INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106
Transcript
INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. I f copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
UniversityMicrofilms
International300 N. ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106
8126488
CORNELIO, JOSEFINA SOLIS
THE IMPACT OF STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE COOPERATING SCHOOLS IN REGION VII, CENTRAL VISAYAS, PHILIPPINES, AND A COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE MICHIGAN AND INDIANA IMPACT STUDIES
Michigan State University Ph.D. 1981
UniversityMicrofilms
International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106
PLEASE NOTE:
In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark ■/ .
1. Glossy ph otographs or pages______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print______
3. Photographs with dark background______
4. Illustrations are poor copy_______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy___
6. Pri nt shows throug h as there is text on both sides of page_______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages ^
8. Print exceeds margin requirements______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print______
11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school orauthor.
12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered_____________ . Text follows.
THE IMPACT OF STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE COOPERATING SCHOOLS IN REGION VII, CENTRAL VISAYAS, PHILIPPINES, AND A COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES WITH THE
FINDINGS OF THE MICHIGAN AND INDIANA IMPACT STUDIESBy
Josefina S. Cornelio
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Division of Student Teaching and Professional Development
1981
ABSTRACT
THE IMPACT OF STUDENT TEACHING PROGRAMS UPON THE COOPERATING SCHOOLS IN REGION VII, CENTRAL VISAYAS, PHILIPPINES, AND A COMPARISON OF THE RESPONSES WITH THE
FINDINGS OF THE MICHIGAN AND INDIANA IMPACT STUDIES
ByJosefina S. Cornelio
Purpose
This study sought to discover through the perceptions of the student teachers, supervising teachers, and building administrators whether the presence of the student teachers in cooperating schools in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines,, enhances teaching-learning processes, contributes to school program activities, enables the supervising teachers to participate in school-related activities, and changes the supervising teacher and administrator work load. It was a replication of the Impact Study conducted in Michigan in 1969-1970, and later replicated in Indiana, to generate data on the beneficiaries of student teaching programs. The current study further sought to discover whether there were differences in the perceptions of student teachers, supervising teachers, and building administrators; whether sex, marital status, and size of the community where the school is
Josefina S.Cornelio located affected the perceptions; and whether there were significant differences among the findings in Michigan, Indiana and the Philippines.
Procedures
Eight research guestions served to guide the study. Data files were developed for the (1) Student Teachers, (2) Supervising Teachers, and (3) Administrators. The SPSS was used on Michigan State University Equipment to generate frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations and univar iate analysis of variance, which were reported for the analy sis of seven research questions-. Chi-squares, computed by the researcher, were reported for one question.
Findings
The findings revealed that:1. All three levels of respondents had positive perceptions
of the effect of the presence of student teachers in three categories: teaching-learning processes, student teacher contribution to school-related activities, and supervising teacher participation in school-related activities. Discipline, pupil motivation, communication with parents, and class or school visitation were regarded least positively. However, the groups differed
significantly in their perceptions.
Josefina S. Cornelio Teaching, lesson planning, paper grading, and individual
help responsibilities of the supervising teachers were increased with the presence of the student teachers.The administrators felt that their load having to do with student teaching slightly increased, but the released time provided teachers when student teachers took over their responsibilities, enabled these teachers to increase their help to principals.In all twenty-four variables, Indiana, Michigan and the Philippine respondents differed significantly in their perceptions of the effect of the presence of the student teachers in the schools.Regardless of the size of the communities, the impact of the presence of the student teachers on cooperating schools was positive, but the impact appeared to vary with size. Those assigned to the barrios had the least positive perceptions.
DEDICATION
I had peace of mind throughout the four years I was away from home because I had the faith, support, and constancy of my husband, Atty. Martiniano T. Cornelio. I knew he had the time to play with and go outing with our children and to attend to their school and personal needs.His letters, checkered with his subtle sense of humor and wit geared along office, school or home life without my presence, buoyed me up. To him; to our only daughter, Marjorie, with whom I confided the joys and trials of dissertation writing; to our sons, Josemar, Mark Joseph,Cyril Jason and Martin Gerard whose lively letters sent regularly kept me posted with home, school and community activities; and to my mother, Leonor R. Solis whose patience, endurance, strength of character, and warmth have ever remained alive,this piece of work is dedicated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to extend sincere thanks and apprecia
tion to:My very able, strong and approachable Academic Commit
tee, consisting of D r . W. Henry Kennedy, Chairman; Dr. ColeS. Brembeck, Dr. Robert Hatfield and Dr. Stanley P. Wronski, members, who made me work real hard and from whom I derived strength and professional growth, and whose dual role as my mentors and warm friends I will be able to pass on to others;
Dr. Nid Boonreang, Dr. Pat Demarte, Dr • Don Freeman and Dr. Suwatana Sookpokakit to whom I went during times of difficulty in the data analysis;
Dr. Aurelio Tiro, Director, Office of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, whose letter of endorsement facilitated the data gathering;
Dr. Quintin S. Doromal, President of Silliman University from whom I got a letter of introduction for Dr. Tiro;
The principals, supervising teachers, student teachers in Region VII, for their participation in the study and
warm welcome;The Presidents of the teacher training institution,
the student teaching coordinators, deans of graduate schoolsiii
and colleges of education of the teacher education institutions of Region VII;
To Dianne Fouladi whose kind lifts enabled me to work even late into the night;
To the Student Teaching and Professional Development Staff for their kind words and support during trying times;
To Mrs. Martha West who typed the manuscript and made it possible for me to beat deadlines;
To the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation for the generous scholarship during my last school year when I needed concentration in the writing of this study;
To the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia who gave me a base at Michigan State University through the Study-Observation Grant given me in 1972;
To Sage Foundation for the grant during the last stages of my dissertation;
To AAUW Lansing-East Lansing Branch for their kind invitations that constituted soothing breaks from brain work; and,
To Silliman University for allowing me to extend my study leave and according me the privileges of an approved study leave.
A special paragraph deserves Dr. W. Henry Kennedy.His indirect style of teaching and guiding produce lasting learning. I shall always remember with gratitude the time he spent in correcting and strengthening each chapter with
iv
thoroughness, his role in my receiving the AAUW International Scholarship Award and other grants, and his concern that I would get done the soonest time possible. He and Mrs. Mary Slavic Kennedy indeed gave me a home away from home.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables..............................................List of Figures .......................................... xiv
CHAPTERI. Introduction of the study........................... 1
Education in the Philippines ................... 4Teacher Education in the Philippines .......... 5Student Teaching in the Philippines............... 6Need for the S t u d y .................................. 7Purpose of the S t u d y ................................8Research Questions ............................... 9Geographical Boundary of the Study ............ 11Definition of Terms................................. 11Limitations of the S t u d y ..........................13Overview of the Study...............................17
II. Review of Related Literature ................... 18The Impact of Student Teaching Programs. . . . 18The Michigan Impact Study..........................22The Indiana Student Teaching Study ............ 26Other Studies........................................ 27
III. Design of the Study................................. 32The Research Questions .......................... 33The Variables.......................... ........... 34P o p u l a t i o n ...........................................35The Sample in Three L e v e l s ....................... 39Instrumentation...................................... 49Procedures for Data Gathering..................... 51Statistical P r o c e d u r e s .......................... 5 4
IV. Analysis and Discussion of the Research Data . 57Research D a t a ......................................57Part I: Research Questions 1 - 5 .................. 59Summary of Findings for Part I .................. 94Part II: Research Question 6 ..................... 96Summary of Findings for Part I I .................145Part III: Research Questions 7 and 8 ......... 147Summary of Findings for Part I I I .............. 161
V. Summary, Conclusions, Implications andRecommendations.....................................165Appendices ......................................... 178Bibliography ....................................... 213
vi
LIST OF TABLESTABLE PAGE3.1 The Five Categories with the Corresponding
Instrument Numbers..................................363.2 Number of Respondents from Each of the Three
Groups From the Fourteen Teacher Training Institutions............................... 38
V18: Provision for Make-Up W o r k .................604.2 Category 1, V 19: Follow-up of Exams. . . . . 614.3 Category 1, V 20: Supervision of Assemblies,
e t c .................................................. 624.4 Category 1, V 22: Discipline...................... 634.5 Category 1, V 23: Pupil Motivation............... 644.6 Summary for Category 1 ............................. 664.7 Category 2, Student Teacher Contribution to
School Program Activities, V24: Supervisionof Youth Groups in Meetings, Trips............ 6 7
4.8 Category 2, V 25: Communication with Parents. 684.9 Category 2, V 26: Performance During Recess,
e t c .................................................. 694.10 Category 2, V 27: Suggestion/Provision of New
Instructional Materials ........................ 704.11 Category 2, V 28: Suggestion/Provision of
to School-Related Activities, V 32: Classroom or School Visitation ............................ 74
4.14 Category 3, V 33: Committee Work with Pupils. 764.15 Category 3, V 34: Professional Reading or
W r i t i n g .............................................774.16 Category 3, V 35: Work with Staff or
Department.......................................... 784.17 Category 3, V 37: Assistance to Principal/
T e a c h e r s .......................................... 804.18 Category 3, V 38: Social or Recreational
Activities.......................................... 814.19 Summary for Category 3 ............................ 824.20 Category 4, Supervising Teacher Work Load,
V50: T e a c h i n g ..................................... 844.21 Category 4, V 51: Lesson P l a n n i n g ..............854.22 Category 4, V52: Paper Grading.................. 864.23 Category 4, V 53: Individual Pupil Help.. . .874.24 Summary for Category 4 ............................ 884.25 Category 5, Administrator Work Load, V 56 to
V 59: Student Teaching Reports, Counseling, Orientation of Student Teachers, Selection of Supervising Teachers.............................. 90
4.26 Category 5, V 60 to 62: Finding InstructionalMaterials, Counseling Supervising Teachers, Communication with Parents about Student Teaching .................................. 91
4.27 Category 5, V 63 to V 65: Student Teachers'Assistance in Counseling Pupils, Time of Supervising Teachers and Other TeachersBeing Made Available..............................92
4.28 Summary for Category 5 ............................93
viii
4.29.1 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 18, Student Teachers................................................ 98
4.29.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Cateory 1, V 18, Supervising Teachers................................................ 99
4.29.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 18, Administrators...................................................
4.30.1 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 20, Student Teachers............................................... 101
4.30.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 20, Supervising Teachers............................................. 102
4.30.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 20, Administrators ....................................................103
4.31.1 Comparision of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 22, Student Teachers...............................................104
4.31.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 22, Supervising Teachers...............................................105
4.31.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 22, Administrators ....................................................106
4.32.1 Comparision of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 23, Student Teachers...............................................107
4.32.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 23, Supervising Teachers...............................................108
4.32.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 1, V 23, Administrat ors................................................... 109
4.33 Comparison of Findings Among the ThreeGeographic Areas, Category 2* V 25, Student T e a c h e r s . ............................................ H O
ix
Ill
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
118
120
121
122
Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 2, V 26, Student Teachers.................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 2, V 26, Supervising Teachers................... ............Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 2, V 26, Administrators ......................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 2, V 27,Student Teachers .............................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 2, V 27, Supervising Teachers ........................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 2, V 27, Administrators ...............................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 32,Student Teachers .............................Comparison of Findigns Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 32, Supervising Teachers ........................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 32, Administrators ...............................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 33,Student Teachers .............................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 33, Supervising Teachers ........................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 33, Administrators ...............................
x
4.38.1 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 34, Student Teachers................................................ 123
4.38.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 34, Supervising Teachers................................................ 124
4.38.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 34, Aministra-tors..................................................... 125
4.39.1 Comparision of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 35, Student Teachers................................................ 126
4.39.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 35, Supervising Teachers................................................ 127
4.39.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 35, Administrators..................................................... 128
4.40.1 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 37, Student Teachers................................................ 129
4.40.2 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 37, Supervising Teachers........................ 130
4.40.3 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 3, V 37, Administrators..................................................... 131
4.41 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 4, V 50, Supervising Teachers................................................ 132
4.42 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 4, V 51, Supervising Teachers................................................ 133
4.43 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 4, V 52 Supervising Teachers................................................ 135
4.44 Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 56, Administrators..................................................... 136
xi
137
138
139
140
141
143
144
145
149
150
152
153
154
155
156
Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 57, Administrators ..................................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 58, Administrators ..................................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 59, Administrators ...................................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 60, Administrators ..................................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 61, Administrators ...................................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 62, Administrators .........................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 64, Administrators .........................................Comparison of Findings Among the Three Geographic Areas, Category 5, V 65, Administrators ...................................................ANOVA Table, Group by Sex (3x2) Design With Category 1 as Dependent Variable.................ANOVA Table, Group by Sex (3x2) Design With Category 2 as Dependent Variable.................ANOVA Table, Group by Sex (3x2)Design With Category 3 as Dependent Variable.................ANOVA Table, Group by Marital Status (3x2) Design with Category 1 as Dependent Variable. .ANOVA Table, Group by Marital Status (3x2) Design with Category 2 as Dependent Variable. .ANOVA Table, Group by Marital Status (3x2) Design with Category 3 as Dependent Variable. .ANOVA Table, Group by Size (3x5) DesignWith Category 1 as Dependent Variable .........
xii
4.60
4.61
ANOVA Table, Group by Size (3x5) Design With Category 2 as Dependent Variable............ANOVA Table, Group by Size (3x5) Design With Category 3 as Dependent Variable. . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURESFigure Page
Group by Size Effect: Supervising TeacherContribution to School-Related Activities. . . 160
xiv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY
In a developing country like the Philippines where educational technology is used in only a few schools and where most of the texts are printed in the English language which is a second language to most Filipinos, the teacher continues to be the chief source of information and of learning in the classroom. This requires from the teacher the assimilation of knowledge in the arts, the sciences and the issues of the day, together with an understanding of their implications and the ability to communicate with clarity and effectiveness both in written and oral forms, in order to at^ tain this impressive role as the chief source of learning. Added to this complexity for the Filipino teacher is that he has to communicate in three basic languages: the languageof the Region, the Filipino language and the English language. Further, when planning his lessons and setting up evaluation standards,the Filipino teacher has to consider the feelings, concerns and expectations of the parents, the school and the community.
Teachers may be more able to cope with the manifold responsibilities of classroom teaching if they are exposed
1
2
to both theory and practice during their college years in teacher preparation which generally culminates in active classroom involvement during student teaching. The school, the parents and the teacher training institutions recognize that schooling is very important for the pupils. It is important that the teacher education students be well enough prepared, and adeguately guided, so that their presence in cooperating schools will not interrupt the smoothness of the teaching-learning processes. It is necessary for the school and the teacher training institution to be sensitive to any influence the student teachers have on the school. Positive influences should be capitalized upon and negative ones avoided as opportunities are provided for the student teachers to learn to teach in the actual setting. Maximum benefits can be derived for the student teachers, the cooperating schools, and the teacher training institutions if the latter two will work hand-in-hand developing guality teacher training programs that will provide the opportunity for the student teacher to be actively involved in teaching-learning processes inside the classroom to which he is assigned.
This call for partnership is made feasible in the Philippines with the Educational Development Decree of 1972 (Ramento, 1978) which provides for the improvement of curricular programs and quality of instruction at all levels by training and retraining of teachers and administrators, and the Presidential Proclamation 1081 which provides for total
decentralization of authority (Ramento, 1978). Programs of reform that call for curricular redirection, revision in teaching methodology and techniques, and pooling of services and resources have now become challenges for Filipino educators .
Given the spur of the Ministry of Education and Culture Regional Office and the support of the cooperating schools, teacher training institutions in the Philippines can produce teachers that are ready to make as the core of their lessons such basic community concerns as food production, cooperatives, agrarian reforms, cleanliness and beautification, conservation of natural resources and family planning. These thrusts constitute the content along with which the basic fundamentals of reading, oral and written communication and computation are geared. The ultimate goal is to prepare each teacher to occupy his role as a stimulus to functional creativity, as a reservior of warmth and understanding, and as an inspiration for young lives to give their best because they are nurtured in a secure, affectionate and free classroom atmosphere. In accomplishing the ultimate goal, the student teachers are taught to bridge theory and practice by exposing them to actual school situations where the issues and principles they learn in teacher training institutions may become more meaningful through the use of concrete examples and illustrations. They need to experience handling small and large groups of learners as well as to work on varied visual aids, games, strategies and techniques that break the monotony
of the traditional question-answer approach and lecture strategy.
It was the intent of this study to discover whether or not the products of teacher training institutions assigned for student teaching in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philp- pines, enhance the teaching-learning process and contribute to school program activities, and whether or not, with the released time given to supervising teachers because of their presence, the student teachers enhance supervising teacher participation in school-related activities.
Education in the PhilippinesEducation in the Philippines follows a set pattern
as to the number of years each child spends in each step: four years in primary; two years in elementary; four years in high school; and between four and five years for a bac- caluareate degree. Not many of the primary and elementary schools are private schools because public education is free through elementary level. There are still public schools or institutions at the secondary and tertiary levels where the students pay minimum fees, but in the higher levels, private schools provide an increasing share of education. Both public and private schools or institutions are controlled by one central office, the Office of the Ministry of Education and Culture, based in metropolitan Manila. The whole country is divided into twelve regions. Each region has a Regional Office of the Ministry of Education and Culture headed by a
director. The chart on the organization of the Philippine educational system given in Appendix B # shows that the regional directors are directly responsible to the Minister of Education and Culture. They meet with him regularly to render reports on their respective regions and to express their concerns. The regional directors may, through the Minister of Education and Culture, avail themselves of the help of the three bureaus, namely, the Bureau of Elementary Education, the Bureau of Secondary Education and the Bureau of Higher Education. There is no specific bureau or office in charge of teacher education, thus, teacher education programs are left to teacher training institutions subject to the approval of the Regional Office.
Teacher Education in the Philippines
The first two or three years in a prospective teacher's college life are spent with the collage of arts and sciences where the student learns a bit in each of the many fields to which he is exposed. Among these are psychology, sociology, measurement and evaluation, guidance and counseling, and educational principles and methods. The faculty members in the college of arts and sciences generally do not work closely with the faculty members in the college of education in articulating the courses offered; hence, the pieces of information are learned in isolation and are often not followed
by practice. It is in the third year that the prospective
6teacher starts taking courses in his major field, and, even during student teaching, continues generally to take other courses. It is during the last year when student teach
ing experience is provided, that the prospective teacher gets a heavy dosage of experiential learning.
Student Teaching in the Philippines
The student teacher, generally in his last academic year, enrolls in two four-month-long courses in student teaching, one during the first semester and the other during the second semester. For teacher training institutions that do not have their own laboratory schools, student teachers have to choose between finishing all the required courses before student teaching or taking one or two more courses during the summer immediately following student teaching, if they are assigned to remote barrios or towns. For teacher training institutions that have their own laboratory schools, the usual practice is for the student teacher to teach first on campus and then off campus.
In the student teaching program,the principal handles the placement of the student teachers- Each student teacher provides his supervising teacher with an observation notebook in which the supervising teacher writes comments on how the student teacher fared as a teacher during each sessionthe student teacher teaches the class. Also in this observation notebook ,the supervising teacher gives his suggestions for improvement. These observation notes are in triplicate— one
copy is for the student teacher, another for the college coordinator and another for the supervising teacher.
NEED FOR THE STUDY
Eight years have elapsed since the passage of the Philippine Educational Decree of 1972. Thus far, the writer is not aware of any study to assess the response of student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, to the opportunities presented by the decree, nor is she aware of such a study elsewhere in the Philippines. Region VII has nineteen teacher training institutions, each of which places student teachers in schools in the region and has legitimate concern as to whether its program enhances or detracts from the educational programs in the
schools.This question of the effect of student teaching pro
grams on pupil learning, together with the effect on the supervising teachers' work load, was raised in Michigan in the late 1960's with the request from teachers for increased stipends from the institutions. It became important to know how much, if anything, the supervising teachers and/or the school should be paid to work with student teachers. Thus, the Michigan Impact Study was conducted in 1969-1970 to examine these effects and the study was replicated in Indiana in 1974. There was a striking similarity of findings.
8
These studies raised a question for this researcher
as to whether the same findings would prevail if the study were replicated in a different country, namely, Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, the Region of which Silliman University, where the author teaches.belongs. This question( plus the writer's belief that what should be done to improve teacher education must be determined and worked out by all those involved and that the findings could be applied to the decentralized authority in the Philippine educational system, led to the decision to replicate the Michigan Impact Study
in a second country.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to assess the perceptions of student teachers, cooperating teachers and building administrators regarding the impact of student teaching programs on the cooperating schools in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, to which student teachers from the teacher training institutions in Region VII are assigned.The study sought to discover whether the presence of student teachers in cooperating schools enhances pupil learning, contributes to the attainment of school program activities, enables the cooperating teachers to attend school-related activities, and changes the work load of cooperating teachers and the building administrators. The study also compared the findings with those from the Michigan and Indiana Impact
9
Studies. It further sought to identify the differences in
responses from the three groups of respondents and to find out whether sex, marital status or size of the community in which the school was located affected the responses.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Eight research questions were developed to guide the research. The specific items in the research instrument that serve to answer each research question are given in Chapter III. The following are the research questions:
Research Question No. 1:On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups
of respondents, the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines enhance teaching-learning processes?
Research Question No. 2:On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups
of respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines contribute to the school program activities?
Research Question No.3:On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups
of respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines enable the
10
supervising teachers to participate in school-related acti
vities?
Research Question No. 4:On the basis of the perceptions of the student teach
ers and supervising teachers, to what extent does the presence of the student teachers in schools in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, change the work load of the supervising teachers?
Research Question Mo. 5:On the basis of the perceptions of the building admin
istrator group, to what extent does the presence of the student teachers in Region VII, Central Visayas,Philippines, change the work load of the administrators?
Research Question No. 6:How do the responses in Research Questions 1-5 com
pare with those found in the Michigan and Indiana Impact Studies?
Research Question No. 7:Are there significant differences in the responses
to Research Questions 1-3 among the three groups of respondents?
Research Question No. 8:
Do such demographic characteristics as sex, marital status, and the size of the community where the school is
11
located affect the perceptions of the three groups of respondents on teaching-learning processes, student teacher contribution to school program activities and supervising teacher contribution to other school-related activities?
GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARY OF THE STUDY
The Visayas is one of the three main geograhical regions of the Philippines, with Luzon (where Manila is located) and Mindanao, the other two. Region VII, located in Central Visayas, is one of the twelve regional centers in the Philippine educational system. Each regional office is headed by the Director of the Office of the Ministry and Culture. Region VII is composed of six cities, three provinces and one sub-province. Silliman University is a private institution of higher learning in Region VII which trains teachers for pre-school through secondary school. Silliman is also one of the twelve regional staff development centers of the Philippines.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The following definition of terms were taken from
Andrews (1971) .1. Cooperating School. The elementary or secondary
school where the teacher training institution places the student teachers. It is also referred
to as a laboratory school.
Cooperating Teacher. A teacher of school pupils/ students who also directs the work of a student teacher with these same pupils/students. Another name for cooperating teacher is supervising teacher. In Chapters III and IV, the supervising teacher group is abbreviated to SU.Directed Observation. The opportunity provided for college students to see teaching and learning and all manner of school-related activities without necessarily becoming involved in the on-going
activity itself.His. A gender-neutral noun. Throughout the report, his is used as equivalent to his or her. He is similarily used.Participation. Those experiences in which a college student takes an active part in the direction of an on-going phase of a teaching-learning activity. All activities along a continuum between observation and full responsibility for directing the learning of a group or groups of pupils are included.School Administrator. The building principal or head teacher. In Chapters III and IV, this group is abbreviated as A.Student Teacher. A college student who generally is in his senior year and is assigned student teaching experience for a period of guided teaching.
13
He assumes increasing responsibility for directing the learning of a group of learners over a period of about 6 to 16 weeks. Recently, the term "associate teacher" has been suggested as a more fitting name for a student teacher. In Chapters III and IV, the student teacher group is abbreviated as ST.
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY1. The schools in Region VII which were studied might
not accurately represent the Region, since not all teacher training institutions in the region were included in the study. Of the nineteen teacher training institutions in Region VII, only seventeen were reached personally by the researcher. Letters of request and the corresponding instruments were sent to the other two teacher training institutions through colleagues but there was no response.
In addition, only fifty-one of the fifty-five cooperating schools in the region were reached.
2. The report is based on perceptions of the respondents on each variable, with no attempt having been made to validate the response through time studies, observation or otherwise.
3. The population studied comprised a selected portion of the Philippine Educational System. No claim
is made that this portion is representative of
the entire Philippine nation, thus any generalization from the findings should be made with caution.
Any effort to apply the findings of any particular student teacher, supervising teacher, administrator, school, or institution will be vary hazardous. The respondent groups were very diverse, and no attempt was made to analyze the data against all the demographic variables.No attempt was made to control the cultural variables that might have affected the perceptions of the three levels of respondents from the three geographic areas. For example, on the effects of the presence of student teachers on discipline, there was no measure provided to control the fact that generally, the Philippine supervising teachers are more authoritative than those from Indiana and Michigan or the fact that compulsory education in the Philippines is only up to the elementary level.Although this study was described as a replication of the Michigan Impact Study, it replicated only part of that study. Of the total of 64 non-demographic items on student teacher questionnaire, only thirty were analyzed in the present study, and of 65 such items on the supervising
teacher, 30 were analyzed. The administrator
instrument contained 60 non-demograhic items, of which thirty were analyzed in the study. No inference should be drawn from this report as to the nature of the response on the balance of the items in any of the instruments.
ASSUMPTIONSThat the instrument from the Michigan Impact Study is relevant to the Philippines. Although the survey instruments were constructed by Americans and tested thus far only in American schools, the researcher assumed that with English as the medium of instruction in the Philippine schools from at least third grade on through college years, the respondents would have no difficulty understanding the questions. Also the researcher deleted a few questions that did not apply to classroom situations in the Philippines, making us of her experiences as a teacher and observer of elementary and high schools for fifteen years as a basis for modifying some of the questions to make them relevant to Philippine schools. She further refined the instruments after conducting a pilot study at
Silliman University.That the student teaching programs in Michigan, Indiana and the Philippines are sufficiently
similar to permit the kinds of comparisons made in the study.
Although the length of student teaching exposure varies among the teacher training institutions in Region VII, the researcher assumed that teacher training programs in Region VII are similar to those in the United States. In that generally the student teacher is in his senior year in the four-year teacher education program, and that the general course requirements for all teacher education students are fulfilled before the student enters student teaching.That the respondents had no reservations in expressing their perceptions.
The respondents were assured that the analysis and interpretation of data would be for the entire region and that no one specific answer sheet could be identified from the moment it was turned in. That each respondent provided his own perception of the impact. The researcher administered the questionnaire personally and provided no chance for the respondents to confer with one another in answering the questions.That the respondents understood the student teaching program and the work of the student teacher.
The student teacher assigned to the school was an apprentice teacher expected to undergo
17
orientation, observation and participation during
which time he performs routine teaching tasks, explores school facilities and resources, observes experienced cooperating teachers and eventually teach on his own; supervising teachers and administrators were involved in the placements, assignments and supervision of the program.
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The report consists of five chapters, appendices and bibliography.
Chapter II recounts significant statements on the impact of student teaching programs by American authors and summarizes the 1969 Michigan Impact Study and the other studies based on the Michigan Impact Study on student teaching program, stressing the similarity of findings.
Chapter III gives the eight research guestions, the variables, a description of the population of the study, the characteristics of the three groups of respondents, the instrumentation process, the procedures used in the study, and the statistical treatments used to analyze the data.
Chapter IV sets forth the data, the results of the analyses of the data, and a discussion of the findings.
Chapter V provides the summary of the study and of the major findings, reports the conclusions and implications of the study and makes recommendations for further research.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter is divided into two parts. Part I stresses the impact of student teaching programs. Part II describes the Michigan Impact Study which analyzed the effects of student teaching programs on cooperating schools in Michigan aswell as other studies which used the Michigan Impact Study asa model or analyzed portions of the data from the study.
Part I: The Impact of Student Teaching Programs
The positive impact of student teaching programs in cooperating schools is often taken for granted. Very often we hear some pre-conceived judgements about student teaching programs or about student teachers. Typical of these are the seven myths or misconceptions Kennedy (1970) identified, and discredited using the findings of the Michigan Impact Study, a statewide study described in detail in Part II of this chapter. These included the following: that pre-studentteaching preparation on campuses is ineffective; that student teachers get their experience somehow at the expense of the pupils in school; and that working with student teachers is an oppressive burden on the supervising teachers. These are
19indeed popular misconceptions. It is probably due to these misconceptions that student teachers are often not given the welcome and attention they deserve. No one else in the school, except perhaps the supervising teacher, shares with the student teacher the combined feelings of excitement in making the best out of the opportunity given him to teach, and the corresponding apprehension of whether he will succeed in manipulating the variables of instruction to produce some positive changes in the pupils. In his great desire to succeed in student teaching, to be of help to pupils, to the supervising teachers and the principal, he needs an atmosphere of welcome.
The supervising teacher can do much to make or break the student teacher. If a supervising teacher performs well, he can be a powerful vehicle in drawing out the best in a student teacher thus enabling the teacher to help the pupils and the school better. Cremin (1977) defines a teacher as one who is able to "view the subjects he teaches and the entire course of instruction in its relation to the child and to the society of which the child is a part. He knows the nature of the mind; he must understand the process of learning, the formation of ideals, the development of the will, the growth of character. He must have the ability to impart his knowledge in a way that shall broaden his pupils' horizons, extend their interests, strengthen their character, and inspire them to right living. A supervising teacher
who passes this definition of a teacher will certainly be a
20
good model for the student teacher and he would play a great role in enabling the student teacher to have a positive impact upon the pupils and the school.
Michigan student teaching programs describe six responsibilities of a supervising teacher: (1) as a friend, an advisor, (2) as an outstanding teacher, (3) as an observer, (4) as a professional person, (5) an evaluator, and (6) as an innovator and experimenter. His right to criticize carries with it the responsibility in bringing about needed improvement. He, like a parent, seeks gradually to make himself unnecessary. He tries to bring his student teacher to a stage where the student teacher can manage his own class.
The principal is the educational leader in the school.He sets the overall tone of the school. The example he establishes in guiding his own faculty and the assistance he provides for the student teacher, contribute greatly to the quality of the student teaching experience. His role as a project director as specified by Wyant, Reinhard and Arends (1980) may very well apply to his roles in student teaching program which is in a sense an unwritten joint project between the cooperating school and the teacher training institution. He is a believer, one who has a genuine commitment to the program. He is an advocate who promoties and defends the program before all kinds of audiences. He is a linker who connects the program ^ith other parts of the system. Where there is a program, an inservice or a faculty meeting that will help in the professional growth of the student teacher as well as
21
in his capacity to produce better pupil learning, he inspires the student teacher to be present. He is a resource acquirer who obtains and allocates tangible and intangible resources for the program. He sees that the student teacher has his own corner, his own mailbox to facilitate written communication between him and his pupils. He is an employer, able to place student teachers under the best cooperating teachers within the building, for the pupils' interest as well as for a possibility that the student teacher may be one of the faculty in the building or may be one he could proudly recommend for employment to other administrators. He is a leader who supplies energy, initiative and direction. Hilliard and Durrance (1968) add two more roles: the role of impressingupon the faculty the significance of the involvement of the school in the important responsibility of the professional preparation of teachers and of accepting the student teacher as a participating member of the faculty. With his openness to new trends in classroom management techniques and instructional strategies, the student teacher can be inspired to reach his pupils through interesting creative ways.
Through the enthusiastic support of these two key persons in a student teacher's student teaching life— the supervising teacher and building administrator— the student teacher will find joy and challenge in planning out appealing, relevant and functional experiences for the pupils so that as the guardian of the pupils' time, he rests assured that each class session is well spent. In this manner, the student
22
teacher will be able to contribute much to the teaching- learning processes inside and outside the classrooms.
Part II: The Michigan Impact Study
The findings of the Michigan Impact Study were published in a pamphlet entitled Student Teaching Programs: Questions and Answers (1970). This was a statewide study conducted by the deans and directors of teacher education institutions in Michigan who were commissioned by the Council of State College Presidents to undertake the study. The findings were also summarized in a paper presented to the Illinois Association of Teacher Educators by Kennedy (1970). From these sources and from the studies done by Marcus (1970), Veenstra (1972), and Pisoni (1977) who all made use of portions of the Michigan Impact Study data, the researcher has selected the following to report on as being especially relevant to the present study.
In 1969, the Michigan Council of State College Presidents commissioned the Michigan teacher education institutions to conduct a study to determine the impact of student teaching programs on the cooperating schools of Michigan. A committee was set up to implement the study. Dr. W. Henry Kennedy, Director of Student Teaching, Michigan State University, chaired the committee with Dr. Malcolm Lowther, Chairman of Education Undergraduate Committee, University of Michigan, and Dr. Allan Quick, Director of Student Teaching, Central
23Michigan University, as members (Michigan Impact Study, 1970).
It was believed that the information sought for could only be supplied by those most directly connected with the student teaching program, namely, the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the building administrators.
Separate instruments were developed for the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators.The student teacher and the supervising teacher versions were printed in a parallel format, except the evaluative and demographic items. The administrator version, whenever possible, solicited answers to the same questions as those found in the student teacher and supervising teacher instruments, permitting the comparison of the three groups on some items (Kennedy, 1970). The instruments were designed to determine the perceptions of all student teachers assigned for student teaching fall quarter or semester of 1969, their cooperating teachers and administrators with regard to the effects of student teaching programs on the cooperating schools. The instruments were developed with guidance from the research departments of the three Michigan institutions and were reviewed by the Michigan Association Officials and the Student Teaching Committee of the Detroit Federation of Teachers (Pisoni, 1977). The instruments thus developed were used in a pilot study wherein eight institutions participated. On the basis of the feedback of the pilot study, the instruments were refined further and limitations were corrected. In December 1969 and January 1970, the instruments were submitted to all the
24student teachers enrolled during the fall term or first semester and their supervising teachers and building admi
nistrators in all Michigan public and private schools. The
total number of respondents was 9881 with 4483 student teachers, 4397 supervising teachers, and 1001 building administrators or principals (Marcus, 1970). A total of thirty-one teacher education institutions participated in the study.Some especially important findings were reported by Kennedy (1970 ) :
1. Seventy-six percent of the supervising teachers said their students brought some or a great many new or different instructional materials and 77 percent reported their students brought other teaching aids or ideas.
2. Ninety percent of the administrators believed that the student teachers brought to the situation teaching aids which the teachers were able to use.
3. The student teachers estimated the value of their contribution somewhat higher than did the supervising teachers, and the principals thought they saw evidence of the use of student teacher contributions by supervising teachers at an even higher rate than the students did.
4. A pessimistic note is that one-half of one percent of the supervisors reported they had to discourage the students from offering too many suggestions and ideas, while 4.8 percent of the student teachers thought they were discouraged from presenting ideas and aids to the situation.
25
5. In provision for make-up work and follow-up of exams, overwhelmingly, the supervising teachers
said these were better, and overwhelmingly, the administrators said they were better when student teachers are present. For instance, in the provision for make-up work, 44 percent said it was better, 3 percent said it was worse. In follow- up of exams, 35 percent said it was better, 4 percent said it was worse.
6. Seventy percent of the principals said make-up work was better and only .4 percent said it was worse.
7. The differences in pupil motivation were not as dramatic but clearly favor the presence of stu
dent teachers.8. The only place in the categories where there was
support for the contention that student teachers harm the student teaching program is in discipline where only 10 percent of the supervising teachers said it was better, while 43 percent said it was worse.
9. On the same category, discipline, 20.4 percent of the principals said it was better; 20 percent said it was worse.
10. Fifty-nine percent of the principals said the overall guality of instruction was better when student teachers were present.
All in all, the evidence seems to support the fact that
the student teachers do not detract from the quality of the instructional programs for the pupils. Rather, they actually enhance it, and to a considerable extent.
The Indiana Student Teaching StudyThe Indiana Student Teaching Study (1975), a study con
ducted by the Indiana Association of Teacher Educators in cooperation with the Indiana State Department of Public Instruction in 19 74, used the Michigan Impact Study as a model. There was a total of 4952 respondents. Of these, 2157 were student teachers, 2046 were supervising teachers and 749 were building administrators. The three closely parallel data gathering instruments had ninety items for the student teacher and administrator groups and ninety-four for the supervising teacher group. The following were some of the findings (ERIC abstract: 120 151, 1976):
1. That student teachers enhanced the educational programs of the schools where they did their student teaching.
2. That there was a positive effect of the presence of the student teachers on the instructional activities and the motivation of pupils.
3. That the work load of the supervising teachers was reduced.
4. That the work load of the administrators remained about the same or somewhat reduced with the presence of student teachers.
27
5. That the college coordinators provided the supervising teachers and the student teachers the necessary help where help was needed.
6. That regular staff members in cooperating schools were afforded the opportunity to participate in additional school-related activities.
Other Studies
Charles Pisoni evaluated two different Central Michigan University teacher education programs regarding the impact of these student teaching programs on the cooperating schools in Michigan. These programs were (1) the 1969 student teaching program where the student teachers taught full days for eight weeks, and (2) the 1973 student teaching program where the student teachers taught full days for sixteen weeks. The data base provided by the 1969 Michigan Impact Study made the study possible (Pisoni, 1977). From the 1969 Impact Study, the perceptions of 496 Central Michigan University student teachers, 491 cooperating teachers, and 113 building administrators were compared with the 1973 data which covered 925 Central Michigan University student teachers, 930 cooperating teachers and 235 building administrators. He used variables in the Michigan Impact Study having to do with instructional activities, student teacher contribution to school program activites, supervising teacher participation in school- related activities and work load of the supervising teachers
28and the administrators in determining which of the two pro
grams was a better program. His findings reveal that the full day, full semester program developed at Central Michigan
University in 1971 was a strong improvement upon the former eight-week program as regard the impact upon the cooperating schools in Central Michigan. In both programs, however, the three groups of respondents were consistent in expressing opinions that the presence of student teachers was beneficial to the cooperating schools.
Marcus (1970) used the Michigan Impact Study by centering on six categories: instructional activities for pupils,non-instructional activities, assistance to regular staff, effect upon the cooperating teachers, staff morale, and attitude of teachers and administrators toward student teaching. He disregarded the No Change response and compared the positive and negative responses of the three groups of respondents toward student teaching along the six categories that covered thirty items. He found the reactions of student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators to be all positive toward student teaching program except in one item— discipline.
Donald s - Chase (19 72) conducted a study to determine the impact of Bowling Green State University (BGSU) student teachers on the instructional program of Whitmer Complex which is the field component of BGSU teacher learning center. The study included ten supervising teachers, 37 student teachers and 619 Whitmer Complex students from grades 8 through 1 2 # Using the Michigan Impact Study instruments as a model, a
29
questionnaire was used to study three possible impact areas affected by BGSU student teachers. These areas were: (1) amount of individual attention and individualized instruction received by pupils; (2) additional ideas, aids included in the programs as a result of the BGSU student teachers; and (3) performance of cooperating teachers. Findings indicated that the pupils thought the preservice teachers increased the amount of individual attention they received and that both the pupils and the cooperating teachers thought that the student teachers provided additional resources for the program.The pupils' responses indicated that they felt the cooperating teachers were more effective with the presence of the student teachers.
Lawrence Veenstra (1972, pp. 113-116) made use of the Michigan Impact Study data by choosing only the items having to do with motivation of pupils. In addition to three groups of respondents in the Michigan Impact Study, he added a third group: the pupils. These pupils were in three levels, namely,elementary, junior high and senior high school students. The following were his findings:
1. Motivation of pupils was perceived by all four groups to improve significantly. However, when examined for the three levels, perceptions of improved motivations were found only at the elemen
tary level.2. Motivation correlated significantly with amount of
small group instruction, individual attention,
30introduction of new and different materials, and discipline as perceived by the supervising teachers. Discipline, however, was perceived by the pupils as poorer when the student teachers werp in charge of the classes.
3. There was no relation between changes in pupil motivation during student teaching programs and curriculum subject area, type of student teaching placement or size of the community, based on the supervising teacher perceptions.
4. Based on pupil perceptions, all variables examined for relationship to motivation were found to be correlated positively and significantly.
5. Pupils rated student teachers highest at the elementary level and lowest at the junior high level.
6. A significant relationship was found between supervising teacher perceptions of student teacher preparation and pupil motivation change.
7. The mean supervising teacher perceptions of degree of preparedness of student teachers while better than adequate at all levels, were highest for the elementary student teachers and lowest for the junior high school students.
All of the studies discussed in Part II of this chapter reveal findings that the student teachers enhance teaching- learning processes, that they make contributions to the schools to which they are assigned to teach, and that the released
31
time they provide for cooperating teachers in their taking over some of their teaching responsibilities enable the supervising teachers to attend to other school-related activities. The teacher education institutions continue to need the schools for the student teachers to teach in realistic settings. On the other hand, the schools need to keep abreast with innovations relative to classroom instruction and management. E. Brooks Smith (1967) speaks of cooperative projects showing that "improvement of student teaching instruction is the handmaiden to improving classroom instruction.This is so because teachers and school principals seem able to talk more freely about what to do for a student teacher than about what to do for themselves. While talking about programs for the novice, they inevitably begin to talk about what they can do in their classrooms to demonstrate a good program."
The student teachers are products of three or more years of exposure to general, professional and specialized education courses. They have something to offer the schools. Given both the opportunity to teach and the school atmosphere conducive to drawing out what they have to offer, they will no doubt be able to give some benefits to the cooperating
schools.
CHAPTER IIIDESIGN OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of student teaching programs upon the cooperating schools in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, as perceived by the student teachers enrolled during the first semester of 1979 and their corresponding supervising teachers and building administrators .
The study surveyed three groups of respondents using a questionnaire which sought their perceptions of 72 different items dealing with the effect of student teachers on the school. Five Categories of items were identified to correspond with the first five of eight research questions and the thirty items making up these categories became the dependent variables in this study. The remaining three research questions were answered using various statistical procedures to analyze the categories and the demographic data.
The following sections of this chapter provide the eight research questions, the variables, descriptions of the population, the characteristics of the three groups of respondents studied, the instrumentation for data gathering, the procedures used in the study, and the statisticaltools used in analyzing the data in order to arrive at the answers to the research questions.
32
33
The Research Questions
The following eight research questions served to guide the development of the study.
Research Question 1;On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups
of respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, enhance teaching- learning processes?
Research Question 2:On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups of
respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, contribute to the school program of activities?
Research Question 3:On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups of
respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, enable the supervising teachers to participate in school-related activities?
Research Question 4:On the basis of the perceptions of the student teach
ers and the supervising teachers in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, to what extent does the presence of the student teachers change the work load of the supervising teachers?
Research Question 5:
On the basis of the perceptions of the administrators from Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, to what extent does the presence of student teachers change the work load of the administrators?
Research Question 6:How do the responses to Research Questions 1-5 com
pare with the findings in the Michigan and Indiana Impact Studies?
Research Question 7:Are there significant differences in the responses to
Research Questions 1-3 among the three groups of respondents
Research Question 8:Do such demographic characteristics as sex, marital
status and size of the community where the school is located affect the perceptions of the three groups of respondents on teaching-learning processes, student teacher contribution to school program activities ,and supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities?
The Variables
The main independent variable considered in this study is a group of respondents. This independent variable has three levels, namely; the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the building administrators. The five main categories of dependent variables that serve to measure the
35
respondents' perceptions of the effect of the presence of the student teachers on the cooperating school were the fol
lowing:Category 1: Teaching-Learning ProcessesCategory 2: Student Teacher Contribution to the School
Program of Activities Category 3: Supervising Teacher Contribution to School-
Related Activities Category 4: Work Load of the Supervising TeacherCategory 5: Work Load of the Administrator
The variables under each category are indicated in Table 3.1.
Population
The population of the study consisted of the student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators in the nineteen teacher training institutions and fifty-five cooperating schools in Region VII. Of these, seventeen institutions and fifty-one cooperating schools were reached. Copies of the instrument were sent to the two institutions and four cooperating schools that were not reached personally. Twenty-one answer sheets were mailed from the Philippines to the United States. Of this number, three were discarded because it was obvious that the respondents did not follow instructions.Some of the additional answer sheets were not labeled as to which school they came from; hence were classified as "un
identified". (Table 3.2).
TABLE 3.1 DATA FOR EACH OF THE FIVE CATEGORIES WITH THEIR CORRESPONDING INSTRUMENT NUMBERS FOR THE THREE GROUPS OF RESPONDENTS
Category
Instrument Item Number ST.SU A
Total Number Variable ST
of Valid SU
CasesA
Teaching- 18 25 Provision for make-up work 369 190 36Learning 19 26 Follow up of exams 373 190 36Processes 20 28 Supervision of playgrounds,
Student 24 14 Supervise youth groups in meetTeacher ings programs, trips, etc. 378 187 33Contribu 25 15 Communicate with parents 378 186 33tion to 26 16 Perform recess, canteen, gymnasium,School playground or assembly hall duty 378 187 32Program 27 20 Bring, develop, provide or sugActivities gest new instructional materials 344 190 36
28 21 Suggest or provide any other kindsof aid or ideas 362 190 36
Supervising 32 46 Visitation in other classrooms orTeacher Con schools 369 189 36tribution 33 47 Committee work in the school withto Other pupils/students 376 188 36Activities 34 48 Professional reading or writing 372 189 36
35 49 Work with staff or school or dept. 368 190 3637 50 Assisting the principal or other
teachers 378 190 3638 51 Social or recreational activities 378 190 36
TABLE 3.1 (Cont)
Category
Instrument Item Number ST.SU A Variable
Total Number SU
of Valid Cases SU A
Change in 50 Teaching 378 190Supervising 51 Lesson Planning 378 190Teacher's 52 Paper grading 378 190Work Load 53 Help to individual students 378 190
Change in 56 Additional report regarding stuthe Work dent teaching or student teachers 32Load of the 57 Counseling student teachers 34Administra 58 Selection of supervising teachers 32tor 59 Orientation of student teachers 33
60 Finding instructional materials 2961 Counseling supervising teachers 3462 Communication with parents about
*Three institutions did not have student teachers at the time; two were not reached personally
39
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
The Student TeachersA total of 3 78 student teachers responded to the ques
tionnaire (Table 3.3). Of this group, 287 were single and 88 were married with three unidentified. Three hundred nine were female and 67 were male, and two were unidentified. Of the 370 who reported their academic study, fifty-nine had a B .A . or B.S. degree while 216 had a senior standing and 95 were college juniors. Almost half were in the 2.0 to 2.5 grade range. Their ages ranged from nineteen to over 36 years old. They were spread in their student teaching assignment from the smallest unit, the barrio, to the largest city within the Region. One hundred seventy-six were assigned full time student teaching (59 were taking other courses at the same time); 72 were assigned for one-half time; and fifty-eight were assigned for five hours a week, either daily, twice or thrice; 45 were assigned for three hours a week; and 27 were on other or unknown schedules. The student teaching assignment varied from three weeks to more than ten weeks. Two hundred sixty of the student teachers were placed with a single supervising teacher while eighty-six had two or three supervising teachers. Specific program assignments and missing values accounted for thirty-two respondents.
To analyze the student teacher group data, a computer file was created consisting of seventy-two variables representing the seventy-two items in the questionnaire. The
Age At The Start of Student Teaching19 65 17.220 61 16.121 53 14.022 25 6.623 34 9.024-25 45 11.926-30 56 14.831-36 32 8.5Over 36 3 .8Missing Values 4 1.1Total 378 100.0
TABLE 3.3 (Cont)41
Freqency_____________%
Size of the CommunityLarge (Population more than
100,000) 81 21.4Medium Sized City 123 32.5Small City 82 21.7Town 59 13.0Barrio 43 11.4Total 378 100.0
Time Scheduled in Student TeachingFull time 117 31.1Full time but with other courses 59 15.6Half days 72 19.0One hour five times a week 42 11.1Two and one-half hours twice weekly 8 2.1Two hours twice weekly and 1 hour
Length of Student Teaching Assignment3 weeks or less 40 10.64 weeks 47 12.45 weeks 18 4.86 weeks 31 8.27 weeks 19 5.08 weeks 72 19.09 weeks 17 4.5
10 weeks 37 9.8More than ten weeks 92 24.3Missing values 5 1.3Total 378 100.0
PlacementWith a single supervising teacher 260 68.8In a team-teaching situation 48 12.7With 2 or 3 different teachers 38 10.1In a special program 22 5.8Missing values 10 2.7Total 378 100.0
42responses to these items were set in a Likert scale with the
choice ranging from 1-2 to 1-9. Programming for the creation of the student teacher file provided for each variable, the mean, the standard deviation, the absolute frequency, the relative frequency and the adjusted frequency of each of the choices under each item. Also included were the number of valid cases and the number of missing cases.
The Supervising TeachersA total of 190 supervising teachers responded to the
questionnaire (Table 3.4). Forty were single and 150 were married. There were 147 female and 43 male respondents. The range of teaching experience was from less than three years to more than twenty-seven years with 104 having had from 4-15 years of teaching experience. The number of student teachers they had worked with in the last five years varied from 1 to more than 24. More than 75% indicated as the reason for having a student teacher the fact that they were requested by their administrators to take the student teachers. Thirty of them indicated that they took in student teachers because they felt a personal obligation to help future teachers, while seven volunteered to have student teachers because they felt the student teachers would be helpful to them in performing their school duties.
The subject specialities represented by the supervising teachers included Practical Arts, Communicat Arts, Filipino, Mathematics, English, Science, Social Studies, Health, Physical Education.
No. of Years of Teaching3 or less 204-7 228-12 4013-15 4216-18 2419-21 422-24 1025-27 6More than 27 19Missing Values 3Total 190
No. of Student Teachers in the Last 5 Years1-3 614-6 247-9 12.110-12 1913-15 1116-18 719-20 621-24 6More than 24 32Missing Values 1Total 190
10.511.6 21.1 22.1 12.62.1 5.3 3.2
10 .0 1.6
100.0
32.1 12.612.1 10.15.83.73.23.2
16.8.5
100.0
TABLE 3.4 (Cont)
44
__________________________________________Frequency_________ %Reason for Having a Student TeacherI volunteered since I feel a personal obligation to help futureteachers 30 15.8I volunteered because I felt pressure from an administratorto do so 0 0I volunteered because I thought a student teacher would be helpful to me in performingmy school duties 7 3.7I did not volunteer but was requested by an administrator totake the student teacher 145 76.3I was forced to work with the student teacher against mywill 0 0Missing Values •5 2.6Total 190 100.0
45A data file for the supervising teacher group was crea
ted. The questionnaire for the supervising teacher group had seventy-two items. Four items had to do with demographic characteristics of the respondents, with the remaining sixty-eight items nearly parallel to the items in the questionnaire for the student teacher group. There were two differences. The first had to do with the number of alternative choices. Where the student teacher instrument included D o n 't Know as one of the choices in specific item, the supervising teacher instrument did not include it and vice-versa. This forced the choice only on the respondent who should have the information. The second difference is in point of view. For example, items 32-38 in the student teacher questionnaire asked the following
question:To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in any of the following additional activities during the time you were teaching his assigned classes?
The same item in the supervising teaching group questionnaire
was worded thus:To what extent did you engage in any of the following additional activities during the time your student teacher was teaching?
Programming for the creation of the supervising teacher group was such that the same statistical data as in the student teacher file were generated. Table 3.4 gives the profile of the supervising teacher group.
46The Administrators
Of the total of 36 administrators, 32 reported being married and 26 reported being female (Table 3.5). Of the
group, 4 were head teachers; 14 were elementary school principals; 10 were high school principals and six had other designations. Two did not respond to this item. Eleven had had experiences as administrators in the same building for less than three years; 12 had three to five years experience; 9 had six to nine years; and 2 had ten to more than twelve years ex
perience. Only 1 had been in the building more than 12 years while 2 did not respond to the question. The school population of the buildings they headed ranged from less than 200 pupils to more than 1600 with ten in the modal group of between 200-400
pupils. The number of teachers in the schools ranged from less than five to more than forty. Eight administrators reported that their buildings had had student teachers for three years or less; 2 between four and six years; 5 between seven and nine years; 2 from sixteen to eighteen years; 2 from twenty-two to twenty-four years; and 6 more than twenty-five years. One did not respond.
The questionnaire for the administrator group contained seventy-one items. Only twenty-six of these items were parallel to items in the questionnaires for the other two groups. Sixteen of these twenty-six were analyzed in
the present study. The numbering and the order in the numbering of these sixteen items differ from the numbering of the parallel items in the other two questionnaires. The
47TABLE 3. 5 PROFILE OF THE ADMINISTRATORS
Frequency %
Marital Status:MarriedSingleMissing values Total
3222
36
88.95.65.6
100.0S ex:Male 9Female 26Missing Value 1Total 36Present Administrative Assignment A head teacher 4An elementary school teacher 14A high school principal 10Other 6Missing values 2Total 36No. of Years in the Building 2 or less 113-5 126-9 910-12 1More than 12 1Missing values 2Total 36
25.072.22.8
100.0
11.138.927.816.75.6
100.0
30332522
,6.3,08,8
5.6100.0
No. of Pupils Assigned to the BuildingLess than 200 201-400 401-600 601-800 801-1000
1001-1200 1201-1400 1401-1600 More than 1600 Total
1104443 24 4
2.827.811111185
1111
1113611
36 100.0
TABLE 3.5 (Cont)48
Frequency___________%
No. of Teachers Assigned to the Building
5 or less 3 8.36-10 5 13.911-15 3 8.316-20 5 13.921-25 1 2.826-30 2 5.631-35 1 2.836-40 7 19 .4More than 40 7 19.4Missing values _3 8.3
Total 36 100.0
No. of Years Student Teachers Have Been Assigned to theBuilding3 or less 8 22.24-6 2 19 .47-9 5 13.910-12 5 13.913-15 0 016-18 2 5.619-21 0 022-24 2 5.6More than 25 6 16.7Missing values 1 2.8
Total 36 100.0
49parallel items in the student teacher and the supervising teacher instruments had the same numbers while those in the administrator instrument were numbered differently. For example, whereas in the student teacher and the supervising teacher instruments t e m 18 represented provision for makeup work, the administrator instrument assigned number 25 to the item representing provision for make-up work. While the number in Category 1, Teaching-Learning Processes, for the student teacher and the supervising teacher instruments is 18 to 23, followed by 24 to 28 for Category 2, Student Contribution to School Program Activities, the administrator instrument numbers Category l,from 25 to 31 and Category 2, from 14 to 21. Table 3.1 provides a complete analysis of the relationship among the items for the three groups on each category with the five categories representing the first five research questions. A file was created for this group of respondents in the same manner as the file of the other two groups.
Instrumentation
The instruments for gathering the perceptions of the three groups of respondents were patterned after those used in the statewide Michigan Impact Study, a description of which is given in Chapter II of this report. Copies of the instruments are included in the Appendix. There were slight modifications and a few deletions. Whereas the Michigan Impact Study instruments for the student teacher and the
50
supervising teacher groups have eighty items and the adminis
trator group, seventy-eight, the current study used seventy- two items for both the student teacher and the supervising teacher groups and seventy-one for the administrator group.No change was made in format or in the number of alternative choices in the items falling under the five categories used in this study, namely; the Teaching-Learning Processes, the Student Contribution to School Program of Activities, the Additional School-Related Activities the Supervising Teachers Engaged In, the Work Load of the Supervising Teacher, and the Work Load of the Administrators.
Questions and/or response choices which did not apply to Philippine situation were deleted. For example, Question 7 of the Michigan Impact Study was deleted because it asked for the number of times the student teacher had taught. In Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, the student teacher enrolled during the first semester, generally was understood to be doing his student teaching for the first time. Also, there are no teacher aides in the Philippines. Question No. 1 for student teacher questionnaire, was revised to allow only two alternatives as compared to the Michigan Impact Study which had five, since there are no cases in Region VII where a student teacher is at the same time a supervising teacher and administrator. It is difficult to identify large or small suburban communities in Region VII; hence, the substitution of "Town" with "barrio" for Question No. 3 in all three sets of questionnaires.
51
Two steps were taken to validate the data gathering instruments as modified. The first was by defending the changes before the academic committee of four advisers.The second was in the form of a pilot study conducted at Silliman University. The feedback from the pilot study offered no suggestion other than on the efficiency of the instruments. This led to a careful organizing of the instru
ments such that questions covering one category with several items under each, had both the question and their corresponding choices on the same page. Except for slight changes in the nomenclature of subjects taught, there were no other changes in the instruments.
Table 3.1 (already referred to) identifies the five categories studied to analyze the first five research questions, and the corresponding items that appear to measure each category. These specific items in turn became the spe
cific variables of the study. Additional variables, sex, marital status, and size of the community where the school was located were added to answer the other three research questions *
Procedures for Data GatheringThe following calendar outline describes the steps
taken in gathering the data.July 21, 1979: Departed from Lansing to the Philip
pines .
July 25
July 2 7
August
AugustAugust
August
August
August
52
, 1979: Received letter of introduction and
endorsement from Dr. Quintin S. Doromal, President of Silliman University, to the Director of the Office of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Region VII, Dr. Aurelio Tiro.
, 19 79: Met with Director Tiro to acquainthim with the nature of the study.
1, 1979: Arranged for the pilot study at Silliman University.
3, 1979: Conducted the pilot study.4-6, 1979:Refined the instrument on the basis
of the pilot study conducted.9, 1979: Fifty copies of a letter addressed to
the heads of the teacher training institutions and cooperating schools in. Region VII from Director Tiro were obtained together with the list of specific names of the teacher training institutions.
9-11, 1979: Specific dates for the administering of the questionnaire from the teacher training institutions in Cebu City,Cebu Province, Bohol Province, Tagbilaran City were agreed upon.
14, 1979: Specific dates for administering thequestionnaires in the teacher training
53
institutions in the province of Negros Oriental and Dumaguete City were secured.
August 15-September 11, 1979: Data gathering was accomplished.
The person from each training institution who took care of the coordination for the data gathering made arrangements for all student teachers to answer the questionnaires at the same time and all cooperating teachers at another time in one day or in one half day. Since there was only one building administrator for each school, the questionnaire for the administrator was left with the Office if the administrator was not available at the time. Most were picked up the following day, but a few were mailed. The questionnaire did not provide for labeling the respondent so time was taken to label each answer sheet after each group of respondents handed in all the questionnaires with 1_ representing student teacher; 2_ representing supervising teacher; and 3 representing administrator. This coding was later on transferred to the IBM cards. Each teacher training institution was labeled with a
letter.The Michgian Impact Study reported its findings in
percentages placed beside each alternative choice. For the current study, the scale for some of the dependent variables . had to be recoded to arrive at mean scores which were compar
able. For example. Category 1, Teaching-Learning Process ,
V18 7asked for a judgment on the extent to which the provision
54
for make-up work changed because of the presence of student teachers. The following were the alternative choices in in
strument :1. Much greater2. Somewhat greater3. No change4. Somewhat less5. Much less
Computing the mean of the responses necessitated assigning values in order from lowest to highest such that the greater the magnitude of the perception, the greater the value. Number 5 in this example has the least value and number 1 the greatest; hence, the responses were recoded as follows:
1. Much less2. Somewhat less3. No change4. Somewhat greater5. Much greater
To assure that the researcher's recodings were reasonable and logical, a jury of three doctoral degree holders in teacher education and in research and statistics were requested to review the recoding. Following this procedure, a total of thirty items were recoded.
Statistical Procedures The Michigan State University computerized data sheets
were used as answer sheets. Each respondent had one sheet and
55
each sheet could accommodate 1-230 numbers. Only the first 71 numbers were used by the administrator respondents and the first 72 numbers for the supervising teacher and student teacher respondents. Number 75 was for identifying the level of the respondents: 1 for the student teacher; 2_ for the supervising teacher; and 3_ for the administrator. It was necessary to use item 75 to set it off from the rest of the answers so that one quick look at the answer sheet would right away give the information whether the respondent is identified or not. This is an important piece of information since the study dealt with one independent variable, the respondents in three levels.
The answers from the answer sheets were then transferred into the Michigan State University computerized punch cards. Again these cards were carefully checked to see that each card had a punch for number 75. Then all these cards were submitted to the Michigan State University computer for the creation of three separate files for the three levels of respondents: (1) Student Teacher File, (2) Supervising TeacherFile, and (3) Administrator File.
The following data were generated for each of the thirty variables covered in the study and for each group: mean, mode,standard error, standard deviation, median, variance, range and .95 confidence interval, and valid cases. The data came out in tabulated percentage of responses for each choice under each variable for each level of respondents. These data were used in answering Research Questions 1-5. The percentages
56
were rounded by multiplying each percentage value by ten in
order to facilitate the use of chi-square procedures in arriving at the answers for Research Question 6. The alpha level of .001 was set as a criterion for determining whether there were significant differences in the perceptions of the three geographical areas. The SPSS statistical package for social sciences was used in generating data for the analysis of variance tables which serve as means for answering Research Questions 7 and 8. The alpha level of .01 was set as a criterion for determining whether there were significant differences among the three groups of respondents and whether sex, marital status and size of the community where the school was located affected the responses of the three groups.
CHAPTER IVANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE RESEARCH DATA
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the student teaching programs upon the cooperating schools
in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, as perceived by the student teachers enrolled during the first semester of 1979 and their corresponding supervising teachers and building administrators.
Chapter III gave the eight research questions, the variables, the detailed descriptions of the population, the characteristics of the three groups of respondents that constituted the sample, the instrumentation, the procedures for data gathering, the procedures used in the study, and the statistical procedures used to analyze the data. As stated in Chapter III, the study has one independent variable, a group of respondents, with three levels, namely; the student teachers (ST), the supervising teachers (SU) and the administrators (A). There are five dependent variables, namely, teaching- learning processes, student teacher contribution to school program activities, supervising teacher contribution to school- related activities, the supervising teacher's work load, and the administrator's work load. Henceforth, throughout this chapter, the abbreviations identified here are used when ap
propriate .57
58This chapter, divided into three parts, presents the
results of the statistical analyses of the data and discusses the findings. Part I discusses the analyses and findings for research questions 1-5 dealing with the effect of the presence of the student teachers on teaching-learning processes, the student teacher contribution to school program activities, supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities, the work load of the supervising teacher and the work load of the administrator. Corresponding tables are presented. Part II presents tables and corresponding analyses and discussions of the findings for Research Question No.6 which deals with a comparison of the perceptions of the three groups of respondents from Indiana, Michigan and the Philippines on the same variables treated in Research Questions 1-5. Part III discusses the analyses and findings for Research Question 7 and 8. Question 7 sought to find out whether there were significant differences in the perceptions of the three groups of respondents from the Philippines on the variable analyzed in the first three research questions dealing with teaching- learning processes, student teacher contribution to school program activities and supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities. Research Question No. 8 asked whether sex, marital status and size of the community where the school is located affected the perceptions of the three groups of respondents.
The findings on each research question are presented in statistical tables, and each of the three parts of the chapter concludes with a summary of the findings.
59Part I - Research Questions 1-5
Collectively, Research Questions 1-3 sought to find out whether the presence of student teachers in cooperating schools facilitated or hindered the teaching-learning processes inside and outside the classroom. Research Questions 4 and 5 dealt with whether the student teachers in cooperating schools changed the work load of the supervising teachers and the administrators respectively. The frequency distribution patterns, the means and the standard deviations of the five dependent variables were used in answering Research Questions 1-5. The results of the findings are presented in the following order:
Research Question N o . 1: Table 4.1 through Table 4.6
Research Question No. 2 : Table 4.7 through Table 4.12
Research Question No. 3: Table 4.13 through Table 4.19
Research Question N o . 4: Table 4.20 through Table 4.24
Research Question N o . 5 : Table 4.25 through Table 4.28
Research Question 1Research Question No. 1 sought to find out whether
the presence of student teachers enhanced the teaching-learning processes. The following five variables were usedto measure the extent of the enhancement.
1. Provision for make-up work
2. Follow-up of exams3. Supervision of playgrounds and assemblies
60
4. Discipline
5. Motivation of pupils
Table 4.1 through Table 4.6 present the findings.
TABLE 4.1 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V18: PROVISION FOR MAKE-UP WORK, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
C ode: 1 - Much Less 2-Somewhat less 3-No Change4 - Somewhat greater 5-Much Greater
The mean scores of the student teachers, the super-vising teachers and the administrators fall between "Nochange" and "Somewhat greater". The freguency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the student teachers and the supervising teachers on provision for make-up work (Table 4.1) are about the same. That is, there are more respondents on 3 to 5 for both groups. The three groups have similar standard deviations.
The three groups were consistent in perceiving that the presence of the student teachers enhanced the provision
61of make-up work, with the administrators expressing the most positive perceptions (3.66) and the supervising teachers the least (3.44).
TABLE 4.2 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V 1 9 : FOLLOW-UP OF EXAMS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the supervising teachers and the administrators on follow- up of exams (Table 4.2) are similar and they are different from that of the student teachers. The model pattern of the supervising teacher and administrator perceptions is on "somewhat better" while that of the student teacher perceptions is on "much better". The mean scores of the perceptions of the supervising teachers, administrators and student teachers are 3.67, 3.94 and 4.20 respectively while their standard deviations appear to be about the same.
62
The perceptions of the supervising teachers were the
lowest (3.67) while those of the student teachers were the highest (4.20). However, all three groups felt that the presence of student teachers enhanced the follow up of exams.
TABLE 4.3 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V 20: SUPERVISION OF PLAYGROUNDS AND ASSEMBLIES, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
1 - Much poorer 2 - Somewhat poorer 3 - No change4 - Somewhat better 5 - Much better
In their judgement about supervising playgrounds and assemblies, the patterns of the freguency distribution of the perceptions of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and administrators are similar. (Table 4.3). That is, there are more respondents on 3 to 5. The mean scores of the supervising teachers and the administrators fall
63
between "No change" and "Somewhat better" while the mean
score of the student teachers falls on "somewhat better-"The standard deviations are not greatly different. All three groups perceived of the presence of the student teachers in cooperating schools as enhancing the supervision of playgrounds and assemblies with the supervising teachers having the least positive perceptions (3.71) and the student teachers expressing the most positive perceptions (4.02).
TABLE 4.4: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONOF CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V 22: DISCIPLINE, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Total 375 100.0 189 100.0 34 100.0Mean 4.20 3.14 3.50S.D. .92 1.07 1.211 - Much poorer 2 - Somewhat poorer 3 - No change4 - Somewhat better 5 - Much better
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the supervising teachers and administrators regarding
discipline are similar (Table 4.4). That is, the majority
64
of the perceptions center on 2 to 5 while the majority of
the perceptions from the student teachers center on 4 to 5.The mean score of the student teacher responses falls between "Somewhat better" and "Much better" and those of the supervising teachers and administrators, between "No change" and "Somewhat better". The standard deviations of the three groups appear to vary somewhat with the broadest range in the administrator group.
All three groups expressed a slight feeling that the presence of student teachers enhanced the maintenance of discipline with the student teachers as the most positive (4.20)followed by the administrators (3.50)and the supervising teachers (3.14).
TABLE 4.5 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V 23: MOTIVATION OF PUPILS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
1 - Much poorer 2 - Somewhat poorer 3 - No change4 - Somewhat better 5 - Much better
65
The frequency distribution patterns of the supervising teacher and administrator perceptions regarding motivation of pupils are similar (Table 4.5). That is, the majority of the responses are in the 2 to 4 range while the majority of the student teacher perceptions center on 4 to 5.The mean scores of the supervising teachers and the administrators fall between "No change" and "Somewhat better".
The standard deviations indicate that the supervising teachers appear to be the least homogeneous in their judgements.
Although all three groups felt that the presence of the student teachers enhanced the motivation of pupils with the student teachers as the most positive (4.27), followed by the administrators (3.59) and the supervising teachers (3.31). Fewer than 4% of the student teachers, a little more than 28% of the supervising teachers and less than 18% of
the administrators thought that motivation of pupils was poorer with the presence of student teachers.
The overall comparisons of the oerceotions of the three groups of respondents, on the five variables in Category 1-, the effect of student teachers in the teaching- learning process, are presented in Table 4.6.
The overall means of the supervising teacher, administrators and student teacher perceptions are 3.44, 3.61 and 4.04 and the standard deviations are .68, .88 and .65 respectively (Table 4.6). The supervising teachers had the
least positive perceptions while the student teachers had the most positive perceptions. However, all three groups
66
perceived of the presence of student teachers in cooperating schools as enhancing the teaching-learning processes in the classrooms.
TABLE 4.6 TOTAL (N) SIZE, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH OF THE FIVE VARIABLES FOR CATEGORY 1: THEEFFECT OF THE PRESENCE OF STUDENT TEACHERS IN TEACHING-LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Code:1 - Much poorer 2 - Somewhat poorer 3 - No Chnage 4 - Somewhat better 5 - Much betterVariables:18 - Provision for make-up work19 - Follow up of exams20 - Supervision of playgrounds and assemblies21 - Disciplines22 - Motivation of pupils
Research Question 2
The perceived effects of the student teacher contri
bution to school program activities (Research Question No.2) were studied through the response of the three groups of respondents to five variables.
1. Supervision of youth groups in meetings,programs, trips.
2. Communication with parents3. Performance during recess, canteen, gymnasium,
playground or assembly duty4. Development, provision or suggestion of any new
instructional materials5. Suggestion or provision of any other kinds of aids
or ideasThe findings are presented in Table 4.7 through Table 4.12.
TABLE 4.7 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONOF CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, V 24: SUPERVISION OF YOUTHGROUPS DURING MEETINGS, PROGRAMS, TRIPS,FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
The frequency distribution patterns of the student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators on whether they thought student teachers contributed to the supervision of non-instructional activities were similar (Table 4.7). That is, the majority of the respondents in each of the three groups chose the number 2 (sometimes) response. The mean scores of the student teacher, supervising teacher and administrator responses fall between "No" and "Sometimes". The three groups appear to have similar standard deviations.
While more than 60% of all respondents in the three groups felt that the student teachers contributed at least sometimes to the supervision of youth groups during meetings, programs and trips, about one-third of them felt that the student teachers did not improve supervision during these non-instruc
tional activities.
TABLE 4.8 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONOF CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, V 25: COMMUNICATE WITH PARENTSFOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
69The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of
the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators on the effect of student teachers in facilitating communication with parents are similar (Table 4.8). That is, the majority of the respondents center on 2 (sometimes) while the majority of the responses of the supervising teachers are divided almost equally between 1 and 2. The mean scores of the three groups fall between "No" and "Sometimes". The standard deviation of the three groups seem to be similar.
Almost three-quarters of the student teachers, half of the supervising teachers and two-thirds of the administrators reported that the student teachers helped at least sometimes to facilitate communication with parents. The supervising teachers were the least positive (1.58) and the student teachers the most positive (1.92).
TABLE 4.9 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONOF CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, V 26: PERFORMANCE DURING RECESS, CANTEEN, PLAYGROUND AND ASSEMBLY HALL DUTIES, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
70The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions
of the supervising teachers and the administrators on student teacher contribution to performance during recess, canteen, playgound and assembly hall duties are similar (Table 4.9).That is, the majority of the perceptions center on 1 and 2 while the majority of the student teacher perceptions center on 2 and 3. The mean scores of the supervising teacher and administrator perceptions fall between "No" and "Sometimes" while the mean score of the student teacher perceptions fall between "Sometimes" and "Often". The standard deviations of the three groups appear to vary, being widest for the administrators .
A high proportion of respondents from all three groups thought that the student teachers contributed to performance during recess, canteen, playgrounds and assembly hall duties with the administrator group as the least positive (1.84) and the student teacher group as the most positive (2'.12). Between 18% and 35% of all respondents thought the student teachers did not contribute on this area.TABLE 4.10 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION
OF CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES V 27: BRING, DEVELOP,PROVIDE OR SUGGEST NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS,FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Mean 2 .09 1.63 1.69S.D. .56 .54 .58C ode: 1-No 2-Some 3-A great many
71
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the supervising teachers and administrators on student teacher contribution to the development, provision and suggestion of new instructional materials are similar (Table 4.10). That is, the majority of the responses center on 1 and 2 while the majority of the perceptions of the student teachers center on 2 and 3. The mean scores of the supervising teacher and administrator perceptions fall between "No" and "Some" while the mean score of the student teachers fall between "Some" and "A great many". The three groups appear to have similar standard deviations.
All three groups perceived that a high proportion of the student teachers brought, developed, provided and suggested new instructional materials with the supervising teachers having the least positive perceptions (1.63) and the student teachers having the most positive perceptions (2.09). However, some 10% to 40% of them selected the "No" response.
TABLE 4.11 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD; ’DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVIITES, V 28: SUGGEST OR PROVIDE ANY NEW KINDS OF AIDS OR IDEAS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
72The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions
of the supervising teachers and the administrators on student teacher suggestion or provision for aids or ideas are similar (Table 4.11). That is, they center on 1 and 2. The mean scores of the supervising teacher and administrator perceptions fall between "No" and "Some" while that of the student teachers falls between "Some" and "A great many". The standard deviations of the three groups are similar.
More than three-quarters of the student teachers, about two-thirds of the supervising teachers and more than one-half of the administrators thought that the student teachers suggested and provided at least some kinds of aids or ideas. The administrators had the least positive perceptions (1.58) and the student teachers had the most positive perceptions (2.04).
TABLE 4.12 TOTAL (n), MEAN, STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH OFTHE FIVE VARIABLES FOR CATEGORY 2: STUDENT TEACHER ' CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
n X S.D. n X S.D. n X S.D.24 378 1.88 .67 185 1.72 .63 33 1.88 .7025 375 1.92 .69 190 1.58 .60 .33 1.76 .6126 376 2.12 .70 187 1.90 .85 32 1.84 .8527 344 2.09 .56 188 1.63 .54 36 1.69 .5828 362 2.04 .51 187 1.72 .55 36 1.58 .60Overall 2.00 .39 1.71 .42 1.73 .48
Code: 1-No 2-Sometimes 3-Often
Variables:24-Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips25-Communicate with parents26-Perform recess, canteen, gymnasium, playground or
assembly duty27-Bring, develop, provide or suggest any new instruc
tional materials28-Suggest or provide any other kinds of aids or ideas
Category 2 measured the extent of student teachers' contribution to the school program activities as presented in Table 4.12. The overall mean scores of the supervising teacher and administrator perceptions were very close, (1.71) and (1.73) respectively while that of the student teacher perceptions was higher than the other two groups (2.00). The standard deviations of the three groups appeared to be similar. All three groups agreed in their perceptions that the student teachers contributed to the school program activities with the student teachers expressing the most positive perceptions, (2.00) followed by the administrators (1.73) and the supervising teachers (1.71). Comparatively low positive perceptions on communication with parents (V 25) came from both the student teachers (1.92) and the supervising teachers (1.58).
74Research Question 3
The extent through which the supervising teachers could attend to responsibilities connected with school-related activities through the available time afforded them when the student teachers were handling their classes (Research Question No 3) was measured by the following six variables:
1. Visitations in other classrooms or schools2. Committee work in school with pupils3. Professional reading or writing4. Work with staff of school or department5. Assisting the principal or other teachers6. Social or recreational activitiesFindings are featured in Table 4.13 through Table 4.19.
TABLE 4.13 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 32: VISITATION IN OTHER CLASSROOMS OR SCHOOLS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
CodeFreq
ST%
SUFreq. %
AFreq. %
1 138 39.9 120 64.2 10 28 .62 157 45.4 59 31.6 14 40.03 51 14.7 8 4.3 11 31.4Total 346 100.0 187 100.0 35 100.0Mean 1.75 1.40 2.03S.D. .70 .57 .79Code: 1 - Not at all 2 - To some extent 3 - A great deal
75
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the student teachers and the supervising teachers on the opportunity afforded through student teachers for supervising teachers to visit classrooms or schools are similar (Table 4.13). That is, the majority of the responses center on 1 and 2 while the majority of the administrator perceptions center on 2 and 3. The mean score of the student teacher and the supervising teacher perceptions fall between "Not at all" and "To some extent" while that of the administrator perceptions was slightly higher than "To some extent". The standard deviations of the student teachers and the administrator responses are not greatly different.
Although almost 40% of the student teachers, almost 65% of the supervising teachers and almost 30% of the administrators felt that the presence of the student teachers did not facilitate school and classroom visitations, more than 50% of the student teachers and administrators and more than 35% of the supervising teachers thought that the student teachers fostered classroom and school visitations at least to some extent. The supervising teachers had the lowest perceptions (1.40) and the administrators had the most positive perceptions (2.03).
76TABLE 4.14 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION
OF CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 33: COMMITTEE WORKIN SCHOOL WITH PUPILS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Code: 1-Not at all 2-To some extent 3-A great many
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the student teachers and the administrators on the effect of student teachers in making possible supervising teacher participation in committee work in school with pupils are similar (Table 4.14). That is, the majority of the responses center on 2 and 3 while the majority of the supervising teacher reponses center on 1 and 2. The mean scores of the student teacher and administrator perceptions fall between "To some extent" and "A great many" while that of the supervising teachers' perceptions falls between "Not at all" and "To some extent". All three groups appear to have similar standard deviations.
Fewer than 20% of the student teachers, almost 40% of the supervising teachers and a little more than 5% of the administrators felt that the student teachers' presence did
77not give time for the supervising teachers to do committee work in school with pupils. A greater proportion of the respondents in all three groups, however, felt that the student teachers enabled the supervising teachers to give more time to committee work with pupils. The supervising teachers had the lowest positive perceptions while the administrators gave the most positive responses.
TABLE 4.15 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 34: PROFESSIONAL READING OR WRITING, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Code: 1-Not at all 2-To some extent 3-A great deal
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the student teachers and the administrators on influence of student teachers on the professional reading or writing of supervising teachers are similar (Table 4.15). That is, the majority of the perceptions center on 2 and 3 while the majority of the perceptions of the supervising teachers center
78on 1 and 2. The mean scores of the student teacher and administrator perceptions fall between "To some extent" and "A great deal" while that of the supervising teacher perceptions falls between "Not at all" and "To some extent". The three groups appear to have similar standard deviations.
Fewer than 20% of the student teachers and administrators and a little more than 30% of the supervising teachersfelt that the presence of the student teachers did not haveany effect on the time the supervising teachers spent on professional reading or writing. However, more than three- quarters of the student teacher and the administrator respondents and more than two-thirds of the supervising teachers thought that the student teachers gave the supervising teachers time to do some professional reading or writing at least to some extent. The least positive perceptions came from the supervising teachers (1.85) and the most positive ones came from the administrators (2.31).
TABLE 4.16 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 35: WORKWITH STAFF OF SCHOOL OR DEPARTMENT FOR EACH GROUPOF RESPONDENTS
CodeFreq
ST%
SUFreq %
AFreq %
1 75 21.5 64 34.2 2 6.12 161 46.1 97 51.9 11 33.33 113 32.4 26 13.9 20 60.6Total 349 100.0 187 100.0 33 100.0Mean 2 .11 1.80 2.55S.D. . 73 .67 .621-Not at all 2-To some extent 3-A great deal
79
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the student teachers and the administrators on the supervising teachers' work with staff or department as a result of the presence of student teachers ;are similar (Table 4.16). That is, the majority of the perceptions center on 2 and 3 while the majority of the perceptions of the supervising teachers center on 1 and 2. The mean scores of the student teacher and administrator perceptions fall between "To some extent" and "A great deal" while that of the supervising teachers falls between "Not at all" and "To some extent". The three groups appear to have similar standard deviations.
Although less than 25% of the student teachers, less than 35% of the supervising teachers and less than 10% of the administrators felt that the supervising teachers' work with staff or school department was not affected by the presence of the student teachers, large proportions in all three groups felt that the student teachers enabled the super- . vising teachers to have more time to work with the staff or the department of the school at least to some extent.The supervising teachers had the least positive perceptions (1.80) while the most positive ones came from the administrators (2.55).
80TABLE 4.17 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION
OF CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 37: ASSISTING THEPRINCIPAL OR OTHER TEACHERS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Code: 1-Not at all 2-To some extent 3-A great deal
The modal response of the student teachers and thesupervising teachers on the extent to which student teachers
made it possible for the supervising teachers to assist theprincipal and other teachers was 2 while that of the administrators was 3 (Table 4.17). However, there were some "Not at all" responses in all three groups.
Fewer than 20% of the student teachers and the administrators and a little over 30% of the supervising teachers felt there was no effect of the presence of the student teachers on the assistance given to the prinicipal or other teachers. However, large proportions in all three groups thought that the student teachers provided available time for the supervising teachers to help the principal and other teach ers at least to some extent. The supervising teachers had the least positive perceptions (1.86) and the administrators had the most positive perceptions (2.46).
81
TABLE 4.18 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 38: SOCIAL OR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
C ode: 1-Not at all 2-To some extent 3-A Great deal
The frequency distribution patterns of the perceptions of the student teachers and supervising teachers on supervising teachers contribution to social or recreational activities as a result of having student teachers,are similar (Table 4.18). That is, the majority of the perceptions center on 1 and 2 while the majority of the perceptions of the administrators center on 2 and 3. The mean scores of the supervising teachers and the student teachers fall between "Not at all" and "To some extent" while the administrator perceptions fall between "To some extent" and "A great deal". The standard deviations of the three groups seem to be similar.
About one-fourth of the student teachers, a little over one-third of the supervising teachers and about one-
tenth of the administrators thought that the presence of the
student teachers did not affect the time the supervising teachers spent in contributing to social or recreational activities. However, more than three-fourths of the student teachers and administrators and about two-thirds of the supervising teachers felt that the presence of the student teachers enabled the supervising teachers to contribute to social or recreational activities at least to some extent. The supervising teachers had the least positive perceptions (1.79) and the administrators had the most positive ones (2.47).
TABLE 4.19 TOTAL (n), MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH OF THE SIX VARIABLES FOR CATEGORY 3: SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, FOR EACH OF THE GROUPS
Code: 1-Not at all 2-To some extent 3-A great dealVariables:
32-Visitations in other classrooms or schools33-Committee work in the school with pupils34-Professional reading or writing35-Work with the staff of school or department36-Assisting the principal or other teachers37-Social or recreational activities
83Category 3 measured the extent the supervising teach
ers engaged in additional school-related activities during the time the student teachers were handling their classes, (Table 4.19). All three groups were consistent in their perceptions that the supervising teachers were able to engage in additional school-related activities during the time the student teachers were teaching their classes. The supervising teacher and administrator groups had the same overall standard deviation (.51) with that of the student teachers close to it (.49). The overall mean score indicated that the most positive perceptions came from the administrators (2.38), followed by the student teachers (2.03) and then the supervising teachers (1.73). Of the six variables, the least positive perceptions in all three groups was V 32, visitation in other
classrooms or schools.
Research Question 4The extent of the change of the supervising teacher
work load brought about by the presence of the student teachers (Research Question 4) was measured by four variables; namely, teaching, lesson planning, paper grading and help to individual pupils/students. The findings are presented in Table 4.20 through Table 4.24.
84
TABLE 4.20 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 4, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK LOAD, V 50: TEACHING, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
3 - Remained about the same 4 - Increased to someextent 5 - Increased a great deal
Table 4.20 shows that although 6.6% of the studentsfelt their presence greatly reduced the work load of thesupervising teachers, only 2.1% of the supervising teachers felt that way. On the other hand, while 23.8% of the student teachers felt their presence increased the supervising teacher work load, only 5.3% of the supervising teachers selected that response. The student teachers were more likely to select responses 1 to 5 than were the supervising teachers. Still the mean responses were not greatly differ
ent. That is, they fell between "Remained about the same"
85
and "Increased to some extent" with the supervising teachers tending to be more neutral, (43.2).
TABLE 4.21 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIA-TION OF CATEGORY 4 LOAD, V 51: LESSON RESPONDENTS
, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK PLANNING, FOR EACH GROUP OF
ST SUCode Freq % Freq. %1 18 4.9 3 1.62 47 12.9 32 16.93 84 23.0 86 45.54 102 27.9 57 30 .25 114 31.2 11 5.8Total 365 100.0 189 100.0Mean 3..68 3,.22S.D. 1 ..18 .85C ode: 1-Reduced a great deal 2-Reduced to some extent
3-Remained about the same 4-Increased to some extent 5-Tncreased a great deal
Table 4.21 presents the fact that less than 20% of the respondents in both groups felt that the student teachers' presence reduced at least to some extent the lesson planning work of the supervising teachers. However, 31.2% of the student teachers felt they increased the lesson planning load of the supervising teachers a great deal while only 5.8% of the supervising teachers felt that same way. Almost one- half of the supervising teachers thought their work load on lesson planning remained about the same while less than one
86
fourth of the student teachers selected that response. Still the mean responses were not greatly different. That is, they fell between "Remained about the same" and "Increased to some extent".
TABLE 4.22 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 4, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK LOAD, V 52: PAPER GRADING, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
C ode: 1- Reduced a great deal 2-Reduced to some extent3-Remained about the same 4-Increased to some extent 5-Increased a great deal
While 5.8% of the student teachers felt their presence reduced the paper grading responsibility of the supervising teachers a great deal, only 1.1% of the supervising teachers felt the same way. (Table 4.22). On the other hand, while 18.4% of the student teachers thought their presence increased the paper grading work of the supervising teachers a great deal, only 6.8% of the supervising teachers expressed the same responses. While 40.0% of the supervising teachers
87
thought their paper grading work remained about the same, only 26.3% of the student teachers selected that response. Still the mean responses were not greatly different. That is, they fell between "Remained about the same" and "Increased to some extent".
TABLE 4.23 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 4, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK LOAD, V 53: HELP TO INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS, FOR EACH GROUP OF RESPONDENTS
Code Freq.ST
%SU
Freq %
1 14 3.8 1 .52 39 10.6 22 11.63 75 20.4 63 33.34 135 36.7 84 44.45 105 28.5 19 10.1Total 368 100.0 189 100.0Mean 3.76 3.52S.D. 1.10 .85Code: 1-Reduced a great deal 2-Reduced to some extent
3-Remained about the same 4-Increased to some extent 5-Increased a great deal
Table 4.23 shows that while 3.8% of the student teachers felt their presence reduced the help the supervising teacher gave to the pupils, only .5% of the supervising teachers felt that same way. On the other hand, while 28.5% of the student
88teachers felt their presence increased the supervising teacher's load on individual help given to pupils, only 10.1% of the supervising teachers expressed the same response. While 33.3% of the supervising teachers thought there was no change in the help they gave to individual pupils, only 20.4% of the student teachers felt the same way. Still the mean responses did not greatly differ. That is, they fell between "Remainedabout the same" and "Increased to some extent".
TABLE 4.24 TOTAL (n) MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH OF THE FOUR VARIABLES FOR CATEGORY 4: SUPERVISINGTEACHER WORK LOAD FOR THE STUDENT TEACHER ANDSUPERVISING TEACHER GROUPS
Code: 1-Reduced a great deal 2-Reduced to some extent3-No change 4-Increased to some extent 5-Increased a great deal.
Variables: V50-TeachingV51-Lesson PlanningV52-Paper gradingV53-Help to individual students
As shown in Table 4.20 through 4.23, in all the four variables, the student teachers had more responses centered on 1 and 5 whereas the supervising teachers had
89
fewer responses on these numbers. In all four variables the majority of the student teachers felt their presence increased the supervising teacher work load while less than 50% of the supervising teachers felt the same way except in individual help given to pupils where more than one-half of the supervising teachers thought the presence of the student teachers added to their load. Help given to individual students appeared to demand more time for the supervising teachers. The mean score for this variable was the highest for both groups (Table 4.24).Research Question 5
Ten variables were used to measure the extent the work load of the administrators was affected by the presence of the student teachers (Research Question No. 5). Only the perceptions of the administrators were considered because the student teachers and the supervising teachers were not asked the questions representing these variables. The following were the ten variables:
1. Additional reports regarding student teaching or about student teachers.
2. Counseling student teachers.3. Selection of supervising teachers.4. Orientation of student teachers.5. Finding instructional materials.6. Counseling supervising teachers.7. Communication with parents about activities related
to student teachers.8. Student teachers' assistance in counseling pupils.
909. Time of supervising teachers being made available by
the student teachers' teaching of classes.
10. Time of other teachers being made available by the student teachers' handling some of their assigned responsibilities.
Table 4.25 presents the findings of the first four variables which deal with working with student teachers on the student teaching program ; Table 4.26, the next three variables which apply to work with supervising teachers or the school; and Table 4.27 the last three variables which deal with the assistance provided by student teachers.
TABLE 4.25 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 5: WORK LOAD OF THE ADMINISTRATORS, V 56 to V 59.
Variable Code Freq. % Freq.TOTAL % X S.D.
V 56 1 2 6.52 7 22.63 22 71.0 31 100.0 2.65 .61
V 57 1 2 5.92 10 29.43 22 64.7 34 100.0 2.59 .61
V 58 1 1 3.22 15 48.43 15 48.4 31 100.0 2.45 .57
V 59 1 1 3.12 11 34.43 20 62.5 32 100.0 2.59 .56
Code: 1-Decreased your work load 2-Made no change 3-Increasecyour work load
V-56 Additional reports regarding student teaching or about student teachers.
V-57 Counseling student teachers V-58 Selection of supervising teachers.V-59 Orientation of student teachers
91
Only one or two administrators from a group of some thirty respondents in each of the four variables felt their load having to do with additional report on student teaching, counseling student teachers, orientation of student teachers and selection of supervising teachers was decreased.
(Table 4.25).' From tone-half to two-thirds of the others thought that their load was increased.
TABLE 4.26 FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 5: WORK LOAD OF ADMINISTRATORS, V 60 TO V 62
Variable Code Freq % FreqTotal
T X S.D.V-60 1 9 32.2
2 9 32.23 10 35. 7 28 100.0 2.04 .84
V-61 1 3 9.12 17 51.53 13 39.4 33 100.0 2.30 .64
V-62 1 1 3.72 17 63.03 9 33.3 27 100.0 2.30 .54
Code: 1-Decreased your work load 2-Made no change 3-Increased your work load
V-60 -Finding instructional materials V-61 -Counseling supervising teachersV-62 -Communication with parents about activities related
to student teachers
While a little more than one-third of the administrators felt their load in finding instructional materials was increased, almost one-third of them thought their load was decreased and the remaining almost one-third reported no change in this same work load (Table 4.26).
92
The majority of the administrators felt that there was no change in their work load relative to counseling supervising teachers. However, almost 40% thought their work load increased and the remaining 10% reported that their work load decreased when student teachers were present.
While 63% of the administrators reported "No change" in their communication with parents about student teaching, one-third felt their communication to parents about student teaching added more time in their work load.
TABLE 4.27: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION, MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF CATEGORY 5: V-63 to V-65: WORK LOAD OF THE ADMINISTRATORS
Code: 1-Decreased your work load 2-Made no change 3-Increased your work load.
V-63 - Student teachers' assistance in counseling students V-64 - Time of supervising teachers being made available by
the student teachers' teaching of classes.V-65 - Time of other teachers being made available by the
student teachers' handling some of their assigned responsibilites
93
The largest number of the responses in each of the three variables dealing with student teachers' assistance in reducing the work load of administrators falls on 1, "Decreased your work load" (Table 4.27). From 25% to less than 40% felt their work load was not changed while about 17% to about 30% thought their responsibilities having to do with the stated activities increased their work load.
TABLE 4.28 TOTAL (n) MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF EACH OF THE VARIABLES FOR CATEGORY 5: ADMINISTRATOR WORKLOAD
56-Additional reports regarding student teaching or about student teachers
57-Counseling student teachers58-Selection of supervising teachers59-Orientation of student teachers60-Finding instructional materials61-Counseling supervising teachers62-Communication with parents about activities related to
student teachers63-Student teachers' assistance in counseling with students/
pupils64-Time of supervising teachers being made available by the
student teachers' teaching of the supervising teachers' classes
65-Time of other teachers being made available by the student teachers' handling some of their assigned responsibilities
94
As seen in Table 4.28, the administrators felt their work load having to do with additional reports about student teaching, counseling student teachers, selection of supervising teachers and orientation of student teachers increased their work load. They considered their work load having to do with finding instructional materials, counseling supervising teachers and communication with parents about student teaching to remain about the same. There was a slight decrease in their work load with the help they got from the cooperating teachers and the other teachers who had student teachers to take over some of their assigned responsibilities. The overall mean (2.20) is close to 2.
Summary of the Findings for Part I
All three groups of respondents perceived of the presence of student teachers as enhancing the teaching-learning processes. All three groups were consistent in,their perceptions that the student teachers contributed to the school program activities. All three groups were consistent in their perceptions that the supervising teachers were able to engage in school-related activities during the time the student teachers were handling their classes. The student teachers perceived of their presence in cooperating schools as increasing the work load of the supervising teachers whereas the supervising teachers' perceptions indicated that their work load in teaching, lesson planning and paper grading remained about the same. The administrators perceived of their
work load relative to additional reports regarding student teaching, counseling student teachers, selecting supervising teachers and orientation of student teachers as having increased. Their work load in finding instructional materials, and communication with parents about activities related to student teachers remained about the same. There was a slight decrease in their work load with the student teachers' assistance in counseling with pupils, the student teachers' handling of the supervising teachers' classes and the student teachers' availability to handle some of the assigned responsibilities of other teachers in the building.
The consistently more favorable perception of student teachers than of the other groups of their effect in the school should be noted, as well as should be the frequently differing position of the administrators with respect to the other two groups. Clearly, the study gathered perceptions rather than empirical data. However, the fact that the perceptions were almost always in the same direction lends credence to
the findings.
96
PART II: RESEARCH QUESTION NO.6
Research Question No. 6 sought to compare in percentages the findings from the three geographical areas that undertook similar studies on student teaching programs, namely, Indiana, Michigan and the current study in the Philippines, on the five categories covered in Research Questions 1-5 and their corresponding variables. However, not all the geographic areas provided information from all three groups of respondents. Thus, to be considered for analysis, a variable needed to be covered by at least one group in all three geographic areas. There were six variables not reported on in all three areas, so only twenty- four variables out of the thirty variables treated in Research Questions 1-5 were included. The following items were accordingly excluded:
1. In Category 1, on the effect of the presence of student teachers on teaching-learning processes: Indiana combined provision for make-up work and follow- up of exams; hence, there are only four variables instead of five.
2. In Category 2, on student teacher contribution to school program activities: Indiana did not use the item on supervision of youth groups in meetings, programs, trips; and combined (1) provision or suggestion of new instructional materials and (2) provision of any new ideas or aids into one; hence, there are only three variables instead of five.
973. In Category 3, on supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities: Indiana did not pro
vide an item on social and recreational activities; hence, there are only five variables instead of six.
4. In Category 4, on the extent of the change in the work load of the supervising teacher because of the presence of the student teachers: Indiana did not include an item on help to individual students; hence, there are only three variables instead of four.
5. In Category 5, on the extent the work load of administrators changed because of the presence of student teachers: Indiana did not include theitem on the student teacher help in counseling pupils/students; hence, there are only nine variables instead of ten.
To facilitate the use of the chi-square tests procedures, each percentage value was multiplied by ten. Because of the large N in all the respondent groups that factor was judged to be more reflective of the data, and in addition, avoided dealing with the decimals. Table 4.29 through Table 4.52 present the findings that serve to answer Research Question 6.
98
TABLE 4.29 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V 1 8 : PROVISION FOR MAKE-UP WORK
4.29.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Much greater 7.2 5.7 19.72. Somewhat greater 19.0 22.7 29.83. No Change 57.5 58 .6 37.24. Somewhat less 3.4 1.3 9.85. Much less 3.5 .6 3.6
Total 90.6 88 .9 100 .0
X2 = 274.19 df = 8 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their influence on provision for make-up work are significantly different. The much higher proportion of the "much greater" responses from the Philippine student teachers in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, together with the much higher proportions of the "no change" responses from those in Indiana and Michigan in comparison to the much lower proportion from the Philippine student teachers, on the same item accounted most of the differences. The large differences in the observed and expected values for these items produced correspondingly high chi-square values.
4.29.299Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Much greater 11.5 10.1 10 .22. Somewhat greater 26.1 33.7 42 .23. No change 52.3 51.1 31.04. Somewhat less 3.8 2.4 15.05. Much less 2.9 .5 1.6
Total 96 .6 96.8 100 .0
= 253.58 df = 8 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptionsof the supervising teachers on the influence the student teachers had on provision for make-up work were significantly different. The much higher proportions of the "no change" responses coming from Indiana and Michigan in comparison to the much lower one from the Philippines on the same item, together with the much higher proportion of the "somewhat less" responses from the Phippines in comparison! to the much lower proportions from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, accounted for the significant differences. Much of the chi- square value resulted from the differences between the observed and expected values in the cells for these items.
4.29 .3100
Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Much greater 5.2 14.1 17.12. Somewhat greater 34.3 55 .6 42.93. No change 55.9 28 .6 31.44. Somewhat less .8 .3 5.75. Much less .5 .1 2.9
Total 96.7 98 .7 100 .0
X2 = 402.03 10* |n> n 00 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the student teachers' influence on provision for make-up work were significantly different. Indiana's much lower proportion of the "much greater" responses and the much higher proportion of the "no change" responses in comparison to the other two groups' much lower proportions of responses on the same item, produced high chi-square values.These values, together with the high chi-square values resulting from the much higher proportions of the "somewhat less" and "much less" responses from the Philippines in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan, accounted for the significant differences.
On the variable dealing with the input the student teachers had on provision for make-up work, the most positive perceptions came from the Philippine student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators. Indiana and Michigan groups of respondents generally tended to choose the "no
101
change" response with Michigan groups having higher perceptions than the Indiana group.
TABLE 4.30: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS FOR CATEGORY 1, TEACHING- LEARNING PROCESSES, V 2 0 : SUPERVISION OF PLAYGROUNDS AND ASSEMBLIES
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their impact on the supervision of playground, canteen, assembly hall or gymnasium duty were significantly different. High proportions of the student teachers from the Philippines selected the "much better" and "somewhat better" responses in comparison to the much lower proportions coming from Indiana and Michigan on the same items. In like manner, the greater proportions of the Indiana and Michigan student teachers selected the "no change" response while a much smaller proportion came from the Philippine student teachers on the same items. The corresponding big chi-square values for these items accounted for the significant differences.
102
4.30.2 Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Much better 9.0 7.9 13.32. Somewhat better 14.1 15.9 50.93. No change 62.6 39 .4 30.14. Somewhat poorer 1.3 3.2 .5.25. Much poorer .1 .8 . 5
Total 87.1 67.2 100 .0
= 391.77 df = 8 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the student teachers' help in supervising playground, canteen, gymnasium or assembly hall duty were significantly different. A much bigger proportion of the Philippine administrators selected "somewhat better" responses in comparison to the much lower proportions from the Indiana and the Michigan responses on the same item, caused big differences between the observed and expected values and corresponding chi-square values. These chi-square values, in addition to the big differences between the observed and the expected values for the "no change" response from Indiana contributed heavily to the differences.
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the role the student teachers played on the supervision of playgrounds, canteen, gymnasium or assembly hall duties differed significantly. The high proportions of "much better", "somewhat better" and "no change" choices of the Philippine administrators had big differences between the observed and the expected values; hence, the corresponding big chi-square values. These values, together with the low choice of "much better" and the heavy selection of the "no change" responses by the Indiana administrators, accounted for much of the significant differences. The In
diana and Michigan administrators tended to select the "no change" response while those from the Philippines, the "somewhat better" response.
On the effect of the influence of the student teachers on the supervision of playgrounds, canteen, assemblies, or gymnasium duty, the three groups of respondents from the Philippines had the highest perceptions. Generaiiyf the
104three groups from Indiana and Michigan chose the "no change" response. However, there were more "somewhat poorer" responses from the three Philippine groups in comparison to the ones from Indiana and Michigan groups on the same item.
4.31: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHICALAREAS FOR CATEGORY 1, TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES, V22: DISCIPLINE
4.31.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Much better 11.2 2.9 45.32. Somewhat better 33.7 12.8 36 .83. No change 44.2 47.9 12.34. Somewhat poorer 5.8 23.8 4.05. Much poorer .5 1.9 1.6
Total 95 .4 89.3 100 .0
x2 = 1672.01 df = 8 Significant at .001
The chi-square value showed that the perceptions of the student teachers on the effect of their presence on discipline were significantly different. The astoundingly high proportions of "much better" and "somewhat better" responses from the Philippine student teachers in comparison to the much lower proportions from the Indiana and Michigan student teachers on the same item, together with the much higher proportions of the "no change" responses from Indiana and Michigan in comparison to that of the Philippines on the same item, gave big differences between the observed and expected
105
values and the corresponding chi-square values. Furthermore,
the much higher proportion of the "somewhat poorer" responses from Michigan in comparison to the ones from Indiana and the Philippines helped make the chi-square value very high.
The chi-square value showed that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the effect of the presence of student teachers on discipline were significantly different. The very much lower proportions of "much better" and "somewhat better" responses from the Michigan respondents in comparison to the much higher ones from Indiana and the Philippines on the same items, in addition to Michigan's much higher proportion of "somewhat poorer" responses in comparison with the lower proportion of responses from those in Indiana and the Philippines on the same itemj accounted for the differences. High chi-square values resulted from the big differ
ences between the observed and expected values in these items.
106
Also, there was a big difference between the observed and expected values in the "somewhat poorer" responses from the Indiana respondents.
The chi-square value showed that the perceptions of the administrators on the effect of the student teachers' presence on discipline were significantly different. The much higher proportion of the "much better" responses from the Philippines in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item together with the much higher proportions of "no change" responses from Indiana and Michigan in comparison to the much lower one from the Philippines, accounted for the differences. Also, the big difference between the observed and the expected values on the "somewhat poorer" responses from Indiana (lower) and the Philippines (higher) added to the high chi-square values.
107On the effect of the presence of the student teachers
on discipline, the Philippine student teachers had much higher positive perceptions, followed by the Indiana student teachers. For the supervising teacher groups, Indiana had the highest positive perceptions followed by the Philippine supervising teachers. For the administrator group, Indiana had the most positive perceptions, followed by those from the Philippines. Michigan had the least positive perceptions in the three groups. However, there were more "somewhat poorer" responses from the three Philippine groups than those from Indiana and Michigan. The modal response for Indiana and Michigan groups was "no change".
TABLE 4.32: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS FOR CATEGORY 1, V 23: MOTIVATION OF PUPILS
The chi-square value indicated that the student teachers, in their perceptions on the influence of student teachers on
108
pupil motivation,differed significantly. The disproportionate selection by the Philippine student teachers of the "much better" choice, together with the lower than chance choice of that response by the Indiana and Michigan student teachers accounted for most of the differences. The "no change" response seemed to be the alternate response for all groups.
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the influence of student teachers had on pupil motivationtdiffered significantly. The high proportions the Indiana and Michigan respondents' "no change" choices in comparison to the much lower proportion of the Philippine respondents' choices for the same item, together with the disproportionate "somewhat poorer" responses from Indiana and Philippine groups, contributed to the high value of the chi-square. The Philippine supervising teachers
109tended to choose the items "somewhat better" and "somewhat poorer" rather than to make a neutral judgment of "no change".
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the effect of the student teachers on pupil motivation differed significantly. The high chi- square values on the "much better" cell (Philippines), "no change" cell (Indiana and Philippines), and "somewhat poorer" cells (Indiana and the Philippines) accounted for the high chi-square values. The Michigan and Indiana administrators tended to choose the "somewhat better" and "no change" responses while the Philippine administrators tended to choose the "somewhat better" and "somewhat poorer" responses.
The influence of the student teachers on the variable motivation of pupils was perceived differently by the three geographic areas. The Philippine groups had the most positive perceptions, generally followed by Indiana. The supervising
110
teachers from the three geographic areas had the least positive perceptions.
TABLE 4.33 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 2, V 25: COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS.
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Often 9.6 1.2 9.12. Sometimes 47.4 13.6 57.63. No 40.1 74.8 33.3
Total 97.1 89 .6 100 .0
2 = 488.72X df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on student teacher enhancement of communication with parents were significantly different. High chi- square values resulted from: (1) the much higher proportions
v
of "often" responses from Indiana and the Philippines in comparison to the much lower proportion from the Michigan respondents on the same item; (2) Michigan respondents' astound- ingly lower proportion of "sometimes" responses in comparison to the much higher proportions of the responses from Indiana and the Philippines on the same item; and (3) the big difference between the observed and expected values in the cell for "no" response from Michigan because of the much higher proportion of responses for this item. The input the student
Ill
teachers had on their role in communication with parents had the highest perceptions coming from the Philippine groups, followed by Indiana. Michigan administrators tended to select the "no"change response.
TABLE 4.34: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHICAREAS FOR CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTIONTO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, V 26: PERFORM RECESS, CANTEEN, GYMNASIUM, PLAYGROUND OR ASSEMBLY DUTY
4.34.1 Student Teacher
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Often 46.5 21.4 30.92 . Sometimes 21.7 26 .3 50.33. No 30.2 50.7 18.9
Total 98.4 98 .4 100.0
X2 = 39 7.3 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their help during recess, canteen, gymnasium, playground or assembly hall duty were significantly different. The large chi-square values resulted from the much higher proportion of the "often" responses from Indiana in comparison to the lower proportion of responses from the Philippines and Michigan for the same item. In like manner, the much higher proportion of "no"' responses from the Michigan respondents
in comparison to the lower ones from Indiana and the Philippines for the same item, resulted in high chi-square values.
112The high proportion of the "sometimes" responses from the Philippines, in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan for the same item, resulted in the big differences between the observed and the expected values in the three cells for this item; hence, the correspondingly high chi-square value.
4.34.2 Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Often 38 .8 16 .0 18 .72. Sometimes 27.2 28 .7 52.43. No 31.0 51.7 28.9
Total 97.0 96 .4 100 .0
X2 = 317.51 df = 4 Significant at .001
The high chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the student teachers' help in the performance of canteen, playground, gymnasium or assembly hall duty were significantly different. The high chi-square value resulted from the big difference between the observed and the expected values for the Indiana cell containing a much higher proportion of "often" responses in comparison to the much lower ones of the other two groups on the same item. This value, together with the much higher proportion of "sometimes" responses from the Philippines in comparison to the lower ones from Michigan and Indiana on the same item, accounted for the
113
significant difference. Also, there was much higher proportion of the "no" responses from Michigan in comparison to the much lower ones from the other two groups.
4.34.3 Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Often 23.1 18.0 25.02. Sometimes 45.5 41.0 37.53. No 28.1 33.9 34.4
Total 96.7 92.9 96.9
= 26.34 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the student teachers' contribution in the performance of canteen, gymnasium, playground or assembly hall duty were significantly different. The lower proportion of "often" responses from the Michigan respondents in comparison to the higher ones from Indiana and the Philippines for the same item, in addition to the lower proportion of "no" responses from Indiana in comparison to the higher ones from Michigan and the Philippines, accounted for the significant difference.
On the variable dealing with the effect of the presence of student teachers on the supervision of recess, canteen, gymnasium, playground and assembly hall duty, there was clearly a difference among the three geographic areas. The Philippine
114
respondents in all groups reported more positive perceptions of this effect, with Indiana respondents closely following.The Michigan respondents chose more of the lower ratings on this variable.
TABLE 4.35 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 2, STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, V 27: BRING, DEVELOP, PROVIDE OR SUGGEST ANY NEW INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
4.35.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great many 52.3 11.8 20 .62. Some 39 .2 67.1 67.73. No 8.1 9.3 11.6
Total 99 .6 88 .2 99 .9
X2 = 407.70 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their contribution through suggesting or providing new instructional materials were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "a great many" responses from Indiana in comparison to the much lower ones from Michigan and the Philippines on the same item,contributed to the high chi-square value. The consequent big difference between the observed and the expected values in Indiana's "some" response cell added to the chi-square value. Also, Michigan had a very high proportion of "some" responses in comparison
115
to the rest of the Michigan cells; hence, a big difference between the observed and expected values for this "some" cell.
4.35.2 Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great many 44 .6 12.4 39 .92. Some 38.8 63.4 57.43. No 16 .4 22.9 2.7
Total 99.8 98.7 100.0
X2 = 401.76 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the student teachers' influence in providing or suggesting new instructional materials were significantly different. The much higher proportions of "a great many" responses from Indiana and the Philippines in comparison to Michigan's much lower proportion of responses on the same item contributed to the high chi-square value. Also, the very low proportion of "no" responses from the Philippine supervising teachers in comparison to Michigan's much high proportion of responses for the same item, added to the chi-square value. There were big differences between the observed and expected values in the Indiana and Michigan "no" response cells.
4.35.3116
Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great many 39 .6 21.8 5.62. Some 51.3 53.7 58.33. No 6.7 22.5 36 .1
Total 97.6 98 .0 100.0
X2 = 460.97 df = 4 Significant at .001
The high chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the student teachers' being able to suggest or provide new instructional materials were significantly different. Indiana's very high proportion of "a great many" responses in comparison to the extremely low one from the Philippines, contributed much to the high chi-square value. Correspondingly, the reverse for the "no" responses from both groups added to the high chi-square value.
In sum, the Indiana and Philippine respondents regarded the imput of student teachers in bringing, developing, providing and suggesting new materials higher than did the Michigan respondents. This was true for all three groups of respondents.
117TABLE 4.36 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS FOR CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 32: VISITATION TO OTHER CLASSROOMS OR SCHOOLS
4.36.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 8.6 3.9 39.92. To some extent 21.4 28 .5 45.43 . Not at all 61.5 44 .4 14.7
Total 91.5 76.8 100.0
x2 = 749.36 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square values indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers from the three geographic areas on their influence upon the supervising teachers' being able to visit classrooms or schools were significantly different.The much higher proportion of "a great deal" responses
from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the much lower proportions from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, accounted for the high chi-square value. Correspondingly, the much higher proportions of "not at all" responses from Indiana and Michigan in comparison to the much lower proportion of responses from the Philippines on the same item, added to the high chi-square value. Furthermore, there were big differences between the observed and expected values in the Indiana and
Philippine "to some extent" response cells.
4.36.2118
Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 6.4 3.2 4.32. To some extent 25.9 40 .6 31.63 . Not at all 67.8 54 .8 64.2
Total 100.1 98.6 100.1
x2 = 59.50 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square values indicated that the perceptionsof the supervising teachers from the three geographic areason their being able to visit other classrooms or schools be-cause of the presence of student teachers were significantly different. The higher proportion of "to some extent" responses from Michigan in comparison to the lower ones from the other two groups on the same item, contributed to the high chi-square value. Also, the higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from Indiana in comparison to the lower ones from the other two groups added to the chi-square value.
4.36.3 Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines
1. A great deal 23.5 44.1 31.42. To some extent 50 .4 53.6 40.03. Not at all 23 .8 .8 28.6
Total 97.7 98 .5 100 .0
X2 = 335.26 df = 4 Significant at .001
119
The chi-square values indicated that the perceptions of the administrators from the three geographic areas on the enhancement of classroom or school visitation by the supervising teachers because of the presence of student teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "not at all" responses from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the extremely lower proportion of responses from the Michigan respondents for the same item, contributed to the high chi-square value. Also, the higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from the Michigan group in comparison to the lower ones from Indiana and the Philippines on the same item, added to the high chi-square value.
In sum, on the variable— student teacher impact on supervising teacher visits to other classrooms and schools, the three geographic areasreported significant differences. There was a variation across groups^however. The Philippine student teacher responses were generally high, the Michigan supervising teachers generally higher, and the Philippine administrators generally lower than the other groups.
120
TABLE 4.3 7 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHERS CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 33: COMMITTEE WORK IN SCHOOL WITH PUPILS
4.37.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 30.8 13.5 17.22. To some extent 26 .9 37.0 41.13. Not at all 31.5 24.8 41.7
Total 89 .2 25.3 100.0
x2 = 142.75 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their role to make it possible for the supervising teachers to do some committee work in school with pupils were significantly different. The disproportionate "a great deal" responses from the three geographic areas contributed heavily to the chi-square value. The consequent differences between the observed and the expected values in the Indiana and Michigan "to some extent" cells added to the high chi-square value.
121
4.37.2 Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 34.1 12.6 31.72. To some extent 37.4 62.8 51.33. Not at all 28.5 23.1 16 .9
Total 100 .0 98 .5 99 .9
= 142.75 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square values indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the supervising teachers' availability for committee work in school with pupils because of the presence of the student teachers differed significantly.The much higher proportions of "a great deal" responses from Indiana and the Philippines in comparison to the much lower one from the Michigan supervising teachers on the same item,
resulted in the high chi-square values. In like manner, the lower proportion of the "not at all" responses from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the higher ones from Michigan and Indiana on the same item, contributed to the chi-square value. Furthermore, the difference between the observed and expected values for the Michigan and Indiana "to some extent" cells, with Michigan's selection of that choice being higher and Indiana's lower than expected, added to the high chi-square value.
4.37.3
122
Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 28.3 51.2 51.42. To some extent 50.5 46.3 42 .93. Not at all 16 .6 .9 5.7
Total 95.4 98.4 100.0
X2 = 256.74 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the enhancement of committee work with pupils by the supervising teachers because of the presence of the student teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "not at all" responses from Indiana in comparison to the much lower proportions from the Michigan and the Philippine administrators for the same item, accounted for the significant difference. In like manner, the much lower proportion of "a great deal" responses from the Indiana administrators in comparison to the much higher ones from Michigan and the Philippines on the same item, contributed to the high chi-square value.
Although there was a significant difference on the perceptions of the three geographic areas on the role the student teachers played in enabling the supervising teachers to work in school committees with pupils, the three areas had positive perceptions on this variable. The administrators from the three areas had the highest positive perceptions,
123
followed by the supervising teachers,with the student teacher groups having the least positive perceptions.
TABLE 4.38: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V34: PROFESSIONAL READING OR WRITING
4.38.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 30.8 7.7 17.22. To some extent 26 .9 31.3 41.13. Not at all 31.5 21.5 41.7
Total 89.2 60 .5 100.0
X2 = 141.88 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their influence upon available time the supervising teachers gave to professional reading or writing were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from the Indiana group in comparison to the much lower ones from Michigan and the Philippines, accounted heavily for the high chi- square value. In the same manner, the much higher proportions of "to some extent" responses from the Michigan and the Philippine groups in comparison to Indiana's much lower proportion of responses for the same item, added to the high chi-square value.
124
4.38.2 Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1.A great deal 34.1 12.6 31.72.To some extent 37.4 62.8 51.33.Not at all 28.5 23.1 16 .9
Total 100.0 98 .5 99 .9
X2 = 200.16 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on their enhancement of professional reading or writing because of the presence of student teachers, were significantly different. The much lower proportion of "a great deal" responses from Michigan in comparison to the much higher ones from Indiana and the Philippines, accounted heavily for the high chi-square value. In addition, the Michigan and the Philippine respondents had much higher proportions of "to some extent" responses in comparison to Indiana for the same item. Furthermore, the differ
ences between~thfe observed and the dxpected values in the Indiana and the Philippine "not at all" response cells , with Indiana higher and • the Philippines lower than expected values, added to the high chi-square value.
4.38 .3
125
Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 15.0 48.3 50.02. To some extent 46 .1 48 .3 31.33. Not at all 33 .0 1.0 18.8
Total 94.1 97.6 100.0
X2 = 544.02 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the effect of the presence of the student teachers on the supervising teachers' professional reading and writing were significantly different. The much lower proportion of "a great deal" responses and higher proportion of "not at all" responses from Indiana accounted for a large part of the differences.
To sum, although the perceptions on professional reading and writing by the supervising teachers were significantly different, all three geographic areas had high positive perceptions. Of the three Michigan groups, the administrators had the highest positive perceptions while the Indiana and the Philippine supervising teacher groups had the highest positive perceptions. The student teacher groups in the three geographic areas had the least positive perceptions.
126
TABLE 4.39 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES V 3 5 : WORK WITH STAFF OR SCHOOL OR DEPARTMENT
4.39.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 19.8 16 .8 21.52. To some extent 33.3 42.9 46 .13. Not at all 38.7 15 .0 32.4
Total 91.8 74.7 100.0
2X = 122.54 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on their being able to facilitate the supervising teachers to help the principal or other teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportions of "not at all" responses from Indiana and the Philippines in comparison to Michigan's much lower one contributed heavily to the high chi-square value. Also, Michigan's much lower proportion of "not at all" responses in comparison to the ones from Indiana and the Philippines on the same item,added to the high chi-square value.
127
4.39.2 Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines
1. A great deal2. To some extent3. Not at all
14.738.347.0
14.6 34.2 57.5 51.9 26.2 13.9
Total 100.0 98.3 100.0
X2 = 391.44 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on their being able to work with staff or department because of the released time given them through the student teachers' presence were significantly different. The much higher, proportion of "not at all" responses from Indiana in comparison to the much lower one from the Philippines, contributed heavily to the high chi-square value. In like manner, the much higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from the Philippine supervising teachers in comparison to the much lower one from Indiana and Michigan on the same item added to produce the high chi-square value.
128
4.39.3 Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 23 .1 56 .6 60 .62. To some extent 54 .2 41.5 33 .33. Not at all 20.6 .4 6.1
Total 97.9 98.5 100 .0
= 475.00 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the enhancement of working with staff of school or department by the supervising teachers because of the presence of the student teachers, were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from the Philippines, in comparison to the much lower ones from Michigan and Indiana on the same item, contributed to the high chi-square value.
Correspondingly, the much higher proportion of "to some extent" responses from the Indiana group in comparison to the much lower ones from Michigan and the Philippines on the same item, also added to the high chi-square value.
On the role of the student teachers in making it possible for the supervising teachers to work with staff or department in school, the three geographic areas had positive perceptions although there was a significant difference in their perceptions. In all three groups of respondents from Indiana, there were much higher proportions of "not at all"
129
responses from the ones from Michigan and the Philippines on the same item. The administrators in the three geographic areas had the highest perceptions in comparison to the supervising teacher and student teacher groups.
TABLE 4.40: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 3, SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES, V 37: ASSISTANCE TO PRINCIPAL OROTHER TEACHERS
4.40.1 Student Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 20.6 10.0 19 .92. To some extent 28 .8 39.0 52.33. Not at all 37.1 21.6 27.7
Total 86 .5 70 .6 99 .9
X2 = 96 .35 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the student teachers on the availability of the supervising teachers to help the principal or other teachers be cause of their presence were significantly different. The higher proportion of "to some extent" responses from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the lower ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, contributed heavily to the high chi-square value. The disproportionate responses from the three geographic areas for the "not at all" responses also added to the high chi-square value.
4.40.2130
Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines
1. A great deal 15 .5 7.7 30 .22. To some extent 38 .0 55 .1 54 .03. Not at all 46 .5 35 .5 15.9
Total 100.0 98 .3 100 .1
X2 = 330.32 df = 4 .Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions
of the supervising teachers on the role the student teachers
played in enabling the supervising teachers to help the prin
cipal or other teachers were significantly different. The
much higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from the
Philippine respondents, in comparison to the much lower ones
from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, contributed
greatly to the high chi-square. Correspondingly, the much
lower proportion of "not at all" responses from the Philip
pine supervising teachers in comparison to the much higher
ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, added to
the high chi-square value.
4.40.3131
Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. A great deal 16.5 53 .5 62.92.To some extent 52 .8 44 .0 20.03.Not at all 28 .4 .8 17.1
Total 97 .7 98.3 100.0
X2 = 670.52 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the availability of the supervising teachers to help the principal or other teachers because of the presence of the student teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "a great deal" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to the much lower proportion of responses from Indiana, accounted heavily to the high chi-square value. Correspondingly, tne much higher
proportion of "to some extent" responses from the Indiana group in comparison to the much lower ones from the Philippine and Michigan groups, contributed to the high chi-square value.
Although the perceptions from the three geographic areas on the effect the student teachers had in making it possible for the supervising teachers to help the principal or other teachers were significantly different, the respondents were one in expressing positive perceptions on this variable. The supervising teachers and administrators from the three areas had much higher positive perceptions than those of the
student teachers.
132TABLE 4.41 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC
AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD,V65: TIME OF OTHER TEACHINGS BEING MADE AVAILABLE BY THE STUDENT TEACHERS' HANDLING SOME OF THEIR ASSIGNED RESPONSIBILITIES
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Increased yourwork load 4.1 3.9 30.3
2. Made no chagne 61.3 67.2 30.33. Decreased your
work load 19.5 12.3 39 .4Total 84.9 83 .4 100.0
= 622.71 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the judgment of the administrators on the change of their work load as a result of the released time given to other teachers by the student teachers who took over some of their activities as regular teachers, were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "increased your work load" responses from the Philippines in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan, contributed greatly to the high chi-square value. In like manner, the much higher proportion of "made no change" responses from Indiana and Michigan in comparison to the much lower one from the Philippines for the same response also added heavily to the chi-square value. The resulting differences between the observed and expected values in the "decreased your work load" response cells for Michigan and the Philippines with Michigan's lower and the
133
Philippine's higher than expected values, added further to the high chi-sguare value.
The modal response from the Indiana and Michigan administrators on the help they got from the other teachers whose teaching responsibilities were taken over by the student teachers was "made no change" while the modal response from the Philippines was "decreased work load".
TABLE 4.42 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 4, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK LOAD V 5 0 : TEACHING
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the supervising teachers on the change in their teaching load because of the presence of the student teachers were significantly different.
134The much higher proportion of "remained about the
same" responses from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the much lower ones from Michigan and Indiana, accounted heavily for the high chi-square value. The much lower proportion of "reduced to some extent" responses from the Philippines in comparison to the much higher ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, also contributed to the high chi-square value. Furthermore, the Philippine respondents had much higher proportion of "increased to some extent" responses in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan. Correspondingly, only 2.1% selected "reduced a great deal" responses from the Philippine supervising teachers in comparison to Indiana's 35.6% and Michigan's 19%.
The supervising teachers from the Philippines tended to think of their teaching load as having increased or remained about the same with the presence of student teachers while Michigan and Indiana supervising teachers overwhelmingly felt that their teaching responsibility was reduced.
135
TABLE 4.43 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 4, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK LOAD, V 51: LESSON PLANNING
Supervising Teachers
Indiana Michigan Philippines1 . Increased a great
deal 4.5 5.2 5.82. Increased to some
extent 4.9 23.2 30.23. Remained about the
same 27.6 32.7 45.54 . Reduced to some
extent 37.1 29 .3 16 .95 . Reduced a great
deal 15.9 8.1 1.6Total 90.0 98.5 100 .0
X2 = 579.28 df = 8 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions
of the supervising teachers on the change in the time theyspent in lesson planning with the presence of the student
teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportions of "reduced to some extent" and "reduced a great deal" responses from the Indiana and Michigan respondents, in comparison to the much lower ones from the Philippine respondents on the same items, accounted for the significant difference.
On the effect of the presence of student teachers on the lesson planning responsibility of the supervising teachers, the Philippine supervising teachers tended to feel that their lesson planning load either increased or remained
136
about the same while the Michigan and Indiana supervising teachers thought their lesson planning responsibility reduced or remained about the same with the presence of student teachers .
TABLE 4.44 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 4, SUPERVISING TEACHER WORK LOAD, V 52: PAPER GRADING
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptionsof the supervising teachers on the effect of the presence of the student teachers on the amount of time the supervising teachers gave to paper grading were significantly different. The much higher proportions of "increased a great deal" and "increased to some extent" responses from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the much lower proportions from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, accounted heavily for
137
the high chi-square value. Correspondingly, the very much higher proportion of "reduced to some extent" and "reduced a great deal” responses from the much lower ones from theother two groups on the same items, added to the high chi-square value.
The modal response of the Philippine supervising teachers on the change in their paper grading load because of the presence of student teachers was "remained about the same" while Indiana and Michigan supervising teachers felttheir paper grading responsibility reduced.
TABLE 4.45 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD, V 56: ADDITIONAL REPORTS REGARDING STUDENT TEACHING
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1 . Increased yourwork load 62.5 47.0 71.0
2. Made no change 32.7 46.2 22 .63. Decreased your
work load .2 1.0 6.5Total 95 .4 94 .2 100.1
X2 = 165.46 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the change of their work load because they had to write additional reports regarding student teaching were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "increased your work load" responses from the
138Philippine administrators in comparison to the much lower one from Michigan on the same item, accounted heavily for the high chi-sguare value. Indiana's much lower proportion of "decreased your work load" responses in comparison to the much higher proportion of responses from the Philippines on the same item, also added to the high chi-square value.
The administrators from the three areas felt that rendering additional reports about student teaching increased their work load.
TABLE 4.46 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD, V5 7: COUNSELING STUDENT TEACHERS
Administrators
Indiana Michigan Philippines1. Increased your
work load 46.5 55 .0 64.72. Made no change 46 .4 37.2 29.43. Decreased your
work load 1.2 1.6 5.9Total 94.1 93.8 100.0
= 111.12 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-sguare value indicated that the preceptions of the administrators on the effect of the presence of student teachers on the time the administrators gave in counseling them were significantly different. The much higher
139
proportion of "decreased your work load" responses from the Philippine respondents in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan for the same response, in addition to the lower proportion of "made no change" responses from the Philippines as compared to the much higher proportion of Indiana responses for the same item, accounted for the high chi-square value.
More than one-half of the Michigan and Philippine administrators felt that counseling student teachers increased their work load while Indiana administrators' perceptions were in between "made no change" and "increased work load".
TABLE 4.47: COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD, V 58: SELECTION OF SUPERVISINGTEACHERS
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Increased yourwork load 44.2 49 .8 48 .4
2. Made no change 49 .3 39 .5 48.43. Decreased your
work load .1 1.5 3.2Total 93.6 90.8 100.0
X^= 42.79 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the change in their work load because
140
of the time they spent in selecting supervising teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "decreased your work load" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to the much lower one from Indiana respondents on the same item, contributed heavily to the high chi-square value. Also, the differences between the observed and the expected values in the "increased your work load" response cells for Michigan and the Philippines, where Michigan's selection of this item higher and that of the Philippines lower than expected, added to the high chi-square value.
Although the perceptions from the three geographic areas were significantly different, they all felt that their
load in having to select supervising teachers was increased.
TABLE 4.48: COMPARISON OP RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD, V 59: ORIENTATION OF STUDENT TEACHERS
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Increased yourwork load 58.5 62.9 71.0
2.Made no change 32.2 31.5 22.63.Decreased your
work load .6 1.4 6.5Total 91.3 95 .8 100.1
= 99.98 df = 4 Significant at .001
141The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of
the administrators on the change in their work load because of the added responsibility of having to give orientation to the student teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "decreased your work load" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to Indiana's and Michigan's much lower proportions of responses on the same item, heavily contributed to the high chi-square value. The higher proportion of the "made no change" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to the lower ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, also added to the high chi-square value.
Although the perceptions of the administrators from the three geographic areas were significantly different, they were one in expressing that the orientation they gave to the student teachers added to their work load.
TABLE 4.49 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHICAREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD,V60 : FINDING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1 . Increased yourwork load 19 .2 15.6 35 .7
2. Made no change 69.9 73 .8 32.13. Decreased your
work load 2.7 .8 32.1Total 91.8 90 .2 99 .9
*2 = 770.32 df = 4 Significant at .001
142
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the change in their work load in finding instructional materials with the presence of the student teachers were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "increased your work load" responses from the Philippines, in comparison with the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan, contributed greatly to the high chi-square value. In like manner, the much higher proportion of "made no change" responses from Indiana and Michigan, in comparison to the much lower one from the Philippines, also added to the chi- square value. The resulting differences between the observed and the expected values in the "decreased your work load" response cells for Michigan and the Philippines, with Michigan's lower and the Philippine's higher than expected values, further added to the high chi-square value.
The Indiana and Michigan administrators were quite definite that the effect of the presence of student teachers on their responsibility for finding instructional materials did not make any change while the Philippine administrator perceptions were spread almost equally on the three responses.
143
TABLE 4.50 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD, V61: COUNSELING SUPERVISING TEACHERS
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Increased yourwork load 47.4 56 .8 39 .4
2. Made no change 47.3 37.5 51.53 . Decreased your
work load .5 1.3 9.1
Total 95.2 95.6 100.0
= 175.12 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the change of the administrators' work load because they had to counsel supervising teachers, were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "decreased your work load" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to Indiana's and Michigan's much lower proportions of responses on the same item, contributed heavily to the high chi-square value. Higher proportion of "increased your work load" responses from the Michigan administrators in comparison to the lower ones from the Philippines also added to the high chi-square value.
To the administrators from the three areas, counseling
supervising teachers added to their load.
144
TABLE 4.51 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD, V62: COMMUNICATION WITH PARENTS
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Increased yourwork load 47.4 56 .8 39 .4
2. Made no change 46 .4 37.5 51.53. Decreased your
work load 1.2 1.3 9.1
Total 95 .0 95.6 100.0
X^ = 152.22 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions ofthe administrators on the change of their work load in the fact that they had to communicate to parents about student teaching were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "decreased your work load" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to the lower ones from Indiana and Michigan on the same item, accounted heavily for the high chi-square value. In addition, the lower proportion of "increased your work load" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to the higher one from the Michigan administrators on the same item, added to the chi-square value. Corresponding differences between the observed and expected values of the Michigan and Philippine "made no change" response cells, with Michigan's lower and the Philippines' higher expected values, resulted, thereby adding further to the high chi-square value.
145Although the perceptions of the administrators from
the three areas were significantly different, they were one in expressing that communication with parents about student teaching increased their work load to some extent.
TABLE 4.52 COMPARISON OF RESPONSES AMONG THE THREE GEOGRAPHIC AREAS FOR CATEGORY 5, ADMINISTRATOR WORK LOAD,V64: TIME OF SUPERVISING TEACHERS MADE AVAILABLEBY THE STUDENT TEACHERS' TEACHING OF CLASSES
AdministratorsIndiana Michigan Philippines
1. Increased yourwork load 9.2 6.0 29.0
2. Made no change 45.0 67.0 25 .83. Decreased your
work load 31.3 16 .8 45 .2
Total 85 .5 89 .8 100 .0
= 495.95 df = 4 Significant at .001
The chi-square value indicated that the perceptions of the administrators on the change of their work load because of the released time the supervising teachers had because of the presence of student teachers thus making them available to help the administrators were significantly different. The much higher proportion of "increased your work load" responses from the Philippine administrators in comparison to the much lower ones from Indiana and Michigan for the same item, contributed greatly to the high chi-square value. In addition, the proportions of "made no change"
146responses of the administrators from Indiana and Michigan
were much higher in comparison to the much lower proportion of responses from the Philippine administrators for the same item. The corresponding observed and higher than expected values of the Michigan and Philippines added further to the high chi-square value.
On the change in the administrators' work load because of the help they received from the supervising teachers whose classes were taken over by their student teachers, the model response from Indiana and Michigan was "made no change" while that of the Philippines was "decreased work load".
Summary of the Findings for Part IIThe chi-square values in the twenty-four variables con
sidered for Research Question 6 indicated that the perceptions of the respondents from the three geographic areas were significantly different. For the first category dealing with the effect of the presence of the student teachers on teaching- learning processes, the respondents from the three areas had positive perceptions except for discipline with the Philippine
groups having much higher perceptions than the other two areas on the variable discipline, however, Indiana and Michigan tended to be neutral. For the second category on student contribution to school program activities, the three areas had positive perceptions except for the variable having to do with communication with parents in which Indiana and Michigan tended to choose the "no change" response. For the third
147
category on the effect of the presence of the student teachers on facilitating the supervising teachers to participate in other school-related activities, the three areas had positive perceptions except the variable having to do with supervising teacher visitation to other classrooms or schools in which the Indiana and Michigan respondents tended to choose "not at all" response. For category dealing with the change in the work load of the supervising teacher as a result of the presence of the student teachers, the Michigan and Indiana respondents tended to choose "reduced work load" while the Philippine respondents tended to choose "increased work load" response. For the fifth category, the change in the work load of the administrators as a result of the presence of the student teachers, the respondents from the three areas thought that the administrators' responsibilities related to student teaching increased to some extent, but that the student teachers made it possible for the supervising teachers and other teachers to help the principal.
148
Part III: Research Question 7 and 8
Research Questions 7 and 8 sought to find whether there were significant differences in the perceptions among the three groups of respondents and whether sex, marital status, and the size of the community where the school was located affected the respondents' perceptions. Three main designs of two-way analysis of variance were done, with "groups" the common factor in all three designs. This factor, group, has three levels, namely, student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators. The first design is a 3 x 2 of group by sex where sex has two levels (male and female). The second design is 3 x 2 of group by marital status which has two levels (single and married). The last design is 3 x 5 of group by size which has five levels (large city, medium-sized city, small city, town and barrio). This statistical design will answer the research question whether the size of the community where the school was located affected the perceptions of the respondents. The differences among the three groups of respondents indicated in Research Question No. 7 can be examined by the group main effects. Research Question No.8 can be examined from the interaction between group and sex, group and marital status, and group and size.
Since there are three dependent variables included in Research Question 7 and 8, the three main designs were done on each of the three dependent variables; consequently, there
149are nine separate univariate analyses of variance. Since there were many tests that were examined in the data, to control for the overall error rate of Type I errors, a significant level of .01 was used instead of the conventional .05 alpha level. The nine tables are represented in the following
order:1. Group X sex on teaching-learning processes, stu
dent contribution to school program activities and supervising teacher contribution to school- related activities.
2. Group X marital status on teaching-learning activities, student teacher contribution to school program activities and supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities.
3. Group X size on teaching-learning activities, student contribution to school program activities and supervising teacher contribution to school- related activities.
TABLE 4.5 3: ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY SEX (3X2) DESIGN USINGTHE PERCEPTIONS ON TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Source of Variation
Degree of Freedom
MeanSquare
F -Test Significant Level of F -test
Group Effects 2 23.37 51.78 .0001*Sex Effects 1 .64 1.41 .23598Group X Sex 2 .84 1.87 .15558Residuals 595 .45
Significant at .01 level
150
The F-test of the group by sex interaction on the percep
tions on teaching-learning processes is 1.87 (Table 4.53).With 2 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test of the interaction is significant at .15558 which is larger than the critical .01 level that is considered in this study. There was, therefore, no interaction between group and sex on teaching- learning processes. In other words, sex did not have an effect on the responses of the three groups on teaching-learning processes.
The F-test of the group main effects is 51.78. With 2 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main effects is significant. Therefore, the three groups of respondents differed in their responses on teaching-learning processes. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators indicated positive perceptions. The most positive perceptions came from the student teachers (4.15), followed by the administrators (3.82) and the supervising teachers (3.44).
TABLE 4.54 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY SEX (3X2) DESIGN USING THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE STUDENT CONTRIBUTION ON THE SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Source of Variation
Degree of Freedom
MeanSquare
F -Test Significant Level of F„ -tes-
Group Effects 2 6.14 37.85 .00001*Sex Effects 1 .16 11.19 .00087*Group X Sex 2 .16 1.78 .16959Residuals 595 .1623
Significant at .01 level
151
The F-test of group by sex interaction is 1.78 (Table 4.54). With 2 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .16959 which is larger than the critical .01 level. There was therefore no interaction between group and sex on the perceptions on student contribution to school program activities.
The F-test of the group main effects is 37.85. With 2 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main effects is significant. Therefore, there were differences in the perceptions of the three groups on the student contribution to school program activities. The weightedmeans of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators on the student teacher contribution to school program activities were 2.06, 1.71 and 1.84 respectively. The most positive responses came from the student teachers (2.06), followed by the administrators (1.84) and the supervising teachers (1.71).
In addition, the F-test of the sex main effects is11.19. With 1 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00087 which is less than .01 level. Therefore, there was a difference in the perceptions between male and female on student teacher contribution to school program activities. The weighted means of male and female responses were 2.16 and 1.96 respectively with the male respondents more positive than the female respondents.
152
TABLE 4.55 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY SEX (3X2) DESIGN USING THE PERCEPTIONS ON THE SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO OTHER SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Source of Degree of Mean SignificantVariation_____ Freedom___________Sguare F Tests Level of F-TestGroup Effects 2 8.86 35.96 .00001*
Sex Effects 1 .25 .01 .91108Group X Sex 2 .25 1.32 .26924Residuals 595
Significant at .01 level
The F-test of the group by sex interaction on the perceptions on supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities is 1.32 (Table 4.5 5). With 2 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .26924 which is larger than the critical .01 level. Therefore, there was no interaction between the group and sex on the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activites.
The F-test of group main effects is 35.96. With 2 and 595 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00001 which is less than .01 level. Therefore the three groups of respondents were different in their perceptions on the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities. The weighted means of the responses of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators were 2.09, 1.73, and 2.51 respectively. The most positive perceptions came
153
from the administrators (2.51), followed by the student teachers (2.09) and the supervising teachers (1.73).
TABLE 4.56 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY MARITAL STATUS (3X2) DESIGN USING THE PERCEPTIONS ON TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Source of Degree of Variation Freedom
MeanSguare F -Tests
Significant Level of F-Test
Group Effects 2 23.87 53.16 .00001*Status Effects 1 .002 .01 .93602Group X Status 2 .46 1.02 .36020Residual 593
Significant at .01 level
The F-test of group by marital status interaction is 1.02 (Table 4.56). With 2 and 593 degrees of freedom, the F-test of the interaction is significant at .36020 which is larger than the critical .01 level. Therefore, there was no interaction between group and marital status on the perceptions on teaching-learning processes.
The F-test of the group main effects is 53.16. With 2 and 593 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main effects is significant. Therefore, the respondents' perceptions significantly differed on teaching-learning processes. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers,
154
the supervising teachers and the administrators were 4.04,
3.44 and 3.82 respectively. The most positive perceptions came from the student teachers (4.04), followed by the administrators (3.82) and the supervising teachers (3.44).
TABLE 4.5 7 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY MARITAL STATUS (3X2) DESIGN USING THE STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO THE SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Source of Variation
Degree of Freedom
MeanSquare F -Tests
Significant Level of F-test
Group Effects 2 6.12 36.86 .00001*Status Effects 1 .04 .22 .63800Group X Status 2 .18 1.08 .34111Residual 593
Significant at .01 level
The F-test on group by marital status interaction is 1.08 (Table 4.57). With 2 and 593 degrees of freedom, the F-test of the interaction is significant at .34111 which is larger than the critical .01 level. Therefore, there was no interaction between the group and martial status on the perceptions on student teacher contribution to school program activities.
The F-test on group main effects is 36.86. With 2 and 593 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main
155effects is significant. Therefore, the respondents significantly differed in their perceptions on student contribution to school program activities. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators were 2.00, 1.70 and 1.72 respectively.The most positive perceptions came from the student teachers (2.00). The supervising teachers (1.70) and the administrators (1.72) had similar perceptions.
TABLE 4.58 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY MARITAL STATUS (3X2)DESIGN USING THE PERCEPTIONS ON THE SUPERVISING TEACHER. CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Source of Degree of Variation Freedom
MeanSguare F-tests
Significant Level of F-test
Group Effects 2 8.65 35 .61 .00001*Status Effects 1 .20 .82 .36482Group X Status 2 .70 2.86 .05787Residuals 593
Significant at .01 level
The F-test on group by marital status interaction is2.86 (Table 4.58). With 2 and 593 degrees of freedom, the
F-test is significant at .05787 which is greater than the critical .01 level. Therefore, there was no interaction between group and martial status on the perceptions on supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities.
156
The F-test on group main effects is 35.61. With 2
and 593 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .00001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main effects is significant. Therefore, there were significant differences in the perceptions of the three groups on the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators were2.04, 1.73 and 2.36 respectively. The most positive perceptions came from the administrators (2.36), followed by the student teachers (2.04) and the supervising teachers (1.73).
TABLE 4.59 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY SIZE (3X5) DESIGN USING PERCEPTIONS ON TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Source of Variation
Degree of Freedom
MeanSquare F -Tests
Significant Level of F-test
Group Effects 2 22.42 49.27 .001*Size Effects 4 .20 .44 .778Group X Size 8 .55 1.21 .290Residuals 582
Significant at .01 level
The F-test of group by size interaction is 1.21 (Table 4.59). With 8 and 582 degrees of freedom, the F-test of the interaction is significant at .290 which is larger than the
157
critical .01 level. Therefore, there was no interaction be
tween group and size on the perceptions regarding teaching- learning processes.
The F-test of the group main effects is 49.27. With 8 and 582 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .001 which is less than the critical .01 level. Therefore, the perceptions of the three groups on teaching-learning processes were significantly different. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators were 2.64, 3.44 and 3.60 respectively. The most positive perceptions came from the administrators (3.60), followed by the supervising teachers (3.44) .
TABLE 4.60 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUPS BY SIZE (3X5) DESIGN USING THE PERCEPTIONS ON STUDENT TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AS THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Source of Variation
Degree of Freedom
MeanSquare F -Tests
Significant Level of F-Test
Group Effects 2 5 .58 33.51 .001*Size Effects 4 .14 .82 .512Group X Size 8 .15 .88 .534Residuals 582
Significant at .01 level
158
The F-test of the group by size interaction is .88 (Table 4.60). With 8 and 582 degrees of freedom, the F-test of the interaction is significant at .534 which is greater than the critical .01 level. Therefore, there was no interaction between group and size on the perceptions regarding student teachers' contribution to school program activities.
The F-test of the group main effects is 33.51. With 2 and 582 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main effects is significant. Therefore, there were significant differences in the perceptions of the three groups on the student teacher contribution to school program activities. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers the supervising teachers and the administrators were 2.00,1.71 and 1.75 respectively. The most positive perceptions came from the student teachers (2.00), followed by the administrators (1.75) and the supervising teachers (1.71).
TABLE 4. 61 ANOVA TABLE ON GROUP BY SIZE (3X5) DESIGN USING THE PERCEPTIONS ON THE SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES
Source of Degree of Mean SignificantVariation______Freedom___________Square F -Tests Level of F-TestGroup Effects 2 8.80 36.55 .001*Size Effects 4 .30 1.24 .294Group X Size 8 .63 2.62 .008 *Residual 582
Significant at .01 level
159
The F-test of the group by size interaction is 2.62 (Table 4.61). With 8 and 582 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .008 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group by size interaction is significant. Therefore, there was an interaction between group and size on the perceptions regarding supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities. Figure Z shows the graph represent
ing the interaction. In size 1, the administrators had the highest positive perceptions, followed by the student teachers and then the supervising teachers. It is in size 2
where the three groups of respondents had the closest perception ratings. Two of three groups had the lowest positive
perceptions for size 5. As a whole, the administrators had the most positive perceptions, followed by the student teachers and then the supervising teachers.
The F-test of the group main effects is 36.55. With 2 and 582 degrees of freedom, the F-test is significant at .001 which is less than the critical .01 level. The group main effects is significant. Therefore, there were differences in the perceptions of the three groups on supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities. The weighted means of the perceptions of the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the administrators indicated positive perceptions with the most positive ones coming from the administrators (2.36), followed by the student teachers (2.03) and the supervising teachers (1.73).
GRO
UP
PE
RC
EP
TIO
NS
160
2.8 2.7 2.6.2.5.
2.4j_ 2.3. 2.2. 2.1. 2.Q. 1.9. 1 . 8,.
1.7.1 .6.1. 5„
1 2 3 4 5 ySIZE
1. Large city2. Medium-Sized city3. Small City4. Town5. Barrio
FIGURE Z: GROUP BY SIZE EFFECT: SUPERVISING TEACHER CONTRIBUTION TO SCHOOL-RELATED ACTIVITIES
161
Summary of Findings for Part III
The group main effects in the three main designs were significant. Therefore, there were differences in the perceptions of the three groups on teaching-learning processes, on the student teacher contribution to school program activities and on the supervising teacher contribution to school- related activities. The most positive perceptions for teaching- learning processes came from the student teachers, followed by the administrators. For the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities, the most positive perceptions came from the administrators, followed by the student teachers. The supervising teachers had the least positive perceptions in all three variables.
The group by sex interaction, using the perceptions on the student teacher contribution to school program activities as the dependent variable, indicated that the male respondents had more positive comments than the female respondents. The group by size interaction indicated differences across sizes.For the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities, the administrators had the highest positive perceptions in the following order: small cities, large cities, barrios, towns and medium-sized cities. The student teachers had higher perceptions than the supervising teachers in the following order: towns, large cities, medium-sized cities, small cities and barrios. The supervising teachers had the least positive perceptions of the three groups with the ratings
162
of their perceptions going down as the size moved from the medium-sized cities to the barrios.
Overall Findings
Research Question No.l: All three groups of respondents expressed perceptions that the presence of student teachers enhanced the teaching-learning process.
Research Question No.2: All three groups of respondents felt that the student teachers contributed to the school pro
gram activities.Research Question No.3: All three groups thought that
the presence of. student teachers enabled the supervising teachers to engage in school-related activities.
Research Question No.4: The student teachers perceived their presence as an additional load on the supervising teachers while the supervising teachers tended to perceive that their load remained about the same except in the slight additional time for individual help given to pupils.
Research Question No.5: The administrators felt thattheir load in having to do some reports on student teaching or about student teachers, counseling student teachers, selection of supervising teachers and orientation of student teachers was increased. They did not consider their responsibilities having to find instructional materials, counseling supervising teachers and communication with parents about student teaching as additions to their work load. They perceived of their
163
work load having decreased with the help of supervising
teachers and other teachers whose classes or responsibilities were taken over by the student teachers.
Research Question No.6: The perceptions of the threegroups from the Philippines on twenty-one of the twenty-four variables were positive and higher than those from Indiana and Michigan. The three geographic areas, however, had positive perceptions in eight of the twelve variables having to do with teaching-learning processes, student teacher contribution to school-related activities, and supervising teacher contribution to participate in school related activities as a result of the presence of student teachers. The four variables in which Indiana and Michigan respondents tended to select "no change" responses had to do with discipline, pupil motivation, communication with parents, and classroom or school visitation. On the other hand, the Philippine respondents tended to feel that the responsibilities of the supervising teachers having to do with teaching, lesson planning, and paper grading increased with the.presence of student teachers while the Indiana and Michigan respondents thought these responsibilities were well taken care of by the student teachers. The administrators from all three areas felt that their work load having to do with student teaching increased to some extent but that the student teachers helped them indirectly through the released time the supervising teachers and other teachers had as a result of the student teachers'
164taking over their classes; hence, the administrators could avail of the help of the regular teachers.
Research Question No. 7: There were significant differences in the responses among the three groups of respondents in their estimate of the effect of the presence of student teachers on teaching-learning processes, student teacher contribution to school program activities, and the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities.
Research Question No.8: There was no group by maritalstatus interaction. There was an interaction between group and sex on the student contribution to school program activities. The male respondents had more positive perceptions than the female respondents. There was an interaction between group o y size on supervising teacher contribution to school- related activities. It was in the medium-sized cities where the three groups of respondents had the closest perception ratings. Two of the three groups had the lowest positive percep
tions for size 5, the barrios, the smallest size of the five groups of communities. As a whole, the administrators had the most positive perceptions, followed by the student teachers and the supervising teachers.
Chapter V presents the summary of the study, the conclusions and corresponding recommendations for further research .
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Summary of the Study
This study sought to assess the impact of student teaching programs on cooperating schools in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines. It was a replication of the Michigan Impact Study conducted in 1969 in response to the need identified by the Council of State College Presidents for the Michigan teacher education institutions to generate hard data on the beneficaries of student teaching. There was one independent variable with three levels; namely, the student teachers, the supervising teachers and the building principals. There were five dependent variables: (1)teaching-learning processes, (2) student teacher contribution to school program activities, (3) supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities, (4) work load of the supervising teachers, and (5) work load of the administrators. The eight research questions that served to guide the research were the following:
1. On the basis of the perceptions of the threegroups of respondents, the student teachers, the
165
supervising teachers and the administrators, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, enhance teaching- learning processes?On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups of respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, contribute to the school program activities?On the basis of the perceptions of the three groups of respondents, to what extent do student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines, enable the supervising teachers to participate in school-related activities?On the basis of the perceptions of the student teachers and the supervising teachers, to what extent does the presence of student teachers change the work load of the supervising teachers?On the basis of the perceptions of the administrators, to what extent does the presence of student teachers change the work load of the administrators?How do the responses in Research Questions 1-5 compare with those found in the Michigan and Indiana impact studies on student teaching programs?Are there significant differences in the responses to Research Questions 1-3 among the three groups
of respondents?
167
8. Do such demographic characteristics as sex,
marital status and size of the community where the school is located affect the perceptions of the respondents in Research Questions 1 through 3?
The instruments for data gathering were patterned after the Michigan Impact Study with slight modifications. It was assumed that the student teaching programs in Michigan and in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines are similar and the instruments could be understood by the respondents because in the Philippine schools, English has been the medium of instruction from at least the third grade on through college years. The questionnaires for all three groups were administered personally by the researcher. Seventeen teacher training institutions and fifty-one cooperating schools were studied. There were 604 respondents including 378 student teachers, 190 supervising teachers, and 36 building administrators. Data were processed at the Michigan State University Computer Center except for the computation of chi-square tests for Research Question 6 that asked for how the findings for the current study compare with those of Michigan and Indiana Impact Studies, in which the chi-square tests were computed by the researcher through the use of a hand calculator. Frequency distribution, percentages, means, standard deviations, chi-square, univariate analysis of variance and weighted means were the other statistical procedures used.
168
Summary of Findings
All three groups of respondents felt that the presence of student teachers enhanced the teaching-learning processes inside and outside the classroom. The overall mean responses from student teachers (4.04), the supervising teachers (3.44) and the administrators (3.61) indicate that on the average, all groups felt that the teaching-learning process was enhanced when the student teachers were in the school. This was true for the three variables having to do with (1) provision for make-up work; (2) follow-up on exams; and (3) supervision of playgrounds, gymnasium, canteen or assembly hall duty. The student teachers and the administrators rated the student teacher influence higher than did the supervising teachers. On two variables, discipline and motivation of pupils, the student teachers rated their influence higher than aid the other two groups.
All three groups agreed in their perceptions that the student teachers contributed to the school program activities, with the student teachers having the most positive perceptions (2.00), followed by the administrators (1.73), and the supervising teachers (1.71). This was true for supervision of youth groups in meetings, programs and trips; performance during recess, canteen, gymnasium or assembly hall duties; and suggestion or provision of new instructional materials, aids or ideas.
All three groups were consistent in their perceptions that the supervising teachers were able to engage in additional
169school-related activities during the time the student teach
ers were teaching their classes. The overall mean scores indicated that the most positive perceptions came from the administrators (2.38), followed by the student teachers (2.03), and the supervisors (1.73). Of the six variables: (1) visitation in other classrooms or schools, (2) committee work in school with pupils, (3) professional reading or writing, (4) work with staff of school or department, (5) assisting the principal or other teachers, and (6) social or recreational activities, the three groups rated visitation in other classrooms as least enhanced by student teacher presence.
In all four variables having to do with the change in the supervising teacher work load because of the presence of student teachers, the majority of the student teachers felt that their presence increased the supervising teacher work load while the supervising teachers felt that they did not have to spend more time in three of the four variables; namely, teaching, planning lessons, and correcting papers. On the fourth variable, help given to individual pupils, the supervising teachers thought they gave more time for this variable. The overall mean for the student teachers (3.55) and the supervising teachers (3.30) indicated that the two groups felt that the presence of student teachers increased the work load of the supervising teachers to some extent.
The overall means for the ten variables having to do with whether the presence of student teachers changed the work load of the administrators was 2.20 which is close to 2 (made
170no change). It was in the need to make additional reports
about student teaching, counseling student teachers, orienting them to school expectations, and selecting supervising teachers that the administrators felt their work load increased.They thought their load was lessened with the help the supervising teachers and other teachers provided them during the time the student teachers handled some of the teaching responsibilities. The administrators also felt the positive impact of student teachers in their counseling of individual pupils.
There were significant differences in the perceptions among the three geographic areas in the twenty-four variables covered in Research Question 6. The perceptions of the administrators from the Philippines were higher than the other two. The three areas had positive perceptions for Category 1, Category 2, and Category 3, except for variables having to do with discipline, pupil motivation, classroom or school visitation, and communication with parents in which the Indiana and the Michigan respondents tended to choose the "no change" response. These variables had the least positive perceptions from the Philippine respondents. The Philippine respondents felt that the student teachers increased the work load of the supervising teachers on teaching, lesson planning and paper grading while Indiana and Michigan respondents thought that the help the student teachers gave in doing these responsibilities decreased their work load. The three geographic area administrators felt their work load having to do with student teaching increased but that the student teachers provided released
171
time for the supervising teachers and other teachers to help the principals.
There were significant differences for the three groups in their estimate of the effect of the presence of student teachers on teaching-learning processes, on student teacher contribution to school program activities, and on supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities. The administrators gave the highest rating to the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities as a result of the student teachers' presence. The student teachers rated this factor somewhat lower, with the supervising teachers having the least positive perceptions.
The group by size interaction, using the perception of respondents as to the effect of the presence of student teachers on the student contribution to school program activities as the dependent variable, indicated that the male respondents had more positive perceptions of the student teacher impact than the female respondents.
The group by size interaction, using the supervising teacher contribution to school-related activities as the dependent variable, indicated differences across sizes. The supervising teachers had the least positive perceptions of the three groups with ratings of their perceptions becoming lower as the size moved from the medium-sized cities to the barrios. The administrators had the highest positive perceptions in the following order: small cities, large cities,barrios, towns and medium-sized cities. The student teachers
172
assigned to the towns had the highest perceptions, followed
by those assigned to large cities, medium-sized cities, small cities and barrios.
Conclusions and ImplicationsThe student teachers in Region VII, Central Visayas,
Philippines, have a positive impact on the teaching-learning processes in the schools as perceived by the three groups of respondents. The student teachers tended to rate their impact higher than the other two groups indicating that possibly the feedback they received from pupils, parents and school personnel during the student teaching experience is positive. It might be argued that the supervising teachers are more accurate judges of the influences of the student teachers since they are in a better position to see first hand the situation when the student teachers are present and when they are not present while the perceptions of the other two groups may to some extent be reflected from the observations they make and from the reports they receive from others. Still, every group reported positive perceptions, so clearly, student teaching programs enjoy a favorable impact in schools. The ratings of the supervising teachers and the administrators on discipline and motivation of pupils, being somewhat lower than the other variables in Category 1 (teaching-learning processes), probably reflect the lack of experience and authority on the part of the student teachers.
According to the perceptions of the three groups of respondents, the student teachers have a positive impact on
173school program activities. On three variables, (1) perfor
mance during canteen, playground, gymnasium or assembly hall duty; (2) suggestion or provision of new instructional materials; (3) suggestion or provision of any other kinds of ideas or aids, the supervising teacher ratings were higher than those of the administrators. However, the supervising teachers rated the student teachers' influence in communication with parents comparatively low.
The student teachers have a positive impact on the supervising teacher participation in other school-related activities. The administrators tended to rate the impact of student teachers on this category higher than the other two groups in six variables. That the perceptions of the three groups of respondents on the effect of student teachers' presence on the school or classroom visitations by supervising teachers are somewhat lower, reflects probably the lack of funds, of opportunity and incentive to do this kind of visitation, or it could be that teachers do not feel welcome in the colleagues' classrooms.
The supervising teachers' feeling that their time was neither decreased nor increased in planning, teaching and grading pupil work speaks well of the supervising teachers. This implies that they continue to be aware and sensitive to what is being planned, taught and graded. The extra time they spent in giving help to individual students indicate a sharing of the teaching responsibility providing more total teacher power in the classroom.
174
The presence of student teachers slightly increases
the work load of the administrators. However, the student teachers' help in counseling with pupils and in giving released time for the supervising teachers and other teachers whose teaching responsibilities they take over, are recognized by the administrators as means of decreasing their work load.
The significant differences in the perceptions between the Philippine respondents and those from Indiana and Michigan could be attributed to cultural differences and school management. The student teachers from Indiana and Michigan are generally older and more knowledgeable of the nature of group processes, of what goes on in the community through mass media as well as through their work experience. Also, they have been brought up in an atmosphere of freedom; hence, they have more confidence in themselves. The supervising teachers, therefore, do not hesitate to let them alone in teaching and in planning lessons. There are relatively fewer discipline problems in Philippine classrooms. Generally, the parents have more time for their children. That the administrators from the Philippines have higher perceptions may be due to the fact that school management in the Philippines is much simpler than that in Michigan and Indiana. The Philippine administrators do not face such other responsibilities as busing, breakfast and lunch for the pupils, mainstreaming, innovative projects, and coordinating a number of alternatives. In like manner, the supervising teacher in the Philippines do not have the tendency for burn-out because there are
175
no handicappers to deal with and the classes do not come from
multi-cultural groups. Furthermore, the supervising teachers in the Philippines usually have their mothers or their helpers to take care of routine tasks in the home; hence, they have more time for the student teachers. The Philippine student teachers generally do not work at outside jobs when enrolled in school so they have more time to attend to instructional and non-instructional activities.
The male respondents have higher perceptions than the female respondents on the student teachers' contribution to school program activities. No implications were drawn regarding this finding.
Regardless of the size of the communities to which the student teachers are assigned, they have a positive impact on the cooperating schools. However, the impact appears to vary with the size of the community. The least positive perceptions came from the supervising teachers and student teachers in the barrios. It may be that teachers in the barrios, with close contact with parents and families are more reluctant to capitalize on the opportunities offered by student teachers, preferring to maintain their own personal role in the class
rooms .
RecommendationsSince discipline and motivation of pupils are highly
critical factors in the teaching-learning process, all parties
involved in student teaching programs need to be sensitive to
176
the influence of student teachers in these areas. All parties need to expect supervising teachers to insure that standards are maintained while student teachers are present, and teacher education institutions need to do everything possible to prepare student teachers to handle discipline and motivate the students.
Since it is necessary for the home and the school to work hand-in-hand so that what is learned in school may find further application at home, student teachers need to be guided and encouraged in communicating with parents. Requiring the student teachers to attend Parent-Teacher Association meetings and introducing them to parents should help build the student teacher's image with the parents and encourage them to interact easily with parents.
Standard forms that call for objective reporting about student teaching can be adopted to save time on the part of the principal. School expectations for the student teachers may be in writing to save time during orientation. The administrators' very high perceptions should be capitalized upon. They should be encouraged to become more involved in planning and in articulating student teaching programs so as to further capitalize on the favorable present influence the student teachers have in the schools.
It would be a source of enlightenment if another researcher would undertake a study on what accounts for the significant differences in the perceptions among the three geographic areas on the effect of the presence of the student
177teachers in cooperating schools on the twenty-four variables
covered in the study.The findings of this study indicate the benefits of
student teaching programs in Region VII, Central Visayas, Philippines even without planned joint efforts between the teacher training institutions and the cooperating schools.The positive impact of student teaching programs will most likely be even greater when the teacher education institutions and the schools sit together to determine what each can share in order to make the student teaching programs yet more functional, meaningful, relevant and rewarding.
APPENDIX
178
A STUDY OF STUDENT TEACHING IN REGION VII, PHILIPPINES
This study is conducted in connection with a doctoral dissertation encouraged by Michigan State University and Silliman University and favorably endorsed by the Ministry of Education and Culture Region VII Office for the purpose of assessing the perceptions of student teachers, supervising teachers and administrators regarding the impact of student teaching programs on schools in Region VII to which students are assigned from teacher training programs of the colleges and universities. The study will involve all student teachers of the cooperating schools of Region VII in the Philippines and their respective supervising teachers and building principals during the second half of the first semester, school year 1979-1980,The instruments for data gathering are patterned after the 1969 Michigan Impact Study on student teaching with modifications geared within the context of Philippine setting and based upon the feedback of the pilot study conducted within the city of Dumaguete and the province of Negros Oriental during the second week of August 1979.
DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS
1. Use the IBM answer sheet provided. There will be no way for your specific answer sheet to be identified once you turn it in. The responses will be machine scored and tabulated on Michigan State University equipment. Since your responses will be combined with those from other institutions it is essential that all respondents use the same procedure.
2. Use the scoring pencil provided and mark the spaces to indicate your answer to each item. Blacken the space completely. Please be careful not to put any marks on the answer sheet.
3. Mark no more than one answer for each item. Please answer every item unless instructed otherwise on the instrument.
k* In the instrument "University"' means either "college" or "university" as appropriate. "Supervising teacher" also means "cooperating teacher," "sponsoring teacher," or "critic teacher". Student teacher also means "associate teacher," or "practice teacher."
179STUDENT TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Which of the following are you now!?1. A single student teacher2. A married student teacher
2. What is your sex?1. Male 2. Female
3. Which statement below best describes the community in which you are doing student teaching?1* Large (population more than 100,000)2. Medium sized city (population more than 30,000 but less than 100,000)3. Small city (less than 30,000)U. Town3• Barrio
U. What was your status as a student in your college or university when you began this student teaching assignment (contract)?1. Had junior standing2. Had senior standing3. Had the BA or BS degree
3. What is your all-college grade point average?(Scales A = It, B = 3j C =2, D = l , F = 0
6. How old were you at the beginning of this student teaching assignment (contact)?1. 19 6. 2h - 232. 20 7. 26 - 303. 21 8. 30 - 36In 22 9« over 363. 23
7. In this assignment (contact), how much time were you scheduled in student teaching?1. Full-time 7* Two and one-half hours twice2. Full-time except was also enrolled in a week
a non-student teaching credit course 8. Two hours twice a week and3.' Half-days one hour once a weekU. One hour 3 times a week 9. Other3. One hour thrice a week6. One and one-half hours twice a ureek
180
- 2 -
8. In this assignment (contact), how were you placed?1, With a single supervising teacher2. In a team-teaching situation (two or more team members)3• With two or three different teachers (but not team-teaching)iu In a special program or project different from any of the above
9. How many weeks long is your current assignment (contact)?1. 3 weeks or less2. k weeks3. !? weeksIu 6 weeks5. 7 weeks
6. 8 weeks7. 9 weeks8. 10 weeks9. More than 10 weeks
10. What is your primary current student teaching assignment (contact)?
1. Grades 1 & 2 6. Third Year2. Grades 3 & U 7 , Fourth Year3. Grades $ & 6 8. First Year & Second Year
First Year 9o Third Year & Fourth Year5. Second Year
11. To what subject area or teaching field were you primarily assigned for student teaching (check one answer only from item 11 and 12)1. Reading 6. Social Studies (elem.)2. Language 7. Music and Art3. Pilipino 8. Work EducationU. Math (elem.) 9. Health and P.E.5. Science (elem.)
1. Communication Arts (Pilipino) 6. Practical Arts2. Communication Arts (English) 7. Citizen Army Training3. Science 8. Youth Development TrainingU. Mathematics 9. Other
Social StudiesQUESTIONS 13 THROUGH 16 deal with any changes in individualized instruction provided for the pupils which may have resulted from your presence.13« To what extent did your supervising teacher work with individual pupils
as compared to when he does not have a student teacher?1. Much more than usual L. Somewhat less than usual2. Somewhat more than usual 3. Much less than usual3. About the same as usual 6. Don't know
181
3 -
lit. To what extent was individual help or counseling provided the pupils during non-class hours as compared to what would have been possible if you had not been present?1, Much more than usual U. Somewhat less than usual2, Somewhat more than usual 5« Much less than usual3, About the same as usual 6. Don't know
15. To what extent did conferring with you take time of the teacher so he had less time for individual work with pupils?1. Frequently !u Never2. Sometimes 5. Don't know3. Seldom
16. To what extent did planning with you take the time of the teacher so he had less time for individual work with pupils?
1. Frequently U. Never2. Sometimes 5. Don't know3. Seldom
17» To what extent was re-teaching necessary after you taught?1. Frequently it. Never2. Sometimes 5. Don't know3. Seldom
QUESTIONS 18 THROUGH 23To what extent were any of the following instructional activities for the pupils in your supervising teachers assigned classes changed because of your presence?18. Provision for make-up work.
1. Much greater U. Somewhat less2. Somewhat greater 5. Much less3. No change 6. Don't know
19* Follow-up of exams.1. Much better2. Somewhat better 3 • No change
it. Somewhat poorer5. Much poorer6. Don' t know
182
- 1 -
20. Supervision of playgrounds, assemblies, etc.1. Much better 5. Much poorer2. Somewhat better 6. Does not apply3. No change 7. Don’t know1. Somewhat poorer
21. Amount of material covered.1. Much more 1. Somewhat less2. Somewhat more 5. Much less3. No change 6. Don't know
22. Discipline1. Much better 1. Somewhat poorer2. Somewhat better S. Much poorer3. No change 6. Don't know
23. Motivation of pupils.1. Much better 1. Somewhat poorer2. Somewhat better 5. Much poorer3. No change 6. Don't know
QUESTIONS 21 THROUGH 28 deal with the contributions you may have made to the school program. Did you make any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such ass21. Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, field trips, etc.?
1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. No2$. Communicate with parents?
1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. No
26. Perform recess, canteen, gymnasium, playground, or assembly duty?
1. Often 2. Sometimes 3. No27. Did you bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or different
instructional materials?1. A great many 3. No2. Some 1. I am not sure
28. Did you suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas?1. A great many 3. No2. Some 1. I am not sure
183
- 5 -
29. How do you feel your contributions (27 and 28) were received?1. They were used2. They were not used3. I was discouraged from making such contributions U. I really did not have much to offer
30. How many hours per week on the average did you teach your supervising teacher's assigned classes?1.2.3.U.5.
1-2 hours per week 3-U hours per week 5-6 hours per week 7-8 hours per week 9-10 hours per week
6.7.8. 9.
11-12 hours per week 13-lU hours per week 15-16 hours per week More than 16 hours
31« How many hours per week on the average was your supervising teacher able to be away from the classroom while you were teaching his assigned classes?1. Less than 12. 1-2 3. 3-U
U. 5-65. 7-86. 9-10
7. 11-128. 13-lU9. More than lU
QUESTION 32 THROUGH 38To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in any of the following additional activities during the time you were teaching his assigned classes?32. Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1. A great deal2. To some extent
3. Not at all U. Don't know
33. Committee work in the school with pupils,1. A great deal2. To some extent
3. Not at all U. Don't know
3U. Professional reading or writing.1. A great deal2. To some extent
3. Not at all U. Don't know
35. Work with staff of school or department.1. A great deal2. To some extent
3. Not at all U. Don't know
184
- 6 -
36* Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching*1. A great deal 3* Not at all2. To some extent U. Don’t know
37* Assisting the principal or other teachers.1. A great deal 3. Not at all2. To some extent U. Don’t know
38, Social or recreational activities.1. A great deal 3. Not at all2. To some extent U* Don’t know
QUESTIONS 39 THROUGH U3To what extent did you relieve other regular staff members who did not have student teachers of the following activities?39* Teaching.
1. Many times 2. Once or a few times 3. Not at allUO. Chaperoning.
1. Many times 2. Once or a few times 3. Not at all111* Supervision of canteen duty.
1. Many times 2. Once or a few times 3. Not at allU2. Supervision of assembly,
1. Many tines 2. Once or a few times 3. Not at allU3« Supervision of playground.
1. Many times 2. Once or a few times 3. Not at allQUESTION bk THROUGH U6To what extent were other staff members able to engage in any of the following activities because of your presence in the building?Ijlu Visitation in other classrooms or schools.
1* Many times 3. Not at all2. To some extent U. Don’t know
185
mm 'J mm
hS» Committee work in the school.1. A great deal 3. Not at all
• 2. To some extent U. Don’t knowU6. Professional reading or writing.
1, A great deal 3. Not at all2. To some extent U. Don't know
U7. How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the physical presence (close enough to see or talk with) of your supervising teacher?lo Less than 3 5. 10-11 9. More than 172. h-S 6. 12-133. 6-7 7. 1U-15lu 8-9 8. 16-17
U8. How did your presence as a student teacher affect the average number of hours per week your supervising teacher spent at school as compared to when he does not have a student teacher?1. Added more than 5 hours per week.2. Added more than b hours per week.3. Added more than 3 hours per week.Lu Added more than 2 hours per week.
Added up to one hour per week.6. Had no effect.7. Reduced by up to one hour per week.8. Reduced by 2-3 hours per week.9. Reduced by h -5 hours per week.
U9. How did your presence affect the average number of hours per week your supervising teacher worked on job related activities away from school?1. Added 5 hours per week.2. Added Jj. hours per week.3. Added 3 hours per week.Li. Added up to 2 hours per week.5. Added up to one hour per week.6. Had no effect.7. Reduced by up to one hour per week.8. Reduced by 2-3 hours per week,9. Reduced by k -S hours per week.
QUESTION $0 THROUGH $3To what exbent was the time your supervising teacher spent on the following activities changed because of your presence?
186
mm Q —
50. Teaching1. Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
5l• Lesson Planning1. Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
52. Paper grading1. Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
53. Help to individual students1. Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
U. Reduced to some extent5. Reduced a great deal6. Don't know
lu Reduced to some extent5. Reduced a great deal6. Don't know
lu Reduced to some extent5. Reduced a great deal6. Don't know
lu Reduced to some extent5. Reduced a great deal6. Don't know
QUESTION Sh THROUGH 60To what extent did your supervising teacher engage in the following activities because of your presence?5U. Planning with you
1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours
55. Evaluating your progress and activities1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours
56. Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really a part of student teaching.1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours
57. Fulfilling social obligations resulting from your presence1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours lu Don't know
187 - 9 -
58. Preparing additional reports1. A great many extra hours 3. Wo extra hours2. Some extra hours U° Don’t know
59. Making additional preparations for teaching1. A great many extra hours , 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours U. Don't know
60. holding telephone conversations or other conferences with you1. A great many extra hours 3. Wo extra hours2. Some extra hours U. Don't know
61. Hew many times per week on the average did you have contact with your supervising teacher outside of regular working hours at school? (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc,)1. Less than one 3. 5-62. 1-2 U. 7-83 » 3-U 5. More than 8
62. How many days during student teaching did you handle classes for your supervising teacher while he was away for reasons other than student teaching business (professional work, request of principal or other people, personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute teacher would have had to be hired if you had hot been there?1. None U. 3-U2. Less than one 5» 5-63. 1-2 6, 7-8
63. During student teaching how many days did you handle classes for any teacher(s) other than your supervising teacher, while that teacher was away from class?1. None U« U-52. One or less 5. 6-73. 2-3 6. More than 7
6U. How many hours do you estimate you spent doing volunteer work in the community where you were assigned for student teaching (youth groups, home service, church work and the like) during your student teaching period?1. None at all 5. Sixteen to thirty hours2. One to five hours 6. More than thirty hours3. Six to fifteen hours
188
- 10 -
6$. What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on theperformance of your supervising teacher?1. Has made him a much more effective teacher2. Has made him a more effective teacher3. Has had no effect on his teachingit. Has made him a less effective teacher5. Has made him a much less effective teacher6. I am unable to judge
66. What do you think should be the attitude of the administration and teachersin the school to which you were assigned about working with student teachers?1. Should aggressively seek student teachers2. Should seek student teachers3. Should accept student teachers if askedU. Should resist having student teachers in the school5>. Should refuse to have student teachers in the school6. I am unable to judge
6?. What recommendation would you give your friends about accepting a student teaching assignment in the same school with the same supervising teacher (or in the same project)?1. Accept with enthusiasm Try for a different assignment2. Accept 5. Reject the assignment3. Be neutral
68. How many times has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during your student teaching contact?1. Not at all U. 5 to 6 times2. 1 to 2 times E>„ More than 6 times3. 3 to h times
69* How much help has the university coordinator (supervisor) provided you?1. All the help I felt was necessary2. Most of the help I felt was needed 3* Some of the help I felt I neededU. Little of the help I felt was needed E>. No help at all
70. To what extent have your supervising teacher and/or other school per- sonnel been helpful to you on matters not directly concerned with student teaching?1. They have gone out of their way to be helpful2. They have helped when as Ited3. They have not helpedU. No such help was needed
189
- 11 -
71. Would you accept a teaching position if offered for next year in the building or system in which you did your student teaching?1 . Yes2. No, because I intend to go to graduate school3. No, because I plan to live in another geographic area U. No, for personal reasonsf>. No, for professional reasons6. No, because I have decided not to teach
72. Why were you assigned to this particular student teaching station?1. I requested this school or area.2. I requested this kind of program or project.3. I had no particular preference and was placed in this assignment
by my college or university.U* I really preferred a different assignment but was placed in this
one by .my college or university.5. I was required to accept this assignment even though I expressed
a strong preference for a different one.
190TEACHER-•QUESTIOiliJAlFJE
1. Which of the following are you now?1. A single supervising teacher2. A married supervising teacher
2. What is your sex?1. Male 2. Female
3. Which statement below best describes the community in which you teach?1. Large city (population more than 100,000)2. Medium sized city (population more than 50,000 but less than 100,000)3. Small city (population less than 50,000) it. Town5. Barrio
it. How many years of teaching have you completed including this year?
1. Three or less years 6. Nineteen to twenty-one years2. Four to seven years 7» Twenty-two to twenty-four years3. Eight to twelve years 8. Twenty-five to twenty-seven yearsit. Thirteen to fifteen years 9. More than twenty-seven years5. Sixteen to eighteen years
5. With how many student teachers have you worked in the last 5 years?(include your current student teacher)1. One to three 6. Sixteen to eighteen2. Four to six 1 . Nineteen to twenty-one3. Seven to nine 8. Twenty-two to twenty-fourU. Ten to twelve 9« More than twenty-four5. Thirteen to fifteen
6. How well do you feel your present student teacher was prepared to enter student teaching?1. Extremely well prepared Minimally prepared2. Well prepared3• Adequately prepared
7. In this assignment (contact), how was your student teacher scheduled in student teaching?1. Full-time2. Full-time except he was also enrolled in a non-student teaching
credit course.3. Half daysU. One hour five times a week5. One hour thrice a week6. One and one-half hours twice a week7. Two and one-half hours twice a weekS. Two hours twice a week and 1 hour once a week9. Flexible arrangement with no more than five hours a week
191
- 2 -
8. In this assignment (contact) how was your student teacher placed?1. With you as the single supervising teacher.2. In a team-teaching situation (two or more team members).3. With two or three different teachers (but not team-teaching).1*. In a special program or project different from any of the above.
9. How many weeks is your student teacher scheduled in this assignment (contact)?1. 3 weeks or less2. ii-5 weeks3. 6-7 weeksh» 8-9 weeks 5. 10-11 weeks
10. What is your own current teaching assignment?1. Grades 1 Sc 2 6. Third Year2. Grades 3 &• U 7- Fourth Year3. Grades 5 Sc 6 8. First Year and Second YearU. First Year 9. Third and Fourth Year5. Second Year
11. To what subject area or teaching field are you primarily assigned? (You may check one answer only from item 11 and 12.)1. Reading 6. Social Studies (elem.)2. Language 7. Music and Art3. Pilipino 8. Work Educationu. Math (elem.) 9. Health and P.E.
Science (elem.)
1. Communication Arts (Pilipino) 6. Practical Arts2. Communication Arts (English) 7. Citizen's Army Training3. Science 8. Youth Development Trainingu. Mathematics 9. Other5. Social Studies
QUESTIONS 13 THROUGH 16 deal with any changes in individualized instruction for the pupils which may have resulted from your student teacher’s presence.
13. To what extent did you work with individual pupils as compared to when you do not have a student teacher?1. Much more than usual U. Somewhat less than usual2. Somewhat more than usual 9* Much less than usual3. About the same as usual
6. 12-13 weeks7. Ii*-l5 weeks8. Wore than 15
192
Hi. To what extent was individual help or counseling provided your pupils during non-class hours as compared to what would liave been possible if you had not had a student teacher?1. Much more than usual U. Somewhat less than usual2. Somewhat more than usual 5. Much less than usual3. About the same as usual
15. To what extent did conferring with your-student teacher take your tiire so you had less time for individual work with pupils?1. Frequently 3. Seldom2. Sometimes lu Never
16. To what extent did planning xtfith your student teacher take your time so that you had less time for individual work with pupils?1. Frequently 3. Seldom2. Sometimes lu Never
17. To what extent was re-teaching necessary after the student teacher taught?1. Frequently 3* Seldom2. Sometimes lu Never
QUESTION 13 TI-IRO'JGK 23To what extent were any of the following instructional activities for your pupils changed because of your student teacher's presence?18. Provision for make-up work
1. Much greater2. Somewhat greater3. No change
19. Follow-up of exams1. Much better2. Somewhat better3. No change
lu Somewhat less 5. Much less
lu Somewhat poorer 5. Much poorer
20. Supervision of playgrounds, assemblies, etc.1. Much better lu Somewhat poorer2. Somewhat better 5 • Much poorer3. No change 6. Does not apply
193
- U -
21. Amount of material covered1. Much more lu Somewhat less2. Somewhat more 5. Much less3. No change
22. Discipline1. Much better lu Somewhat poorer2. Somewhat better 5. Much poorer3. No change
23. Motivation of pupils
1. Much better lu Somewhat poorer2. Somewhat better 5. Much poorer3. No change
QUESTIONS 2U THROUGH 26 deal with the contributions your student teacher may have made to the school program. Did your student teacher make any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such as2lu Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, etc.?
1, Often 3. No2. Sometimes lu Don't know
25. Communicate with parents
1. Often 3. No2. Sometimes lu Don't know
26. Perform recess, canteen, gymnasium, playground or assembly duty?
1. Often 3. No2. Sometimes lu Don't know
27. Did your student teacher bring, develop, provide, or suggest any new or different instructional materials?1. A great many 2. Some 3. No
28. Did your student teacher suggest or provide any other kinds of aid or ideas?1. A great many 2. Some 3. No
194
-5 -
29. What use were you able to make of the contributions (27 & 28) of your student teacher?1. I used them.2. I did not use them.3. I had to discourage him from contributing too freely. h . My student teacher really did not have much to offer.
30. How many hours per week on the average did your student teacher teach your assigned classes?
31. How many hours per week on the average were you able to be away from the classroom while your student teacher was teaching your assigned classes?1. Less than one 6. 9-102. 1-2 7. 11-12 3. 3-U 8. 13-lUU. 5-6 9. More than 155. 7-8
To what extent did you engage in any of the following additional activities during the time your student teacher was teaching?
32. Visitation in other classrooms or schools.1. A great deal 2. To some extent 3. Mot at all
33* Committee work in the school with pupils.1. A great deal 2. To some extent 3. Hot at all
3U. Professional reading or writing1* A great deal 2. To some extent 3. Hot at all
35. Work with staff of school or department1. A great deal 2. To some extent 3. Hot at all
36. Participating in supervising teacher seminars or other in-service activities dealing with student teaching.1. A great deal 2. To some extent 3. Hot at all
195
- 6 -
37* Assisting the principal or other teachers1. A great deal 2. To some extent
38. Social or recreational activities1. A great deal 2. To some extent
QUESTION 39 THROUGH 1*3
3. Not at all
3. Not at all
To what extent did your student teacher relieve other regular staff members who did not have student teachers of the following activities?39. Teaching
1. Many times2. Once or a few times
1*0. Chaperoning1. Maiy times2. Once or a few times
1*3.. Supervision of canteen duty
1. Many times2. Once or a few times
1*2. Supervision of assembly1. Many times2. Once or a few times
1*3. Supervision of playground1. Many times2. Once or a few times
QUESTION 1*1* THROUGH 1*6
3. Not at all 1*. Don't know
3. Not at all 1*. Don't know
3. Not at all 1*. Don't know
3. Not at all 1*. Don' t know
3.1*.
Not at all Don't know
To what extent were other staff members able to engage in any of the following activities because of the presence of student teachers in the building?1*1*. Visitation in other classrooms or schools
1. Many times2. To some extent
3. Not at all 1*. Don't know
196
- 7
U5. Committee work in the school1. A great deal2. To some extent
3, hot at all lu Don’t know
U6. Professional reading or writing1» A great deal2. To some extent
3. Not at all lu Don't know
U7« How many hours per week on the average do you estimate you spent in the physical presence (close enough to see or talk with) of your student
U8. How did the presence of a student teacher affect the average number of hours per week you spent at school as compared to when you do not have a student teacher?1. Added more than 5> hours per week2. Added more than U hours per week3. Added more than 3 hours per weekU. Added more than 2 hours per week5. Added up to one hour per week6. Had no effect7. Reduced by up to one hour per week8. Reduced by 2-3 hours per week9. Reduced by more than 3 hours per week
U9. How did your student teacher’s presence affect the average number of hours per week you worked on job-related activities away from school?1. Added more than 5 hours per week2. Added more than 1± hours per week3. Added more than 3 hours per weeklu Added more than 2 hours per week5. Added up to one hour per week6. Had no effect7. Reduced by up to one hour per week8. Reduced by 2-3 hours per week9. Reduced by more than 3 hours per week
teacher?1. Less than 32. U-53. 6-7 lu 8-9 5. 10-11
6. 12-137 o 1U-15 8. 16-179. More than 17
197
- 8 -QUESTION 50 THROUGH 53To what extent was the time you spent on any at' the following activities changed because of your student teacher's presence?50. Teaching
1. Increased a great deal ■2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
51. Lesson Planning1. Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
52. Paper Grading1« Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the sane
53. Help to individual students1. Increased a great deal2. Increased to some extent3. Remained about the same
QUESTION 5U THROUGH 6l
U. Reduced to some extent 5. Reduced a great deal
lu Reduced to some extent 5. Reduced a great deal
lu Reduced to some extent 5. Reduced a great deal
lu Reduced to some extent5. Reduced a great deal
To what extent did you engage in the following activities because of the presence of the student teacher?
5U. Planning with or for your student teacher1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours
55# Evaluating your student teacher's progress or activities1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2 . Some extra hours
56. Holding casual and/or personal conversations not really a part of student teaching.1. A great many extra hours2 . Some extra hours
3. No extra hours
198
- 9 -
57. Fulfilling the social obligations resulting from your student teacher’s presence,1. A great many extra hours 3» ho extra hours2. Some extra hours
58. Preparing additional reports,1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours.2. Some extra hours
59. Making additional preparation for teaching.1 . A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours
60. Holding telephone conversations or other conferences with your student teacher.1. A great many extra hours 3. No extra hours2. Some extra hours
61. How many times per week on the average did you have contact with your student teacher outside of regular working hours at school? (Telephone, conferences, social engagements, etc.)
1. Less than one lu 9-62. 1-2 5. 7-83. 3-U 8. More than 8
62. How many days during student teaching did your student teacher handleclasses for you while you were away for reasons other than student teaching business (professional work, request of principal or other people, personal or private affairs outside of school) in which a substitute would have had to be hired if the student teacher had not been there?1. None 6. 7-82. Less than one A 7. 9-103. 1-2 ' 8. 11-12U. 3-U 9. More9* 9-6
63. During student teaching how many days did your student teacher handle classes for any teacher other than yourself while that teacher was away from his class?1. None 6. 8-92. One or less 7. 10-113. 2-3 8. 12-13U. U-9 9. More than 139. 6-7
199
- 10 -
6Lu How.many hours do you estimate your student teacher spent doing volunteer work in the community where he was assigned for student teaching (youth groups, home service, church work and the like) during his student teaching period?1. Hone at all Lu Sixteen to thirty hours2. One to five hours $ , More than thirty hours3. Six to fifteen hours
69 . What effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on your own teaching performance?1. Has made me a much more effective teacher2. Has made me a more effective teacher3. Has had no effect on my teachingLu Has made me a less effective teacher9. Has made me a much less effective teacher
66. What do you think should be the attitude of the administrators and teachers in your school about working with student teachers?1. Should aggressively seek student teachers2. Should seek student teachers3. Should accept student teachersLu Should resist having student teachers in the school9. Should refuse to have student teachers in the school
67. If you were starting over, would you accept another student teacher with similar credentials from the same institution under the same general circumstances?1. I would accept with enthusiasm2. I would accept3. I feel neutral about it Lu I would probably decline9. I would refuse
68. How many times has the university coordinator or supervisor of student teaching been in your school during this student teaching contact?1. hot at all2. One to two times3. Three to four times Lu Five to six times9. Seven to eight times
6. Nine to ten times7. Eleven to twelve times8. Thirteen to fifteen times9. Sixteen or more times
200
- 11 -
69. How much help has the university coordinator (supervisor) provided you?1. All the help I felt was necessary2. Most of the help I felt was needed3. Some of the help I felt I needed
Little of the help I felt was needed5. No help at all
70„ Has the university coordinator been helpful to you with any matters not directly concerned with student teaching?1. He has gone out of his way to be helpful2. He has helped when asked3. He has not helpedU. No such help was needed
71. Would you want your student to teach in your building or system next year?1. les2. No, but would recommend him in a different system or building3. . No
72. Titfhy was this student teacher assigned to you?1. I volunteered since I feel a professional obligation to help
prepare future teachers.2. I volunteered but only because I felt pressure from an
administrator to do so.3. I volunteered because I thought a student teacher would be
helpful to me in performing my school duties.U. I did not volunteer but was requested by an administrator to
take the student teacher. f>. I was forced to work with the student teacher against my will.
201iDmiSTEATOB. QUESTJQHNAIBE
1* Which of the following are you now?1. A single school administrator2. A married school administrator
2. What is your sex?1. Male 2. Female
3. What is your present administrative assignment?1. A head teacher2. An elementary school principal3. A high school principal If.* Other
!*• Which statement below best describes the community in which your school is located?1. Large city (population more than 100,000)2. Medium sized city (population more than 50,000 but lass than 100>000) 3* Small city (population less than 50,000)!*• Town 5* Barrio
5* For how many years have you been a school administrator?1. Two or less2. Three to five 3* Six to nine U« Ten to twelve5. More than twelve
6* For how many years have you been an administrator in your present building?1. Two or less2. Three to five3. Six to nine iw Ten to twelve5. More than twelve
7* How many pupils are assigned to your building?1001-1200 1201-11*00 1U01-1600 More than 1600
1* Less than 200 6,2.. 201-1*00 7.3. 1*01-600 8.tu 601-800 9.5f 801-1000
202 » 2 • •
8. How many* teachers are assigned in your building?1. $ or less lu 16-20 7.- 31-352. 6-10 5. 21-25 8. 36-U03. 11-15 6. 2.6-30 9. Mare than h0
9. For how many years have student teachers been assigned in the building in which you are presently the administrator?1. Three or less lu Ten to twelve2. Four to six 5. Thirteen to fifteen3* Seven to nine 6. More than fifteen
10. How many student teachers are assigned to your building at the present time?1. 1-3 6. 16-182. h-6 7. 19-213. 7-9 8. 22-2Ulu 10-12 9* More than5. 13-15
U . What is the optimum number of student teachers you can accommodate in your building each year?1. 1-32 . it-63. 7-9lu 10-125. 13-15
12, How well do you feel the student teacher(s) presently assigned to your building were prepared to enter student teaching?1, Extremely well prepared lu Minimally prepared2, Very well prepared 5» Inadequately prepared3* Adequately prepared
13» For what proportion of their time are the majority of the student teachers assigned to your building scheduled by their institution to student teaching?1, Full days2* Full tin® except was also enrolled in non-student teaching credit
course3, Half dayslu One hour daily5'* One hour thrice a week6‘, One and a half hours twice a week7* Two and a half hours twice a week8, Two hours twice a week and one hour once a week9* Flexible arrangement but no more than five hours a week
6. 16-18 7. 19-218. 22-2U9. More than 25
203
- 3 -
QUESTION lit through 26 deal with the contributions student teachers may have made to the school program in your building. Use the following -code for question lh through 19s
1. Often2. Sometimes3. Nou. Does not apply5. Don’t know
Have student teachers made any specific contributions to the school, pupils, or teachers, such asslh. Supervise youth groups in meetings, programs, trips, tours, etc.?15. Communicate with parents?16. Perform recess, lunch, gymnasium, playground or hall duty?17. Chaperone social activities for pupils?18. Coach or assist in interscholastic or extracurricular activities?19. Assist in handling discipline problems?20. How many new or different instructional materials have student teachers
brought, developed, provided, or suggested to the school teachers?1. A great many h. A very few2. Quite a few 5. None3. Some
21. To what extent have student teachers suggested or provided any other kinds of aids or ideas?1. Often2. Sometimes3. Seldom h. Never
22. What use have your teachers been able to make of the contributions (20 St 2l) of student teachers?1. They always use them2. They sometimes use them3. They do not use themh« They discourage student teachers from contributing too freely 5 , Student teachers really do not have much to offer
204
- U -
23* How many hours per week on the average do student teachers in your building teach their supervising teachers' assigned classes?1. Less than 3 hours a week2. U-5 hours per week3* 6-7 hours per weeklu 8-9 hours per week9. 10-11 hours per week
6.7.8.9.
12-13 hours per week lU-l5 hours per week 16-17 hours per week More than 17
2lu How many hours per week on the average are your teachers able to be away from their classroom while student teachers teach their assigned classes?1. Less than one2. One to five3. Six to ten
lu Eleven to fifteen5. Sixteen to twenty6. More than twenty
QUESTIONS 29 through 3k - To what extent are any of the following instructional activities for pupils changed because of the presence of the student teachers in your building?29. Provision for make-up work,
1, Much greater2, Somewhat greater3, No change
26, Follow-up of exams,1. Much better2. Somewhat better3. No change
27. Individual counseling of pupils,1, Much more2, Somewhat more3, No change
iu Somewhat less 9. Much less
iu Somewhat poorer 9. Much poorer
lu Somewhat less9. Much less
28, Supervision of playgrounds, assemblies, etc,1, Much better2, Somewhat better 3* No change
29, Amount of reteaching necessary,1. Much more2. Somewhat more3. No change
iu Somewhat poorer9. Much poorer
lu Somewhat less9. Much less
205
- 5
30, Discipline.1. Much better2. Somewhat better3. No change
31. Motivation of pupils.1. Much better '2. Somewhat better3. No change
32. Use of audio visual materials1. Much more2. Somewhat more3. No change
33. Use of field trips.1. Much more frequent2. Somewhat more frequent3. No change
3U. Overall quality of instruction.1. Much better2. Somewhat better3. No change
U. Somewhat poorer3. Much poorer
U. Somewhat poorer 5. Much poorer
iu Somewhat less $. Much less
U. Somewhat less frequent 5. Much less frequent
U. Somewhat poorer5. Much poorer
206 •• 6 •*
QUESTION 35 through 1*5 - How do you feel the availability of the following university services has influenced the attitude of your staff concerning working with student teachers?Use the following code . or questions 35 through 1*5 s
1. Has had a very positive effect2. Has had a positive effect3. Has had no effect1*. Has had a negative effect5. Has had a very negative effect6. This service has not been available and would have had no effect
if available7. This service has not been available but would have had a positive
effect if available8. This service has not been available but would have had a very positive
effect if available9. I do not know whether or not this service is available
35* Tuition free university credit courses.36. University library privileges.37. Faculty identification cards,38. Recognition certificate from the University.39. Consultant services from the University.1*0. Instructional materials from the University.I4I. Tickets to university events - athletics, cultural events, etc.1*2. Hospitalization services.1*3. Cash stipends to the supervising teacher.111*. Seminars, workshops or meetings in your school or school area.1*5. Seminars, workshops or meetings on the University campus.
QUESTION 1*6 through 5l - To what extent does the presence of a student teaoher change the supervising teacher's participation in the following activities sUse the following code for questions 1*6 through 5ls
207
7
1. Much more than usual U. Less than usual2. More than usual 5. Much less than usual3. No change
li6. Visitation in other classrooms or schools.U7. Committee work in the school with pupils.U8. Professional reading and/or writing.I4.9. Work or meet with staff members of school or department..50. Assistance to the principal. or to other teachers.51. Involvement in social or recreational activities.Use the following code for questions 52 through 5Us
1. Very positively U. Somewhat negatively2. Somewhat positively 5* Very negatively3. Neutral
52. Generally, how do parents of your pupils react to having student teachers in the building?
53. Generally, how do the custodial, canteen and clerical staff react to having student teachers in the building?
5U. Generally, how do the pupils react to having student teachers in the building?
Question 55 through 65 deal with any changes in your own work lead because of having student teachers in your building.55* To what extent has having student teachers in your building affected th >
average number of hours per week you work?1. Added more than six hours per week2. Added two to five hours per week3. Added one hour or less per week 1*. Made no change5. Reduced by one hour or less per week6. Reduced by one to five hours per week7. Reduced by six or more hours per week
208
- 8 -
Question 56 through 65 - 'What has been the cause of any change in your own work load brought about by student teachers?Use the following code for questions 56 through 6
1. Increased your work load2. Made no change .3c Decreased your work loadIt.. Does not apply
56. Additional reports regarding student teaching or student teachers.5?, Counseling student teachers.58. Selection of supervising teachers.59. Orientation of student teachers.60. Finding instructional materials.61. Counseling supervising teachers.62. Communication with parents about activities related to student teachers,63. Student teacher’s assistance in counseling students.6U. Time of supervising teachers being made available by the student teachers'
teaching of classes.65. Time of other teachers being made available by student teachers’ handling
some of.their assigned responsibilities.66. To what extent has the university coordinator or supervisor of student
teaching been available to you and your staff during the student teacher contact?1. Has always been available2. Has usually been available3. Has been available on call when needed k» Has been generally unavailable5. Has never been available
67. To what extent do your supervising teachers encourage student teachers to have a variety of experiences outside the assigned classroom?1. A great deal2. To some extent3. To a limited degree U. Wot at all
209
- 9 -
68. VJhat effect do you feel working with student teachers has had on the teaching performance of your teachers?1. Has made them much more effective2. Has made them more effective3. Has had no effectU. Has made them less effective5. Has made them much less effective
69. What is the maximum number of student teachers a supervising teacher should have in one year?
1. One2. Two3. Threeh» Four or more
70. Which of the following do you consider to be the most important contribution of supervising teachers to student teachers?
1. Providing cognitive information in the psychology and sociology of teaching and learning.
2. Sharing the classroom and pupils to provide teaching experiences for the student teachers.
3. Providing instruction and experience in lesson planning and methods of teaching.
U. Providing a climate for developing a wholesome professional attitude.Providing informal counseling and advice in one-to-one conference sessions.
71. How representative of the teachers in your building are those who serve as supervising teachers?1. They are among my most outstanding teachers.2. They are above average for my staff.3. They are about average.U> They are below average for my staff.
® M IC HIGA N STATE UNIVERSITY DATA SHEET 210 — SIDE 1
Figure %% Philippine, Organization Chart Department Proper
NATIONAL 6CARD OF EDUCATION
BOS.CF TRUSTEES STATE COLL-vW V
PROFESSIONALSCARPS
EDPITAF
ASST SECRETARY
» SECURITY 6 J INTEL UNIT
CARE FEEDING PROGRAM
SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES UNIT
.SCHOOL HEALTH EDUCATION UNIT
RECORDS/SUPPLY GENERAL SER
VICES FOOL SECURITY UWT
Prepared By Cec Reorg*rwat»on Committee August 1975
ACCOUNTING MACH. UNIT
SPECIAL EDUCATION UNIT
HOME INDUSTRIES TRAINING CENTER
ASST SECRETARY
NAT. EDUC. TEST CENTER INETCl
PLAN. & PROG R A M IN G DIV.
TEXTBOOK BOARD
CHILD/YOUTH STUDY CENTER
RESEARCH A STATISTICS DIV
NAT. RES./OEV CENTER/TR ED
PERSONNELDIVISION
SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAM UNIT
SECRETARIAT. NATL BOARD
C * EDUC INBE)
s e c r e t a r ia t , p r o f e s s io n a l
BOARDS____
POPULATION EDUCATION UNIT
PROJECT d e v e l o p m e n t & EVA
LUATION DiV.
SOCIAL STUDIES CENTER
GENERAL SERVICES OtV
NAT. SCHOLAR- SHIP CENTERINSCI
INFORMATIONDIVISION
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
LEGALDIVISION
OFFICE OF THE OtRECTOR
CURRICULUMDEVELOPMENT
DIVISION
BUDGETDIVISION
CURRICULUMDEVELOPMENT
OiVtStON
STAFF DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
STAFF DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
MANAGEMENT & AUDIT DIV
ACCOUNTINGDIVISION
MATERIALS PRODUCTION A PUB
LICATION UNIT
SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
_ DIVISION
TEXTBOOK PRODUCTION DIV
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
PHYSICALFACILITIESDIVISION
PHYSICALFACILITIESDIVISION
STUDENT SERVICES DIVISION
STAFF DEVELOPMENT D:v<S>ON
ACtfiKSTRATIVESERVICE
BUREAU OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
AFDFMATION A *® p u b l ic a t io n
SERVICE
BUREAU OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT
SERVICE
BUREAU OF HIGHER
EDUCATION.
REGIONAL OFFICES
UNDERSECRETARY CF EDUCATrON AND CULTURE
S £C«£:AI-v OF EOUCAT*CN AND CULTURE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
L.O. Andrews, "Definition of Terms", Secondary Student Teaching Readings, Scott, Foreman and Company, June 1970.
E. Brooks Smith. "Promises and Pitfalls in the Trend Toward Collaboration", Partnership in Teacher Education, e d . by E. Brooks Smith, etc. AACTE, 1968.
Donald S. Chase, "How about a Teacher Education Center?...Ask the Kids", ERIC, ED. 087 733.
Lawrence A. Cremin, "The Education of the Educatiing Profession," 19th Annual Charles W. Hunt Lecture, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1977.
Pauline Hilliard & Charles L. Durrance, "Guiding Student Teaching Experiences", Association for Student Teachings,ASG Bulletin, No. 1, 1968.
The Indiana Student Teaching Study, Indiana Association of Teacher Educators in cooperation with the Indiana State Department of Public Instruction, 1975.
W. Henry Kennedy, "Mythconceptions About Student Teaching",Presented to the Illinois Association of Teacher Educators, October 17, 1970.
Clifford M. Marcus, "Contribution of Student Teaching Programs to Michigan Cooperation Schools as Perceived by the Student Teachers, Supervising Teachers and Administrators," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970.
Charles J. Pisoni, "A Comparative Factor Analysis of the Impact of Two Student Teaching Programs Upon the Cooperating Schools of Michigan with Implications for Evaluation of Teacher Education Programs," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michgian State University, 1977.
Ramento, New Thrusts in Philippine Education, Vol. 1 Bienvenido Manuel, J. Guerrero, Sutaria,editors. Current Digest Inc., Quiapo, Manila, 1974.
Student Teaching Programs: Questions and Answers, Deans and Directors of Teacher Education in Michigan 19 75.
213
214
Lawrence E. Vanstra, "An Investigation into Relationships Between Student Teaching and Pupil Motivation, as Perceived by the Supervising Teachers, Student Teachers, Administrators and Pupils, " Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972.
Spencer, H. Wyant, Diane L. Reinhard, Richard Arends. Of Principals and Projects. Association of Teacher Educators, Reston, Virginia, 1980.
