The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on ...
Transcript of The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on ...
Western Michigan University Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU
Dissertations Graduate College
8-1971
The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on Student The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on Student
Perception of Teacher Performance Perception of Teacher Performance
James E. Bultman Western Michigan University
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations
Part of the Teacher Education and Professional Development Commons
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Bultman, James E., "The Effects of Multiple Educational Methodologies on Student Perception of Teacher Performance" (1971). Dissertations. 3024. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3024
This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].
THE EFFECTS OF MDLTIPLE EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGIES ON STUDENT PERCEPTION
OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE
by
James E. Bultman
A D isserta tio n Submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate College in p a r t ia l fu lf illm en t
of theDegree of Doctor of Education
Western Michigan U niversity Kalamazoo, Michigan
August 1971
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Several people have made important and su b stan tia l contribu
tio n s toward the completion of th ia d is s e r ta tio n . Nÿ' sincere
appreciation is extended to Doctors James Davenport, Charles
Helgesen, and James Bosco fo r th e ir assis tan ce and encouragement
while supervising th is p ro je c t. Their unique e f fo r ts , as well as
those of maiQT others a t Western Michigan U niversity, have been
e s se n tia l to th is undertaking.
Deserving of a spec ia l tr ib u te are the adm in istra to rs , teachers,
and students in the th ree cooperating school d i s t r i c t s . The
implementation of th is experiment was dependent on th e i r cooperation.
Indebtedness to the Mott Foundation i s a lso recognized. The
fin a n c ia l assistance o f a generous Fellowship and the opportunity
fo r a stim ulating p rofessional experience were instrum ental in
prompting the p u rsu it of doctoral study.
F in a lly , to my w ife, M artie, and our ch ild ren . Matt and Heather,
my deepest g ra titu d e fo r th e i r understanding and patience during th is
endeavor.
James E. Bultman
i i
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7 1 - 3 0 , 0 1 8
BULTMAN, James E., 1941-THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE EDUCATIONAL METHODOLOGIES ON STUDENT PERCEPTION OF TEACHER PERFORMANCE.
Western Michigan University, Ed.D., 1971 Education, teacher training
U niversity Microfilms, A XEROX C om pany, Ann Arbor, M ichigan
TH IS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
R e p ro d u c e d with p e rm issio n of th e copyrigh t ow ner. F u rth e r rep roduction prohibited w ithout perm issio n .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... ü
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................... v i
LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................... v i i i
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ......................................... 1
O bjectives of the S tudy............................................. 4
Major Questions Which Were Investigated . . . . 8
D efin ition of Terms..................................................... 10
Importance of the S tudy........................ H
Lim itations of the S tu d y .................... 14
Assumptions.................................................... 14
Organization of the R e p o r t ..................................... 15
Summary.............................................................................. 16
I I REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH . . . . 17
Pedagogical V ariety in Teaching........................ . 17
V iab ility of Student Rating of TeacherPerformance ................................ 25
Student Opinion Feedback fo r T eachers................. 38
M otivation of Log A c t i v i t y ..................................... 41
Function of the C o n s u l ta n t ..................................... 45
I II RESEARCH DESIGN, SETTING, AND PROCEDURES . . . . 50
Review of the Problem................................................. 50
i l l
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
Major Questions Which Were Investigated ................ 52
S pecific Questions Which Were Investigated . . . 52
Design of the S tu d y ..............................................................57
S election of the I n s t r u m e n ts ..........................................59
The S e t t i n g ..............................................................................66
P r o c e d u re s ........................................ 67
S election of the Sam ple................................................ 70
Adm inistration of the Instrument ............................ 73
D escription of the T rea tm en ts ......................................... 75
C ollection and Organization of the D a ta ..................... 80
IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA............................. 83
Students’ Overall Perceptions of Teachers , , . . 84
Students' Perceptions of Their Teachers' Variety in T each ing ..........................................................................92
Open-Ended P artic ip an t Responses ............................. 106
The C hecklist L o g ................................................................I l l
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 116
Review of the Problem ........................................................116
Review of Procedures Used In the S t u d y ................... 117
Summary of the Findings ............................................ H®
Conclusions ........................................................................120
Recommendations ........................................................122
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................... 127
APPENDIXES . .....................................................................................................136
A Student Opinion Questionnaire . . ............................. 137
B Teacher P ro file ................................................................. 139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
G Tabular Summation...............................................................14.1
D F e e d b a c k ............................................................................... 142
E Checklist L o g .......................................................................143
F Cover L e t t e r ............................................................... 146
G Computer Program ............................................................... 147
H Student Perception Averages fo r All QuestionnaireItems, Pre and P o s t ..........................................................149
I Feedback Group Open-Ended Response.............................. 153
J Log Group Open-Ended R esponse................................ . 154
K Planning Group Open-Ended Response..... ......................... 155
L Combination Group Open-Ended Response ...................... 156
M Teacher Self-Perception Averages fo r All Questionn aire Item s, Pre and P o s t 157
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
table page
1 Overview of the Five Treatment Groups . . . . . . . 52
2 R e lia b ili ty of Items on Biyan's Student OpinionQ u e s tio n n a ire .................................... 63
3 Summary Data fo r Overall P re te s t Measure . . . . . 85
A Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P re te s t Measure . 85
5 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pro- to P o sttest) fo rOverall Means ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
6 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o sttes t) fo r*" Overall Means, Based on D ifferences in the
Control G ro u p ................................................ 89
7 Summary Data fo r Overall P o s tte s t Measure .................. 89
8 Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P o stte s t Measure . 90
9 Overall P o s tte s t Between Group 1-values • .................. 90
10 Analysis of Variance fo r Overall Change ScoreMeasure . ......................................................................... 91
11 Summary Data fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teachin g ," of the P re test M e a s u r e ..................................... 93
12 Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Varietyin Teaching," of the P re te s t Measure......................... 93
13 P re te s t Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine,"Variety in Teaching" ..................................................... 94
14 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o sttest) fo r~ SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching".......................... 95
15 t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r** SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," Based on
D ifferences in the Control Group................................. 97
16 Summary Data fo r SOQ. Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching ," of the P o stte s t M easu re ..................................... 98
Vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
v i l
TABLE PAGE
17 Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ. Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the P o stte s t Measure ................. 99
18 P o stte s t Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching” .....................................
19 Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the Change Score Measui’e . . . 100
20 Change Score Between Group t-va lues fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching" .....................................
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE page
1 Teacher R o l e ...................................................................... 18
2 Research Paradigm............................................................... 58
3 Group B—Incidence of Educational MethodologyEmployment vs. Time ............................ 112
U Group C—Incidence of Educational MethodologyEmployment vs. T i m e ................................................ 113
5 Group D ~Incidence of Educational MethodologyEmployment vs. Time .................................... 113
v i i i
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the Problem
Educators have long been concerned about the q u a lity of teacher
performance. Building p rin c ip a ls in p a r tic u la r generally regard i t
as one of th e i r primary re sp o n s ib il i t ie s . The I960 ASCD Yearbook^
e n title d Leadership fo r Improving In stru c tio n s ta ted the follow ing;
"Although the major focus of a l l adm inistra tive e f fo r t is based upon the improvement of in s tru c tio n , there must be some means of f ix in g re sp o n s ib ility fo r the in s tru c tio n a l leadersh ip in each building s ta f f . This is the p r in c ip a l 's major function ."
Since the core of in s tru c tio n a l e f fo r t takes place a t the classroom
lev e l i t i s appropriate th a t attem pts fo r improvement hinge on the
performance of classroom teachers.^
More recen tly the public secto r has become concerned about the
q u a lity of teacher performance. In Michigan th is concern can be
traced , in part a t le a s t , to the inception in 1965 of c o lle c tiv e
bargaining which resu lted in the sp ira lin g of teach ers ' s a la r ie s .^
iR ass, Glen (Chairman), Leadership fo r Improving In s tru c tio n . I960 Yearbook of the Association fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington: The Association, I960, p. 33.
^ loc . c i t . , pp. 97, 164-.
^Rehmus, Charles, The Economic R esults of Teacher Bargaining; M ichigan's F ir s t Two Y ears. The In s t i tu te of In d u s tr ia l R ela tions, Michigan S ta te U niversity , Lansing, Michigan, May, 1968, p . 13.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
P rio r to th a t time i t i s probable th a t , although the public did not
appreciate poor teaching, they recognized th a t perhaps the perform
ance was commensurate with the sa la ry . Today, however, with in
creased taxes necessita ted by higher s a la r ie s the public has begun
to ra ise soma questions. There is considerable sentiment among tax
payers th a t improved teacher performance should accompany increasing1 2teacher pay ra is e s . * The general public knows enough about the
systems approach to re a liz e th a t Increased inputs should produce
b e tte r outputs. A ccountability has become the fa v o rite word to
describe th is re la tio n sh ip between inputs and outputs, resources and
r e s u l ts . In a recent publication of the Phi Delta Kappan. devoted
sp e c if ic a lly to the topic of acco u n tab ility , Lieberman^ c ited the
growing national in te re s t in accoun tab ility and i t s apparent linkage
with increased education budgets. I t should not be assumed th a t
teacher performance is the only fac e t of the acco u n tab ility issue in
education; the performances of both policy making personnel and
supervisory personnel are a lso involved. However, Lopez^ asserted
th a t teacher performance i s perhaps the most basic and the most
^Cote, William E ., "Commission May J o l t Working World of S tate Teachers." The Grand Rapids P ress . LXXVIII (June 7 , 1970), 10-E.
% o te , William E ,, "Mllliltan Plan Would Oust Poor Teachers." The F lin t Jo u rn a l. XGIV (December 21, 1969), 1.
^Lieberman, lijrron, "An Overview of A ccountability ." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (December 1970), 194-5.
4Lopo3, F e lix M., "A ccountability in Education." Phi D elta Kappan. LII (December 1970), 232-5.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
p e rtin en t of a l l accoun tab ility phases. Regardless of the re la tiv e
importance afforded the various phases of acco u n tab ility in education
i t is unmistakably c lea r th a t the increased emphasis has permeated
the area of teacher performance.
Two fundamental p o s s ib i l i t ie s e x is t fo r re c tify in g th is teacher
performance dilemma. F i r s t would be the attempt to improve the per
formance of present f a c u l t ie s . Secondly, by a process of dism issal
and se le c tiv e recruitm ent present f a c u lt ie s or p a rts thereo f could
be replaced. Admittedly, the l a t t e r p o s s ib i l i ty is a long-range
proposition .
With the mandatory enactment in I 964 of the permissive Michigan
Tenure Act of 1937, came p ro tec tion to teachers against u n fa ir d is
m issal p rac tice s . For school d i s t r i c t s the e f fe c t has been the v ir
tu a l im possib ility of term inating teacher co n trac ts . In describing
the s itu a tio n , s ta te educational columnist Cote^ concluded:
’’S ta te law does give much p ro tec tio n to teachers under the tenure a c t and various court ru lin g s . The idea of the law was to p ro tec t teachers from unreasonable p o l i t ic a l or o ther influence. The p ra c tic a l r e s u l t , though, has been th a t i t i s almost impossible now to f i r e a teacher unless he has been convicted of a crime or caught in a public scandal.”
S im ilarly , the 1960 ASCD Yearbook^ reported :
"The school adm in istrato r w ill need to be constan tly v ig ila n t against the p o s s ib il i ty of s ta f f in g the system with u n f it and incompetent people whom he cannot dism iss because of tenure policy p ro v is io n s.”
Oftentimes lengthy (3 years) and co s tly ($33,000) le g a l procedures
^Cote, ’’M illikan Plan Would Oust Poor Teachers," op. c i t .
% ass , op. c i t . , p . 120.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Buch aa the one in Royal Oak, Michigan,^ are the re s u l ts of e f fo r ts
to dismiss s ta f f members. There has been l i t t l e help from the teach
ing profession in discharging in fe r io r teach ers. Rather, a general
fa i lu re of teachers to police th e ir own ranks has been a negative2
fa c to r in reso lv ing the dilemma.
Obviously th is means th a t in order to improve the overa ll
competency of s ta f f , school systems w ill most l ik e ly find more v iab le
the p o s s ib ili ty of improving th e i r present fa c u lt ie s than dism issing
the "undesirables" and re c ru itin g new ones.
I t was in an attem pt to provide emperical evidence fo r the
possible improvement of teachers in se rv ice , as perceived by s tu
dents, th a t the present in v estig a tio n was conducted.
O bjectives of the Study
The primary purpose of th is study was to determine i f teachers
could modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances by
employing m ultiple educational methodologies in classroom presen
ta tio n s . For example, would i t be possible fo r a teach er, by employ
ing a v a rie ty of teaching methods and in s tru c tio n a l devices already
a t h is d isposal, to modify student perceptions of h is teaching per
formance? A secondary objective was to a sce rta in the r e la tiv e
"S tate Unit Okays Teacher's F irin g ." The F lin tJournal. XGIV (November 5, 1969), 53.
^Hummel, Charlton G., "A Right Only i f Deserved." NBA Journal. XLI (January I960), 67.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
effec tiveness of four experimental treatm ents in helping a teacher
to modify student perceptions of h is teaching performance. S pecific
a l ly , which of four experimental treatm ents were more and which were
le ss e ffec tiv e in aid ing a teacher to modify h is student-perceived
performance? A d e ta iled descrip tion of the four treatm ents w ill be
given in Chapter I I I , but to f a c i l i t a t e an i n i t i a l understanding of
the study a b r ie f account i s presented here.
As a means of accomplishing the ob jectives of th is study four
experimental groups, each employing a prescribed treatm ent, and one
con tro l group were formed. Teachers in treatm ent group A received
w ritten feedback regarding student perceptions of th e i r teaching per
formances, The feedback data were compiled from an adapted form of
the Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) . (Appendix A), adm inistered
as a p re te s t to the c lasses of teachers in th is group. The feedback
consisted of a graphical descrip tion (Appendix B) and a tab u la r sum
mation (Appendix C) of student perceptions of the te a c h e r 's perform
ance, Also included was an informative statem ent (Appendix D) on
possible use of the feedback.
The treatm ent fo r teachers in group B was to m aintain a record
of the various in s tru c tio n a l methodologies they employed in th e ir
teaching, A check lis t log (Appendix E) of educational methodologies,
l i s t in g both in s tru c tio n a l devices and teaching methods, was provided
fo r th is purpose. At the conclusion of each day teachers in th is
group were to in d ica te , by means of the log, which devices and
methods they had employed in th e ir teaching th a t day. To a id the
teacher in making consis ten t and mutually exclusive checks of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
devices and methods employed, operational d escrip tio n s of various
methodologies were included with the log. The functiona l use of the
log was thoroughly explained to each teacher p r io r to the commence
ment of the experiment.
Teachers in treatm ent group C met ind iv idually with a consult
ant fo r approximately one hour each week to make plans fo r the
employment of m ultiple educational methodologies in th e i r teaching.
The consultant was sk ille d in the use of a v a rie ty of methodologies
and planned teaching s tra teg y with the teacher. Paramount a. ?ntion
was given to the use of a v a rie ty o f in s tru c tio n a l methodologies,
both from day to day and a lso during any given day. The ro le of the
consultant was most frequen tly to suggest the av a ilab le methods fo r
p resen ta tion and whenever possib le to encourage th e teacher to t ry
d iffe re n t and varied methodologies in lesson p resen ta tio n s . Par
t ic ip a n ts in th is group a lso maintained the ch eck lis t log previously
described.
A combination of the treatm ents used in groups A, B, and C was
u til iz e d by teachers in group D.
A f i f t h group of teach ers , group E, was incorporated as a
contro l group.
For ease in reference group A was called the feedback group,
group B was designated the log group, group C was named the planning
group, group D was labeled the combination group, and group E was
termed the control group.
To fu rth e r c la r ify the various group "treatm ents” an ou tlin e
synopsis of each group is presented here.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Synopsee of the f iv e groups;
A. The feedback group
The teacher; Received feedback inform ation from the SOQ
p re te s t.
B. The log group
The teacher; Maintained a ch eck lis t log of h is teaching
methodologies,
C. The planning group
The teacher;
1, Maintained a ch eck lis t log of h is teaching methodologies.
2. Planned with a consultan t fo r the employment of multiple
educational methodologies.
D. The combination group
The teacher;
1. Received feedback inform ation from the SOQ p re te s t .
2. Maintained a ch eck lis t log of h is teaching methodologies.
3. Planned with a consultant fo r the employment of m ultiple
educational methodologies.
E. The control group
The teacher; Experienced no experimental treatm ent.
The c r ite r io n measure fo r th is study was student perception of
teacher performance. An adapted form of the Student Opinion Ques
tionnaire (SOQ) was used to measure the e ffec tiv en ess of the various
group treatm ents in modifying student perceptions of teacher
performances. Items in the SOQ are based on the previous extensive
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
in v estig a tio n s of Bryan,^ A more d e ta iled account of the v ia b i l i ty
of student ra tin g of teacher performance generally and of Bryan's
instrument in p a r tic u la r i s included in Chapters I I and I I I of th is
rep o rt.
Major Questions Which Were Investigated
In an attempt to carry out the ob jectives of th is study i t was
d esirab le to Investigate several p e rtin en t questions. These questions
were focused b as ica lly on two major areas; (1) the success of cer
ta in experimental group treatm ents in helping teachers to modify
student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances and (2) the re
la tiv e success of the group treatm ents in helping teachers to modify
student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances. Rationale fo r
the supposition th a t the employment of m ultip le in s tru c tio n a l
methodologies would improve the performance of teachers as per
ceived by students is presented in the sec tion of Chapter I I en
t i t l e d "Pedagogical V ariety in Teaching,"
Because student perception of teacher performance was the de
pendent variab le and the employment of m ultip le in s tru c tio n a l
methodologies was the independent variab le in th is study i t was
reasoned th a t studen ts ' perceptions of the te a c h e r 's overall
^Bryan, Roy C,, Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions to High School Teachers, Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center, Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1968, pp, 2-3,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
teaching performance as well as students* perceptions of the
te a c h e r 's v a rie ty in teaching should both be investigated with re
spect to the two major areas c ited above. C erta in ly i t would be
c ru c ia l to the purposes of the study to determine whether or not
each of the prescribed treatm ent groups was e ffe c tiv e in helping
teachers to modify student perceptions of th e i r ov era ll teaching per
formances. Of no le ss importance would be the d e s ir a b i l i ty of in
v es tig a tin g a question to a sce rta in the re la t iv e e ffec tiveness of
the various group treatm ents in helping teachers to modify student
perceptions of th e ir overa ll teaching performances. S im ilarly , the
determ ination of whether or not each of the prescribed treatm ent
groups was e ffec tiv e in helping teachers to modify student per
ceptions of th e ir "v arie ty in teaching" as well as the re la tiv e
effectiveness of the groups in helping teachers to modify student
perceptions of th e ir "v a rie ty in teaching" were deemed important to
the study ob jectives.
A fter in te ra c tio n and discussion with several key people in
volved in the study, but most impoi-tantly with the committee members
supervising th is p ro je c t, an exploration of the follow ing four major
questions was considered worthwhile and fe a s ib le in focusing the
in v estig a tio n on the study ob jectives:
1. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in
overa ll student perception of teacher performance from p re- to
p o s tte s t measure?
I t was an tic ip a ted th a t the research e f fo r t would provide evi
dence to show whether in f a c t a teacher could modify h is ov era ll
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
student-peroeived performance by p a r tic ip a tin g in the prescribed
trea tm en ts.
2. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups on the
overall p o s tte s t measure?
Due to the f a c t th a t the prescribed treatm ents varied both in
nature and degree i t was expected th a t th is in v estig a tio n would
determine the re la t iv e effectiveness of the various treatm ents in
modifying the te a c h e r 's performance as perceived by h is s tuden ts.
3. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in
student perception of the teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item
nine, SOQ) from p re- to p o s tte s t measure?
In th a t the prime independent variab le was the use of a v a rie ty
of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies, the study was designed to evaluate the
ex tent to which students perceived a d ifference in th is aspect of the
te a c h e r 's performance.
4. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups fo r
"v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOQ) on the p o s tte s t measure?
I t was an tic ipa ted th a t the research e f fo r t would give ind i
cation of the r e la tiv e e ffec tiveness of the treatm ents in modifying
the s tuden ts ' perceptions of the teach ers ' v a rie ty in in s tru c tio n a l
methodology.
D efin ition of Terms
The terms th a t are used frequen tly throughout the rep o rt are
defined fo r purposes of th is experiment as follow s:
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
Average and below average perceived teachers are those teachers
whose overa ll mean scores on the Student Opinion Questionnaire
p re te s t were le ss than the mean score of the population from which
the teachers came. Furthermore, these teach ers’ p re te s t scores on
item nine of the SOQ. "v arie ty in teaching ," were le ss than the mean
score of the population from which the teachers came. These teachers
were randomly assigned to the experimental treatm ents.
The ch eck lis t log (Appendix E) is the form l i s t in g the various edu
ca tio n a l methodologies availab le fo r teachers. O perational defin
it io n s of the methodologies together with spaces fo r checking dates
of use are a part of th is form. I t was maintained by teachers in
experimental groups B, C, and D,
Educational methodology re fe rs to both non-human in s tru c tio n a l
devices such as p ro jec to rs , record p layers, and tape recorders; and
also human teaching methods such as le c tu re , d iscussion , and ro le
p lay in g .1
Feedback (Appendixes B, C, and D) re fe rs to the w ritten information
provided fo r the teacher re la tiv e to student responses on the
questionnaire.
Gage, N. L ., "Teacher Methods." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th e d ., London: The MacmillanCompany, 1969, p. 1446.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
F ield experiment la the term used to describe "a research e f fo r t In
a r e a l i s t i c s itu a tio n in which Independent v ariab les are manipulated
under as ca re fu lly contro lled conditions aa po ssib le ."^
An image p ro file (Appendixes B and C) is the composite of a l l
w ritten feedback.
The term in s tru c tio n a l methodology is used interchangeably with
educational methodology.
Teaching methods are "patterns of teacher behavior th a t are recur
re n t , applicable to various sub ject m atters , c h a ra c te r is tic of more
than one teacher, and re levan t to lea rn in g ."^
Teaching stra tegy is the se lec tio n of appropriate educational method
ologies fo r in s tru c tio n .
A self-contained classroom, fo r purposes of th is study, is a lea rn
ing s itu a tio n where one teacher i s responsib le fo r more than f i f t y
percent of the learn ing a c t iv i t ie s fo r those students assigned to
him. The se ttin g is prim arily confined to a s ing le classroom.
Importance of the Study
This study should be of importance to those concerned with the
process of education. For those educators who have as th e ir primary
^K erlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: H olt, R inehart, and Winston, In c ., 1965, p. 382.
pop. c i t .
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
re sp o n s ib ility an influencing of the pedagogical dimension of teach
ing the study should prove p a r tic u la r ly im portant. In th is time of
increased accoun tab ility i t would be desirab le to know whether, and
to what ex ten t, teachers could modify th e i r perceived e ffec tiv en ess.
The e f fo r t described in th is repo rt was an attem pt to a s s is t teachers
in modifying th e ir student-perceived perforaiances by the re la t iv e ly
modest means of adapting and re fin in g the teach ers ' educational
methods and s tra te g ie s . Should the find ings of th is stu^r in d ica te
th a t teachers can modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching per
formances by employing a v arie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies,
there would be im plications fo r the development and m odification of
both p re-serv ice and in -se rv ice teacher education programs. Such
data could render fea s ib le a more meaningful e f fo r t by department
and grade group chairmen, p r in c ip a ls , and curriculum supervisors to
aid th e ir colleagues in the pedagogical aspects of teaching. Based
on the re su lts of th is study, teachers, as concerned p ro fessio n a ls ,
might be inclined to modify teaching behavior with respect to th e ir
in s tru c tio n a l methodologies.
S p ec ific a lly , th is f ie ld experiment d e a lt only with f i r s t ,
second, and th ird -y ea r upper elementary teachers in suburban upper
elementary classrooms. Teachers p a r tic ip a tin g in the experimental
phase of the study were those who scored average or below average on
a w ritten evaluation e l ic i t in g student perceptions of teacher per
formance. The populations to which genera liza tions could be made,
then, would be to those populations s im ila r in nature to the one
described here and in the "se ttin g " of Chapter I I I .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
L lœ itatlona of the Study
This f ie ld experiment had lim ita tio n s which are re a d ily apparent.
One lim ita tio n was the f a c t th a t , although f if ty - fo u r teachers
p a rtic ip a ted in the i n i t i a l phase of the p ro je c t, only f if te e n
teachers were involved in the experimental phase» The p ra c tic a l
considerations of tim e, personnel, and f in a n c ia l resources did not
make fe a s ib le the expansion of th is number. Secondly, the duration
of the experiment was fo r approximately e igh t weeks during the
second semester of the 1969-70 school year. I t i s possible th a t
th is period of time was not su ff ic ie n t to maximally change teacher
performances and subsequent student perceptions or th a t some long
term e ffe c ts of the experiment were not evident when the SOQ p o s tte s t
had been adm inistered. F in a lly , the e ffe c ts of the planning sessions
were dependent on the e f fo r ts of a s ing le consultan t and h is success
in e s tab lish in g the necessary rapport with ind iv idual teachers to
influence th e ir use of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies.
Assumptions
There were two b asic assumptions underlying th is in v estig a tio n ;
the f i r s t pertained to the data gathering instrum ent while the
second re la te d to s tu d en ts ' perceptions.
In the absence of d e f in ite and agreed on c r i te r ia of teacher
competence i t is d i f f i c u l t to e s ta b lish d ire c t proof th a t an in s tru
ment designed to rev ea l the q u a lity of a teach er’ s performance
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
a c tu a lly measures what i t purports to measure,^ Bryan's instrum ent,
however, has been used extensively fo r both research and evaluation
purposes and is composed of items which ere termed "e ssen tia l char
a c te r is t ic s of e ffe c tiv e t e a c h e r s . F o r the p resen t study Bryan's
instrument was adapted only fo r the purpose of increasing i t s under-
s ta n d a b ility a t the elementary le v e l. The adaptation was acceptable
to teachers in the f i e ld , a panel of docto ra l studen ts , and the
committee supervising th is p ro je c t. Based on the above consider
a tions the adapted instrum ent was assumed to be appropriate as a
measure of student perception of teacher performance,
A second assumption of the study was th a t there is a meaningful
re la tio n sh ip between the s tu d en ts ' re a l perceptions of th e i r te a ch e r 's
performance and the s tu d en ts ' perceptions as e l ic i te d by the c r i te r io n
measures of teacher performance included in the adapted form of the
sog.
Organization of the Report
Beyond the p resent chap ter, th is rep o rt w ill be presented in the
following manner: Chapter I I , Review of Related L ite ra tu re and
Research, w ill include an examination of l i t e r a tu r e and stud ies
pertin en t to th is experiment. Reviewed under major headings w ill be
%owsam, Robert B ., Who's ^ Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation. Burlingame, C a lifo rn ia ; C alifo rn ia Teachers A ssociation, I960, p. 38.
^ ry a n , Roy C ., ^ Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center. Western Migbigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1967, p. 12.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
the to p ics e n tit le d pedagogical v a r ie ty in teaching, v ia b i l i ty of
student ra tin g of teach ers , student opinion feedback fo r teachers,
m otivation of log a c t iv i ty , and function of the consu ltan t.
Following a b r ie f review of the problem and a l i s t in g of the
questions to be in v estig a ted . Chapter I I I w ill focus on the research
design of the study, the se ttin g , and the procedures used in con
ducting the f ie ld experiment. Included w ill be the methods used in
Instrument se lec tio n , sample se le c tio n , and adm inistration of the
instrum ent. Also presented w ill be a d e ta iled d escrip tio n of the
various group treatm en ts. An account of the procedures used in
co llec tin g and organising the data w ill conclude Chapter I I I ,
Research Design, S e ttin g , and Procedures.
Chapter IV, P resen tation and Analysis of the Data, w ill contain
the re s u l ts and an analysis of the data co llec ted in accordance with
the purposes of th is in v estig a tio n .
Presented in Chapter V, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations,
w ill be a review of the problem and procedures used, a summary of the
findings of the in v estig a tio n , conclusions, and recommendations.
Summary
This chapter has Included a statem ent of the problem, the
ob jectives of the study, and the major questions which were invest
igated to provide data on the problem under consideration. Also
contained here were the d e f in itio n s of frequen tly used terms to
gether with the importance, l im ita tio n s , and assumptions of the
study. F in a lly , th is beginning chapter included an overview of the
e n tire rep o rt.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I I
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH
Information garnered from re la ted l i te r a tu r e and research
s tud ies p ertin en t to the in v estig a tio n under consideration w ill be
presented under the following major headings; (1) Pedagogical
V ariety in Teaching; (2) V iab ility of Student Rating of Teacher
Performance; (3) Student Opinion Feedback fo r Teachers; (A) Moti
vation of Log A ctiv ity and (5) Function of the Consultant.
Pedagogical V ariety in Teaching
There are th ree generally accepted dimensions to the te a c h e r 's
ro le ; ( l) h is id e n tif ic a tio n with studen ts, (2) h is knowledge of
sub ject m atter, and (3) h is pedagogy or in s tru c tio n a l methods s k i l ls .
Anderson^ dep icts th is s itu a tio n with the diagram shown in Figure 1.
In ten tio n a lly , in s tru c tio n a l methods (pedagogy) occupies the math
em atically most s ig n if ic a n t (Pythagorean Theorem) p a rt o f the t r i
angle, fo r Anderson purports i t to be the dimension on which the
te a c h e r 's p rofessional repu ta tion depends. Colman likew ise recog
nizes these three dimensions but focuses prim arily on the te ac h e r 's
^Anderson, Robert H., Teaching in a World of Change. New York: Harcourt. Brace, and World, In c ., 1966, p. 19.
^Colman, John E ., The Master Teachers and the Art of Teaching. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967, p. 5.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
use of varied in s tru c tio n a l methodologies.
18
Curriculum
Pedagogy Knowledge
TeacherLearnerId e n t if ic a t i on
Figure 1
Teacher Role
Beck^ recen tly conducted a research study with over two thousand
six th-grade students to determine, v ia a one hundred-item question
n a ire , th e i r perceptions of e ffec tiv e teachers. Pupil perceptions
were described along fiv e dimensions of teacher m erit: e ffec tiv e ,
cognitive, d isc ip lin a ry , m otivational, and innovative ( f le x ib i l i ty
and use o f various teaching methods). He concluded a f te r fac to r
analysis th a t the six th-grade students tended to perceive the
^Beck, William R ,, "Pupil Perception of Teacher M erit: A FactorAnalysis of Five Postulated Dimensions." Journal of Educational Research. LXI (November 1967), 127.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
e ffe c tiv e teacher as a "warm, frien d ly , and supportive person who
communicates c lea rly , m otivates and d isc ip lin es pupils e f fe c tiv e ly ,
and is f le x ib le in methodology." Using id en tic a l s ta t i s t i c a l methods
about f iv e years e a r l ie r Gupta^ had discovered s im ila r fa c to rs with
high loadings. In another study S prin tha ll^ and h is asso c ia tes
focused on "cognitive f le x ib i l i ty " as opposed to " r ig id i ty ." They
summarized:
"Among teacher educators there is support fo r the general notion th a t f le x ib i l i ty or conceptual openness i s both a d esirab le and d if fe re n tia tin g q u a lity in teaching. For example, Goodlad has suggested th a t f le x ib le teaching behavior is most re levan t to e ffec tiv e classroom performance . . . .T ra n s la te d to the classroom, th is ( r ig id i ty as opposed to f le x ib i l i ty ) would re su lt in the employment of one teaching method u n t i l well a f te r i t s p a r tic u la r con tribu tion has been u til iz e d e ffe c tiv e ly . The cognitively r ig id teacher would miss the cues th a t another method was needed,"
In conclusion the authors of the study suppoidied the basic hypothesis
th a t e ffec tiv e teaching and cognitive f le x ib i l i ty were r e la te d .
Most studies to date in th is area have attempted to determine
what co n s titu tes an e ffe c tiv e teacher, but few have attempted to
change the studen ts ' perceptions of the teacher. Review of the
l i te r a tu r e uncovered no research th a t attempted to a l t e r student
perceptions of teachers through the use of in s tru c tio n a l methodolo
g ie s . Yet, Gaga^ says th a t research in in s tru c tio n a l methodologies
^Gupta, Promila, "A Study of Cognitive Merit of Teachers." D isse rta tio n A bstracts. XXI (April 1961), 2983.
2 sp rln th a ll, Norman A., Whiteley, John M., and Mosher, Ralph L ., "A Study of Teacher E ffec tiveness." The Journal of Teacher Education. XVII (Spring 1966), 94.
^Gage, N. L ., "A nalytical Approach to Research on In s tru c tio n a l Methods." Phi Delta Kgggan, XLIX (June 1968), 601.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
co n s titu te s one of the most important and promising areas in edu
ca tio n , He claims i t i s a neglected and undernourished area of
research . Noted educational th e o r is t , Bruner,^ too , s ta te s th a t
"more than ever before we are concerned with the nature of the
educational p ro cess .. .w ith the techniques and devices th a t can be
used to improve the educational e n te rp rise ."
From data received a t the Student Reaction Center a t Western
Michigan U niversity, Bryan^ has shown th a t secondary school teachers
f a l l short of student expectations more in the areas of v a rie ty of
teaching procedures and in te re s t-s tim u la tio n than in any other ca te
go ries. Using Bryan's instrum ent, the Student Opinion Q uestionnaire,
in a recent study, Lauroesch^ and h is colleagues showed th a t v a rie ty
in teaching ran)ced ten th out of twelve items on mean score. In
another study, th is time a t the elementary le v e l, Koskenniemi^ re
ported th a t "most unsuccessful teachers appeared to lack s e n s it iv ity
and understanding of ch ild re n 's thinking and a tt i tu d e s and to exh ib it
low capacity fo r e ffec tiv e s tru c tu rin g of in s tru c tio n a l a c t iv i t ie s
^Bruner, Jerome, "The New Educational Technology." Revolution in Teaching. New York; Bantom Books, 1962, p. 1.
^Bryan, Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions to High School Teachers, op. c i t . , p. 8.
•^Lauroesch, William P ., P ere ira , P e ter D., and Ryan, Kevin A., The Use of Student Feedback in Teacher T rain ing . P ro jec t No. 8-E-115, U.S. Office of Education, U niversity of Chicago, Chicago, 1969, p. 20.
^Koskenniemi, M atti, The Development of Young Elementary School Teachers: A Follow-up Study. H elsinki; S arja ser B. Nidetom, 1965,p. 138.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
(pedagogy)." Furthermore, Amidon and Flanders^ have found th a t
b e tte r teachers showed v a r ie ty in p a tte rn s of teaching behavior
while p a tte rns th a t were s im ila r and consis ten t characterized the
poorer teacher. Grobman^ asked college students to l i s t what they
hoped they would never do in the classroom. One of the prominent
answers was the a n ti th e s is of v a rie ty in teaching.
Following a study focusing d ire c tly on teaching methods a t the
co lleg ia te lev e l, Drayer^ came to th is conclusion:
" I t would appear th a t college students admire e ffec tiv e methods and techniques f a r more than any other s ing le q u a lif ic a tio n possessed by th e i r in s tru c to rs ....A lth o u g h many fac to rs contribute to success as a college teacher, the one outstanding fa c to r which con tribu tes to a successfu l learn ing s itu a tio n is the in s tru c to r 's knowledge of and s k i l l in methods of teaching. Conversely, lack of th is Icnowledge and s k i l l seems to be the ch ief fa c to r re sponsible fo r f a i lu re to achieve a desirab le learn ing atm osphere....S tudents th ink the most successful in s tru c to rs are those who use e ffec tiv e methods."
The importance afforded v a rie ty in teaching methodology is not
a new dimension in teaching. H is to r ic a lly ,^ Herbert (1776-1&41),
the famous German educational psychologist, deplored the exclusive
use of a single teaching method and instead recommended the employment
^Amidon, Edmond J . and Flanders, Ned A., "Research on Teacher Behavior." The Role o f the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis: Paul S. Amidon and A ssociates, 1963, p. 55.
%robman, Hulda, "To See Ourselves as Others See Us." Childhood Education. XLV (March 1969), 397.
% rayer, Adam M., "Students' Views of the Q ualifica tions of Their Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September 1961), 339.
h u g h es , James Monroe, Education in America. New York: Harperand Row Publishers, 1970, p. 205.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
of a wider range of learn ing a c t iv i t i e s . Likewise,^ P esta lozz i
(1746-1827), the Swiss educational reform er, emphasized teaching
methodologies th a t would elim inate the mechanical and ro u tin e .
I t i s not l ik e ly th a t educators w ill find in the l i te r a tu r e
anyone purporting the v ir tu e s of a single best teaching method. The
premise th a t no method is best in any absolute sense was accepted fo rn
th is study. Clark and S ta rr commented as follow s:
"Any claim th a t a s ing le method or approach to the teaching of any subject is the best way to teach th a t subject has the elements of quackery la te n t in it....H o w ev er, the teacher who has mastery over a large sto re of teaching techniques w ill find him self ready to provide the ta c t ic s necessary fo r almost any s itu a tio n ."
Wallen and Travers^ su b stan tia te th is p o sitio n by claiming, on the
b asis of research in the f ie ld , th a t "teaching methods d o n 't seem to
make much d if fe re n c e .. .th e re is hardly any d ire c t evidence to favor
one method over ano ther." However, they^ also comment:
"The w rite rs see the g rea t need a t the p resen t time fo r an attem pt to design a teaching method which makes as much use as possible of a wide range of learn ing p rin c ip le s . V/hen th is is done, th ere may be some hope of find ing a teaching method which is d e f in ite ly and markedly superio r to others which have not been thus system atically designed. There is a p o s s ib il i ty th a t many d if fe re n t teaching methods might be designed which would make use of many p r in c ip le s ."
l ib id .
^Clark, Leonard H. and S ta r r , Irv ing S ., Secondary School Teaching Methods. New York; The Macmillan Company, 1967, p. 14.
3Wallen, Norman and Travers, Robert, "Analysis and Investigation
of Teaching Methods." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago; Rand McNally and Company, 1963, p. 484.
4 loc. c i t . , p. 500.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
la i t not lo g ic a l, then, to speculate th a t an e c le c tic approach,
u t i l iz in g many methods with th e i r unique inherent learning p rin c ip le s ,
might be a ju s t i f ia b le approach? The premise then becomes th a t ,
although there appears to be no one best teaching method in any
absolute sense, i t i s equally as c e rta in th a t some methods are b e tte r
than others in given s itu a tio n s . Support fo r th is contention comes
from Gage^ who concludes as follows a f te r a survey of research on
teaching methods:
"Although p o sitiv e re su lts remain hard to come by, some can be c ited to ind ica te th a t , depending on which teaching methods are considered, they can make a d ifference in educational outcomes."
Furthermore, he^ says th a t there are some advantages of ce rta in
methods of teaching over others and th a t i f employed on "s tra teg ic"
occasions, these advantages can outweigh the disadvantages.
McKeachie, too , claims th a t "a conclusion th a t i t does not make any
difference which methods are used is c lea rly u n ju s tif ie d . Rather,
recent research suggests th a t decisions about teaching methods do
have important consequences."
The need fo r a study to incorporate the l i te r a tu r e and research
cited above was apparent. Envisioned was a study th a t would not try
to p i t one method against another or attem pt to show the e fficacy of
^Gage, "Teacher Methods," op. c i t . , p. 1A4-7.
^ loc . c i t . , p. 14.5 6 .
^McKeachie, W. J . , "Research on Teaching a t the College and U niversity Level." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. K. L, Gage, Chicago; Rand McNally and Company, 1963, p. 1162.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
a sing le method of teaching, but ra th e r one th a t would focus on the
use of many educational methodologies already a t a te a ch e r 's d is
posal. The study would attem pt to determine the re su lta n t e ffe c ts
i f teachers would u t i l iz e the av ailab le methods and media instead
of allowing them to go unused. Smith, Krouse, and Atkinson'^
address th is poin t sp e c if ic a lly in th e ir d iscussion of the master
teacher;
"The master teacher w ill be fu lly aware of a l l m ateria ls and a ids a t h is d isposal to fu rth e r the educational program. The outstanding teacher knows th a t various techniques must be used in teach ing . He w ill use many of these when they are appropriate to the lesson a t hand. The outstanding teacher w ill use committee work on occasion; he w ill lec tu re on ocassion and he w ill use f ie ld t r ip s on occasion. In f a c t , the outstanding teacher uses every device or technique he knows about, but he uses them a t various times and fo r sp ec ific pu rposes.. . .C h a rac te ris tic s th a t id en tify a master teacher are a lso found in teachers of le s s e r a b i l i ty ; the d if ference is one of degree."
Such a study as the one described above was the In ten t of th is
endeavor. With the use of a v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methods i t
was an tic ipa ted th a t improved teaching performance would re s u l t .
The ra tio n a le fo r th is hypothesis was based on the importance
afforded the pedagogical dimension by w rite rs in the f ie ld and the
p o ten tia l a m u ltip lic ity of educational methods gave fo r curing
o ther classroom i l l s . This ra tio n a le was not unlike th a t of
^ S tree te r , Edward 0 , , "Teacher Competency and Classroom Use of Educational Media." Audiovisual In s tru c tio n . XIV (January 1969), 60.
^Smith, Edward, Krouse, S tanley, and Atkinson, Mark, The Educator's Encyclopedia. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey ; P ren tice- H all In c ., 1967, pp. 400-1.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25Gardner^ who p o sits the idea th a t a healthy socie ty should be char
ac te rized by p luralism , v a rie ty , and a lte rn a tiv e s . So a healthy
teaching s itu a tio n should espouse many methods th a t incorporate
varied learning p rin c ip le s .
V iab ility of Student Rating of Teacher Performance
The v ia b i l i ty of student ra tin g of teacher performance has
received increasingly favorable comments in recen t l i t e r a tu r e . His
to r ic a l ly , student ra tin g s of teachers were f i r s t reported in 19232 3and achieved considerable a tten tio n beginning in the 1930's . *
Opposition to the p rac tice of student ra tin g s can read ily be under
stood by educators who are fam ilia r with the area of teacher evalu
a tio n . In separate a r t ic le s Amatora^ and Callahan^ s im ila rly
id en tify some of the arguments against i t s use:
^Gardner, John W,, The Recovery of Confidence. New York: W. W.Norton and Company In c ., 1970, p. 55.
^O liver, Wilmont F ., The Relative E ffectiveness of Inform ational Feedback About Supervisory and Student Reactions With Beginning and Experienced Vocational Teachers. P ro ject No. 6-8327, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rutgers, the S ta te U niversity, New Brunswick, New Jersey , 1967, p. 17.
^Amatora, S is te r Mary, "Teacher Rating by Younger P up ils ." Journal of Teacher Education. V (June 1954/, 149.
4 ib id .
^Callahan, S te rlin g G ., "Is Teacher Rating by Students a Sound P ractice"? School and S ociety . LXIX (February 1949), 96.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
1. Students are too immature to render va lid judgments.
2. Students' "halo e ffe c t" o ffs e ts v a lid ity . (Halo is defined
by English and English^ as "the tendency in making an estim ate or
ra tin g of one c h a ra c te r is tic of a person to be influenced by another
c h a ra c te r is tic or by one's general impression of th a t person."
3. Students' responses are ta in te d with emotional incidents
such as grades, teacher a t t i tu d e s , and d isc ip lin e .
4. Students' anonymous remarks are irre sp o n sib le .
5. Teacher morale is lowered.
Howsam id en tified y e t another reason fo r the apparent dichotomy
between evidence and p rac tice when he sa id :
"Despite the favorable evidence, there i s widespread resis tan ce to the use of pupil ra tin g s probably a r is in g out of the respective ro les of student and teacher in our cu ltu re ."
Amatora^ fu rth e r c la r i f ie d the s itu a tio n :
"The f i r s t impulse of the u n in itia te d is usually one of aversion; whereas those who have had some acquaintance with i t s procedures, who have studied i t s pros and cons, who have ac tu a lly p a rtic ip a te d in such s tu d ies are often favorable and a t times even en th u sia s tic in th e i r endorsement of the p ra c tic e ."
The advantages accruing to student ra tin g s are s im ila rly e a s ily
^English, H. B. and English, Ava C ., A Comprehensive D ictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms. New York: Longmans,Green and Company, 1958, p. 236.
^Howsara, Robert B ., "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folk lore."The National Elementary P rin c ip a l. XLIII (November 1963), 16.
^Amatora, op. c i t .
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
id e n tif ie d . Amatora^ and Callahan^ again note almost id en tic a l
arguments of proponents;
1. Students are frank .
2. Students d a ily occupy s tra te g ic positions to see both the
good and the bad of a te a c h e r 's performance.
3 . S tudents' perceptions of teachers are important to subse
quent study.
U* Students provide inform ation, not ava ilab le through other
means, with ease, economy, and convenience.
5. Student c r itic ism is good and help fu l in determining peda
gogical d efic ien cies and b e tte r teacher p erso n a lity .
Pupil ra tin g s have been the subject of a considerable amount of
research in recent y ears . With few exceptions the p rac tice has been
favorably endorsed. Howsam rep o rts on th is research as follow s:
"With remarkable consistency the findings have shown th a t pupils are able to make more v a lid and re lia b le ra tin g s of teachers than any o ther group, including adm in istra to rs , supervisors, and experts . Teachers in these stud ies have found the pupil ra tin g s to be f a i r and accu ra te ."
E a rlie r , Howsarn had found four types of ra tin g scales to be commonly
l lo c . c i t . , p . 150.
^Callahan, op. c i t . , p . 99.
%owsam, "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folk lore," op. c i t .
^Howsam, Who's g Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation, op. c i t . , pp. 31-5.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
used in research on teacher performance. He dismissed s e lf - ra tin g s
because they were too b iased , peer ra tin g s because there was marginal
evidence fo r colleagues, and supervisor and adm inistrator ra tin g s
because of low c o rre la tio n and b ia s . In h is review of stud ies How-
8am found only student ra tin g s to be favorably endorsed. Hickmott^
constructed a fo rty -e ig h t-item instrum ent fo r obtaining student
opinions of teach ers. She reported th a t co rre la tio n s fo r the
various groups of fo u rth , f i f t h , and six th-grade students obtained
by the chance-half method ranged from .91-.99 . The almost unanimous
acclaim of teachers regarding the fa irn e ss of student responses was
supportive of Bryan's e a r l i e r work.^ Amatora^ did research with
pupil ra tin g s in grades four to e ig h t using a f iv e point scale to
determine student perception of teacher performance on seven c r ite r io n
areas. She concluded th a t elementary pup ils are f a i r ly s tab le in
th e ir ra tin g of teachers and show a s a tis fa c to ry degree of both
agreement and d iscrim ination . S p li t -h a lf r e l i a b i l i t i e s ranging
from .86-.96 were reported on the seven item s.
In a monumental attem pt to discover c r i te r ia fo r determining
teacher m erit, McCall^ conducted a statew ide study fo r the North
Carolina S ta te Board of Education. Pupil gain scores on a v a rie ty
of t e s t s were accepted as being the c r i te r io n measure of teacher
Hickmott, Susan, "An Instrument fo r Obtaining Student Opinions of Teachers in Interm ediate Grades." Unpublished M aster's Thesis,The Ohio S tate U niversity , Columbus, Ohio, 19A7, p. 60.
^ loc. c i t . , p. AA*■^Amatora, op. c i t . , p. 152.M cC all, William A ., Measurement of Teacher M erit. Raleigh,
North Carolina: North Carolina S ta te Board of Education, 1952, p . 27.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
m erit. The judgment of several groups of ra te rs on various teacher
t r a i t s led him to th is conclusion:
"At l a s t we find some p ro fessionally competent judges of teaching s k i l l , namely, the teach ers ' p u p ils , especia lly a f te r they have been taught by the teacher fo r nearly a year. Out of the mouths of ch ildren comes more accurate judgment of teachers than th a t rendered by th e i r peers o r superv isors, and, i f our c r i te r io n is v a lid , they appear to have a t ru e r idea of what co n stitu tes good te ich in g than professors of education."
One of the pioneers in research on student ra tin g of teachers
has been Reramers with h is work on the Purdue Rating Scale fo r
In s tru c tio n .^ This scale has been the too l of research since the2
1920's and has led Remmers to conclude th a t "student evaluation is
a u sefu l, convenient, r e l ia b le means of se lf-su p erv isio n and s e lf -
improvement fo r the teach er." Major generaliza tions from researches
on th is scale follow ;^
"1. R e lia b ili ty of ra tin g s of teachers by students i s a function of the number of r a te r s , in accordance with the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula. I f 25 or more student ra tin g s are averaged, they are as re lia b le as the b e tte r educational and mental te s t s a t present av a ilab le .
2 . Grades of students have l i t t l e i f any re la tio n sh ip to th e i r ra tin g s of in s tru c to rs who assigned the grades.
3 . Alumni 10 years a f te r graduation agree very c lose ly (rank order rho = .92) with on-campus students on the re la tiv e importance of 10 teacher c h a ra c te r is t ic s .
A* Alumni 10 years a f te r graduation agree su b s ta n tia lly ( r 's ranging from .AO to ,68) with on-campus students in th e i r average ra tin g s of the same in s tru c to rs .
^Rammers. H. H., "Rating Methods in Research on teach ing ." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNallyand Company, 19^3, p. 33&.
2loc. c i t . , p. 367.
2 ib id .
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
5. Halo e f fe c t , i f present in ra tin g s by such instrum ents as the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n , i s s u ff ic ie n t to ra ise the in t e r t r a i t co rre la tio n s to un ity when corrected fo r unr e l ia b i l i ty of the ra tin g s . Evidence ind ica tes th a t students discrim inate re lia b ly among d iffe re n t aspects of the te a ch e r 's personality and the course.
6. L i t t le i f any re la tio n sh ip e x is ts between stu d en ts ' ra tin g s of the teacher and the d if f ic u l ty of the course.
7. In a given college or u n iv e rsity , wide and important departmental d ifferences in teaching effec tiveness may e x is t as judged by student opinion.
8. The sex of student ra te rs bears l i t t l e or no re la tio n sh ip to th e i r ra tin g s of teachers.
9. The cost in time and money of obtaining student ra tin g s of teachers is low. In f a c t , i t i s considerably lower than the cost of adm inistering a ty p ica l standarized educational t e s t o f some comprehensiveness.
10. Popularity in ex trac lass a c t iv i t ie s of the teacher is probably not appreciably re la te d to student ra tin g s of th a t teacher.
11. Teachers with le s s than fiv e y ea rs ' experience tend to be rated lower than teachers with more than e ig h t y ears ' experience.
12. The sex of the teacher is in general unrelated to the r a t ings received.
13. There is a low but s ig n if ic a n t p o s itiv e re la tio n sh ip ( r “ .20) between the mean ob jec tive ly measured achievement of an in s tru c to r 's students (with scholastic a b i l i ty held constant) and s tu d en ts ' ra tin g s of college chemistry teachers.
14. Students are more favorable than in s tru c to rs to student ra tin g of in s tru c to rs , but more in s tru c to rs than students have noticed improvement in th e i r teaching as a r e s u l t of student ra tin g s ."
Miklich^ recen tly completed a v a lid a tio n study of the Purdue
iM iklich, Donald R ., "An Experimental V alidation Study of the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n ." Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXIX (w inter 1969), 966.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n and s ta ted ;
"We may conclude with some confidence th a t students can make v a lid ra tin g s with the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n or s im ila r kinds of sca le s ."
Davenport^ likew ise concluded th a t " i t can be s ta ted with a f a i r
degree of confidence th a t pupils are competent to ra te teachers, and
th a t th e i r ra tin g s are re lia b le and v a lid , and th a t the ra tin g s of
pupils have no d e le te rio u s e ffe c ts on e ith e r pupil or teacher morale."
General comments l ik e "research ind ica tes th a t very re a l value
may be attached to pupil perception of teacher e ffectiveness as evi
dence in the evaluation of teachers" from Beok^ and "students consti
tu te a pool of re lia b le observers who are in a favorable position to
observe changes in the behavior of th e i r teachers since they are3
present every day" from Oliver are undoubtedly instrum ental in the
growing trend toward the use of student ra tin g s of teacher e ffe c tiv e
n ess.^
The concepts of ra tin g and evaluation can hardly be discussed
ap art from the consideration of c r i te r i a upon which these judgments
^Davenport, Kenneth, "An Investiga tion of Pupil Ratings of C ertain Teacher P rac tic e s ." Purdue Studies in Higher Education. XLIX (January 194A), 12.
p*Beck, op. c i t .
^O liver, op. c i t . , p. 5.
^American A ssociation of School A dm inistrators, Who's a Good Teacher? Washington D.C.: American A ssociation of School Administ r a to r s , 1961, p. 32.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
are mada. Fatt u , ^ M itzel,^ and KerlingoiP among o th ers , p o s it
pessim istic views of past research e f fo r ts to y ie ld meaningful,
measurable c r i te r ia of teacher e ffec tiv en ess. Yet, the d esire to
press forward has captivated the e f fo r ts of many. The ra tio n a le
behind such e f fo r ts was r e a l i s t ic a l ly summarized in an a r t ic le by
the American Association of School A dm inistrators;^
"This study is approached with the f u l l re a liz a tio n th a t there i s no absolute ce rta in ty anywhere in human a f f a i r s .The fee lin g s , b e l ie f s , and psychological reactions of in d iv iduals, p a r tic u la r ly as they are re la ted to the d e lic a te and in tr ic a te process of teaching and learn ing , cannot be r ig id ly defined and categorized lik e inanimate p a r tic le s of physical m atter. But to delay action u n t i l such ce rta in ty has been achieved would be to delay action fo rever. Moral ob ligation r e s ts upon a l l of us to press forward in the way th a t a l l ava ilab le evidence ind icates is more probably tru e than any o th er."
Ryans,^ too , expressed the ra tio n a le behind h is ambitious en
deavor, since ca lled the "single most extensive study of teachers
to da te":^
"While extreme caution should be taken in guarding against an overgeneralised p ic tu re of the good or e ffe c tiv e teach er, or
^Fattu , Nicholas A., "What Research Says About Teacher E ffec tiveness," HEA Journal. L (October 1961), 56.
^M itael, Harold E ., "Teacher E ffectiveness." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. C. W. H arris , 3d e d ., London; The Macm illan Company, I960, p. 14.81,
^K erlinger, Fred N ., "The Factor S tructure and Content of Perceptions of Desirable C h arac te ris tic s of Teachers." Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXVII (Autumn 1967), 643.
^American A ssociation of School A dm inistrators, op. c i t . , p. 1.
5Ryans, David G., C h arac teristics of Teachers. Washington B.C.; American Council on Education, I960, p. 366.
^Qetaels, J . W. and Jackson P. W., "The Teacher's P ersonality and C h arac te ris tic s ." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed, H. L, Gage, Chicago; Rand McNally and"Tompany, l953, p. 56b.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
the opposite exem plified by the in fe r io r or in e ffec tiv e teacher, the re su lts of a v a rie ty of in v estig a tio n s do poin t to c e r ta in recu rring descrip tions which may have some v a lid ity in so fa r as contemporary cu ltu re in the United S ta tes is concerned. C ertain ly the evidence suggests leads and clues which provide s ta r t in g po in ts fo r thinking about teacher competencies and fo r more in tensive in v estig a tio n s which open the way fo r more adequate conceptualizing about teacher performance."
Ryans^ study of teacher c h a ra c te r is tic s has drawn considerable
a tten tio n and support. Three dimensions or c r i te r ia of classroom
behavior were Id e n tif ied :
"Pattern Xq.* Understanding, f r ie n d ly vs. a loo f, egocentric , re s t r ic te d teacher behavior.
P attern Y^: Responsible, busin ess lik e , system atic vs.evading, unplanned, slipshod teacher behavior.
P attern Z^: S tim ulating , im aginative, surgent or en th u sias ticvs. d u ll , rou tine teacher behavior."
These th ree dimensions were id e n tifie d by surveying the l i t e r a tu r e ,
analyzing " c r i t ic a l incidents" in teaching, and id en tify in g the
c lu s te rs in fa c to r an a ly s is . In a more recen t study by Crawford and
Bradshaw the e ffe c tiv e teacher c h a ra c te r is tic s determined v ia three
hundred student papers "corresponded c lo se ly to those of Ryans in
i 960 which presumably represented a consensus of the American Council
on Education." K erlinger^ s im ila rly s ta te s th a t "there are three
p rin c ip a l fac to rs underlying perceptions of desirab le t r a i t s of
^op. c i t . , p . 77.
^Crawford, P. L, and Bradshaw, H. L ., "Perception o f Characteris t ic s of Effective U niversity Teachers: A Scaling A nalysis." Educa tional and Psychological Measurement. XXVIII (Winter 1968), 1081.
% erlin g e r, op. c i t . , p . 6 5 4 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
teachers. These th ree fa c to rs , moreover, resemble Ryans’ Xq- Yq- Zq
p a tte rn s ."
Research l i te r a tu r e has in the past divided c r i te r ia of e ffec
tiveness in to presage, process, and product c r i te r ia .^ Presage
c r i te r ia include fac to rs which teachers bring with them to the c la ss
room. Years of teaching experience, p r io r p reparation , in te llig e n c e ,
and so c ia l s k i l l s might be such fa c to rs . M itzel^ commented on the
nature of presage c r i te r i a ;
"In a sense they a re pseudo c r i te r i a , fo r th e i r relevance depends on an assumed or con jectural re la tio n sh ip to o ther c r i te r i a , e i th e r process or product. Precedent fo rces th e ir consideration as c r i t e r i a , since the bulk of research on teacher competence has employed dependent variab les which f i t in to th is category."
3Soar described process c r i te r i a in the following manner:
"Process c r i te r ia are aspects of the classroom operation which are deemed worthwhile in th e ir own r ig h t , although they may not be d ire c tly re la ted to the outcomes of education, the product c r i te r i a . These process c r i te r ia are most o ften measures of classroom clim ate or ty p ica l s itu a tio n s involving the soc ia l in te ra c tio n of students and teachers. Other examples would be the extent to which teachers d isc ip lin e students e ffe c tiv e ly , m aintain rapport with s tuden ts. "
To th is Mitael'^ added th a t as process c r i te r ia n e ith e r student nor
teacher behavior should be studied in iso la tio n . "The in te ra c tio n
Ip ianders, Ned A, and Simon, A nita, "Teacher E ffectiveness."The Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4 th e d ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969, pp. 1425-32.
^M itzel, op. c i t . , p . 1484.3Soar, Robert S ., "Methodological Problems in P redic ting Teacher
E ffectiveness." Journal of Experimental Education. XXXII (Spring 1964), 289.
^ p , c i t .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
between them appears to be the dominant aspect of the whole process
of lea rn in g .” Bryan^ extended th is reasoning when he said :
"One is thinking in terms of process c r i te r ia when he concludes th a t improved student reactions means improved teacher e ffec tiv en ess. Other th ings being equal, the teacher who conducts c lasses th a t students find challenging and in te r esting is more e ffe c tiv e than the one who conducts c lasses th a t bore s tu d en ts . The teacher who gets cooperation in the p ru su it of classroom objectives is more e ffec tiv e than one who f a i l s to ge t studen ts to concentrate on classroombusiness, and the teacher who is admired and respected ismore e ffec tiv e than one who is feared or regarded with contempt. *'
Product c r i te r ia re fe r to measured growth or gains in students re
su ltin g from e f fo r ts of the teacher. F a ttu ,^ in h is manuscript
preparation fo r the American A ssociation of School A dm inistrators,
ap tly described th is c r i te r io n area when he concluded:
•'Despite f i f t y years of continued development in the f ie ld of educational measurement, s a tis fa c to ry te s t s of achievement e x is t only in a few of the basic s k i l l s a reas. Adequate measures of so c ia l and emotional adjustm ents, cu ltu ra l apprecia tions, or a t t i tu d e s e s se n tia l to democratic liv in g are not ye t av a ila b le . Though elaborate s ta t i s t i c a l and experimental methods have been developed, there is no one who can demonstrate a s c ie n tif ic way of making use of p u p il- gain c r i te r ia in measuring teacher e ffe c tiv e n e ss .”
Howsam,^ too, addressed him self to product c r i te r ia :
•'There is only one f u l ly defensib le c r i te r io n fo r judging teacher e ffec tiv en ess ; the ultim ate c r i te r io n is r e s u l t .Since i t i s not p resen tly fe a s ib le to re ly on the ultim ate c r i te r io n of e ffec tiv en ess , i t becomes necessary to attem pt to develop interm ediate or proximate c r i t e r i a . These are
^Bryan, A Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. op. c i t . , p. 11.
2American Association of School A dm inistrators, op. c i t . , p. 19.
howsam, "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and F o lk lo re ,” op. c i t . ,p. 15.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
the ones th a t can be demonstrated or assumed to be c lose ly re la te d to u ltim ate c r i te r ia ."
Upon concluding th a t of the three major c r i te r ia only process c r i
t e r ia were p resen tly of p ra c tic a l use in the te a ch e r 's e f fo r t fo r
improved e ffec tiv en ess , Bryan^ launched a major e f fo r t to provide
teachers with student opinions of teacher performance. These e f fo r ts
culminated in the development of the Student Opinion Questionnaire
(SOQ) and i t s subsequent d is tr ib u tio n through the Student Reaction
Center a t Western Michigan U niversity. The questionnaire has been
revised and i s now ca lled the Teacher Image Q uestionnaire. while
the cen ter has expanded i t s scope and has been renamed the Educator
Feedback Center.2
Lauroesch claims th a t over a period of th i r ty years Bryan has
developed the most re lia b le procedure fo r s o lic i t in g student opinion
of teacher performance. Bryan's twelve-item instrument has been
used nationwide in both research and in -se rv ice e f fo r ts . I t has been3 /shown to be re l ia b le , v a lid , and reasonably free from halo e f fe c t . *
The questionnaire items represent "e sse n tia l c h a ra c te r is tic s of
e ffe c tiv e teachers" and were selected only a f te r a carefu l study of
appropriate research in v estig a tio n s . Of s ignal importance in th is
regard was the previously mentioned study of Ryans.
^Bryan, A Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. op, c i t . , p. 11.
^Lauroesch, op. c i t . , p . 5.3
op. c i t . , pp. 10, 12.
4op. c i t . , p. 6,
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Ryans^ d escrip tio n of the e ffec tiv e behaviors of teachers was la rg e ly
incorporated in the SOQ. With respect to the re la tio n between teacher
e ffec tiveness and student reactions Bryan^ concluded:
"Many educators believe th a t improved student reactions means improved teacher e ffec tiv en ess. The research by Ryans and others led to the conclusion th a t e ffec tiv e teachers ex h ib it to a favorable degree, q u a li t ie s lik e those specified in the Student Opinion Q uestionnaire."
Coats^ has fa c to r analyzed the re su lts of over fo rty thousand student
responses on the SOQ. He found one fa c to r , which he labeled teacher
charisma, to account fo r about s ix ty percent of the variance. The
other fo rty percent of the variance was independent of the charisma
fa c to r and most l ik e ly represented a f a i r ly objective measure of
student judgment. Coats added th a t "teacher charisma is probably a
function of teacher e ffec tiv en ess ." Alas, Coats had received con
s is te n t requests from boards of education p r io r to the 1970 school
year to adm inister the SOQ fo r purposes of m erit ra tin g . Although
the teacher e ffec tiveness c r i te r ia dilemma is s t i l l bothersome fo r
many educators, the above-mentioned use of th is instrum ent has made
more common i t s designation as an instrum ent fo r measuring teacher
^Ryans, op. c i t . , p . 82.
^Bryan, Roy C. , Reactions to Teachers by Students. P aren ts, and A dm inistrators. Cooperative Research P ro ject No. 668, U.S. Office of Education, Department of H ealth, Education, and Welfare, Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1962, p . 7.
^Coata, William D., "Student Perceptions of Teachers~A Factor A nalytic Study." Paper presented a t the American Research Associa tio n Conference, M inneapolis, Minnesota, March 6 , 1970, p. 8.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
e ffec tiv en ess.
Many p re- and p o s tte s t designed stud ies such as the one carried
out here do not attem pt to engage in any absolute evaluation of teacher
e ffec tiv en ess. Ho attem pt was made a t comparison with ex ternal
standards. Rather, the effec tiveness of various group treatm ents
was determined by changes in students* pre- and p o s tte s t opinions.
As such the e f fo r t was v a lid in i t s s o l ic i ta t io n of student per
ceptions of teacher performance.
Student Opinion Feedback fo r Teachers
The ra tio n a le fo r hypothesizing changes in teacher behavior
based on student opinion feedback has been offered by many w rite rs .^
Gage, Runlcel, and C hatterjee claimed an imbalance was estab lished
which prompted the teacher to move in d irec tio n s of co rrection .
Osgood and Tonnenbaum re fe rred to th is same phenomenon as incongruity,
F estinger as dissonance. Given time follow ing feedback, subjects
w ill ad ju st th e i r behavior to re s to re consistency or equilibrium .
Many have espoused the concept of feedback as an aid in improv
ing teacher performance. Not in frequently teachers have engaged of
th e i r own v o litio n in attem pts to get feedback from students regarding
th e i r teaching. In explaining the b en efits of such a c tiv ity Tedesco^
^aw , R. W. and Gage, N. L ., "Effect of Feedback from Teachers to P rin c ip a ls ." Journal of Educational Pavchology. LVIII (June 1967), 181.
^Tedesco, Phyliss Reynolds, "An 'A* fo r Teacher." The In s tru c to r . U n (October 1959), 89.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
sa id , " I read those papers f iv e tim es. I learned more about my
teaching methods th a t evening than I would have in a year of course
work." Wright and Sherman^ also agreed:
"Whatever may be the te a ch e r 's evaluation of h e rse lf or a superv iso r's evaluation of her, n e ith er can compare with p u p ils ' perceptions of the teacher as a way to find out what pupils are responding to ."
Other attem pts a t providing teacher feedback have become more
systematized such as the e f fo r ts a t Purdue, Stanford, and Western
Michigan U n iv e rsitie s . In h is doctoral d is s e r ta tio n a t Stanford,
Aubertine^ found th a t p a rtic ip a n ts valued most the feedback ea s ie s t
to obtain , namely th a t from students. Ryan,^ studying a t the same
in s t i tu t io n , also found th a t p re-serv ice teachers perceived student
feedback to be more b en efic ia l than th a t from other sources.
A fter reviewing m ateria l in the f ie ld and p rio r to conducting
a study using Bryan's instrum ent, Lauroesch^ and h is associa tes con
cluded th a t " th ir ty years of research and development have indicated
th a t student feedback is a useful and re lia b le means fo r improving
and d ire c tin g behavioral change in teach ers." In a study conducted
^Wright, Benjamin and Sherman, Barbara, "Love and Mastery in the C hild 's Image." School Review. LXXIII (Summer 1965), 89.
^Aubertine, H. E ., "An experiment in the Set Induction Process and I t s Application in Teaching." D isserta tio n A bstracts . XXV (January 1965), 3987.
%yan, Kevin A., "The Use of S tudents' W ritten Feedback in Changing the Behavior of Beginning Secondary School Teachers." D isse rta tio n A bstracts : The Humanities and Social Sciences. XXVII (January-Feb-ruary 1967), 2089-A.
^Lauroesch, op. c i t . , p . 1.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
with a USOE grant Bryan^ found th a t "the feedback of information
about student reac tions can be used by many teachers as a means of
improving effectiveness os seen by s tuden ts." F ifty-seven percent
of s ix ty experimental teachers made a s ta t i s t i c a l ly s ig n if ic a n t gain
on one or more questions as compared with twenty-four percent of the
f if ty -n in e non-experimental teachers. Ninety-two percent o f the2
experimental group teachers said the feedback was h e lp fu l. O liver
used Bryan's instrument in a recent study and drew these conclusions:
"1. Inform ational feedback from students is e ffec tiv e in changing teacher behavior.
2, Student feedback is more e ffec tiv e in changing teacher behavior than supervisory feedback.
3. The u t i l iz a t io n of student feedback as a means of improving teacher behavior should be used to a g rea te r ex ten t."
3McCall's previously c ited and comprehensive study in North Carolina
ind icates th a t fo r tra in in g teachers in service "a su b stan tia l gain
could be secured by tho simple device of having pupils give a confi
d en tia l ra tin g of th e i r teachers a t the end of the school year."
I t is apparent from the l i te ra tu r e and research s tud ies th a t
student feedback is b en efic ia l fo r many teachers in bringing about
improved teacher performance as perceived by studen ts. I t has con
s is te n tly been regarded as more valuable than th a t of supervisors,
^Bryan, Reactions to Teachers by S tudents. P aren ts, and Administra to r s . op. c i t . , p . 43.
^O liver, op. c i t . , pp. 47-8,
^McCall, op. c i t . , p . 37.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
r e l ia b le , and reasonably free from the influence of "halo ." To the
ex tent th a t ra tin g instrum ents incorporate items c h a ra c te r is tic of
e ffe c tiv e teachers, the feedback could be expected to Improve the
effectiveness of many teachers as perceived by students.
M otivation of Log A ctiv ity
I t was expected th a t teachers m aintaining the check lis t log
would be motivated as a re su lt of th a t log to improve th e ir v arie ty
in teaching. The ra tio n a le fo r th is expectation came la rg e ly from
the psychology of m otivation. Well-documented in the annals of
educational and so c ia l psychology was the complexity and importance
of m otivation as a p red isposition fo r c e r ta in behavior. From an
examination of m otivation theory l i te r a tu r e three s a lie n t fea tu res
of the log were read ily apparent:
1. The log provided p a rtic ip a n ts with the stimulus or m otivation
to perform in ways commensurate with th e i r own personal expectations
fo r f u l f i l l i n g a given ro le .
2. The log provided p a rtic ip an ts with the stim ulus or motivation
to perform in ways commensurate with th e i r own perceptions of o th ers '
ro le expectations fo r them.
3. The log provided an account of past a c t iv i t ie s as an aid to
fu tu re desired performance. Each of these fea tu res is here expanded
in tu rn as i t p erta in s to the check list log of th is study.
Kretch and C rutchfield^ describe the s ta te of m otivation as "the
iK retch, David and C rutchfield , Richard S ., Elements of Psychology, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959, p. 6.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
most s tr ik in g fea tu re of the person 's experience of s e l f . ” Addition
a l ly , they s ta te ;
"The person perceives disturbances and d efic ien c ies with respect to him self and h is surroundings. He fe e ls needs and d es ire s , he s e ts goals and forms in ten tio n s , he exe rc ises choice and w ill . In response to these m otivations the person a c ts ,"
The mere presence of the log creates an awareness, a knowledge of
ex is tin g in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. Whatever m otivations and
subsequent actions taken by the teacher a t th is point are most l ik e ly
a response to the discrepancy between what he fe e ls h is v a rie ty in
teaching is (the s e lf - re a l image of h is performance with respect to
th is v a rie ty c r ite r io n ) and what he fee ls i t ought to be (the s e lf
idea l image of h is performance with respect to th is v a rie ty c r i te r io n ) .
Mouly^ claims th a t the s e lf - id e a l "represents h is standards of con
duct based upon h is in te rp re ta tio n s of the ro le p rescrip tio n s re
layed to him .. . . " I t was intended th a t the log would be a fa c to r
in the te a ch e r 's own ro le p rescrip tio n with respect to h is v a rie ty
in teaching.2
In th e i r discussion of motives Kretch and C rutchfield id e n ti
f ie d two basic types of motives, deficiency motives and abundancy
m otives. Among others the former v a rie ty was characterized by "need
to remove d e f ic its " and might be described as tension-reduction
behavior. The l a t t e r v a rie ty is characterized by "desires to know.
^Mouly, George J , , Psychology fo r E ffective Teaching. New York; H olt, R inehart, and Winston In c ., 1968, p . 111.
2op. c i t . , p . 278.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
understand, le a rn , c rea te , a c h ie v e ...” and might be accompanied by-
tension increase. A dditionally , Kretch and C rutchfield^ s ta te ;
"Every individual i s characterized by both deficiency and abundancy m otivations. But the re la tiv e weighting of the two varies widely among ind iv iduals. Some persons are mainly dominated by th e i r needs, with d es ires impoverished; in others needs may be subsid iary and desires have f u l l range. Almost every a c tiv ity we fin d people engaged in can express e i th e r deficiency m otivation or abundancy m otivation .”
I t i s probable, then, th a t the ex ternal stimulus provided by the log
motivated p a rtic ip a n ts to ac t in ways to a l le v ia te d e fic ien c ie s . In
accord with the d iscussion of Kretch and C rutchfie ld th ere could
have been varying motives underlying the ac tio n , but undoubtedly any
response would have been d irected toward equilibrium —a "homeostasis”
of the soc ia l environment—in an attempt by the indiv idual to reduce
the imbalance, defic iency , or incongruity p re c ip ita te d by the log.
In addition to the above lin e of reasoning i t is e n tire ly poss
ib le th a t the p a rtic ip a n ts received personal reinforcement merely
from m aintaining the ch eck lis t log . According to th is explanation,
based on behavioral psychology, p a rtic ip a n ts would have been moti
vated to repeat the behavior (v arie ty in methodologies) fo r which
reinforcement was possib le through checking the log.
A second fea tu re of the log which was id e n tif ied previously
d e a lt with the stimulus provided by i t to perform according to the
expectations of o thers. To the ex tent th a t p a rtic ip a n ts f e l t an
achievement-evaluation type of m otivation the log provided a form of
su rveillance of th e i r in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. In e f fe c t , the
log was an ex ternal au th o rity imposed on the teachers with respect to
l ib id .
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a
th e i r in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. I t was l ik e ly th a t the fa c to r of
ex ternal au th o rity was not a dominating force because the researcher
did not represent a power figu re or occupy an au th o rity p o sitio n with
respect to the teacher p a r tic ip a n ts . However, the m otivation to
please the researcher might well have been s im ila r to the ac tion of
p leasing a superior.
The th ird and f in a l fea tu re of the log was the opportunity i t
provided to account in a system atic way fo r methodologies employed
and to use th is record as a guide fo r determining fu tu re methods.
The log was suggestive in th a t i t l i s te d many possib le methods from
which to choose in planning teaching s tra teg y . In th is respect i t
was s im ila r to the ra tio n a le underlying a ca tegoriza tion of questions
featured in a book by Sanders.^ He claimed th a t " a f te r a teacher
stud ies the taxonomy he is lik e ly to o ffe r h is students a g rea te r
v a rie ty of in te l le c tu a l experiences than he did before." The com
parable use of the log fo stered a cognition of what was availab le
and what had been used. Festinger^ re fe rs to the d isp a r ity between
cognitions which e x is t simultaneously fo r a person as cognitive
dissonance. His reference to cognitive dissonance as a motivating
s ta te r e la te s th is f in a l fea tu re of the log to the f i r s t ;
^Sanders, Norris M., Classroom Questions: V/hat Kinds? New York:Harper and Row, 1966, p . 6.
pF estinger, Leon, "Cognitive Dissonance as a M otivating S ta te ."
Psychology in A dm inistration, ed. Timothy W. C ostello and Sheldon S. Zalkind, Englewood C lif f s , New Jersey; P ren tice-H all, In c ., 1963, p. 170.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
"I wish to hypothesize th a t the existence of cognitive dissonance is comparable to any other need s ta te . Ju st as hunger is m otivating, cognitive dissonance is m otivating. Cognitive dissonance w ill give r is e to a c t iv i ty oriented toward or elim inating the d issonance.”^
The e n tire s itu a tio n posited here i s not unlike th a t of teachers
requiring students to keep a log of th e ir a c t iv i t i e s , p rin c ip a ls
requiring teachers to m aintain a plan book, or employers requ iring
employees to account fo r th e ir endeavors v ia a time log. In a l l
cases the th ree -fo ld fea tu res of the log e x is t as described above.
To make use of the log in re la tio n to these th ree fea tu res was the
in ten t behind the in troduction of th is v ariab le in to the f ie ld
experiment.
Function of the Consultant
T rad itio n a lly the ro le of the supervisor in education has been
considered a lin e p o sitio n ; supervision has been assumed by a person
occupying an adm inistrative post. The nature of th is supervision2
was la rg e ly inspection , E lsbree, McNally, and Wynn described as
follows th is s itu a tio n :
"In i t s e a r l ie s t form, supervision meant inspecting the work of the te a c h e r .. . . Inspection was not an attem pt to help teachers improve in s tru c tio n . I t was designed to determine whether or not teachers did what they were supposed to do, and i f they d id n 't , to replace them with teachers who would."
The supervision of in s tru c tio n next passed through a period in the
l lo c . c i t . , p . 171.
^Elsbree, W illard S ., McNally, Harold J . , and Wynn, Richard, Elementary School Admini a t r a t ion and Supervision. New York: American Book Company, 1967, p . 140.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
early decades of th is centuiy of •’teaching the teachers how to do
i t . " l E xp lic it in th is concept of supervision was the idea th a t the
supervisor knew best how to teach and th ere fo re should attempt to
indoctrinate the s ta f f in h is superio r methods. D esirable as i t may
be fo r the supervisor to possess th is su p erio rity i t i s very doubtful
th a t the intended outcome was often rea lized . With the increased
quantity and q u a lity of p re-serv ice p reparation teachers generally
bring a degree of expertise to the educational scene. A recognition
of th is fa c t has prompted a s h if t to the idea of supervision as
democratic leadership whereby the supervisor and teacher together
explore the means of improving the to ta l teach ing-learn ing s itu a tio n ,
Mason^ likew ise concurs th a t supervision i s assis tan ce ra th e r than
inspection.
Although the remnants of past supervisory p rac tice s t i l l lin g e r
too frequently , i t has become increasingly popular fo r the supervisor
to be looked upon as a helper. This ro le of helper or consultant is3
described by Goldberg:
"As a c a ta ly s t the supervisor causes a s itu a tio n to come about—to be the prime mover, y e t to create a fee lin g in the teacher th a t th is was an e f fo r t on h is p a r t ."
E lsbree, McNally, and Wynn' s ta te unequivocally th a t "the task
of in s tru c tio n a l improvement in the lo ca l school i s inescapably the
^loc. c i t . , p. 1 4 2 .
^Mason, Barbara T ., "Supervisor or Curriculum S p e c ia lis t." Educational Leadership. XXVII (January 1970), 401.
•^Goldberg, H arris P ., "The Education of the Science Supervisor." School Science and Mathematics. LXX (May 1970), 363.
4Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, op. c i t . , p. 167.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
responsibility of the principal.” Although it is generally accepted
that this is the principal’s primary function, the administrivia of
his position too frequently mitigate against its top priority. Many
school systems now havo special supervisory services to handle or
share this responsibility with the principal.
The objective behind supervision, in its broadest sense, is the
process of improving instruction.^ Sometimes the principal alone
functions in this capacity; in other cases personnel with various
titles assume this function. These instructional specialists might
be called elementary school supervisors, coordinators, consultants,
subject matter specialists, curriculum coordinators, or grade group
chairman, to mention a few. In almost every instance they desire
to be looked upon as "service” personnel with staff rather than line
responsibilities. Their emphasis is upon in-service education and
assistance for the classroom te a ch er .W it h respect to the con
sultant's responsibility Spain, Drummond, and Goodlad^ conclude that
"the focus is upon teacher improvement, with children's betterment
a hoped-for outcome, rather than upon direct contact with individual
Heald, James E ., "Supervision." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th e d ., London: The MacmillanCompapy, 1969, p. 1394.
2Spain, Charles, Drummond, Harold, and Goodlad, John, Educational
Leadership and the Elementary P rin c ip a l. New York: Rinehart andCompany, In c ., 1956, p. 227.
% ason, op. c i t . , p . 403.
^op. c i t .
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
ch ild ren ." In a research study a t the six th-grade le v e l, Ginther^
found evidence to support the theory th a t consultan ts working with
teachers ra th e r than students produced b e tte r gain scores in student
achievement. This ind icated a g rea te r impact by consultants i f th e ir
e f fo r ts were with teachers ra th e r than with students.
That there is disagreement over whether supervision should come2
from a lin e or s ta f f p o sitio n i s well known. The d is tin c tio n
between the ro le of s ta f f and lin e personnel can perhaps best be
i l lu s tr a te d with th is statem ent regarding the re sp o n s ib ility of the
lin e adm in istrato r:
"The p r in c ip a l 's re sp o n s ib ility is to help weak teachers who are not on tenure as much as he can. I f a f te r two or three years of working with them, he is convinced th a t they are un likely to become reasonably s a tis fa c to ry teachers, he w ill have to dismiss them."^
Because the s ta f f personnel are not u ltim ate ly responsible fo r d is
m issal procedures i t i s perhaps eas ie r fo r them to divorce themselves
from the inspection ro le of long ago and assume the more contemporary
ro le of dynamic democratic leadership in working with teachers to
improve the to ta l teach ing-learn ing s itu a tio n . Kason^ is more
adamant in her support of the in s tru c tio n a l s p e c ia lis t :
^Ginther, John R ., "Achievement in S ixth Grade Science Associa ted With Two In s tru c tio n a l Roles of Science Consultants." Journal of Educational Research. LVII (September 1963), 30.
^Heald, op. c i t .
^Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, op. c i t . , p. 167.
^Mason, op. c i t . , p . 403.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
"The p rofessional personnel who work with teachers in the area of curriculum should be ca lled curriculum s p e c ia lis ts because nf the negative connotations of the word supervisor . . . .When teachers are held accountable fo r the re su lts ra th e r than the methods, they w ill welcome, even seek ou t, those s p e c ia lis ts who they th ink can help them secure the best r e s u l ts . I th ink they w ill c a l l f i r s t fo r consu ltan ts , curriculum s p e c ia l is ts , anyone with a t i t l e th a t does not convey the idea o f in sp ec tio n .”
Judging from the prevalence of the p rac tice of engaging the
serv ices of consu lta tive personnel who function in a s ta f f p o s itio n ,
th e i r e f fo r ts must be considered b en e f ic ia l. Based on the
l i t e r a t u r e ^ t h e i r ro le might best be considered complementary
to th a t of the build ing p rin c ip a l, ra th e r than pre-empting him of
the opportunity to function in th a t capacity . Although the l i te r a tu r e
i s rep le te with the favorable re s u lts of in -se rv ice education gen
e ra l ly ,^ no d ire c t research evidence was uncovered which would
document the improvement of teacher performance through the e f fo r ts
of the s ta f f s p e c ia l is t .
^ G riff ith s , Daniel E ., e t . a l . . Organizing Schools fo r E ffective Education. D anville, I l l in o i s ; In te rs ta te P rin te rs and Publishers, 1962, p . 172.
2Elsbree, McNally, and Wynn, op. c i t . , 113.
^Dean, S tu art E ,, Elementary School A dm inistration and Organiz a tio n . U.S. Office of Education B u lle tin I960, No. 11, Government P rin ting O ffice, Washington D.C., I960, p. 99.
^C hildress, Jack, "In-Service Education of Teachers." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4th e d ., London; The Macmillan Company, 1969, p. 650.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER I I I
RESEARCH DESIGN, SETTING, AND PROCEDURES
This chapter of the repo rt w ill focus on the research design of
the study, the s e tt in g , and the procedures used in conducting the
f ie ld experiment. Included w ill be the methods used in instrum ent
se le c tio n , sample se le c tio n , and the adm in istra tion of the in s tru
ment. Also presented w ill be a d e ta iled d escrip tio n of the various
group treatm ents. An account of the procedures used in co llec tin g
and organizing the data w ill conclude the chapter.
Review of the Problem
The primary purpose of th is study was to determine i f teachers
could modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances hy
employing m ultip le educational methodologies in th e i r teaching. A
secondary objective was to a sc e rta in the re la tiv e e ffec tiveness of
four experimental treatm ents in helping a teacher to modify student
perceptions of h is teaching performance.
Five groups of teach ers, employing prescribed experimental
treatm ents, were formed in an attempt to gather data p e rtin e n t to
the ob jectives of th is in v es tig a tio n . Teachers in experimental group
A, re fe rred to as the feedback group, received w ritten feedback from
students regarding student perceptions of th e ir teaching performances.
The treatm ent fo r teachers in group B, the log group, was to maintain
a ch eck lis t log of the various in s tru c tio n a l methodologies they
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
employed in th e i r teaching. Teachers in group C, known as the plan
ning group, met weekly with a consultant to make plans fo r the
employment of m ultip le educational methodologies in th e ir teaching.
P artic ip an ts in th is group a lso maintained the ch eck lis t log. A
combination of the treatm ents used in groups A, B, and C was u tiliz e d
by teachers in group D. In ad d itio n , a f i f t h group of teachers,
group E, was used as a con tro l group. An overview of these fiv e
groups i s shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Overview of the Five Treatment Groups
Groups Treatment* Number of Teachers
Number of Students
Grades
Group A F 3 77 4 , 4 , 6
Group B L 3 77 4 , 4 , 6
Group C LP 3 72 4, 5, 6
Group D FLP 3 67 4, 6 , 6
Group E G 3 77 4, 5, 6
Total 15 370
®F-—Feedback L—Log ?—Planning C—Control
The c r i te r io n measure fo r obtaining the data was an adapted form
of Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire (Appendix A).
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
Major Questions Which Were Investigated
Formulated below are the major questions which were in v e s ti
gated in an attempt to carry out the ob jectives of th is study;
1. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in
ov era ll student perception of teacher performance from pre- to
p o s tte s t measure?
2. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ce between groups on the
overa ll p o s tte s t measure?
3. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in
student perception of the teachers* "v a rie ty in teaching" (item nine,
SOQ) from p re- to p o s tte s t measure?
Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ce between groups fo r
"v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOQ.) on the p o s tte s t measure?
Specific Questions Which Were Investigated
Emanating from the four major questions included in the pre
ceding section were th i r ty component questions which are here enumer
ated . Questions la through le p e rta in to major question 1 while
questions 2a through 2j r e fe r to major question 2. Likewise ques
tio n s 3a through 3e apply to major question 3 and questions 4a
through 4j re la te to major question 4.
la ; Was the overa ll student perception of teacher performance
fo r teachers in group A (w ritten feedback) more favorable on the
p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
lb : Was the overall student perception of teacher performance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
fo r teachers in group B (log maintenance) more favorable on the
p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
Ic : Was the ov era ll student perception of teacher performance
fo r teachers in group C (employment of m ultiple educational method
ologies and log maintenance) more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure
than on the p re te s t measure?
Id : Was the ov era ll student perception of teacher performance
fo r teachers in group D (employment of m ultiple educational methodol
og ies, log maintenance, and w ritten feedback) more favorable on the
p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
le : Was the overa ll student perception of teacher performance
fo r teachers in group E (contro l) s im ila r on the p re- and p o s tte s t
measures?
2a: Was the w ritten feedback of student perception of teacher
performance (group A) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in
helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is teaching per
formance?
2b: Was the maintenance of the check lis t log of various educa
tio n a l methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l
in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is teaching
performance?
2c: Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies
and log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l
in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is teaching per
formance?
2d: Was the employment of a combination of feedback, log
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
maintenance, and m ultip le educational methodologies (group D) more
e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is teaching performance?
2e: Was the maintenance of a check lis t log of various educational
methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than w ritten feedback alone
(group a) in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is
teaching performance?
2 f; Was the employment, of m ultip le educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than
w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is teaching performance?
2g: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student
perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than
w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify s tu
dent perception of h is teaching performance?
2h; Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than the
maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a teacher
to modify student perception of h is teaching performance?
21: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student
perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than the
maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a teacher
to modify student perception of h is teaching performance?
2 j : Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
BUpplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student
perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than the
employment of m ultip le educational methodologies and log maintenance
alone (group C) in helping a teacher to modify student perception of
h is teaching performance?
3a: Was student perception of teacher performance regarding
"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group A (w ritten feedback) more
favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
3b; Was student perception of teacher performance regarding
"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group B (log maintenance) more
favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
3c: Was student perception of teacher performance regarding
"v arie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group C (employment of m ultiple
educational methodologies and log maintenance) more favorable on the
p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
3d: Was student perception of teacher performance regarding
"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group D (employment of m ultiple
educational methodologies, log maintenance, and w ritten feedback)
more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
3e; Was student perception of teacher performance regarding
"varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group E (control) sim ilar on
the p re- and p o s tte s t measures?
A&i Was the w ritten feedback of student perception of teacher
performance (group A) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in
helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in
teaching"?
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
4b; Waa the maintenance of the ch eck lis t log of various educa
t io n a l methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l
in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in
teaching'*?
4c: Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies
and log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l
in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "varie ty in
teaching"?
4d: Was the employment of a combination of feedback, log main
tenance, and m ultiple educational methodologies (group D) more effec
t iv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify student
perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?
4e: Was the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log of various educa
t io n a l methodologies (group B) more e ffe c tiv e than w ritten feedback
alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify student perception
of h is "varie ty in teaching"?
4 f : Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than
w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?
4g: Was the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student
perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than
w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching'*?
4h: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than the
maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a teacher
to modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?
4,1: Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student
perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than the
maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a teacher
to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?
4j : Was the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies
supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of student
perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e than the
employment of m ultip le educational methodologies and log maintenance
alone (group C) in helping a teacher to modify student perception
of h is "varie ty in teaching"?
Design of the Study
The design of th is study i s commonly called a "true experimental
design."^ I t is labeled "true" because the researcher was able to
randomly assign sub jec ts to treatm ent groups. Because the in v estig a to r
was able to manipulate an independent v ariab le while measuring the con
comitant v a ria tio n on a dependent v ariab le th is in v estig a tio n can ap tly
be designated as an "experiment." The p re te s t—treatm ent—p o s tte s t
sequence with an accompanying contro l group as used in th is experiment
^K erlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, op. c i t . , p. 290.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5Ô
i s ca lled the " c la s s ic a l design" of research .^ The research paradigm
fo r the study i s shown in Figure 2, L e tte rs "A", "B", "C", "D", and
"E" designate the various groups with th e i r accompanying experimental
treatm ents. Representing p re - and p o s tte s t scores are the l e t t e r s
"X" and "Y" resp ec tiv e ly .
4-
Figure 2
Research Paradigm
The independent v ariab le was the type of treatm ent provided the
teachers in each of the groups. The c r i te r io n measure employed to
c o lle c t data on the dependent variab le was the score on the w ritten
measure of student perception of teacher performance, the Student
Opinion Q uestionnaire. Three teachers were randomly assigned by
lo t te ry to each of the groups. Thus, there were approximately sev
en ty -five subjects fo r each treatm ent group (th ree c lasses of approxi
mately tw enty-five studen ts each).
l lo c . c i t . , p . 309.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
The design and ra tio n a le of the experiment necessita ted the
se le c tio n of teachers fo r the experimental phase who were capable of
showing improvement on the student perception scores of th e i r teaching
performance. Much of the ra tio n a le fo r th is decision was based on the
previously c ited study of Ryan^ where he reported no s ig n if ic an t
change because the studen ts ' high i n i t i a l perception of the teacher’s
performance pre-empted th a t p o s s ib i l i ty . Hence, in add ition to pro
viding a necessary component in the change score on the basis of pre
p o s tto s t d a ta , the p re te s t measure was used as a means fo r se lec ting
teachers with Improvement p o s s ib i l i t ie s . The design called fo r f if te e n
such teach ers, th ree each fo r the f iv e groups.
S election of the Instruments
The means fo r gathering the data p e rtin e n t to the experiment
became a c ru c ia l fa c to r in the study. I t was necessary to be able
to measure the e f fe c t, i f any, of the experimental treatm ent on the
teach er’s performance. To assess th is e ffe c t i t was desirab le to get
an i n i t i a l ind ication of teacher performance as well as a f in a l determ
in a tio n . This would provide a measurement of the net change in
teacher performance during the course of the experiment.
Several p o s s ib i l i t ie s ex isted fo r obtaining th is p re-post in
form ation on the performances of the teachers. In add ition to the
se lec tio n of an appropriate data gathering instrument i t was necessary
to simultaneously consider by whom the evaluation could best be made.
^Ryan, op. c i t . , p . 2089-A.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
In h is review of research stud ies on the top ic of teacher evaluation,
Howsam was most favorably impressed with classroom observation
s tu d ies . Use of a teacher behavior c la s s if ic a tio n system such as
F landers,2 the c r i t i c a l incidents technique, or an evaluation device
s im ila r in nature to the common and widely used school d i s t r i c t eval
uation instrum ents were a l l p o s s ib i l i t ie s .^ With respect to a c la ss
room ob80rv er(s) there were two fundamental a l te rn a tiv e s . One possi
b i l i t y was to use an obaerver(s) fo re ign to the c la s s ; a school d is
t r i c t or build ing ad m in ls tra to r(s ) , o r an observer(s) selected by the
researcher were a l l fe a s ib le in th is regard. The o ther a lte rn a tiv e
was to have teacher performance evaluated by observer(s) reg u la rly
w itnessing the teacher in ac tio n . These observers were, of course,
the s tuden ts. Available resourses and the encouraging l i te r a tu r e
previously c ited in Chapter I I of th is report p rec ip ita te d a pursu it
of student evaluation of teacher performance.
I n i t i a l ly , a carefu l examination of cu rren tly used teacher
evaluation forms in several public school systems was made. The items
fo r evaluation corresponded well with the c h a ra c te r is tic s of master
%owsam. Who's £ Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation, op. c i t . , pp. 15-39.
pFlanders, Ned A., In te rac tio n Analysis in the Classroom; ^
Manual fo r Observers. Ann Arbor; U niversity of Michigan, 1966, p. 7.
^op. c i t . , p. 29.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
teachers in The Educator's Encyclopedia^ and a lso a l i s t of teacher
expectations by Davenport.^ Following th is examination, an analysis
of the measuring devices availab le in Euros' Mental Measurement Year
book.^ and a survey of the l i te r a tu r e c ited in Chapter I I , the Student
Opinion Questionnaire (Appendix A) from the Educator Feedback Center
a t Western Michigan U niversity was considered an appropriate data
gathering instrum ent to be adapted fo r use by upper elementary
students. The was designed to e l i c i t student perceptions of
teachers on twelve c r i te r io n measures of teacher performance. These
measures together with th e i r r e l ia b i l i ty co e ffic ien ts are shown in
Table 2. The r e l i a b i l i t y co e ffic ien ts on the various items as
reported by Bryan^ ranged from .77 - .95. These co e ffic ien ts were
co rre la ted by tak ing the averages of student responses from chance
halves of the c lasses of f i f t y randomly se lected secondary school
teachers. Furthermore, studies^ show co n sis ten t t e s t - r e te s t s ta
b i l i ty of the te a c h e r 's image unless well d irec ted e f fo r ts to change i t
have been expended. The o b je c tiv ity of the instrum ent should y ie ld
^Smith, Edward, Krouse, Stanley, and Atkinson, Mark, The Educato r 's Encyclopedia. Englewood C lif f s , New Jersey ; P rentice-H all In c ., 1967, p. 401.
^Davenport, James A llie , "Perceived In s t i tu t io n a l and S elf Role Expectations of Hackensack Teachers." Unpublished D octor's d isse rta t io n , Columbia U niversity , New York, New York, 1964, pp. 152-4.
^Buros, Oscar Krisen (Ed.), The S ixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. New Jersey: The Gryphon P ress, 1965, pp. 691-711.
^Bryan, Soma Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions tfO High School Teachers. op. c i t . , p . 3.
^Bryan, Roy C ., "The Teacher's Image i s Stubbornly S tab le ,"The Clearing House. XL (April 1966), 461.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
a p e rfe c t scorer r e l i a b i l i t y of 1.00.
Table 2
R e lia b il i ty of Items on Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire
ItemNo.
Item R e lia b il i tyC oeffic ien t
1 Knowledge of Subject .87
2 C la rity o f Explanations .82
3 Fairness .84
4 Control .95
5 A ttitude Toward Students .88
6 A bility to Stim ulate In te re s t .87
7 A ttitude Toward Subject .90
8 A ttitude Toward Student Opinions .86
9 Variety in Teaching Procedures .91
10 Encouragement of Student P a rtic ip a tio n .77
11 Sense of Humor .91
12 Planning and Preparation .90
The face v a lid ity of the instrument was deemed acceptable in
th a t the items were " e sse n tia l c h a ra c te r is tic s of e ffe c tiv e teachers.
According to Bryan the items were selected only after a careful study
of many appropriate research reports of qualities possessed by effective
iB iyan, ^ Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. op. c i t . , p. 12.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
teachers* Of s ignal importance in th is regard was the study con
ducted by Ryans.^ Continued examination and rev ision of th is in s tru
ment over a period of severa l years has maintained th is content v a lid
i ty . Analyses of the re s u l ts of the instrument have shown v a r ia b i l i ty
in student response between teachers and d iscrim inatory power among te s t 2
item s. Clark was convinced of the v ia b i l i ty of the instrum ent when
he concluded th a t "Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) is
undoubtedly the most r e l ia b le and usefu l instrument th a t e x is ts fo r
measuring studen ts ' opinions of th e i r teach ers,"
This instrum entf however, was designed fo r use in grades 7-12
and consequently required an adaptation fo r use by upper elementary
studen ts. Permission from the Educator Feedback Center a t Western
Michigan U niversity was sought fo r th is adaptation and permission
was granted. This endeavor was based prim arily on Bryan's o rig in a l
instrum ent, but a lso gave consideration to the rev isions made by
Goats, Bryan's successor as d ire c to r of the Educator Feedback Center,
and Tobin. In consu lta tion with several elementary school teachers
the instrument was adapted fo r upper elementary use. Permission was
received from the superintendent, bu ild ing p rin c ip a l, and teachers in
one of the p a r tic ip a tin g d i s t r i c t s to f ie ld t e s t the instrum ent fo r
understandability a t an upper elementary le v e l. Subsequently, twelve
^Ryans, op. c i t . , pp. 1-416.
Zciark, P h ill ip A., "The E ffects of Student Opinion Feedback, In te rac tio n Analysis Feedback, Research-Based Statements and Group Guidance in Modifying Teacher Image." Unpublished D octor's d is se rta t io n , Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970, p . 2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6-4
randomly selected fo u rth - and f if th -y e a r students from a non-graded
elementaiy school were employed fo r th is p a rt of the study. Each of
these students reported ind iv idually to a conference room in th e ir
building where an attem pt was made to a sce rta in each s tu d e n t's under
standing of the adapted SOQ. Each student was given a copy of the
adapted SOQ and asked to follow along as the researcher read each
item aloud. At the conclusion of each item the student was asked to
t e l l in h is own words the meaning of the question . The student was
not asked to answer the question, but ra th e r to s ta te in h is own
words what he thought the question asked.
Each of the sessions with the twelve students was taped so th a t
the responses could be judged fo r u nderstandab ility by a panel of
th ree doctoral students studying in the area of educational leader
sh ip . Using a scoring sheet sp ec ific a lly designed fo r th a t purpose,
the panel of judges unanimously agreed th a t the students were success
fu lly able to comprehend the questionnaire item s.
Some minor changes based on the recommendations of the judges
were made to reduce ambiguity in the adapted SOQ. P rio r to d ra ftin g
the f in a l instrument fo r p rin tin g , the suggestions of committee mem
bers regarding ambiguity, c la r i ty , and the con tinu ity of question to
answer were incorporated in the instrum ent. To insure appropriate
scaling the book e n ti t le d Scales fo r the Measurement of A ttitudes ty
Shaw and Wright^ was consulted. The f in a l d ra f t was mutually
^Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M., Scales fo r the Measurement of A ttitu d es . New York; McGraw-Hill, 1967, pp. 1-604.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
acceptable to the committee, the elementary teachers whose aid was
s o lic ite d , the panel of judges, and the researcher.
A second instrum ent, the ch eck lis t log of educational methodol
ogies (Appendix E), was used by teachers in experimental groups B, C,
and D. I t was refined s p e c if ic a lly fo r th is study. The i n i t i a l
check lis t was developed in cooperation with a group of prospective
teachers in an educational methods c lass taught by the researcher a t
Hope College in 1969. P rio r to completing th is form an examination
was made of several general education methods textbooks, the Encyclo
pedia of Educational Research, the Handbook of Research on Teaching.
The Educator'a Encyclopedia, and the Dictionary of Education. This
was done in an e f fo r t to be exhaustive with respec t to the inclusion
of major methodologies and also to aid in opera tionally describing
those methods which might be ambiguous. Minor changes in content
and form were made a f te r consulting the l i t e r a tu r e .
The log was f ie ld te s ted by the same group of fo u rth - and f i f t h -
grade teachers whose serv ices were rendered in the I n i t i a l te s tin g of
the adapted SOQ. They found the form to be fu n c tio n a l, a minor impos
i t io n on th e i r tim e, and of considerable p o ten tia l value fo r p a r t ic i
pating teachers. Their suggestions regarding form, as well as those
of the committee, were incorporated in the f in a l instrum ent.
The log was maintained as p a r t of the experimental treatm ent
fo r teachers in groups C and D. I t was the only treatm ent fo r
teachers in group B. In addition to th is function with regard to the
independent variab le the log served as an in d ic a to r of the degree to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
which the independent v ariab le was manipulated.
The S etting
This f ie ld experiment was implemented in th ree contiguous
suburban school d i s t r i c t s in southeastern Michigan. Selected be
cause of s im ila r ity in membership, cost per membership p u p il, valu
a tio n per p u p il, and geographic lo ca tio n , the th ree d i s t r i c t s were
frequently considered comparable by superintendents w ithin the in te r
mediate school d i s t r i c t . 1 Each of the d i s t r i c t s had experienced
su b stan tia l growth during the f iv e years Just preceding the study.
This growth was due to the not uncommon exodus of white middle c lass
fam ilies from an adjacent in tegrated in d u s tr ia l c i ty . The popula
tio n of each of the d i s t r i c t s was almost exclusively w hite. Although
to be sure there were v is ib le d ifferences in the socio-economic back
ground of the fam ilies resid ing w ithin the various school attendance
areas w ithin each of the d i s t r i c t s , these d ifferences were believed
minimal in comparison with the d ifferences inherent in la rg e d i s t r i c t s
with accompanying in n e r-c ity schools. The research of Tobin^ supports
th is notion th a t school se ttin g is a fa c to r in student perception of
teacher performance. Working with a s im ila r instrum ent a t comparable
^Department of Adm inistrative Services, School D is tr ic t S ta t is t i c a l Inform ation. Genesee Interm ediate School D is tr ic t , F l in t , Michigan, 1969, pp. 1-15.
^ o b in , Michael Frederick, "Perceptions of Beginning and Experienced Teachers in Inner City and Suburban Elementary Schools." Unpublished Doctor’s d is s e r ta tio n . Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970, p. 105.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
age le v e ls he found th a t suburban teachers were viewed more favor
ably than were inner c ity teachers. Because the p a rtitio n in g of sub
je c ts based on se ttin g was not a p a rt of the design of th is study,
th is attem pt a t homogeneity w ithin the se ttin g was considered
important in the control of v ariab les .
Procedures
Following committee approval of the d is s e r ta tio n prospectus in
ea rly December of 1969 a personal contact was made with the superin
tendent in each of the prospective d i s t r i c t s . The experiment was
described in d e ta il and two of the superintendents gave Immediate
approval fo r the study. In accord with the designated teacher c r i
te r ia fo r the study these two superintendents provided the names of
teachers who were in th e i r f i r s t , second, or th ird year of teaching
and were assigned to a fo u rth , f i f t h , or six th-grade self-con tained
classroom. Also provided were the names of the corresponding build
ing p rin c ip a ls . A dditionally , permission was granted to contact p rin
c ip a ls and teachers personally . The th ird superintendent gave his
immediate approval, but withheld permission to proceed fu rth e r pend
ing board approval as d ic ta ted by school policy . Following the sub
m ission to the board of a prescribed complex w ritten descrip tion of
the experiment, approval was granted by a designated board committee
in ea rly January of 1970. At th is point names of teachers meeting
the study c r i te r ia and also the names of the corresponding building
p rin c ip a ls were provided by the th ird school d i s t r i c t superintendent.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
He, too , gave permission to contact teachers and p rin c ip a ls person
a l ly . Time was arranged on the agenda a t the next p r in c ip a ls ’ meet
ing in each of the th ree d i s t r i c t s . The study was again explained in
d e ta i l and the names of teachers meeting the estab lished c r i te r ia
were v e rified by the p rin c ip a ls . The p rin c ip a ls ' ro les in the
experiment were minimal. I t was deemed d es irab le , however, fo r them
to be informed of the nature of the study and to s o l ic i t th e i r coop
e ra tio n in procedural m atters. Obviously, the d e ta ils of the study
as explained to the p rin c ip a ls were not to be shared with th e ir
teaching s ta f f s . The p rin c ip a ls aided in the scheduling of indiv id
ual appointments with the researcher and the teachers. Their in
s tru c tio n s were simply to "inform ind iv idually each of the e lig ib le
teachers in your build ing th a t an appointment had been made fo r them
with a researcher to discuss a research p ro jec t on such and such a
date a t such and such a tim e."
The names of f i f ty - fo u r teachers meeting the estab lished c r i te r ia
of the study were received from the th ree d i s t r i c t s . The teach ers '
assignments were in twenty-one d iffe re n t bu ild ings. In an attem pt to
elim inate any peer group pressure, e i th e r to p a rtic ip a te or to re fra in
from p a r tic ip a tin g , ind iv idual appointments were arranged through the
respective building p rin c ip a ls with each of the f if ty - fo u r teachers.
These appointments were scheduled a t the various school build ings
both before and a f te r school and also during the teach ers ' planning
periods throughout the school day.
An introductory cover l e t t e r (Appendix F) from each o f the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
d i s t r i c t superintendents was presented to each teacher a t the time of
the i n i t i a l con tacts. The f if ty - fo u r prospective p a rtic ip a n ts were
ind iv id u ally informed of the following inform ation;
1. That the study d ea lt with the nature of the in s tru c tio n a l
process.
2. That the in v es tig a to r was requesting the te a c h e r 's volun
ta ry perm ission, as a prelim inary phase of the study, to personally
adm inister to th e ir c la ss the adapted Student Opinion Q uestionnaire.
The teachers were fu r th e r informed th a t the questionnaire asked the
students what they thought about the q u a lity of th e ir te a c h e r 's per
formance.
3 . That there would be anonymity with respect to p a r tic ip a tio n
and re su lts of the study,
U. That teachers would receive feedback from the student re
sponses in the form of a graph and a lso a tab u la r summation of each
of the th ir te e n item s. In add ition , assurance was given th a t the
re su lts would he returned to the teachers personally and not shared
with anyone e lse .
5. That there was approximately a tw enty-five percent chance
th a t those teachers p a r tic ip a tin g in the i n i t i a l phase would be selected
to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the experiment. A dditionally , the teachers
were to ld th a t, i f se lec ted , th e ir ro le in the experiment would be
fu rth e r delineated a t th a t time and continued p a rtic ip a tio n would
again be voluntary.
The candidates were a lso informed of the teacher c r i te r i a and
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
the s e tt in g , including the endorsement of the study by the respective
boards and adm in istra tions.
The favorable response by teachers contacted fo r p a rtic ip a tio n
in the prelim inary phase of the study was one hundred percent.
I n i t i a l ly , th is complete cooperation was important from a mere
numbers standpoint. Had only h a lf of the e lig ib le teachers chosen
to p a r tic ip a te , fo r example, the p ro b ab ility of g e ttin g enough
teachers capable of showing improvement on the perception scores
would have been d ra s t ic a l ly reduced. Secondly, had several teachers
not decided to p a r tic ip a te i t could have been reasoned th a t these
teachers were rep resen ta tiv e of a given type of teacher. S p ec ific a lly ,
i t was feared th a t those teachers who perceived themselves poorly
might decline p a r tic ip a tio n in the experiment, thus elim inating a
desirab le ca lib re of teacher fo r th is study. T his, then, could have
rendered invalid subsequent g en e ra lisa tio n s . The one hundred percent
cooperation insured th a t c e r ta in types of teachers did not withdraw
from the experiment.
S e lec tion of the Sample
Those teachers in the th ree d i s t r i c t s who were cu rren tly in th e ir
f i r s t , second, or th ird year of teaching and were p resen tly assigned
to a fo u rth , f i f t h , or sisrbh-grade se lf-con tained classroom were
asked to p a r tic ip a te in the i n i t i a l phase of the study. In an e f fo r t
to contro l the p red ic tab le extraneous e rro r variance the teachers
selected were as homogeneous as p o ssib le .^ Teachers in th e ir f i r s t
^K erlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, op. c i t . , p. 284,
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
th ree years of teaching share a commonality in th a t th ree years
represen ts the maximum time allowable as a probationary teacher ( i . e .
without achieving tenure s ta tu s ) . This experience lev e l was also
co n sis ten t with the c la s s if ic a t io n of experienced teachers in recent
s tu d ies by Tobin^ and by O liver and Tuckman.^ Researchers in both of
these s tud ies operationally defined experienced teachers as those
having in excess of th ree years teaching experience. I t was also
assumed th a t teachers who had not taught extensively would be b e tte r
able to adapt to the manipulation of the independent v ariab le and
hence maximize the desired experimental variance.
The add itio n al degree of homogeneity afforded by se lec tin g only
upper elementary or interm ediate school teachers (fou rth , f i f t h , and
s ix th grades) was s im ila rly considered. Discussions with professional
educators, both in the f ie ld and a t the u n iv e rsity , prompted the
se le c tio n of th is p a r t ic u la r lev e l of teacher as opposed to the jun io r
or sen ior high school le v e l. Early elementary teach ers, of course,
were elim inated fo r obvious reasons inherent in th e ir s tuden ts ' in
a b i l i ty to read or s u ff ic ie n tly comprehend items on the data gather
ing device. Among the more important reasons behind the decision fo r
upper elementary classrooms as opposed to ju n io r or sen io r high school
classrooms were the follow ing:
lop . c i t . , p. 8.
%uckman, B. W. and O liver, W. F . , "Effectiveness of Feedback to Teachers as a Function of Source." Journal of Educational Psychology. LIX (August 1 9 6 8 ) , 2 9 8 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
1. Elementary teachers generally experience more opportunity to
plan with o ther professional educators and hence would be more
accustomed to the type of planning required in the experiment.
2. Elementary teachers spend more time with the same group of
students than th e ir secondary counterparts and hence would have more
opportunity to manipulate the independent v a riab le .
3 . Elementary teachers as a group would in a l l p ro b ab ility
be le s s threatened and more open to methodological suggestions than
the secondary school subject m atter s p e c ia lis t .
4-. Elementary teachers represent a la rg e r population teaching
s im ila r content than in the secondary s itu a tio n s .
5. Elementary teachers are located in many more buildings hence
the r is k of contamination among the various group treatm ents could be
reduced.
F in a lly , the d is tin c tio n was made between self-con tained and
other types of classrooms. In th a t the assorted team teaching and
c lu s te r approaches represented a s ig n if ic a n t departure from the one
teacher—one classroom concept, the preceding d is tin c tio n was deemed
necessary. Allowances were made, in accord with the d e fin itio n of
terms, fo r the inclusion of teachers who b as ica lly adhered to the
se lf-con ta ined concept, but made provisions fo r the teaching of
spec ia l sub jec ts by another teacher. F ifty -fo u r teachers in the
three d i s t r i c t s met the above c r i te r ia and subsequently were asked
to p a r tic ip a te in the experiment.
In th a t the prime independent variab le was the use of a v a rie ty
of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies (item nine, "v arie ty in teach ing ," on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
the SOQ) the f if ty - fo u r consenting teachers were f i r s t ranked from
h ighest to lowest on student perception of th e i r "varie ty in teaching."
Beginning with the f if ty - fo u r th ranked teacher and working upward
f if te e n teachers were se lec ted who scored below the population mean
on both item nine and the overa ll questionnaire score. A minor except
ion to th is se lec tio n order format was made to insure th a t no more
than two teachers from any one building were included in the experi
mental phase. The names of these f if te e n teachers were then placed
in a hat and randomly assigned by lo t te ry to the f iv e groups. The
assignment of teachers in the same building to d iffe re n t groups
was not allowed. Randomization in the se lec tio n of the f if te e n
teachers, as an aid in minimizing the unpredictable e rro r variance,
was not advisable because of the re la t iv e ly few teachers receiving
low student perception scores and thus the inherent p o te n tia lity of
losing some of the most d esirab le teachers fo r the experiment.^
The predicted e rro r variance was con tro lled fo r by choosing homo
geneous subjects in the o rig in a l population, employing random assign
ment of teachers to treatm ents, and providing fo r the use of pre
p o s tte s t change scores fo r p a rtic ip a tin g teachers as a p art of the2
s t a t i s t i c a l design.
Adm inistration of the Instrument
The adapted Student Opinion Questionnaire was adm inistered
^K erlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, op. c i t . , p. 287.
^ loc. c i t . , p. 284.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
personally by the researcher to the classrooms of the f if ty - fo u r
p a r tic ip a tin g teachers on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of two
consecutive weeks in February and March. This time of year more than
met the suggestion of the Feedback Center th a t students have a mini
mum of nine weeks to become adequately acquainted with the teacher
before completing the SOQ.^ Teachers were asked to leave the c lass
room and to complete a color-coded copy of the same questionnaire
th a t was given to s tu d en ts . The in v estig a to r then administered the
questionnaire to the c lass by reading the in s tru c tio n s and the ques
tio n s aloud as students followed along. A s lig h t pause was made a t
the conclusion of each of the th ir te e n items to allow students the
necessary time to s e le c t an answer. This type of adm inistration
was considered advisable fo r th is age group by a l l individuals
involved in the prelim inary planning of the study and especia lly the
classroom teach ers. T his, then, warranted i t s adm inistration by one
indiv idual who would read the in s tru c tio n s and questionnaire items
in a consisten t manner being carefu l to elim inate irre g u la r voice
emphases and f lu c tu a tio n s .
At the conclusion of the adm inistration students were asked to
record the l a s t four d ig its of th e ir phone number in the lower r ig h t
hand corner of the back side of the questionnaire . Those without
telephone numbers were asked to record the s tr e e t number of th e ir
place of residence. Students were to ld th a t th is would in no way
^Biyan, Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions i2. High School Teachers, op, c i t , , p. 13.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75id en tify them as ind iv iduals, but would merely allow the researcher
to match present papers with fu tu re papers should the questionnaire
be adm inistered to them again. This was a necessary step in the event
th a t the s ta t i s t i c a l treatm ent required an analysis of the pre
p o s tte s t scores of ind iv iduals. Total time fo r the adm inistration
of the data gathering instrument to a c lass was approximately f if te e n
minutes.
Following the experimental treatm ent the same questionnaire was
readm inistered to the c lasses of the f if te e n teachers who had been
randomly assigned to the various experimental treatm ents. This post
t e s t adm inistration during the f i r s t week in May p ara lle led id e n ti
ca lly procedures employed in the adm inistration of the p re te s t .
D escription of the Treatments
Teachers who were randond.y assigned to each of the f iv e groups
received d iffe re n t treatm ents. There were th ree d is t in c t types of
treatm ent: The feedback (F ), the log maintenance (L ), and the
in s tru c tio n a l planning (P). The combination group, u t i l iz in g a l l
of the above treatm ents (FLP) and the contro l group (C), together
with the treatm ent groups mentioned above, comprised the five d if f e r
ent groups.
Were a l l of the possib le combinations of treatm ents to have been
iso la ted i t wou].d have necessita ted eight d if fe re n t groups. To f a c i l
i ta te a v isu a liza tio n of these possible combinations they are here
presented using l e t t e r abbreviations fo r the various treatm ents: C,
F, L, P, FL, FP, LP, FLP.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Three basic reasons prevented the inclusion of a l l e ig h t groups
and necessita ted a p r io r i ty choosing. F i r s t , to deplete the possible
combinations would have required a sample of tw enty-four teachers,
almost h a lf of the f if ty - fo u r teachers in the population. The prob
a b i l i ty of finding th is number who would, on the p re te s t , score below
the population means on "varie ty in teaching" and "overall" was not
promising. Hence to include twenty-four teachers in the experimental
phase would run the r is k of v io la tin g the premise th a t the teachers
in the sample were not highly perceived on e ith e r of the two above-
mentioned scores. Secondly, the resources av a ilab le fo r the experi
ment in time, personnel, and finances, would not allow fo r the plan
ning sessions necessita ted by h a lf of the e ig h t groups (P, FP, LP,
and FLP). Thirdly, the maintenance of the ch eck lis t log was envisioned
from the inception of the study as an im portant and inherent aid in
the in s tru c tio n a l planning sessions and consequently would have only
re lu c tan tly been deleted from th a t treatm ent. In consu lta tion with
the doctoral committee the following groups were se lected as the most
desirab le from the standpoint of iso la tin g v a r ia b le s , the most feas ib le
from the standpoint of availab le resources, and the most consonant with
respect to the purposes of the experiment. Selected were the control
group; the feedback group; the log group; the planning and log group;
and the planning, log , and feedback group. A d e ta iled descrip tion
of each of these groups follows:
Control group ; The contro l group teachers were randomly assigned to
the treatm ent. They were informed personally th a t they had been
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
selected to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the experiment. All agreed to
p a r tic ip a te . The ro le which they were to play was to give the
researcher permission to readm iniater the Student Opinion Question
naire to th e i r c lass during the f i r s t week in May.
Some consideration was given to the adm inistration of a placebo
to equalize the Hawthorne e ffe c t among the basic groups. The placebo
considered was fo r the researcher to meet with the con tro l group
teachers ind iv idually and discuss top ics foreign to the experiment.
However, several reasons prompted the discarding of th is consider
a tio n . F i r s t , the teachers in th is group were to ld th a t they were
a p a rt of the experiment, had seen end in fa c t completed the ques
tio n n a ire form previously , and were to ld th a t th e i r c lasses would
be given the questionnaire again. The s itu a tio n , then , provided
them f i r s t with the fee lin g of p a r tic ip a tio n and ad d itio n a lly the
c r i te r io n of measurement fo r which they could attempt Improvement
i f they so desired . Secondly, there were two other groups who also
were not g e ttin g the "personal meetings" and fo r whom such meetings
were not d esirab le in conjunction with the intended purpose of the
feedback and log. Third ly , i f the personal meetings proved to be
p a rt of the reason behind a change in student perception , the re su lt
could be ind ica tiv e of desired supervisory behavior by p rin c ip a ls ,
superv isors, and colleagues. F ina lly , the Hawthorne e f fe c t among
those responsible fo r scoring, namely the s tuden ts, v/as equalized
among groups because teacher involvement in an experimental study
was not made known to studen ts.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Feedback group; The feedback group of teachers was informed person
a lly th a t they had been selected to p a r tic ip a te fu r th e r in the exper
iment and th a t they had been randomly assigned to th is treatm ent.
All agreed to p a r tic ip a te fu r th e r . These teachers were given the
feedback information (Appendixes B, C, and D) and to ld th a t th e ir
c lasses would be readm inistered the SOQ during the f i r s t week in May.
Log group; Teachers in the log group were informed personally th a t
they had been selected to p a r tic ip a te fu r th e r in the experiment and
th a t they had been randomly assigned to th is treatm ent. All agreed
to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r . The d irec tio n s fo r opera tiona liz ing the
ch eck lis t log were explained ind iv idually in d e ta i l to each of these
teach ers. Each teacher was given the necessary forms to m aintain the
log fo r the f i r s t four weeks of the experiment and a lso the phone
number of the in v estig a to r should problems have a r ise n . One week
in to the experiment a check was made with each of the teachers to
uncover any procedural d i f f i c u l t i e s . Midway through the experiment
another check was made and the necessary forms delivered to complete
the f in a l four weeks of the experiment. No procedural d i f f ic u l t ie s
were experienced by any of these teachers during any port of the
experiment.
Planning group ; Teachers in the planning group were also informed
personally of th e ir se lec tio n and random assignment to th is p a r tic
u la r treatm ent group. All agreed to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the
experiment. I t was explained th a t teachers in th is group were to
m aintain a check list log of th e i r in s tru c tio n a l methodologies and
also to meet ind iv idually with a person sk ille d in the employment
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
of educational methodologies fo r approximately one hour weekly fo r
e igh t weeks. The d ire c tio n s fo r opera tionaliz ing the ch eck lis t log
were explained in a fashion s im ila r to th a t of the log group. The
planning sessions began the week p r io r to March 16, which marked
the beginning of the experiment. During the hour of weekly planning
the teacher and the consultant worked together planning in s tru c tio n a l
methodology and teaching s tra teg y fo r the ensuing week. Paramount
a tten tio n was given to the use of a v a rie ty of educational methods,
both from day to day and also during any given day. These sessions
did not t ry to p i t one method against another or attempt to show the
efficacy of a single method of teaching. Rather, the planning tha t
took place focused on teachers using many educational methods a t th e ir
d isposal, both human and technolog ical, to bear on the s itu a tio n a t
hand. Obviously, such items as the a v a i la b i l i ty of m ateria ls , the
time a llo ted fo r p resen ta tion , the co llec tiv e c h a ra c te r is tic s of the
students and the teacher, and the subject m atter to be presented
played s ig n if ic an t ro le s in the se lec tio n of the in s tru c tio n a l
methods and the te a c h e r 's s tra teg y . Also of no small consequence
was the necessary rapport estab lished between the teacher and the
consultan t. Understandably, the researcher had no au tho rity with
which to force the use of various methodologies. His ro le was most
frequently to suggest the availab le methods fo r p resen tation and
whenever possib le to encourage the teacher to t ry d iffe ren t and
varied methodologies. The analysis of the ch eck lis t log was invalu
able in th is regard. On occasion the consultant did a s s is t the
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
teacher in find ing and preparing m ateria ls and in the operation of
equipment p r io r to i t s use in the classroom. On no occasion did
the consultant take p a r t in any classroom p resen ta tio n . The opportun
i ty to plan fo r in s tru c tio n in th is way was, in the opinion of the
consultant, a mutually sa tis fy in g and successful endeavor.
Combination group ; A ll teachers randomly assigned to the combination
group agreed to p a r tic ip a te fu rth e r in the experiment. These teachers
were informed personally of th e ir se lec tio n and th e i r fu rth e r ro le in
the experiment was ou tlined . Teachers in th is group received the com
bined treatm ents of groups A, B, and G. They were given the feedback
from student p re te s ts , were in structed in the use of the check lis t
log , and maintained i t during the experiment. F in a lly , these teachers
met with a person sk ille d in the employment of educational methodologies
fo r one hour weekly during the experiment. These sessions were s im ila r
to those in group B except th a t i t was a lso possib le here to incor
porate the feedback information in the planning. Again, the researcher
believed mutually rewarding the challenge of meaningfully planning fo r
the process of in s tru c tio n .
C ollection and Organization of the Data
A fter the adm inistration of the p re te s t a graphical teacher
p ro file (Appendix B) and a tab u la r summation (Appendix C) of student
responses were compiled fo r each of the f i f ty - fo u r p a r tic ip a tin g
teach ers. In accord with the design of the experiment the three
teachers in group A, the feedback group, and the th ree teachers in
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
group D, the combination group, were given feedback inform ation as
p art of th e ir proscribed treatm ents. The p re te s t information fo r
the other fo rty -e ig h t teachers was withheld u n ti l the conclusion
of the experiment. Following the adm inistration of the p o a tte s t
to the c lasses of the f i f te e n teachers p a r tic ip a tin g in the exper
imental phase of the study, a graphical teacher p ro file and a tabu
l a r summation of student p o s tte s t scores were compiled fo r these
experimental phase teach ers. Teachers p a rtic ip a tin g in th is ex
perimental phase were then given both p re - and p o s tte s t feedback
inform ation. The th ir ty -n in e teachers p a r tic ip a tin g only in the
i n i t i a l phase of the study were a lso given a t th is time the p re te s t
information previously compiled fo r them. The feedback inform ation
here described was promised to a l l p a r tic ip a n ts when they agreed to
p a r tic ip a te in the study.
The pre-and p o s tte s t data from the f if te e n teachers p a r t ic i
pating in the experimental phase of the study were organized fo r
ana ly sis . S tudents' p re - and p o s tte s t responses were matched ly
using the telephone code number the students had provided. The
responses of those students who were absent from e ith e r the p re-
or p o s tte s t adm in istra tion were discarded leaving only the responses
of students who were present fo r both the p re- and p o s tte s t adminis
tra t io n s , Data from the s tu d en ts ' p re- and p o s tte s t responses were
keypunched in to 370 data processing cards. A computer program was
selected th a t would provide the s t a t i s t i c a l information necessary
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
fo r ana lysis according to the research design described e a r l ie r in
th is chapter (Appendix G). Chapter IV w ill include the p resen ta tion
and analyses of these d a ta .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHARTER IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA
This chapter w ill include the p resen ta tion and analysis of the
data which were co llec ted to carry out the ob jectives of th is experi
ment. The primary ob jective was to determine i f teachers could
modify student perceptions of th e ir teaching performances by employ
ing m ultiple educational methodologies in classroom p resen ta tio n s.
The s t a t i s t i c a l model used to t e s t fo r s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences from
pre- to p o s tte s t measures was the t - t e s t .
A secondary ob jective of the experiment was to a sc e rta in the
re la tiv e effectiveness of four experimental treatm ents in helping a
teacher to modify student perceptions of h is teaching performance.
To te s t fo r d ifferences among groups a one-way analysis of variance
s t a t i s t i c a l model was used. This model simultaneously compares the
means of two or more groups by con trasting the variance between
groups with the variance w ithin groups.^ Results from an analysis
of variance are presented in the form of F -ra tio s .
The format of th is chapter follows the sequence of the "Major
Questions to be Investigated" and the "Specific Questions to be
Investigated" presented in Chapter I I I . Findings fo r questions la - le
and 3a-3e are reported in the form of t - t e s t s . Analysis of variance
models are used to repo rt the findings fo r questions 2a-2j and 4 a -4 j•
^K erlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research, op. c i t . , p. 192.
83
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Students' Overall Perceptions of Teachers
Major questions one and two of th is study d ea lt with s tu d en ts’
o v era ll perceptions of teachers as e l ic i te d by the th ir te e n c r i te r io n
items of the adapted Student Opinion Q uestionnaire. P rio r to p resen t
ing the data which could provide answers to these questions i t was
advisable to determine i f th ere were s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences between
groups on the overall p re te s t measure. This determ ination was needed
before i t could be assumed th a t the random assignment of teachers to
groups did in fa c t provide s ta r t in g po in ts which were not s ig n if ic a n tly
d if fe re n t. The data in Table 3 in d ica te th a t the ov era ll mean scores
fo r the f iv e groups ranged from a low of 3.37 to a high of 3.63.
C learly shovm in the F -ra tio of Table 4, however, is the fa c t th a t
th is d ifference i s not a s ig n if ic a n t one. The F -ra tio of 1.80 fo r
the analysis of variance does not exceed the tab le value of 2.40 fo r
the d is tr ib u tio n of F a t the ,05 lev e l of s ig n ifican ce . Thus i t was
possible to assume th a t the random assignment of teachers to groups
did in fa c t provide s ta r t in g po in ts which were not s ig n if ic a n tly
d iffe re n t.
Major question one with i t s f iv e component p a rts sought to
determine whether th ere was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in overa ll
student perception of teacher performance from p re- to p o s tte s t
measure fo r each of the f iv e groups.
Question la : Was the overa ll student perception of teacher
performance fo r teachers in group A (w ritten feedback) more favor
able on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Table 3
Summary Data fo r O verall P re te s t Measure
Group K Mean Standard Deviation
A 77 3.54 .588
B 77 3.63 .570
C 72 3.45 .574
D 67 3.37 .738
E 77 3.53 ,707
Table 4
Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P re te s t Measure
Source df SS MS F
Betweengroupsvariance 4 501.628 125.407 1.800®
Withingroupsvariance 365 25,424.382 69.655
Totals 369 25,926.011
®Table value is 2.40 a t the .05 lev e l of s ign ificance
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
The data suggest th a t teachers In the feedback group were not
more favorably perceived by th e i r students a f te r the experimental
treatm ent of receiving student feedback regarding th e ir teaching
performances. On the contrary the re su lts shown in Table 5 approach
a s ig n if ic an t d iffe ren ce , but in the d ire c tio n opposite to th a t
expected. The overall mean score fo r teachers in th is group de
creased from an i n i t i a l mean of 3.54 to a f in a l mean of 3.37.
Table 5
t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r Overall Means
Group N P re te s t mean P o s tte s t moan t-sco re of change P
A 77 3.54 3.37 1.97 M.S.*
B 77 3.63 3.68 0.67 N.S.
C 72 3.45 3.56 1.36 N.S.
D 67 3.37 3.35 0.13 N.S.
E 77 3.53 3.47 0.93 N.S.
®Table value is 2.00 a t the .05 lev e l of sign ificance
Question lb ; Was the o v era ll student perception of teacher per
formance fo r teachers in group B (log maintenance) more favorable on
the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
The data shown in Table 5 in d ica te th a t student perceptions were
not s ig n if ic a n tly more favorable on the overa ll p o s tte s t measure. The
experimental treatm ent of log maintenance fo r th is group of teachers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
was not s ig n if ic a n tly successful in helping them improve student per
ceptions of th e ir overall teaching performances. The increase in
overall mean score from 3.63 to 3.68 produced a ;t-score of 0.67,
short of the 2.00 value needed fo r sign ificance a t the .05 le v e l.
Question Ic : Was the overall student perception of teachers in
group G (employment of m ultiple educational methodologies and log
maintenance) more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the pre
te s t measure?
Table 5 ind ica tes th a t the overall mean scores fo r teachers in
group C increased from 3.-45 to 3.56. This was the best gain made by
any of the four experimental groups. The t-sc o re of 1.36, however,
did not exceed the value necessary fo r sign ificance a t the .05 le v e l.
According to the data student perceptions of teachers employing
m ultiple educational methodologies and log maintenance were not
s ig n if ic a n tly more favorable a f te r the experimental treatm ent.
Question Id : Was the overall student perception of teacher per
formance fo r teachers in group D (employment of m ultip le educational
methodologies, log maintenance, and w ritten feedback) more favorable
on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
The data in Table 5 ind icate th a t the overall mean scores fo r
teachers in th is group decreased from 3.37 to 3 .35. Obviously, th is
s lig h t decrease was not a s ig n if ic an t d iffe ren ce . C learly d ic ta ted
by the re su lts is a negative response to the above question.
Question le ; Was the overall student perception of teacher
performance fo r teachers in group E (contro l) s im ila r on the p re-
and p o s tte s t measures?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
Reference to Table 5 in d ica tes th a t th ere was a s im ila r ity on
the pre- and p o s tte s t measures fo r teachers in the control group.
The data show th a t a decrease in overa ll mean score from 3.53 to 3.47
occurred during the course of the experiment. This decrease in mean
score, however, was not s ta t i s t i c a l ly s ig n if ic a n t.
A more meaningful p ic tu re of d ifferences between the various
group p re- and p o s tte s t measures could perhaps be rea lized by
computing ^ - te s ts of change scores (pre- to p o s tte s t) based on d if fe r
ences in the control group ra th e r than the departure from aero as done
in Table 5.^ The re s u l ts of such computations are shorn in Table 6.
Since the control group change in mean was a negative one the i-sco res
of those groups showing a p o s itiv e change (groups B and C) might be
expected to be la rg e r. Correspondingly, the t-sco res fo r those
groups showing a negative change (groups A and D) might be expected
to be sm aller than the i.-8cores shown in Table 5 which did not take
in to account the d ifferences in the contro l group. When analyzed
in the manner presented in Table 6 the re su lts s t i l l ind icate no
s ig n if ic a n t re su lts a t the .05 le v e l.
Major question two, with i t s ten component p a r ts , sought to
determine whether there was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups
on the overall p o s tte s t measure.
The data in Tables 7 and 8 Ind icate th a t the analysis of v ari
ance computed fo r the overall p o s tte s t measure revealed a s ig n ifican t
d ifference between group means. A fu rth e r ana lysis of th is difference
^loc. c i t . , p. 309.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Table 6
t - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r Overall Means Based on D ifferences in the Control Group
Group N P re te s t Mean P o stte s t Mean t-sco re of Change p
A 77 3.54 3.37 0 .9 2 N.S.
B 77 3.63 3.68 1.13 N.S.
C 72 3.45 3 .5 6 1.63 N.S.
D 67 3.37 3.35 0.54 N.S.
E 77 3.53 3 .4 7 0.00 N.S.
Table 7
Summary Data fo r Overall P o s tte s t Measure
Group N P o stte s t Mean Standard Deviation
A 77 3.37 .798
B 77 3.68 .6 5 3
C 72 3 .5 6 .690
D 67 3.35 .672
E 77 3 .4 7 .802
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
Table 8
Analysis of Variance fo r Overall P o s tte s t Measure
Source df SS MS F
Betweengroupsvariance 4 936.742 234.185 2.58»
Withingroupsvariance 365 33,096.296 90.674
Totals 369 34,033.039
®Table value i s 2.40 a t the .05 lev e l of s ign ificance
was made possible by computing the overall p o s tte s t between group
t-v a lu e s . These data , shown in Table 9, in d ica te th a t the s ig n if ic a n t
F -ra tio computed fo r Table 8 can be a ttr ib u te d in large p a rt to the
d ifferences between the p o s tte s t means of groups A and B and groups
B and D. However, a reanalysis of the data in Tables 3 and 4
Table 9
Overall P o s tte s t Between Group t-v a lu es
Group A B C D E
B 2.636*
C 1.499 -1.144
D -0.135 -2.950» -1.733
E 0.731 -1.827 -0.728 0.892 0.000
®Table value is 2.61 a t the .01 lev e l of sign ificance
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
ind icates th a t the overa ll p re te s t mean scores were not id e n tic a l .
Consequently, an ana lysis of variance using p re - to p o s tte s t change
scores ra th e r than an analysis of variance using p o s tte e t scores alone
might give a more r e a l i s t i c ind ica tion of changes accruing from the
experimental treatm ent. The design of the experiment whereby the
p re - and p o s tte s t scores of indiv iduals were paired made possib le
such an analysis using change score data .
These data are presented in Table 10 and in d ica te th a t th ere
were no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences in the effec tiveness of one group
over another in changing student perceptions of teacher performance.
Table 10
Analysis of Variance fo r Overall Change Score Measure
Source df ss MS F
Betweengroupsvariance U 590.976 174.744 1.923*
Withingroupsvariance 365 28,048.457 76.845
T otals 369 28,639.433
®Table value i s 2.39 a t the .05 lev e l of s ign ificance
Based on the lack of significance of the F -ra tio shown in Table
10, responses to questions 2a-2 j, comparing each treatm ent group in
tu rn with every other treatm ent group would a l l be s im ila r; No
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
treatm ent was found to be s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffe c tiv e than any other
in changing overall student perceptions of teacher performance.
Students' Perceptions of Their Teachers' "Variety in Teaching"
Major questions three and four of th is study d e a lt with student
perception of teacher performance re la tin g sp e c if ic a lly to th e teach
e r s ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOO) . P rio r to presenting
the data which could provide answers to these questions i t was deemed
advisable to determine i f there were s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ces between
groups on SOQ item nine, "varie ty in teaching" of the p re te s t
measure. This determ ination was needed before i t could be assumed
th a t the random assignment of teachers to groups did in fa c t provide
s ta r t in g points which were not s ig n if ic a n tly d if fe re n t.
The data in Table 11 in d ica te th a t the mean scores on SOQ item
nine, "varie ty in teach ing ," fo r the f iv e groups ranged from a low
of 2.97 to a high of 3.54-. Moreover, the F -ra tio of 2.61 shown in
Table 12 exceeds s lig h tly the tab le value of 2.40 fo r the d is tr ib u
tio n of F a t the .05 lev e l of s ig n ifican ce . These data suggest th a t
th ere was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in group means fo r SOQ item nine
on the p re te s t measure. Thus i t was impossible to assume th a t the
random assignment of teachers to groups did in f a c t provide s ta r tin g
poin ts which were not s ig n if ic a n tly d if fe re n t.
A fu rth e r analysis of th is d ifference is made possib le by com
puting the between group t-va lues fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in
teach ing ," These d a ta , shown in Table 13, in d ica te th a t the s ig
n if ic a n t F -ra tio computed fo r Table 12, can be a ttr ib u te d in large
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
p a rt to the d iffe rences between the p re te s t means of groups B and
D and groups D and E. This fa c t w ill be taken in to consideration
when analyzing group p o s tte s t means on SOQ item nine, "varie ty in
teach ing ."
Table 11
Summary Data fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the P re te s t Measure
Group N Mean Standard Deviation
A 77 3.22 1.42
B 77 3.54 1.17
0 72 3.17 1.19
D 67 2.97 1.52
E 77 3.54 1.26
Table 12
Analysis of variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching,"of the P re te s t Measure
Source df SS MS F
Betweengroupsvariance 4 18.331 4.582 2.61*
Withingroupsvariance 365 639.368 1.751
Totals 369 657.700
“Table value is 2.40 a t the .05 lev e l of sign ificance
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Major question th re e , with i t s f iv e component p a r ts , sought
to determine whether th e re was a s ig n if ic an t d ifference in student
perceptions of the te a ch e rs ' "varie ty in teaching" from p re- to
p o s tte s t measure fo r each of the f iv e groups.
Table 13
P re te st Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching"
Group A B C D E
B 1.539
C -0.249 -1.946
D -1.016 -2.549® -0.847
E 1.488 0.000 1.867 2.465® 0.000
®Table value i s 1.98 a t the .05 lev e l of sign ificance
Question 3a; Was student perception of teacher performance
regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group A (w ritten
feedback) more favorable on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t measure?
The data suggest th a t teachers in the feedback group were not
more favorably perceived by th e ir students a f te r the experim ental
treatm ent of receiving student feedback regarding th e i r teaching
performance. On the contrary the re su lts shown in Table 14 in d ica te
a drop in mean score fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in teach ing ," from
3.22 to 3.14. This was not, however, a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t
change.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Question 3b: Was student perception of teacher performance
regarding "varie ty In teaching" fo r teachers In group B (log mainte
nance) more favorable on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t measure?
Table 14
i - t e a t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r SOQ Item Nine"Variety in Teaching"
Group N P re te s t Mean P o stte s t Mean i-s c o re of Change p
A 77 3.22 3.14 0.43 N.S
B 77 3.54 4.54 6.71 .001'
C 72 3.17 4.25 7.09 .001'
D 67 2.97 4.07 6.70 .001'
E 77 3.54 3.36 0.98 N.S.
®Table value i s 3.4-6 a t the .001 le v e l of sign ificance
According to the data in Table 14 teachers in the log group were
more favorably perceived by th e ir students on the p o s tte s t measure
than on the p re te s t measure. The change in mean score on SOQ item
nine from 3.54 to 4.54 produced a t-sc o re of 6.71 which exceeded the
tab le value of 3.46 necessary for sign ificance a t the .001 le v e l.
These data ind icate th a t teachers m aintaining the ch eck lis t log effected
a s ig n if ic a n t improvement in student perception of th e ir "varie ty in
teaching" during the course of the experiment.
Question 3c: Was student perception of teacher performance
regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group C (employment
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
of educational methodologies and log maintenance) more favorable on
the p o a tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure?
The data in Table lU reveal th a t student perception was Indeed
more favorable on the p o a tte s t measure than on the p re te s t measure.
The improvement of the mean score on SOQ item nine from 3.17 to 4.25
produced a t-sco re of 7.09 which was s ig n if ic a n t a t the ,001 le v e l.
Thus, teachers who employed a v a rie ty of educational methodologies
and maintained the ch eck lis t log showed s ig n if ic a n tly Improved s tu
dent perceptions of th e i r "varie ty in teaching ."
Question 3d: Was student perception of teacher performance
regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group D (employment
o f m ultiple educational methodologies, log maintenance, and w ritten
feedback) more favorable on the p o s tte s t measure than on the p re te s t
measure?
According to the data in Table 14 student perception fo r teachers
in group D was more favorable on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t .
The p re te s t mean of 2,97 on SOQ item nine was increased to 4.07 on
the p o a tte s t. S ig n ifican t a t the .001 lev e l was the re su lta n t t-sco re
of 6.70. The data suggest th a t teachers in the combination group
ware able to s ig n if ic a n tly change student perceptions of th e ir
"varie ty in teach ing ."
Question 3e: Was student perception of teacher performance
regarding "varie ty in teaching" fo r teachers in group E (control)
s im ila r on the p re- and p o s tte s t measures?
The data in Table 14 ind ica te th a t the mean score fo r teachers
in the control group decreased from 3.54 to 3 .36 , However, the 0,98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
t-sco re computed fo r th is decrease did not exceed the ta b le value of
2.00 needed fo r s ign ificance a t the ,05 le v e l. Thus, an affirm ative
answer can be given fo r question 3e.
A more meaningful p ic tu re of d ifferen ces between the various
group p re - and p o s tte s t measures regarding SOQ item nine, "v arie ty
in teaching ," could perhaps be rea lized by computing t - t e s t s of
change scores (p re- to p o s tte s t) based on d ifferences in the control
group ra th e r than the departure from zero as done in Table 14-.^ The
re su lts of such computations are displayed in Table 15. When analyzed
in th is manner the re su lts s t i l l show sig n ifican ce a t the .001 lev e l
fo r groups B, G, and D.
Table 15
i - t e s t s of Change Scores (Pre- to P o stte s t) fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," Based on
D ifferences in the Control Group
Group N P re te st Mean P o stte s t Mean l-s c o re of Change p
A 77 3.22 3.14 0.40 N.S.
B 77 3.54 4.54 4.95 .001°
C 72 3.17 4.25 5.21 .001°
D 67 2.97 4.07 5.10 .001°
E 77 3.54 3.36 0.00 N.S.
®Table value i s 3.46 a t the .001 le v e l of s ign ificance
lib id .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Major question fo u r, with i t s ten component p a r ts , sought to
determine whether th ere was a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups
on the p o s tte s t measure fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in teaching."
The data in Tables 16 and 17 in d ica te th a t the analysis of
variance computed fo r the SOQ item nine p o s tte s t measure revealed a
s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups.
Table l6
Summary Data fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching," of the P o stte s t Measure
Group N P o stte s t Mean Standard Deviation
A 77 3.14 1.42
B 77 4.54 0.64
C 72 4.25 1.06
D 67 4.07 1.04
E 77 3.36 1.39
A fu rth e r ana lysis of the d ifference i s made possib le by comput
ing the p o a tte s t between group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in
teaching ," These d a ta , shown in Table 18, in d ica te th a t the s ig n if i
cant F -ra tio computed fo r Table 17 can be a ttr ib u te d to the d ifferences
between the p o s tte s t means of groups A and B, A and C, A and D, B and
C, B and D, B and E, C and E, and D and E.
However, a rean a ly sis of the data in Table 12 ind ica tes th a t
there were s ig n if ic a n t d iffe rences on the ana lysis of variance of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
Table 17
Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the P o sttea t Measure
Source df SS MS F
Betweengroupsvariance 4 108.778 27,194 20.32®
Withingroupsvariance 365 488.464 1.338
T otals 369 597.243
®Table value i s 3.37 a t the .01 lev e l of significance
Table 18
P o stte s t Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine, "V ariety in Teaching"
Group A B C D E
B 7.856^
C 5 . 319b -2.059®
D 4 .4 00b - 3 . 297b -0.974
E 0.969 - 6 . 7 5 9b -4.328b 3 . 415b 0 0 0 0
®Table value i s 1.98 a t the .05 lev e l o f sign ificance
^ a b le value i s 2 .6 1 a t the .0 1 le v e l of sign ificance
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
p re te s t measure fo r SOQ item nine, "v arie ty in teaching ." Consequently,
an analysis of variance using p re- to p o a tte s t change scores ra th e r
than an analysis of variance using p o s tte s t scores alone could give
a more r e a l i s t ic in d ica tio n of changes accruing from the experimental
treatm ent. The design of the experiment whereby the p re- and p o s tte s t
scores of individuals were paired made possib le such an analysis using
change score data.
Those data are presented in Table 19 and in d ica te th a t there
were s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences in the e ffec tiveness of one group t r e a t
ment over another in changing student perceptions of teacher per
formance. The analysis of variance produces an F -ra tio of 15.34,
exceeding the tab le value of 3.37 needed fo r sign ificance a t the .01
lev e l.
Table 19
Analysis of Variance fo r SOQ Item Nine, "Variety in Teaching," of the Change Score Measure
Source df SS MS F
Betweengroupsvariance U 128.187 3 2 .0 4 6 1 5 .335®
Withingroupsvariance 365 762.755 2.089
T otals 369 890.943
®Table value i s 3.37 fo r sign ificance a t the .01 lev e l
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
The re su lts of the change score between group J^-values fo r
’’v a rie ty in teaching" shown in Table 20 confirm the above analysis
and provide in s ig h t on d ifferences between sp ec ific paired combin
ations of groups. With regai-d to sp ec ific questions , compar
ing each treatm ent group in tu rn with every o ther treatm ent group,
a summarization would be appropriate.
Tables 15, 19, and 20 c le a rly ind ica te th a t groups B, C, and D
were s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffe c tiv e (.01 lev e l) than groups A and E
in e ffec tin g change in student perceptions of th e i r teach ers '
"v arie ty in teach ing ." Furthermore, no s ig n if ic a n t d ifference was
found between groups A and E. F in a lly , no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences
were found between groups B, C, and D, a l l of which were successful
(.001 lev e l of sign ificance) in e ffec tin g a change from p re- to
p o a tte s t measure.
A more d e ta iled analysis of each paired comparison (sp ec ific
questions Aa-Aj) follow s:
Table 20
Change Score Between Group t-v a lu es fo r SOQ Item Nine,"V ariety in Teaching"
Group A B G D E
B -A.612®
C -A.885° -0.390
D -A.791® -0.A71 -0.09A
E O.AOO A.950° 5.206® 5.099° 0.000
®Tablo value i s 3.A6 a t the .001 lev e l of sign ificance
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Question 4a: Was the w ritten feedback of student perception of
teacher performance (group A) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l
in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "varie ty in
teaching"?
The re su lts of the t - t e s t shown in Table 20 c le a r ly ind icate
th a t there was not a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups A and E in
modifying student perception of the teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching."
An examination of the p re - and p o s tte s t means fo r the two groups d is
played in Table 15 reveals th a t both groups showed a decrease in mean
score with the feedback group le ss negative than the control group.
Question 4b: Was the maintenance of the ch eck lis t log of various
educational methodologies (group B) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent
a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is
"varie ty in teaching"?
Displayed in Table 20 i s a ^/-value of 4.950, ind ica ting a d if fe r
ence in group means s ig n if ic a n t a t the .001 le v e l. While group E
decreased in mean score from pre- to p o s tte s t (3.54 to 3 .36 ), Table
15 shows th a t qu ite the contrary was tru e fo r group B. The log group
increased from a p re te s t mean of 3.54 to a p o s tte s t mean of 4.54.
An affirm ative answer can be given fo r question 4b.
Question 4c: Was the employment of m ultiple educational method
ologies and log maintenance (group C) more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent
a t a l l in helping a teacher to modify student perception of his
"v a rie ty in teaching"?
The t-va lues in Table 20 reveal a d ifference in group means s ig
n if ic a n t a t the .001 le v e l. Mean scores in Table 15 show an increase
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
from 3.17 to ^.25 during the course of the experiment. The planning
group treatm ent was indeed more e ffe c tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in
helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in
teaching."
Question 4d: Was the employment of a combination of feedback,
log maintenance, and m ultip le educational methodologies (group D)
more e ffec tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a teacher to
modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?
Once again an a ffirm ativ e answer can be given based on the s ig
n if ic a n t t-v a lu e shown in Table 20. The t-va lue of 5.099 i s s ig n if i
cant a t the .001 le v e l . Increasing from a p re te s t mean of 2.97 to
a p o s tto s t mean of 4.07 as shown in Table 15, the combination group
was c le a r ly more e ffe c tiv e than no treatm ent a t a l l in helping a
teacher to modify studen t perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching ."
Question 4o: Was the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log of various
educational methodologies (group B) more e ffe c tiv e than w ritten feed
back alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify student perception
of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?
The data in Table 20 in d ica te a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between
the two group means a t the ,001 le v e l. While the feedback group de
creased in mean score from 3.22 to 3.14 from pre- to p o s tte s t , the
re su lts in Table 15 reveal th a t the log group increased in mean
score from 3.54 to 4 .54. Consequently, an affirm ative answer can
be given fo r question 4@.
Question 4 f : Was the employment of m ultiple educational method
ologies supplemented w ith log maintenance (group C) more e ffe c tiv e
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
than w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?
A t-v a lu e of 4.885 fo r th is comparison again exceeds the tab le
value of 3 .4 6 needed fo r sign ificance a t the .001 lev e l. The planning
group showed a large increase in mean score from p re- to p o a tte s t
while the feedback group decreased s lig h tly . The re su lts ind ica te
th a t the planning group was more e ffe c tiv e than the feedback group
in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in
teach ing ."
Question 4g: Was the employment of m ultip le educational method
ologies supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of
student perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e
than w ritten feedback alone (group A) in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?
C learly demonstrated in Table 20 is the g rea te r e ffectiveness
of the combination group in comparison with the feedback group in
helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is "v arie ty in
teach ing ." The t-v a lu e of 4.791 is s ig n if ic a n t a t the .001 le v e l.
The la rg e increase in mean score of the combination group (2.97-4*07)
from p re- to p o s tte s t while the feedback group was decreasing s lig h tly
accounted fo r the s ig n if ic a n t d iffe rence .
Question 4h; Was the employment of m ultip le educational method
ologies supplemented with log maintenance (group C) more e ffe c tiv e
than the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping a
teacher to modify student perception of h is "v a rie ty in teaching"?
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
The ré su lta of Table 20 show th a t there was not a s ig n if ic a n t
d ifference between the two groups. The data in Table 15 ind ica te
th a t both groups were very e ffe c tiv e (.001 level) in improving from
p re- to p o s tte s t . The planning group and the log group were about
equally e ffec tiv e in helping a teacher to modify student perception
of h is "v arie ty in teach ing ."
Question ^ i: Was the employment of m ultiple educational method
ologies supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of
student perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e
than the maintenance of a ch eck lis t log alone (group B) in helping
a teacher to modify student perception of h is "varie ty in teaching"?
A negative response must be given to the above question. The
i-v a lu e of 0.A71 shown in Table 20 is f a r le s s than th a t needed fo r
s ig n ifican ce . Although the data in Table 15 ind ica te th a t both group
treatm ents were e ffe c tiv e (.001) in helping a teacher to modify
student perception of h is "varie ty in teach ing ," ne ith er was s ig n if i
can tly more e ffec tiv e than the other.
Question Aj: Was the employment of m ultiple educational method
ologies supplemented with log maintenance and w ritten feedback of
student perception of teacher performance (group D) more e ffec tiv e
than the employment of m ultip le educational methodologies and log
maintenance alone (group C) in helping a teacher to modify student
perception of h is "v arie ty in teaching"?
Once again the comparison was made between two highly e ffec tiv e
group treatm ents as shown in Table 15. The ^-vnlue of 0.09A in Table
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
20 in d ica tes th a t there was not a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between the
two groups. The combination and planning groups were about equally
e ffe c tiv e in helping a teacher to modify student perception of h is
"v arie ty in teaching."
In add ition to the above p resen ta tion of d a ta , student perception
averages fo r a l l questionnaire item s, pre and p ost, w ill be included
in tab u la r form in Appendix H. This summation provides information
by indiv idual teacher and by the f iv e group treatm ents.
Open-Ended P a rtic ip an t Responses
At the conclusion of the experiment each of the teachers in the
experimental groups was asked to comment about the e f fe c t , i f any, of
the experimental "treatm ent" on th e ir teaching during the course of
the f ie ld experiment. An open-ended form was used fo r gathering th is
inform ation (Appendixes I , J , K, and L ). The data co llected from
th is form were summarized fo r each experimental group and are here
presented.
Teachers in the feedback group, group A, were f i r s t asked to
comment about the e f fe c t , i f any, of the feedback on th e ir teaching
during the course of the experiment. One of the teachers in th is
group indicated th a t the feedback was used f i r s t as a means of
analyzing teacher performance and secondly as an aid in attem pting
to improve in areas where th a t performance was perceived poorly by
studen ts. Two of the teachers indicated th a t the inform ation was used
very l i t t l e . One teacher in th is group, whose performance was per
ceived much le s s favorably on the p o s tte s t than on the p re te s t.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
indicated th a t adm inistrative pressure (not re la ted to the experi
ment) to improve classroom control became a primary ob jec tive .
Students in th is classroom perceived an improvement in classroom
control as revealed on the p o s tte s t, but with a re su lta n t le ss
favorable overall perception.
Teachers in group A were also asked fo r general comments about
the f ie ld experiment. While two of these teachers revealed th a t the
feedback inform ation was helpfu l and re fle c te d accurately the opinions
of th e ir studen ts, one of the teachers, who tr ie d nothing d iffe re n t
as a re su lt of the feedback, f e l t th a t the student in te rp re ta tio n of
some questions was "somewhat d iffe re n t than th a t of ad u lts ."
Teachers in group B, the log group, were asked to comment f i r s t
on the e f fe c t of the ch eck lis t log on th e i r teaching during the
course of the f ie ld experiment. The responses were a l l s im ila r in
nature. These teachers indicated th a t the maintenance of the log
made them aware of what methods they were using and sei'ved as a
challenge to employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of methods in th e ir teaching.
Some of the comments recorded were as follow s:
"The check lis t log made me aware of exactly what methods and equipment I was using."
"I found th a t I t r ie d to use d if fe re n t types of teaching techniques because I f e l t I was in a ru t doing the same th ings over and o v er."
"Being confronted with the ch eck lis t log each afternoon and i t s wide v a rie ty of teaching devices and m ateria ls made i t challenging to t ry as many as p o ssib le ."
The general comments of teachers in group B about the f ie ld exper
iment were varied . Two of the teachers expressed again the value of
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
experimenting with a v a rie ty of methods. One teacher said :
"Some methods lik e ro le-p laying helped teach a tti tu d e s ra th e r than the s k i l l . Because of th is experience I find I am teaching more indiv idual children ra th e r than fa c ts of a su b jec t."
The th ird teacher in th is group commented on the p re te s t and indicated
th a t some students reacted too strongly to the idea of "grading" the
teacher.
F inally , a l l teachers in th is group wore asked whether they had
employed a g rea ter v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies during than
p rio r to the experiment. All answered a ffirm ativ e ly with one teacher
ind ica ting th a t more in s tru c tio n a l devices would have been used had
they been availab le or in working order.
Teachers in the planning group, group C, were f i r s t asked to
comment on the e f fe c t , i f any, of the ch eck lis t log on th e ir teaching.
The responses were s im ila r to those expressed by teachers in group B
in th a t the awareness of what was being used and the challenge to
employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of methods were both mentioned. One of the
teachers offered th is comment:
"Over a period of time you would notice a trend in methods and equipment th a t was employed in teaching. The ch eck lis t helped you to notice these trends and to see where improvement or change was needed."
In response to the e ffe c t of the weekly planning sessions,
teachers in th is group indicated th a t the exp loration of new ideas
and methods fo r lesson p resen tations was most b e n e fic ia l. Some of
the comments follow:
"The weekly planning sessions played an important p a rt in developing new ideas and methods to be used, which otherwise would have been skipped."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
"Some good ideas were suggested in the planning sessions.They helped promote more v a rie ty ."
Only one of the teachers in th is group responded in a general
way about the experiment. Recorded was th is reac tion :
"I f e e l th a t the experiment was a huge success. In forcing myself to use a g re a te r number of teaching methods and m ateria ls than would normally have been used, I found th a t every day I was try in g to do something d if fe re n t in c la ss .This not only increased my in te re s t in teaching, but I also fe e l increased the in te re s ts of my studen ts ."
All teachers in group C responded a ffirm ativ e ly to the question,
"Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r
v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p rio r to the experiment"?
Teachers in group D, the combination group, were asked to comment
about the e f fe c t of the feedback, the check lis t log , and the weekly
planning sessions on th e i r teaching during the course of the ex
periment. The reactions of these teachers to the feedback informa
tio n were a l l favorable. P rim arily i t s benefit was viewed as pro
viding an in s ig h t in to areas on which e f fo r ts fo r improvement could
be concentrated. Also mentioned was the se lf-ev a lu a tio n which
followed the inspection of the feedback inform ation.
Sim ilar to the comments of teachers in group B were the remarks
of group D teachers about the check lis t log . The awareness the log
created of what methods the teachers were using and also of what
methods were availab le was the most popular response. There were
some add itional re f le c tio n s :
"1 believe using the check lis t log has helped me provide a more well-rounded curriculum and more learn ing experiences fo r jny ch ild ren ."
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
"With the day to day record I found myself doing a b e tte r job of planning and enjoying th a t task fo r the f i r s t tim e. The re su lt was a g rea te r v a rie ty of teaching techniques."
"...w hen the experiment was over I missed the p ic tu re of my e f fo r ts which the ch eck lis t log provided."
Several comments were made about the weekly planning sessions
by teachers in group D. In add ition to the opportunity these
sessions afforded fo r exploring the various p o s s ib i l i t ie s fo r lesson
presen tations teachers indicated th a t these sessions were helpfu l in
planning fo r the implementation of some of these methodologies in
th e i r c la sse s . I t was also noted th a t these planning sessions aided
in a fam ilia r iz a tio n of methods and m ateria ls not previously used by
the teacher. Some of the more p e rtin en t reactions were recorded as
follow s;
"The weekly planning sessions were ben efic ia l in th a t I received helpfu l suggestions in areas where I was not ce r ta in how to proceed. I believe the sessions helped fami l i a r i z e me with methods I had not previously used. I used the opaque p ro jec to r fo r the f i r s t time and attempted several science experiments which I had not previously done."
"These planning sessions proved to be of value in th a t some suggestions were offered as to how I could implement some of the teaching methods and in s tru c tio n a l devices in the log ."
The general comments about the experiment by teachers in th is
group were very favorable. Perhaps the best ind ica tion of these
teach ers ' reactions are the d ire c t quotations of th e i r comments about
the experiment:
"In a l l , I would say the experiment has been a most b en efic ia l experience fo r me and, hopefully, fo r the ch ild ren . I f e e l the ch ildren gained more incentive fo r learning and more a b i l i ty to th ink and find out th ings fo r themselves."
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
"I believe th is was a very worthwhile experience fo r me as a teacher. I believe i t has had a g reat e f fe c t on ay plans in the fu tu re as to how I can make the classroom more in te r e s tin g fo r my s tu d e n ts .”
was very glad to have p a rtic ip a ted in the experiment.The experiment forced me to evaluate what I was doing in the classroom .”
F in a lly , the teachers in th is combination group were asked
whether they had employed a g rea te r v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l method
ologies during than p r io r to the experiment. A ll responded in the
a ffirm ativ e .
In addition to the above p resen ta tion of data teachers ' s e l f -
perception averages fo r a l l questionnaire item s, pre and p o st, w ill
be included in tab u la r form in Appendix M. This summation provides
inform ation by ind iv idual teacher and by the f iv e group treatm ents.
The C hecklist Log
In add ition to serving as a vehicle fo r m otivating teachers to
employ a v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies the ch eck lis t log
a lso indicated the degree to which teachers used the various educa
t io n a l methodologies. Nine teach ers, th ree each in groups B, C, and
D, maintained the log as a p a rt or a l l of th e ir experimental t r e a t
ment. To give some in d ica tio n of past performance with respect to
the in s tru c tio n a l methodologies these nine teachers were asked a t
the beginning of the experiment to re c a l l and record the methodol
ogies used during the week p rio r to the commencement of the experi
ment. During the next e igh t weeks the teachers were asked to check
d a ily the in s tru c tio n a l methodologies used in th e i r teaching. They
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
were a lso asked to c irc le the check i f a methodology employed during
the experiment had not previously been used during the school year.
At the conclusion of the experiment the ch eck lis t log indicated the
frequency and v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodology u t i l i s a t io n .
Trends and p a tte rns were apparent fo r each teacher as well as fo r
each group.
To f a c i l i t a t e an analysis of the ch eck lis t log graphs i l l u s
t ra tin g the teach ers’ use of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies are pre
sented in Figures 3, A, and 5. Each graph in d ica tes the degree
of teacher methodology use fo r the th ree teachers in the group a t
th ree times during the experiment. The i n i t i a l reading was taken
during the fiv e day period p rio r to the commencement of the ex
periment, the second reading during a f iv e day in te rv a l a t the
Figure 3
( 0)(2 )
(2 )
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Group B—Incidence of Educational Methodology Employment v s. Time
®This upper c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c tional devices and teacher methods
b rh is lower c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c tional devices
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
50t•• ( 11)
iq
t1
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Figure 4
Group C—Incidence of Educational Methodology Employment v s . Time®This upper c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c t
ional devices and teacher methods
^ h i s lower c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c tional devices
401
20
10
(7)
(7)
Teacher 1
Teacher 2
Teacher 3
Figure 5
Group D—Incidence of Educational Methodology Employment vs. Time®This upper c lu s te r represen ts use of in s tru c t
ional devices and teacher methods
^This lower c lu s te r rep resen ts use of in s tru c tional devices
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lu
midway po in t in the experiment, and the f in a l reading during the
l a s t week of the experiment. These three time periods are desig
nated t]^, tg and t^ resp ec tiv e ly , and are p lo tted along the abscissas
of the graphs. Numerical scores representing a q u an tita tiv e measure
of the use of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies are p lo tted along the
ord inates of the graphs. These numerical scores were obtained by
summing the following po in t designations fo r methodology employment;
1 . Two poin ts were awarded fo r the f i r s t tJjne a spec ific
methodology was employed during the f iv e day period.
2. One poin t was awarded fo r each succeeding time th a t the
same methodology was employed during the f iv e day period.
3. A fiv e point bonus was awarded fo r use during the fiv e day
period of a methodology not previously employed by the teacher
during the current school year.
This point system was used so that variety as well as mere quantity
of methodology use was rewarded.
Each graph has two c lu s te rs of three lin es each. The lower
c lu s te r represen ts the use of in s tru c tio n a l devices during the
experiment while the upper lev e l c lu s te r represen ts the to ta l of
both in s tru c tio n a l devices and teaching methods ( in s tru c tio n a l
methodologies). Indicated in parentheses behind the upper level
l in e s i s the number of methodologies employed by th a t teacher during
the experiment fo r the f i r s t time of the current school year.
Care should be taken in the in te rp re ta tio n of the graphs since
they represent readings a t only th ree one-week in te rv a ls of the
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
experiment. This care should esp ec ia lly be exercised with respect to
the i n i t i a l time in te rv a l since the checks here were recorded from
rec o lle c tio n . Nonetheless, the graphs are believed to be ind icative
of the re la t iv e degree of methodology employment during the experi
ment.
The graph of group B, the log group, would seem to suggest th a t
these teachers increased th e i r to ta l methodology use only s lig h tly
during the experiment. The use of in s tru c tio n a l devices, however,
was increased considerably. A look a t the actual ch eck lis t logs
reveals generally a more varied and le ss routine use of the various
educational methodologies as the experiment progresses. The three
teachers in th is group used during the experiment only four method
ologies not employed previously during the school year.
The graph of group C, the planning group, in d ica tes a decided
increase in both to ta l methodology employment and the use of in
s tru c tio n a l devices. A more sca tte red ra th e r than l in e a r p a tte rn
of the ch eck lis t log fu rth e r reveals a more varied use of in s tru c t
ional methodologies. The three teachers in th is group used during
the experiment a to ta l of twenty-four methodologies not previously
employed during the school year.
F in a lly , the graph of group D, the combination group, also
shows a marked increase in to ta l methodology use. Though e r ra t ic
in p a tte rn the use of in s tru c tio n a l devices also increased s lig h tly .
The th ree teachers in the combination group employed during the
experiment a to ta l of twenty-one methodologies not previously used
during the school year.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This f in a l chapter of the rep o rt contains a review of the
problem and procedures, a summarization of the major find ings, and
a p resen ta tion of the conclusions. Also included are recommend
a tions fo r possible use of the data as well as recommendations fo r
fu rth e r research .
Review of the Problem
The primary purpose of th is study was to determine i f teachers
could modify student perceptions of th e i r teaching performances by
employing m ultiple educational methodologies in th e ir teaching. A
secondary objective was to a sce rta in the r e la t iv e effectiveness of
four experimental treatm ents in helping a teacher to modify student
perceptions of h is teaching performance. Five groups of teach ers,
employing prescribed treatm ents, were formed in an attempt to gather
data p e rtin en t to the ob jectives of the in v estig a tio n . Teachers in
experimental group A, re fe rred to as the feedback group, received
w ritten feedback from students regarding student perceptions of th e ir
teaching performances. The treatm ent fo r teachers in group B, the
log group, was to m aintain a ch eck lis t log of the various in s tru c
tio n a l methodologies they employed in th e ir teaching. Teachers in
group C, known as the planning group, met weekly with a consultant
to make plans fo r the employment of m ultiple educational methodologies
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
in th e i r teaching. P a rtic ip an ts in th is group a lso maintained the
ch eck lis t log. A combination of the treatm ents used in groups A, B,
and C was u til iz e d by teachers in group D. In add ition a f i f t h group
of teach ers, group E, was used as a contro l group.
The c r ite r io n measure fo r obtaining the data was an adapted form
of Bryan's Student Opinion Questionnaire (Appendix A).
In order to carry out the objectives of th is study four major
questions were in v estig a ted :
1. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in
overa ll student perception of teacher performance from pre- to post
t e s t measure?
2. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups on the
ov era ll p o s tte s t measure?
3. Did each of the groups show a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference in
student perception of the teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item
n ine, SOQ) from p re- to p o s tte s t measure?
4. Was there a s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between groups fo r
"v arie ty in teaching" (item nine, SOQ) on the p o s tte s t measure?
Review of the Procedures Used in the Study
The design of th is experiment followed the sequence of p re te s t—
treatm ent—p o s tte s t. As such the experiment p a ra lle led the c la s s ic a l
design of research . An adapted form of the SOQ was adm inistered as a
p re te s t and also as a p o s tte s t following various experimental t r e a t
ments during an eight-week in te rv a l. The s t a t i s t i c a l model used to
t e s t fo r s ig n if ic an t d ifferences from pre- to p o s tte s t measure was
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
the jt-test« To t e s t fo r s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences among groups a
one-way analysis of variance s t a t i s t i c a l model was selected as most
appropriate .
This f ie ld experiment was implemented in th ree sim ilar contig
uous school d i s t r i c t s in southeastern Michigan. F ifty -fo u r teachers
in the th ree d i s t r i c t s who were cu rren tly in th e ir f i r s t , second, or
th ird year of teaching and were p resen tly assigned to a fo u rth , f i f t h ,
or six th-grade se lf-con ta ined classroom were asked to p a rtic ip a te
in the i n i t i a l phase of the study. Following the adm inistration of
the adapted SOQ p re te s t f if te e n teachers, capable of showing improve
ment with respect to student perceptions of th e ir teaching perform
ances, were randomly assigned to the f iv e treatm ent groups. These
f if te e n teachers, th ree each in the f iv e groups, then employed the
prescribed treatm ents previously described. At the conclusion of
the eight-week treatm ent period the adapted SOQ was administered as
a p o s tte s t . The pre- and p o s tte s t data provided by the 370 students
of the f if te e n experimental phase teachers were keypunched in to data
processing cards and a computer program was selected th a t would y ie ld
the necessary s ta t i s t i c a l inform ation in accord with the design of
the study. These data made possib le analyses re la ted to four major
questions and th i r ty component questions.
Summary of the Findings
The re su lts of the th i r ty sp ec ific questions studied in th is
experiment were presented and analyzed in Chapter IV. The findings
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
re la te d to the four major questions of th is in v estig a tio n are
summarized as follows:
1. The re su lts of the in v estig a tio n indicated th a t none of the
f iv e groups recorded a s ig n if ic a n t change in overa ll student per
ception of teacher performance from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.
2. With respect to the re la t iv e e ffec tiv en ess of the four
experimental groups in modifying ov era ll student perception of
teacher performance the study revealed no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferen ces.
3. The in v estig a tio n revealed several s ig n if ic a n t changes in
s tuden ts ' perceptions o f th e ir teach ers ' "v arie ty in teaching" (item
nine, SOg). The log group, the planning group, and the combination
group a l l showed s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences a t the .001 lev e l from
p re- to p o s tte s t measure. N either the feedback group nor the control
group showed s ig n if ic a n t improvements regarding s tu d e n ts '. perceptions
of th e ir teachers ' "v a rie ty in teaching ."
4. Analysis of the data designed to reveal d ifferences in the
r e la tiv e effectiveness of the four experimental groups in modifying
studen ts ' perceptions of th e ir teach ers ' "v a rie ty in teaching"
indicates th a t d ifferences did e x is t a t the .01 lev e l of sign ificance .
The log, planning, and combination groups were a l l s ig n if ic a n tly
more e ffec tiv e in modifying s tu d en ts ' perceptions regarding the
teach ers ' "varie ty in teaching" than e ith e r the feedback or contro l
group. There was no s ig n if ic a n t d ifference between the con tro l group
and the feedback group. A dditionally , no s ig n if ic a n t d ifferences
were found between the log , planning, and combination groups, a l l of
which were successful (.001 lev e l of s ig n ifican ce ), in e ffec tin g a
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
change from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.
5. The data gathered from teacher p a rtic ip a n ts ind icate th a t
value was seen in the use of feedback, maintenance of the log , and
weekly planning sessions with a person sk ille d in the use of a
v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies. Feedback was c ited as being
valuable with respect to an analysis of teacher performance. The
ch eck lis t log was seen as being b en e fic ia l fo r de tecting rou tine use
of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies while a t the same time challenging
the teacher to employ a v a rie ty of methods in h is teaching. F ina lly ,
the planning sessions were most b en e fic ia l in a s s is tin g teachers
to t ry new and varied methodologies in lesson p resen ta tions.
6. An analysis of the ch eck lis t log ind ica tes th a t a l l groups
u t i l iz in g the log increased th e i r v a rie ty in teaching. A ll teachers
in these groups (B, C, and D) a lso indicated they had employed more
educational methodologies during than p r io r to the experiment.
Teachers planning with a consultant (groups C and D), however,
u t i l iz e d much more frequen tly in s tru c tio n a l methodologies not pre
viously used during the school year.
7. The one-hundred percent p a r tic ip a tio n response of the f i f ty -
four teachers contacted would seem to ind ica te th a t upper elementary
teachers are eager to p a r tic ip a te in s tu d ies re la ted to the improve
ment of the teach ing-learn ing process.
Conclusions
To the extent th a t the techniques employed may be v a lid , the
follow ing conclusions seem ju s t i f ie d :
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
1. None of the experimental groups was s ig n if ic a n tly e ffec tiv e
in modifying s tuden ts ' o v era ll perceptions of teach ers ' performances
from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.
2. No group was s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffec tiv e than any o ther
group in modifying s tu d en ts ' ov era ll perceptions of teach ers ' per
formances from pre- to p o s tte s t measure.
3. The feedback group treatm ent was in e ffec tiv e in helping a
teacher to modify student perceptions of h is "v arie ty in teaching."
4. The log group, the planning group, and the combination
group were a l l s ig n if ic a n tly e ffe c tiv e in helping a teacher to modify
student perceptions o f h is "v arie ty in teaching ."
5. Of the th ree groups (log , planning, and combination)
successful in helping a teacher to modify student perceptions of h is
"v arie ty in teaching" none was s ig n if ic a n tly more e ffec tiv e than the
other two groups.
6. Teachers in the experimental groups viewed favorably the
feedback inform ation, the maintenance of the log , and the weekly
planning sessions.
7. The log, planning, and combination groups a l l showed a
trend toward more methodology usage as the experiment progressed.
8. The groups receiv ing consu lta tive assis tan ce in methodology
use (the planning and combination groups) employed fa r more method
ologies not previously used during the school year than the log group.
9. Students are capable of d iscerning change in a te a ch e r 's
e f fo r ts fo r improvement and th is student perception can be e lic i te d
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
on a form such as the adapted Student Opinion Q uestionnaire.
10, Upper elementary teachers were w illing and eager p a rtic ip a n ts
in the experiment.
In summary the experimental treatm ents employed seemed to be
in e ffe c tiv e in s ig n if ic a n tly modifying s tuden ts ' overa ll perceptions
of th e ir teach ers ' performances. Three of the experimental groups
(log , planning, and combination), however, appeared to be s ig n if i
can tly e ffec tiv e in modifying studen ts ' perceptions of th e ir
teach ers ' "varie ty in teaching."
Recommendations
This section of the repo rt w ill focus on the p roposition of
recommendations in two areas: The f i r s t w ill be to suggest possible
use of the data by those concerned with the pedagogical dimension of
teaching. A second area w ill be to present im plications of th is
study fo r fu rth e r research .
A primary find ing of th is experiment was th a t , under the con
d itio n s of th is experiment, the employment of m ultip le educational
methodologies seemed in e ffec tiv e in modifying student perception of
ov era ll teaching performance. Consequently, personnel in teacher
preparation in s t i tu t io n s , p rin c ip a ls , and curriculum superv isors,
should be re lu c ta n t to view the employment of m ultip le educational
methodologies as a panacea fo r curing other classroom i l l s or
improving overall teacher performance as perceived by s tuden ts.
A second important find ing of th is study was th a t th ree t r e a t
ment groups were capable of e ffec tin g a s ig n if ic a n t improvement
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
in student perception of teach ers ' "v a rie ty in teach ing ," Of the
three successful group treatm ents the log maintenance is obviously
the le a s t co stly in time and personnel and, th e re fo re , perhaps the
most ea s ily implemented. R esults o f the study would support the
contention th a t by having cu rren t teaching s ta f f s maintain the log
studen ts ' perceptions of a te a c h e r 's "v a rie ty in teaching" could be
expected to improve. The planning group treatm ent, combining plan
ning with a consultan t and log maintenance, a lso appears to have a
decided p o sitiv e e f fe c t on s tuden ts ' perceptions of a te a ch e r 's
"varie ty in teach ing ." Though more co s tly in time and personnel
th is treatm ent has the added fea tu re of being e ffec tiv e in g e ttin g
teachers to t ry new methodologies in th e i r teaching . The combination
group, u t i l iz in g feedback, log maintenance, and planning should also
be considered a very d e f in ite and e ffe c tiv e in -se rv ice p o s s ib il i ty .
No special b en efits were found to accrue to the combination group as
opposed to the planning group. I t is l ik e ly , however, th a t an analysis
of the feedback inform ation could provide the readiness and m otivation
needed fo r in -se rv ice tra in in g aimed a t the improvement of teacher
performances. I t i s recommended th a t instrum ents such as those
used in th is study could be u ti l iz e d fo r the purposes s ta ted above.
Personnel responsible fo r both p re-serv ice and in -serv ice
education might f in d more v iab le the procedure of placing a concerted
e f fo r t on a given area of teacher performance with the goal in mind
of improving th a t one f a c e t , ra th e r than taking a more global approach
toward improvement. Improvement in o ther areas most l ik e ly would
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
requ ire ad d itio n a l concerted e f fo r ts again aimed sp e c if ic a lly a t
improving th a t one fa c e t of the to ta l performance.
A dditionally , i t would appear th a t i f teachers are to attempt
the employment of new methodologies the suggestions and re in fo rce
ment of consu lta tive type personnel would be b en e fic ia l.
With regard to the im plications of th is study fo r fu rth e r re
search i t i s apparent th a t s tud ies designed to go beyond the scope
of the present in v estig a tio n would be advantageous in the quest fo r
improving teacher performance.
I t would seem to be of value to repeat the basic th ru s t of th is
experiment on a la rg e r sca le . Previously mentioned as a lim ita tio n
of the study was the small number of experimental group teachers.
A team of researchers might fin d i t fea s ib le to increase th is number
and make broader g en era lisa tio n s than were possib le in th is ex
periment. A fu rth e r recommendation would be to p a r t i t io n teachers
on the q u a lity of th e i r i n i t i a l student-perceived performances. Such
a study might a lso be conducted over a longer period of time than
th a t a l lo t te d fo r th is experiment. F in a lly , i f a fu tu re study were
ca rried out on a la rg e r scale and on a long itud ina l basis i t might
be possib le to determine the net improvement of a teacher ap art from
the la s tin g i n i t i a l perceptions of studen ts. For example, i f the
image i s "stubbornly s ta b le ," teachers desirous of improvement f i r s t
f in d i t necessary to erase i n i t i a l perceptions of a given group of
studen ts. I f , however, on a la rg e r sca le , teachers were ra ted midway
through a given year, p a rtic ip a te d in a concerted e f fo r t to change a
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
given fa c e t of th e i r performance, and then were rated again ty an
other c la ss midway through a second year, i t would not be necessary
to erase the opinions of the f i r s t group of students in computing
the ne t improvement of a te a c h e r 's performance.
Although the present study showed th a t with a concerted e f fo r t
teachers were able to improve student perceptions of th e ir "varie ty
in teach ing ," i t a lso revealed th a t a manipulation of th is one item
did not improve student perceptions of the teach ers ' overa ll per
formances. Two questions might m erit add itio n al study: Is i t poss
ib le to improve on o ther commonly accepted c r i te r i a o f teacher
e ffec tiveness with a concerted e f fo r t and does a manipulation of
one such c r i te r io n hold a key fo r improving student perceptions of
the teach ers ' ov era ll performances?
One obvious concern generated by th is experiment is the incon
clusiveness of the b en e fit of feedback inform ation. Many stud ies
previously c ited in the re la ted l i te r a tu r e sec tion of th is report
have espoused i t s e ffec tiv en ess , Bryan^ tempered h is findings
somewhat l%r re fe rr in g to the te ac h e r 's image as "stubbornly s ta b le ."
Lauroesch^ found, as th is study d id , th a t teachers receiving feedback
over a short period of time ac tu a lly decreased in student-perceived
^Bryan, Roy C ., "The Teacher's Image is Stubbornly S tab le ." The Clearing House. XL (A pril 1966), A59.
2Lauroesch, op. c i t . , p. 2.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
e ffec tiv en ess. Is i t possib le th a t teacher q u a lity i s a fa c to r in
improving teacher performance? In sh o rt, i s th ere a d ifference in
the re la tiv e effectiveness of feedback in modifying the performance
of above average, average, or below average teachers as perceived by
students?
Another consideration regarding feedback deals with the time
element. Is eight weeks follow ing the reception of feedback in
formation too short a time to re g is te r s ig n if ic a n t changes in student
perception?
The enthusiasm displayed by both teachers and adm inistrators
fo r th is study a t the upper elementaiy lev e l hopefully is ind ica tiv e
of possible re c e p tiv ity fo r fu tu re s tu d ies of th is kind. A meaning
fu l comparison could be gained by a re p lic a tio n of th is experiment
a t the senior high le v e l.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
127
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alterman, Rolland A. (A ssistan t D irec to r), Michigan School Administ ra to r s Concept of Teacher Competency. Teacher Education P ro jec t. Central Michigan U niversity , Mt. P leasant, Michigan, 1963. Pp. 28.
Amatora, S is te r Mary, "Teacher Rating By Younger P upils." Journal of Teacher Education. V (June 1954), 149-52,
American Association of School A dm inistrators, Who's a Good Teacher? Washington D.C.: American Association of School A dm inistrators, 1961.Pp. 54.
Amidon, Edmond J . and F landers, Ned A., "Research on Teacher Behavior." The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis; Paul S.Amidon and A ssociates, 1963. Pp. 68.
Anderson, Robert H., Teaching in a World of Change. New York: Har-court. Brace, and World, In c ., 1966. Pp. x i + 180.
Aubertine, H, E ., "An Experiment in the Set Induction Process and I ts A pplication in Teaching." D isse rta tio n A bstracts . XXV (January 1965), 3987.
Barr, A. S ., "Problems Associated With Measurement and P redic tion of Teacher Success." Journal of Educational Research. LI (May 1958), 695-9.
Beck, William R ., "Pupil Perception of Teacher M erit; A Factor Analy s is of Five Postulated Dimensions." Journal of Educational Research. LXI (November 1967), 127-8,
Brady, E lizabeth H. and Richardson, Sybil K., "How Do Children View the Teacher"? Childhood Education. XXXVI (November 1959), 111-2.
Brown, Bob Burton, "Observer-Judge Ratings of Teacher Competence." Childhood Education. XLIV (November 1967), 205-7.
Bruner, Jerome, "The New Educational Technology." Revolution in Teaching. New York; Bantom Books, 1962. Pp. 7.
Bryan, Roy C ., "As Students See Their Teachers." NEA Journal. LVII (April 1968), 20-1.
Bryan, Roy C ., Reactions to Teachers by S tudents. Parents. and Adminis t r a to r s . Cooperative Research P roject No. 668, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health Education and Welfare, Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1962. Pp. 58.
128
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
Bryan, Roy C., ^ Service Designed to Improve the High School Teacher's Image With S tudents. Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center. Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1967. Pp. 15.
Bryan, Roy C., Some Observations Concerning W ritten Student Reactions W High School Teachers. Annual Report of the Student Reaction Center. Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1968. Pp. 15.
Bryan, Roy C., "The Teacher's Image is Stubbornly S tab le ." The Clearing House. XL (April 1966), 459-61.
Buros, Oscar Krisen (E d .), The S ixth Mental Measurement Yearbook.New Jersey; The Gryphon P ress, 196>5. Pp. 691-711.
Callahan, S te rlin g G ., "Is Teacher Rating by Students a Sound Practice"? School and S ociety . LXIX (February 1949), 98-100.
C hildress, Jack, "In -serv ice Education of Teachers." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, 4 th e d ., London: The Macm illan Company, 1969. Pp. 645-54.
Clark, Leonard H. and S ta r r , Irv ing S ., Secondary School Teaching Methods. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967. Pp. x + 501.
Clark, P h illip A., "The E ffects of Student Opinion Feedback, In te raction Analysis Feedback, Research-Based Statements and Group Guidance in Modifying Teacher Image." Unpublished D octor's d is se r ta tio n . Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970, Pp. iv + 186.
Coats, William D., "Student Perceptions of Teachers—A Factor Analytic Study." Paper presented a t the American Educational Research Associa tio n Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 6, 1970. Pp. 10,
Colman, John E ., The Master Teachers and the Art of Teaching. New York; Pitman Publishing Corporation, 1967. Pp. 180.
Cosgrove, Don J . , "Diagnostic Rating of Teacher Perfoi-mance." Journal of Educational Psychology. L (October 1959), 200-4.
Cote, William E ., "Commission May J o lt Working World of S tate Teachers." The Grand Rapids P ress. LXXVIII (June 7, 1970), 10-E.
Cote, William E ., "M illikan Plan Would Oust Poor Teachers." The F lin t Journal. XCIV (December 21, 1969), 1.
Crawford, P. L. and Bradshaw, H. L ., "Perception of C h arac te ristics of E ffective U niversity Teachers: A Scaling A nalysis." Educational andPsychological Measurement. XXVIII (Winter 1968), 1079-85.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Davenport, James A llie , "Perceived In s t i tu t io n a l and S elf Role Expecta tio n s of Hackensack Teachers." Unpublished D octor's d is s e r ta tio n , Columbia U niversity , New York, New York, 1964. Pp. x i i i + 160.
Davenport, Kenneth, "An Investiga tion of Pupil Ratings of C ertain Teacher P rac tices ." Purdue Studies in Higher Education. XLIX (January 1944), 9-61.
Daw, R. W. and Gage, N. L ., "Effect of Feedback from Teachers to P rin c ip a ls ." Journal of Educational Psychology. LVIII (June 1967), 181-3.
Dean, S tuart E ., Elementary School Adm inistration and O rganization.U.S. Office of Education B u lle tin I960, No. 11, Government P rin ting O ffice, Washington B.C., I960. Pp. xv + 126.
Department of A dm inistrative Services, School D is tr ic t S ta t i s t ic a l Inform ation. Genesee Interm ediate School D is tr ic t , F l in t , Michigan, 1969. Pp. 35.
Domas, S. and Tiedman, D. V., "Teacher Competence; An Annotated Bibliography." Journal of Experimental Education. XIX (December 1950), 100-218.
Drayer, Adam M., "Students' Views of the Q ualifica tions of Their Teachers." Journal of Teacher Education. XII (September 1961),333-41.
Ebel, Robert L. (E d .), Encyclopedia of Educational Research. 4th ed ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Pp. x x v iii + 1522.
E lsbree, W illard S ., McNally, Harold J . , and Wynn, Richard, Elementary School Adm inistration and Supervision. New York; American Book Company, 1967. Pp. v i i i + 520.
English, H. B. and English, Ava C., ^ Comprehensive D ictionary of Psychological and Psychoanalytic Terms. New York; Longmans, Green and Company, 1958. Pp. x iv + 594.
F a ttu , Nicholas A., "VJhat Research Says About Teacher E ffectiveness." NEA Journal. L (October I 96I ) , 55-6.
F estingar, Leon, "Cognitive Dissonance as a Motivating S ta te ." Psychology in A dm inistration. ed. Timothy W. C ostello and Sheldon S. Zalkind, Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey ; P ren tice-H all, In c ., 1963. Pp. 170-9.
F landers, Ned A., In te rac tio n Analysis in the Classroom; A Manual fo r Observers. Ann Arbor: U niversity of Michigan, 19^4. Pp. 45.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
Flanders, Ned A. and Simon, Anita, "Teacher E ffectiveness." The Encyclopedia of Educational Research. ed. Robert L. Ebel, Ath e d ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969. Pp. 1423-37.
Gage, N. L., "Analytical Approach to Research on Instructional Methods." Phi Delta Kappan. XLIX (June 1968), 601-6.
Gage, N. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: RandMcNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 1218.
Gage, N. L ., "Teacher Methods." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed. Robert L. Ebel, Ath ed., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969.Pp. 1AA6-58.
Gardner, John W., The Recovery of Confidence. New York: W. W. Nortonand Company, Inc., 1970. Pp. 189.
G etzels, J . W, and Jackson, P. W., "The Teacher's P ersonality andC h arac te ris tic s ." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage,Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 506-82.
Ginther, John R ., "Achievement in S ixth Grade Science Associated With Two In s tru c tio n a l Roles of Science Consultants." Journal of Educatio n a l Research. LVII (September 1963), 28-33.
Goldberg, H arris P ., "The Education of the Science Supervisor."School Science and Mathematics. LXX (May 1970), 363-5.
Good, C arter V. (E d .), D ictionary of Education. New York: McGraw-H ill Book Company, In c ., 1959. Pp. xxv ii + 676.
Griffiths, Daniel E., et. al.. Organizing Schools for Effective Education. Danville, Illinois: Interstate Printers and Publishers,1962. Pp. X + 338.
Grobman, Hulda, "To See Ourselves as Others See Us." Childhood Education. XLV (March 1969), 396-7.
Gupta, Promila, "A Study of Cognitive Merit of Teachers." D isserta tio n A bstrac ts . XXI (April 1961), 2983.
Hass, Glen (Chairman), Leadership fo r Improving In s tru c tio n . I960 Yearbook of the A ssociation fo r Supervision and Curriculum Development. Washington: The A ssociation, I 96O. Pp. x + 198.
Hawkins, Edward and Stoops, Emery, "Objectives and Subjective Identif ic a tio n of Outstanding Elementary Teachers." The Journal of Educational Research. LIX (April 1966), 3AA-6.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
Hays, William L ., S ta t i s t i c s fo r Psychologists. New York: H olt, Rineh a rt and Winston, In c ., 1963. Pp. xvi + 719.
Heald, James E ., "Supervision." Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ed, Robert L. Ebel, 4 th e d ., London: The Macmillan Company, 1969.Pp. 1394-1400.
Hickmott, Susan, "An Instrument fo r Obtaining Student Opinions of Teachers in Interm ediate Grades." Unpublished M aster's th e s is . The Ohio S ta te U niversity , Columbus, Ohio, 1947. Pp. 65.
Hoel, Paul G., Elementary S ta t i s t i c s . Now York: John Wiley and Sons,In c ., i 9 6 0 . Pp. y i i + 2 6 1 .
Howsam, Robert B ., "Teacher Evaluation: Facts and Folk lore." The National Elementary P r in c ip a l. XLIII (November 1963), 6-18.
Howsam, Robert B ., Who's a Good Teacher? Problems and Progress in Teacher Evaluation. Burlingame, C alifo rn ia ; C alifo rn ia Teachers A ssociation, I960. Pp. 48.
Hughes, James Monroe, Education in America. Hew York: Harper andRow Publishers, 1970. Pp. xvi + 638.
Hummel, Charlton G., "A Right Only i f Deserved." NEA Jou rnal. XLI (January I960), 67.
K erlinger, Fred N ., "The Factor S tructu re and Content of Perceptions of D esirable C h a rac te ris tic s of Teachers." Educational and Psycho log ical Measurement. XXVII (Autumn 1967), 643-56.
K erlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York:H olt, R inehart, and Winston In c ., 1965. Pp. s ix + 739.
Koskenniemi, M atti, The Development of Young Elementary School Teachers : A Follow-up Study. H elsinki: S a rja se r B. Nidetom, 1965.Pp. 635.
Kretch, David and C ru tchfie ld , Richard S ., Elements of Psychology.New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959. Pp. xxi + 700.
Lauroesch, William P ., P ere ira , Peter D., and Ryan, Kevin A., The Use of Student Feedback in Teacher T rain ing . P ro jec t Ho. 8-E-115,U.S. Office of Education, U niversity of Chicago, Chicago, 1969.Pp. v + 3 4 .
Lieberman, % ron, "An Overview of A ccountability ." Phi D elta Kappan.LII (December 1970), 194-5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Lopez, F elix M., "A ccountability in Education." Phi Delta Kappan. LII (December 1970), 231-5.
_, "Martin Teacher's Dismissal Protested." The FlintJou rnal. XCV (April 17, 1970), 53.
Mason, Barbara T ., "Supervisor or Curriculum S p e c ia lis t." Educational Leadership. XXVII (January 1970), 401-3.
McCall, William A., Measurement of Teacher M erit. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina S ta te Board of Education, 1952. Pp. 40.
McKeachie, W. J . , "Research on Teaching a t the College and University Level." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 1118-72.
M iklich, Donald R ., "An Experimental V alidation Study of the Purdue Rating Scale fo r In s tru c tio n ." Educational and Psychological Measurement. XXIX (w inter 1969), 963-7.
M itzel, Harold E ., "Teacher E ffectiveness." Encyclopedia of Educa tional Research, ed. C. W. H arris , 3d e d ., London: The MacmillanCompany, I960. Pp. 1481-5.
M itzel, Harold E. and Combs, Arthur W., "Can We Measure Good Teaching O bjectively"? NEA Jo u rn a l. L III (January 1964), 34-6.
Mouly, George J . , Psychology fo r E ffective Teaching. New York: H olt,R inehart, and Winston, In c ., 1968. Pp. x i i + 639.
O liver, Wilmont P ., The R elative E ffectiveness of Inform ational Feedback About Supervisory ano( Student Reactions With Beginning and Experienced Vocational Teachers. P ro ject No. 6-8327, U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Rutgers, the S ta te U niversity , New Brunswick, New Jersey , 1967. Pp. v i i + 71.
Raths, Louis, "What is a Good Teacher"? Childhood Education. XL (May 1964), 451-6.
Rehraus, Charles, The Economic Results of Teacher Bargaining: Michigan* 3 F i r s t Two Years. The In s t i tu te of In d u s tria l R elation ,Michigan S ta te U niversity , Lansing, May, 1961. Pp. 16.
Remmers, H. H., "Rating Methods in Research on Teaching." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 329-78.
Remmers, H. H. (Chairman, American Educational Research A ssociation), "Second Report of the Committee on the C rite r ia of Teacher E ffectiveness." Journal of Educational Research. XLVI (May 1953), 641-58.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Rowannetta, Allen S ., "Role and Function of Supervisors and Curriculum Workers." Educational Leadership. XXII (January 1966), 330-3.
Ryan, Kevin A., "The Use of Students' W ritten Feedback in Changing the Behavior of Beginning Secondary School Teachers." D isserta tio n A bstracts ; The Humanities and Social Sciences. XXVII (January- February 196?), 2089-A.
Ryans, David G ., "An Assessment of Teacher Behavior and In stru c tio n ," Review of Educational Research. XXXIII (October 1963), 415-41.
Ryans, David G ., C h arac te ris tics of Teachers. Washington D.C.; American Council on Education, I960. Pp. x x i i i + 416.
Saadeh, Irahim Q., "Teacher Effectiveness or Classroom E fficiency: ANew D irection in the Evaluation of Teaching." Journal of Teacher Education. XXI (Spring 1970), 73-88.
Sanders, N orris M., Classroom Questions: What Kinds? New York:Harper and Row, 1966. Pp. 173.
Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M., Scales fo r the Measurement of A ttitu d es . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Pp. x x ii + 604.
Smith, Edward, Krouse, Stanley, and Atkinson, Mark, The Educator* sEncyclopedia. Englewood C lif fs , New Jersey: P rentice-H all In c .,1967. Pp. x i i i + 914.
Soar, Robert S ., "Methodological Problems in P redicting Teacher E ffectiveness." Journal of Experimental Education. XXXII (Spring 1964), 287-91.
Spain, Charles, Drummond, Harold, and Goodlad, John, Educational Leadership and the Elementary P rin c ip a l. New York: Rinehart andCompany, In c ., 1956. Pp. x + 371.
S p rin th a ll, Norman A., Whitely, John M., and Mosher, Ralph L ., "A Study of Teacher E ffectiveness." The Journal of Teacher Education. XVII (Spring 1966), 93-106.
, "S tate Unit Okays Teacher's F irin g ." The F lin t Journal. XCIV (November 5, 1969), 53.
S tre e te r , Edward G., "Teacher Competency and Classroom Use of Educatio n a l Media." Audiovisual In s tru c tio n . XIV (January 1969), 60-2.
T agiuri, Renato, "Person Perception." In te rn a tio n a l Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, ed. David L. S i l l s , XI, London: The MacmillanCompany, 1968. Pp. $60-7.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Tedesco, Phyliss Reynolds, "An 'A' fo r Teacher." The In s tru c to r .LXn (October 1959), 89.
Tobin, Michael F rederick, "Perceptions of Beginning and Experienced Teachers in Inner City and Suburban Elementary Schools." Unpublished D octor's d is se r ta tio n . Western Michigan U niversity , Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970. Pp. ix + 132.
Tuckman, B. W. and O liver, W. P ., "E ffectiveness of Feedback to Teachers as a Function of Source." Journal of Educational Psychology. LIX (August 1968), 297-301.
Wallen, Norman and Travers, Robert, "Analysis and Investigation of Teaching Methods." Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. N. L. Gage, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Pp. 448-505.
Wiersma, William, Research Methods in Education; An In troduction . Philadelphia: J . B. L ippincott Company, 1969. Pp. xvi + 412.
Wright, Benjamin and Sherman, Barbara, "Love and Mastery in the Childs Image." School Review. LXXIII (Summer 1965), 89-101.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIXES
136
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
Student Opinion Questionnaire
Follow along with ms as I read the in s tru c tio n s aloud. There should be no ta lk in g . This i s not a t e s t . There are no r ig h t or wrong answers. Please answer the questions honestly . Do not give your name. N either your teacher nor anyone e lse a t your school w ill ever see your answers.
All your answers w ill be sealed in th is envelope and taken fo r scoring. Your teacher w ill receive a summary of the answers by the students in your o la ss . Your teacher wants you to answer each question honestly . The summary w ill help her to know what the class lik e s and d is lik e s about her teaching. This could help her become a b e t te r teacher,
CIRCLE THE ANSWER WHICH BEST GRADES YOUR TEACHER'S:
Example A, APPEARilNCE: (Does your teacher wear nice clothes?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
Example B. FENIIANSHIF: (How well does your teacher w rite on theboard?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
1. ' KNO\>/LEDGE: (How well" does your teacher understand the lessonsshe teaches to you?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
2. EXPLANATIONS: (How v e il does your teacher explain the lessonsto the class?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
3. FAIRNESS : ( Is your teacher f a i r with a l l pupils?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
CONTROL: (How well do pupils behave fo r your teacher?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
T. SUCCESS IN KEEPING YOUR ATTENTION: (Does your teacher make thelessons in te re s tin g ?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
137
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
6. ENTHUSIASM; (Does your teacher l ik e to teach?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
7 } CONSIDERATION : ( is your teacher kind toward a l l pupils inyour c lass?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
8. ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENTS; (Does your teacher lik e you?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
9. VARIETY IN TEACHING; (Does your teacher usually teach the same way day a f te r day o r does she o ften t ry d if fe re n t ways to present lessons?) (motion p ic tu re s , tape recorders, record p layers, c h a rts , overhead p ro je c to rs , student rep o rts , small group p ro je c ts , guest speakers, dem onstrations, f ie ld t r ip s , e tc .)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
ÏÔI ENCOURAGEMENT OF STUDE3JT PARTICIPATION; (Does your teacher l ik e students to ask questions?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
11. siSNSE OF HUMOR; (Does your teacher laugh with the class?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
12. PLANNING;(Does your teacher make good plans fo r the use ofc la ss time so th a t l i t t l e time i s wasted?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
13. ASSIGNMENTS; (Does your teacher make your homework enjoyable?)
POOR FAIR AVERAGE GOOD EXCELLENT
A. What i s the ONE th ing th a t you l ik e MOST about your teacher?
B. What i s the ONE th ing th a t you l ik e LEAST about your teacher?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDH B
Teacher P ro file
Teacher Grade No, of Students. Date
scalesteos
scaleaverage
ITEMS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
EXCELLENT 5.0A, 9A.8A.7A.6A.5
_A,A__A.3 ...A. 2A.l
GOOD A.O3.93.83.73,6 1
.3,5 J._3,4 __ J. 3 .3 .
3 .23 .1 .
AVERAGE .3 ,0 . . .2 .92.82.72.62.52.A ' .! . . .
2.32.22,1.
FAIR 2,01.91.81.71.6
.1.5
__1,3
139
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B (continued)
scalesteos
scaleaverage
IT0MS1 2 ? 4 ‘7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1.21.1
POOR 1.0
KEY TO ITEMS
1. KNOWLEDGE 8. ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENTS ____2. EXPLANATIONS ____ 9. VARIETY3. FAIRNESS ____ 10. STUDENT PARTICIPATION ____4* CONTROL ___ _ 11. SENSE OF HUMOR ____5. INTEREST ____ 12. PLANNING6. ENTHUSIASM . 13. ASSIGNMENTS7. CONSIDERATION ____ 14. MEAN OF AVERAGES 1-13____
A. Strengths l i s te d by a s ig n if ic an t number of studen ts:
B. Weaknesses l i s te d by a s ig n if ic a n t number of studentss
1^0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G
Tabular Summation
SCALESTEPS
ODES'noN1 2 ? 4 6 7 8 9 10 111 12. ._11__
ExcellentGoodAverageF a irPoorTOTALS
l a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDH D
Feedback
Enclosed is a com pilation of student responses to the question-,
n a ire given recen tly to your c la ss . At the top of the page you w ill
no tice a graph. This graph is an average of student responses to
questions 1-13 of the Student Opinion Q uestionnaire. A key to the
items in the questionnaire and an average fo r each appears a t the
bottom of the page. Note what your c lass perceives to be your
s treng ths and weaknesses, paying p a r tic u la r a tte n tio n to those
items which appear too low. Hopefully th is inform ation w ill suggest
areas in which you may wish to make a sp ec ia l e f fo r t to change your
students* perceptions.
142
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX E
Checklist Log
Inetructions
You have been selected to p a rtic ip a te in an add itional phase of the to ta l f ie ld experiment previously described. Your cooperation i s deeply appreciated and an e sse n tia l and s ig n if ic a n t part of the experimental study.
During the e igh t weeks of the experiment you are asked to m aintain a check lis t or "log" of the various in s tru c tio n a l methods you employ.The methods and devices l is te d on the attached sheet are commonly accepted in the l i te r a tu r e and in p rac tice as appropriate in s tru c tio n a l techniques.
Your specific instructions are;
1) At the end of each day check the methods and or devices used during th a t day. (Only one check par item per day, even though used more than once)
2) I t i s possib le th a t an in s tru c tio n a l device (Group I) would be used in conjunction with a teaching method (Group I I ) ,For example, the overhead p ro jec to r might be used in a lec tu re type p resen ta tion . In instances of th is type a check should be made fo r the overhead p ro jec to r and fo r the lec tu re .
3) The p o s s ib i l i ty also e x is ts th a t more than one teaching method (Group I I ) might be employed during a given learning experience. In th is case check only the method which is predominant and not check the method which i s employed in c id en ta lly . For example, a teacher conducts a d iscussion type p resen ta tion . During the course of the d iscussion a few questions are asked. The discussion is the predominant method employed and th is category should be checked. The questions are inc id en ta l to the discussion and the question- answer category should not, be checked.
To aid you in making consisten t and mutually exclusive checks the following operational descrip tions are offered fo r items which may not be se lf-exp lanato ry ;
1A3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lU
DISCUSSION; Group in te ra c tio n characterized by a free exchange of views and ideas by p a r tic ip a n ts . Oral two-way communication during which learn ers examine, consider, and compare fa c ts and reasoning. Sometimes called group thinking aloud.
DRILL; Commonly referred to as re c ita t io n or p rac tice usually fo r the purpose of automatic r e c a l l . Examples would be sp e llin g , rou tine math problems, one word question-answer, workbooks, e tc . Oftentimes follows the p a tte rn of assignment - study - rep o rt.
INDEPENDENT STUDY; A major planned learning experience in which astudent can proceed in accord with h is own in i t i a t iv e and a b i l i ty using the teacher as a resource. Not the d a ily , ro u tin e , unplanned type of study or reading a student often pursues while waiting fo r classm ates to f in is h assigned work.
LABORATORY; D irect experience with m ateria ls p e rtin e n t to the area of study. Usually associated with science lesso n s, but not necessarily so.
LECTURE: Oral one-way communication, p rim arily teacher ta lk . Anexposition of fa c ts or knowledge by a teacher.
PROBLEM SOLVING; Closely a l l ie d with learning by discovery and the s c ie n ti f ic method. I t involves the thought process of lo g ica l and c r i t i c a l thinlcing th a t re su lts from a doubt, a p erp lex ity , a problem or an observation. The recognition of a problem is followed sequen tia lly by an inspection of possib le so lu tions, the employment of a given so lu tion , and the evaluation of i t s success in solving the problem.
QUESTION-ANSWER: Open-ended c r i t i c a l app ra isa l type of questions. Frequently used in a well-planned sequence to develop major concepts. Not one word answer type of questions.
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONAL METHODOLOGIES
I . INSTRUCTIONAL DEVICES
A) Educational samea8mm cartrid g e p ro jec to r !
C) F ilm strip p ro jecto rD) Motion p ic tu re p ro jec to rS) Opaque p ro lecto rF) Overhead p ro jec to rG) Programmed in s tru c tio nH) Radio ...............................I) Record playerJ) S lide p ro jec to rK) Tape recorderLl TelevisionM) Chart, globe, model, e tc . |N) Other (specify)
. —---
a) DemonstrationB) DiscussionC) D rill ( re c ita tio n )D) Evaluation — Review
Test, Q uiz..............
E) F ield TripF) Group methods — Debate
PanelP ro ject
Small group d iscussionG independent studyH) Individual reportI) LaboratoryJ) LectureK) Guest speaker . .
L) Problem solving Idiscovery)M) Question-AnswerN) Role playingO) Teacher-pupil planningP) . Team teaching (ad hoc)Q) Other (specify)
.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX F
Cover L e tte r
Fellow Educator;
This l e t t e r is w ritten to introduce to you Mr. James Bultman. Jim is cu rren tly a Mott Doctoral Fellow working th ru Western Michigan U niversity . Previously he has been a teacher, p rin c ip a l and college pro fesso r.
We have reviewed the research study proposed by Mr. Bultman and believ e i t to be s ig n if ic a n t and noteworthy fo r us as educators. Jim assures us th a t the anonymity of p a rtic ip a n ts and th e i r ind iv idual r e s u l ts w ill be honored.
Because of the experimental nature of the study you should understand th a t i t is not possib le to reveal c e r ta in p a rts of the study a t the o u tse t. I t is not an tic ip a ted th a t p a r tic ip a tio n in the study w ill in any way be an im position on your time.
In th a t education is in need of enlightening research s tu d ies and because the proposed research i s leg itim ate and worthy of our part ic ip a tio n you are urged to give i t your carefu l consideration .
S incerely ,
Superintendent of Schools
146
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX G
Computer Program
Hope College S ta t i s t i c a l Programs Manual MNSTRVariance Analysis
MNSTR: One-Way Analysis of Variance with Within-GroupC orrelations and Between-Group t-T es ts
1. GENERAL DESCRIPIIGN
a. This program sim ultaneously computes an F - s ta t i s t ic fo r a One-Way Analysis of Variance between groups fo r each v a riab le . Also included in the output are d is tr ib u tio n s t a t i s t i c s , within-group c o rre la tio n s , and between-group t-v a lu e s .
b. The output co n sis ts of (fo r each v a r ia b le ) :
For each group and to ta l group1) Mean2) Standai-d dev iation3) Estimate of population standard dev iation4.) Estimate of population variance5) Standard E rror of the Mean6) C orrelation Matrix7) t - t e s t of d iffe ren ce from zero fo r the Mean
For to ta l group only8) Pooled Within-Group C orrelation Matrix
Analyses between groups9) Analysis of Variance tab le fo r each variab le consisting
of source, sum of squares, degrees of freedom, mean squares, and F -ra tio .
10) t - t e s t between each group fo r each v ariab le using the common mean square as the e rro r term.
11) t - t e s t between each group fo r each variab le usingseparate e r ro r terms; the e r ro r term being computed byusing only the two groups in question.
c . Lim iations:
1) The number of variab les must not exceed 25.2) The number o f groups must not exceed 32,767.3) The number o f subjects per group must not exceed 32,767,
147
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
4) I f the number of groups exceeds 25 the between group j j- te s ts w ill not be p rin ted ,
2 . Authors: Dee Norton, Ph.D.Department of Psychology S ta te U niversity of Iowa
andB ill Snider, Ph.D.U niversity Computer Center S ta te U niversity of Iowa(Modified fo r use with the IBM 1130 hy George
Bishop, Hope College)
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H
Student Perception Averages fo r A ll Questionnaire Item s, Pre and Post
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
pre 1 4 .3 4.0 3.7 3 .9 3.9post 4 .3 4.5 3.6 3.9 3.8
1 pre 2 4 .0 3.7 4.1 3.8 3.4post 3.8 4.5 4.0 3.6 3.3
pre 3 4 .0 4.3 3.6 3.7 4.0post 3.5 3.8 4.0 3 .4 4.0
pre 1 4 .0 3.8 2.9 3.8 3.9post 4 .0 3 .7 2.6 4 .0 3.8
2 pre 2 3 .8 4 .0 3 .8 3 .8 3.7post 3 .6 4 .0 3.7 3.7 3.3
pre 3 3 .9 4.0 3.5 3 .9 3.8post 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.1 3,7
pre 1 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.4post 2 .9 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.4
3 pre 2 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.5post 2 .9 4.1 3.2 2.8 2.7
pre 3 3.7 3.7 3.1 2,1 3.8post 2.5 2.3 3.0 1.8 3.6
pre 1 3.5 2.9 2.3 3.3 3.1post 4 .0 3.2 2 .3 3.2 3.6
4 pre 2 3 .0 3 .2 2 .9 1.9 2.5post 3.2 3.0 3.2 2.4 2.7
pre 3 3.0 3 .0 2.6 2.9 2.1post 3.5 2.6 3.6 2.5 2.4
pre 1 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0post 3 .8 4.1 2.7 3.8 3.3
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H (continued)
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
5 pre 2 3.3 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.7post 3.2 4 .0 3.8 2 .9 3.2
pre 3 3.5 2 .9 3.8 3.2 3.7post 2.5 2.6 3.6 2.6 3.7
pre 1 4 .0 4.0 4 .6 3.8post 4 .1 4.0 3.8 3.8 4 .0
6 pre 2 3.7 4.3 4 .0 3.7 3.8post 3 .9 4.3 3 .7 3.5 3.6
pre 3 3 .8 4.2 4 .0 3 .9 3.9post 3.0 3.8 4.2 3.6 4.2
pre 1 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.6post 3.0 3 .9 3.4 3.6 3.4
7 pre 2 3 .4 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.5post 3.2 3.8 3.5 2.8 2.9
pre 3 3 .5 4.1 3 .0 3 .2 3.7post 2.4 3 .4 3.2 2.6 3.8
pre 1 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.9post 3 .6 3.5 3 .3 3.7 3.6
8 pre 2 3.5 4.1 4 .0 3.5 3.5post 3.2 4 .0 3 .6 3.2 3.1
pre 3 3 .6 3.7 3.3 3.1 3.8post 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.3 4 .3
pre 1 2.8 3.5 2 .6 3.2 3.9post 2.5 4.5 3.7 4 .3 3 .4
9 pre 2 3.7 3.2 3.7 3 .4 3.5post 3 .6 4 .9 4.3 4 .1 3.7
pre 3 3.1 3.8 3.2 1.9 3.3post 3.3 4 .4 4.8 3.7 3.0
150
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H (continued)
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
pre 1 3.5 3.8 3 .4 4.3 3 .8post 3 .6 3.9 4 .2 4 .4 3.6
10 pre 2 4.2 3.0 3.8 3.4 3.8post 4 .3 2.9 3 .9 3.8 3.5
pre 3 3.5 4.3 4.1 3.2 3.9post 3.2 4.1 4.7 3.1 4 .2
pre 1 3.8 4 .0 3.9 3.9 3.4post 4 .4 4.3 4 .0 4.1 ' 3 .8
11 pre 2 3.5 3.7 4.5 2.8 3.3post 3 .3 4.5 4.3 2.9 3.3
pre 3 2.8 3.6 3.3 4 .4 2 .9post 2 .4 3 .6 3.1 4.4 3.6
pre 1 4.1 3.7 3.5 4.5 4 .0post 4 .3 4.1 3.5 4 .0 3.5
12 pre 2 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.9post 3.8 4 .0 3.5 3.7 3.8
pre 3 4 .2 3 .9 3.8 2.7 3 .4post 4 .3 3.8 4 .2 3.1 3.3
pre 1 3 .4 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.7post 2 .9 3.0 3.4 3.1 2.8
13 pre 2 2 .4 3.1 2.2 2.2 3.3post 3.1 3.1 2.6 1 .9 2.7
pre 3 2.0 2.0 2.2 1 .4 3.6post 2.0 2.0 2.6 1.7 3.6
pre 1 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.6post 3.7 3 .9 3 .4 3.8 3.5
151
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX H (continued)
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
T pre 2 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.5post 3.5 3.9 3.6 3.2 3.2
pre 3 3 .4 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.5post 3 .0 3 .4 3.7 3.0 3.6
Question Key: ( l) Knowledge, (2) Explanations, (3) F airness, (4) Cont r o l , (5) In te re s t , (6) Enthusiasm, (7) Consideration, (8) A ttitude toward s tuden ts, (9) V ariety, (10) Student p a r tic ip a tio n , ( l l ) Sense of humor, (12) Planning, (13) Assignments, (T) Mean of a l l questions
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX I
Feedback Group Open-Ended Response
Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f apy) of the experimental "treat* ment" on your teaching during the course of the experiment.
Feedback:
General comments you wish to make about the f ie ld experiment:
153
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX J
Log Group Open-Ended Response
Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f any) of the experimental " tre a tment" on your teaching during the course of the experiment.
C hecklist log:
General comments you wish to make about the f ie ld experiment:
Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p r io r to the experiment? (YES or NO)
15U
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX K
Planning Group Open-Ended Response
Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f any) of the experimental " tre a tment" on your teaching during the course of the experiment.
C hecklist log:
Weekly planning sessions:
General comments you wish to make about the f ie ld experiment:
Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r v a r ie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p r io r to the experiment? (YES or NO)
155
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX L
Combination Group Open-Ended Reaponse
Please comment about the e f fe c t ( i f any) of the experimental " t re a tment" on your teaching during the course of the f ie ld experiment.
Feedback:
C hecklist log:
Weekly planning sessions:
General comments you wish to make about the f ie ld experiment:
Did you, during the course of the experiment, employ a g rea te r v a rie ty of in s tru c tio n a l methodologies than p r io r to the experiment? (YES or NO)
156
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX M
Teacher S elf-percep tion Averages fo r All Questionnaire Items, Pre and Post
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group G Group D Group E
pre 1 4.0 4.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0post 4 .0 3.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0
1 pre 2 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4 .0post 4 .0 4.0 4.0 3 .0 4 .0
pre 3 4 .0 3.0 4 .0 4.0 3.0post 4 .0 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0
pre 1 4 .0 4.0 2.0 3.0 3.0post 4 .0 4.0 3.0 3 .0 3.0
2 pre 2 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4.0 3 .0post 4 .0 3.0 4.0 3 .0 3 .0
pre 1 4 .0 4 .0 3.0 3 .0 4 .0post 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0
3 pre 2 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0post 3 .0 4 .0 3.0 4 .0 4.0
pre 3 2.0 3 .0 5.0 4 .0 2.0post 3.0 3.0 4.0 4 .0 2.0
pre 1 5.0 3.0 3.0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4 .0
4 pre 2 3.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0post 3 .0 5.0 4.0 3 .0 2.0
pre 3 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0post 3.0 3 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0
157
R eproduced with perrrission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX M (continued)
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
pre 1 4.0 3 .0 3 .0 2.0 3.0post 4 .0 3.0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0
5 pre 2 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0post 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0 3 ,0
pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0post 3.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 2.0
pre 1 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 2.0 4 .0post 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 5.0
6 pre 2 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4 .0post 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 3 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 2 .0 4 .0post 4 .0 4.0 5.0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 1 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0
7 pre 2 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 3 .0 5.0post 4 .0 4.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4.0 4 .0 3.0post 2.0 3.0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 1 4.0 5.0 4 .0 3 .0 5.0post 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0
8 pre 2 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0post 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 3 3.0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0post 3 .0 3 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0
pre 1 3.0 5.0 2.0 1.0 4 .0post 2.0 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0
158
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX M (continued)
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
9 pro 2 A.O 4.0 3.0 3 .0 4 .0post A.O 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 3 3.0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 4 .0post A.O 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0
pre 1 4 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4 .0
10 pre 2 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 5.0post 5.0 3 .0 4 .0 4 .0 4 .0
pre 3 4 .0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0post 3 .0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
pre 1 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 3 .0 4.0post 4 .0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0
11 pre 2 4 .0 4.0 4 .0 4 .0 4.0post 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 4 .0 3 .0
pre 3 4 .0 4 .0 5.0 4.0 4 .0post 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 5.0 4.0
pre 1 4 .0 4 .0 3 .0 4 .0 4.0post 4 .0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3 .0
12 pre 2 3 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 2.0post 3 .0 4.0 3 .0 3 .0 2.0
pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 3.0 3 .0post 3 .0 3.0 5.0 4.0 3 .0
pre 1 4 .0 2.0 3 .0 3 .0 3 .0post 4 .0 4.0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0
13 pre 2 2.0 4.0 3 .0 2.0 3.0post 4 .0 3 .0 3.0 3 .0 2.0
pre 3 3 .0 3 .0 4 .0 3.0 3.0post 2 .0 3.0 4 .0 4 .0 3.0
159
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX M (continued)
Question Teacher Group A Group B Group C Group D Group E
pre 1 4 .0 3.8 3.2 2.9 3.8post 3.8 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.7
T pre 2 3.6 4.1 3.4 3 .4 3.7post 3 .8 3.9 3.5 3 .6 3 .4
pre 3 3.2 3.3 4.2 3.7 3 .2post 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.1 3.3
Question Key: ( l) Knowledge, (2) Explanations, (3) Fairness, (A) Cont r o l , (5 ) In te re s t , (6) Enthusiasm, (7) Consideration, (8) A ttitude toward studen ts, (9) V ariety , (10) Student p a r tic ip a tio n , (11) Sense of humor, (12) Planning, (13) Assignments, (T) Mean of a l l questions
160
R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.