates rated the prepara tion between 6 and 9. Again, the importance attached to the field experiences surfaced in graduate responses. "The realities of working with students," said one graduate, "was gained from being there with the students." Stu dent teachers ranked this item between 5 and 10, and they related their responses more directly to their pre-service preparation. Several student teachers mentioned that a child growth and development course had benefited their student teaching experience. The realities of working with administrators and parents were ranked less favorably by both groups. Grad uates usually answered, "We didn't discuss them too much," in referring to administrators. Parent interactions were usually limited to the adaptive field experience for most graduates. The trend seemed to be that the preparation program really can't help you deal with administrators (except theoretically), but more could be done with parent interactions especially during the student teaching experience. 135 Student teachers rated these questions extremely low. For administrators the rankings ranged from 1 to 4, for parents, 1 to 3. Nine student teachers said they have had no contact with parents (excluding the adaptive experience). Several mentioned that their contact with building princi pals during student teaching was limited to the first and last days of teaching. Twelve of the 14 follow-up subjects coach inter scholastic sports. When asked which was the more important role to them, most responded a teacher as opposed to a coach. Most felt that they were hired to teach, the major ity of their interactions were with students (as opposed to athletes) and that their primary obligation was to those students. The teachers were also asked how the community (administrators, other teachers, parents) viewed their role. Most responded teacher, two said both, and three said coach. In responding to this question, the graduates were more tentative in their answers, several felt that the coaching role would increase the longer they stayed in the system. A partial explanation for the predominance of the teaching role may be due to the fact that 10 of the subjects were women. None of the women viewed her primary role as coach, while three of the four men indicated either they or the community viewed coaching as the first role. Of the 12 graduates who coached, 10 felt that teaching and coaching could be successfully integrated in the work 136 experience. The two who responded negatively indicated there was not enough time to perform either job adequately. Two graduates who said coaching and teaching could be successfully integrated also mentioned that time was a problem in performing both roles. On the whole, the follow- up subjects did not perceive the conflict in roles elaborated by Massengale (1975). Perhaps it is still too early in these graduates' work experiences for the conflicts to have occurred or to be recognized. A final question of interest concerned the respondent's reaction to the following question: Which of the following statements is closer to your viewpoint? a. A teacher preparation program can teach you to be a good teacher. b. You must teach for a while before you become a good teacher. c. Good teachers are born, not made. Thirteen of fourteen graduates responded to "B," one to "C." Student teachers were also favorable toward "B" (nine in all), but five student teachers elected both "A" and "B," one selected "A," and one chose "C." Respondents for choice "B" in both groups viewed experience as the necessary component of becoming a good teacher. Very few rejected their professional prepara tion as useless. Several indicated that pre-service training "basics" are a critical component of subsequent teaching performance. Still a recurring theme, the lack of viable discipline methods and classroom management 137 techniques emerged as a prime reason for not selecting response "A" among graduates. It is interesting to note that the one student teacher who selected "A" did so be cause "of the enormous positive influence of my cooperating teacher." Summary of Interview Data Interview results from the graduates in this study reinforce findings from earlier studies. Respondents in Lorties’s (19 75) study were more favorable of field ex periences than the campus coursework. A 196 7 National Education Association study noted that 52% of the re spondents criticized the lack of classroom management and discipline techniques; a similar response pattern emerged from these interviews. Additionally, teachers in this study nearly unanimously opted for a more practical pre paration program, a finding similar to that of Hermanowicz (1966). Finally, two career patterns mentioned in the Lortie study were confirmed in these interviews. Women in the current study plan to interrupt their teaching after several years to either marry or to raise a family. Women also indicated they would return to teaching at the class room level. One of Lortie’s assertions does seem to be contradicted by those interviews, that being male teachers leaving classroom teaching for administrative work or other 138 professional endeavors. Although the current sample is small, three of the four male teachers interviewed in dicated a strong commitment to classroom teaching with no alternative goals in mind. Combined Analysis of Results In Chapter I the third specific question asked: From a descriptive standpoint are there major differences in observed teaching behaviors between graduates of the teacher preparation program and those currentlv student teaching in that program? Table 15 presents a comparison of mean percent 'of total intervals between the graduates and the student teachers observed in this study. In addition, a t-test was con ducted in order to detect statistically significant differences. In the teacher behavior category three behaviors, lecturing (LO), giving directions (G), and maintenance (MT), were statistically different. Inservice teachers lectured more, but student teachers spent more time giving directions. Inservice teachers also spent a great percent of intervals observed in maintenance behaviors. In the classroom climate category inservice teachers spent significantly more time in the management climate (M) and less time in activity (A). The mean difference for the instructional climate (I) was large (7.1 greater 139 for the student teachers) but was not of statistical significance. Very small differences existed in the teach er interaction category. Returning to the behavior category, the similarities are more striking than are the differences. Both groups spent greater than one-quarter of all intervals watching their classes without verbal or nonverbal reactions. Nags were identical for both groups as were mean occurrences of teacher participation (TP) and spotting (SP), and virtually identical means in several other behaviors. Both groups asked more questions (AQ) than they answered (Q), and each group had low occurrences of punishment (P). Feedback occurrences, both positive and negative, maintain the pattern of similarity between the groups. The largest mean difference among the feedback was in the corrective feedback (CF) behavior, student teachers more corrective than the graduates. Both groups gave more general than specific feedback (positive and negative) with the inservice teachers slightly higher on both measures. The observed differences have several potential explanations. For instance, the decreased maintenance behavior for student teachers can be partially explained by the assistance of cooperating teachers and fellow student teachers. The same may be true of the lower management occurrence, but higher management for inservice 140 TABLE 15 A Comparison of Mean Percent Differences between the Inservice Teachers (17-30) and the Student Teachers (1-16) Inservice Student Teachers Teachers Mean Behavior X X Difference LO 14. 8 5.4 9.4* G 12.6 21.0 8.4* L 3.4 3.7 0 . 3 AQ 4. 4 4.6 0.9 r* i- 2.3 2.5 0.2 3.0 2.2 0.3 M 25.2 28.2 3.0 MT 1 1 . 0 7.0 4.0* SP 0.1 0.1 0 .0 H 1.9 2.1 0.2 TM+ 1. 9 2.3 0.5 TM 0.1 0.4 0.3 PC 0.2 0.5 0 . 3 PS 0.6 0.7 0.1 M 3.2 3.2 0.0 o 0.2 0.3 0.1 TP 2.9 2.9 0.0 0 2.6 3.3 1.2 CF 2.2 3.5 1. 3 G+ 3.0 2.3 0.2 G- 0.5 0.3 0.2 S+- 1.9 1.5 0.3 5- 0 . 5 0.5 0.1 s/c 0.3 0.4 0.4 *t-test, ? < . 05 Inservice Student Teachers Teachers Mean Climate X X Difference M 38.2 22. 5 15.7* I 5.6 12. 7 7.1 A 48. 6 59 .2 10.6* C 7.6 7.5 0.1 *t-test, p < .05 Inservice Student Teachers Teachers Mean Interact! on x X Difference C 45 .0 46 .2 1.2 I 36.6 33.7 2.9 a 1 A li 7fl 1 1 7 teachers may in part be due to the absence of supervision. While university supervisors generally set some contin gencies for management time in student teachers, no such contingencies were evident for the graduates observed in this study. This implies that the pre-service preparation program may be effective during its intervening influence, but maintenance of such behaviors after separation from the program is not in evidence. Correlational Analysis A final mode of analysis was to correlate selected demographic variables with the interval data from the TOS. Stewart (19 77) had found age and school location (urban versus suburban) to be significantly related to general praise. These findings could not be replicated in this current study. Several significant correlations were found for graduates. There was a correlation of .49 between hours devoted to planning and the percent occurrence of corr ective feedback (p < .01). A significant but lower correlation was replicated for student teachers, r = .37 (p<.05). One other correlation proved significant for graduates. An r of -.41 was found between the amount of time teachers estimated they spent dealing with behavior problems and the percent occurrence of general praise (PG) (p <.04). This finding could not be replicated with the 1H2 student teacher group. In general, demographic and observed behavior correla tions were low as well as non-significant. Any time large blocks of data are correlated, and scales of measurement are not of the same level, chance and spurious relation ships are a possibility. Stewart's (1977) study and the relative few significant correlations from this study suggest that presage-process investigations may not be- fruitful in descriptive observation studies of teacher behavior. Summary The results of the study were presented in Chapter IV. Various analyses were presented following the data report for the follow-up subjects and the student teachers. Interview data was presented for questions most closely related to the pre-service preparation program. The chapter concluded with a combined analyses of both groups and a short discussion on selected correlational results. Chapter V will summarize the various components of the study, state the conclusions drawn from the results, and suggest future directions for follow-up of physical education graduates. CHAPTER V SUMMATION OF THE STUDY This chapter will present the conclusions drawn from the observational, questionnaire, and interview data. Conclusions will focus primarily upon the follow-up sub jects in relation to the specific questions posed in Chapter I. A suggested model for continued follow-up efforts for the Ohio State physical education teacher preparation program will be proposed. Within that proposal a short discussion on cost effectiveness will be presented. The chapter concludes with recommendations for future study. 4 ■ A Review of the Study The fundamental purpose of this study was to describe the teaching behavior of one and two-year graduates of The Ohio State’ University physical education teacher prepara tion program by observing their teaching in a natural setting. Student teachers of the same program were also observed to provide a comparative base. 14 3 144 The subjects in the study were 14 graduates of Ohio State currently teaching physical education in the state of Ohio, and 16 student teachers of Ohio State who taught in the Columbus, Ohio area. Observers for the study were trained to use the Teach er Observation System (TOS), a modification of an observa tion instrument developed by Stewart (1977). A total of 24 discrete behaviors, 4 classroom climates, and 3 types of teacher interaction were included in the TOS. Observational data were collected with the TOS employing an interval recording method. Nearly 16,000 5-second intervals of climates, behaviors, and interactions were coded in this study. Reliability checks were con ducted at the conclusion of observer training and once for each observer in the field. Interval-by-interval inter observer reliabilities were calculated and found to exceed training criterion levels for all instrument categories. All data collection in this study was conducted on site in the graduate's or student teacher's teaching locale. In addition to the observational data, an attitude/behavior questionnaire and a personal interview was administered to each subject. The questionnaire and interview focused upon the content of the graduate's or student teacher's pre-service program. 145 Conclusions The conclusions which follow are organized in the following manner: conclusions about the graduates (in- service teachers) in relation to their training program, conclusions about graduates drawn from the attitude/ behavior questionnaire, conclusions about graduates based upon their teaching level (elementary or secondary), comparative conclusions between graduates and student teachers, conclusions from correlational analyses, and conclusions based upon trends and themes gleaned from personal interview data. The reader is cautioned that the use of statistical significance in some conclusions are assumed to be sample specific and are not generalizable to other populations of inservice or pre-service teachers. The following conclusions refer to graduates derived from data collected with the TOS. 1. Management mean percentage was above levels considered desirable in the preparation program. 2. The activity mean percentage for the graduates was within the range of the pre-service program goal. 3. Graduates who most individualize their classroom interactions gave the most feedback to skill and behavior. 4. The mean percentage of behavior praise was below desired program levels. 5. Graduates used more positive than negative skill feedback, a desirable program goal. 146 6. Graduates used more general skill than specific skill feedback; the program emphasis is upon specific feedback. 7. Graduates spent approximately one- quarter of class time silently ' observing the class. 8. Graduates infrequently employed teacher modeling in their teaching. 9. Graduates nagged students more than they praised them; this result was uncharacteristic of the program emphas is . The next group of conclusions refer to attitude/ behavior questionnaire completed by the graduates, a supervisor, and one peer. 10. Graduates, supervisors, and peers concur • in their attitudes for many of the instrument items, which are referents to the graduates pre-service preparation. Respondents1 median attitudes were consistently rated as highly or somewhat desirable. 11. Supervisors and peers indicated that the teaching behavior of the graduates was reflective of the skills and techniques contained in the questionnaire. In relation to the teaching level of the graduates, the following conclusions may be drawn. 12. Graduates who were observed teaching at the elementary level (K-6) had a greater mean percentage of positive interactions than did graduates teaching at the secondary (7-12) level. These differences were descriptively but not statistically different. 13. Graduates who were observed teaching at the elementary level had a greater mean percentage of negative behavior than did graduates teaching at the secondary level. Again, these differences were descriptive as opposed to statistical. 14-7 14. Differences of statistical significance between elementary teaching graduates and secondary teaching graduates were observed for the following TOS categories: a. elementary teachers had a greater mean percentage of nags b. elementary teachers gave a greater number of directions c. elementary teachers employed a greater amount of positive teacher modeling d. secondary teachers had a greater mean percentage of monitoring e. elementary teachers spent a greater amount of time in the instruction climate. When the observational data are compared for graduates and student teachers, the following conclusions emerge. 15. Graduates engaged in statistically greater intervals of lecturing and maintenance behavior, student teachers gave significantly more directions than did graduates. 16. Graduates spent significantly more time in the management climate and less time in the activity climate than did student teachers. A large descriptive difference was observed for instruction time with the student teachers having the greater mean percentage of intervals in that climate. 17. Student teachers gave more corrective feedback than did graduates. Graduates gave feedback (positive and negative, specific and general) at a slightly higher level than did student teachers. 18. Comparative similarities were more prevalent than were differences between graduates and student teachers. No differences or negligible differences were observed for behaviors such as nags, teacher participation, and spotting. Correlational analyses permitted the following con elusions to be drawn. 19. The positive relationships found in the Stewart (197 7) study between general praise with age and general praise with school location were not replicated in this study. 20. There was a positive relationship between hours spent planning lessons and the mean percent of corrective feedback for graduates and student teachers. 21. There was an inverse relationship between estimated time spent dealing with behavior problems and the mean percent of general praise for graduates but not for student teachers. 22. Intercorrelations of the TOS categories yielded a positive relationship between individual interaction with general praise, positive general skill feedback, negative general skill feedback, positive specific skill feedback, and skill feedback/corrective track. The final set of conclusions are based upon major consistencies or trends derived from analysis of the personal interview data. 2 3. Graduates selected to attend The Ohio State University because of its proximity to home and family and/or financial reasons. 2 4. Graduates selected the teaching of physical education as a career for one of two reasons, to change the stereotypic image of physical educators or because the graduate had a strong background in athletics. 25. Graduates rated their overall pre-service preparation from generally satisfied to excellent. Criticisms of the program tended to be general rather than specific. 149 26. Methods courses in physical education were rated favorably. Benefits were cited as the practical field experiences associated with elementary, secondary, and adaptive methods courses, and the exposure to a variety of teaching styles. Criticism focused upon the impracticality or "datedness1' of some teaching methods in '’real” situations. 27. Graduates rated philosophy and theory courses less favorably than methods courses. Course work in this area was criticized for its lack of applicability in school settings. 2 8. Graduates unanimously indicated that . the pre-service program should be more practical than theoretically oriented. 29. Graduates indicated that dealing with discipline problems and problems concerning use of facilities and equip ment were the most evident areas of neglect in the pre-service program. 30. Graduates most frequently indicated philosophy and theory courses were overemphasized in their pre-service program. Student teachers indicated some methods components such as lesson planning and writing behavioral objec tives were overly stressed. 31. Field experiences were viewed as the most valuable component of the pre-service experience by the graduates. Student teaching was often cited as the most positive event in the preparation program. 32. Graduates felt the program prepared them best to work with students. Preparation was consistently judged less than adequate for learning to work with parents, administrators, and other teachers. 33. Most graduates coach interscholastic sports but perceive teaching as their Drimarv school role. Graduates felt that 150 community members (other teachers, administrators, parents, students) also see them first as teachers. Most re spondents indicated coaching and teach ing could be successfully integrated in their work experiences. 3if. Graduates generally projected a strong commitment toward continued classroom teaching, more viewed it as a lifelong career as opposed to a stage (see Lortie, 19 75) in pursuit of an alterna tive career. •Future Follow-up Efforts Dunkin and Biddle (19 74) caution researchers to avoid the pursuit of inadequate or ill-conceived research, but often "commitment" stands in the way of that caution. Given that this research effort is now complete, this researcher will hopefully stand outside the restrictions of "commitment" in suggesting guidelines for future follow-up efforts in physical education teacher prepara tion programs. Suggestions will focus most specifically upon the Ohio State program, but certain components may be found useful in other settings. The one day on-site visitation seems to be a produc tive manner and cost effective way in which to collect data. A delimiting factor was the types of lessons observed. In future follow-up efforts one day visits might be conducted for fall, winter, or spring for each graduate. This strategy would vary the number of activities and lessons and allow for the collection of 151 greater amounts of observational data. In future efforts the Teacher Observation System (TOS) should be retained for collection of teacher be havior data. It has several benefits, two have already been addressed: the ease of training observers and the consistently high interobserver agreement findings. The TOS also is sensitive to teaching behaviors emphasized in the Ohio State program. The reliability of the instru ment and its content validity have been established. Still lacking, however, is its construct validity, how well do the categories reflect the behavior of a great many observations? That last question remains unanswered because more observation is needed. At this point, there is some indication of concurrence between the Stewart (19 77) study and the present effort. Table 16 presents the mean percent of intervals for the 30 subjects observed in this study and the 12 observed in the Stewart study. Most striking are the small mean differences in the climate category. Behavior data mean differences suggest that the TOS may be sensitive to a variety of physical educators in different settings. The drawbacks of the TOS in future follow-up efforts must also be considered. First, it does not measure student behavior nor can it yield the often clamored for "teacher effectiveness" data. Data reduction and analysis 15 2 TABLE 16 Mean Percent Differences for Teacher Behaviors and Classroom Climates: A Comparison between the Follow-up Study and the Stewart (19 77) Study Follow-up Stewart Study_(N=30) Study_(N=12) Mean Behavior X X Difference LO and G 26.9 17. 7 9.2 AQ 5.0 3. 9 1.1 Q 2 . 4 2.4 0.0 L 3.6 1.6 2.0 M 26 . 8 22.2 4.6 MT 8.9 18. 9 10. 0 NF 2.6 5.3 2.7 H 2.1 3.0 0.9 TM+ 2.0 2.6 0.6 TM- 0. 3 0.1 0.2 PG 0.4 0 . 3 0.1 PS 0.6 0.2 0.4 N 3.2 1.7 1.5 P 0 . 3 0.1 0.2 CF 2 . 9 4.3 1.4 G+ 2.9 4.2 1.3 G- Q.4 0.2 0.2 S+ 1. 8 0.4 1.4 s- 0.6 0.2 0.4 *' *1 Follow-up Stewart Study_(N = 30) Study_(N=12) Mean Climate X X Difference M 30 . 0 28.1 1.9 I 9.0 10 .4 1.4 A 61.0 61. 5 0 . 5 15 3 is time-consuming but could be facilitated with the use of an instrument such as the Datamyte. The attitude/behavior questionnaire should be retained in future follow-up efforts, but the scales are in need of revision. The lack of variance in virtually every item can be in part attributed to the 5 point scale. Attitudes might be better assessed in personal interviews, but behaviors should still be rated. An alternative to the "highly accurate to highly inaccurate" behavior scale might be to have the respondent estimate the percentage of time a graduate engages or employs a particular skill. The attitude/behavior scale should be updated yearly to best reflect the content of the preparation program. The personal interview is a rich source of program specific feedback and should be maintained. In future interview schedules, ratings should be obtained for specific courses and field experiences. Some graduates had difficulty distinguishing or defining a methods versus a theory course. An interview schedule should also be designed and conducted with the graduate's supervisor. This interview data should focus on the principal’s judg ment of the graduate’s effectiveness in relation to skills emphasized in the preparation program. Cost effectiveness must be considered in follow-up efforts. In the follow-up literature programs, total costs 154 ranged from $3,500 (Schalock, 19 78) to well over $20,000 (Sandefur, 19 70). Cost will, of course, vary based upon the size of the follow-up effort. The total cost of this investigation (independent of the College of Education effort) has been estimated as follows: 1. Salary (2 Graduate Assistants, one $30 70 including tuition waiver of in-state, fees) 2. Travel (observation of 30 subjects 600 within the state of Ohio) 3. Secretarial staff (transcription of 200 interview data) 4. Data reduction and computer usage 20 0 5. Miscellaneous (reproduction, typing 300 costs) Total Costs $4370 If graduate students (non-salaried) are involved in data collection, costs may be partially recovered by having them enroll and receive credit for practicum experience. In the present study total costs per subject (in cluding the 16 student teachers) were $145 per subject. Costs for follow-up subjects alone were $312 per subject. Program costs can be streamlined over the years by storing data in computers. These cost estimates do not include time donated by the subjects’ participating schools, but in this study such costs were minimal. In summary, it seems that follow-up of graduates is feasible and that it yields summative feedback data of value to teacher preparation programs. The collection 155 of data on student teachers provides a strong base for future follow-up of their inservice experience.' Certainly this effort has been within the spirit of the new Ohio guideline alluded to on page 1 of this study. The literature review indicated that critics of follow-up suggest that feedback data reaches programs too slowly or is couched in research jargon. Descriptive and qualita tive data seems to be a meaningful and relatively immediate source of program feedback. Follow-up efforts are just one component of program revision efforts in teacher preparation, but those who fully ignore or discount follow- up results are most likely.apologists for non-accountabili ty. Recommendations for Further Study Based upon the results and conclusions of this study and based upon many of the questions left unanswered, this researcher suggests the following topics for future researchers interested in teacher behavior and follow-up studies. 1. A follow-up of the student teachers observed in this study in inservice settings when they gain employment. 2. Collection of follow-up data during the fall and winter as well as the spring. 3. Use of the Teacher Observation System (TOS) in a wider variety of physical education settings and/or with the Videotape Data Bank Teachers. 156 4. The development of a pre-service data collection system to provide comprehensive behavioral informa tion prior to follow-up assessments. 5. The use of a modified TOS to observe follow-up subjects in coaching environments. 6. The observation of graduates from other physical education teacher preparation programs in Ohio to provide a compar ison to the Ohio State program and to expand the growing data base needs for descriptive research in physical educa tion . APPENDICES » APPENDIX A 15 8 159 Project Director PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER PREPARATION Ohio State Dai varsity Standard RerfeAence Eduard Coates Uajoo: EDb-303-0t V Rotated: EVb-303-01 F, E0b-303-02 A CvuUiUaLLon M e a - PhyoUaL Education IK-12) MAJOR AIM Physical Education Teacher Preparation seeks to present cognitive, psychomoeor, and effective subject matter in a planned, sequential order and to integrate related subject matter ae the most appropriate tlra . As the student proceeds through the curriculum, newly presented subject matter areas are discussed in relation to prior learnings. Hence, there ia a continuous utilization and intertwining of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values throughout seven instructional blocks. Inherent in the sequential program are a series of field experiences which allow for the limedlate integration of theory into practice. Similar to the academic presentation, the fie ld - based plan is designed on a continuum in terms of the degree in which experiences approximate a reality test for teaching. LEARNING EXPERIENCES insure a developmental sequence culminating in fu ll teacher responsibilities. These Physical Education Teacher Preparation combines levels include: curriculum content, skills, and teaching strategies in seven blocks of time. Tradi . exploratory participation; tional courses' are eliminated as each block revolves about a focus such as pre-school ch il . observation of video tapes; dren, adolescents, or exceptional children. The content, skills, and field experiences in observation in a variety of school each block relate to the focus of the particu s e ttin g s ; lar block. The re s u lt i s team teaching and horizontal and vertical integration of mater . role playing and simulation; ia l and experiences. . m in i- and m icro-eeaching; A ctivities include reading, personal assess ment, group discussion, interviews, observa . coaching individuals, small groups, tion, and peer critiques of the areas related half-size classes, fu ll classes, and to human relations.' full-tim e teaching and responsibility. Through fie ld experience, an essential part The informal aspect of the curriculum empha of each block,students work with a variety of sizes student and faculty participation in cooperating teachers in four different school planning schedules and experiences on a s e ttin g s . shared basis. Field experience focuses on creating a hands- Forming a block of forty-five students who on situation for the student with opportunity proceed for two and one-half years as a unit, for self-evaluation and feedback by the cooper sharing instruction, field experience, and ating teacher and peer evaluation through semi group projects, results in increased friend nars. An additional general professional ship and sharing among students in the same course permits video-taped teaching by the block. They assise, teach, evaluaee, and student with evaluation of thae experience. partlcipaea with their peers for a consider able period of time. An attempt is made to have each prospective teacher have fie ld experiences of some nature In addition, each block has a faculty advisor in rural, urban, and suburban settings. One who remains with the group for the entire quarter's work focuses on working with the period. This measure of continuity provides exceptional child. Through observation and time for the establishment of firm relation hands-on experience, students gain knowledge s h ip s . of youngsters who are retarded or have cerebral palsy or m ultiple handicaps. Students ae the level of Block VI provide service for state professional organizations Field experiences within the total curricu at conventions or contribute their services lum are structured in logical progression to to the wheelchair games, pre-school, and 160 •pore academy a ctiv itie s conducted by Che ORGANIZATION/SEQUENCE department of education. Basically, students'enter the block program in The analysis and evaluation of teaching per a sim ilar manner to other prospective college formance Is a continuous process which is of education students. They are required to applied to sport skills, content, and field complete Freshman Early Experience, basic experience. In addition to the examination university requirements, and foundation cour of teaching performance, many .of the same ses in physical education during the firs t procedures are used to analyze each student's five quarters. •port s k ill performance. The Block 1 fie ld experience is peer-oriented SUBSTANCE and is conducted in small group sessions la conjunction vich the Teaching Learning Center. Kiwwlzdgi Three units.of micro-teaching (explaining, demonstrating, questioning) are required from . Psycho-analytical behaviorlst and existen each student. A re-teach follows each micro tia l theories of human behavior; teaching unit after the student recslvos feed back. . variety of environments for learning; Block II field experience is peer-oriented . strategies for promoting human relations; and integrates physical s k ill activities which are learned during this quarter. Stu . psycho-social areas of the physical educa dents gain, analyzs performance and give feed tion curriculum (play, ethnical considera back, teach peers using traditional teaching tions, women's role, recreation for seniors models, review audio capes, and examine in society, participation of minorities, studies relating to teaching styles. cultural implications); Block I I I focuses on the elementary school . pupil norm syscems and professional norms child and on teaching at the elementary level. for teachers. Early in the quarter students observe in different elementary schools In varying S k U U socio-economic settings. Each individual, as pare of an inquiry group, plans lessons, . Listening and attending; teaches dally for two consecutive weeks at - . reading non-verbal cues; one elementary school, and then teaches at . responding to student feelings; another school for two weeks. The student is . dealing with confrontation; supervised by the college instructor and . defining and dealing with problems; cooperating teachers and receives feedback . formulating rules; from peer evaluation. . being consistent; . reducing inappropriate behavior; Block IV concentrates on secondary school . having individual conferences with students; yo u th . Each stu d e n t is assigned to one . dealing with parents and with the media; secondary school as part of a team and spends . working effectively with colleagues. two fu ll mornings per week for six weeks teaching a minimum of two classes per day. AtCctudea a n d Vo Z u j u Since classes are usually sp lit into two sections, the student works vich twelve to . Coping with role conflicts; fifteen pupils in a class. Adequate time is available for evaluation, including peer . working with colleagues in a supportive feedback. One micro-teaching session related way; to the introduction of a lesson is completed by each student during this quarter. . being aware of ethnical considerations in sport and of personal meaning in partici Block V focuses on adapting physical educa p a tio n ; tion for handicapped persona. The laboratory experience involves working on a one-to-one . recognising cultural implications in sport; basis with a handicapped child. The experi ence laats for ten weeks. Students also . becoming professionally involved in one's observe in special education schools. w ork. 161 Block VI Includes organization and adminis physical education classes every period in tration of secondary school physical educa the morning (usually four periods) ace tion and athletics. Students are expected to u t iliz e d . work as coaches in a designated sport either during this block, prior to student teaching, At present, the public school system' receives or during student teaching. tuition waivers in exchange for ehe services o f co o p e ra tin g te a ch e rs. I t i s recommended The student teaching block, Block V II, is a that ehis system be revised to provide remun fu ll day of participation in a secondary eration in a way that best meets the needs of school or half-time in a secondary and half- Individual ceachers. time in an elementary school. In most instan ces, student teachers are assigned to reasis Four porta-pack video tape units are used in in designat'd teaching centers. During this the Teaching Learning Center. Two large play block, vide? capes are made of teaching per back monitors and several small monitors formance. Students, c ritic teachers, and with associate, hardware are also provided as supervising faculty share in analyzing the are audio cassettes and cassette video recor tapes. Team teaching is pare of student ders. Facilities include a Teaching Learning teaching and involves peer evaluation of Center manned by teaching associates and a students in Che team process. room for video taping, microteaching, and p ra c tic e . COORDINATION COURSE INFORMATION Schools with quality programs and staffs ara selected for student field experiences. In Course title : Block I order to most effectively u tilize the school Field experience credit hours: 2 quarter seeting, field experiences are conducted in hours designated teaching centers during each Course description: This block Includes a quarter. The centers are rotated periodi study of definitional efforts concerning cally to prevent schools being overused and play, sport, and athletics; trends in an effort is made to u tilize cooperating physical educacion content; verbal in ceachers who are effective, s k illfu l, and structions; the essential elements of les interested in working with prospective ceachers. son planning; audio/visual techniques; reading non-verbal cues; listening and The cooperating ceacher is in a position to attending skills; responding to student’s supervise more effectively chan college per feelings; accepting scudenc ideas and sonnel and therefore is the best source of confrontation skills. student feedback. Physical Education Teacher Preparation emphasizes developing the a b ility Course title : Block II of the cooperating teacher to assume major Field experience credit hours: 2 quarter responsibility for supervision. hours Course description: This block explores Teacher education students are required to winning, excellence, and ethical consider attend an orientation meeting at the school ations in sport; personal meanings in the site to discuss and develop understanding of spore experience; analysis of performance the ro le they are to assume as te a ch e rs. W hile according to physical principles; analysis in public schools, students follow rules estab of activities; opan and closed skills; lished by the institution and act as ceachers. performance feedback; s k ill analysis; and establishment of credibility in the teach Teaching assistants, selacead from doctoral er’s rola. Additional topics of discus candidates specializing in ceacher educacion, sion include defining problems, diseln- are Involved heavily in field-based supervision. quishing serious from non-serious problems, The services of approximately twenty-one teach formulating rules, establishing positive ing assistants are required for the seven scudenc behavior and reducing inappro blocks. The field portion requires Che ser priate behavior, varying stimulus, and- vices of four teaching assistants for super reducing managerial behaviors. Contingency vision four hours twice a week. Also, each management, divide and conquer, Individual teaching assistant works with the students conference, and setting examples are also at least once a week in a discussed. sem inar. Course title : Block III To enable each student participant to teach Field experience credit hours: 2 quarter two periods a week, five schools having two hours 162 Course description: Through Block III, stu study of discrimination in sport and dents discuss educacion as a goal; body discusses individually-prescribed activities awareness, expressions, and control; and self-management s k ills . questioning skills; problem settings; inquiry models; modeling effects; duties Course title : Block VI of the elementary ceacher; analysis of Field experience credit hours: 2 quarter student norm systems; analysis of pro hours fessional norms of teachers .and adminis Course description: The block deals with the trators; soclo-psychologleal messages in teacher education student as the teacher teaching practices such as sexism, compe and coach and attempts to develop the titio n and cooperation in learning, and ability to deal with anxiety and hostility. skilled and non-akilled pupils. Expectations of and responsibilities to students, administration, and other Course title : Block IT coaches are discussed. Students learn to Field experience credit hours: 4 quarter deal with parents, to use media, and to hours prepare articles and statements. Students Course description: During Block IV, stu learn the various role differences between dents learn the modeling effects and duties teaching and coaching and resolution of of the secondary ceacher, alternative these differences. environments to extend Che secondary school, basic concepts for analysing Course title : Block VII, Student Teaching teaching methods and techniques, generic Field experience credit.hours: 15 quarter s k ills and models previously introduced, hours the group in the sport situation, asser Course description: During the student teach tiv e n e s s and aggression, and th e in d iv i in g b lo c k , students become aware o f p ro fe s dual in the sport situation. sional organizations, negligence and legal lia b ility , collective bargaining, formal Course title : Block V and informal channels of influence, how to Field experience credit hours:. 2 quarter work w ith c o lle a g u e s, and how to make jo b hours applications, including w riting a resume Course description: The block Includes a and interviewing. APPENDIX B 164 DEMOGRAPHICS/'SCHOOL CLIMATE 1. Whleii at the fallowing describes your currant S. What one service provided by the Education Personnel employment? Placement Office was most helpful to you? a. classroom coaching (Include an, music, a. Assembling credentials and making these available reading. at cetera). to hiring officials. b. otbor school employment {counseling, adminis b. Providing me with Information regarding vacancies. tration, curriculum design, media, et cetera). c. Nominating or recommending me for specific positions c. employed in post recondary education. chat w en open, d. employed outride of education. d. Helping me prepare my data sheec or resume; helping e. unemployed. me prepan for interviews. e. None of the above. 2. Age s. 20 - 23 9, How would you rate the Educational Personnel b. 26 - 30 Placement Office services? c . 31 - 35 a. excellent d. 36 - 40 b. good e. over 40 c. fair d. unsatisfactory 3. Sex e. did not use services a. m ale b, fem ale 10. If you an considering further nudy, please check cha appropriate description below. 4. Racial-ethnic background a. Bachelors degree a. Black, non-ffispanic b. Masters dagne b. Hispanic c. Doctorate c. Asias-Aaerican d. continuing education d. Native American (American Indian) e. Specialist certificate c. White, other If vou a n not presently teaching, you need not fill out the 5. Highest earned dagrea rest of this questionnaire and the ones that follow.- Thank a. less than Bachelors degree you for completing die first ten questions. Please return all b. Bachelors forms in the enclosed envelope. c. Bachelors plus some graduate credits If vou are presently teaching, please continue. The rest d. Masters of the questions on this form and the following forms are e. Doctorate specifically addressed to you. 6. Years of full-time teaching experience Including U. Yean of full-time teaching experience in your pnsant this year. school only. s . none a. one b. one b. two c . two c. th n e d. three d. four or more e. four or more e. not applicable 7. If not currently teaching, did you ever seek a 12. Check the item that describes your current position in teaching paction? terms of your educational background. s. yes a. Employed la ray major field. b, no b. Employed la ray minor field. c. not applicable c. Employed ta an educational field other than chose 1 prepared tar ac OSU. d. Not applicable. 165 13. Please indicate which an* at the following wai m ax 18. Approximately how many students are enrolled In your school! helpful to yon In securing employment. a. under 200 a. College at Education faculty member. b. 200 - 500 b. Oepartmenc or program chairperson. c. 500 -1000 c.' Educational Personnel Placement Office. d. 1000 - 2500 d. Preparation in more than one teaching area, e. over 2500 e. .None of the above. 19. Which one of the following best describes your school? 14. How did you obtain your Snt teaching position? a. public a. Pound a |ob In the district In which I student taught. b. private, all male b. Began as substitute and was later hired as tegular ceacher. c. private, all female c. Personal contacts (friends, relatives). d. private, coed d.. Placement Office or other College assistance, e. other a. None of Che above. 20. Which one of the following best describes the socio 15. Which one of the fallowing best describes your school? economic condition of the majority of students in your school? a. The majority of students ate academically motivated. a. lower Discipline pcobletns are rare. Teachers cake few sick b, lower - middle days and generally remain in the system until retirement. e . m iddle Participation in parent organisations is very high and d. upper • middle these organisations help the school by supplying e . upper desirable aguipment and materials. b.- The majority of students are academically oriented. 21. What one grade level do you currently spend the major part There are only minor discipline problems which do not of your time teaching? • interfere in a major way wtth the academic program. a. pre-kindergarten or kindergarten Pirent organisations are nip ported but are sec in a position b. grades 1 - S to help the school with equipment and materials. Teachers c . grades 7-12 feel chat they need more time for planning and preparation. d. special education classes c.. Mon students are not academically oriented or motivated. a. adult or post-secondary They ate less inclined to identify wich the school and its personnel than in b above. Discipline it a considerable 22. How coca to innovation is you: school? concern. Parents want their children to be educated, but a. constantly changing for die sake o f change. do not have soong ideas of what that means. Teachers feel b. innovative climate 'with support for individual effort. that they need mere time with students to teach effectively. e. careful, documented change is supported. d. Students display a lack of self control, experience and d. very difficult to change anything. background needed for success in school. Discipline is a e. completely closed to innovation. major problem. Many parents cannot be tailed upon to I assist the child academically or with behavioral problems. 23. Which one of the following best describes your present Many teachers leave the system as fast as they can and attitude toward teaching in general? teacher turnover Is very high. a. very satisfied b. somewhat satisfied IS. What is the average student/teacher ratio la your classes? c . neutral a. under IS to U d. somewhat dissatisfied b. IS - 20 to U e. very dissatisfied c .. 21 - 25 to I. d.,26 - 30 to I. 24. Which one of the following best describes your attitude e . .over 10 to I. toward your present position? a. very satisfied 17; Which one of the following ben describes the location b. somewhat satisfied o f your school? c . neutral a. inner city. d. somewhat dissatisfied b . urban e. very dissatisfied c. suburban area d .. small town/ rural 166 25. What one factor would do so n to help you upgrade your 3U How much time do you spend in class attending to effectiveness u a ttaehor In your school? behavior problems? a. few er o r sm aller classes. a . none b. naora background la reaching methodology and/or contact b. about SM m u . c. about 10K c. more support from othor school personnel. d. about 20* d. naota preparation dme. e. more than 20* a. oona of tha abova, 32. How many hours/week do you spend reading, correcting, 20. How often do you plan laaaooa cooperatively with ocher and/or grading student work? taachara la your school? a. 0 . 3 hours a. alaooac always b. 4 • 7 hours b. frequently c. 3 - 11 hours c. sometimes d. 12 - 15 hours d. ran ty e. over 15 hours a. not at all 33. How many hours per week do you spend in performing 27. Which ona of tha following bast describes tha locationat clerical functions and in maintaining student records? tha library • madia canter moat useful to you? a. 0 - I hours a. a district - wide center b. 2 • 3 hours b. a school • wide cancer c. 4 -5 hours c. a department cancer d. S - 7 hours d.. a command al tdueadonal matariala ca near e. more than 7 hours a, no canter available 34. How many hours/week do you spend supervising extra 23. Which of the (allowing services a (fat ad by tha professional curricular activities such as clubs or sports? staff at tha library . madia canter is moat valuable to you? a. 0 hours a. development and production of audiovisual materials for b. 1 - 2 hours classroom Instruction. c . 3 - 5 hours b. regular assistance to studans in developing class ptoiects. d. 5 - 3 hours c. development of bibliographies of center materials relevant e . m ore than 3 hours to your own and students1 needs in your classes. d. all of the above. 35. Supervision of exoacursicuiar activities ist e. no services offered. a. completely voluntary on my part. b . expected by the school administration. 29. Is a professional member of tha school's guidance staff c. required by the school administration. available oo work with your students should the need arise? d. a cou'diUou of my employment with the district. a, available during school bouts and evenings for counseling with patents. 30. For time spent supervising exsacurricular activities, b. available at all hours of tha school day. which of the following do you receive? e.. available less than half the school day. a. monetary compensation at a professional rate, d. net available. b. decreese in teaching load or release dme. e. no services offered. e. a token amount of monetary compensation. d. no compensation. 30. Describe the assistance you receive with discipline e. not applicable. problem s. a. assistance available and effective. 37. How many hours per day do you spend teaching? b. assistance available only in extreme circumstances. a. 0 hours . c. no assistance available. b. 1 - 3 hours d. assistance available but admission of need viewed c . 4 hours negatively. d. 5 hours e. don't know. c. mom than S hours 38. Hew maay boon per day do you spend supervising students in study halls, tha cafeteria, du Ubrary/medla canter, hallways, at eatara? a . 0 bouss b . 1 bout c. 2 boua d. 3 b oua a. note than 3 houst 39. How many baa houn do you have each weak for planning? a. 0 b oua b. 1 - 3 boua e. 4 - 4 boua d. 7 • 10 houn a. n o te than 10 b o u a 40. How many boon do you spaed each weak in coun seling et tutoring individual students outside of elass d n il a . 0 houn b, 1 - 3 boua e. 4 - 4 hours d. 7 - 10 boua a. more than 10 houn 41. How maay dmes/yeer does a school administrator observe and evaluate your teaching? a. 0 times b . 1 tim e e. 2 • 3 times i. 4 - o times e. more than 8 times 42. Your teaching Is also evaluated by (choosa tha most Important below)! a, teaching colleagues b, 'department head e , stodana d. cunlculum specialist a. none of tha above 43. Which of these people have been most helpful to your professional development? a, administtaton b. teaching colleagues c, department head or curriculum specialist d. counselor a. none of tha above 44. During your flm year of teaching, was there a key panon who provided support and encouragement? If so, plesue Identify. a. administrator or instructional coordinator, b. counselor c. a fallow teacher d. a relative or biend e. none of the above DEMOGRAPHICS/SCHOOL QOESTIONNAIRS- STUDENT TEACHERS ID NUMBER ______DIRECTIONS: Please respond to all questions or statements. Place your NUMERICAL response la the blank to the left of the Item. ______A. Sex 1. male 2. female 3. Age (place age in years on the blank) C. Are you considering further study beyond the bachelors degree at this time? 1. yes 2. no 3> uncertain ______D. Which of the following oest describes the location of the school in which you do your elementary student teaching? 1. inner city 2. urban 3 . suburban k- small town/rural 5* not currently elem. student teaching _ _ _ _ _ E. 'Which of the following best describes the location of the school in which you do your secondary student teaching? 1. inner city 2. urban 3* suburban h. small town/rural 5. not currently sec. student teaching P. Eow many classes do you currently teach per week? (Elem and sec. combined, include those you team teach with another student teacher) G. 'What is the average student to teacher ratio in your classes? 1. under 13:1 2 . 16-20:1 3. 21-25:1 k- 26-30:1 5- over 30:1 H. ’Which of the following best describes your present attitude toward your student teaching at the elementary level? 1. very satisfied 2. somewhat satisfied 3. neutral somewhat dissatisfied 3> very dissatisfied 6. not currently elem. student teaching 169 I. Which of the following best describes your present attitude toward your student teaching at the secondary level? 1. very satisfied 2. somewhat satisfied 3* neutral if. somewhat dissatisfied 5« very dissatisfied 6. not currently sec. student teaching J. How would you rate the assistance you receive from your cooperating teacher at the elementary level? 1. assistance readily available andeffective 2. available and somewhat helpful 3* neutral if. assistance given but generally not helpful 5. very little or no assistance given 6. not curently elem. student teaching X. How would you rate the assistance you receivefrom your cooperating teacher at the secondary level? 1. assistance readily available and effeetive 2. available and somewhat helpful 3* neutral if. assistance given but generally not helpful 5* very little-or no assistance given 6. not currently sec. student teaching L. How much time do you spend in classes attending to behavior problems? 1. none 2. about 3« about 10% if. about 20% 3* about 30% 6. 30% * M. 'Which one of these people had been HOST helpful to you during your student teaching experiences? 1. cooperating teacher 2. another teacher in the school 3> your university supervisor if. a fellow student teacher 5- none of the above N. How many hour per week do you spend planning your lessons? 1. 0-2 hours 2. 3*5 hours 3« 6-7 hours if. 8+ hours 0. If you hold another job while student teaching, how many hours per week do you work at that other Job. (Place num ber of hours on blank, put 0 if you have no other job) 170 (M). P. In the three blanks to the left please estimate the per centage of class tine spent in management (M), instruction Q. Would you consider public or private school teaching of physical education to be your first occupational choice? 1. yes 2. no If no, what would you consider to be your first choice? 5. Overall how would you rate the professional preparation proram in physical education at Ohio State? 1. excellent 2. good 3« neutral if. fair 5* poor Thank you for your responses. Please be assured that all the information you have provided for this study remains in strictest confidence. PLEASE HETUEN THIS QOESTIONNAIEE TO TOTE SUP2P.YIS03. 171 Inservice Teacher Interview Schedule TEACHER INTERVIEW Direction to interviewer: Read all questions verbatim. Follow underlined directions but do not read underlined sections to respondee, 1. Think back to when you first decided to choose teaching as a profession. a. Why did you decide to become a teacher? b. Why did you choose OSU? c. What was your program area at OSU? d. Why did you choose the program area you did? e. Are you now teaching in the program area you just mentioned? The next few questions will be about your perception of the teacher program that you went through. 2. Overall, how satisfied are you now with the program you had then? 3. On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the methods courses in your program help you in your day-to-day teaching? (scales: 1— not at all: 10— to a great extent) Probe once if only a number is given. L|. On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the philosophy and theory courses in your program help you in your teaching? (1— not at all; 10— to a great extent) 5. Looking back, would you want the program to be more practical or more theoretical? 6. On a scale from 1 to. 10, rate the adequacy of the preparation you received in your content area. (1— much less than I 'needed; 5 — just about right; 10 — much more than I needed) INTERVIEWER'S COMMENTS: 7. Can you think of areas that were neglected in your program? INTERVIEWER'S COMMENTS: 172 8. Can you think of areas that were overemphasized in your program? INTERVIEWER’S COMMENTS: 9. On a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate your preparation for the realities of working with other teachers? (1— no preparation at all; 10— excellent preparation) with students with school administrators_____ with parents_____ Probe if response is 1, 2 or 9, 10. 10. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the amount of field experience you had. (1— not nearly enough; 5— just enough; 10 — too much) FIELD EXPERIENCE MEANS ANY CONTACT WITH REAL STUDENTS OR CLASSROOMS; IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO STUDENT TEACHING. 11. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the quality of the field experience you had. (1— outstanding; 10— miserable) 12. Was there anything unusual about your student teaching? PROBE ONCE IF NECESSARY, UNUSUAL MEANS AN EXPERIENCE OUT OF THE ORDINARY USING THE TEACHER’S COHORT GROUP AS A COMPARISON. 13. No preparation for any job is ever perfect. Was there any part of teaching that caught you completely by surprise after you began your employment? 14. What is the most positive event you remember from your experience in your teacher education program? What is the most negative event you remember from your experience in your teacher education program? The next few questions deal with the realities of teaching. 15. Which of these three statements is closer to your viewpoint? a. A teacher preparation program can teach you to be a good teacher. b. You must teach for a while before you can be a good teacher. 173 c. Good teachers are born, not made. PROBE IF THE RESPONSE IS A LETTER SUCH‘AS "a..." "WHY DO YOU SAY THAT7 ^ 16. (a) What kind of teacher did you want to be when you started teaching? (b) Have you changed your mind? DO NOT HURRY. DO NOT CLARIFY. SAY ONLY, "THIS IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION. TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU NEED TO ANSWER." 17. There are many ways that people learn both how and what they need to know in order to teach. Some of them are: teacher education programs, other college courses, their own experiences as students, other teachers. What has most influenced your development as a teacher? How? 18. Generally, how satisfied are you with teaching now? 19. Can you think of any instances that make you feel happy or proud to be a teacher? 20. How has teaching affected your family and/or personal life? 21. How has your family and/or personal life affected your teaching? 22. What bothers you most as a teacher? 2 3. What would you consider to have been your biggest problems in your first year of teaching? 24. Many teachers say that teaching produces a lot of tension and anxiety and that they need to find ways to relieve some of the pressure. Have you found some special ways to "keep sane'1? Whom did you identify as your supervisor when we first contacted you? The next few questions concern the relationship between you and that person 25, How would you characterize the working relationship between you and that person? 174 26. Do you hold values in common about teaching? What are they? 2 7. Do you have any disagreements in values about teach ing? What are they? 2 8. Who has been the most helpful person to you this year? In what ways? 29. Are you taking college courses now? Where, what, for what reason? 30. How many years do you plan to teach? 31. Do you coach any interscholastic sports? If yes, continue to 32; if no, skip to 36. 32-. Which ones? What level? 33. How do you view your role in this school system, as a teacher or as a coach? 34. How do you think the community views your role? 35. You’ve been teaching and coaching for ___ years now. Can you tell me some of the difficulties and/or benefits from filling both roles? 36. How do you think other teachers in the schools view physical education teachers. (pause) Do you think they are different from classroom teachers? END OF INTERVIEW. 175 Student Teacher Interview Schedule TEACHER INTERVIEW Direction to interviewer: Read all questions verbatim. Follow underlined directions but do not read underlined sections to respondee. 1. Think back to when you first decided to choose teach ing as a profession. a. Why did you decide on teaching? b. Why did you choose physical education? c. Why did you choose O.S.U.? INTERVIEWER’S COMMENTS: The next few questions will be about your perceptions of the teacher program that you are completing. 2. Overall, how satisfied are you now with the program? 3. On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the methods courses in your program help you in your day-to-day student teaching? (scales: 1— not at all; 10--to a great extent) Probe once if only a number is given. 4. On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the philosophy and theory courses in your program help you in your student teaching? (1— not at all; 10--to a great extent) 5. Looking back, would you want the program to be more practical or more theoretical? 6. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the adequacy of the preparation you received in your content area. (1-- much less than I needed; 5— just about right; 10— much more than I needed) 7. Can you think of areas that were neglected in your program? 8. Can you think of areas that were overemphasized in your program? 9. On a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate your preparation for the realities of working with other 176 teachers? (1— no preparation at all; 10— excellent preparation) with students with school administrators_____ with parents_____ PROBE IF RESPONSE IS 1, 2 or 9, 10. 10. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the amount of field experience you had. (1— not nearly enough; 10— too much) FIELD EXPERIENCE MEANS ANY CONTACT WITH REAL STUDENTS OR CLASSROOMS; IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO STUDENT TEACHING. 11. On a scale from 1 to 10, rate the quality of the field experience you had. (1— outstanding; 10— miserable) 12. Has there been anything unusual about your student teaching? PROBE. ONCE IF NECESSARY. UNUSUAL MEANS AN EXPERIENCE OUT OF THE ORDINARY USING THE TEACHER'S COHORT GROUP AS A COMPARISON. 13. What is the most positive event you remember from your experience in /your teacher education program? What is the most negative event you remember from your experience in your teacher education program? The next few questions deal with the realities of teaching. 14. Which of these three statements is closer to your viewpoint? a. A teacher preparation program can teach you to be a good teacher. b. You must teach for a while before you can be a good teacher. c. Good teachers are born, not made. PROBE IF THE RESPONSE IS A LETTER SUCH AS "a.. "WHY DO YOU SAY THAT?" 15. There are many ways that people learn both how and what they need to know in order to teach. Some of them are: teacher education programs, other college courses, their own experiences as students, other teachers. What has most influenced your development 177 as a student teacher? How? 16. What bothers you most as a student teacher? What was your biggest problem? 17. Many teachers say that teaching produces a lot of tension and anxiety and that they need to find ways to relieve some of the pressure. Have you found some special ways to ’’keep sane” after a day of student teaching? 18. Who has been the most helpful person to you in your student teaching? In what ways? 19. Assuming you obtain a teaching position, how many years do you plan to teach? 20.. What is your perception of the job market for teachers of physical education? 21. Do you have alternative plans? What are they? 22. Do you want to coach any interscholastic sports? Which ones? 2 3. Are you convinced that coaching and teaching can be successfully integrated in your work experience? 2 4. How do you think other teachers in the school view physical education teachers? END OF INTERVIEW -APPENDIX C 178 179 Protocol No.__ RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS CONSENT TO SERVE AS A SU3JSC7 IN RESEARCH BEHAVIORAL AND SURVEY RESEARCH FORM I consent to serve as a subject in the research investigation entitled: Follow-up of Physical Education Sraduatas for a Teacher Preparation Program: A Descriptive Analysis The nature and general purpose of the research procedure have been explained to me. This research is to be performed by or under the direction of Dr. 3aryl • s-edent°P who is authorized to use the services of others in the perform ance of the research. I understand that any further inquiries I make concerning this procedure will be answered. I understand my identity will not be revealed in any publication, document, recording, video-tape, photograph, computer data storage, or in any other way which relates to this research. Finally, I understand that I am free to withdraw my consent and discontinue participation at any time following the notification of the Project Director. Si gned ______ISubject) Date______o r Time______P.M. Witness - (Auditor) Mark S . Freedman Investigator PA-027 180 SUBJECT SUMMARY SHEET Subject Name_ Total Sheets Coded # Total Climate Int/Climate # Overall Int Pet Int M I A Cl # Total Int/BehBehaviors # Overall Int Pet Int LO G L AQ Q NF M MT SP H TM+ TM- PG PS N P TP 0 CF G+ G- S+ S- S/C # Total Interactions Int/Inter # Overall Int Pet Int C I A APPENDIX D 181 182 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 17 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TCPCHER I— 0 5 ^ l11J-26 TALK G ' l7-55 AND L ! ) 3 . 5 6 LISTENING AQ P U " ‘61 0 h 1-'17 ______o.oo- 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS v !' " ' ~j20. 13 v T :----- |14.05 !— !3-35 -rpqpucFj ' ' - “ q p J—]1 . BO D T I W i t 1 c: c “ " * - u no. M pi :0.00 f D 10.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS i CF l^no "17.13 TE°CHER G- i1’26 qcopTiQ^ig c+ [4.40 'SKILLS.1 S- !0,63 F/r I1-147______|___ (______t 0.00 1.50 ' 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS *G iZD°-4? T r Q r u p D - - PS P ’-- 1 c 0 . 4 2 RFPFT 1 0 N F “ N " ' "'I5-115 (BEHAVIOR) d L_,0>g8 oToio K50 31.00 41.50 B. 0 0 7 . 5 0 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS t TEACHER TM^i l;-73 f.< "i " r ; t «^r; 'r m _>Q.0Q cTcO l'. 00 2.00 31.00 4'.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS INSERVICE TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 18 PERCENT OF T0TRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS j______TEACHER LO j I16'71 TRLK G | llllB3 pijn l r"i2-32 j LISTENING PQ | !s,ou 0 30-23 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 >10.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ! M ! |1U.90 MT j !3, 34 NF ]°-70 T c c r p c c i 5 P jo.00 A C T I V I T I E S H pi-36 0 ! !5, 73 TP i ~126.se 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 10.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS * ! H3.91 G+ ~ ! 0-'J6 Q_ , 10. /U TEQCHER no.23 REACTIDNS 1S K I L L 5 ) 5_ 1-- 10-46 s / r o.co 0.00 1.50 3'. 00 1.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ! n r * 0 • 00 TEACHER ! p 210 . 00 REACTI DNS N ~13.91 'BEHAVIOR) p jO.OO 0.00 1.50 3.00 l'. 50 6'. 00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 t e 0 C H E R T M + |l. 1 ti t *.1 _■ 0 , 00 •••crrL I NO --- r -- r_ oToo iToo 2’. oo 3'. 00 ii'.oo 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 18/+ INSERVICE TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 39 PERCENT OF TOTRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TERCHER 5EHRVIORS I TERCHER LO : I10-93 TRLK G j I10-00 PND L | !3l7° LISTENING RQ p ] 3-15 p I— li-r'T ( i i 1 1 i i i 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 10.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS y | 129.61 yT i------116.11 rrarurp nf i n ? - 63 1V ' TIES h ni-3o 10.52 T P ~ 1 2 . 0 4 ______0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL intervals rp I il•6S G . ;---- 1C.74 i------ TERCHER G- j I0,37 no-37 15MLLS! S- p0,:9 s/cr10-19 1.00 1.50 3. 00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS J 10.00 TfQrucp PG PS io.oo RE-CT ions ; ------■ ii.bb . N i ------f A•£HPV l OR) i P jo.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS T C Q . ' u r p .! 10.50 p « ~. p i t hi q t y .’0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 185 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 20 PERCENT OF tqjr L INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS l TEACHER LO j I8'89 TALK G j - " l^ - 96 AND L i I5,63 i LISTENING AQ iZ Z !11*15 0 j— I3-"1 . , , , , 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 132.59 t 1 !10.67 nf Z 2-27 TE°CHER go 0.00 Q T 7 y I T 7 £ S ! ' ' H D 1 - 118 17.41 7p Of CO oToo ToToO ioToO 30.00 40. 00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 10.89 TEACUER G- i0,00 REACTIONS 5+ D 0' 1"1 [SKILLS! s- Z ] 0^ 0.15 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS p0 !0. 00 TEnCHER p ^ 10.00 REACTIONS N! 12.52 D C o o (BEHAVIOR! Q_ 1 0.00 1.50 3.00 4. 50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ! TC Q i-pC-R TM+, " 11.: a f‘:CE_ING 7M_no.»s 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 186 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 21 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TEACHER LO "1 1 6 . 75 TALK G All.39 AND L □ 2'01 L I STEM NG AQ .79 0 .00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 HO.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS m ; i23-115 NT : ...... "I11-39 N F — 1^.19 TE°CHER CDsJ ) !j Q. 00 PC T I V IT T ES j_| "10.64 n 'O.oo TP ^o.oo oToO 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS re 13.52 "iB.ee G + TEACHER G- [ 12.01 i REQCT!0NS S+ ; “ 12.01 (SKILLS1 S- L "11.64 S/C 12.35 o'. 00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS PG O 0'50 TpPCHER P 2 to.oo REACT I DNS N ; 13.69 (BEHAVIOR) p h0-17 0.00 ’ .50 .3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS I ' |1.04 TM+i T JO. 00 N ■' d E L I N G o'. 00 1 .00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5'. 00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 187 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 22 PERCENT Oc TCTRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHRVICiflS 1)2.09 TEACHER LO ’9.79 TALK G I 12. 8B AND L 14.61 L I 5 T EN3NG AQ n PL 30 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 '10.00 "50.00 PCT THIRL INTERVALS 126.02 19.96 NF 0.00 TcqrijcR p lO.OO SP ACTIVITIES 18.44 110.91 TD ’0. !9 oToO 10.00 20.00 30.00 40,00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS CP ; ' ' I5-30 G+ " — |g-BB I TEACHER G- I0-78 REACTIONS 5+ ' i2-50 !SK ILLS) S- Z Z 3 1-34 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 p n iD.OO T E p CHER p ^ jG. 00 REACTIONS N I—10. 38 (BEHRV! OR) p jo.00 0.00 1.50 .3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS TEACHER T N + p 0,19 ►/ p r C ; I ~ T y _<0 • 00 ~i.....— 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 M.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 188 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 23 PERCENT PF TOTAL INTERVRLS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS I______TEACHER LO i I10'60 TALK G j I9-71* AN? L ■ !‘‘,s5 LISTENING AO lZZ?11*"'1I Un no.p------66 1- ---- 1----- 1------1------1 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS Mi |42.56 NT H 0.3M m c i9.06 TFQCHER cp :0.00 nr T! v i Ti es U) ... TO. „9a P i H O . 85 TP iC.OO L 0.00 10,00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS i r f ! 1.03 ------11.54 TEACHER G- I0-85 REACTIONS S+ - l11-51 [SKILLS’ S- ,u-00 S/cQ!L!!L__,______,______,______,______, o'. 00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS i pp 10.00 -rcQruPQ ~ " ps |0-00 REPCTI3NS M r^o.s. '__ 'BEHAVIOR! □ .0.00 0.00 1.50 3.00 4;50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ! TEACHER T mV I1-37 m i TERCHER LO j l1K79 TALK G | !1K79 AND L |ZII}3*57 LISTENING RQ ; ln-75 n H 1.96 U ■— :------,------, ------, ,------j------! 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 MO.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 128.57 VJ • ...... I13-011 NF ;____------111.25 T C O r u C B " " gp :o.oo cr T i w t T i F S i - - • u| 2 1 •07 on _ H1.25 TP iO.OO 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 MO.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS CF 11. M3 G4 10.90 T E R C H E R G- "|0. 18 11.07 PERCT!CN5 S4 10. 90 I SKILLS) S- 0.00 -----i • 1 '■ 0.00 1.50 3.00 M . 50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 36 PG [ J 0- TERCHER PS |0-00 REQCTI0NS N . -10.90 IBEHPV I OR) p 10.00 0.00 1.50 3.00 M.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ! T C n c u C D TM+' ' '10.71 10. 5M POCEL! NG TV-' n. 0ri ! .00 2.00 3.00 M.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 190 J N5ERVICE TERCHER 1ND1VIDURL PROFILE TERCHER 25 PERCENT OF TOTRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS I______TERCHER LO | ~115-0g TALK G j I17'25 l .00 AND L I LISTENING RO j I10'52 G p 2-gt) O'. 00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS I v i------ni.o2 i------NT ■" ' ' 19-90 NF I0'118 TERCHER ^ p >0.15 5P , prTiv tTiCS - * ""* ^ ni-92 c iO.OO TP ? : 0 . 3 2 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS CF : H 2-06 . 5 6 h4 TEDCHER G- [ H ! 0' lb. 2d ppprT i p>\'S S + 1 ! S -SI L L S) 5 - 0 °-,S q /r 12. 40 0.00 1.50 3.00 l'. 50 6'. 00 i7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS PC, ' 10.95 T FRr Hl- R |b. as PS ! REPCTIONS N 11. 7 6 (BEHfiV I OR) p i o . o o 0.00 1.50 3.00 41.50 6'. 00 7' PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 |4. IS TPPLH-R T M + w n r . ; 1 ‘.j r , TM.H o. 1 6 o ' . 00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 191 1N5ERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 26 PERCENT‘OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS ~]19. 92 TEACHER LO .. . |git.ag TALK G !—!2. OB ANA L 'I. :io L I S T r \ ] N G AO Q n 1. so 0.111) 10.00 20.00 30.00 1)0.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS M ; — ' ]22.79 NT !s-51 rcnrh'fp NF C0-39 “ ' w — C^p '0.00 " w - ■ ' - - 3 H . n0.7B o :°-oc j d 0.OG oToO 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS CF 11.30 G+ I1-*3 TEACHER G- :°-00 REACTIONS 5+ |0'52 f SK '' ' S? 5 - LJ0*13 ------fT. 0 0 1.50 3.00 *1.50 6.00 7'. 50 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS p q *0.0 0 TEACHER PS p 0-26 REACTIONS N i 12.63 (P E H P V I OR) P f— 10-52 o.oc r.5o 3.00 •1.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS T p p p U C Q TM4i------10.39 1 k< r-rri t vr; T m _ ;0.00 C.OO 1.00 2.00 3.00 >1.00 s'. 00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 192 INSERVICE TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 27 PERCENT OF T0TRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS 120.20 TEACHER LO j______TALK G | 120.20 AND L P K6° LISTENING AQ L 10.40 Q 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 >10.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS ’3.2n NT 110.00 fvi p • G° TERCHER 2 p :o.oo ACT I V IT IES H >.eo 0 io.oo T p ; II!. 80 0.00 l o T o O 20.00 3o7o0 140.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS CF .00 G + 17.20 TEACHER G- 0. 00 RERCTIONS S+ -|4.80 (SKILLS) S- 10.40 S/C 12.40 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS PG _ 10.80 TEACHER “11.00 PS L REACT IONS N L 15.00 (B E H R V I 0 R) lo.oo 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS T E A C M E R TM+i. 14.80 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS 193 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 28 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS I______TEACHER LO j I 11*'57 TALK G 1 !7‘MB i AND L j I6'17 LISTENING AQ | I7-10 Q I'"' I7-29______,_____,______0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS N ;____ 132.71 I____ kt ;____ 115.33 N,p ^ 1 2 .0 6 TEACHER SP 0.00 A C T 1 V I T I E S H 0. 19 0 0.00 TP 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS CF ; !'•31 g + ; i1-31 T E A C i_:ER.> G - !°‘00 RE aCT ! CNS S+ I 1-31 [SKILLS) ■ S- ' !°-75 S/CL 10.75 1.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 10.00 PG i ’’’E A C H E R 10.00 PS 1 R E A C T !ONS 1 ■ ' |0.75 N (PE H P V !OR) P jo. 00 1.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS T EACHER TM-*r 10. /b .!—10. 19 H 0 P E L 1 N G T H 19 '.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 194 INSERVICE TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 29 PERCENT OF TOTRL INTERVRLS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS TERC H E R L0 122.69 TALK G 115.29 RND L ^]1.B5 LISTENING RQ — 12.69 Q |2.02 0.110 10.00 2(1.00 30.00 '10.00 50.00 i*i:r -k i k i l tNi r.nvm.T) jy ! 12 1 . 00 MT — 111.09 NF v0,33 t r q r H F q " ’ 0 p ;0. 00 p r j T V1T1CS ’ - * v - ' H H 2*02 0 Hi.oi t P n 1-85 ______( , i______oToci 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 SO.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS CF 12.35 G4 1 1 . 10 TERCHER G- ;°’00 PERCT I0N5 5+ lZ H 0,50 (SKILLS) S- lZ Z H 0*67 c /rO.OO 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 PG I0-00 TERCHER p |0.00 RERCTIONS |S. /I N 1 (BEHAVIOR) 18 P I2- 0.00 1.50 3.00 4*. 50 6*. 00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 “ 14.54 TERCHER TM * T m JO.OO »,* MW* IT.. ♦U. T . v > rU 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS 195 INSERVICE TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 30 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TEACHER LO I I12,63 TALK G jZ D '1-35 AND L |IZ 1 3-77 LISTENING AQ jZ P ’.IB 1 Q j [3.31 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 1)0.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ___ 1115.96 MT 1 19.32 nf q !-BB TEACHER 5P °-00 ACTIVITIES h ZIP-69 P io.oo T O — 111.76 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 H0.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS f~F H .04 "12.90 TCCirutCj Q_ ^]0.?1 ’.28 reactions s+ 0.62 (S-\ I L.L5! s- j! . 04 S/C 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 • 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS I p ^ ! 0 . 0 0 jcqruiFFj “ P5 10.00 REACTIONS n U ^ , , (SEHRVIORJ C 00 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50___ 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS TEQCHER TM+no.2i rn o .21 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 196 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 1 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHRVJORS ■TEACHER LO □a.41 TALK G "121.09 AND L 11.67 LISTENING AQ p 1-66 Q '~|1-67 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS M ' 139-33 yj : I8-15 NJC Q0.7U TEACHER T “ 5 p j o . o o D P T J v T T TF S *” --- u HO. 93 r1 r n i o . o o j p r~|i.B6 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS i r r i 12.41 G+ i °-u0 q_ ,0.00 TEPCHER " |1.6 / REACT t DNS : cj_ '“““HO. 56 ISK I LLS) R /r I1. 11 o’. 00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS i PR : "(2.23 TEACHER Dp j ------11.86 REACTIONS N ! [2.23 IBEHAV OR) I p i—10.37 0.00 l’.SO 31.00 41:50 6’.00 7'. 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS l TERCHER TM+' li.i l V 0 C E _ I \‘ G T M - 0.00 l1.00 2. 00 3*. 00 4 .00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 197 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 2 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TEACHER LO j !5'17 TALK G ■ I55’ 55 AND L | l ^ 73 LISTENING AQ j U D 4' 87 0 , ■ ■ ■ 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS N 130 .43 NT "|3.99 NF 3 . 10 TEACHER 5P j o . 0 0 Q r i 1 v I 7 I E S J-j . II. 26 0 !0. IS TP '0. 15 o'. 00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS cf ;______■ji.ee , ...... G+ ______11.48 TEACHER G- i 10,1111 REACTIONS S + 1.92 IT . 33 5/! ( (.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7. P C T TOTAL INTERVALS i PG 112. db TEACHER |4,Q7 PS f REACTIONS N !---- )0.?4 , (BEHAVIOR) h0. 15 P 1 (.00 1.50 3.00 4 . 50 6'. 00 7. P C T TOTAL INTERVALS TEACHER TM+ib°-15 TM J10.00 AC CEL T NC 1 1 1 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 198 STUDENT TEACHER 1NDI VI DUAL PROFILE TEACHER 3 PERCENT OF TOTRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS j TEACHER LP jZl2-52 TALK G 1 — |m. 5 6 f AND L H U 3-08 t LISTENING AQ q i______,______(______o'. 00 10.00 20.00 30.00 HO.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS M " .. |*11.36 WT |6.60 MF I 1-55 T cn r u r q ” " 2 p 10.19 C"' T V T T 1 pc - ' ‘ H r y . 33 0 0.00 t d ------17.57 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 . 40.00 50.00 P C T TOTAL INTERVALS CF -11.17 10.53 0.00 TEACHER G- i 1.36 REACT I DNS S + 1 HO.97 'SKILLS1 S- : 10.70 S/d 0.00 1.50 3.00 4'. 50 6'. 00 7.50 PCT TOTALINTERVALS PG E I D ° - 70 TEACHER p s ! i0-58 REACTIONS ------13. 11 N 1 'BEHAVIOR) p '0.00 o'. 00 1.50 3.00 4;50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTALINTERVALS ] 1.94 T r A C H E R TM-*1 ...... «.* r* r~. rr i t »,i r TM- |2.91 i O.O'i 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 199 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 4 PERCENT OF tqtAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TEACHER LO [zi3-24 TALK G AND L ni-62 LISTENING AQ r 4.05 G ~]G.32 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS M ■____ ”|4D. 03 N T ' 113.29 NF p '-6? TEACHER gp jlO.32 A C T I V I T I E S .43 :Q. 00 TP ’-11.46 ~r T T 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS CF 10.01 G + 10.81 r ’0.00 TEACHER b “ c + :o.oo REACTIONS o ' '.SKILLS) s_ n°-16 ">0.65 S/CL o.oo 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS i p Q HO. 15 TERCHER 13.24 PS : ~ REACTIONS N 10.49 (BEHAVIOR) 0.32 0. 00 l'.50 3'. 00 4'. 50 6'.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS TEACHER TM +ZI!0,3? 1/ •) r i_ ] r, TK- 0.00 0.00 I.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 200 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 5 PERCENT ‘OF T0TAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TEACHER LO 3.94 TALK G "19. 84 AND L |— T3-^0 LISTENING z c-44 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS NT ... 111*-67 N F Z Z 11'33 TC)r|-ir pj . “ " jp !0.00 ACTIVITIES ' Br H Z Z ^ - Be o Z 1-97 T D 10.70 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS I o o o CF G + :0.00 TEACHER G- :— 10. 36 REACT IONS 5 + 10.00 :SK ILLS) S- .0.00 s/r'o.oo o'. 00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7'. 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS PG 3°-16 T E a CHER p 2 io. oo REACTIONS N “ 12.68 (BEHAVIOR) p 1-- |0.5’l 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7'. 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 t c q r u rr q TM^JO.OO >. q -1 i ^ q T M JO. 00 ■■■I. ... ■ ---- 1------1---- \ PCT TpTfli INTERVALS 201 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 6 PERCENT OF tqtRL INTERVRLS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHRVIORS TERCHER LO ' |7‘05 TRLK G 1 ~113-611 17.21 PND L | H LISTENING RQiZD 5-17 u tU'u'-L 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 ‘10.00 50.00 Pf.T TOTAL INTERVRLS M 132. H5 NT “11 3. IB NF IM.SS 7 EACUER C D 10.31 PCT IV!TIES 2.90 H 0 Ho.63 jp io.oo 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 HO.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 0.00 - CF n + 11 •*» 1 □ 0.31 J E R C u *■ R G- RC r:C T ] OfNi5 R + .. 10. Iti . |U. /u ! 5 ! L L S i S- i s/p "!0- 16 0 .00 1 .50 3.00 4.50 6.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS PG 0.00 TEDCHER PS 0.00 REACTIONS N _m.i os 'BEHQVIOR) ■ |0.03 P 1 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7. PCT total INTERVRLS TEACHER TM+b0-16 T M_.0.00 ’•'OCEl • NG -- 1------1 i 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4. 00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS 202 5 T !J D E N T TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 7 PERCENT 'Oc TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 ‘10.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS M I |33-0° NIT ‘-- !3'96 Ncc —l !. 7P Tcqrucp - “ CJD 10.‘l‘: ACTIVITIES ' H >!•76 pi |5. >13 tp : !11,73 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS CF G 0-29 G+ --- jQ.73 TEACHER G- ; > 15 REACT]ONS 5+ b0-15 1 c, I s- p 0-29 ■ 0.00 j / 4 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS PC p °-15 TEnCu ER PS ic,0° REACT IONS N 1 110.70 (BEHPV! OR) p f10.!5 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 S.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS T E “ C H E R t m O 0, 15 TM jo. 00 f-U‘ |f'’ 1 NG 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS 203 STUDENT TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 8 PERCENT OF T0TRL INTERVRLS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS 15.30 TERCHER LO Til.MO TRLK C — 15. 73 AND L 13. 53 L JSTEMNG no o *12.fi‘> o', un iu.iiu 2n.no an.no tio.no ■j o .oo PCT TUI'RL INTERVRLS |18 NT ! Its. 26 NF no.Gu TEACHER q P iO. 00 h •' T ! V I T I E S u ; !5.m r Z 3 3-‘,! T p I19.7H ______uToO 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS I I 10.80 ------|tl.qg TECCAER G- l°-Glj RE-r;T IONS s+ _ 10.96 'Si'. ILLS) 5- : I2,57 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS pg b 0,16 TEpCHER p ^ JO.OO P E a C T I 0 N S M ' "I e. 35 (BEHAVIOR) p '------|0.f>4 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6'.00 7.50 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS '■ ■ 11.28 T F a C H E R t m -+: PC'EL : NG t m j - io.ig n. no 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS 2 0 k STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 9 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS TEACHER LO 115.09 TALK G ]12.00 AND i .42 15TENING AQ [ZD 4.0G q HO. 58 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS 1 N " |! B. 18 NT 15.60 NF □ 3• HO TEQCHER S p io.oo fiCT ! V ! TIES H '0. !9 I’; 114. 12 10. 19 0.00 10 .00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS 1 r r 19.2B 10.97 1 ETCHER C- ,0,0° REACTIONS S+ 11.93 (SKILLS) >" 0.00 ci/r10.19 0 . 00 1 .50 3.00 4‘. 50 6‘. 00 7'. 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS p r rC • 00 TEACHER dcj ;0. 00 REDCTIONS N °-00 • (SEHAV 3 OR) p iQ. 00 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 T C U1C p TM +! 8.70 >,* rr, T m TM-C.OO 0. 00 1.00 2.00 3 1.00 4 1.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS 205 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 10 PERCENT OF TOTAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS i TEACHER LO ' ln,7S TAi_K C j i I26-06 AND L p a . 12 LISTEN INC AD ; H ] 3-U0 Q ni.ee ______0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS M “(28.54 MT -- 12.6!! \\r ---TJ.3G t r or uc p CL LO 0.00 n ^ 1 ' y I T ! E S M ;o.?4 10.95 C T P 0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTPL INTERVALS I r c r ------[8.63 14.08 _i TEACHER G- !°-gfl Rcai~f»f’iNic1 [0- 12 c, 1 i i c ) q _ 0* 00 / r 0.00 •t.'JO 11.50 3.00 4.50 5.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 P Q 0.00 TEQCHER pCj ! C. 0 0 REPCTI DNS N P 0 -24 ■ 'BE hdv JOR) p jo. 00 0.00 1! .50 3. 00 4'. 50 S'. 00 7.50 PCT tctal INTERVALS 1 “11* GQ TEACWER TM-t 7 MJO.on *■'r ' ~ \ ] \-G 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 206 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TEACHER 11 PERCENT OF 10TAL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TEACHER BEHAVIORS ! i m. no TEPCHER LG T q_ K 0 j ...... 123.37 n n i rn2.7s I LISTENING RQ p 2,5l) g jlO.52______0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS M 116.32 MT T14.43 J. 7‘j NF G! T C 0 0 u C p Cj O 0.00 RCT ’ V 1T!ES 10. 02 ■]24.05 T p lO.V 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS CF Jl .55 — [1.90 G + TEQCUEA G- G 0,34 PEACT ] ONS 5+ G°-3Li (Si\!LL5J s- ;0-00 5 / r,o.oo ------1 !.00 1.50 3.00 4'.50 B'.OO 7. PCT TOTAL INTERVALS <0.00 PG ' T PACHC R .p< '0.00 R ^ q r1 ! DNS "|1.20 N fPEHPV] OR) ---TO.69 1.00 1.50 3.00 41. 50 6*. 00 7. PCT TOTAL INTERVALS I Tcnft.-f; T n i " 11.20 U.00 f-*q i“ i V'j TM-: ------1 ------1------r ■ — 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 207 STUDENT TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TFRCHER 12 PERCENT OF TOTRL INTERVRLS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHRV30RS |___ TEACHER LO i |S,BB ' 120.01 TRL*. G r L [ 111.20 L I iTEM NG RO r 7.00 Q 1 ______0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS t N i ------— 126.61 >..< t *1 ‘. 1G NP T F Q H c R “ ' . c;p 0.00 - ^ ri TO. 56 0 0.00 TD ;0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS ! QC I 11.12 G+ ---- I3-36 K o r u r t j r;_ JO.OO 13.36 REACTIONS 5+ : S- :o-°° .00 S/C° 0.00 l1.50 31.00 4‘.50 6'. 00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS i PG 1 !°-81j TEPCHE R PS C=]0-56 RE AC TIONS N i 1 2 - 8 0 !S'f Ha v ] OR) p jo.oo______0T0O TTici 3'. 00 4'.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 1 T J ^ r p TW+1 ~]4.20 T N • ______O.Cif 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 208 STUDENT TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 13 °ERCENT'OF IQTRL INTERVRLS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS I TERCHER LO r"-‘15H t RlK G ■ I26-76 q | • [ 3.5b L I STEN I NG RQ | I3-53 i q j~lg.07______0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 <10.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS M 123.86 NT j l3~7H f.ip R0-03 -r cp.~pE R 2 P ;o.oo Q r T 1 V I T 1 E S H ■-- 111 •1S « i------17.05 T p :0.00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 <10.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVALS R6.81 ~j 5. 81 Tcnrncq |°-fi? 13.53 RE*!C 1 I DNS 5 + ' 1! . 04 IS: PS 0.00 RE1 DNS 13.32 i £E HP v ! DR) P HE: I? 0.00 1.50 3.00 U.50 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS I 11.37 TERCiJER T M vfirt i \r, i 00 •J . 1.00 2.00 3.00 <1.00 .00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS 209 STUDENT TERCHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 14 DERCENT * OF TOTRL INTERVRLS 5PENT IN THE TERCHER BEHAVIORS i TERCHER LO p 1,1,2 T PL K G j I35'57 r n d l r n 3-46 LISTENING RP ! !4,67 ! n i i2.6M U |—; 1 i .. " 11----- 1------1 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS M 120.33 M T !3•5d MF Hl-02 TCQ'-p.TD r c . ‘0.20 J. Q - T 1 y I 11 ' m 'U-22 0 po.9! T p :o.on Cl Too 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS r f 111.19 15.28 T r a [JO. 20 t____ R ” !3c t i o n s 5 + I |Q,q! 'SKILLS' s- I 10.41 ■ 0.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 5.00 7'. 50 PCT tctrl INTERVRLS PG jo.ooI TrnrurR PS |jO.OO RE c CTIONS N r1 )2.05 (DEHGVIOR) P io.oo i'.oo 1 .50 3. 00 4.50 6.00 7'. 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVRLS T E C H C R T M |2.44 >.'C'r-r. i ’ >1.1 r; | m . “ 11.03 '.CO ! .00 2.00 3. UO 4.00 5.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS 210 STUDENT TERCHER IN D IV ID U A L PROFILE TERCHER 15 PERCENT OF TOTRL INTERVALS SPENT IN THE TERCHER BEHRVIORS I TEACHER LO f]°'5G TALK G j I37-97 RND L j l5,ge LISTENING AH | lB-M6 o ------,------,------,------, 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 >10.00 50.00 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS 118.23 MT ZZ!3-*'5 N p — 12.44 q p ".1.00 h Z!!,8° p 11. 69 !! . 69 TP _ 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 PCT TCTRL INTERVALS I CF ; I2-63 G+ ZZZZZZZZZZZZ!3,20 TEACHER G- ZH0-38 RE AC T I CNS 5+ iZZD0*56 f5'\ ILLS' 5 - :o'°,J rj !/f~0.00 ------1------1------r 0.00 1.50 3.00 4.50 ■ 6.00 7.50 PCT TOTRL INTERVRLS PG D 0,19 t^cher p5 j0.00 R U C T I O N S n | ...... ( p r. u p w 1 0 pj) , L - ■ p i— jO. 38______0.00 1.50 3.00 4 .'50 6.00 7.50 PCT TUTAL INTERVRLS yrpf'iJCP) TM4j 1 j 1.69 "111.66 p i ’ 1 1 T|,i, ; 1 1 1 1- (J.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 PCT TCTRL INTERVALS 211 STUDENT TEACHER INDIVIDUAL PROFILE TERCHER 16 PERCENT pF TOTRL INTERVRL5 SPENT JN THE TERCHER RCHAV] 0R5 I TERCHER LO i!' I8-03 T A L K G | I19,31 A N D L p 1,711 LISTENING RQ j . I6'07 0 pl-55 ______i______|______(______( 0. CIO 10.00 20.00 30.00 10.00 50.00 PCT TRIAL INTERVALS j M ■ 119’711 yT R0.87 Njp 00.87 T-qr-MCtq : ' “ c p '0.00 or1iv 1T1F5 ' “ • • - H :— p.60 r» ! I !. 52 T IJ 0. 00 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 10.00 50.00 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS j16.91 TERC(JCR G- ~~l''52 R E; 1C1 ' CMS S + 10.13 ! S ■ v I L L S 1 S------Ij 5/C .30 j .00 1 50 3.00 1.50 s'. 00 7.50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS PG --- '0.C5 T E A C u E R PS 0.00 RE AC TI 0NS !2. 02 N (BEHAVIOR) o 0.00 0.00 1 50 3.00 15 0 6.00 7*. 50 PCT TOTAL INTERVALS T E i;:CP r R TM-l |b. 1 o.i!3 ’VO T y - . u.00 1 00 2.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 PCT total INTERVALS BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, R. D. "Western Kentucky University's Follow-up Evaluation of Teacher Education Graduates." Paper presented at the Teacher Education Program Folow- up Evaluation Conference, University of Texas, Austin, April, 19 78. Adamson, H. K., Burke, C. D. and Cox, D. R. "Evaluation of the Weber State College CBTE Program." Paper presented at the Teacher Education Program Follow- up Conference, University of Texas, Austin, April, 1978. Anandam, K. and Williams, R. L. Cooperative Classroom Management. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 19 73. Anderson, H. H. "The Measurement of Domination and of Socially Integrative Behavior in Teacher's Contacts with Children." Child Development, 19 39, 10, 73-79. Anderson, W. G. "Descriptive-Analytic Research on Teaching." Quest, 1971, 15_, 1-8. Anderson, W, G. "Teacher Behavior in Physical Education Classes. Part I: Development of a Descriptive System." Unpublished paper, Columbia University, 1974. Anderson, W, G, "Videotape Data Bank." Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 1975 , 46_, 31-34. Arends, R, I. "Secondary Teacher Preparation Program, University of Oregon: Procedures for Program Evaluation," Paper presented at the Teacher Education Program Follow-up Conference, University of Texas, Austin, April, 19 78, Ayers, J. B. "Teacher Education Program Study at Tennessee Technological University," Paper presented at the Teacher Education Program Follow-up Conference, University of Texas, Austin, April, 19 78. Barrette, G, T. and Anderson, W. G., eds. What's Going On in Gym: Descriptive Studies of Physical Education Classes. Manuscript in press, 19 78, 212 213. Batchelder, A, S, and Cheffers, J. "CAFIAS: An Inter action Analysis Instrument for Describing Student- Teacher Behaviors in Different Learning Settings." Paper presented at ICHPER Conference, Montreal, Quebec, July, 19 76, Bellack, A, et al. The Language of the Classroom, New York: Teachers College Press, 1966. Berliner, D, C, and Tikunoff, W. J. "The California Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: Overview of the Ethnographic Study." Journal of Teacher Education, 1976, 27, 24-34, Bijou, S, W,, Peterson, R. F. and Ault, M. H. "A Method of Integrating Descriptive and Experimental Field Studies at the Level of Data and Empirical Concepts." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19 68, 1, 175-195. Boehm, J. "The Effects of Competency-Based Teaching Programs on Junior High School Physical Education Student Teachers and Their Pupils." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 74. Brewington, W, C, "A Study of First Year Secondary Science Teachers Who Completed Pre-service Programs at the Ohio State University." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971, Brown, W, R. "Teacher Competencies and Characteristics in a Science Pre-service Teacher Education Project." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 72, Cheffers, J, "The Validation of an Instrument Designed to Expand the Flanders System of Interactional Analysis to Describe Non-verbal Interaction, Different Varieties of Teacher Behavior and Pupil Responses." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1972 . Cheffers, J, "Observing Teaching Systematically," Quest, 1977, 2_8, 17-28, Cignetti, J, A. "A Comparative Study of the Perceptions of Beginning Secondary Science Teachers in Relationship to Their Science Classroom Activities, Cultural Attitudes and Knowledge of Culturally Deprived Students." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 71. 214- Cooper, J. 0. Measurement and Analysis of Behavioral Techniques. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, 19 74. Cooper, J. H. "Hope for the Future: A View of Research in Teacher Effectiveness." Quest, 19 77, 2 Q , 2 8-37. Cotten, S. "The Effects of Training Cooperating Teachers . in Applied Behavior Analysis on Changing behavior of Student Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1976. Cramer, C, "The Effects of a Cooperating Teacher Training Program in Applied Behavior Analysis on Teacher Behaviors of Secondary Physical Education Student Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1977. Currens, J, W, "An Applied Behavior Analysis Training Model for Preservice Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1977, Cusick, P. A, Inside High School: The Students* World. New York: Holt, 19 73. Doyle, W, "Learning the Classroom Environment: An Ecological Analysis." Journal of Teacher Education, 1977 , 2_8, 51-551. Dunkin, M. J. and Biddle, B. J, The Study of Teaching, Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 19 74. Earp, N. W, and Tanner, F, W. "A* Continuing Study of the Classroom and Personal-Professional Attitude Develop ment of North Texas State University Elementary Graduates in Their First Year of Teaching." ERIC Microfiche, Ed 126002, 1975. Erb, C. A. "A Formative Evaluation of an Experimental Teacher Education Project for Juniors in Mathematics Education at the Ohio State University." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 71. Fishman, S, E, "A Procedure for Recording Augmented Feed back in Physical Education Classes," Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1974, Frick, T, and Semmel, M, I, "Observer Agreement and Reliabilities of Classroom Observational Measures," Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48, 157-184. 215 Fuller, F. F. and Bown, 0, H. "Becoming a Teacher." Teacher Education: The Seventy-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Kevin Ryan, ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Glass, L, W. and Keith, P. M, "Follow-up Study of Selected Teacher Education Graduates from Iowa State University, the University of Iowa and the University of Northern Iowa." ERIC Microfiche, ED 1310 76, 19 75. Good, T, L. and Grouws, D, A, "Teaching Effects: A Process-Product Study in Fourth-Grade Mathematics Classrooms." Journal of Teacher Education, 1977, 28, 1*9-54, : Graening, J, J. "An Evaluation of a secondary Mathematics Teacher Education Program Emphasizing School Experi ences in Contrasting Cultural Settings." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971. Hawkins, R. P, and Dotson, V. A. "Reliability Scores that Delude: An Alice-in-Wonderland Trip through the Misleading Characteristics of Interobserver Agreement Scores of Interval Recording." Behavior Analysis: Areas of Research and Application. George Semb, ed., Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19 75. Hough, J, B, and Duncan, J. K, "The Observational System for Instructional Analysis IV: A Summary of System Constructs, Encoding Conventions and Summary Dis plays." Unpublished paper, Ohio State University, November, 19 76, Hurwitz, R, "Review and Prospects," Whatfs Going On in Gym: Descrptive Studies of Physical Education Classes, G, T. Barrette and W, A, Anderson, eds,, Manuscript m press, 19 78, Johnson, S, M, and Bolstad, 0, S, "Methodological Issues in Naturalistic Observations: Some Problems and Solutions for Field Research." Behavior Change: Methodology Concepts and Practice. L, A, Hamerlynch, L, C. Handy and E, J. Mash, eds., Champaign, Illinois: Research Press, 19 74. Joyce, B, et al, "Reflections on Preservice Preparation: Impressions from the National Survey, Part I." Journal of Teacher Education, 1977, 2_8* 7-13, 216 Kehl, E. "Report, the Resident Teacher Program: A Pilot Evaluation Study, May, 1977." Unpublished paper, University of Oregon, April, 19 78. Klein, M. Plotall, University of Akron Computer Center, October, 1976. Laubach, S. "The Development of a System for Coding Student Behavior in Physical Education Classes." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1975. Lewin, K. et al. "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created Social Climates." Journal of Social Psychology, 1939 , 10_, 271-299. Lindsay, C. A., Morrison, J. L. and Kelley, J. E. "Professional Obsolescence: Implications for Contin uing Professional Education." Journal of Adult Education, 1974, 2j[, 3-22. Locke, L. F, "The Ecology of the Gymnasium: What the Tourist Doesn't See." Unpublished paper, 19 75. Locke, L. F, "Research on Teaching Physical Education: New Hope for a Dismal Science." Quest, 19 77, 28, 2-28. Lortie, D, C. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1975. Massengale, J. D. "Occupational Role Conflict and the Teacher/Coach." Paper presented at the Western Social Science Association Meeting, Denver, May, 19 75. McHattie, G. S, "A Descriptive Analysis of Selected Teacher/Student Behaviors During Adventure Activity: The Program of Outdoor Pursuits." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1978. McKenzie, T. L. "Development and Evaluation of a Model Behaviorally-Based Teacher Training Center for Physical Educators." Unpublished Doctoral disserta tion, Ohio State University, 19 76. Moore, G, "Resident School Camping: A Descriptive Analysis." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 77. Morgenegg, B, L. "Pedagogical Moves." What's Going On in Gym: Descriptive Studies of Physical Education Classes. G. T, Barrette and W. G. Anderson, eds., Manuscript in press, 19 78, 217 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. "Standards for Accreditation of Teacher Education.” Washington, D. C., 19 70. National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. "Standards for Accreditation of Teacher Education." Washington, D. C . , 1977. Nelson, J. "Prompting Teacher Behavior Via Wireless Instrumentation." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 77. Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, C. H. Steinbrenner, K. and Bent, D. H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19 75. Ohio Department of Education, Standards for Colleges or Universities Preparing Teachers. Columbus, Ohio, 1975. Ohio Department of Education. Restructuring Teacher Education: Resources for Curriculum Planning. S . K. Siders, ed., Columbus, Ohio, 19 77. Ohio State University (no author cited). "Follow-up Studies in Science Education at the Ohio State University." Unpublished paper, no date. Olson, J. K. "Modification of the OSIA Instrument for Use in Physical Education Settings." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 78. Peer, Gary, Personal Communication to Edell Hearn, February, 19 78, Quarterman, J, "A Descriptive Analysis of Teaching Physical Education in the Elementary Schools,” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 197 8, Rosenshine, B. and Furst, N. "The Use of Direct Observa tion to Describe Teaching." Second Handbook of Re search on Teaching, R. M. W, Travers, ed., New York: Rand McNally, 19 73. Ryan, K. ed. Don't Smile Until Christmas. :Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Sagness, R, L. "A Study of Selected Outcomes of a Science Pre-Service Teacher Education Project Emphasizing Early Involvement in Schools of Contrasting Environ mental Settings." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 70. 218 Sandefur, J. T. An Illustrated Model for the Evaluation of Teacher Education Graduates, Washington, D. C.: AACTE, 19 70. Sandefur, J. T. and Adams, R. A. "An Evaluation of Teaching: An Interim Report.,r Journal of Teacher Education, 1976 , 2J7, 71-76. Schalock, H, D. "Evaluative Studies of Graduates from Teacher Preparation Programs at Oregon College of Education." Paper presented at the Teacher Education Program Follow-up Conference, University of Texas, Austin, April, 19 78. Schalock, H, D,, Steger, E. J. and Myers, K. H, "Follow- up, 19 76-77." Unpublished paper, Oregon College of Education, 1977. Schalock, H.‘ D. Yee, C. and Steger, J. "An Overview of the 19 76-77 Follow-up Study on Graduates of the OCE Secondary Teacher Preparation Program." Unpublished paper, Oregon College of Education, October, 19 77. Schalock, H. D., Yee, C, and Steger, J. "A Comparison of Results Obtained in the 1975-76 and 1976-77 Follow-up Studies of First-Year Teachers Who Were Graduates of OCE Secondary Preparation Programs." Unpublished paper, Oregon College of Education, 19 77. Schatzman, L, and Strauss, A, L, Field Research: Strategies for a Natural Sociology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc,, 1973, Simon, A. and Boyer, G,, eds. Mirrors for Behavior: An Anthology of Classroom Observation Instruments-^ Philadelphia: Research for Better School, Inc., 1967. Siedentop, D. and Hughley, C. "The Ohio State University Teacher Behavior Rating Scale." Journal of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1975, 46_, 45. Siedentop, D. Developing Teaching Skills in Physical Education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976. Siedentop, D, "Teacher Assessment in Physical Education," Paper presented at the Professional Preparation Con ference in Physical Education, sponsored by the Midwest District of AAHPER and NASPE, Angola, Indiana, 19 77. Siedentop, D, and Crossman, J. "The Use of Descriptive Observation Techniques Applied to Coaching Behavior," Paper presented at the Midwestern Association of Behavior Analysis,' Chicago, 19 78. 219 Stewart, M. J. ,:A Descriptive Analysis of Teaching Behavior and Its Relationship to Presage and Context Variables. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 19 77. Swami, P. "A Follow-up Study for Evaluation of the Pre service Secondary Teacher Education Program at. the Ohio State University." Unpublished Doctoral diss’ertation, Ohio State University, 1975. Tharp, R, G. and Gallimore, R. "What a Coach Can Teach a Teacher," Psychology Today, 1976, 1, 75-78. Withall, J, "The Development of a Technique for Measurement of the Social-Emotional Climates in Classrooms." Journal of Experimental Education, 1949, 1_7, 347-363.