A STUDY OF THE TEXAS SUPERVISOR OF

SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

Fox" the Degree, oi

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

John B. Barnett, B.A., M.Ed.

Denton, Texas

August, 1968

A STUDY OF THE TEXAS SUPERVISOR OF

SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS

DISSERTATION

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

Fox" the Degree, oi

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

By

John B. Barnett, B.A., M.Ed.

Denton, Texas

August, 1968

TABLE' OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES V

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem Hypotheses Background and Significance of the Study Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study Basic Assumptions Procedures for Collecting Data Procedures for Treating Data

II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 25

Development of the Position The Status of the College Supervisor' Essential Practices of the College

Supervisor

III. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 75

The Status of the College Supervisor in Texas

The Practices of the College Supervisor in Texas Purpose I Purpose II Purpose III Purpose IV Purpose V

Analysis of Non-Hypothesis Data

IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 145

Summary Recommendations Conclusions Recommendations for Further Research

ill

Page

APPENDIX A 160

APPENDIX B 164

APPENDIX C . 165

APPENDIX D • 166

APPENDIX E . . . . . 168

APPENDIX F ' 169

APPENDIX G 170

APPENDIX H

BIBLIOGRAPHY 18Q

xv

LIST OP TABLES

Table Page

I. Distribution of -Supervisors According to Sex Plus Kinds of Institutions Including Total Numbers and Percentages 76

II. Distribution of Supervisors According to Age Plus Kinds of Institutions Including Total Numbers and Percentages 77

III. Distribution of Supervisors According to Years of Service on Present Facilities Including Total Numbers and Percentages . . 78

IV. Distribution of Supervisors According to Years of Service on Other Faculties Including Total Numbers and Percentages . . 79

V. Distribution of Supervisors According to Years of Supervisory Experience on Present Faculties Including Total Numbers and Percentages . . . . . 80

VI. Distribution of Supervisors According to Years of Supervisory Experience on Other Faculties Including Total Numbers and Percentages 81

VII. Distribution of Supervisors According to Academic Sank Including Total Numbers and Percentages 82

VIII. Distribution of Supervisors According to Degrees Earned Including Total Numbers and Percentages 83

IX. Distribution of Supervisors According to Academic Majors Including Total Numbers and Percentages 84

X. Distribution of Supervisors According to Academic Minors Including Total Numbers and Percentages 85

Table Page

XI. Distribution of Supervisors According to Years of Teaching Experience in the Secondary School Including Total Numbers and Percentages 86

XII. Distribution of Supervisors According to Years of Teaching Experience in the Elementary School Including Total Numbers and Percentages 87

XIII. Distribution of Supervisors According to Positions Held While Teaching in Public or Parochial Schools Including Total Numbers and Percentages 8 8

XIV. Distribution of Supervisors According to College Courses in General Supervision and the Supervision of Student Teaching Including Total Numbers and Percentages . 89

XV. Distribution of Supervisors According to Total Teaching Load Devoted to the Supervision of Student Teachers Including Total Numbers and Percentages . 90

XVI. Distribution of Supervisors According to Supervisory Aid from Other College Departments Including Total Numbers and Percentages 91

XVII. Distribution of Supervisors According to Number of Schools Visited while Supervising Student Teachers Including Total Numbers and Percentages 92

XVIII. Distribution of Supervisors According to Grade Levels Supervised Including Total Numbers and Percentages 93

XIX. Distribution of Supervisors According to Total Number of Credit Hours of College Teaching Assigned Including Total Numbers and Percentages 94

XX. Distribution of Supervisors According to Fewest Student Teachers Assigned at Any One Time Including Total Numbers and Percentages 95

vi

Table

XXI.

XXII.

XXIII.

XXIV.

XXV.

XXVI,

XXVII,

XXVIII.

XXIX.

Distribution of Supervisors According to Most Student Teachers Supervised at Any One Time Including Total Numbers and Percentages

Distribution of Supervisors According to Number Who Meet with Supervisors from Other Universities Including Total Numbers and Percentages

Distribution of Supervisors According to Number Reporting Supervising Teachers Who Held at Least the Master's Degree Including Total Numbers and Percentages

Distribution of Supervisors According to Number Reporting Comprehensive Written Contractual Agreements with the Cooper-ating Schools Including Total Numbers and Percentages

Distribution of Supervisors According to Number Reporting Published Research During the Past Two Years Including Total Numbers and Percentages . . . .

Summary of t Tests Between Mean Item Weights for the Practices Reported to Supervisors in Texas and Those Practices Recommended by National Experts in the Field of Student Teacher Supervision . .

Summary of t Tests Between Mean Item Weights for the Practices Reported by Supervisors from Schools of Education and Practices Reported by Supervisors in Schools Other Than Schools of Education

Summary of t Tests Between Mean Item Weights for the Practices Reported by Supervisors of All-Day Student Teachers and Part-Time Student Teachers

Summary of Tests Between Mean Item Weights for the Practices Reported by General Supervisors and the Practices Reported by Special Supervisors

Pag*

96

97

97

98

99

103

109

113

118

vxi

Table

XXX.

XXXI.

XXXII.

XXXIII.

XXXIV.

XXXV.

XXXVI.

XXXVII.

XXXVIII,

XXXIX.

Summary of t Tests Between Mean.Item Weights for the Practices Reported by Supervisors from State Colleges and Practices Reported by Supervisors from Private Institutions .

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Purposes of Meetings with Directors of Student Teaching

Page

123

128

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Techniques Used in the Orientation of Student Teachers . 131

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Purposes of Meetings with Cooperating Principals 133

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Techniques Used in Establishing Rapport with the Supervising Teacher

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Purposes of Student Teacher Observation

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Procedures used in Insuring Group Participation in Group Conferences or Seminars

135

136

. 138

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Techniques Used to Further Public Relations 139

A Percentage Comparison of Judges and College Supervisors in Regard to Procedures in Arriving at a Final Grade for Credit . 141

Summary of Itemized Data by Variable Number Indicating Group"Statistical Differences

vnx

CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION

The problem of placing the best qualified teachers

possible in the public schools of Texas has been one of the

growing concerns of our general population. In its Forty-

Fourth Biennial Report (7) , the Texas Education Agency

reported that the enrollment in the public schools of Texas

had increased from 1,840,000 in 1957 to approximately

2,560,000 in 1967. This increased enrollment has contributed

to the growth in the number of teachers needed in the school

systems of Texas. The supply of new teachers in 1966 was

3,000 less than the number needed. This perplexing problem

of supplying not only more teachers, but better prepared

teachers as well, is the responsibility of schools of educa-

tion in Texas institutions of higher learning. The apex in

the training of these teachers-to-be is their student teach-

ing experience. Few question the importance and significance

of student teaching. Glennon stated; "In the series of

developmental experiences in almost any program of teacher

education student teaching tends to be the most significant

in its contributions to the total growth of the teacher" (.9,

p. 49).

Persistent and continual study of criteria should be

made to be aware of existing practices within the secondary .

student teaching programs in Texas. Goodlad stated:

When the education of teachers suffers, the education of children and young people suffers accordingly; the quality of our entire education-al structure is threatened.

Institutions of higher learning are awakening and reawakening to the responsibility for which many were in part created—namely, the education of teachers (10, p. 192).

Student teachers likewise recognize the importance of

their student teaching experience. Roth (26) reported that

student teachers rated this experience as the most important

part of their teacher education. Stiles substantiated this

contention with this statement:

Student teaching is generally regarded as an indispensable aspect of progress of pre-service teacher education. . . . In selecting members for their teaching staffs, school super-intendents attach considerable importance to the nature and quality of the beginning teacher's record in student teaching. Teachers are prac-tically unanimous in the opinion that student teaching was the most valuable experience in their pre-service education program (29, p. 260).

The college supervisor is an all-important link in the

education of this prospective teacher, for it is the college

supervisor who brings together the theory of the classroom

with the actual work experience in the field during student

teaching. Stratemeyer recognized the central role of the

college supervisor in the education of teachers—a role

which recognized that the supervisor

. . . works both with and through other people, singly and in groups. He related to highly skilled professions, to professionals in process of "becoming," and to lay citizens. He acts, not for himself, but for others. His duties require a high degree of self-value, and para-doxically, a high degree of selflessness. His desires and his conveniences can never be fore-most in decision making. He relates, directly, or indirectly, to every phase of teacher prepara-tion and to every aspect of instruction and administration. He is unique in having both experiences and values relating to the two insti-tutions, the college and the public school, which cooperate to prepare teachers (30, p. 49).

The college supervisor's principal objective is the

professional growth of the student teacher. He has a

specific role in the guidance of these student teachers and

must carry out specific functions in the performance of that

role. However, the role of the college supervispr is not

clear. There appear to be varying role expectations for the

college supervisor by the individuals he or she comes into

contact with. Aside from definite if diverse expectations

in many instances, there appears to exist an indefinite or

confused picture of what is expected of the college super-

visor.

If the college supervisor and the people with whom he

interacts in a professional capacity are to work together

effectively they should have a realization of the expecta-

tions each holds for the other. Rodgers stated it thusly:

"Success in social roles has been found to correlate

with the ability of the role taker (actor) to predict

correctly the expectations (role demands) of the role

definer" (25, p. 300). This alone, however, is not sufficient

The college supervisor must also know not only the roles and

status of others, but of himself. When these roles become

clear and evident to parties in contact with each other, then

each knows better how to •behave and what may be expected

from the other.

Therefore, in order to understand the significance of

the college supervisor's guidance in the growth of the stu-

dent teacher, it is necessary to determine the role which he

plays and the practices and functions which he performs in

the student teaching program.

Statement of the Problem

The problem of this study was to determine the status

and practices of supervisors of secondary student teachers

in Texas colleges and universities and to compare these

practices with those practices recommended by national

authorities in the field of student teaching. The purposes

of this study were

1. to compare the practices reported by supervisors in

schools of education with practices reported by supervisors

in schools other than schools of education,

2. to compare the practices reported by supervisors of

all-day student teachers with practices reported by super-

visors of part-time student, teachers,

3. to compare the practices reported by general super-

visors with practices reported by special supervisors,

4. to compare the practices reported by supervisors of

state colleges with practices reported by supervisors of

private institutions,

5. to provide data that may be useful in moving toward

a more consistent approach to supervision and therefore an

improvement in the teacher education programs of this state,

6. to make such recommendations relative to the super-

vision of student teaching in Texas as may be warranted from

an interpretation of the data.

Hypotheses

This study was designed to test the following hypotheses:

I. There will be no significant differences between

the practices reported by college and university supervisors

in Texas and practices recommended by national authorities

of supervision in teacher education.

II. There will be no significant differences between

the practices reported by supervisors in schools of education

and practices reported by supervisors in schools other than

schools of education.

III. There will be no significant differences between

the practices reported by supervisors of all-day student

teachers and practices reported by supervisors of part-time

student teachers.

IV. There will be no significant differences between

the practices reported by general supervisors and practices

reported by special supervisors.

V. There will be no significant differences between

the practices reported by- supervisors of state colleges and

practices reported by supervisors of private institutions.

Background and Significance of the Study

The value of student teaching began to be realized by

the secondary schools during the period after the War

Between the States. A few colleges and universities began

to introduce laboratory schools on their campuses. Soon,

however, the great expense of these schools, the need for a

more extensive program of student teaching, and the demand

for more typical teaching situations caused the colleges and

universities to turn to the public schools for practice

teaching.

This increase in the use of off-campus schools for

student teaching created the need for a much more extensive

supervisory service and made the work of the college super-

visor assume increased importance. However, people who were

interested in and who were qualified for the assignment

were not readily available or experienced in the duties

that were to be assumed in this area. Lindsey summarized

the prospects in this way:

There is a serious shortage of college teachers who are sufficiently interested in the teacher education program. A serious

shortage is to be found also in persons with special interest and education in guiding stu-dent teachers. Since a desirable program calls for continuous guidance of students, and such guidance demands staff time, there is the prob-lem of financing student teaching programs and the problem increases as one looks ahead (18, pp. 50-51).

Add to these problems the problem of a lack of a

clarified role for the college supervisor, and one can

readily see that the position needs investigation. Price

stated: "It is hoped that numerous studies will be con-

ducted to elucidate some of the present practices carried on

in student teaching programs" (23, p. 475).

The nebulous nature of the college supervisor's role was

emphasized in a recent Association for Student Teaching Year-

book:

Turning to college supervisors from other colleges and universities in an effort to find common roles, possible solutions to problems, or a basis for research is frustrating when the variety found defies generalization. Variety in itself is not necessarily undesirable. When it exists as a result of confusion, uncertainty, and lack of knowledge, professional knowledge is demanded. If standardization, on the other hand, seems to be the direction to be taken, such a move must be made on the basis of research evidence (14, p. xi).

Inlow has written extensively on the subject of the

college supervisor. He commented on the vagueness of the

college supervisor by stating the following:

In many colleges and universities the super-visor of student teaching is the most underestimated, in fact, almost forgotten member of the department of education. The staff member who has a speciality of curriculum, administration, methods, or research

is accepted by his colleagues as academically respectable. The teacher of such basic courses as educational psychology, orientation to educa-tion, or philosophy of education, also is admitted to the inner circle. These staff members are bolstered by the support of tradition. They teach various aspects of educational theory which for a half-century have dominated teacher education. The writer believes -in the importance of educational theory and philosophy, because without a philosoph-ical rationale the advancement of knowledge is inevitably retarded. By the same logic, however, he believes that theory without application is socially sterile (15, p. 17).

Inlow concluded a survey of the status of the super-

visor and his complex duties with this recommendation:

A job for the future seems to be for each institution to think through the role of the college supervisor once more with one academic eye on the local institution and another on comparative practices. Uniformity of practice is not a goal, per se, but less variability among institutions definitely seems to be in order (14, p. 216).

While much has been written concerning the supervision

of student teachers in toto (3, 12, 20, 24), this literature

has been concerned in the main with the supervision of stu-

dent teaching in the elementary school rather than in the

secondary school and with the supervising teacher rather

than the college supervisor. Further, these studies con-

cerned with the college supervisor in the secondary field

have been limited either to teachers colleges, the liberal-

arts colleges, or to the universities. The studies that

have been reported usually were in the form of short articles

published in periodicals dealing with isolated research

projects and opinion based on experience. Burr (1) concluded

that inadequate research was one reason student teaching was

held in low esteem.

The scanty research done has not been of high quality.

Harris (13) stated that what is currently known is based on

"folk wisdom" and that supervision can attain professional

status only when research has been conducted by supervisors

themselves on their own unique problems.

As stated earlier, research shows an undue amount of

variety existing in the area of supervision of student

teachers. In a national study conducted in 1935 (8), the

one feature in which there was the most significant difference

among teacher-preparation institutions was the provision for

student teaching. A committee of student teaching faculties

of five Illinois teacher colleges conducted a two-year survey

designed to help improve the supervision of student teaching.

Their conclusion stated;

The opinion of the committee, while favor-ing a wide and democratic exercise of freedom and initiative by the supervisor, is that some of the findings show too great a variation among supervisors with regard to certain essential functions (17, p. 531).

Washburn attributed this lack of uniformity in supervisory

practices to the " . . . supervisor's small amount of formal

training, particularly in the field of supervision of stu-

dent teachers" (32, p. 254).

This vagueness of the position of the college supervisor

was criticized by Inlow (15). Inlow saw the college super-

visor as the most underestimated and almost forgotten member

10

of the educational faculty. Lack of concern on the part of

college administrations and the cooperating public schools

has allowed the position of the college supervisor to be

described as what can be done with the numbers given and the

distance to be traveled. - Dickson (4) cautioned against this

laissez faire conception of the role of the college super-

visor. Dickson concluded that this type of approach would

result in insecurity and anxiety on the part of both the

student teacher and the supervising teacher. In order to

understand the significance of the college supervisor's

guidance in the growth of the student teacher, it is neces-

sary to determine the role which he plays and the functions

which he performs in the student-teaching program.

Jensen's study (.16) x*evealed that few persons knew what

the role of the college supervisor was. In summarizing the

recommendations of the Fredonia Workshop in Teacher Education,

Patterson and Curtis (21) concluded that colleges needed to

define the values and purposes of supervision in their

student-teaching programs. Floyd and Eggertson (6), Edward

(5), and Clarke (2) were in agreement that a redefining of the

functions of the supervisor of student teachers was mandatory.

Standermann substantiated this contention when she wrote

that " . . . the college supervisor should be responsible for

more than a nebulous role of undefined association with the

11

student teaching program in cooperating schools and the

college faculty" (28, p. 64).

The findings of a study conducted by Guss (11) for the

Indiana ASCD indicated that improvement in supervision of

student teachers was needed. Individual suggestions for im-

provement included the need for describing more specifically

the role of the college supervisor.

In a doctoral dissertation, Herring (19) reported that

there existed an excessive amount of poor supervision by the

university supervisor. Merring's study was limited to a

random sample of supervisors from the Eastern States. How-

ever, this study was in agreement with a national study

conducted by Troyer and Page (31). They reported that

teachers were critical of the quality of supervision that

was provided them during their student-teaching experience.

Scholl (27) reported that student teachers were dissatisfied

with the college supervisor because of a lack of specific

suggestions the supervisor made concerning improvement of

their teaching skills. Scholl*s subjects expected the super-

visor to be positive in his manner of presenting evaluations.

In summary, the following circumstances reveal the need

for a survey and analysis of supervisory practices in Texas:

1. the increase in the use of off-campus schools for

.student teaching with the need, for more extensive supervisory

services,

2. the importance of the college supervisor as a

12

3. the lack of any study that reveals a clear picture

of the college supervisor in Texas and his supervisory

practices,

4. the anticipated need for more college supervisors

trained for the responsibilities and functions of up-to-date

student-teaching programs.

Definition of Terms

1• College supervisor: a faculty member of the college

or university who directly assists and observes the student

teacher.

Special supervisor: a college supervisor who super-

vises student teachers in a special field or in certain

subjects such as education, music, or industrial arts.

3. General supervisor: a college supervisor who super-

vises student teachers regardless of their subject matter

area.

Secondary supervisor: a college supervisor who

supervises student teachers in grades seven through twelve.

Supervising teacher: an experienced teacher .em-

ployed by the local school system as a regular classroom

teacher who also aids in the student-teaching experience.

6. All-day student teaching: a student-teaching

assignment which includes co-curricular activities and

extra-class teacher duties in the school, with major reduc-

tion or cessation of all college classes and activities

during the period.

13

7. Part-time student teaching: a student-teaching

assignment in which the student teacher is assigned to a

period of student teaching for a given number of weeks or

semesters, in addition to a professional course or courses

at the college.

Limitations of the Study

This study was subject to the following limitations.

1. This study was subject to the standing limitations

concomitant to research data collected by normative survey

techniques.

2. This study was concerned only with the supervision

of student teaching on the secondary level in Texas colleges

and universities.

3. This study was concerned only with certain super-

visory practices employed. No attempt was made to study the

philosophy or organization of the teacher education programs

as a whole in the schools represented in this study.

4. This study recognized that there was a difference

between the supervisors who responded to the questionnaire

and those supervisors who did not respond to the question-

naire.

Basic Assumptions

The following assumptions were basic to this study.

1. In answering the questionnaire, the respondents

checking the extent of participation in the practice would

14

check the maximum amount of participation they provided at

any one time.

2. The practices reported by the supervisors were sub-

ject to change as the environmental climate surrounding each

respondent changed.

Procedures for Collecting Data

Since no instrument was available to measure various

supervisory practices, the first step in collecting the data

was the construction of a questionnaire. A careful and

systematic review of the literature of current books and

periodicals that pertained to supervision led finally to a

form approved by the writer's research committee.

Stratemeyer1s (58) guidelines were used as criteria in the

early pursuit of the questionnaire construction.

A five-point rating scale was used, ranging from

"Always" to "Very Seldom." If the respondent did what the

practice stated, he checked "Yes" and then circled the appro-

priate number on the continuum which indicated the extent to

which he participated in the practice. If he did not partici-

pate in the practice, he checked "No" and proceeded to the

next statement. More open-ended questions were U3ed to re-

inforce the statements that were tested statistically.

Responses to these questions were then computed in per-

centages for comparative purposes. The questionnaire (see

Appendix A) was administered to state presidents of The

15

Association for Student Teaching and college supervisors of

secondary student teachers in Texas.

The second step was the selection of a panel of twelve

judges for testing the validity of the items to be included

in the questionnaire. The panel was determined by a random-

sampling selection of all state presidents of The Association

for Student Teaching. The questionnaire with an accompany-

ing letter (see Appendix B) was mailed to each of the twelve

judges. They were requested to respond to the questionnaire

by indicating whether they thought each item was valid for

use in the study by checking the appropriate response.

Agreement among 7 of the 12 judges was the criterion for

retaining an item in the questionnaire. Nine of the original

108 items in the questionnaire were eliminated because of

inadequate judge support. No new items were added.

After validity had been established, a reliability study

of the questionnaire was conducted by a test-retest method.

The questionnaire was submitted twice to thirty-one college

supervisors, with an interval of three weeks between admin-

istrations . The respondents were asked to indicate the

extent to which they participated in each practice in the

supervision of their student teachers. A coefficient of

reliability of .93 was computed on the two responses of the

thirty-one college supervisors.. No items were deleted or

added.

16

After validity had been established, the subjects for

the study were contacted by mail. There are fifty-three

colleges and universities in Texas that have teacher educa-

tion programs. Letters (see Appendices C and D) were sent

to each director of stude-nt teaching, requesting the names

and departmental assignments of each faculty member in his

college or university who supervised secondary student

teachers. Responses were received from forty-nine of these

colleges and universities.

Upon receiving a list from a college or university, a

copy of the questionnaire with an accompanying letter (see

Appendix E) was sent to each college supervisor. The re-

spondents were asked to respond to each question on the

questionnaire. The first mailing of these questionnaires

went out to all supervisors on the eighth of April. On the

twenty-third of April responses had been received from 71

per cent of the supervisors. Follow-up letters (see Appendix

F) with identical questionnaires were mailed on the twenty-

sixth of April to those supervisors who had not previously

responded. Final computation revealed that 91 per cent of

the supervisors in the state had responded to the question-

naire „

Each state president of The Association for Student

Teaching who did not participate in the validity study served

as a judge on the panel of experts. The questionnaire with

an accompanying letter (see Appendix G) was mailed to

17

thirty-eight of these experts. These experts were asked to

respond to each item of the questionnaire by indicating the

extent of participation the college supervisor should place

on each practice- Follow-up letters were sent until thirty-

three of the panel of experts had responded.

Procedure for Treating Data

The tenability of the hypotheses was determined by

using the Fisher t to test the significance of difference

between the means obtained for each item in the questionnaire.

This statistical technique was most appropriate for this

study since only two groups at any one time were to be com-

pared. Fisher's t also satisfied the limitation of unequal

subject numbers.

Fifty-one t tests were computed for each of 5 hypotheses,

totaling 255 t's. The .05 level of significance was required

for the acceptance or rejection of each t test. The hy-

potheses were accepted or rejected on the basis of the

number of items with t~ratios which were significant at the

.05 level of confidence. A majority (26) of the total' items

(51) must have had significant t-ratios for the rejection of

a hypothesis. A majority (26) of the total items (51) must

have had nonsignificant t~ratios for the acceptance of a

hypothesis. The more open-ended questions were computed

into percentages, and comparisons were made between the

responses of the college supervisors and responses of the

18

The computation of the problems was completed at the

Computer Center, North Texas State University.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Burr, James B., L. W. Harding, and L. B. Jacobs, Student Teaching in the Elementary School, New York, Appleton-Centur-y-Crofts, 1958.

2. Clarke, C. M., editor, Teacher Education and the Public Schools, Fortieth Yearbook, Cedar Falls, Iowa, Association for Student Teaching, 1961.

3. Curtis, Dwight K. and L. 0. Andrews, Guiding Your Stu-dent Teacher, New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.

4. Dickson, George E., "The Crux of an Effective Off-Campus Student-Teaching Program," Educational Administra-tion and Supervision, XXXIX (March, 1953), 139-146.

5. Edwards, Helen E., "The Role and Functions of the College Supervisor of Student Teaching in Secondary Educa-tion," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1957.

6. Floyd, Oliver R. and Claude Eggertson, "The Supervisor as a Counselor of Student Teachers," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIV (January, 1938), 69-73.

7* Forty-Fourth Biennial Report, 1964-1966, Bulletin 667, Austin, Texas, Texas Education Agency, 1967.

8. Foster, Frank K., The Training School in the Education of Teachers, National Survey of the Study of Edu-cation, Washington, D.C., Office of Education, 1935.

9. Flennon, Vincent J., "The Administration of Programs of Off-Campus Student Teaching," Off-Campus Student Teachers, Thirtieth Yearbook, Cedar Falls, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1951.

10. Goodlad, John I., "Teacher Training: Role in Various Types of Institutions," Current Issues in Higher Education (1956), pp. 19TFT7F:

11. Guss, Carolyn, "How Is Supervision Perceived?" Educa-tional Leadership, XIX (November, 1961), 99-102.

19

20

12. Hanke, Dale, "A Study of the Role of the Supervisor of Secondary Education in Off Campus Student Teach-ing," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1962.

13. Harris, Ben M., "Need for Research on Instructional Aupervision," Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 129-135.

14. Inlow, Gail M., "The College Supervisor of Student Teaching—A Comparative Study," Journal of Teacher Education, X {October, 1959), 211-216.

15. , "The Complex Role of the College Super-visor," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXV (January, 1956), 1~0-17.

16. Jensen, Winifred, "Human Relations During the Initial Period of Off-Campus Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1953.

• 17. Lawson, Douglas W. , "Implications of a Survey of Teacher Training Practices in Illinois," Educational Ad-ministration and Supervision, XXV "(October, 1939) , 523-531.

18. Lindsey, Margaret, "Looking Ahead in the Student Train-ing Program," Teachers College Journal, XXIX (December, 1949) , 50-51.

19. Merring, Morton J., "The Nature of the Supervision of Student Teaching," Dissertation Abstracts, XVI (1956), 291.

20. Michaelis, John U., "Supervision," Journal of Educational Research, XXII (1959), 1477-1480.'

21. Patterson, Allen D. and Dwight K. Curtis, "The Fredonia Workshop in Teacher Education," Education, LII (January, 1952), 349-354. ~

22. Pfeiffer, Robert T., editor, The College Supervisor: Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teach-ing, 1964.

23. Price, Robert D., "The Influence of Supervising Teachers," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (December, 1961), 475-478.

21

24. Ritchie, Charles C., "The Selection and Scaling of an . Instrument in the Evaluation of Supervision," un-published doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, 1963.

25. Rodgers, David A., "Spontaneity and Specificity in Social Role Relationship," Social Education, XXVII (September, 1959), 298-302.

26. Roth, Lois H., "Selecting Supervisory Teachers," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (December, 1961), 476-478.

27. Scholl, Robert Lee, "Secondary Student Teachers Per-ceptions of Effective and Ineffective Supervisory Behavior of the College Supervisor," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966), 3764-A.

28. Staunderraann, Helen E. , "The College Supervisor in a State-Supported Institution in a Metropolitan Area," The College Supervisor; Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1964.

29. Stiles, Lindley J., Teacher Education in the United States, New York, The Roland Press Company, 1960.

30. Stratemeyer, Florence B., "The College Supervisor; Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1964.

31. Troyer, Maurice E. and Robert Page, Evaluation in Teacher Education, Commission on Teacher Education, Washington, D.C., American Council on Education, 1944.

32. Washburn, Courtland Lee, "The College Supervisory Staff in Secondary Student Teaching Programs," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1950.

CHAPTER II

A REVIEW OF' THE LITERATURE

This review of related literature is concerned with the

following:

1. research related to the development of the position

and the status of the college supervisor,

2. research related to the practices performed by the

college supervisor.

Research literature concerning the supervision of stu-

dent teaching has increased in volume during recent years.

A relatively large amount of this research, however, concerns

the supervising teacher and the supervision of elementary

student teachers. Consequently, the literature reviewed in

this study has been limited to a review of the research re-

lated to the status and practices of the supervisor of

secondary education student teachers.

Development of the Position

The development of the position of college supervisor

of student teaching came about when full-time student teach-

ing and the organization of off-campus teaching centers

became necessary. Formerly, short periods of directed

teaching and observation were conducted in campus laboratory

schools. The development of off-campus student teaching

22

23

amplified the importance of the position of the college

supervisor. His position is closely related to the student

teacher's success. In regard to the importance of the

development of desirable traits within the personality of

the beginning teacher, Charters wrote: " . . . the supervisor

of student teaching is most fortunately situated to perform

this excellent service of trait development, and any super-

visor who fails . . . is guilty of dereliction of duty" (15,

p. 343).

In the development of the college supervisor's position,

very little emphasis was. given to it in the beginning, and

the duties of supervision were added to the assignment that

the college professor already had. Such were the findings

of an early survey by Strebel (60). Later investigations

and consideration by colleges and universities began to

establish the position of the college supervisor as one of

importance and worthy of rank.

However, as mentioned previously, Lindsey (43) related

that there existed a shortage of personnel qualified to fill

the position of a college supervisor. Along with this numeri-

cal shortage, there also existed, according to Schorling, a

lack of scientifically-oriented personnel to supervise

student teachers.

Though student teaching is the crux of teacher education, men possessing scientific competence have seldom given this problem their serious attention. We do not have, in the de-signing of programs of student teaching, a Dewey, a Thorndike, or a Terman (53, p. 7) .

24

Andrews admitted that "the rapid turnover and limited

competence of college people who work in the public school

is all too well known" (3, p, 125). Andrews feared that few

of the newly assigned supervisors had even the sketchiest

orientation about their n'ew positions.

The Status of the College Supervisor

Despite the relatively recent development of the position

of the college supervisor, some studies have been conducted

which give insight into personal data, professional prepara-

tion, and the present position of the college supervisor.

Inlow (35) attempted to determine the extent of similar-

ity and variability in the position of the college supervisor

which existed in selected Midwestern colleges and universities,

Fifty-seven institutions that were members of The Association

for Student Teaching were surveyed. Inlow's findings showed

that the mean number of years of full-time teaching was 8.75

years for supervisors in secondary education. Eighty-three

per cent of Inlow's subjects were male. His findings showed

that the college supervisor was definitely not a "job-hopper."

Haggerty and Works (29) found the average number of

years of teaching experience of faculty members of univer-

sities and colleges accredited by the North Central Associa-

tion of Colleges and Secondary Schools to be 13.37 years.

The National Survey of the Education of Teachers (49)

showed the median number of years of teaching experience of

25

faculty members in state universities to be 14.2 years, and

the median to be 15.8 years in state teachers colleges and

normal schools.

Washburn (64) used the normative survey technique to

determine the professional background of college directors

of teacher education programs and supervisors of student

teaching. A questionnaire was sent to directors of student

teaching in 175 teacher education institutions throughout

the United States. Enclosed with the questionnaire sent to

the director were three similar questionnaires which the

director was asked to distribute to three college supervisors

in the institution. When the replies from both the directors

and supervisors were combined, Washburn had received a 63

per cent return. Washburn sent a check list to ten directors

of student teaching in representative institutions. These

ten directors were asked to serve as a jury in expressing

their professional opinion as to the best policy and practice

in each area of his study. The results of his study indi-

cated that the mean number of years of experience was some-

what below the average reported by The National Survey of the

Education of Teachers.

If student teaching is to be considered of major impor-

tance, the supervisors in the program should have academic

.rank equal to that of other faculty members.

Henderson (32) made an important study of the organiza-

tion and administration of student teaching in state teachers

26

colleges in 1934. This study surveyed practices with refer-

ence to the organization and administration of student

teaching. It evaluated these procedures in the light of

theory and practice and offered suggestions thought to be of

value to administrative officials in teacher training insti-

tutions. One section of the study was on the supervision of

student teaching. Henderson developed three questionnaires

to aid him in securing his data. These questionnaires were

sent to directors of training schools, college supervisors,

and student teachers. The practicability of the questionnaires

was tested by means of visits to four state teachers colleges.

At each of these institutions the questionnaires were filled

out during the course of conferences with the director of

each training school and with each college supervisor".

Necessary revisions were made in the questionnaires before

they were sent to the forty-one schools used in the study.

One of Henderson's recommendations was that "the supervisory

members should be full members of the college faculty. No

distinctions should be made in qualifications, rank, or pay"

(32, p. 114).

While degrees held by supervisors are not indices of

the value and quality of the work done, nevertheless, they

give an easy criterion for judging the training of a super-

visor. The faculty members in a study by Schorling over-

whelmingly agreed that the supervisor of student teachers

27

" . . . should command a fine scholarship in the area and he

should have adequate training in professional education" (53,

p. 8) .

A study of major importance in the supervision of stu-

dent teaching on the secondary level was made by Strebel (60)

in 1934. He studied all aspects of student teaching in uni-

versities using cooperating public high schools and included

the work of the college supervisor along with that of the

supervising teacher. The study design was very similar to

that used by Henderson. Data were collected by use of three

different questionnaires: one designed for the college super-

visor, another for the student teacher, and the third for

the directors of student teaching in the institutions studied.

Ninety-three universities listed in the United 5 tates Bureau

of Education Directory were asked to cooperate in the study.

This study provided some insight regarding the educational

background of the college supervisor. In comparing academic

preparation of the university supervisors, Strebel found

that it was significantly less than that of the other uni-

versity staff members. Thirty-one per cent of Strebel"s

subjects held doctorates and 44.7 per cent held the master's

degree as their highest degree. This led Strebel to conclude

that possibly the universities assigned as supervisors those

whose education and experience were below standard. His

conclusions also indicated that student teaching had not

28

arrived at the state where it would be on the same profes-

sional footing as other university functions.

Siegal (54) reported on the degrees held by 3,439

faculty members who were listed by The Association of

American Universities. Forty per cent of the faculty members

in this study had earned the doctorate, and the highest

degree earned by 4 3.5 per cent was the master's degree. At

the doctoral level, the supervisors in Washburn's (64)

study did not compare favorably with other faculty members,

the percentage)holding the doctor's degree being almost 10

per cent lower. In Washburn's study, only in the liberal

arts colleges was the academic training of supervisors above

that of other faculty members, with about the same percentage

having doctoral degrees, but with a much larger percentage

holding the master's degree.

While the trend seems to indicate that the college

supervisor compares favorably with other college faculty

members in relation to academic degree, this does not seem

to be the case when it comes to course preparation. Price

(51) sought to determine current practices of selection and

preparation of college supervisors and supervising teachers.

One major university plus four teacher-training institutions

were selected by a random sample from each state in the

United States. The respondents indicated that only 44 per

cent of the institutions offered a course dealing with the

supervision of student teachers.

preparation other than exper

Twenty-four per cent of

29

Strebel (60) found that 20 per cent of the supervisors

in his study who were identified with the education depart-

ment had no special training in supervision and 86 per cent

of the supervisors identified with subject-matter departments

were without supervisory training. Strebel concluded that

. the general practice was to allocate supervisory

responsibilities to incumbents of the teaching and adminis-

trative staffs without special reference to their supervisory I

•ience" (60, p. 31).

the supervisors in a study con-

ducted by Hanke (31) had no formal training in supervision.

Hanke used the descriptive survey method to ascertain the

nature and status of the college supervisor. A questionnaire

was formulated to determine ihe responsibilities, qualifica-

tions, and the extent of similarity and variability in the

position of the college supervisor. Hanke also conducted

interviews to augment the information secured from the ques-

tionnaire. The author investigated the content of student

teaching handbooks of the institutions involved in his study.

In many instances, the handbooks gave only brief mention to

the college supervisor. All four-year colleges and univer-

sities which were members of the North Central Association

in the states of Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and

Wyoming were surveyed. In all, fifty-five institutions

participated in the study. Responses were received from

180 practicing college supervisors in these 55 institutions.

30

Personal interviews were conducted with fourteen of these

supervisors.

Data were gathered from the questionnaires, personal

interviews, and from a jury of twenty-one experts in student

teaching. The responses by the jury were used as a basis

for determining desirable specificities for college super-

visors of off-campus student teaching and for establishing

their duties and responsibilities. Hanke summarized the

significant points developed from the responses which were

submitted by the jury members.

1. In the matter of individual qualifica-tions of the college supervisor of student teaching, the jury of experts ranked "desirable personal qualities" as the most important; this was followed by "experience" and then by "pro-fessional-course preparation."

2. Consensus indicated that the most de-sired age for the college supervisor was between 36 and 49 although the age factor, in general, was considered of minor value.

3. Personal qualities rated most essential were cooperativeness, courtesy and tact,, and self control.

4. The master's degree was ranked as being essential for the college supervisor and the doctor's degree as being desirable.

5. Courses in supervision and supervision of student teachers were ranked as desirable in the professional preparation of the college supervisors; curriculum, educational psychology, general methods, and professional education of teachers were rated essential.

6. Experience as a classroom teacher in the secondary school was ranked as essential by 95 per cent of the jury members and experience as a principal was ranked desirable by 62 per cent.

7. There was no conclusive trend toward subject-matter or general supervision in the rankings of the jury of experts.

31

8. There was a slight preference indicated by the jury members for having the supervisor to maintain his residence in the area in which the student teachers are placed. (This could be assumed also to include the city in which the college is located.)

9. The jury of experts believed that the college supervisor should concentrate on one educational level—secondary-school student teaching.

10. Observations by the supervisor should be made at least once every two weeks.

11. Conferences following observations were ranked as essential by 81 per cent of the panel members.

12. Previous associations with the student were ranked as desirable.

13. The amount of time spent in supervision by the college-faculty member assigned this re-sponsibility was dependent upon a variety of factors in the total teacher-education program.

14. It was rated essential that college supervisors assume responsibility for developing good relationships with supervising teachers and school administrators.

15. Special duties in the cooperating schools, such as in-service training sessions and workshops, were ranked as desirable by the jury of experts.

16. The panelists suggested that it was essential to have the supervising teacher selected cooperatively by the college supervisor, the director of student teaching, and the school administrator.

17. The suggested maximum number of students to be supervised by one person was 20.

18. The mean maximum distance to cooperat-ing schools was indicated to be 66 miles.

19. The suggested length of time for an observation and conference was one hour, 35 minutes (31, pp. 161-162).

While Hanke's study was similar to the present study,

it did not offer any empirical data or attempt to set

research hypotheses. Only a random sample of supervisors

were contacted. The present study is concerned with all

the supervisors of secondary student teachers in Texas.

32

Hanke was interested in establishing criteria for the selec-

tion and hiring of college supervisors. His study was as

much concerned with this as it was with practices performed

by the college supervisors.

Stiles (56) commited on the preparation of specialists

in student teaching and teacher education in general by

stating:

College administrators who search for directors of student teaching, supervisors of student teaching in subject areas, and for direct-ing (critic) teachers soon become aware that few institutions of higher learning are giving the type of graduate work which will prepare educators for these functions. In desperation, the problem of providing a staff for student-teaching programs is usually solved by selecting people who have by virtue of circumstances gained a little experience in supervision or perhaps as directing teachers. If student teaching is to be improved trained qualified personnel must be provided . (56, p. 17).

Kearns (39) reinforced Stiles' statements when he con-

cluded that " . . . the training and experience of the super-

visory personnel seem to be the most important variable in

improving the quality of supervision" (39, p. 217). Kearns

also concluded that the techniques passed to the student

teacher were largely dependent upon the background of the

college supervisor.

The literature reveals a great amount of variety exist-

ing in the organization of student-teaching programs. Some

writers ostracize the liberal-arts colleges for this undue

variety. Liberal-arts colleges were beginning to see the

necessity of student teaching and especially the development

33

survey. Baugher visited seventeen privately endowed colleges

located in Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia,

and New York. A questionnaire was then sent to 400 selected

colleges. The author made the following general criticism

of their programs:

The professors of education in the liberal arts colleges believe that their work would be greatly improved if there were a special train-ing school on campus or a well worked out plan of affiliation with the public schools of the community, an especially trained personnel in charge as critic teachers, active cooperation Of the other departments of the college, a care-fully selected group of candidates for practice-teaching , and adequate funds to put the work on a businesslike basis instead of a goodwill basis. Practice-teaching is too often a side issue with the college authorities, the cooperating teachers, and the students engaged in it (6, p. 642).

Hanke (31) reported that liberal-arts colleges had been

critical of themselves in regard to the lack of a good plan

for student-teaching experience and active administration of

the plan. Their student-teaching programs were rather

brief and lacked active direction by the college authorities.

It was Hanke's contention that "If they plan to stay in the

area of teacher preparation, these colleges must develop a

more extensive program of student teaching™ (31, p. 14).

Along this same line, Mead recommended: " . . . all institu-

tions preparing teachers take immediate and definite steps

to establish a functional relationship between the cooperat-

ing off-campus school and the college or university" (46,

p. 230).

34

Studies vary in the effectiveness of the general super-

visor and the special-subject-matter supervisor. Strebel

(61) found that 27 per cent of the university supervisors in

his study were identified with subject-matter fields and the

remainder with the field -of education. Strebel felt that a

much greater amount of supervisory responsibility should be

assumed by the subject-matter departments. Washburn's study

(64) revealed that 44 per cent of his subjects were members

of academic departments while 32 per cent were members of

the education department. Twenty-four per cent held joint

membership in both the education department and the academic

departments.

The desirability of such a large proportion of special-

subject supervisors from academic departments being used may

be open to question, although some writers favor the use of

subject-matter specialists as supervisors. Evenden thought

it desirable to

. . . increase the responsibility of the subject-matter teachers for the supervision of practice teaching in their fields. This should include approval of lesson plans, some regular observation of teaching and attendance at conferences between practice-teachers and critics or supervisors (23, p. 17).

Flowers (24) studied the content of student teaching

courses for the training of secondary teachers in state

•teachers colleges. Data were-obtained from directors of

student teaching, supervising teachers, catalogues and

descriptive materials published by the institutions studied,

35

graduate students majoring in the field of teacher training,

interviews with directors of supervises, and personal

visitation of a limited number of institutions. The essential

facts were secured principally by the questionnaire method.

The study included only the state institutions that provided

exclusively academic training. Data from thirty of the

thirty-two states that trained secondary teachers in subjects

of this nature were included in the study. Flowers found

that the development of the student teacher's classroom

skill and technique after he entered responsible teaching

was not shared by those members of the faculty teaching edu-

cation and subject-matter courses. Flowers found that in

only 18 per cent of the cases did subject-matter heads have

limited responsibility in the supervision"of student teach-

ing. He recommended that "all work in supervision should

be carried on cooperatively between subject-matter teachers

and teachers of subjects in education" (24, p. 67).

Henderson, after finding very little supervision being

done by subject-matter teachers, and further, that of those

subject-matter teachers doing supervision, 85 per cent were

teachers of art, music, home economics, or industrial arts,

stated that .

Expert supervision in the teaching of sub-jects in the high school is not likely to be adequately obtained when the subject-matter specialist in the college is not consulted by the student with reference to the selection of subject matter and the organization of that subject matter into teachable units (32, p. 32).

36

Henderson concluded that the methods used by the student

teacher in the classroom were largely those he had learned

in both the subject-matter departments and education depart-

ment, and because of this the subject-matter teachers should

accept part of the responsibility of supervising the student

teachers in the classroom.

Part of the dissertation of Cole (16) was devoted to

the participation of members of college departments in the

function of the training school. Cole found that few college

instructors observed the work of student teachers unless

they were appointed as supervisors by the administration of

the school. Cole, likewise, recommended more participation

by academic departments in the supervision of the student

teacher.

In a study of programs of internship teaching made by

Bishop (8) 30 per cent of fifty-nine colleges and universities

reported that supervisors were from the subject-matter depart-

ments, 73 per cent stated that the supervisors were members

of the faculty of education, and 22 per cent reported that a

special-subject supervisor was sent out when needed.

A jury of thirty-six authorities in the field of educa-

tion, chosen by Bishop (9), gave an opinion on who should

supervise student teachers. Fifteen, or 32 per cent, of the

•jurors thought the representative of the subject-matter

department of the college should; twenty-four, or 67 per cent,

believed the supervisor should be from the department of

37

education. Nineteen, or 52 per cent, of the specialists

thought a special supervisor in mathematics education, social

studies education, etc., should do the supervising, and that

he should be from the department of education.

In 1948 a special subcommittee of the American Associ-

ation of Teachers Colleges (1) reported on a study of student

teaching in the professional education of teachers- The

report included chapters on guiding and evaluating the stu-

dent professional laboratory experiences, which included

student teaching. Although the study was related to the

present one, it was not directly concerned with the college

supervisor. The study did not present empirical data, and

made no attempt to show comparisons between the different

types of supervisors or educational institutions, since the

survey upon which part of the study was based excluded the

liberal arts colleges. The study suggested that both super-

visors from departments of education and supervisors from the

academic disciplines should share the responsibility in the

supervision of the student teacher. This sharing of respon-

sibility was also advocated by Stratemeyer and Lindsey (59),

Corbally (17)r Hahn (30), and Stiles (56). Stiles'recom-

mended that

General and special methods instruction should accompany and be closely correlated with the experience of student teaching. If possible, teachers of special methods courses should be academically and professionally trained, members of both the academic and education departments, and should assist the direction of

38

training in supervising the student teaching program in the courses for which they teach special methods (56, p. 430).

It was of interest that no studies were investigated

that recommended sole supervision of the student teacher by

faculty members of the education department.

The literature revealed no general agreement as to the

desirability of subject-matter or general supervisors.

Probably this is well, as both have a definite function to

perform: one to help in the particular skills of the sub-

ject matter and the other to aid in developing classroom

skills and techniques. The most desirable compromise would

appear to be the use of supervisors holding joint appoint-

ments in both the subject-matter fields and the department

of education, with the necessary skill and training to be

able to perform both functions.

The trend in recent years has been for the college and

university to use the public schools more and more for the

student-teaching experience. However, review of the early

studies in the literature showed no particular trend in the

type of school in which student teaching occurred. Jarman

C38) found 59 per cent of forty-nine universities using

public schools altogether for laboratory facilities on the

secondary level. Brink (12) stated that the public schools

.were used either exclusively or in part by 91 per cent of

fifty-five universities in his study. Blyer (10) made a

study of student teaching in The American Association of

39

Teachers Colleges and found 70 per cent using city schools.

Forty-seven per cent of seventeen institutions preparing

teachers for secondary education used public schools exclu-

sively, and 82 per cent used them in part according to

Campbell (14) in his 194 8 study. In the same year Grim (28)

reported that only one of the forty-nine institutions he

studied used the campus school altogether, the rest using off-

campus schools, largely public, with some off-campus labora-

tory schools. Grim found the combination of the off-campus

laboratory school and the public schools used most frequently.

In connection with the type of school used comes this

question: Are colleges and universities providing a full-

day student-teaching experience? And, if so, is this more

beneficial than the one-hour-per-day assignment?

Andrews (2) reported that 50 per cent of the colleges

in his study made full-day student-teaching assignments,

about 40 per cent were using a half day as a minimum, and

only 10 per cent were still using the one-hour-a-day assign-

ment.

A reference to this one-hour-a-day schedule was made by

McGeoch (44). This type of assignment was described as

being impossible. McGeoch concluded that the student teacher

could not become acquainted with the real activities of a

school during such an abbreviated time and that this student

could not achieve the purposes which were expected for stu-

dent teaching.

40

Stoner's study (57) also reported the inadequacy of a

student-teaching program of less than a full day,

In summary, one can readily see the disagreement that

exists in relation to the status of the college supervisor.

It was from this literature that the writer developed his

research hypotheses.

Essential Practices of the College Supervisor

As stated in the introduction, research shows an undue

amount of variety existing in the area of supervision of

student teachers. In a national study conducted in 1935

(25), the one feature in which there was the most significant

difference among teacher-preparation institutions was the

provision for student teaching. A committee of student-

teaching faculties of five Illinois teacher colleges con-

ducted a two-year survey designed to help improve the super-

vision of student teaching. Their conclusion stated that

The opinion of the committee, while favor-ing a wide and democratic exercise of freedom and initiative by the supervisor, is that some of the findings show too great a variation among supervisors with regard to certain essential functions (40, p. 531).

This section of the chapter will report research that

has been conducted concerning the induction and orientati.on

of the student teacher, classroom visitations by the college

supervisor, student teacher-college supervisor conferences,

and the evaluation of the student teacher.

41

Induction and Orientation

Because of - increasing enrollments in student teaching,

most universities fail to provide their student teachers

with sufficient background information and material that

relates to the student-teaching experience. The literature

indicates also that little cooperation exists between the

college and the cooperating school system in coordinating

the student-teaching program.

The directors and supervising teachers of the training

schools studied by Henderson (32) agreed that more coopera-

tion was needed between the training school and the college

and that this lack of cooperation was largely the fault of

the college. Henderson suggested that "the training school

staff, especially the training supervisors, should consti-

tute an integral working part of all curricular committees

and of other committees that have to do with policies of

student teaching" (32, p. 94).

The data gathered by Strebel (60) showed little coordina-

tion between the college and the laboratory school. He sug-

gested that a fundamental philosophy of supervision be

developed with an understanding of a core of basic aims of

education and teaching to serve as a guide to the student

teacher and the supervisory staff. The report on school and

community laboratory experiences in teacher education by the

American Association of Teachers Colleges (1) showed that

only 18 per cent of 157 institutions had as uniform

42

pertinent to student teaching by college and laboratory

teachers. It was found that college teachers outside the

department of education took little part in the planning of

professional laboratory experiences. The report stated that

there was a lack of coordination between college and labora-

tory teachers in the guidance of the student teacher.

Stratemeyer suggested that " . . . adequate guidance and

supervision should be provided through the; cooperative efforts

of laboratory and college teachers" (58, p. 17).

The subject of unit planning and daily planning is fre-

quently mentioned in the literature. Streibel (60) found that

large unit planning was apparently not well directed. His

study showed that 20 per cent of the supervisors did not give

help in large unit planning, and he thought this was much too

high a percentage. With regard to daily planning, he found

that 31 per cent of the supervisors did not aid the student

teacher; however, since they are not in such close contact

with the student teacher, Strebel did not think it as impor-

tant that they participate in daily planning.

Henderson found that subject-matter teachers gave little

help in lesson planning, although professional opinion was

in favor of this practice. Henderson stated:

Expert supervision in the teaching of sub-jects in the high school is not likely to be adequately obtained when the subject-matter specialist in the college is not consulted by the student with reference to the selection of subject matter and the organization of that subject matter into teachable units (32, p. 32).

43

Baugher (6) found that student teachers occasionally

taught courses for which they had not had adequate prepara-

tion, and that the person most able to help the student with

his subject matter did nothing to help. When the student

teachers were questionedhe found that not one student

teacher reported that a subject-matter teacher saw his lesson

plan before he used it in the classroom. Baugher concluded

that

The only reason that a student who has not had teaching experience can be asked to take practice teaching is the fact that more scien-tific and carefully planned methods for teaching the lesson will be followed. This planning can come only through expert supervision in lesson planning and in the organization of materials (.6, p. 96) .

Good rapport between the college supervisor and the

student teacher must certainly exist for a satisfactory

student teaching experience to occur. This rapport must

begin before the student teacher enters his classroom for

the first time. The importance of this relationship is

emphasized in the following statement;

In the area of professional laboratory experiences for prospective teachers . . . students must have knowledge and understanding of the persons with whom they work, as a sound basis for good relationships. It is only where good human relationships prevail that student and staff members can work effectively toward raising and solving problems of deep concern to either party (1, p. 208).

This report suggested that if the guiding staff member (the

college supervisor) takes the initiative in sharing information

44

about himself then the student seeking help is more likely

to share like information.

Inlow (35) attempted to determine the role of the

college supervisor of off-campus student teaching. His find-

ings showed that the college supervisor should interpret the

college to the cooperating school, be an intermediary be-

tween the supervising teacher and the student teacher, and

be a skilled interviewer of students prior to student teach-

ing.

Ramey (52) surveyed all directors, college supervisors,

secondary student teachers, and public school cooperating

teachers connected with six state teachers colleges in Texas.

The primary objective of the survey was to present the

current practices connected with the secondary student-

teaching courses in these schools. The second objective was

to show similarities and differences in present practices.

All college supervisors expected their student teachers to

attend professional meetings. Ninety-three per cent expected

their student teachers to make self evaluations, write

teaching-learning units, and prepare daily lesson plans.

Only 76 per cent of the cooperating teachers expected self

evaluations to be made. Actually making such self evalua-

tions was reported by 73 per cent of the student teachers.

Consequently, some difference was shown in what was

expected and what was actually accomplished. Differences

also existed between expectations of collecre suoervisnrc;

45

cooperating teachers in the areas of attendance at profes-

sional meetings and the preparation of daily lesson plans.

These apparent variances between the cooperating teachers

and the college supervisor led Ramey to conclude that greater

attention should be directed toward the planning of the stu-

dent teaching program. She also suggested that more consider-

ation should be given to the organizing and structuring of

the student teaching program. As a result of the study the

following recommendations were proposed:

1. Each institution should have more professional meetings and planning sessions in order to eliminate the apparent lack of consistency within each college and within the several colleges.

2. Intensive studies should be made concerning the preparation and admission practices of persons into the program of student teaching.

3. Thorough studies should be made to evaluate and compare programs of studemt teaching.

4. Extensive studies should be made concerning preparation, qualifications, and background of personnel involved in the stu-dent teaching program (52, p. 54).

Freeman (26) sought to determine factors which college

supervisors and student teachers found to be significant in

improving personal and professional relationships. The

Critical Incident Technique was employed to determine the

specific factors involved. Thirteen institutions in Texas,

Louisiana, and Arkansas were used as the sample. His find-

ings showed that clearly defined roles reduced friction

and misunderstanding, previous opportunities to become

46

acquainted made rapport easier, and experience outside the

classroom sometimes proved more effective than classroom

instruction.

By using the same Critical Incident Technique, Elkin

(22) was able to show that a major difference in perception

existed between the college supervisor and the student

teacher. The college supervisor saw his job largely in terms

of the mechanics of inducting the student teacher into the

teaching role, and the student teacher saw the college super-

visor's role as one of an evaluator and a guide.

Crouse (18) planned his study to determine the degree

of agreement or disagreement regarding the role expectations

held for the supervising teacher by student teachers, super-

vising teachers, and university supervisors. The Brown Value

Index and Task Inventory was given to fifty-eight student

teachers in Wisconsin. Different role expectations of the

supervising teacher were found within and between the student

teacher, cooperating teacher, and university supervisor

groups.

Bowers and Scofield (11) attempted to evaluate the

supervision of student teachers at San Jose State College.

A questionnaire was designed so that an inventory of atti-

tudes which students held regarding supervision of their

student teaching could be made. Students also were asked

to rate items regarding the help received or needed. Sig-

nificant differences were found to exist between the college

47

supervisors and the supervising teacher, with the supervising

teacher receiving higher ratings. The student teachers

indicated that more help was needed from both their college

supervisors and their supervising teachers.

The literature clearly shows the importance of this in-

duction period to the student teacher. Edwards stated it

thusly:

In order that the student teacher enter the directed-teaching experience under the best possible circumstances, there should be a mutual understanding by cooperating-school personnel and the teacher-preparing institution of the objec-tives of the experience. To obtain understanding, it is important that there be opportunities for developing common purposes and for establishing cooperative working relationships before the student enters the classroom as a prospective teacher. [My emphasis.] There are various means by which rapport can be built among those most directly concerned with the student-teaching experience. Activities might include: conference of those intimately working with the student teacher; occasions provided by the teacher-preparing institution at which cooperating personnel, stu-dent teachers, and the college supervisory group can become better acquainted; the use of written material on the program and the objectives of stu-dent teaching; workshops, meetings, or college courses for cooperating teachers, talks by college supervisors to PTA groups or to school personnel; the gathering of information by the college super-visor and the cooperating teacher; and visits by the college supervisor to the cooperating school (21, p. 190).

Classroom Visitations

A popular conception of the literature is that some

measure of the effectiveness of the performance of the

college supervisor can be gained by knowing the number of

48

observations and conferences he had with his student

teachers.

Bennie (7) attempted to ascertain the reactions of

cooperating teachers at The University of Texas to certain

aspects of campus supervision. At the end of the fall

semester, 1963, a questionnaire was sent to 305 cooperating

teachers who had student teachers assigned to them during

that semester. These cooperating teachers felt that college

supervisors should visit at least once a week. Frequency of

contacts was found to account for the high value placed on

campus supervision.

Frederick and Halter (27) submitted a question blank to

119 seniors completing their practice teaching, 17 members

of a college class in supervision, and to 12 college super-

visors. The majority of the college class and college

supervisors felt that the supervisor should make two visits

per week to the classroom. The student teachers felt that

less frequent visits were desirable. In attempting to

answer the question, "Do differences exist between super-

visors and student teachers regarding supervisory techniques?"

the authors found that there was disagreement in the number

of visits desired.

Edmund and Hemink (20) used a questionnaire to determine

what supervisory practices were most helpful to student

teachers. Fifty-two per cent of the respondents in this

study indicated that they derived benefit from frank and

49

honest criticism, but felt a need for more frequent observa-

tions and more time spent in conferences with the supervisor,

Morris (48) recommended that more uniformity in the

standards, requirements, and arrangements for student teach-

ing be practiced. He concluded that more visits should be

made by the college supervisor and that more time be set

aside for subsequent conferences.

Thirty-one institutions participated in Merring's (47)

nationwide study. Questionnaires were sent to student

teachers, supervising teachers, and college supervisors in

the participating institutions. Merring surveyed current

supervisory practices and evaluated these practices in terms

of supervisory principles established in the literature. He

was highly critical of the supervision performed by the

college supervisor and recommended that college supervisors

observe the student teacher more. He concluded that super-

vision could be improved through cooperative efforts by the

university staff and public school personnel.

The number of visits made by the university supervisors

in Strebel's (60) study varied from one to sixty-four with

a median of six. Strebel thought this number to be inade-

quate. Jacque (37) reported that the supervisors in the

liberal arts colleges in her study visited the student

teacher on the average of one to two times a term. In

Bishop's (8) study of internship teaching, the number of

visits ranged from four times a week to once a quarter or

50

once a semester. Bishop found that the student teacher was

generally visited about once every two weeks by the super-

visor.

Barr and Burton (5) stated that there could be no

generalization made as to the optimum number of visits a

supervisor should make. Strebel (60) recommended that the

supervisor visit the student teacher at least once a week.

The jury in Bishop's (8) study was divided as to the optimum

number of visits; some members recommended a visit only once

each semester or quarter; however, one visit each month was

most frequently mentioned.

The jurors in Washburn's (64) study were asked to state

how many observations of the student teacher should be made

by the supervisor. The responses varied from three to ten

per quarter with a median of six, and from two to nine per

semester with a median of six, also. Those indicating the

fewer number of visits generally added that they were to be

considered a minimum.

Most writers agree that the supervisor should take the

entire period for an observation. Strebel's (60) jury

indicated that the majority favored using the entire class

period. Likewise, Barr and Burton (5) preferred that the

supervisor see a whole recitation at a time before making

important judgments. The jury of Washburn's (64) study was

unanimously of the opinion that the supervisor should always

take the entire period for an observation of the student

teacher.

51

Most college supervisors look, for basically the same

traits or competencies when observing the student teacher.

The differences that do exist seem to be the categorical

classifications of the traits. Burr, Harding and Jacobs (13)

were somewhat specific in suggesting the procedures to be

followed in the observation of teaching situations.

To get a comprehensive view of the teaching of others, for comparison with your own behavior, pay particular attention to the following:

1. The classroom manner of the teacher: voice, gestures, facial expressions, movement about the room.

2. The characteristic oral expression: variety or repetition of attention-getting phrases; tone of comments, implying approval or disapproval; timing of appropriate comments.

3. The planning with the children: pur-pose of plans, types of plans, how developed, and so on.

4. The method used in working with children, such as questions, discussion, demonstration, and group work.

5. The procedures in appraisal: evaluation periods, records of work, informal tests, stan-dardized tests.

6. The teacher's role outside the class-room, such as in the auditorium, on the play-ground, and in the lunchroom.

7. The provisions made for individual differences among children.

8. The uses of a variety of learning materials.

9. Evidences of working toward clearly defined goals (13, p. 35).

Henderson (33) attempted to find a solution for the

major problem of providing for the college supervisor suf-

ficient information about the student teacher. Henderson

developed and tested a double-entry log. In using the log,

the supervising teacher would observe the student teach an

activity and then comment in the log about the activity; the

52

student teacher would read the comments, and, while the

supervising teacher is working with the pupils, react to the

written comments. Thus the double entry log consists of a

series of descriptions of and reactions to the actual teach-

ing of the student, rather than a collection of recalled

events made at the end of the school day.

Student Teacher-College Supervisor Conferences

It should be evident that supervision without the use

of conferences is of limited value. It is through the con-

ference that the problems of the student teacher, as he

perceives them and as those more experienced in the teaching

profession recognize them, can be resolved and suggestions

made for improvement. Leggitt stated that

The conference as supervision is a funda-mental technique of assisting the student to achieve immediate-remote adjustments. As such, it is performed by specialists known as super-visors. But it is also performed by everyone who maintains effective personal relationships with an individual, sometimes by direct infor-mation-giving, but more frequently and adequately by those who help to crystallize the student's own thoughts and to find solution to his problems rather than by imposing a standardized solution (42, p. 366).

The importance of the conference as a supervisory device

was emphasized further by Mead.

As soon as supervision begins to function, it is obviously necessary for some form, of transfer of ideas to occur between supervisor and teacher. Mere notes, helpful as they may be, are likely to be of little value. However, the give and take of a conference, a discussion, can do many things not otherwise possible, except

53

in rare cases. The conference, particularly the individual conference, is one of the means of raising teaching above the level of mere practice and above the method of "learning by trial and error" (45, p. 94).

Flowers reported in his study that

The individual -and group conferences . . . are considered of great importance by those directors of training . . . who reported the purpose of the conference held in connection with the course (student teaching). Seme directors state that this activity, if properly conducted, is the most fruitful experience the student has in the progress of the course (24,

p. 30}..

Hoenstine (34) attempted to identify changes in the

thinking of student teachers toward certain factors. He

found that student teachers who had many hours in conference

with the college supervisor made favorable changes in think-

ing , whereas those who had only a few conferences made un-

favorable changes.

Nicklas (50) sought to determine effective and ineffec-

tive techniques relative to the supervision of student

teachers, and the extent to which student teachers agree on

their techniques. Nicklas used The Critical Incident Tech-

nique to collect descriptions of supervisory techniques by

analyzing effective and ineffective incidents of supervisory

aid as reported by supervisors and teachers. The sample

consisted of twenty-eight supervisors and eighty-two student

teachers at The University of Arkansas and forty-two super-

visors at North Texas State University. His findings showed

the private conference as the most popular supervisory device

54

Most writers favor the policy of scheduling regular

conference periods with the student teacher. Mead (46)

secured the judgment of a jury on certain concepts and prin-

ciples involved in the individual conference in the super-

vision of student teaching, and found that 77 per cent of

the judges stated that a definite, regularly scheduled period

was necessary for effective conferences. The jury of

Washburn's (64) study unanimously agreed that the supervisor

should hold conferences with the student teacher on a regular

schedule. After finding that only 13 per cent of the student

teachers included in her study had conferences with the

college supervisor, Henderson (32) recommended that confer-

ences between the student teacher and the college supervisor

should be scheduled at a definite time. Strebel (60) also

recommended regular conference periods.

In addition to regularly scheduled conferences, the

supervisor should have a time schedule flexible enough to

be able to schedule special conferences with the student

teacher whenever necessary. The report of the American

Association of Teachers Colleges emphasized this in the

following statement:

It is imperative that those persons in-volved (in conferences) maintain sufficiently flexible time programs to permit on-the-spot scheduling of conferences and that any content set up in advance be changed or modified con-tinuously to meet better the emerging needs of the students.

To advocate "emerging conferences" and a flexible program does not negate the desir-ability of a set program of conferences with

55

individuals or with groups. Opportunities for "on the spot" conferring should be in addition to regularly scheduled and planned-for confer-ences, Setting aside specific times for certain types of conferences when both students and staff members are available decreases the chances that some students might be overlooked because they do not sense their needs . . . (1, p. 207).

While the literature reveals that all consider the con-

ference between the college supervisor and the student

teacher to be of utmost importance, there is disagreement in

the number of conferences necessary. Mead (45) and Flowers

(24) were of the opinion that the more conferences between

supervisor and student teacher, the richer the experience.

Strebel (60), however, was not so definite. He recommended

that conferences should be scheduled according to the needs

of the individual student.

Washburn's study revealed that 85 per cent of the super-

visors held conferences with the student teacher one or more

times per week. His findings agreed with those of previous

studies.

Washburn's (64) findings also revealed that the large

majority of his supervisors attempted to schedule the con-

ference as soon as possible after the observation. However,

opinion differed as to how soon the conference should be

held. Mead found that the jury in his study of concepts and

principles involved in the individual conference in the

supervision of student teaching almost unanimously stated

that ". . . the conference after an observation should be

56

held long enough after to allow both parties to consider and

study the teaching-learning situation preparatory to the

conference" (45, p. 97), However, the jury in Washburn's

study (64) unanimously voted that the supervisor schedule the

conference with the student teacher immediately after the

observation.

Much variety was also found in the length of time neces-

sary for a successful conference. Henderson (32) found that

the length of the conference between the supervisor and stu-

dent teacher varied considerably. Strebel (60) reported that

84 per cent of the university supervisors in his study held

individual conferences that lasted from ten to thirty minutes

and the remainder held conferences that lasted up to sixty

minutes. The data from the university supervisors in

Washburn's (64) study indicated a trend among college super-

visors toward longer individual conferences. On the other

hand, Strebel (60) reported that over 95 per cent of the

university supervisors held group conferences that lasted

more than thirty minutes. In Washburn's study, only 71 per

cent of the university supervisors stated that the group

conference lasted more than thirty minutes. Seventy per cent

of the judges in Mead's (45) study thought the individual

conference with the student teacher should last one hour.

The jury of Washburn's study was asked to state the minimum

time that a conference between the supervisor and student

teacher should last. The responses varied from five to

57

sixty minutes, with a mean of thirty minutes. Washburn's

study indicated that a large proportion of the supervisors,

particularly in the liberal arts colleges, did not conduct

conferences that lasted as long as recommended by the juries

of both Mead's and Washburn's studies.

Van Patter (62) surveyed forty-four state teachers

colleges to evaluate the individual conference as a super-

visory technique. The findings showed that a length of time

devoted to a conference should be from twenty to thirty-five

minutes.

Evaluation of the Student Teacher

The very nature of the student-teaching experience

requires an appraisal of successive performances in relation

to objectives and goals, with the implication that purposes

and procedures are redefined in light of increasing compe-

tencies and growth in teaching.

Most writers in the area of the evaluation of the stu-

dent teacher recommend that more than one person' be responsible

for the evaluation. Learned and Bagley (41) urged a "train-

ing school cabinet" for the evaluation of the student

teacher's work, and recommended that the grade should repre-

sent a composite opinion.

In his study of student teaching in state teachers

colleges, Armentrout (4) made the following statement:

"The ratings of student teachers will be moire reliable if

58

based upon several independent judgements, rather than upon

the judgement of one critic teacher" (4, p. 181).

Mead (46), in his book, Supervised Student Teaching,

stated that

The method of joint judgment would seem to promise a more objective and accurate rating or evaluation of student teaching. If two or three persons, possessed of a common understanding of purposes, processes, and results in teacher preparation, confer—after seeing the same stu-dent teacher at work—each can contribute data needed for final judgment. It seems that this procedure would be more complete than if one person made the judgment (46, p. 472).

Although Mead recommended that the judgment of several

persons be used in the evaluation of the student teacher,

he pointed out that the criticism of this recommendation

would be that one rater may have observed the student

teacher only one or two times, another rater may have observed

the student teacher many times, and another rater may be

basing his judgment on the scholastic ability of the student

teacher.

Strebel (60) found that 18 per cent of the university

supervisors in his study assumed full responsibility for the

evaluation of the student teacher, and 82 per cent shared

this responsibility generally with the supervising teacher.

The data in Washburn's (64) study showed approximately the

same percentages.

Henderson (32) secured the opinion of thirty-one experts

as to the best practices in the evaluation of student

59

teachers. Seventy per cent of the judges were of the opinion

that more than one person should share in the evaluation.

Henderson stated that the evaluation of the student teacher

should be made through the . . composite opinion of the

supervising teacher and a'll others who have anything to do

with the supervision of the student teacher" (32, p. 118).

The jury of experts in Bishop's (8) study of internship

teaching thought the supervisor and supervising teacher the

most important supervisory officers in the evaluation of the

intern. The 194 8 report of the American Association of

Teachers Colleges stated that " . . . evaluation is a contin-

uous process and must be developed cooperatively by all

persons guiding the student" (1, p. 284).

Since the literature seems to indicate that many super-

visors make use of check lists when observing their study

teachers, it would seem logical that they would also use

these check lists when evaluating the student teacher.

Strebel (60), in his 1934 study of university super-

visors, revealed that 5 per cent used pupil performance

tests, 14 per cent used standard rating scales, and 65 per

cent used local rating scales in making the evaluation of

the student teacher. Strebel recommended a greater use of

pupil performance tests.

These objective evaluating devices were criticized by

some writers in the field of evaluation and supported by

others. Douglass (19) stated that the score card, subject

60

to the "halo effect," was undesirable. He felt that it was

impossible to assign weights to the various items on a valid

basis when a satisfactory criterion to test validity was

lacking. He also pointed out that standardized tests seldom

measured the objectives of teaching and placed too much

emphasis on information and subject-matter skills to the

neglect of more important outcomes. Douglass was more

enthusiastic about the use of a detailed check-list for the

purpose of diagnosing teaching procedures and effectiveness.

He concluded that objective devices were important but should

not be relied upon entirely.

Williams reinforced Douglass* contention with this

statement regarding the evaluation of the student teacher.

. . . teaching is difficult to judge and cannot be measured accurately. When a subjective evaluation is broken into many items which represent characteristics of good teaching, the total does not become an objective examination. . . .

Scales, score cards, tests, and similar means that have been developed to meet this problem of evaluation, are most likely to fail when used indiscriminately (66, p. 47).

Williams suggested that each institution develop its own

devices for evaluation. He suggested further that all per-

sons evaluating the student teacher understand the objectives

being sought and also understand the device being used. He

felt that agreement among all teachers was essential, for

some members within the same school may teach and pratice

diverse philosophies and a single rating scheme used by these

faculty members would yield a low correlation. Williams also

61

pointed out that studies had shown little correlation between

the rating of items on a rating scale and success in teach"

ing.

Waddell (63), on the other hand, apparoved of the rating

scale and pointed out the correlations of .52 and .89 that

had been found to exist between estimates made by the use of

rating scales and later teaching success. However, he

stated that the supervisory staff must be trained in the use

of such an instrument. Also, he stated, it should . .be

made in the main in terms of the students1 own growth and

that of her pupils" {63, p. 60).

Regardless of the criticism, rating devices continue to

be used by supervisors in evaluating their student teachers.

Henderson (32) found that about 25 per cent of the schools

in her study used rating cards. Jacque (37) reported that a

majority of the liberal arts colleges in her study used

rating scales and one-third of the colleges used achievement

tests for the pupils. She thought this practice desirable.

The jury in Bishop's (8) study favored the use of rating

scales by the supervisor and supervising teacher. More than

one-half of the schools included in the 1948 report of the

American Association of Teachers Colleges (1) made the

evaluation of the student teacher in the form of a check list

or rating blank.

The supervisor's rating and the rating given by the

supervising teacher have always been considered important in

62

the evaluation of the student teacher. Strebel (60) reported

that 84 per cent of the college supervisors in his study

relied upon their own judgment in making the evaluation of

the student teacher.

The importance of self-analysis as a means of stimulat-

ing the professional growth of the student teacher has become

increasingly accepted. The data on the use of self-evaluation

by the student teacher from the college supervisors in both

Washburn's (64) study and Strebel's (60) study showed that

about 15 per cent of the supervisors never used self-evaluation

by the student teacher while the remaining 85 per cent prac-

ticed it in varying degrees. Mead (46) thought that the

proper organization and supervision of student teaching

would enable the student teacher to evaluate himself

accurately. Williams pointed out the importance of self-

evaluation by the student teacher in the following statement:

Accurate self-evaluation is very difficult. A relationship between supervisor and student teacher that permits the two to cooperate in an honest and frank evaluation of the work of the student teacher is highly desirable. Such ex-perience provides an opportunity for the student teacher to grow in the ability to objectively judge his own work. A desirable attitude toward supervision is also developed (66, p. 46).

The report of The American Association of Teachers

Colleges revealed that self-evaluation was a general practice

.in about one-half the colleges included in the study. The

report recommended that "the student should have an active

6 3

part in recording and evaluating his growth and development"

CI, p. 284).

Much variety does indeed exist in the practices performed

by the college supervisor. Wiggins summarized the three most

important responsibilities and duties of the college super-

visor (directed to the student teacher) in the following

manner:

The first job is that of determining from your student teaching assignment, with informa-tion from you and with the advice and assistance of your school and the particular classroom teacher with whom you will work. Often your personal preference is asked, but you have no assurance that you will be assigned to your first preference.

The second job of your college supervisor is to help you throughout your student teaching work. He will do this in several ways. He will keep himself informed of your work through con-ferences with you, with the school principal, and with the classroom teacher who guides your daily work in the school. In addition he will observe your teaching from time to time. . . . His help will depend upon his views of good supervision, upon the time at his disposal, upon your need for assistance, and upon your ability to use sugges-tions constructively.

The college supervisor's third job is that of evaluating your work, assigning you an offi- -cial grade at the end of your student teaching. He also writes letters of recommendation for you in your efforts to find a teaching position. Thus, before, during, and after your student teaching experience the college supervisor has a continuing interest in your work and wants to help you achieve the greatest possible success as a student teacher (65, pp. 28-29).

From a survey of the literature, the following signifi-

cant points are concluded:

1. The development of off-campus student teaching has

amplified the importance of the position of the college

64

supervisor. However, a shortage does exist of personnel

qualified to fill the position.

2. The typical college supervisor is male, has adequate

professional training except in the field of student-teacher

supervision, and tends to remain in his present position.

3. There is no general agreement in the effectiveness

of the general supervisor as opposed to the special-subject-

matter supervisor. Most authorities suggest that both share

in the supervision of the student teacher.

4. Authorities are in agreement that student-teaching

programs of less than a full day are inadequate.

5. Little coordination seems to exist between the

college and the laboratory school in the development of the

student teacher.

6. Clearly-defined roles are necessary for the success

of the student-teaching experience.

7. Too much variety exists in essential supervisory

functions.

CHAPTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. American Association of Teachers Colleges, School and Community Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Educa-tion r Oneonta, New York, the Association, 1948.

2. Andrews, L. 0, , "Experimental Programs of Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Education, I (September, 1950), 259-267.

3. , "Prospects and Priorities for State and Federal Aid for Student Teaching," Theoretical Bases for Professional Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education, Forty-fourth Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1965.

4. Armentrout, W. D., The Conduct of Student Teaching in State Teachers Colleges, "Colorado State Teachers College Education Series, Number Two, Greeley, Colorado, Colorado State Teachers College, 1927.

5. Barr, A. A. and W. H. Burton, The Supervision of Instruc-tion, New York, Appleton and Company, 1926.

6. Baugher, Jacob J. , Organization and Administration o_f Practice Teaching"in Privately Endowed Colleges"of Liberal "Arts, Teachers College Contribution to Education, Number 487, New York, Bureau of Publi-cations, Columbia University, 1931.

7. Bennie, William A., "The Cooperating Teacher Looks at Campus Life," Peabody Journal of Education, XLII (September, 1964), 105-108.

8. Bishop, Clifford Leon, "Participation of Colleges and Universities in Programs of Internship Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1947.

9 . , "The Supervision of Teacher Internship," Educational Research Bulletin, XXVII (May, 1948), 125-132.

10. Blyer, Dorothea, "Student Teaching in the American Asso-ciation of Teachers Colleges," Educational Adminis-tration and Supervision, XXXIII (February, 1947), 75-87. " *

65

66

11. Bowers, Norman D. and Alice G. Scofield, "Evaluating the Supervision cf Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, X (December, .1959) , 461-467"!!

12. Brink, William G., "The Administration of Student Teach-ing in Universities Which Use the Public Schools," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXI

r

(October, 1945), 394-402

13. Burr, James B., Lowry W. Harding, and Leland B. Jacobs Student Teaching in the Elementary School, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,. 1950.

14. Campbell, Roald F., "Campus School and Student Teaching Arrangements at Seventeen Institutions," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXIV (March, 1948), 163-167.

15. Charters, W. W., "The Techniques of Determining Content of Student-Teaching Courses," Educational Adminis-tration and Supervision, XV (May,"1929),"343-349.

16. Cole, Mary I., Cooperation Between the Faculty of the Campus Elementary Training School "and the"other Departments of the Teachers College and Normal Schools, Teachers College Contribution to Educa-tion, Number 746, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1939.

17. Corbally, John E., "The Supervision of Student Teaching at the University of Washington," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXI (February, 1933), 152-155.

18. Crouse, Harold D., "A Study of the Congruence of Diver-gence in the Perceptions of the Role of the Cooperation Teacher and Its Relationship to Value Changes," unpublished doctoral dissertation," University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1963.

19. Douglass, Harl R., "Methods of Student-Teacher Rating," Supervisors of Student Teaching, Eleventh Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1931.

20. Edmund, Neal R. and Lyle Hemink, "Ways in Which Super-vision Helps Student Teaching," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXVII (March, 1958), 57-60.

67

21. Edwards, Helen E., "The Role and Functions of the College Supervisor of Student Teaching in Secondary Education," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1957.

22. Elkin, Sol M., "The Critical Requirements for the Secondary School Supervising Teacher as Perceived by Student Teachers and Supervising Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1958.

23. Evenden, E. S., "Cooperation of Teachers of Academic Subjects with the Training School," Supervision of Student Teaching, Fifth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1925.

24. Flowers, John Garland, Content of Student Teaching Courses for the Training of Secondary Teachers in State Teachers Colleges, Teacher's College Con-tribution to Education, Number 538, New York, Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1932.

25. Foster, Frank, The Training School in the Education of Teachers, National Survey of Students of Education, Washington, D.C., Office of Education, 1935.

26. Freeman, George P., "Personal and Professional Relation-ship Between Supervising Teachers and Student Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College, Nashville, Tennessee, 1957.

27. Frederick, Robert and Helen Holter, "Conflicting Atti-tudes Toward Supervision," Educational Administra-tion and Supervision, XIX (April," 1933), 307-314.

28. Grim, Paul R., "Certain Administrative Phases of Student Teaching," Educational Research Bulletin, XXVII (April, 1948), 85-89.

29. Haggerty, William J. and Georgea Works, "Facilities of Colleges and Universities Accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools During 1936-1937," North Central Associa-tion Quarterly, XIII (January, 1939), 309-407.

30. Hahn, Walter, "Current Practices and Problems in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, II (June, 1951), 118-121.

68

31. Hanke, Dale, "A Study of the Role of the Supervisor of Secondary Education in Off-Campus Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1962.

32. Henderson, Elisha Lane, The Organization and Adminis-tration of Student Teaching in State Teachers College's , Teacher*s College Contribution to Edu-cation, Number 169, New York, Bureau of Publica-tions, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1937.

33. Henderson, Richard L., "The Double-Entxry Log in Student Teaching," AST Research Bulletin, I (1957), 71-72.

34. Hoenstine, Earl S., "Changes During the Student Teaching Experience in the Thinking About Student Teaching Practices, Personality Development, and Learning," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1957.

35. Inlow, Gail M., "The College Supervisor of Student Teaching—A Comparative Study," Journal of Teacher Education, X (October, 1959), 211-216.

36. , "The Complex Role of the College Super-visor," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXV (January, 1956), 10-17.

37. Jacque, Florence C., "The Supervision of Practice Teach-ing on the High School Level by Arts Colleges," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXI (September, 194*5), 367-372.

38. Jarman, A. M., "Cooperation of Public Schools with State Universities in the Training of Teachers," Educa-tional Administration and Supervision, XIX (April, 1933), 282-289.

39. Kearns, James E., "The Supervision of Off-Campus Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, 1954.

40, Lawson, Douglas W. , "Implications of ci Survey of Teacher Training Practices in Illinois," Educational Ad-ministration and Supervision, XXV Tbctober, "19 39) , 52 3-531.

69

41. Learned, W. L. and W. C. Bagley, The Professional Preparation of Teachers for American Public Schools, Bulletin Number 14, New York, The Carnegie Founda-tion for the Advancement of Teaching, 1920.

42. Leggitt, Dorothy, "The Role of the Conference in Teacher Education," Educational Administration and Super-vision , XXVII (October, 1951), 366-372.

43. Lindsey, Margaret, "Looking Ahead in the Student Train-ing Program," Teachers College Journal, XXIX (December, 1949), 50-51.

44. McGeoch, Dorothy M., Direct Experiences in Teacher Edu-cation, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University, 1953.

45. Mead, A. R., "Concepts and Principles Involved in the Individual Conference in Supervision of Student Teaching: A Jury Judgement," Educational Adminis-tration and Supervision, XXIV "(February, 19 38) , 94-104.

46 . Supervised Student Teaching, Richmond, Virginia, Johnson Publishing Company, 1939.

47. Merring, Morton J., "The Nature of the Supervision of Student Teaching," Dissertation Abstracts, XVI (1956), 291.

48. Morris, Evert Paul, "The Organization and Administration of Student Teaching as Conducted in the Public Schools of Nebraska," Dissertation Abstracts, XVII (1957), 2529.

^9* National Survey of the Education of Teachers, Bulletin Number 10, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office, 1933.

50. Nicklas, Merrill B. , "A Comparative Study of Ciritical Incidents to Determine Recommended Techniques for Supervision of Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1959.

•51. Price, Robert D., "Current Practices in Selected NCATE Institutions," AST Research Bulletin, XXII (1964), 107-108. ~

70

52. Ramey, Ethelaura Hare, "A Survey of the Present Secon-dary Student Teaching Practices in Selected Texas

- Colleges," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, 1963.

53. Schorling, Raleigh, "A Ballot on Controversial Issues in Programs of Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Nineteenth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1939, pp. 7-17.

54. Siegal, Herbert William, "A Study of Instructional Rank and Degrees Held in Forty-five College Faculties," Journal of the American Association of College Registrars, XXII (January, 1947), 168-172.

55. Stiles, Lindley J., "Organization of Student Teaching in Universities," Journal of Educational Research (May, 1947), 706-712^ ~ "" '

56. , "Pre-Service Education of High School Teaching in Universities," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1945.

57. Stoner, Raymond L., "Organization and Administration of Student Teaching," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXI (October, 1945), 404-406.

58. Stratemeyer, Florence, "A Philosophy of Supervision of Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Eighteenth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1938.

59. and Margaret Lindsey, Working With Student Teachers, New York, Bureau of Publications," Teachers College, Columbia University,' 1953.

60. Strebel, Ralph F., The Nature of the Supervision of Student Teaching in Universities Using 'Cooperating Public """High Schools , Teachers College Contribution to Education, Number 655, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia Univer-sity, 1935.

61 • , "Professional Status of University Student-Teaching," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIII (May, 1937), 335-342. '

62. Van Patter, "The Individual Conference as a Technique in the Conduct of Student Teaching," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIII (1937), iTl-126.

71

63. Waddell, Charles W., "Checking Student Teachers and the Results of Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Sixteenth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1936.

64. Washburn, Courtland Lee, "The College Supervisory Staff in Secondary Student Teaching Programs," unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Department of Educa-tion, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1950.

65. Wiggins, Sam P., The Student Teacher in Action, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957.

66. Williams, J. C., "Evaluation in Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Eighteenth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1938.

CHAPTER H I

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The data for this study were analyzed to determine the

status and practices of college supervisors of secondary

student teachers in Texas and to compare these practices with

those recommended by national authorities in the field of

the supervision of student teaching. The findings of this

analysis and the discussion of these findings are presented

in this chapter. As it was indicated earlier, a question-

naire was used in obtaining this information. The chapter

is organized according to the sections as they appear in the

questionnaire, namely;

1. analysis of the data as regards the status of the

college supervisor of secondary student teachers in Texas,

2, analysis of the data as regards the practices per-

formed by the college supervisor of secondary student

teachers in Texas.

The Status of the College Supervisor in Texas

' Personal Data

Five questions were asked on the questionnaire that

pertained to personal data of the college supervisor in

Texas, Data regarding the percentage of male and female

72

73

supervisors in state and private schools are presented in

Table I.

TABLE I

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO SEX PLUS KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING TOTAL

NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

- Private Schools State Schools Total

Sex Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

Male 56 6 5 174 70 230 68

Female 31 35 74 30 105 32

Total 87 100 248 100 335 100

The data in Table I indicate that 230, or 6.8 per cent,

of the college supervisors in Texas were male. Included in

this number were 56, or 65 per cent, of the supervisors from

private schools and 174, or 70 per cent, from state schools.

One hundred and five, or 32 per cent, of the supervisors were

female. Included in this number were 31, or 35 per cent, of

the supervisors from private schools and 74, or 30 per cent,

from state schools.

Respondents to the questionnaire were asked to indicate

their age. Data regarding age of the college supervisors in

Texas are presented in Table II.

The data in Table II indicate that 208, or 64 per cent,

of the college supervisors were between the ages of thirty

and forty—nine. Included in this number were 44, or 53 per

74

TABLE IX

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO AGE PLUS KINDS OF INSTITUTIONS INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Age

Private Schools State Schools Total

Age Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

20-29 12 14 9 4 21 6

30-39 19 23 85 35 104 32

40-49 25 30 79 32 104 32

50-59 15 18 47 19 62 19

60-69 13 15 21 9 34 10

Above 6 9 1 1 3 1 4 1

Total 85 100 244 100 329 100

cent of the supervisors from private schools and'64, or 67

per cent, of the supervisors from state schools. Only 21, or

6 per cent, of the college supervisors were under thirty years

of age and only 38, or 11 per cent, were over sixty years of

age.

Data regarding years of service on present college

faculties are presented in Table III.

Information in Table III reveals that 164, or 49 per

cent, of the college supervisors had three or less years of

service on present faculties. Of this number 45, or 50 per

cent, were from private schools and 113, or 49 per cent, were

from state schools. Only 45, or 14 per cent, of the college

supervisors had more than ten years of service on present

faculties.

75

TABLE III

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE ON PRESENT FACULTIES INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total «« _ r Years or Service Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

1 20 22 57 23 77 23

2 12 14 37 15 49 15

3 13 14 25 10 38 11

4 6 7 16 6 22 7

5 4 5 11 2 15 4

6 5 6 11 2 16 5

7 4 5 16 6 20 6

8 3 4 6 2 9 3

9 1 1 5 2 6 2

10 1 1 10 4 11 3

11-20 12 14 28 11 40 12

21-30 2 2 • * • • 2 1

31-40 3 4 • • * 4> 3 1

Total 86 100 248 100 334 100

The respondents to the questionnaire were also a'sked to

indicate their years of service on other faculties. Data

regarding this request are presented in Table IV.

The data on Table IV indicate that 245, or 76 per cent,

of the college supervisors had three or less years of service

on other faculties. Included in this number were 158, or

49 per cent, of the supervisors who reported no years of

service on other faculties. Only 19, or 5 per cent, of the

76

supervisors reported having more than ten years of service

on other college faculties.

TABLE IV

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SERVICE ON OTHER FACULTIES INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Years of Service

Private Schools State Schools Total Years of Service Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

0 43 50 115 48 158 49

1 9 10 17 7 26 8

2 9 10 24 9 33 10

3 4 5 14 5 28 9

4 11 13 10 4 22 7 5 2 2 14 5 16 5

6 1 1 5 2 • 6 2

7 * • * • 7 3 7 2

8 2 2 2 1 4 1 9 1 1 6 2 7 2

10 • * • • 7 3 7 2 11-20 2 2 14 5 16 5

21-30 2 2 • • • • 2 * *

31-40 • * • * 1 • • 1 * •

Total 86 100 237 100 323 100

Data regarding the years of student-teacher supervisory

experience on present college faculties are presented in

Table V.

Information in Table V reveals that 169, or 52 per cent,

of the college supervisors had three* m-

77

TABLE V

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE ON PRESENT FACULTIES INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Years of Service

Private Schools State Schools Total Years of Service Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

1 23 27 83 34 106 33

2 15 18 31 13 46 14

3 13 15 24 10 37 11

4 5 6 19 8 24 7

5 6 7 16 7 22 6

6 6 7 14 5 20 5

7 3 3 11 4 14 4

8 2 2 10 4 12 3

9 ft * • * 1 1 • •

10 2 2 7 3 9 3

11-20 8 8 21 9 30 10

21-30 1 1 6 3 7 2

Total 84 100 243 100 337 100

teacher supervisory experience on their present college

faculties. Only 37, or 12 per cent, had more than ten years

of supervisory experience on present faculties.

Corresponding to the information requested in Table V,

the college supervisors were also asked to indicate years

of student-teacher supervisory experience on other college

faculties. Data regarding years of student-teacher super-

visory experiences on other college faculties are presented

in Table Vi.

78

TABLE VI

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF SUPERVISORY EXPERIENCE ON OTHER FACULTIES INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Years of Private Schools State Schools Total

Service Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

0 52 61 115 48 167 53 1- 5 6 17 8 22 7 2 2 3 24 11 26 8 3 3 3 14 6 17 6 4 7 8 10 4 17 6 5 1 1 14 6 15 5 6 2 2 5 2 7 2 7 • • • * 7 3 7 2 8 1 1 2 1 3 1 9 1 1 6 3 7 2 10 1 1 7 3 8 2

11-20 2 2 14 6 16 6 21-30 • • * » 1 * • 1 # •

Total 77 100 236 100 313 100

The data in Table VI indicate that 232, or 74 per cent,

of the college supervisors had three or less years of super-

visory experience on other college faculties. Included in

this number were 167, or 5 3 per cent, of the college super-

visors who reported no student—teacher supervisory experience

on other college faculties. Of this 167, or 53 per cent,

52, or 61 per cent, were from private schools and 115, or

48 per cent, from state schools. Only 7, or 6 per cent, of

79

the college supervisors reported more than ten years of

supervisory experience on other college faculties.

In addition, the respondents were requested to indicate

their professional rank on their present college faculty.

Data regarding present college rank are presented in Table

VII.

TABLE VII

DISTRIBUTION OP SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC RANK INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS

AND PERCENTAGES

Private State Schools Schools Total

Per Per Per Academic Rank Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Professor 31 36 61 25 94 . 29

Associate Prof. 17 20 66 27 83 25

Ass't Professor 16 18 56 23 72 22

Instructor 15 16 38 16 53 16

Fellow 7 8 18 8 25 7

Retired Teacher * * * • 3 1 3 1

. Total 86 100 241 100 327 100

The data in Table VII reveal that distribution of rank

for professors, associate professors, and assistant profes-

sors is fairly evenly distributed. Ninety-four, or 29 per

cent, of the college.supervisors held the academic rank of

professor. Of this number 31, or 36 per cent, were from

private schools and 61, or 25 per. cent, from state schools.

80

Eighty-three, or 25 per cent, of the college supervisors held

the academic rank of associate professor, and 72, or 22 per

cent, held the assistant professorship. Twenty-five, or 7 per

cent, were teaching fellows, and 3, or 1 per cent, were

retired public school teachers.

Professional Preparation

The respondents were asked five questions that related

to professional preparation. Data regarding highest academic

degree earned are presented in Table VIII.

TABLE VIII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO DEGREES EARNED INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND

PERCENTAGES

Academic Degree

Private Schools State Schools Total Academic

Degree Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

Ph.D. 13 15 38 15 51 16

Ed.D. 27 34 90 36 117 36

M. A. 17 20 50 20 67 2 0

M.S. 4 5 18 7 22 6

M.Ed. 21 24 47 19 68 20

B.A. 1 1 • e « m 1 # •

B.S. # • • * I • # 1 « •

Total 83 100 244 100 327 100

Information in Table VIII reveals that 16 8, or 52 per

cent, of the college supervisors had earned the doctorate.

Of this number, 51, or 16 per cent, had earned the Ph.D. and

81

117, or 36 per cent, had earned the Ed.D. One hundred and

fifty-seven, or 46 per cent, of the college supervisors

reported the master's degree as the highest earned. Only

two supervisors in the state reported the bachelor's degree

as the highest earned degree.

In addition, the respondents were requested to indicate

their majors and minors for highest degrees. For convenience

in classifying, the majors and minors were arranged in the

following manner: education, social sciences, science and

mathematics, fine arts, physical and vocational education,

and English and languages. Data regarding academic majors

are presented in Table IX.

TABLE IX

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC MAJORS INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools

State Schools Total

Per Per Per Majors Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Education 45 53 124 52 169 52 Social Sciences 6 7 18 8 24 8 Math and Science • • * * 20 9 20 6 Fine Arts 5 6 27 11 32 10 Physical and Vocational

Education 11 13 21 9 33 10 English and Languages 18 21 28 12 46 14

Total 8 5 100 238 100 323 100

82

As expected, a large number of respondents reported

education as their major. One hundred and sixty-nine, or 52

per cent, of the college supervisors reported some phase of

education as their major. Forty-six, or 14 per cent, re-

ported English and languages as their major. Of that number,

28, or 12 per cent, were from state schools,, and 18, or 21

per cent, from private schools. Only 20, or 6 per cent, re-

ported science or mathematics as their major. All of this

limited number were from state schools.

Data regarding minor areas of study are presented in

Table X.

TABLE X

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO ACADEMIC MINORS INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private State Schools Schools Total

Per Per Per Minors Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

Education 37 59 103 48 140 50 Social Sciences 9 13 27 12 36 • 12 Science and Math 3 4 26 12 29 10 Fine Arts 3 4 16 8 19 7 Physical and Vocational

Education 1 1 6 3 7 2 English and Languages 14 21 38 18 52 18

Total 67 100 216 100 283 100

The data in Table X indicate that 140, or 50 per cent,

had some phase of education as a minor. Only 29, or 10 per

83

cent reported science or mathematics as a minor. Of this

number, 26, or 12 per cent, were from state schools and only

3, or 4 per cent, from private schools.

Information concerning years of full-time public or

parochial school experience was requested. Years of full-

time teaching experience in secondary schools are reported

in Table XI.

TABLE XI

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL

INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Years

Private Schools State Schools Total

Years Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

0 5 7 9 4 14 4 1 5 7 10 4 15 5 2 7 9 12 5 19 6 3 5 7 17 7 22 7 4 6 7 20 9 26 8 5 8 8 22 9 30 9 6 3 4 25 11 28 8 7 1 1 20 9 21 7 8 5 7 13 5 18 6 9 4 6 11 4 15 5 10 6 7 15 6 21 7

11-20 16 21 48 20 64 21 21-30 2 3 10 4 12 4 Over 30 3 4 5 2 8 2

Total 76 100 237 100 313 100

The data in Table XI indicate that 126, or 39 per cent,

of the college supervisors had five or .less years of teaching

experience in the secondary school, and 84, or 27 per cent,

84

had more than ten years of public school experience in the

secondary school.

Data regarding years of teaching experience in the

elementary school are presented in Table XII.

TABLE XII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO YEARS OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Years

Private Schools State Schools Total

Years Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

0 30 47 127 63 157 60 1 3 5 14 7 17 6 2 8 13 10 5 18 7 3 3 5 10 5 13 5 4 2 3 4 2 6 2 5 3 5 9 5 • 12 4 6 3 5 1 • • 4 1 7 1 2 8 4 9 3 8 1 2 4 2 5 2 9 1 2 4 2 5 2 10 • * • * 4 2 4 1

11-20 5 8 7 4 12 4 21-30 2 3 • « * • 2 1 Over 30 2 3 * • • « 2 1

Total 64 100 201 100 265 i

" 100

The data in Table XII indicate that 157, or 60 per cent,

of the college supervisors had no experience in teaching in

the elementary school. Of this number, 127, or 63 per cent,

were from state schools and 30, or 47 per cent, from private

schools. Only 16, or 6 per cent, reported more than ten

years experience in the elementary school.

85

In addition to the request for years of public or private

school teaching experience, the respondents were asked to

indicate the positions held while teaching in the public or

parochial school. Data regarding positions held are pre-

sented in Table XXIX.

TABLE XIII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO POSITIONS HELD WHILE TEACHING IN PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL

SCHOOLS INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Position

Superintendent Assistant Superintendent High School Principal Assistant Principal Elementary Principal Supervisor Department Chairman Teacher Coach Counselor County Superintendent Curriculum Director

Total

Private State Tota Schools Schools Tota 1

Per Per Per

Number Cent Number Cent Number Cent

11 13 24 10 35 11

1 4 5 • * • • 4 1

22 25 38 15 60 18

7 8 20 8 27 8

11 13 29 12 40 12

7 8 41 16 48 14

30 35 70 28 100 31

70 80 170 70 240 74

6 8 6 2 12 4

3 4 1 * • 4 1

1 1 • * * • 1 • *

• * * • 3 1 3 1

85 240 325

The data in Table XIII reveal that 166, or 50 per cent,

of the college supervisors had held administrative positions

varying from superintendent to elementary principal. Two

hundred and forty, or 74 per cent, reported having served as

a classroom teacher.

86

The respondents were requested to check if they had had

a college course in general supervision or supervising stu-

dent teachers. Data concerning these college courses are

presented in Table XIV.

TABLE XIV

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO COLLEGE COURSES IN GENERAL SUPERVISION AND THE SUPERVISION OF STUDENT

TEACHERS INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Course Number Per Cent Number

Per Cent Number

Per Cent

General Supervision 54 of 85 63 161 of 245 65 215 of 330 65

Supervision of Student Teachers 13 of 85 15 64 of 245 26 77 of 330 23

The data in Table XIV reveal that 215 of 330, or 65 per-

cent, of the college supervisors had had a college course in

general supervision. Seventy-seven of 330, or 23 per cent,

indicated they had had a college course in the supervision of

student teachers. Of this number 64 of 245, or 26 per cent,

were from state schools and 13 of 85, or 15 per cent, were

from private schools.

Present Position

The respondents were asked thirteen questions that per-

tained to their present positions. Information concerning

87

the percentage of total college teaching load devoted to the

supervision of student teachers was requested. The data in

Table XV show this information.

TABLE XV

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO TOTAL TEACHING LOAD DEVOTED TO THE SUPERVISION OF STUDENT TEACHERS

INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

% of Load

Private Schools State Schools Total

% of Load Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

0 to 10 12 14 13 6 25 8

10 to 30 32 40 82 35 114 36

30 to 60 26 32 105 44 131 41

60 to 100 12 14 37 15 49 12

Total 82 100 237 100 319 100

The data in Table XV indicate that 245, or 77 per cent,

of the college supervisors devoted between 10 and 60 per

cent of their total teaching load to the supervision of stu-

dent teachers. Only 25, or 8 per cent, of the supervisors

devoted less than 10 per cent to the supervision of st.udent

teachers and only 49, or 12 per cent, devoted more than 60

per cent of their total teaching load to the supervision of

student teachers.

In addition, the respondents were requested to indicate

if faculty members from other departments aided in the super-

vision of student teachers. Data regarding this information

are presented in Table XVI.

88

TABLE XVI

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO SUPERVISORY AID FROM OTHER COLLEGE DEPARTMENTS INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

YES 37 49 59 24 96 30

NO 39 51 184 76 223 70

Total 76 100 243 100 319 100

The data in Table XVI reveal that 223, or 70 per cent,

of the college supervisors answered that other college per-

sonnel did not aid them in the supervision of student teachers,

Of this number, 39, or 51 per cent, of the personnel from

private schools answered in the negative, as compared to

184, or 76 per cent, of the supervisors from state schools.

College supervisors were also asked to indicate the

number of schools visited in the supervision of student

teachers. Data concerning the number of schools visited are

presented in Table XVII.

The data in Table XVII reveal that 226, or 70 per cent,

of the college supervisors visited student teachers in six

or less schools during a semester or quarter. Included in

this number were 66, or 79 per cent, of the supervisors from

private schools and 160, or 67 per cent, of the supervisors

from state schools. Of the 97, or 30 per cent, who visited

8.9

in more than six schools per semester or quarter, 5 8, or

60 per cent, were from, state institutions.

TABLE XVII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO NUMBER OF SCHOOLS VISITED WHILE SUPERVISING STUDENT TEACHERS INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Number of Schools

Private Schools State Schools Total Number of Schools Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

1 to 3 39 47 81 34 120 38

4 to 6 27 32 79 33 106 32

7 to 9 10 12 48 20 58 18

10 or more 7 9 32 13 39 12

Total 83 100 240 100 323 100

Data concerning the grade levels of supervision are

presented in Table XVIII.

The data in Table XVIII reveal that 171, or 52 per cent,

of the college supervisors supervised in junior high schools

and senior high schools. Of this number, 54, or 66 per cent,

were from private schools and 117, or 48 per cent, were from

state schools. Eighty-two, or 25 per cent, indicated they

supervised student teachers on all levels. Of this number,

10, or 12 per cent, of the supervisors were from private

schools, and 72, or 29 per cent, were from state schools.

90

TABLE XVIII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO GRADE LEVELS SUPERVISED INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private State Schools Schools Total

Grade Levels Per Per Per Number Cent Number Cent1 Number Cent

Elementary • • • * 7 3 7 2 Junior High • « • * 10 4 10 3 Senior High 16 20 39 16 55 17 Junior and Senior High 54 66 117 48 171 52 Elementary and Junior

High 2 2 « • * « 2 # •

All Levels 10 12 72 29 82 25

Total 82 100 245 100 327 100

The respondents were also requested to indicate the

average total number of credit hours of college teaching

assigned to them during a seraester or a quarter. Data re-

garding this number of credit hours are presented in Table

XIX.

The data in Table XIX reveal that 286, or 89 per cent,

of the college supervisors had nine or less credit hours of

teaching assigned to them during a semester or a quarter.

Of the 38, or 11 per cent, of the college supervisors who

were assigned more than nine hours of college teaching, 22,

or 60 per cent, were supervisors from private institutions,

and 16, or 40 per cent, were supervisors from state institu-

tions .

91

TABLE XIX

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO TOTAL NUMBER OF CREDIT HOURS OF COLLEGE TEACHING ASSIGNED

INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Hours Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

0 11 13 23 10 34 10

3 15 18 84 35 99 31

6 19 23 74 31 93 29

9 17 17 43 18 60 19

12 7 8 12' 5 19 6

15 13 16 4 2 17 5

More tlian 15 2 2 • * * * 2 # «

Total 84 100 240 100 324 100

In addition, the college supervisors were asked to

indicate the smallest number of student teachers supervised

at any one time and the largest number of student teachers

supervised at any one time. Data regarding the fewest

student teachers are presented in Table XX.

The data in Table XX reveal that 172, or 65 per cent,

of the college supervisors had more than five student

teachers as the least number supervised at any one time.

92

TABLE XX

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO FEWEST STUDENT TEACHERS SUPERVISED AT ANY ONE TIME INCLUDING TOTAL

NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Number Per Cent Number Per Cent i

Number Per Cent

1 11 15 26 12 37 12

2 11 15 3 4 19 6

3 5 7 12 6 17 6

4 4 5 11 6 15 5

5 3 4 17 8 20 6

6 14 18 4 1 19 55 18

7 4 5 14 7 18 6

8 5 7 26 12 31 11

9 2 3 4 2 6 2

10 1 2 14 7 15 5

More than 10 15 21 52 24 67 23

Total 75 100 225 100 300 100

Data regarding the greatest number of student teachers

supervised at any one time are revealed in Table XXI.

The data in Table XXI reveal that 171, or 55 per *cent,

of the college supervisors reported the greatest number of

student teachers supervised at any one time to be more than

ten. Fifty-six, or 18 per cent, of the college supervisors

reported having supervised more than twenty student teachers

during a given semester or quarter.

93

TABLE XXI

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO MOST STUDENT TEACHERS SUPERVISED AT ANY ONE'TIME INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS A ID PERCENTAGES

Number

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

1 1 1 4 2 5 2 2 6 7 11 5 17 6

" 3 4 5 3 1 7 2 4 3 4 3 1 9 3 5 1 1 5 2 6 2 6 3 4 10 4 13 4 7 EC 6 19 8 24 8 8 4 5 20 9 24 8 9 2 3 10 4 12 4 10 3 4 9 4 12 4

11-15 16 20 40 17 56 18 16-20 18 22 41 18 59 19

More than 20 14 18 42 19 56 18

Total 79 100 227 100 306 100

The college supervisors were also requested to indicate

if they met with college supervisors from other colleges and

universities during the student teaching experience. Data

regarding this information are revealed in Table XXII.

The data in Table XXII indicate that 246, or 75 per

cent, of the college supervisors did not meet with super-

visors from other colleges and universities. Of this number

that reported they did not meet with other college supervisors,

196, or 80 per cent, of the supervisors from state institutions

reported in the negative and only 50, or 58 per cent, of the

cnnpnnRnrs from nrivate institutions reported in the negative.

94

TABLE XXII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO NUMBER WHO MEET WITH SUPERVISORS FROM OTHER UNIVERSITIES

INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

YES 36 42 49 20 85 25

NO 50 58 196 80 246 75

Total 86 100 245 100 331 100

The respondents were also asked to indicate if all

supervising teachers in charge of student teachers held at

least the master's degree. Data concerning this information

are presented in Table XXIII.

TABLE XXIII

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO NUMBER REPORTING SUPERVISING TEACHERS WHO HELD AT LEAST THE MASTER'S

DEGREE INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

Yes 48 56 131 52 179 54

No 26 30 63 26 89 27 Unknown 12 14 50 22 62 19

Total 86 100 244 100 330 100

The data in Table XXIII indicate that 179, or 54 per

cent, of the college supervisors reported all their supervising

95.

teachers held at least the master's degree. Sixty-two, or

19 per cent, of the college supervisors did not know if all

their supervising teachers held the master's degree. Of

this number, 12, or 14 per cent, were from private institu-

tions and 50, or 22 per cent, were from state institutions.

Likewise, the college supervisors were requested to

indicate if the college had a comprehensive written contrac-

tual agreement with the cooperating school systems. Data

concerning this information are presented in Table XXIV.

TABLE XXIV

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO NUMBER REPORTING COMPREHENSIVE WRITTEN CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE

COOPERATING SCHOOLS INCLUDING TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 5

Number Per Cent

Yes 41 49 88 37 129 39

No 16 19 50 20 6 6 20

Unknown 27 32 107 43 134 41

Total 84 100 245 100 329 100

The data in Table XXIV reveal that 129, or 39 per cent,

of the college supervisors reported their colleges did have

comprehensive written contractual agreements with the co-

operating school systems. Of this number, 41, or 49 per

cent, were from private institutions and 88, or 37 per cent,

were from state institutions. One hundred and thirty-four,

96

or 41 per cent, reported they did not know if their colleges

had comprehensive written contractual agreements with the

cooperating school systems. Of this number, 107, or 43 per

cent, were from state institutions, and 27, or 32 per cent,

from private institutions.

The respondents were requested to indicate if they had

had any writing published in a professional journal during

the past two years. Data regarding this information appears

in Table XXV.

TABLE XXV

DISTRIBUTION OF SUPERVISORS ACCORDING TO NUMBER REPORTING PUBLISHED RESEARCH DURING THE PAST TWO YEARS INCLUDING

TOTAL NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES

Private Schools State Schools Total

Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent

Yes 16 19 68 27 84 25 No 69 81 177 73 246 75

Total 85 100 245 100 330 100

The data in Table XXV reveal that 246, or 75 per cent,

of the college supervisors had not had any writing.published

in a professional journal during the past two years. Slightly

more supervisors from state schools, 68, or 27 per cent, re-

ported published research, as compared with the 16, or 19 per

cent, of the college supervisors from private institutions

who reported published research.

97

The following list summarizes the significant points

developed from the analysis of Tables I through XXV:

1. Sixty-eight per cent of the college supervisors

were male, with 64 per cent between the ages of thirty and

forty-five.

2. Forty-nine per cent of the college supervisors re-

ported having three or less years of service on present

faculties, with 76 per cent reporting no experience on other

college faculties.

3. Fifty-two per cent of the college supervisors re-

ported having three or less years of supervisory experience

on present college faculties, with 74 per cent reporting

three or less years of supervisory experience on other

college faculties.

4. Distribution of rank for professors, associate

professors, and assistant professors was even, with 52 per

cent of the college supervisors reporting an earned doctorate

as the highest academic degree.

5. Fifty-two per cent reported some field of education

as their major, and 50 per cent reported some field of edu-

cation as a minor for academic degrees.

6. Thirty-nine per cent had five or less years of

teaching experience in the secondary school and 60 per cent

•reported having had no experience on the elementary level.

7. Fifty per cent reported holding some administrative

position in the public or parochial schools.

98

8. Sixty-five per cent reported having had a college

course in general supervision, and 23 per cent reported having

had a college course in the supervision of student teachers.

9. Seventy-seven per cent devoted between 10 per cent

and 60 per cent of their total teaching load to the super-

vision of student teachers, and 70 per cent reported that

college personnel from other departments did not aid them in

this supervision.

10. Seventy per cent reported visiting student teachers

in six or less schools during a semester or a quarter.

11. Sixty-five per cent, reported having a minimum of

five student teachers at one given time, and 55 per cent re-

ported having a maximum of more than ten student teachers

during a given quarter or semester.

12. Eighty-nine per cent reported having nine or less

credit hours of teaching assigned them during a semester

with 52 per cent reporting their student teaching supervision

on both the junior and senior high school levels.

13• Fifty-four per cent reported all their supervising

teachers holding at least a master's degree, and 39 per cent

reported their colleges had written contractual agreements

with the cooperating school systems.

14, Seventy-five per cent reported not meeting with

.supervisors from other colleges and universities, and the

same percentage reported having no writing published in a

professional journal during the past two years.

99

The Practices of the College Supervisor

in Texas

The purpose of this section of the chapter is to pre-

sent the statistical results of the analysis of the data.

The section is organised according to the purposes developed

in the statement of the problem. These purposes will be re-

stated in sequential order and the findings that pertain to

that purpose will be presented.

Purpose !_

The first purpose was to compare the practices reported

by college and university supervisors of secondary student

teachers in Texas with practices recommended by national

authorities in the field of student-teacher supervision.

The null hypothesis for this purpose was that no sig-

nificant difference exists between the practices reported by

college and university supervisors of secondary student

teachers in Texas and practices recommended by national

authorities in the field of student—teacher supervision.

The results of the tests for significance of the differ-

ence between means as reported in Table XXVI revealed

twenty-eight ratios significant at the accepted level of

confidence (P = .05). Twenty-five ratios favored the national

authorities.

Therefore, since twenty-eight ratios were significant

at the .05 level of confidence, the hypothesis was rejected.

Please refer to Appendix H for statistical direction of

itemized data.

100

TABLE XXVI

SUMMARY OF t TESTS BETWEEN MEAN ITEM WEIGHTS FOR THE PRACTICES REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS IN TEXAS AND

THOSE PRACTICES RECOMMENDED BY NATIONAL EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF STUDENT

TEACHER SUPERVISION

Variable Number

Texas Supervisory Practices

National Supervisory Practices

I I

t Variable Number

OBS = 339 OBS = 33 I I

t Variable Number Mean

Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation

I I

t

1 4.2696 1.1612 4.7878 .4772 -2.5350* 2 3.7000 1.6853 3.0606 2.1713 2.0125* 3 2.3848 2.2361 3.5757 1.8914 -2.9473* 4 4.0969 1.5064 4.2424 1.4570 - .5289 5 1.5878 1.8356 2.3636 1.7721 -2.3155* 6 . 4696 1.1783 1.6060 1.7397 -5.0059* 7 3.7757 1.6156 4 . 5151 1.2582 -2.5456* 8 .9878 1.5915 1.6363 1.9040 -2.1831* 9 2.4818 1.8194 3.2424 •1.8095 -2.2845*

10 2.1545 2.1568 3.8787 1.2249 -4.5076* 11 2.7909 1.8656 3.8181 1.7486 -3.0243* 12 1.3878 1.7874 2.3333 1.9174 -2.8695* 13 3.0909 1.5068 3.8181 1.0575 -2. 6992* 14 .7575 1.2704 2.4242 1.8262 -5.8417* 15 1.7151 1.9158 1.9393 1.9530 - .6381 16 3.5393 2.1091 4.9696 .1714 -3,8836* 17 3.9212 1.4269 3.4848 1.0765 1.70 40 18 3. 75.15 1.1672 3.9090 1.1378 .7390 19 ; 4.5969 1.1001 4.7575 . 7796 - .8160 • 20 3.5393 1.3750 3.3333 1.752 3 . 7962 21 .5727 1.0455 . 9090 1.3111 —1.7131 22 2.3696 2.0939 2.0606 2.0291 . 8085 23 2.6727 1.9974 3.7575 1.4980 -3.0273* 24 3.7787 1.8164 3.9393 1.5751 - .4884 25 4.0545 1.3540 4.4242 1.0159 -1.5218 26 4.8272 . 7368 4.9393 . 3428 - .8624 27 2.9030 1.7064 3.8484 1.1578 -3.1034* 28 1.6939 1.9726 3.5757 1.8914 -5.2299* 29 4.1030 1.2041 4.4545 . 8560 -1.6315 30 2.6393 1.7804 2.6060 1.5362 .1034 31 2.7484 1.7923 3.0303 1.5469 - .8689 32 3.7969 1.4432 3.6363 1.0679 .6207 33 3.80 30 1.3686 4.0000 1.2060 - .7941

TABLE XXVI—Continued

101

Texas Supervisory National Supervisory Practices Practices

OBS = 339 OBS = = 33

Variable Standard Standard Number Mean Deviation Mean Deviation t

34 4.1818 1.0718 4.4242 .7796 -.1.2627 35 2.9757 1.5073 3.3030 1.2906 -1.2005 36 .2696 . 8293 1.9696 1.5664 -10.0811* 37 2.7848 2.1146 3.8181 1.5266 -2.7291* 38 2.0393 1.8525 3.2727 1.3319 -3.7190* 39 2.1212 1.8966 3.6666 1-3408 -4.5554* 40 1.4424 1.7489 2.5454 1.8601 -3.4245* 41 1.8848 1.7229 2.9090 1.4219 -3,2951* 42 .9666 1.6317 3.0000 1.8748 -6.7095* 43 4.6000 .9098 4.6969 . 7171 - .5924 44 4.2666 1.6683 4.7575 .6045 -1.6746 45 4.4121 1.1307 4.4242 1.0453 - .0589 46 .5818 1.2983 .0303 .1714 2.4313* 47 4.7000 . 7120 4.5151 .8570 1.3899 48 2.4939 2.2579 4.2121 •1.2970 -4.2890* 49 3.9181 1.5322 4.3333 1.2949 -1,4995 50 4.7030 . 6982 4.3939 1.1265 2.2588* 51 1.7090 1.9022 3.6969 1.4870 -5.8117*

*Indicates significant dij fference.

Induction and Orientation.—The analysis yielded

statistically significant differences at the .05 level of

confidence in thirteen of the fourteen practices that related

to Induction and Orientation. Items 1 through 14 in Table

XXVI related to Induction and Orientation, Those practices

which were significantly different were as follows:

1. Encourage student teacher to attend pro-fessional meetings.

2. Orient the student teacher to the philosophy and practices of the school.

102

3. Introduce the student teacher to the supervising teacher.

5. Give the student teacher an opportunity to see other student teachers teach.

6. Do demonstration teaching in the cooper-ating school for the student teacher.

7. Let cooperating school principal know when you are in his building.

8. Report obvious weaknesses of the super" vising teacher to the cooperating school principal.

9. Separate student teacher and supervising teacher if mismatching is obvious.

10. Aid in the selection of the supervising teacher.

11. Help the supervising teacher work out the goals for the student teacher.

12. Help supervising teacher plan the student teacher's daily schedule.

13. Hold three-way conference with the student teacher and the supervising teacher.

14. Hold three-way conference with the student teacher and the cooperating school principal.

These findings seemed to indicate the supervisors in

Texas colleges and universities are not doing what is recom-

mended in the induction and orientation of the student

teacher.

Observation.—The analysis yielded statistically sig-

nificant differences at the .05 level of confidence in two

of the ten practices that related to Observation. Items 15

through 24 in Table XXVI related to Observation. Those

practices which were significantly different were as follows:

103

16. Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook.

23. Postpone visit if the student teacher appears unduly upset or disturbed.

These findings seemed to indicate that supervisors in

Texas colleges and universities were doing what was recom-

mended in the area of the observation of the student teacher.

Individual Conference.--The analysis yielded statisti-

cally significant differences at the .05 level of confidence

in one of the twelve practices that related to the Individual

Conference. Items 25 through 36. in Table XXVI related to

the Individual Conference. That practice which was signifi-

cantly different was as follows:

36. Tape record the individual conference for future use.

These findings seemed to indicate that supervisors in

Texas colleges and universities were doing what was recom-

mended in the area of the individual conference.

Public Relations.--The analysis yielded statistically

significant differences at the .05 level of confidence in

all six practices under the area of Public Relations. Items

37 through 42 in Table XXVI related to Public Relations.

Those practices which were significantly different were as

follows:

37. Try to sell the student teaching program to the community and to the cooperating school.

104

38. Serve as liaison between the college and the community by speaking at school meetings and other civic affairs.

39. Give information to cooperating school personnel concerning college entrance requi rements and certification.

40. Suggest college instructors to interested cooperating school personnel.

41. Serve as consultant to cooperating schools.

42. Suggest that copies of professional journals be placed in cooperating school libraries.

These findings seemed to indicate that supervisors in

Texas colleges and universities are not doing what is recom-

mended in the area of public relations.

Evaluation.—The analysis yielded statistically signifi-

cant differences at the .05 level of confidence in four of

the nine practices that related to Evaluation. Items 43

through 51 in Table XXVI related to Evaluation. Those prac-

tices which were significantly different were as follows:

46. Base final evaluation primarily on the student teacher's knowledge of his subject.

48. Write a narrative evaluation of the student teacher.

50. Write recommendations for the student teacher when he/she is seeking employment.

51. Conduct follow-up studies after the student teacher has gone,into the teaching pro-fession.

These findings seemed to indicate that supervisors in

Texas colleges and universities were doing what was recom-

mended in the area of Evaluation.

105

The null hypothesis for Purpose I was rejected since

twenty-eight t ratios were found to be significant at the

.05 level of confidence. Thirteen of these significant

ratios were in the area of Induction and Orientation and

six of the ratios were in" the area of Public Relations. Only

two ratios were found to be significant in the area of

Observation, only one in the area of Conferences, and four

in the area of Evaluation.

Purpose II

The second purpose was to compare the practices reported

by supervisors in schools of education with practices re-

ported by supervisors in schools other than schools of edu-

cation.

The null hypothesis for this purpose was that no signifi-

cant difference exists between the practices reported by

supervisors in schools of education and practices reported by

supervisors in schools other than schools of education.

The results of the tests of significance of the differ-

ence between means as reported in Table XXVII revealed* seven

ratios significant at the accepted level of confidence

(P = .05). Five of these ratios favored schools of education.

Therefore, since only seven ratios were significant at

the .05 level of confidence, the hypothesis, as related to

this study, was accepted. Please refer to Appendix H for

statistical direction of itemized data.

106

TABLE XXVII

SUMMARY OF t TESTS BETWEEN MEAN ITEM WEIGHTS FOR THE PRACTICES REPORTED BY. SUPERVISORS FROM SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION AND PRACTICES REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS

IN SCHOOLS OTHER THAN SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION

Variable

Schools of Education Other Schools

t Variable

OBS = 188 OBS = 151

t Variable

Mean Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation t

1 4.2857 1.0719 4.2500 1.2621 .2770 2 3.5989 1.7536 3.8243 1.5884 -1.2074 3 2.2197 2.2202 2.5878 2.2388 -1.4875 4 4.1703 1.4708 4.0067 1.5443 .9794 5 1.5769 1.8163 1.6013 1.8590 - .1198 6 .4395 1.1598 .5067 1.199 6 - .5138 7 3.9945 1.4917 3.5067 1.7183 2.7503* 8 1.1098 1.6637 . 8378 1.4843 1.5451 9 2.7747 1.6996 2.1216 1.8956 3.2860*

10 1.7967 2.0695 2.5945 2.1804 -3.3899* 11 2.9285 1.7162 2.6216 2.0215 1.4869 12 1.5329 1.8024 1.2094 1.7524 1.6368 13 3.0549 1.3576 3.1351 1.6710 - .4795 14 .8461 1.3377 .6486 1.1732 1.4045 15 1.3956 1.7874 2.1081 1.9936 -3.4086* 16 3.8021 1.9846 3.2162 2.2103 2.5267* 17 4.0384 1.3066 3.7770 1.5501 1.6571 18 3.8571 .9500 3.6216 1.3774 1.82.66 19 4.6208 1.0023 4.5675 1.2089 .4366 20 3.5164 1.3856 3.5675 1.3614 , - .3346 21 .5000 .9931 .6621 1.1000 -1.4011 22 2.3406 2.1003 2.4054 2.0854 - ..2785 23 2.8296 1.9353 2.4797 2.0548 1.5840 24 3.8901 1.7412 3.6418 1.8959 1.2336 25 4.1318 1.3359 3.9594 1.3699 1.1491 26 4.8681 . 6827 4.7770 .7954 1.1158 27 3.0384 1.5561 2.7364 1.8612 1.6001 28 1.6923 1.9928 1.6959 1.9474 - .0166 29 4.1923 1.0116 3.9932 1.3973 1.4940 30 2.8076 1.6412 2.4324 1.9177 1.9089 31 2.7472 1.6876 2.7500 1.9132 - .0138 32 3.8296 1.4019 3.7567 1.4915 .4551 33 3.8012 1.3195 3.8040 1.4268 - .0122 34 4.1713 .9937 4.1959 1.1604 - .2152 35 2.9230 1.4655 3.0405 1.5547 - .7024

TABLE XXVII--Continued

107

Schools of Education Other Schools

OBS = 188 OBS = 151

Variable Standard Standard Number Mean Deviation Mean Deviation t

36 .3186 . 8817 .2094 . 7556 1.1887 37 3.0439 2.0104' 2.4662 2.1946 2.4838* 38 2.1318 1.7925 1.9256 1.9175 1.0040 39 2.1813 1.8382 2.0472 1.9636 .6368 40 1.4725 1.7214 1.4054 1.7814 .3457 41 1.8131 1.6469 1.9729 1.8081 - .8362 42 . 8296 1.4782 1.1351 1.7882 -1.6935 43 4.6538 . 8160 4.5337 1.0095 1.1911 44 4.4560 1.4086 4.0337 1.9151 2.2979* 45 4.5054 1.0040 ' 4.2972 1.2598 1.6654 46 .5494 1.2470 . 6216 1.3576 - .5008 47 4.7637 .6827 4.6216 . 7389 1.8067 48 2.5549 2.2199 2.4189 2.3016 .5428 49 3.9450 1.5072 3.8 851 1.5618 . 3522 50 4.6978 .7201 4.7094 .6703 .1503 51 1.6813 1.9520 1.7432 1.8384 - .2932 *Indicates significant difj :erence.

Induction and Orientation.—The analysis yielded

statistically significant differences at the .05 level of

confidence in three of the fourteen practices that related

to Induction and Orientation. Items 1 through 14 in Table

XXVII related to Induction and Orientation. Those practices

which were significantly different were as follows?

7. Let cooperating school principal know when you are in his building.

9. Separate student teacher and supervising teacher if mismatching is obvious.

10. Aid in the selection of the supervising teacher.

108

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in the orientation and induction practices as re-

ported by supervisors from schools of education and super-

visors from schools other than schools of education.

Observation,—The analysis yielded statistically sig-

nificant differences at the .05 level of confidence in two

of the ten practices that related to Observation. Items 15

through 24 in Table XXVII related to Observation. Those

practices which were significantly different were as follows:

15. Observe the teaching of the supervising teacher.

16. Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in observation practices as reported by supervisors

from schools of education and supervisors from schools other

than schools of education.

Individual Conference.—In the area of Individual Con-

ferences, the analysis yielded no statistically significant

differences at the .05 level of confidence. These findings

seemed to indicate that there was no difference in"conference

practices as reported by supervisors from schools of education

and supervisors from schools other than schools of education.

Public Relations.--The analysis yielded statistically

significant differences at the .05 level of confidence in

109

one practice in trie area of Public Relations. Items 37

through 42 in Table XXVII relate to Public Relations. That

practice which was significantly different was as follows:

37. Try to sell the student teaching pro-gram to the community and to the cooperating school.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in public relations practices as reported by

supervisors from schools of education and supervisors from

schools other than schools of education.

Evaluation.—The analysis yielded statistically signifi-

cant differences at the .05 level of confidence in one

practice in the area of Evaluation. Items 43 through 51 in

Table XXVII relate to Evaluation. That practice which was

significantly different was as follows:

44. Provide the supervising teacher with a written guide for use in evaluation of the student teacher.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in evaluation practices as reported by supervisors

from schools of education and supervisors from schools other

than schools of education.

Purpose III

The third purpose was to compare the practices reported

by supervisors of all-day student teachers with practices

reported by supervisors of part-time student teachers.

110

The null hypothesis for this purpose was that no sig-

nificant difference exists between the practices reported by

supervisors of all-day student teachers and practices re-

ported by supervisors of part-time student teachers.

The results of the tests of significance of the differ-

ences between means as reported in Table XXVIII revealed

thirteen ratios significant at the accepted level of confi-

dence (P = .05). Eight of these ratios favored supervisors

of all-day student teachers.

TABLE XXVIII

SUMMARY OF t TESTS BETWEEN MEAN ITEM WEIGHTS FOR THE PRACTICES REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS OF ALL DAY

STUDENT TEACHERS AND PART TIME STUDENT TEACHERS

All-Day Student Part--Time Teachers Student Teachers

OBS = = 123 OBS = = 125

Variable Standard Standard Number Mean Deviation Mean Deviation t

1 4.4750 1.0079 4.0000 1.3244 3.1227* 2 3.4416 1.9052 3.9672 1.4762 -2.3909* 3 2.0750 2.2699 2.7049 2.2385 -2.1644* 4 4.2083 1.3777 3.9426 1.6461 1.3549 5 1.6833 1.9104 1.6803 1.8299 .0124 6 .6250 1.3848 .4836 1.1958 . 8470 7 4.3500 1.1521 3.2622 1.8367 5.4852* 8 1.1583 1.7416 . 8032 1.4408 1.7219 9 2.4833 1.8438 2.4098 1.8231 .3105 10 1.6166 2.0173 2.5245 2.2147 -3.3185* 11 3.0000 1.8393 2.6967 1.9455 1.2405 12 1.6083 1.8452 1.2295 1.7823 1.6177 13 3.4000 1.4854 2.9754 1.5653 2.1547* 14 .9500 1.4597 .5819 1.1653 2.1603* 15 1.8333 1.8723 1.6229 1.9304

TABLE X X V I I I — C o n t i n u e d

111

V a r i a b l e Numbez-

A l l - D a y S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s

P a r t - T i m e S t u d e n t T e a c h e r s

t V a r i a b l e

Numbez-

OBS = 123 OBS = 125

t V a r i a b l e

Numbez- Mean S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n Mean

S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n t

16 4 . 2 0 0 0 1 . 6 6 6 3 2 . 7 2 9 5 2 . 3 5 0 5 5 . 5 8 2 8 * 17 3 . 9 5 8 3 1 . 5 4 5 9 3 . 7 8 6 8 1 . 3 1 9 6 . 9245 18 3 . 6 5 8 3 1 . 2 2 1 3 3 . 7 5 4 0 1 . 2 1 0 0 - . 6 1 0 1 19 4 . 5 4 1 6 1 . 1 3 2 0 4 . 5 2 4 5 1 . 2 2 2 8 . 1 1 2 2 20 3 . 6 8 3 3 1 . 3 2 2 7 3 . 4 0 9 8 1 . 3 7 1 5 1 . 5 7 2 0 21 . 5166 1 . 0 7 9 9 . 5 8 1 9 1 . 0 0 6 8 - . 4 8 4 5 22 2 . 2 0 0 0 2 . 0 0 6 6 2 . 5 1 6 3 2 . 1 5 0 9 - 1 . 1 7 7 8 23 2 . 5 6 6 6 1 . 9 9 0 5 2 . 6 8 0 3 1 . 9 9 6 9 - . 4 4 1 5 24 4 . 3 5 8 3 1 . 3 0 2 5 3 . 4 9 1 8 1 . 9 8 8 6 3 . 9 8 6 2 * 25 4 . 0 0 8 3 1 . 4 1 1 2 3 . 9 9 1 8 1 . 3 7 0 0 . 0 9 2 0 26 4 . 7 3 3 3 . 9 5 5 1 4 . 8 6 0 6 . 5770 - 1 . 2 5 2 2 27 3 . 2 2 5 0 1 . 5 5 1 6 2 . 5 3 2 7 1 . 8 4 2 9 3 . 1 4 5 1 * 28 1 . 1 4 6 6 1 . 8 5 2 6 1 . 7 7 0 4 2 . 0 0 3 2 - 1 . 2 1 9 3 29 3 . 9 2 5 0 1 . 4 3 2 7 4 . 2 7 8 6 . 9 2 5 6 . - 2 . 2 7 5 2 * 30 2 . 4 4 1 6 1 . 8 1 1 0 2 . 6 7 2 1 1 . 7 8 5 3 - . 9 9 2 7 31 2 . 6 4 1 6 1 . 9 0 5 2 2 . 8 1 1 4 1 . 7 4 7 7 - . 7 1 9 7 32 3 . 5 9 1 6 1 . 6 0 4 6 3 . 9 7 5 4 1 . 2 8 3 3 - 2 . 0 4 7 6 * 33 3 . 8 0 0 0 1 . 3 8 8 0 3 . 7 2 9 5 1 . 4 0 8 6 . 3 9 0 4 34 4 . 1 1 6 6 1 . 0 8 9 2 4 . 1 8 8 5 1 . 0 1 8 9 - . 5 2 7 8 35 2 . 9 7 5 0 1 . 5 3 0 0 2 . 8 2 7 8 1 . 6 2 3 0 . 7223 36 . 2 0 8 3 . 6939 . 2 7 0 4 . 8787 - . 6 1 1 8 37 2 . 6 5 0 0 2 . 0 9 6 2 2 . 5 9 8 3 2 . 1 8 6 6 . 1 8 6 7 38 2 . 0 5 8 3 1 . 7 5 7 3 1 . 8 6 8 8 1 . 9 0 3 1 . 8009 39 2 . 2 0 8 3 1 . 9 2 7 4 1 . 8 3 6 0 1 . 9 4 7 5 1 . 4 8 8 1 40 1 . 4 7 5 0 1 . 8 5 7 2 1 . 3 9 3 4 1 . 7 6 7 4 . 3 4 8 5 41 1 . 9 0 8 3 1 . 6 8 8 1 1 . 8 0 3 2 1 . 8 2 7 1 . 4 6 2 4 42 . 9 0 0 0 1 . 6 2 9 9 1 . 0 3 2 7 1 . 6 7 3 9 - . 6 2 2 4 43 4 . 5 2 5 0 1 . 0 4 0 5 4 . 6 7 2 1 . 7 0 6 4 - 1 . 2 8 2 4 44 4 . 4 8 3 3 1 . 3 8 4 3 3 . 9 0 1 6 1 . 9 8 1 0 2 . 6 3 2 7 * 45 4 . 4 1 6 6 1 . 0 4 5 4 4 . 2 7 0 4 1 . 3 3 6 9 . 9 4 2 4 46 . 5 2 5 0 1 . 2 7 7 7 . 4672 1 . 1 8 1 7 . 3 6 3 8 47 4 . 6 5 8 3 . 7359 4 . 7 2 1 3 . 6 9 2 6 - . 6 8 2 8 48 2 . 7 5 8 3 2 . 1 9 8 4 2 . 3 3 6 0 2 . 3 1 0 3 1 . 4 5 0 0 49 3 . 9 0 8 3 1 . 5 4 9 1 3 . 9 2 6 2 1 . 5 4 2 6 - . 1 0 9 6 50 4 . 6 2 5 0 . 7195 4 . 7 3 7 7 . 7872 - 1 . 1 5 7 1 51 1 . 74.16 1 . 9 7 2 7 1 . 5 4 0 9 1 . 8 8 2 3 . 8 0 6 3

* I n d x c a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

112

Therefore, since only thirteen ratios were significant

at the .05 level of. confidence, the hypothesis, as it related

to this study, was accepted. Please refer to Appendix H for

statistical direction of itemized data.

Induction and Orientation.—The analysis yielded

statistically significant differences at the .05 level of

confidence in seven of the fourteen practices that related

to Induction and Orientation. Items 1 through 14 in Table

XXVIII relate to Induction and Orientation. Those practices

which were significantly different were as follows:

1. Encourage student teacher to attend professional meetings.

2. Orient the student teacher to the philosophy and practices of the school.

3. Introduce the student teacher to the supervising teacher.

7. Let cooperating school principal know when you are in his building.

10. Aid in the selection of the supervising teacher.

13. Hold three-way conference with the student teacher and supervising teacher.

14. Hold three-way conference with the student teacher and the cooperating school principal.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was a

difference in Orientation and Induction practices as reported

.by supervisors of all-day student teachers and supervisors

of part-time student teachers, with four of the significant

t ratios favoring the supervisor of all-day student teachers.

113

Observation.—The analysis yielded statistically sig-

nificant differences at the .05 level of confidence in two

practices in the area of Observation. Items 13 through 24

in Table XXVIII relate to Observation. Those practices which

were significantly different were as follows:

16. Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook.

24. Visit the student teacher at least once every two weeks.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in Observation practices as reported by supervisors

of all-day student teachers and supervisors of part-time

student teachers.

Individual Conferences.—The analysis yielded statisti-

cally significant differences at the .05 level of confidence

in three practices in the area of Individual Conferences.

Items 25 through 36 in Table XXVIII relate to Individual

Conferences. Those practices which were significantly dif-

ferent were as follows:

27. Hold the conference immediately after the classroom visit.

29. Assist the student teacher in developing his own teaching techniques.

32. Encourage student teacher to use experi-mental classroom procedures.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in conference practices as reported by supervisors

114

of all-day student teachers and supervisors of part-time

student teachers.

Public Relations.—In the area of Public Relations, the

analysis yielded no statistically significant differences at

the .05 level of confidence. These findings seemed to

indicate that there was no difference in public relations

practices as reported by supervisors of all-day student

teachers and supervisors of part-time student teachers.

Evaluation. •—The analysis yielded statistically signifi-

cant differences at the .05 level of confidence in one

practice in the area of Evaluation. Items 43 through 51 in

Table XXVIII relate to Evaluation. That practice which was

significantly different was as follows:

44. Provide the supervising teacher with a written guide for use in evaluation of the student teacher.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in evaluation practices as reported by supervisors

of all-day student teachers and supervisors of part-time

student teachers.

Purpose IV

The fourth purpose was to compare the practices reported

by general supervisors with practices reported by special

supervisors.

115

The null hypothesis for this purpose was that no sig-

nificant difference exists between the practices reported by

general supervisors and practices reported by special super-

visors.

The results of the tests of significance of the differ-

ence between means as reported in Table XXIX revealed nine

ratios significant at the accepted level of confidence

(P = .05). Six of these ratios favored general supervisors.

TABLE XXIX

SUMMARY OF t TESTS BETWEEN .MEAN ITEM WEIGHTS FOR THE PRACTICES REPORTED BY GENERAL SUPERVISORS AND

THE PRACTICES REPORTED BY SPECIAL SUPERVISORS

Variable Number

General Supervisors

Special Supervisors

t Variable Number

OBS = 185 OBS = 155

t Variable Number Mean

Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation t

1 4.2905 1.0905 4.2400 1.2419 .3914 2 3.5195 1.7917 3.9133 1.5272 -2.1156* 3 2.1005 2.2225 2.7066 2.2046 -2.4651* 4 4.0782 1.4890 4.1266 1.52 88 - ..2895 5 1.4860 1.8073 1.7200 1.8623 -1.1498 6 .4134 1.1516 .5400 1.2090 - .9677 7 4.0558 1.4750 3.4333 1.7104 3.5336* 8 1.2346 1.7403 .7000 1.3403 3.0656* 9 2.6033 1.7795 2.3266 1.8565 1.3729

10 1.4916 1.9125 2.9333 2.1715 -6.3815* 11 2.8156 1.7890 2.7600 1.9585 .2682 12 1.3798 1.7274 1.4066 1. 8586' - .1348 13 3.0335 1.4295 3.1600 1.5961 - .7554 14 .9553 1.4292 .5066 .9848 3.2417* 15 1. 6424 1.8806 1.8133 1.9540 - .8038 16 3.7821 2.0034 3.2400 2.1959 2.3322* 17 4.0502 1.3589 3.7733 1.4928 1.7546 18 3.8379 1.0941 3.6600 1.2373 1.3799

TABLE XXIX—Continued

116

Variable Number

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

General Supervisors

OBS 185

Mean

4.6480 3.5027 .4748 2122 8044 8715 0670

4.8100 3.0558 1.6983 4.0614 2.6424 2.5810 3.6815 3.8547 4.2067 2.9608 .2960

3.1061 2.1284 2.2513 1.4916 1.8268 . 7988

4.5754 4.4636 4.3687 .6145 7150 4748 9441 6424

1.7597

Standard Deviation

2 ,

1, 1, 1.

. 9882 1.4469 .9989 0276 9492 7465 3561

. 7893 1.5880 1.9714 1.1966 1.7830 1.8240 1.4586 1.3333 1.0285 1.5073 . 8299

2.0069 1.8369 1.8425 1.7667 1.6840 1.514 8 .9267

1.4309 1.1997 1.3083 .7264

2.2104 1.5197 . 7441

1.9897

Special Supervisors

OBS = 155

Mean

1 4 2 ,

2 ,

4.5333 3.5866 .6733

2.5733 2.5000 3.6600 4.0333 4.8466 2.7400

6800 1533 6533 9400

3.9266 3.7333 4.1533 2.9800 .2400

2.3866 1.9266 1.9466 1.3600 1.9533 1.1466 4.6266 4.0266 4.4600 .5466

4.6800 2.5000 3.8933 4.7733 1.6266

indicates significant difference

Standard Deviation

1.2202 1.2867 1.0739 2.1520 2.0387 1.8932 1.3535 .6706

1.8126 1.9776 1.2151 1.7700 1.7367 1.4146 1.4079 1.1239 1.5031 .8301 .1719 ,8693 9383 7059 7713

1.7296 . 8910

1.8901 1.0432 1.2888 .6958

2.3115 1.5498 .6339

1.7759

2, 1. 1, 1. 1.

.9391

.5488 1.7290 1.5593 1.3775

1

2240 4470 5791

- .6866 - .0551 -1.8115 -1.5342 . 7994 .4479

- .114 3 .6086

3.1096* . 9815

1.4545 .6815

- .6607 -1.9378 - .5068 2.. 3765* • .7268 .4703 .4433

- .1003 .2983

•1.6933 .6325

117

Therefore, since only nine ratios were significant at

the .05 level of confidence, the hypothesis was accepted.

Please see Appendix H for statistical direction of itemized

data.

Induction and Orientation.—The analysis yielded

statistically significant differences at the .05 level of

confidence in six practices that related to Induction and

Orientation. Items 1 through 14 in Table XXIX relate to

Induction and Orientation. Those practices which were sig-

nificantly different were as follows:

2. Orient the student teacher to the philosophy and practices of the school.

3. Introduce the student teacher to the supervising teacher.

7. Let cooperating school principal know when you are in his building.

8. Report obvious weaknesses of the super-vising teacher to the cooperating school principal.

10. Aid in the selection of the supervising teacher.

14. Hold three-way conference with the stu-dent teacher and the cooperating school principal.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was some

difference in induction and orientation practices as reported

by general supervisors and special supervisors.

Observation.—The analysis yielded statistically sig-

nificant differences at the .05 level of confidence in one

practice that related to Observation. Items 16 through 24

118

in Table XXIX relate to Observation. That practice which

was significantly different was as follows:

16. Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in observation practices as reported by general

supervisors and special supervisors.

Individual Conferences.—In the area of Individual

Conferences, the analysis yielded no statistically significant

differences at the .05 level of confidence. These findings

seemed to indicate that there was no difference in conference

practices as reported by general supervisors and special

supervisors.

Public Relations.—The analysis yielded statistically

significant differences at the .05 level of confidence in

one practice in the area of Public Relations. Items 37

through 42 in Table XXIX relate to Public Relations. That

practice which was significantly different was as follows:

37. Try to sell the student teaching pro™ ' gram to the community and to the cooperating school.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in public relations practices as reported by

general supervisors and special supervisors.

Evaluation.—The analysis yielded statistically signifi-

cant differences at the .05 level of confidence in one

119

practice in the area of Evaluation. Items 43 throxigh 51 in

Table XXIX relate to Evaluation. That practice which was

significantly different was as follows:

44. Provide the supervising teacher with a written guide for use in evaluation of the student teacher.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in evaluation practices as reported by general

supervisors and special supervisors.

Purpose V

The fifth purpose was to compare the practices reported

by supervisors of state colleges with practices reported by

supervisors of private institutions.

The null hypothesis for this purpose was that no sig-

nificant difference exists between the practices reported by

supervisors of state colleges and practices reported by super-

visors of private institutions.

The results of the tests of significance of the differ-

ences between means as reported in Table XXX revealed twelve

ratios significant at the accepted level of confidence*.

Eight of these ratios favored supervisors of state colleges.

Therefore, since only twelve ratios were significant at

the .05 level of confidence, the hypothesis was accepted as

it related to this study. Please refer to Appendix H for

statistical direction of itemized data.

120

TABLE XXX

SUMMARY OF t TESTS BETWEEN MEAN ITEM WEIGHTS FOR THE PRACTICES REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS FROM STATE COLLEGES AND PRACTICES REPORTED BY SUPERVISORS FROM PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Variable Number

State Colleges Private

Institutions

t Variable Number

OBS = 251 OBS = 88

t Variable Number Mean

Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation t

1 4.2775 1.1412 4.2470 1.2166 .2079 2 3.6775 1.7184 3.7647 1.5840 - .4096 3 2.3428 2.2526 2.5058 2.1834 - .5776 4 4.0857 1.5534 4.1294 1.3615 - .2297 5 1.6612 1.8679 1.3764 1.7216 1.2314 6 .4734 1.1589 .4588 1.2324 .0984 7 3.7346 1.6335 3.8941 1.5569 - .7822 8 .9428 1.5638 1.1176 1.6621 - .870 7 9 2.6285 1.8173 2.0588 1.7580 2.5036* 10 2.2693 2.1892 1.8235 2.0244 1. 64 39 11 2.9346 1.8548 2.3764 1.8341 2.3902" 12 1.4612 1.8282 1.1764 1.6462 1.2647 13 3.1551 1.5227 2.9058 1.4440 1.3133 14 .7265 1.2166 .8470 1.4100 - .7520 15 1.6775 1.9033 1.8235 1.9474 .6037 16 3.7877 1.9618 2.8235 2.3423 3.6952* 17 4.0244 1.4197 3.6235 1.4056 2.2423* 18 3.6897 1.1787 3.9294 1.1144 -1.6323 19 4.6244 1.0487 4.5176 1.2329 .7698 20 3.4367 1.4203 3.8352 1.1866 -2.3141* 21 .5632 1.0425 .6000 1.0538 - ..2782 22 2.4081 2.0722 2.2588 2.1373 . 5651 23 2.6448 2.0041 2.7529 1.9757 - .4285 24 4.0285 1.6571 3.0588 2.0485 4.3482* 25 4.0938 1.3168 3.9411 1.4499 . 8942 26 4.8122 .7702 4.8705 .6285 - .6274 27 3.0244 1.6925 2.5529 1.6977 2.2047* 28 1.6326 1.9387 1.8705 2.0567 - .9566 29 4.0204 1.3013 4.3411 . 8196 -2.1241* 30 2.4979 1.7765 3.0470 1.7280 -2.4650* 31 2.6408 1.7870 3.0588 1.7713 -1.8567 32 3.7469 1.5095 3.9411 1.2209 -1.0677 33 3.7020 1.4015 4.0941 1.2235 -2.2867* 34 4.12 24 1.0696 4.3529 1.0594 -1.7107 35 3.0081 1.4873 2.8823 1.5598 .6614

TABLE XXX—Continued

121

Variable Number

State Colleges Private

Institutions

t Variable Number

OBS = 251 OBS = 88

t Variable Number Mean

Standard Deviation Mean

Standard Deviation t

36 .2571 .8151 ' . 3058 . 8680 - .4655 37 2.6653 2.1175 3.1294 2.0681 -1.7462 38 2.0693 1.9164 1.9529 1.6514 . 4980 39 2.1510 1.9138 2.0352 1.8435 .4833 40 1.5020 1.8061 1.2705 1.5597 1.0498 41 1.9346 1.7296 1.7411 1.6953 .8906 42 1.0244 1.6633 . 8000 1.5246 1.0915 43 4.6040 . 8912 4.5882 .9615 .1379 44 4.3795 1.5593 3.9411 1.9119 2.0950* 45 4.4000 1.1759 4.4470 .9882 - .3296 46 .5795 1.2804 .5882 1.3485 - .0527 47 4.6693 . 7672 4.7882 .5109 -1.3254 48 2,7061 2.2522 1.8823 2.1606 2.9268* 49 3.8571 1.5984 4.0941 1.3072 -1.2276 50 4.7428 .5883 4.5882 . 9367 1.7620 51 1.6040 1.8654 2.0117 1.9733 -1.7048

*Indicates significant difference.

Induction and Orientation.--The analysis yielded

statistically significant, differences at the .05 level of

confidence in two practices that related to Indication and

Orientation. Items 1 through 14 in Table XXX relate to

Induction and Orientation. Those practices which were sig-

nificantly different were as follows:

9. Separate student teacher and super-vising teacher is mismatching is obvious.

11. Help the supervising teacher work out. the goals for the student teacher.

122

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in induction and orientation practices as reported

by supervisors of state colleges and supervisors of private

institutions.

Observation.•—'The analysis yielded statistically sig-

nificant differences at the .05 level of confidence in four

practices that related to Observation. Items 15 through 24

in Table XXX relate to Observation. Those practices which

were significantly different were as follows:

16. Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook.

17. Observe the student teacher teach during an unannounced visit.

20. Observe the entire period.

24. Visit the student teacher at least once every two weeks.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was some

difference in observation practices as reported by super-

visors of state colleges and supervisors of private institu-

tions, with three of the significant t ratios favoring the

supervisors of state colleges.

Individual Conferences.—The analysis yielded statisti-

cally significant differences at the .05 level of confidence

in four practices that related to Individual Conferences.

Items 25 through 36 in Table XXX relate to Conferences.

27. Hold the conference immediately after the classroom visit.

123

29. Assist the student teacher in developing his own teaching techniques.

30. Assist student teacher in daily lesson planning.

33. Make suggestions to student teacher con-cerning appearance and personal habits.

These findings seemed to indicate that there was no

difference in conference practices as reported by supervisors

of state colleges and supervisors of private institutions.

Public Relations.—In the area of Public Relations, the

analysis yielded no statistically significant differences at

the .05 level of confidence. These findings seemed to indi-

cate that there was no difference in public relations practices

as reported by supervisors of state colleges and supervisors

of private institutions.

Evaluation.—The analysis yielded statistically signifi-

cant differences at the .05 level of confidence in two

practices that related to Evaluation. Items 4 3 through 51

in Table XXX relate to Evaluation. Those practices which

were significantly different were as follows:

44. Provide the supervising teacher with a written guide for use in evaluation of the student teacher,

48. Write a narrative evaluation of the student teacher.

These findings seemed to .indicate that there was no

difference in evaluation practices as reported by supervisors

of state colleges and supervisors of private institutions.

124

Analysis of Non-Hypothesis Data

The purpose of this section of the chapter is to present

results of the data not used to accept or reject the research

hypotheses. The subjects were asked to respond to these more

"unstructured" questions. Responses to these more "unstruc-

tured" questions were tabulated into percentages and used in

comparison with similar questions asked of the judges used

as the panel of experts in the study. These data and their

analysis are presented below.

The judges were asked if they thought the college super-

visor should meet with the director of student teaching and,

if "Yes," hov/ often should these meetings be held. The

Texas supervisors were also asked if they met with the

director of student teaching and, if "Yes,-" how often.

Ninety-seven per cent of the judges felt the supervisor

should meet with the director and 90 per cent of the college

supervisors reported meeting with their directors. The

judges advocated these meetings be held more often than the

college supervisors reported holding them.

Both judges and college supervisors were asked to

indicate the purpose(s) of these meetings between the college

supervisors and the directors of student teaching. Data

regarding these purposes are presented in Table XXXI.

The data in Table XXXI show a wide difference in what

judges say the purposes of meetings with the director of

student teaching should be and what the college supervisors

actually reported.

125

TABLE XXXI

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO PURPOSES OF MEETINGS WITH DIRECTORS OF STUDENT

TEACHING

Judges Super-visors Differ-

ence Purpose

97

97

81

63

63

91

56

63

66

76

26

55

54

26

34

31

37

37

30

To evaluate the student teaching pro-gram.

To discuss practices and techniques used in the supervision of the student teacher.

To discuss' problems met by the student teacher

To evaluate the educational programs of the cooperating schools.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the supervising teacher and make recom-mendations concerning placement of future student teachers under her supervision.

To evaluate your role in the supervision of the student teacher.

To screen prospective student teachers.

Over 90 per cent of the judges felt that these groups

should discuss evaluation of the program, the actual prac-

tices and techniques used in student-teacher supervision, and

evaluation of the role of the college supervisor. Less than

70 per cent of the college supervisors reported that these

issues were discussed at the meetings with the director of

student teaching. Approximately half O-f

126

meetings as a good time to screen prospective student teachers.

However, only 26 per cent of the college supervisors reported

discussing this issue. Both groups seemed to agree that one

purpose should be that of discussing problems met by the

student teacher.

The judges were also asked if supervisors from other

faculty departments in the college should attend these meet-

ings and, if so, how often. The college supervisors were

asked if other supervisors attended the meetings. Ninety-

seven per cent of the judges thought other college supervisors

should be in attendance. However, only 48 per cent of the

college supervisors reported that supervisors from other

departments attended these meetings. Judges also felt other

college supervisors should attend these meetings more often

than what was actually reported by the college supervisors.

As was the case in most of these "unstructured" ques-

tions, the college supervisors were given an opportunity to

list other purposes or techniques used in answering the

questions. Other points most frequently listed were as

follows: problems related to use of public schools by other

colleges and universities, reassignment of supervising

teacher if mistake seems to occur, location of new sources

for teacher placement, orientation to the purpose and policies

pf the program.

127

Both groups were asked about involvement in the

orientation or induction.of student teachers. One hundred

per cent of the judges felt the supervisor should be involved

with student-teacher orientation, and induction. Eighty-five

per cent of the college supervisors reported being involved

and 15 per cent reported not being involved in the induction

process. Both groups were then asked to indicate specific

ways in which involvement in the orientation program should

take place. Data regarding these specific techniques are

presented in Table XXXII.

The data in Table XXXII reveal that 100 per cent of the.

judges advocated holding a pre-student-teaching conference

with the prospective student teacher. Ninety per cent of

the college supervisors reported holding such a conference.

However, only 76 per cent of the college supervisors pro-

vided the student teacher with a student-teaching handbook.

All judges felt the student teacher should be provided with

this handbook. A considerable difference existed between

the two groups in relation to asking the student teacher to

write an autobiographical sketch and providing the student

teacher with a salf-evaluating check list. Eighty-one per

cent of the judges saw the autobiographical sketch as help-

ful and 97 per cent advocated the check list. Only 43 per

cent of the college supervisor's reported asking for an

128

TABLE XXXII

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO TECHNIQUES USED IN THE ORIENTATION OF

STUDENT TEACHERS

Judges %

Super-visors

%

% Differ-ence Technique

100 90 10 Hold a pre-student-teaching conference with the prospective student teacher.

81 43 38 Ask the student teacher to write autobiographical sketch.

an

69 48 21 Encourage the student teacher to a diary or a log.

keep

97 67 30 Provide the student teacher with self-evaluating check list.

a

100 76 24 Provide the student teacher with student-teaching handbook or brochure.

a

autobiographical sketch and only 67 per cent provided the

student teacher with a self-evaluating check list.

The college supervisors also listed other specific

ways they were involved in the orientation procedure. Some

of the more frequently mentioned ways were as follows:

Hold periodic clinic sessions.

Keep logs during observation prior to student teach-

ing.

Discuss ethics with total group.

Have student teacher fill out personal information form.

129

Invite other girls who have completed the student-

teaching experience to talk to the new group.

Judges and college supervisors were then asked about

conferences with the cooperating school principal. Ninety-

seven per cent of the judges felt the college supervisors

should hold conferences with the cooperating school principal.

Seventy-two per cent of the college supervisors reported

holding conferences with the cooperating school principal.

While only 3 per cent of the judges felt these conferences

not essential, 18 per cent of the college supervisors re-

ported holding no conferences with the principal.

Both groups were also asked to state the purpose(s) of

these meetings. Data regarding these purposes are presented

in Table XXXIII.

The data in Table XXXIII show that the college super-

visors were in agreement, for the most part, with the judges

in relation to the purposes of meetings with the cooperating

school principal. The largest difference existed in relation

to the practice of encouraging the principal to enlist the

cooperation of his faculty in aiding the student teacher.

Eighty per cent of the judges advocated this practice, while

only 42 per cent of the college supervisors reported encourag-

ing this cooperation.

Other purposes of these meetings most frequently

mentioned by college supervisors included the following:

130

TABLE XXXIII

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO PURPOSES USED IN MEETINGS WITH

COOPERATING PRINCIPALS

Judges %

Super-visors

%

% Differ-ence Purpose

80 42 38 To encourage the principal to enlist the cooperation of his faculty in aiding the student teacher.

72 62 10 To invite the principal to observe and evaluate the student teacher.

88 94 - 6 To share information about the student teacher and the student teaching program with him.

97 85 12 To invite any suggestions he might havs for improving the student teaching program.

to check on the availability of supervising teachers,

to become acquainted with the principal and to under-

stand his philosophy of education,

to discuss progress of each student teacher,

to discuss possible placement of the student teacher

after graduation.

The judges and the college supervisors were also asked

about the principal visiting the student teacher. Ninety-seven

per cent of the judges felt the principal should visit the

student teacher. Sixty-three per cent of the college super-

visors reported the principal did visit the student teacher.

131

Twelve per cent of the college supervisors reported the

principal did not visit and 25 per cent reported they did

not know if visitation took place or not.

Both groups overwhelmingly agreed that it was necessary

to establish rapport with the supervising teacher. Both

judges ctnd college supervisors were asked to indicate the

kinds of things they did to establish this rapport. Data

regarding these techniques are presented in Table XXXIV.

The data in Table XXXIV reveal wide divergence in

practices advocated and actual practices reported in estab-

lishing rapport with the supervising teacher.

With the exception of one technique, that of inviting

the supervising teacher to the college campus, the judges

were unanimous in advocating the listed practices for estab-

lishing rapport with the supervising teacher. After 84 per

cent of the college supervisors reported providing the super-

vising teacher with background information on the student

teacher, the percentage decreased on every other technique.

Only 24 per cent of the college supervisors discussed their

professional background with the supervising teacher and

provided the supervising teacher with professional materials.

Agreement was almost unanimous on the question of

student-teacher observation in a teaching situation in the

• cooperating school classroom. Both groups reported 100 per

cent agreement on the existence of this practice and there

was little reported difference in the purposes of these

132

TABLE XXXIV

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO TECHNIQUES USED IN ESTABLISHING RAPPORT

WITH THE SUPERVISING TEACHER

Judges %

Super-visors

%

% Differ-ence Technique

97 84 13 Provide supervising teacher with back-ground information on the student teacher.

97 24 73 Provide the supervising teacher with a resume of your professional back-ground.

97 72 25 Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook or brochure.

97 61 36 Provide supervising teacher with an opportunity to aid in developing standards for the student teacher's evaluation.

81 28 53 Invite the supervising teacher to college campxis to discuss the eval-uation of the student teaching program.

97 24 73 Provide supervising teacher with pro-fessional materials.

97 64 33 Meet with the supervising teacher in informal professional-social get togethers.

observations. Data regarding student-teacher observations

are presented in Table XXXV.

Other frequently mentioned purposes of student teacher

observation were as follows:

133

TABLE XXXV

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON.OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO PURPOSES OF STUDENT TEACHER OBSERVATION

Judges %

Super-visors

%

% Differ-ence Purpose

97 96 1 To observe student teacher in a class-room situation in order to make suggestions and solve problems.

97 97 0 To evaluate student teacher's ability and growth.

100 98 2 To observe how the student teacher meets classroom situations and develops rapport.

100 98 2 To observe the student teacher's tech-nique and ability in presenting material.

84 80 4 To appraise the kind of situation, in which the student teacher is placed

to appraise the effectiveness of the student teaching

program,

to pinpoint needed improvement and to enhance the

growth factor,

to observe the personality of the student teacher and

its effect upon his learners,

to help the student teacher develop self confidence,

poise, and learn to generate enthusiasm,

to observe variety of procedures.

The data in Table XXXV show this agreement on purposes

of student teacher — -

134

unanimous on the purposes of suggestions for solving prob-

lems, evaluation' of growth, establishment of rapport, and

the presentation of materials. A smaller percentage of both

the judges and college supervisors saw the classroom observa-

tion as an opportunity to appraise the classroom situation

itself.

Both groups were then asked about group conferences or

seminars. Ninety-one per cent of the judges advocated the

holding of these seminars, while only 9 per cent disagreed.

Seventy-six per cent of the college supervisors reported,

holding seminars and 25 per cent reported they did not hold

group conferences or seminars. Data regarding the procedures

used to insure group participation in these seminars are

presented in Table XXXVI.

The data in Table XXXVI reveal that while 84 per cent

of the judges advocated allowing the student teacher to assist

in the planning of the seminar, only 59 per cent of the

college supervisors reported allowing their student teachers

to assist in the planning. The greatest difference appeared

in the percentage using motion pictures. While 63 per cent

of the judges advocated using motion pictures to illustrate

good and poor teaching, only 20 per cent of the college

supervisors reported using films for this purpose. A wide

•difference also existed in the use of other college super-

visors. Sixty-five per cent of the judges advocated bringing

in other college supervisors to talk with the group, while

135

TABLE XXXVI

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO PROCEDURES USED IN INSURING GROUP

PARTICIPATION IN GROUP CONFERENCES OR SEMINARS

Judges %

Super" visors %

% Differ-ence Procedure

84 59 25 Allow the student teacher to assist in the planning.

63 20 43 Use motion pictures to illustrate good and poor teaching,,

61 44 17 Demonstrate specific techniques in presenting subject matter.

65 31 34 Bring in other college supervisors to talk to the group.

only 31 per cent of the college supervisors reported partici'

pating in this practice.

The judges and college supervisors were then asked if

they considered public relations to be a responsibility of

the college supervisor. The judges were unanimous in their

agreement that public relations should be a responsibility

of the college supervisor. Ninety-six per cent of the

college supervisors also agreed on their public relations

responsibilities.

The data in Table XXXVII reveal the techniques used by

'both groups in their public relations responsibilities.

Eighty-four per cent, of the judges felt meeting on

social occasions with cooperating school personnel was a

136

TABLE XXXVII

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO TECHNIQUES USED TO FURTHER PUBLIC RELATIONS

Judges %

Super-visors

%

% Differ-ence Technique

91 70 21 Hold final meeting with .cooperating-school principal to express appre-ciation .

35 26 9 Give talks before high school seniors.

100 83 17 Consider suggestions made by cooperat-ing school personnel for improving the student teacher program.

63 65 - 2 Aid the cooperating schools in the recruitment of new teachers.

84 56 28 Meet in social occasions with cooperat-ing school personnel.

84 60 24 Send letters of appreciation to co-operating school personnel.

good technique to further public relations, while only 56

per cent of the college supervisors reported using this

technique. Another technique advocated by 84 per cent of the

judges was the sending of letters of appreciation to cooperat-

ing school personnel. Only 60 per cent of the college

supervisors reported using this technique. Both groups

apparently considered suggestions made by cooperating school

personnel for improving the student teaching program.

Other techniques reported by the college supervisors

for furthering public relations included the following:

137

inviting school personnel to orientation seminar on planning,

inviting school personnel to college social functions,

complimenting cooperating school teacher on the manner in

which they perform their duties, holding teas at home for

student, teacher, supervising teacher, and cooperating

principal.

Both groups were then asked about assigning the student

teacher a letter grade for course credit. Seventy-three per

cent of the judges saw as desirable the assigning of a letter

grade while 27 per cent were opposed to assigning the letter

grade. Eighty-four per cent of the college supervisors re-

ported assigning their student teachers a letter grade for

course credit while 13 per cent reported they did not assign

letter grades. The data in Table XXXVIII 'reveal the pro-

cedures used in arriving at this final grade.

The data in Table XXXVIII show agreement between the

two groups on procedures used in arriving at a final grade.

Both groups advocated consulting the supervising teacher and

asking for a written evaluation and the use of a rating

scale. Neither group saw the use of a final examination as

an integral part in arriving at the final grade. Some dif-

ference did exist in student teacher self-evaluation. Fifty-

nine per cent of the judges advocated this self-evaluation,

•while only 45 per cent of the college supervisors reported

the use of self-evaluation in determining the final grade.

138

TABLE XXXVIII

A PERCENTAGE COMPARISON OF JUDGES AND COLLEGE SUPERVISORS IN REGARD TO PROCEDURES IN ARRIVING AT A FINAL GRADE

FOR CREDIT

Judges %

Super-visors

%

% Differ-ence Procedure

84 89 - 5 Consult the supervising teacher and ask for a written evaluation.

69 78 - 9 Use a rating scale of teaching compe-tencies and personal characteristics as a check list.

59 45 14 Ask the student teacher to evaluate himself and report his evaluation to you.

3 5 2 Conduct a written final examination and use this as the primary criterion in assigning a letter grade.

Other techniques mentioned by the college supervisors

in arriving at a final grade included the following: use of

knowledge gained in conferences and observations, discussion

of grade with cooperating teacher and matching of supervisor's

judgment with the student teacher's notebook, use of an oral

examination, and use of supervisor's own judgment in evalu-

ating the effectiveness of the student teacher's performance.

The college supervisors were asked some questions that

were not directed to the judges. These questions dealt with

'the college supervisor's relationship with other members of

139

the college faculty and handicaps which deterred the super-

visor in the performance of his job.

Ninety per cent of the college supervisors considered

their status on the faculty to be satisfactory. Five per

cent reported an unsatisfactory relationship and 5 per cent

chose not to answer the question. The supervisors were asked

to state how this unsatisfactory relationship could be

alleviated. Only two supervisors chose to answer this. Their

comments were as follows:

A college supervisor needs to have at least-Assistant Professor status to maintain the respect of his student teachers and cooperating school personnel.

Some of my colleagues feel that we spend too much unncessary time away from the college campus.

In relation to the question pertaining to job handicaps,.

65 per cent of the college supervisors reported there were

handicaps that deterred them in the performance of their job

as a supervisor. Of this 65 per cent, 33 per cent reported

the handicap of committee assignments, 22 per cent the

handicap of report writing and other clerical duties, 61 per

cent the handicap of finding time for visits, 48 per cent

the handicap of time wasted in travel, and 31 per cent the

handicap of an excessive number of student teacher to super-

vise.

Two open-ended questions were presented at the close of

the questionnaire. These questions were intended to give the

college supervisors an opportunity to "open-up" and express

140

themselves more freely. These two questions were (1) What

do you consider to be the basic tools and/or techniques of

the college supervisor? and (2) Can supervision, through,

the use of these tools, improve student teaching?

In answering the first question, most of the college

supervisors reported the personality of the individual

supervisor and his ability to get along with people and

communicate with all parties involved in the student-teaching

experience to be of foremost importance. The next two most

frequently mentioned comments dealt with the necessity of

the supervisor having knowledge of the teaching-learning

process, and with the necessity of his having public school

experience. Many supervisors thought five years of public

school experience should be the minimum. Other frequently

mentioned tools or techniques included the following: knowl-

edge of subject matter in the area of supervision, observation

and conferences, understanding of the total program of the

cooperating school systems, video tapes, and Flanders Inter-

action Analysis.

Over 95 per cent of the college supervisors who answered

the second question were of the opinion that supervision most

definitely improved the student-teaching program. A few did

comment that supervision was not doing all it was capable of

.doing. Some of these negative comments were as follows:

Frankly, I am not fully satisfied with any methods thus devised. I feel that the college supervisor is too limited to really evaluate. It should be in the hands of a "master teacher" in the school.

141

Yes, but we need more realistic situations for experiment with immediate feedback.

Yes, but not greatly. We need new approaches, goals, organization., and techniques.

Not in its present structure. Student teach-ing is too little, too late, frequently with the wrong person, emphasizing the wrong things.

God knows! I doubt it.

CHAPTER IV

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

Ths problem of this study was to determine the status

and practices of supervisors of secondary student teachers

in Texas colleges and universities and to compare these

practices with those practices recommended by national

authorities in the field of student-teacher supervision.

The instrument used' in the study was constructed by sur-

veying the literature in the field of student-teacher super-

vision. The validity and reliability of the questionnaire

of student-teacher supervisory practices were established.

The questionnaire was completed by 91 per cent of the college

supervisors of secondary school student teachers in Texas.

Specifically, the investigation was designed to permit

conclusions to be drawn concerning the following- purposes of

the study:

1. to compare the practices reported by college and

university supervisors of secondary student teachers in

Texas with practices recommended by national authorities in

the field of student-teacher supervision,

2. to compare the practices reported by supervisors in

schools of education with practices reported by supervisors

in schools other than schools of education,

142

143

3. to compare the practices reported by supervisors of

all-day student teachers with practices reported by super-

visors of part-time student teachers,

4. to compare the practices reported by general super-

visors with practices reported by special supervisors,

5. to compare the practices reported by supervisors of

state colleges with practices reported by supervisors of

private institutions.

The purposes of the study were stated in research

hypotheses and then analyzed statistically. The acceptance

or rejection of each hypothesis was based on the percentage

of t tests which were significant. If less than half of the

t tests were significant, the hypothesis was accepted. If

more than half of the t tests were significant, the hypothesis

was rejected. The data for each subject in this study were

punched on IBM cards and statistical computations were made

at the Computer Center at North Texas State University.

The statistical procedure utilized to test the null

hypotheses was the Fisher t test with the .05 level of con-

fidence accepted as significant.

Summary Findings

Findings were tabulated under headings according to the

organization of the questionnaire.

Data concerning the status of the college supervisor.—

Findings from the status section of the questionnaire as

presented in Chapter III were as follows:

144

1. Sixty-eight per cent of the college supervisors

were male, with 64 per cent between the ages of thirty and

forty-five.

2. Forty-nine per cent of the college supervisors re-

ported having three or less years of service on present

faculties, with 76 per cent reporting no experience on other

college faculties.

3. Fifty-two per cent of the college supervisors re-

ported having three or less years of supervisory experience

on present college faculties, with 74 per cent reporting

three or less years of supervisory experience on other

college faculties.

4. Distribution of rank for professors, associate

professors, and assistant professors was even, with 52 per

cent of the college supervisors reporting an earned doctorate

as the highest academic degree.

5. Fifty-two per cent reported some field of education

as their major and 50 per cent reported some field of educa-

tion as a minor in earning academic degrees.

6. Thirty-nine per cent had five or less years of

teaching experience in the secondary school, and 60 per cent

reported having had no experience in teaching at the elemen-

tary level.

7. Fifty per cent, reported holding sojue administrative

position in the public or parochial schools.

145

8. Sixty-five per cent reported having had a college

course in general supervision and 2 3 per cent reported having

had a college course in the supervision of student teachers.

9. Seventy-seven per cent devoted between 10 per cent

and 60 per cent of their -total teaching load to the super-

vision of student teachers and 70 per cent reported that

other college personnel from other departments did not aid

them in this supervision,

10. Seventy per cent reported visiting student teachers

in six or less schools during a semester or a quarter.

11. Sixty-five per cent reported having a minimum of

five student teachers at one given time and 55 per cent

reported having a maximum of more than ten student teachers

during a given quarter or semester.

12. Eighty-nine per cent reported having nine or less

credit hours of teaching assigned them during a semester,

with 52 per cent reporting their student-teaching supervision

on both the junior high and senior high school levels.

13. Fifty-four per cent reported all their supervising

teachers holding at least a master's degree and 39 per cent

reported their colleges had written contractual agreements

with the cooperating school systems.

14. Seventy-five per cent reported not meeting with

•supervisors from other colleges and universities and the

same percentage reported having no writing published in a

professional journal during the past two vears.

146

Data concerning the practices of the college super-

visor.—Findings concerning the practices of the college

supervisor are presented according to analysis of hypothesis

data and analysis of non-hypothesis data.

Summary Analysis of Hypothesis Data

Findings pertaining to Purpose I_. —The extent to which

the practices reported by college and university supervisors

of secondary student teachers in Texas compared with prac-

tices recommended by national authorities in the field of

student-teacher supervision was represented by fifty-one

t ratios. Twenty-eight ratios were significant at the P .05

level of confidence and twenty-three ratios were not signifi-

cant. On the basis of these findings, the practices reported

by Texas college supervisors and those practices recommended

by national authorities appear to be different. The hypothesis

was rejected. Supervisors in Texas colleges and universities

do not appear to put as much emphasis on selected supervisory

practices as is recommended by the panel of judges. This

lack of emphasis was particularly noticeable in the areas of

Orientation and Public Relations.

Findings pertaining to Purpose II.—The extent to which

the practices reported by college and university supervisors

in schools of education compares with those practices re-

ported by supervisors in schools other than schools of

147

education was represented by fifty-one t_ ratios. Seven

ratios were significant at the P .05 level of confidence and

forty-four were not significant. On the basis of these

findings the practices reported by supervisors in schools of

education and those practices reported by supervisors in

schools other than schools of education appear to be the

same. The hypothesis was accepted.

Findings pertaining to Purpose III.—The extent to which

the practices reported by supervisors of all-day student

teachers compared with those practices reported by super-

visors of part-time student teachers was represented by

fifty-one t: ratios. Thirteen t ratios were significant at

the P .05 level of confidence and thirty-eight t ratios were

not significant. On the basis of these findings, the prac-

tices repox'ted by supervisors of all-day student teachers and

those practices reported by supervisors of part-time student

teachers appear to be the same. The hypothesis was accepted.

Although the hypothesis was accepted, supervisors of all-day

student teachers and supervisors of part-time student 'teachers

reported practices to be different in the area of Orientation

and Induction.

Findings pertaining to Purpose IV.--The extent to which

•the practices reported by general supervisors compared with

practices reported by special supervisors was represented

by fifty-one t ratios. Nine t ratios werp •- -•

148

the P .05 level of confidence and forty-two it ratios were

not significant, On the basis of these findings, the prac-

tices reported by general supervisors and those practices

reported by special supervisors seem to be the same. The

hypothesis was accepted. Although the hypothesis was

accepted, general supervisors and special supervisors reported

practices to be different in the area of Orientation and

Induction.

Findings pertaining to Purpose V.—The extent to which

the practices reported by supervisors of state colleges

compared with practices reported by supervisors of private

institutions was represented by fifty-one t ratios. Twelve

t ratios were significant at the P .05 level of Confidence

and thirty-nine t ratios were not significant. On the basis

of these findings, the practices reported by supervisors of

state colleges and those practices reported by supervisors

of private institutions appear to be the same. The hypothesis

was accepted. Although the hypothesis was accepted, super-

visors from state colleges and supervisors from private

institutions reported practices to be different in the area

of Observation.

Summary Analysis of Non-Hypothesis Data

Responses to these unstructured questions were trans-

lated into percentages and used in comparison with similar

149

questions asked of the judges used as the panel of experts

in this study- Analysis of these questions revealed the

following findings;

1. Wide differences existed in what was recommended

and what was actually reported as related to the purposes of

meetings between the directors of student teaching and the

college supervisors.

2. Judges recommended more participation from super-

visors in other departments of the college than was actually

reported by the college supervisors.

3. Both groups reported high percentages of involve-

ment in the induction of the student teacher. However,

differences did exist in the provisions made for student-

teaching handbooks and the writing of autobiographical

sketches.

4. While both groups agreed it was necessary to estab-

lish rapport with the supervising teacher, large differences

existed in the practices reported in establishing this

rapport. The judges were almost unanimous in advocating the

listed practices; however, the percentage of college super-

visors who actually reported using these techniques was

small.

5. Very small differences existed in advocated prac-

•tices and reported practices in the area of student-teacher

observation.

150

6. Some difference existed in the percentage of judges

who advocated group seminars and the percentage of college

supervisors who reported holding these seminars,

7. While both groups agreed that public relations

should be a responsibility of the college supervisor, large

differences existed in the techniques advocated and those

techniques reported in further public relations.

8. A larger percentage of college supervisors reported

assigning letter grades for student teaching than was advo-

cated by the panel of judges.

9. Most college supervisors considered their status on

the college faculty to be satisfactory even though 65 per

cent reported handicaps which deterred them in the performance

of their jobs.

10, A large majority of the college supervisors thought

supervision could improve student teaching. This was

particularly so if the college supervisor had a strong and

pleasant personality, at least five years of teaching experi-

ence in the public or parochial schools, and knowledge of

the teaching "-learning process.

Conclusions

An important point in the analysis of the data should

be noted at this time. The acceptance or rejection of each

hypothesis depended on the number of t ratios which were

significant at the .05 level of confidence. If less than

151

twenty-six of the t ratios were significant, the hypothesis

was accepted. If better than twenty-six of the t ratios

were significant, the hypothesis was rejected. Inasmuch as

69 of the 255 t ratios were significant (26 per cent), the

following conclusions are drawn from an analysis of the

findings:

1. Contrary to previously reported research in terms of

practices currently being performed by Texas supervisors of

secondary student teachers, these supervisors were not at

wide variance with those practices recommended by national

authorities. However, no value judgment can be placed on

methods by which these practices are performed.

2. College supervisors of secondary student teachers in

Texas are consistently observing student teachers, holding

conferences after the observations, and making evaluations

of them. However, in the peripheral areas of induction and

public relations, needed improvements would seem to be

warranted. This conclusion is Ipased on the differences

reported in the analysis of the

tices in these areas as reported! by the Texas supervisors and

practices in these areas as recommended by national author-

ities in the field of student-teacher supervision.

3. It appears that many college administrators are

ambivalent in regard to the position of the college super-

visor. That is, little coordination seems to exist between

directors of student teaching and the individual supervisor.

t ratios between those prac-

152

This conclusion is based on the findings related to meetings

between the college supervisor and the director and the

purposes involved in these meetings.

4. Little coordination seems to exist between various

departments in the college in relation to assistance given

the student teacher in the cooperating school classroom.

This conclusion is based on the findings related to meetings

involving the various departments responsible for the super-

vision of the student teacher.

5. In relations between colleges and cooperating school

personnel, there is a lack of coordination. This is especial-

ly evident in the case of the supervising teacher. Of the

sixty-nine significant t ratios, twenty-seven of these ratios

involved the supervising teacher.

6. It appears that the majority of the college super-

visors in Texas do not have adequate professional preparation

in the field of student-teacher supervision. This conclu-

sion is based on the small number of supervisors who reported

having had a course in either general supervision or super-

vision of student teachers.

Recommendations

One of the purposes of this study was to provide data

that may be useful in moving toward a more consistent approach

to supervision and therefore an improvement in the teacher

education programs of this state. In light of this purpose,

the following recommendations are made as suggestions for

153

improving the supervisory process in Texas colleges and

universities -

1. In order to coordinate the supervisory program and

assure uniformity of practices among all supervisory officers,

it is important that regular meetings be held for the super-

visory staff. These meetings should be carefully prepared

and structured so that their emphasis rests in articulation

of supervisory procedures and consistent evaluation of their

results.

2. There is a need for more initial conferences of

college supervisors and cooperating teachers as an aid in

the induction of the student teacher into the responsibilities

of the classroom.

3. During the student-teaching experience one or more

meetings with the supervising teacher, the student teacher,

and the college supervisor should be held to establish

rapport, discover and discuss problems related to the student

teaching program, and explain and clarify administrative

procedures relating to the student-teaching program.

4. The supervising teacher should be included in some

college staff conferences so that he may understand the ob-

jectives, theory, and philosophy of the teacher education

program. The objectives of the student-teaching program

•should be discussed and developed in these staff conferences

in order to achieve a clear understanding by all supervisory

officers.

154

5. The supervisory staff should develop a handbook for

supervising teachers containing information of the adminis-

tration of the program, supervisory practices, and the

importance of the cooperating schools.

6. The college supervisor must educate the supervising

teacher as a supervisor of student teachers. This can be

accomplished through conferences, making materials and re-

sources available, and sharing background data on the student

teacher and his college work with the supervising teacher.

The college, supervisor can provide help to the group of

supervising teachers working with him through workshops,

conferences, and seminars.

7. Means should be provided for recognizing the

contributions of the supervising teacher to the program.

Out of a wide possibility for recognizing this professional

contribution, the following are recommended:

a. the offering of courses and workshops pertain-

ing to the problems of supervising student teachers,

b. the supplying of professional literature and

other materials concerning the supervision of the student

teacher,

c. providing the supervising teacher with an

opportunity to participate in the formulation of policies

•concerning the student teaching program/

d. the providing of free tuition for one course

per year taken at the parent institution,

155

e, the providing of free admittance to university

functions,

f, the providing of library facilities commensurate

with college faculty members.

8. Each college or university should encourage a

comprehensive program of personnel assignment for the super-

vision of student teachers. Particular emphasis should be

placed on the faculty member's years of experience in the

public schools.

9. This program should orient neophyte college super-

visors to the problems and procedures normally encountered

and followed in the supervision of student teachers.

10. College supervisors should evaluate their present

practices in the light of recommendations of supervisory

experts and plan cooperatively with cooperating school per-

sonnel and other universities for making needed improvements.

11. Since many problems exist concerning the supervision

of student teachers, a continuous research program should be

activated to pursue solutions to these problems.

Recommendations for Further Research

Further research in this area might be attempted to

determine the effectiveness of the above mentioned suggestions

for improving the supervisory program. More specifically,

research is needed in the following areas:

156

1. Thorough studies should be conducted to evaluate

and compare the student-teaching prog-rams in the collages and

universities of this state.

2. Extensive studies should be conducted concerning

the hiring of personnel who will best suit the qualifications

needed for excellence in the position of the college super-

visor.

3. While there may be differences in the manner in

which general supervisors and supervisors from the student's

area of specialization function, studies need to be made, to

consider ways of coordinating these activities so that the

student teacher receives the best possible guidance.

4. Replications of this study need to be conducted to

determine the effectiveness of the use of'graduate assistants

and retired public school teachers as supervisors of student

teachers.

5. Replications of this study need to be conducted to

study the effectiveness of supervisors according to profes-

sional preparation, age, and educational philosophies in

comparison to criteria recommended by national authorities

in the field of student teacher supervision.

num.

APPENDIX A

A STUDY OF THE TEXAS SUPERVISOR OF SECONDARY STUDENT TEACHERS

PERSONAL DATA

Sax: Male (....), Female (....), Age: Please Check { } / ) 20-29 (....), 30-3$ (..,.), 40-49 (....), 50-59 (....), 60-69 (....)

Yeais of service on a college faculty:- This college ( ), Other colleges ( ).

Years of student-teacher supervisory expeiience: This college ( ), Other colleges ( ).

Rank presently held on this college faculty: Please check ( ...) Professor Associate Professor (....), Assistant Profes-

sor (....), Instructor (....), Other (pleas state) ( .. ).

Department(s) in which you now have teaching duties: PLEASE SPECIFY (Education, History, Chemistry. Industrial

Aits, Music, etc.) v

PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION

Highest academic degree earned: (Please check one) Bachelois (....), (Please specify kind) Masters (....),

(Please specify kind) , Specialist (....), (Please specify kind) Doctorate (Please speci-

fy kind)

Please list your major and minor in earning your highest academic degree: Major . Minor(s)

Fears of full-time teaching expeiience: in secondary schools , in elementary schools

Please check the appropriate position(s) which you have fc«»id in a public or parochial school: Superintendent (....), Assistant Superintendent (....), High School Principal Assistant Principal (....), Elementary Principal (..:.), Super-visor (....), Department Chairman (....), Teacher (....), Other (state title)

c'leass check if you have had a college course in these specific areas: General Supervision (....), Supervising Student teachers (....)•

PRESENT POSITION '

Please indicate kind of institution In which you are presently employed: State supported (....), Private (....)

Please check kind of supervision ycu are responsible for: Special subject matter (....), General (....}«

*Vhat percentage of your total college teaching load is devoted to the supervision of student teachers? 0% to 10% 10% to 30% 30% to 60% 6C% to 100 %( ...).

Do you supervise all-day student teachers or part-time student teachers? All-day Pert-tixrse (....)•

Do faculty members from other college departments assist you in the supervision of your student teacher (s) ? Please check. (*£). Yes No

Number of schools that you visit In mro?r\is.ng your student teachers during a term or quarter: Pleftse' cJwck <•*/). 1 - 3 4 - SC. . . ) , 7 - 10 or more (....)

3rade level(s) in which you supervise: Please check (.VI). Elementary (....), Junior High (....), Senior High (. . ,) .

Average total number of credit hours of college teaching assigned to you (this excludes student teachers.) If you have no

teaching assignment as such, please indicate. Semester Hours Quarter Hours None ..

dumber of student teachers supervised each student-teacning period Fewest .. Most .......

Do you meet with college supervisors from other colleges and universities during the student teaching experience? Yes ( ...) No (....)

Do all supervising teachers guiding your student teachers have a masters degree? Yes No (....), Unknown (....),

Does your college have a comprehensive written contractual agreement with the cooperating school systems? Yes No (....), Unknown

Have you had any writing published in a professional journal during the past two years? Yes (....), No (....)«

SUPERVISORY PRACTICES

.1 thorough review*of the literature reveals a wide variety of practices employed in t h e supervision of student teachers. Listed below are some of the practices frequently mentioned in the literature. No superisor should, or is expected to, em-> ?loy all of these. Our concern is determining what practices are presently being utilized. We are interested in what is being 'lone anc not what ought to be (lane. ,

It you do vvhat is stated, please check YES (V^), an<5 on tne continuum at the right CIRCLE the number which indicates the extent to which you participate, in the practice. If you d:> not participate in the practice, please check No (y/.) arid pro-ceed to the next statement Remember: THERE ARE NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWERS.

£ «SS

5. I $ I 8 &

Yes h'o _ "c •*

X, Encourage student teacher to attend professional meetings —t — % /£ "J" 2 Jt

2. Client the student teacher to the philosophy-and practices cf the school 5 4 v $ 2 1

3. Introduce the student teacher to the supervising* teacher „ 5 4 '§ 2 1

4. Encourage student teacher to find out long range plans of the supervising- teacher 5 4 3 2 1

5. Give the student teacher an opportunity to see other student teachers teach — — 5 4 3 2 1

6. Do demonstrate teaching in the cooperating school for the student teacher : 5 4 3 2 1

7. Let cooperating school principal know when you are in his building 5 4 3 2 1

8. Report obvious weaknesses of the supervising teacher to the cooperating school principal 5 4 3 2 1

9. Separate student teacher and supervising teacher if -mismatching is obvious 5 4 3 2 1

10. Aid in the selection of the supervising teacher 5 4 3 2 1

11. Help the supervising teacher work oat the goals for the student teacher 5 4 3 2 1

12. Help supervising teacher plan the student teacher's daily schedule — — 5 4 3 2 1

13. Hold three-way conference with th, student teacher and supervising teacher 5 4 3 2 1

14. Hold three-way conference with the student teacher and the cooperating school principal 5 4 3 2 1

15. Observe the teaching of the supervising teacher 5 4 3 2 1

16. Provide supervising teacher with a student teaching handbook 5 4 3 2 1

LT. Obr.eive the student teacher teach during an unannounced visit 5 4 3 2 1

18. Enter the classroom before class begins 1 5 4 3 2 1

19. Make an effort to put the supervising teacher at ease ^ —= 5 4 3 2 1

?0. Observe the entire class period .. 5 4 3 2 1

11. Participate in classroom discussions 5 4 3 2 1

:2. Take notes while observing 5 4 3 2 1

!3. Postpone visit if the student teacher appears unduly upset or disturbed 5 4 3 2 1

?4. Visit the student teacher at least once every two weeks 5 4 3 2 1

?."J. Plan for the individual conference by reviewing available information on the student teacher — — 5 4 3 2 1

'6. Allow the student teacher to be heard during the individual conference 5 4 3 2 1

;7. Hold the conference immediately after the classroom visit 5 4 3 2 1

?&. Provide the student teacher with a written record of the major points discussed in the conference 5 4 3 2 1

;9. Assist the student teacher in developing his own teaching techniques 5 4 3 2 1

10. Assist student teacher in daily lesson planning 5 4 3 2 1

U. Assist student teacher in organizing units of study 5 4 3 2 1

12. Encourage student teacher to use experimental classroom procedures 5 4 3 2 1

13. Make suggestions to student teacher concerning appearance and personal habits 5 4 3 2 1

<4. Attempt to give the student teacher help in developing poise and emotional control 5 4 3 2 1

:o. Aid the student teacher with his/her personal problems 5 4 3 2 1

;6. Tape record the individual conference for future use 5 4 3 2 1

17. Try to sell the student teaching program to the community and to the cooperating school 5 4 3 2 1

;8. Serve as liaison between the college and the community by speaking at school meetings and other civic affairs 5 4 3 2 1

•9. Give information to cooperating school personnel concerning college entrance requirements

and certification 5 4 3 2 1

.0. Suggest college instructors to interested cooperating school personnel 5 4 3 2 1

1. Serve as consultant to cooperating schools 5 4 3 2 1

.2. Suggest that copies of professional journals be placed in cooperating school libraries 5 4 3 2 1

3; Continuously evaluate the growth of the student teacher - 5 4 3 2 1

4. Provide the supervising teacher with a written guide for use in evaluation of the student teacher 5 4 3 2 1

5. Encourage the student teacher to make suggestions for improvement of the student teaching program - 5 4 3 2 1

6. Base final evaluation primarily on the student teacher's knowledge of his subject 5 4 3 2 1

159 ». J5 1 I

J . 5 * S 3 ftr < o >£':

47. Consider the student teacher's ability to v/ork with youth and cooperating school personnel Yes Ko < ' -* in the final evaluation . 5 4 3 2 3

48. Write a narrative evaluation of the student teacher 5 4 3 2 1

49. Discuss final evaluation with the student teacher after the student teaching experience 5 4 3 2 1

50. Write recommendations for the student teacher when he/she is seeking employment 5 4 3 2 1

pi. Conduct follow-up studies af ter the student teacher has gone into the teaching profession 5 4 3 2 1

Please answer the following questions by checking (....) the appropriate statements.

Do you meet with the Director of Student Teaching or your Department Chairman during the student teaching period?

Yes (....), No (....)• If yes, how often? Very Often (....), Sometimes Occasionally (....)•

What is the purpose of these meetings? Please check (....).

(....) to evaluate the student teaching program.

(....) to discuss the practices and techniques used in the supervision of the student teacher.

(...,) to discuss problems met by the student teacher.

(....) to evaluate the educational programs of the cooperating schools.

to evaluate the effectiveness of the supervising teacher and make recommendations concerning the placement of future student teachers under her supervision.

(....) to evaluate your role in the supervision of the student teacher.

(. . .) to screen prospective student teachers.

(....) Other, please specify .

Do supervisors from other departments in your college attend these meetings? Yes No (....). If yes, how often? Very Often (....), Sometimes Occasionally

Are there handicaps which deter you in performing your job 'as a supervisor? Yes (....), No If yes. please check

(....) any of the following that might apply in your situation:

committee assignments

(....) report writing and other clerical duties

(....) finding time for visits

(....) time wasted in travel

(....) excessive number of student teachers to supervise

(....) Other, please specify

Are you in any way involved with the orientation or induction of your student teachers? Yes No (....)• If yes, in what specific ways? Please check

(. . .) hold a pre-student teaching conference with the prospective student teacher.

{....) ask the student teacher to write an autobiographical sketch,

(....) encourage the student teacher to keep a diary or a log.

(....) provide the student teacher with a self-evaluating check list.

(....) provide the student teacher with a student teaching handbook or brochure.

(.. .) Other, please specify

Do you hold conferences with the cooperating school principal? Yes (....), No If yes, how often? Very Often (....), Sometimes (....), Occasionally What are the purposes of these meetings? Please check (....):

(....) to encourage the principal to enlist the cooperation of his faculty in aiding the student teacher.

(....) to invite the principal to observe and evaluate the student teacher.

(....) to share information about the student teacher arid the student teaching program with him.

(...) to invite any suggestions he might have for improving the student teaching program.

(....) Other, please specify .

Does the principal visit the student teacher? Yes (....), No (...„), Unknown (.„.). If yes, how often? Very Often (....), Sometimes (....), Occasionally (....)• - »

isr I>o- ytm feel i t la necessary to establish rapport wi th tha supervising' teacher? Yes No ( ) . If yes, v/hat ldw.s& of

tStfnspr do you do to establish rappor t? Please check (.. . .):

(....) provide the supervising teacher with background information on the student teacher.

provide the supervising teacher with a resume of your owft professional .background

(....} provide the supervising teacher with, a student teaching handbook or brochure.

( > provide the supervising teacher with an opportunity to aid in developing standards fo r the student teacher 's evaluation.

i } invite the supervising teacher to the college campus to discuss the evaluation of the student teaching program.

( > provide the supervising teacher with professional materials.

( > me^t with the supervising teacher in informal "professions!-social" get-togethers.

Bo yooi observe your student teacher(s) in a teaching situation in the cooperating school classroom? Yes (....), No (....)• If yes, what i s /are the purpose(s) of this observation? Please,, check (.. . .):

(....) to observe the student teacher in a class situation in order to make suggestions and solve problems.

( ) to evaluate the student teacher's ability and growth,

(....) to observe how the student meets classroom situations and develops rapport.

( ) to observe the student 's technique and ability in presenting material.

(....) to appraise the kind of situation in which the student teacher is placed.

( ) Other, please specify

Bo you hold group conferences or seminars with your student teachers during the student-teaching experience ? Yes No If yes, what procedures do you use to insure group participation? Please check (.. . .):

(....) allow the student teacher to assist in the planning.

(. ..) use motion pictures to illustrate good and poor teaching.

(....} demonstrate specific techniques in presenting subject matter .

bring in other college supervisors to talk with the group.

(....) Other, please specify .

T>o you consider public relations to be one of your responsibilities as a college supervisor? Yes (....) A No (....)• If yes, what techniques do you use? Please Check (.. . .):

(....) hold final meeting with the cooperating school principal to express appreciation.

(,...} give talks .before high school seniors.

(....) consider suggestions made by cooperating school personnel for improving the student teacher program.

(....) aid cooperating schools in the recruitment of new teachers.

(....) meet in social occasions with cooperating school personnel.

(....) send letters of appreciation to cooperating school personnel.

(.. .) Other, please specify ..

Do you consider your relationship with other members of the college faculty and /or your s ta tus in the college to be satis-factory? Yes (....), No (....), If no, please explain how you think this could be alleviated

Do you assign your studont teacher a letter grade for course credit? Yes No (....). If yes, wha t procedure do you employ in arriving a t this final grade? Please check (.. . .):

(....) consult the supervising teacher and ask for a wri t ten evaluation.

{ ) ma & rat ing scale of teaching competencies and personal characteristics as a check list.

(....) ask the student teacher to evaluate himself and report his evaluation to you.

(. ..) conduct a writ ten final examination and use this as the primary criterion in assigning the letter grade.

(....) Other, please specify ;

What do you consider to be the basic tools and/or techniques of the college supervisor? 2a your opinion, can supervision, through the use of these tools improve student teaching? Please explain.

Please re turn t o : John B. Harnett

Box 13427, N. T. Station Denton, Texas 76203

N g k t h T e x a s S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y

D.I;.-;XTOX, TEXAS 76203

; E>T OF /*2H;CATION AND PsYOHO

APPENDIX B

Because of your "knowledge and experience, you have been recommended as an educational specialist by The Association For Student Teaching. We need a ,few minutes of your time to aid us in establishing validity for the enclosed questionnaire which is being designed as part of a doctoral study now in progress at North Texas State University, We intend to survey ALL secondary supervisors in Texas colleges and universities to determine the extent to which they participate in each practice included in the questionnaire* These practices will then be compared with those recommended by other state presidents of The Association For Student Teaching. We will, of course, be most happy to send you a summary of the results.

To date, no study has been dene that attempts to shed light on this important phase of teacher education in Texas, This study will attempt to alleviate some of the confusion and uncertainly v?hich surrounds the position of the college supervisor. We know that you share with us the urgency of this matter and are aware that the results of this study will depend upon your cooperation. WE KEEP YOIjR KZlUMl !

Will you please respond to the attached questionnaire by indicating whether you think each item is valid for use in the study, whether you think it is invalidj or whether you are unable to make a decision* Please feel free co make any comments on any of the items included or on any aspect-of the topic not covered in the questionnaire. For your convenience we have enclosed a stamped, ^ddres sad envelope. If at all possible, we would appreciate a return of the completed questionnaire prior to February 29th, Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John B. Barnett Graduate Assistant

J, William Turner Assoc:iat- Professor of Education Ch a ;L rma n 3 D o •: t o r a 1 C omm i 11 e e

161

N O R T H T . C X A S S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y

D>«"Tox, TI::X AS 76203

{»K!'AlfTMIIXT OF EDUCATION AND PsYCHOiOGV MSH'CIIl 15, 1963

A P P E N D I X C

A study is now in progress at North Texas State University to determine the practices performed by ALL supervisors of secondary student teachers in Texas, We need a few minutes of your time to aid us in securing this information-, We would appreciate your sending us the names and department assignments of your faculty who supervise secondary student teachers so that we may in turn send to them a brief questionnaire. Each item on this questionnaire has been validated by state presidents of The Association For Student Teaching.

To date, no study has been done that attempts to shed light on this important phase of teacher education in Texas. This study will attempt to alleviate some" of the confusion and uncertainty which surrounds the position of the college supervisor* We know that you share with us the urgency of this matter and are aware that the results of this study will depend upon your cooperation* •

As indicated by the enclosed letters, the Director of Student Teaching here at North Texas State University and The Texas Association for Student Teaching have shown interest in this study* Of course, all facts obtained as a result of this study will" be treated impersonally and the names of institutions and faculty will not be identified in connection with any of the data obtained.

For your convenience we have enclosed a stamped, addressed envelope, If at all possible , we would appreciate hearing from you prior to April 1st. We will, of course, be. most happy to send you a summary of the results. Please remember, it is imperative that we have the list by departmental assignments, Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John B, Esrnetfc Graduate Assistant

J, William Turner Associate Professor of Education Chairman, Doctoral Committee

Enclosure

162

. . A B I L E N E C H R I S T I A N C O L L E G E A b i l e n e , T o x a

l i ng f o r C h r i s t i a n l i v ing

r 1 F e b . 2 2 , 1968

DEPARTMENT" OF EDUCATION

APPENDIX D

Mr, John B. Barnefct Box 131+27 North Texas Station Denton, Texas 76203

Dear I-lr. Barnett:

I have read your dissertation proposal, "A Study of

the Texas Supervisor of Secondary Student Teachers", and

I hereby give my hearty endorsement to this topic. It is

my belief that the study needs to be made and I vill be

glad to cooperate 'with you in every way that I can. I also

urge all college supervisors of secondary student teachers

to cooperate in this study.

Sincerely yours,

7f Weldon E. Barnett, President Texas Association for Student Teaching

l

North Tc.xas State University

DiJ^roN, TJ:X.'.S 164

SCHOOL or HIJI CAUOK

0inj.(,iOM or nt:n 3-urcvvriorr

Dear fellow Educator:

Tbe^ job of the college supervisor of student teaching has unfortunately

been takf*n for granted to the extent that we really know very little

about it at this tine. Because of the undeniable importance of this

position,"we are greatly interested in the promise which Kr. Barnett's

study holds for des 'real world" of the college supervisor. I hope that you will contribute to the study by providing Kr. Barnetit with a list of your supervisors and their respective departmental affiliations.

Sincerely yours,

G \ - C :Oc>-A<-

C. M. Clarke

~ \

QIC: rnc

N o i r r H T E X A S S T A T E U M V K R S I T Y

DEXTON, T E X A S

70203

3;:i1AHTMENT OF Ent'CATiON AND P^YCHOJ.Or.Y

A P P E N D I X E

Your Director of Student Teaching has given us your name as a practitioner and a person who will help us in a study that is now in progress at North Texas State University to determine the practices performed by ALL super-visors of secondary student teachers in Texas. We need a few minutes of your time to aid us in securing this information. This study is done in cooperation with The Texas Association For Student Teaching and the instru-ment; itself has been validated by state presidents of The Association For Student Teaching, We will, of course3 be most happy to send you a summary of the results.

To date, no study has been done that attempts to shed light on this impor-tant phase of teacher education in Texas. This study will attempt to alleviate some of the confusion and uncertainty which surrounds the position of the college supervisor. We know that you share with us the urgency of this matter and are aware that the results of this study will depend upon your cooperation. WE KEEP YOUR RETURN I !

Will you please respond to the attached questionnaire by providing the necessary information. Your name will be removed from the questionnaire wnen we receive it. For your convenience we have enclosed a stamped, addressed envelope. If at all possible, we would appreciate a return of the completed questionnaire prior to April 22nd. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John B. Barnett Graduate Assistant

J. William Turner Associate Professor of Education Chairman, Doctoral Committee

Enclosures

165

N O R T H T E X A S S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y

DK.MOX, TEXAS

y 702O3 April 22, 1968

I)V.PA BTMJKNT or EnrCATION AND PSYCHOLOGY

A P P E N D I X F

You may recall that on April 10th, we sent to you a letter requesting a few minutes of your time to aid us in a study that is now in progress at North Texas "State University to determine the practice performed by ALL supervisors of secondary student teachers in Texas. Although we have already received responses in excess, of fi11v percent, a reply has not been received from you, In the event that you might have misplaced your first request, we are enclosing another copy of the instrument being used in this study. WE URGENTLY NEED YOUR RETURNI I ~

This study is being done in cooperation with The Texas Association For Student Teaching and each item on the questionnaire has been validated by state presidents of The Association For Student Teaching, We realize that you are very busy with your duties3 but we hope you can find a few minutes to answer the enclosed questionnaire so as not to bias the results. For your convenience we have enclosed a stamped, addressed envelope. If at all possible, we would appreciate a return prior to Hay 3rd.

We shall be looking forward to your participation. If you have already returned your reply, please disregard this letter and accept our sincere thanks.

Very truly yours,

John B. Barnett Graduate Assistant

J . William Turner Associate Professor of Education Chairman, Loctcral Committee

Enclosures

166

N O H T H T E X A S S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y

D E N T O N , T E X A S

76203

D^fautmext of Education and Psychology

April 1, 1968

APPENDIX G

Because of your knowledge and experience5 you have been recommended as an educational specialist by The Association For Student Teaching. We need a few minutes of your time to aid us in determining to what extent a college supervisor of student teachers should participate in each practice included in the enclosed questionnaire. Each item on the questionnaire has been validated by a random selection of other state presidents of The Association For Student Teaching. A pilot study was then conducted here at North Texas State University to determine the reliability coefficient of this instrument. As indicated by the enclosed letter, the Texas Association For Student Teaching has shown interest in this study.

To date3 no study has been done that attempts to shed light on this important phase of teacher education in Texas. This study will attempt to alleviate some of the confusion and uncertainty which surrounds the position of the college supervisor* We know chat you share with us the urgency of this matter and are aware that the results of this study will depend upon your cooperation. WE JMEED YOUR RETURN I I

Will you please respond to the attached questionnaire by iridic a tirg how much emphasis you think the college supervisor should place on each practice. Please feel free to aiake any comments on any of the items included or on any aspect . of the topic not covered in the questionnaire. For your convenience we have enclosed a stamped, addressed envelope. If at all possibley we would appreciate a return of the completed questionnaire prior to April 15th* Thank you very much for your cooperation.

S i n c e r e l y ,

John B. Barnett Graduate Assistant

J. William Turner Associate Professor of Education Chairman3 Doctoral Committee

167

168

CO W O 55 m PH pa fe Pm H o

< U H &H CO H EH

03

P-i D O FTJ a

o !3 LNMI RN EH < a H

35 • X Q H 25

X H H H R Q X PCS Z\ W M w ffl

a PQ D

< < JZJ

m PI PQ < H OS < > EH ©

< EH < Q Q W CS3 H a w EH H

fa O

>H &

<D H

(d •rj

fd >

s a o s x A j r a d n s a r ^ A X J c a p t r e

S J i o s x A J c a d n g aq.pq.g

s j o s x A ^ a d n s i p x o a d g

p t r e s j e o s x A ^ a d n g x p : l a u 0 D

s a o s T A J a d u s a u i T i - ^ a ^ a

p u p s j c o s x A ^ a d n s ^ a - T T Y

s a u T x o x o s T a a a q ^ o

put? u o T q . H o n p a j o j o o q D s

saTq.Ta'0-qq.nv x ^ u o T q . ^ ^

p u p s a o s T A a a d n s s i s x a j ,

s o t ^ ^ H q. q .u^o - T J T U B T S J O JRAQURRIM

J B q u m N a x q ^ x . x ^ A

rd a <u •P -P (d

O -P

CD CO XJ o fd CD -p

G •H -P CD (!) e -P

c 0) •d fd

a -P o U) -H

CQ 0> 0) CP 0) rd *w M O 0 M O Oa o c w

CD •x; -P

o -p

u CD x; o rd CD -p

CD X! •P

tw o

co CD O

*H -P O fd U Oa

13 a rd

4-1 a CD 13 0 -p >1 co XJ

04 CD O

X2 CO +> O

iH •H XI

•P a CD

-H M O

i—! o o

XI o

Pu 00

<u £t -P

o -p

u CD XI o fd CD -P

•P c

CD XJ

a) o 13 d 3 -P to

0) -p

CD x: p

tn c -I CO

•HI

CD > o u 0 CD TJ 0* o ^ M to -P a H

- J . M CD a

13 3 £ CO

•H *M CD

Xi O -P •P

<4H M O CD X! O

CO C5

fd rd 0 i—i -P cu -p a CD ^

CD CD CD S X! 13 fd O a u fd •P i 0) CO tPP

£ CD O tn tnrH a fd »h M -P 01 0 0 -H 0 o > o a w

OJ CO

C\J

to

ro

o

I u 0 01 04-p o a

CD £ 13 fd

P cn M

a) x; M a <D fd x\ A) -P •P O

x: -P CD Q C <D FD CD co A>

•P 13 3 -P CO

O +3 03

U >i Q)

CD -P X! x: -H Q -P A

S3 CD -P -P >

•H rJ?

fd CD

LO

169

T3 CD 3 £ •H •P

0 u 1 I X H X! X X w

CQ < E-i

i 0 O -P £ i to a a i-4 *r~l 1 0) 1 <D u

CD T3 i—i. 0 o On tn CD jc: 0 sd tn XX u 53 £ a< -P -P &i jzl •p to -H

CO -H -H CD H ,c to a O T3 M~l „£ fd tJ u 'H d) C rH O +j a a -p 0

-H -H •HI fd fd rC 0 -p W O O e -p a ChrQ cd +> a M £0 •H M CO -H CD *H IW

CD 0 rH CO 03 M M XX g 0 1—1 a M~! 0 -H CD CD Oi o JQ fd O £5 a X! fd M~< £ fd CD rH JCJ ^ D H a) -H 0 •H -P 0 O £ as fd 0 -p •H M 0 en -H CD CD 0 -P M fd C rd £ -P XX -P CD o CD > o a tn 0) o £ x: CD X!

*r~f to a U to tn co (D O jH o •P •H rd 3 £ t* fd CD fd fd tn -P 0 -H tn 53 a> to 0 M £ rd 3 •H CO £ -p -p -p -P *H U M O > -H -H to to 0 CO +j <D CD >i ,0 > «P tn 3 XX tji £ fd ,£ CU o u fd CD £ 0 -p £ QUO o £ (D U -p *H *H •H S a) <d O <D -P 04 CD fd to > a CO CD Pu CD O 42 u 3 a* U -H ,Q -H *H 'd o +3 £ 0 CO 0 fd > o > -p a 04 0 0) CD CD -H a 05 m <

sjcosTA^adns aq-BAxad piTC

s;rosTA:iadns aq.*e s -k

sjrosTAaadns xBToa<5s •K pup

sjcosTAaadrts x^Jiauao * •fc

saosTAj:adns «K pure

sjxosTAjxadns ^d-XTY *

*

sauTxdTosTa •K ptre

uoT^onpa jo xooqos •K *

S3Tq.Taoqq.nv xHnoT^^M * * •K * •K PITS

sjosTAjradng svxb&

soTqpy; q qireo -tjtuBts jo aaqinriH t—i CM CO

j:aqumN axq^T^A VD r* CD <Tl O rH

170

CD 2 a

• r-J •P C 0

u 1 I

X H X

w Hi

0) I—i x t (d

•HI M fd >

- P S3 H O 0)

X! ^ o M d G 0 £ - P

M - P a) c

x j a) o * d fd p 0) -P - P CO

On 0 CJ XI

- P •H CO

•H > u Q) 04 CO 3 rH

U O

*W

03

CD Xt -P

fd O t n

0 X!

& - P rH 0

a s

0 H

CD ^ XI t * - P CD

x ; G O fd to

rH P i > i

pH M -Hf CD fd

x ; r a a rd w CD -•p n

CD c n x : d o

fd 0

-M

•P £

a 0 3 H3 CO S3 - p

a ? co rH 0) t c

0 t p XI £ - P -r l

to -H >

M CD cu 3

x ; -P -H s

a) o to a CD *d n a 0 fd

*w M 0

a x i o

> i fd fd 0

• $ - P i 0 0 u 0 x ;

XI TS o •P S3 ' - p

T3 to H o

EC

- p £

fd 0

- p

0 XI - p

x : «P •H 3t

0 a o a 0 »d m a 0 fd

4~l

CD a

-H

fd M 0 Du O O

0 O XI

o >1 fd fd 0 £ i 0 0

- p

-P Oa a *H

u 0 o x i *0 a 4J ^ *H

- P M 13 co Oi rH o t c

i n 0 cu S3 CO

0 x j J j

<w o

t n a

*H x i M O 0 fd x l 0 o . p fd

0 0 - p

x» •P t n

£ 0 -H > CO U -H 0 > CO X! O

fd

x l •P •H £

0 x : , D »U fd a 0 fd -P XI

t n t n £ d

o o

X2

-H XI o fd 0 •p

•H to

•H > H 0 CU S3 +) CO £

0 0

r d 3 *H -P > 0 u 01

to

s j o s T A a e d n s s ^ e A T J t a :

p u p

s a o s x A J t a d n s

s j o s x A J t a d n s T e x o s d s

p u e

s - c o s T A J a d r t g i s a a u s o

s a o s T A a s d r i s e u r r i - q - j e a

P U E

s a o s T A J s d n g A B Q - I I Y

s e u t x d T O S T a a e q q . o

p u B

u o - r q . G o n p a j o j o o q o s

s a j q - j z o x m n v j - e u o j i e N

p u n

s a o s f A J s d n s S P X S J ,

S O T ^ E H q. , ^ U B O

- T J T U B T S J O a a q u i r i N r g CM n m

j E a q u r n u CM rH

CO rH

LO t—I

KD

171

r d <D

. 3 £ +>

a O

o f f

X H X xs X

m

Eh

0) r H JQ fd

*H M rd

>

s : r c > S T A ; r a d n g a q u A T j t a

p t r e s ^ o s x A a a d n s e q . £ q . g

s a o s j A J c a d n g x ^ T ^ ^ ^ S

p t r e

s a o s x A j a d n s

s : i o s T A ; r a d n g

p u n

s a o s x A J c a d n s A P Q — X T V

s a u x x d j o s x a : x a q q . Q

P U B

u o x q . B o n p a j o x o o q o g

s a j ^ T J C o q ^ r i v X ^ O T ^ i N I

p u r e

S i C Q S T A j r e d r i t s s p x a , i

S O T ^ ^ h q. q x r e o

- t j t x i B T S J O j a q u m f i

J c a q u m j s j a x q ^ J c ^ A

£ *H

3

M CD

x ; o fd 4-> CD - H -M 03

•H 4J >

0) ^3 a) 2 -P 03

cu X j -P

CD > u a <D fd 03 A O

w a

- H tr» <u

X?

03 03 fd

rH U

CD U o

*w <D

X!

e o o n 0} CO fd rH

o

u CD -P £

r -rH

O

CO rH

i 03 •H >

a) a 3 03

(!) X j •P

<D -P 03 3 fd a 0)

O -P -P fd

-P M u CD o x ;

Mh o m fd o <p

•P £ fd Gr»

a a) °H

rd S

o •H

0)

a* f/3 03 fd

H O

CD kl *H -P £ (D

CD XJ +>

CD >

M (D 03

X3 O

03 a 0

- H 03 03

0 O 03

• H n3 t n

£ E *H 0 > 0 M CD 03 03 03 X I fd O

H O CD

rH £ •H

*H X I » 0)

-P 03 fd 0) a * +)

•H 0 O £

• H -P CD

rd fd Ot EH

a \

U CU T5

X ! 0) o x ^ -P fd U 03 a) 3 fd

-P -P 0) 03 rH

-P - H £ * 0 -P CD fd

u fd

3 o u - p CD 03 +J x ; 03

0) a x CD 03 fd CD

X< O-i CD CD - p a •P S

*W >1 -P O - H i—S £ £

CD -P nd TS •H £ 3 >1 03 0 -P JH

*H 03 0) > 03 >

CD CD CD fd x ; £ a) -P 0) o a> o & Q.< - p £

- p m • H 0 03 03 0 *H Oi >

o CM

O

CM CM CN

r o CM

CM

CM

172

T5 0)

. 3 a

•H -P £ o 0 1 t

X H x x x

w h i «

<

SjtosjAjradns 9qBA i i a p u p

s j t o s T A J x a d r i s

s a o s x A a a d n s t ^ j o a d s

p u p

s j r o s T A j r e d r t g

s z o s x A J t a d n s b u i t j ; —

p u p ' 1

S J C O S T A J T 0 d n s ^ P a - I I V

s a u x x d T D S T Q a e q ^ o

p u p

u o T q . p o n p a j o x o o i p g

S 0 T q . T J O l j q . r i V X P U O T q . P | g [ I

p u p

s j o s T A J c a d n s s p x a j ^

CD I u td a g CD

U

CD r~J XI fd •H u fd >

o a) m

n-i £ a -H o o <3; q)

h xi H j l O

fd rd ^ rH (D

^ -H 4J fd > -p

as c CD

tF>T3 a 3

*r-| & a> -H > CD U

-r-i > •H *0 G

•H

CD Xf •P

u o

*4-4

4J 01

a o

a o

> i - H a x? -M td

CM

s o t ^ P H ; 1- q . U P O

J - J J T U B T S j o j 0 q i u n N 1 °

a s q u i n t ^ i q B T r ^ B A If) CM

*0

fd CD CD X! M~l

C <D O

XI O

O iH -P fd

3

CD -H X! > a -H fd nd CD c -P -H

4J <D £ XI 0 -P

3 tn •p c CO -H

M S 5 O 13

«H

M CD +J

*W fd

J>i rH CD -P fd

•Hi T3 0

I -P -H -H

aJ to

X? «P •P

£

•H >

B O O

to CO

a) o a CD

CD <4-i a o a m

f—! a) a

X! -P CD

X! V3 -p rH o «

a •H CD o o 04 £

w CD a) u u

XI O 0) O - m m fd fd £ a) s o •p o

*-W •P O CD £ XI CD T3 -p

in O a O -H

CO CD

CD a to 0) CO

-P 3 <U -P O

•H CO M -H S T3

13 +J

CD X! •P

H3 •H > O u Cm

I Oi O

pH CD CO > CD

n3 t r *r*|

£ £

-H XI O CD •P

M 0)

XI O tP

-P X! o

•P fd a cd 0) 4J

CD CO XI -HI -P X?

-P CO •H CO CO <

tn d H

KG CNt

ro

r -cnj

CO CNJ

r-4 -H fd

'O

a *HI

aj x< o fd tn

-P a CD r~i

^ 0 , 0 -P CO

c O CO

-P to to Q)

•H rH CO CO <

CN

rvi

173

* d 0)

. 3 £

• P C Q

0 1 I

X H

X

m f-3 p s < •

EH

0) t H

X I fd

- H

fd >

£ • H N

-r-l C fd Sn

O

a

*H

M

a) x r o fCJ cd > *

+ j « d

- P to

- P

CD * d <w 0 o

- p

CO to - p

. p *H to a

• H 3 to to <

to cu M 3

CD TJ CO <D 3 O

O O U

- P a *

u CD

Xi o fd to CD to - P fd

H - P O £ 0) r~4

<X$ «J 3 - P

- P c to CD

E CD - H Cr» M fd CD

3 O CD o £

w

I—I fd £ o to M

fd 0 CD Q-I

• p

ncs +3 CI a fd CD

" 0 CD 0

- p

to fd u

o fd • P a>

Ou to a .

fd

•H tJ> • p a to - H 0) a t n M to t P 0) +3 3 O - H to £ &

o fd CD O ^

fd s

n CD

o fd * d CD a

- P fd

• P CD a to

•H o Ch

0)

p • p to c n

a « h (D - H O £$ p 4 M - P O ' P

rH C CD CD O > > O

• H 0) t n *"0 r~i

cd £ £ H c

- H 4-> O i - P 0-4 H O E <D 6 CD r C CD

+>

- P

O • P

0 , £ \ CO

• H &

& • P •H £ U <D

r £ o to fd E 0 0

- p i H JQ

• P o a M cd a <

^ *—I 4-) fd to a

o CD W

A - P

•H rt!

M CD O-i

a> o £ CD u CD

4*-! a o o

fd

<d •H >

£ - H

a) • a - p

u o o m CD u u

o cd m Ch fd

EH

s j o s x A a a d n s a q . ' B A T a a ;

p u e

s a o s T A J c a d n s a q . p q . s

s J O S T A J c a d n s x e x o a d s

p u - e

S J O s x A a a d n s x b - : i : 3 U 3 D

s a o s T A J c a d n s a m T i - q . a ' B d :

p u e

s a o s T A a e d n s A B Q - X I V

s s u x x d j o s x a - x a q q . o

p u n

u o x q . e o n p a j o x o o q o s

s s x q . x a o n q . n v i B u o x q ' E j S L

p u H

s a o s x A a e d n s s e x s x

s o x q ^ H q q t t n o

• X J X U B T S J O - l e q u m N o

j a q r a n j s i 0 0

CM CO

CO CO CO

I f ) CO

V£> m

174

•"0 CD . 0

a - H - p c 0 a 1 i x H X

w

ICQ

Eh

<d r H

X *

- H

ttJ >

s j c o s j A J c e d r i s

p t I B

s j r o s T A j r e d n s e q . B q . g

0) x i - p

t n a TJ • H fi x ; aj o «d > i CD 4J - p « H

a S3 -P

£ CD

-P CO (1) (j

(D +» X I - p o

<P r H

E-

S « H O O o o

X !

W

C • H - P <d

<D fd U W U 0) ^ tP Cb 0 0 0 - P M o

0 4 O

u En

s J c o s x A J c a d n s T ^ j o e d s

p u p

s : r o s i : A : t 0 d r i s T ^ ^ e u a o

s a o s T A j r e d n s © u r r j i - w a

p t r e

s j r o s T A J i o d n g ^ £ G ~ - X T V

S a U T X d T O S T a J L S V f r 0

P U B

u o x ^ H o n p a J O x o o q o s

0 t P - P CD fd o rH - H h t n > O a *r-|' O ' H o

<D (G U X j CD CD - P O i X J

03 - P £ o CD > , <D X I * 0 3? a •P > i fd 0 -P X3 * H CO

a t n g 3 a O g - H w § - P * h o a) m o aj • h g H CD CO

XJ H M w -P o * H fd o aj

t s x : m J) d O ^ > fd co rd

CD W

a fd

^ 0 3

tn + ) G tr> a • H c CD - P - H id g M M CD CD Oi O O c O O o o

g CD M •H 2

<u u

O r H CD -P CD O

C C! g g m a O O M o • H CO +J - H -P M C -P fd CD CD fd S p 4 O H CD - H O i—I tsri«j-i ^ O CD - H fl O H +J H X I i H

o o _ CD CO O O >

* H o

u CD

r H O

o o •p X !

o CO CO u O tn •p a O - H £3 - P u rd •P M CO CD £ •H O

O CD O tn 0) * 0 H CD rH r H - p CD o co a o cd a

m o -P CD CO

u CD

CO -p CD C tr»-H O j tr> 3 CO

s e T q . T j c o q q . n v T B u o T q p ^

p u p

s a o s T A j r e d n g s p x a j ,

S O T ^ H q. q t n ? o

l l J - T ^ T S j o ^ a q u m ^ r o

j t a q i u n H

£ • H •P

M CD 0 . O o o

o -p

•p a fd •p rH d CO c O U CO

i H co o fd o

£i CD O > CD

W

W

r -m

c o r o a\

co o

«st*

175

<D £

£ 4J £ 0 u 1 (

X H

X

w

CQ «<

s j o s x A j e d n s a ^ B A T J d :

p u e

s a o s x A c r a d n s s q . e q . s

s a o s x A J e d r i s - [ e x o e d s

p u e

S a o S T A J S d r i S I T 2 J a U 3 0

s a o s T A j e d n s

p u p

s a o s x A - x a a r i g A ^ q - x x y

S 3 U T x d T O S T a ^ a q q - O

p u p

u o T ^ B o n p g ; j o x o c n p s

s e T q . T J : o t j q . n Y X B u o x q . B N

P ITS s a o s x A ^ a d r i g s e x a j ,

s o x q . e y ; q. q . u e o

- j j j u B j s jo aaqumw

Cn H s td -H £ -P 0 fd

u CD PU o o o

0 rH X! rd

-H

nj >

03 CO 0)

tw O M 04

m O

to 0)

*H L&CU

Q O

-P aJ

x ; -p

a) x i

CQ

CO CD H U fd U

•H

<d

M 3 O

t n - m co tr» 3 w

4J CO $

rH o o

XI o

XI ! m -P P c "H <—i

£ fd XI > -P U CD M £ 0) CD 0 x ; a x i M O -H O On fd <d

CD CD CD CD

CD •P CO -P XI -P -P

d ^ c a) cd •H O <D -P XI U i m X S fd u •H ^ 3 fd : > CD -P

rH CD ^ TJ CO fd -P (U #H > a . 3 cd 0) -P 3 tPXl

£ CO 4-» >1 CD d

1—{ x$ <d a) m CO 3 XI -P 0 3 -P 4J 4J O co •H a 13 a) ^ 0 £ CD 13 & -H

*H XI -H -P 4-J -p > cd fd £ 0 O M 0 P4

0)

A3 S o o -p

-p M £ CD <D

XI S O <D m * On

4J C <D

t J 3

> o M tP Qu a g -H •H XI

a

O CD -p M~t 4 J CO

CO -p a) c a

o a) -P -H 13

•p a CD CO .p tn a> co fd c* ^ tr> <u S3 3 XI O CO -P o fl

^ a q u i r i H a x q ^ x a ^ A CM 00 •*31

o

LO

a a) o c*

<d > 1 cu

rH rH •H S u o fd a S X

-H M CO a -

M c o

*H -P fd 3

rH rd > a)

CD x ; D fd <D -P

-P £ CD

rH 2 fd -P a CO

O <D -m X! 3 CO

CO •H XI

a> x i •P o

176

CD 0 c

- H - P d o

0 1 i

X H X

c«a

PQ

EH

• H - p a CD r H tr» a> £ <D x S « H a X I <D < d 0) - P X ! " H • P <D t J d t i* X I

TTJ - P r H X I a - P A +> 0 «d (d M-! - p - p to - H - p

co u a 0 CO r * ^ a - CD *H X ! <D CD CD - H U O i ^ - I d • P <D X I 0 - P

<D 0 0 • H X I - P to X I 0 0) • H £ - P fd £ o o x ; - P

£ - P M 03 to o

cd - P fd d H O - H CD t P CD « d 3 O CD m • H

a ) - P c d r H - H - P CD <D ^ CO £ r H fd - H rd - p m o to x ; !d fd O X I - P > fd fd a d to X I - H fd « 3 r~! CD 3 0 o \ CO CO

-r-J CD 0 CD u H M "H - H CD ^ to r d > i £ A) CD fd CD M 4J X I O i a) (D

ftf 3 £ > X I > X I CD fd ^ x l M-4 > - P X ! 0 • H O CD U O i n d £ I O 0

CO - P CO - P fd fd X a <D ^ fd Vi • H M £ fd CD r H CD CD Q) X I «P o a) a t

0) £ 0 0 U - P fd - P E £ d r H - P JZj 0-4 *H u d t n S ^ i H - P ^ - P fd 4-> " H «P d o n g O - P £

M H (d d £ £ - H O CD > 1 4-! £ - H U O Q $ CD CD X I CD X I O a ) x ! ( D S O H fd n d to n d o U O r H 4 J T 3 O

» d x i fd 2 co 0 fd (d p.4 o id fd • H O U > CD - P Id - p CD CD CD g S3 + j a) CO - p CO (D 4 J CO O W - P - p 4.J (U ' t j CO - P £ • H CO • H d o - H M 0

a S : p g : o

s j t o s T A ^ e d n s e ^ P A j a d

P U B S J T O S T A J c a d r t s © i * B q . g

*

s a o s T A a a d n s i H T o a d s p u p

s a o s T A J t a d r i s " [ ' e a a u s ^

s j c o s T A j a d n s a u i j i - q . a ' B c j

p u t ?

s j o s T A j a d n g A e a - X T Y

s a u T x c I x o s x a a e q q . 0

p u e p u e

u o - c q . T 2 o n p 3 j o x o o t j o s

S B T q - T ^ o q ^ n Y I - E U O T ^ E N 4c •K

r^TTtD j J U c s ^ o s x A J i a d n g s c x a j ,

S O T ^ H 3 - t j - t r e o

- T J T U B X S J O a e q i m i K o O I o r H o

x a q u i t i N a x ^ T - ^ A CO <Ti O r H i n i n

0-4 P o u fcn

n d a ) >

ncS I H

t o 0)

- P <d o

*H T 5

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Barr, A. S. and W. H. Burton, The Supervision of Instruction,• New York, Appleton and Company, 1926.

Burr, James B., Lowry W. Harding, and Leland B. Jacobs, Student Teaching in the Elementary School, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts," Inc., 1950.

Curtis, Dwight K. and L. 0. Andrews, Guiding Your Student Teacher, New York, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1954.

Mead, A. R., Supervised Student Teaching, Richmond, Virginia, Johnson Publishing Company,. 1939.

Stiles, Lindley J., Teacher Education in the United States, New York, The Roland Press Company, 1960.

Wiggins, Sam P. , The Student Teacher in Action-, Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1957.

Articles

Andrews, L. 0., "Experimental Programs of Laboratory Experi-ences in Teacher Education," Journal of Teacher Educa-tion , I (September, 1950), 259-267.

Bennie, William A., "The Cooperating Teacher Looks at Campus Life," Peabody Journal of Education, XLII (September, 1964), 105-108.

Bishop, Clifford Leon, "The Supervision of Teacher Intern-ship," Educational Research Bulletin, XXVII (May, 1948), 125-132.

Blyer, Dorothea, "Student Teaching in the American Associa-tion of Teachers Colleges," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXIII (February, 1947), 75-87.

•Bowers, Norman D. and Alice G. Scofield, "Evaluating the Supervision of Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, X (December, 1959), 461-467.

178

Brink, William G., "The Administration of Student Teaching in Universities Which Use the Public Schools," Educa-tional Administration and Supervision, XXXI {October, 1945), 394-402.

Campbell, Roald F., "Campus School and Student Teaching Arrangements at Seventeen Institutions," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXIV (March, .1948) , 163-167.

Charters, W. W., "The Techniques of Determining Content of Student-Teaching Courses," Educational Administration and Supervision, XV (May, 1929), 343-349.

Corbally, John E., "The Supervision of Student Teaching at the University of Washington," Educational Administra-tion and Supervision, XXI (February, i933), 152-155.

Dickson, George E., "The Crux of an Effective Off-Campus Student-Teaching Program," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXIX (March, 1953), 139-146.

Edmund, Neal R. and Lyle Hemink, "Ways in Which Supervision Helps Student Teaching," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXVII (March, 1958), 57-60.

Floyd, Oliver R. and Claude Eggertson, "The Supervisor as a Counselor of Student Teachers," Educational Adminis-tration and Supervision, XXIV (January, 1938), 69-73.

Frederick, Robert and Helen Holter, "Conflicting Attitudes Toward Supervision," Educational Administration and Supervision, XIX (April, 1933), 307-314.

Goodlad, John I., "Teacher Training: Role in Various Types of Institutions," Current Issues in Higher Education (1956), pp. 190-196.

Grim, Paul R., "Certain Administrative Phases of Student Teaching," Educational Research Bulletin, XXVII (April, 1948), 85-89.

Guss, Carolyn, "How Is Supervision Perceived?" Educational Leadership, XIX (November, 1961), 99-102.

Haggerty, William J. and Georgea Works, "Facilities of Colleges and Universities Accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools During 1936-1937," North Central Association Quarterly, XIII (January, 1939), 309-407.

179

Hahn, Walter, "Current Practices and Problems in Student Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, II (June, 1951), 118-121.

Harris, Ben M., "Need for Research on Instructional Super-vision," Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 129-135.

Henderson, Richard L., "The Double-Entry Log in Student Teaching," AST Research Bulletin, I (1957) , 71-72.

Inlow, Gail M,, "The College Supervisor of Student Teaching— A Comparative Study," Journal of Teacher Education, X (October, 1959), 211-216.

, "The Complex Role of the College Supervisor," Educational Research Bulletin, XXXV (January, 1956), 10-17.

Jacque, Florence C., "The Supervision of Practice Teaching on the High School Level by'Arts Colleges," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXXI (September, 194 5), 367-372.

Jarman, A. M., "Cooperation of Public Schools with State Universities in the Training of Teachers," Educational Administration and Supervision, XIX (April, 1933), 282-289.

Lawson, Douglas W., "Implications of a Survey of Teacher Training Practices in Illinois," Educational Adminis-tration and Supervision, XXV (October, 1939), 523-531.

Leggitt, Dorothy, "The Role of the Conference in Teacher Education," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXVII (October, 1951), 366-372.

Lindsey, Margaret, "Looking Ahead in the Student Training Program," Teachers College Journal, XXIX (December, 1949), 50-51.

Mead, A. R., "Concepts and Principles Involved in the Individual Conference in Supervision of Student Teach-ing: A Jury Judgement," Educational Administration and Supervision, XXIV (February, 1938), 94-104.

.Merring, Morton J., "The Nature of the Supervision of Student Teaching," Dissertation Abstracts, XVI (1956), 291.

Michaelis, John U., "Supervision," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 3rd ed. (1959), pp. 1477-1480.

180

Morris, Evert Paul, "The Organization and Administration of Student Teaching as Conducted in the Public Schools of Nebraska," Dissertation Abstracts, XVII (1957), 2529.

Patterson, Allen D. and Dwight K. Curtis, "The Fredonia Workshop in Teacher Education," Education, LII (January, 1952), 349-354.

Price, Robert D., "Current Practices in Selected NCATE Institutions," AST Research Bulletin, XXII (1964), 107™ 108.

, "The Influence of Supervising Teachers," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (December, 1961), 475-478.

Rodgers, David A., "Spontaneity and Specificity in Social Role Relationship," Social Education, XXVII (September, 1959), 298-302.

Roth, Lois H., "Selecting Supervisory Teachers," The Journal of Teacher Education, XII (December, 1961), 476-478.

Scholl, Robert Lee, "Secondary Student Teachers Perceptions of Effective and Ineffective Supervisory Behavior of the College Supervisor," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966), 3764-A.

Siegal, Herbert William, "A Study of Instructional Rank and Degrees Held in Forty-five College Faculties," Journal of the American Association of College Registrars, XXII (January, 1947), 168-172.

Stiles, Lindley J., "Organization of Student Teaching in Universities," Journal of Educational Research (May, 1947), pp. 706-712. "

Stoner, Raymond L., "Organization and Administration of Student Teaching," Educational Administration and Super-vision, XXXI (October, 1945), 404-406.

Strebel, Ralph F., "Professional Status of University Stu-dent Teaching," Educational Administration and Super-vision, XXIII (May, 1937), 335-342.

Van Patter, V, E., "The Individual Conference as a Technique in the Conduct of Student Teaching," Educational Admin-istration and Supervision, XXIII (March", 1~93777~"121-12 6.

181

Reports

Armentrout, W. D., The Conduct of Student. Teaching in State Teachers Colleges, Colorado State Teachers College Edu-cation Series, No. 2, Greeley, Colorado, Colorado State Teachers College, 1927.

Baugher, Jacob J., Organization and Administration of Practice Teaching in Privately Endowed Colleges of Liberal Arts, Teachers College Contribution to Education, No. 4 87, New York, Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1931.

Cole, Mary I., Cooperation Between the Faculty of the Campus Elementary Training School and the Other Departments of the Teachers College and Normal Schools, Teachers "College Contribution to Education, No. 746, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1939.

Douglass, Harl R., "Methods of Student-Teacher Rating," Super-vision of Student Teaching, Eleventh Annual Session" Denver, Colorado, 1931.

Evenden, E. s., "Cooperation of Teachers of Academic Subjects with the Training School," Supervision of"Student Teach-ing Fifth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1925.

Flowers, John Garland, Content of Student Teaching Courses for the Training of Secondary Teachers in State Teachers Colleges, Teachers College Contribution to Education, No. 538, New York, Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1932.

Forty-fourth Biennial Report, 1964-1966, Bulletin 667, Austin, Texas, Texas Education Agency, 1967.

Henderson, Elisha Lane, "The Organization and Administration of Student Teaching in State Teachers Colleges, Teachers Co'llege Contribution to Education, No. 169, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1937.

McGeoch, Dorothy M., Direct Experiences in Teacher Education, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953.

National. Survey of the Education of Teachers, U.S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 10, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1933.

182

Schorling, Raleigh, "A Ballot on Controversial Issues in Pro-grams of Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Nineteenth Annual Session, 19 39.

Stratemeyer, Florence, "A Philosophy of Supervision of Stu-dent Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Eighteenth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 1938.

and Margaret Lindsey, Working with Student Teachers, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1953.

Strebel, Ralph F., The Nature of the Supervision of Student Teaching in Universities Using Cooperating Public High Schools, Teachers College Contribution to Education, No. 655, New York, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1935.

Troyer, Maurice E. and Robert Page, Evaluation in Teacher Education, Commission on Teacher Education, Washington, D.C., American Council on Education, 1944.

Waddell,'Charles W., "Checking Student Teachers and the Results of Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Sixteenth Annual Session, Denver7 Colorado, 1936.

Williams, J. D., "Evaluation in Student Teaching," Supervision of Student Teaching, Eighteenth Annual Session, Denver, Colorado, 19 38.

Publications of Learned Organizations

American Association of Teachers Colleges, School and Community Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education, Oneonta, ~ New York, American Association of Teachers Colleges, 1948.

Andrews, L. 0., "Prospects and Priorities for State and Fed-eral Aid for Student Teaching," Theoretical Bases for Professional Laboratory Experiences in Teacher Education, Forty-fourth Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa," The Association for Student Teaching, 1965.

Clarke, C. M., editor, Teacher Education and the Public Schools, Fortieth Yearbook, Cedar Falls, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1961.

Foster, Frank K., The Training School in the Education of Teachers, National Survey of the Study of Education, Washington, D.C., Office" of Education', 19 35.

183

Glennon, Vincent J., "The Administration of Programs of Off-Campus Student Teaching," Off-Campus Student Teachers, Thirtieth Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1951.

Learned, W. L. and W. C. Bagley, The Professional Preparation of Teachers for American Public Schools, Bulletin Number 14, New York, The Carnegie Foundation'for the Advance-ment of Teaching, 1920.

Pfeiffer, Robert T., editor, The College Supervisor; Conflict and Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1964.

Staundermann, Helen E., "The College Supervisor in a State-Supported Institution in a Metropolitan Area," The College Supervisor: Conflict and. Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1964.

Stratemeyer, Florence, "The College Supervisor: Guidelines for Action," The College Supervisor: Conflict and. Challenge, Forty-third Yearbook, Dubuque, Iowa, The Association for Student Teaching, 1964.

Unpublished Material

Bishop, Clifford Leon, "Participation of Colleges and Uni-versities in Programs of Internship Teaching," unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1947.

Crouse, Harold D., "A Study of the Congruence of Divergence in the Perceptions of the Role of the Cooperating Teaching and Its Relationship to Value Changes," un-published doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 1963.

Edwards, Helen E., "The Role and Functions of the College Supervisor of Student Teaching in Secondary Education," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1957.

Elkin, Sol M., "The Critical Requirements for the Secondary School Supervising Teacher as Perceived by Student Teachers and Supervising Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, 1958.

184

Freeman, George P., "Personal and Professional Relationship Between Supervising Teachers and Student Teachers," unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College, Nashville, Tennessee, 1957.

Hanke, Dale, "A Study of the Role of the Supervisor of Secondary Education in Off-Campus Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Educa-tion, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 1962.

Jensen, Winifred, "Human Relations During the Initial Period of Off-Campus Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teacher's College, Columbia University, New York, New York, 1953.

Kearns, James E., "The Supervision of Off-Campus Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, 1954.

Nicklas, Merrill B., "A Comparative Study of Critical Incidents to Determine Recommended Techniques for Supervision of Student Teaching," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas, 1959.

Ramey, Ethelaura Hare, "A Survey of the Present Secondary Student Teaching Practices in Selected Texas Colleges," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Edu-cation, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, 1963.

Ritchie, Charles C., "The Selection and Scaling of an Instru-ment in the Evaluation of Supervision," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, 1963.

Stiles, Lindley J., "Pre-Service Education of High School Teaching in Universities," unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Department of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 1945.

Washburn, Courtland Lee, "The College Supervisory Staff in Secondary Student Teaching Programs," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1950.