UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the role expectations held among and within the groups representing each of the three… Ryan, Mark William John 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A2 R92.pdf [ 24.2MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055856.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055856-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055856-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055856-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055856-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055856-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055856-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055856-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055856.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ROLE EXPECTATIONS HELD AMONG AND WITHIN THE GROUPS REPRESENTING EACH OF THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE STUDENT TEACHING TRIAD BY MARK WILLIAM JOHN RYAN B.P.E., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970 M.P.E., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e , A d u l t , and Higher Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1989 © M a r k W i l l i a m John Ryan, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced • i degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ftjmini sir**'Wt,} A-Lfr anJ ti^htr- Zd*^** The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date O^+ok^t- } J98'} ABSTRACT This study examines, d e s c r i b e s , and c l a r i f i e s the r o l e expectations held among and w i t h i n the groups representing each of the three members of the student teaching t r i a d (the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , the student teacher, and the cooperating teacher). The study i d e n t i f i e s areas of p o t e n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity. The framework developed by means of which t o study r o l e expectations extends the work of Garland (1965). I t allows an examination of the way i n which c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s are as s o c i a t e d with d i f f e r i n g r o l e e xpectations and a l s o provides a vocabulary f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n of the expected r o l e s of the members of the student teaching t r i a d . A survey instrument l i s t i n g a number of expectations f o r each r o l e was developed on the b a s i s of instrumentation used by Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967) and C a s t i l l o (1971). The instrument was d i s t r i b u t e d to a l l f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s , student teachers, and cooperating teachers p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the Phase 3 Winter practicum at the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . The instrument contained 166 items d i v i d e d i n t o 3 s e c t i o n s , each of which described expectations f o r one of the respondent groups i n the student teaching t r i a d . Respondents were i n s t r u c t e d to complete a l l s e c t i o n s of the survey by i n d i c a t i n g the extent of t h e i r agreement to the appropriateness of the described expectation f o r each r o l e . i i The a n a l y s i s of the data showed t h a t the f a c u l t y a d visor r o l e i s perceived l e s s c l e a r l y than the other two, and could, consequently be the major source of r o l e ambiguity and p o t e n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t i n t h i s sample. Further, the r u r a l , f i e l d - b a s e d f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s of the program expected t o be more involved i n the practicum and were g e n e r a l l y more supportive of a more d i r e c t f a c u l t y advisor r o l e than were t h e i r urban, u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d counterparts. Student teachers are expected to assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program but no such c l a r i t y of expectations e x i s t s about the n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l aspects of t h e i r r o l e such as preparing i n d i v i d u a l case s t u d i e s . Considerable o v e r a l l agreement was evident f o r the cooperating teacher r o l e with l i t t l e i n d i c a t i o n of r o l e ambiguity or r o l e c o n f l i c t . However, student teachers d i d express the view t h a t f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s should observe, evaluate and even s e l e c t cooperating teachers, a f i n d i n g which suggests t h a t i t may be premature to say t h a t no c o n f l i c t i s associated with the cooperating teacher r o l e . D i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e e x pectations were a l s o evident between elementary and secondary student teacher and cooperating teacher sub-groups f o r the student teacher r o l e . The study leads to a number of recommendations f o r p o l i c y and research. The p r i n c i p a l recommendation f o r policymakers i s t h a t the members of the t r i a d need t o be made aware of: (1) the lower degree of agreement f o r the f a c u l t y a d visor r o l e and the consequent dilemmas faced by these adv i s o r s and ( 2 ) the large number of expectations held f o r the cooperating teacher r o l e . Further research should consider: (1) the apparent anomoly between, on the one hand, a c l e a r agreement about the designated expectations f o r the cooperating teacher r o l e and, on the other, the strong f e e l i n g of students, not shared by other members of the t r i a d , t h a t the cooperating teacher be screened before appointment to perform the r o l e and (2 ) those areas i n which disagreement was i d e n t i f i e d f o r both the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r and student teacher r o l e s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Abs t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables x i i i L i s t of f i g u r e s xv Chapter Page 1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 1 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 5 S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study ..6 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 9 D e l i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 10 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 10 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 12 STUDENT TEACHING 12 STUDIES OF ROLE EXPECTATIONS. 17 ROLE THEORY AND TRIAD MEMBER'S ROLES 23 Role Theory 23 Role of the Fa c u l t y Advisor 25 Influence of the F a c u l t y Advisor 26 S e l e c t i o n and Pr e p a r a t i o n of the Faculty Advisor 27 Role Expectations of the F a c u l t y Advisor 28 Problems of the F a c u l t y Advisor 31 Summary 33 Role of the Student Teacher 35 v I n f l u e n c e of the Student Teacher 36 Pr e p a r a t i o n o f the Student Teacher.... 38 Role E x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the Student Teacher 39 Problems of the Student Teacher 40 Summary 43 Role of the Cooperating Teacher 44 Inf l u e n c e of the Cooperating Teacher..44 S e l e c t i o n and P r e p a r a t i o n o f Cooperating Cooperating Teachers 46 Role E x p e c t a t i o n s f o r the Cooperating Teacher 48 Problems Experienced by Cooperating Teachers 56 Summary 58 INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT TEACHING 60 SUMMARY 63 INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES 66 INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK 66 Garland's Model 67 Extension of Garland's Model 69 Research Questions 75 Question 1 76 Question 2 76 Question 3 76 PROCEDURES 76 Instrumentation •. 78 Development o f the Instrument 78 V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y 81 U s e a b i l i t y 82 Target Population 83 Data A n a l y s i s 85 Part One: Across Group Agreement/ Di sagreement 86 Part Two: Within Group V a r i a t i o n 92 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 93 4. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: FACULTY ADVISOR ROLE 95 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 9V Items Held as Expectations f o r the FA Role .98 Planning 99 Observation 101 Eva! uation 101 A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s 101 Items Held as Non-Expectations f o r the FA Role 102 Planning 102 Observation 102 E v a l u a t i o n 103 A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s 103 D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement.. 104 D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty 105 Dyadic Agreement 107 Dyadic Ambivalence 109 U n i v e r s a l Ambivalence 110 v i i Summary 111 Planning 112 Observation 112 Eval u a t i o n 112 A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s 113 5. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: STUDENT TEACHER ROLE 114 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 117 Items Held as Expectations f o r the ST Role 117 Planning 121 Guiding Learning A c t i v i t i e s . . . 121 Eval u a t i o n 121 A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s 122 Items Not Held as Expectations f o r the ST Role 122 D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement 124 D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty 125 Dyadic Agreement 128 Dyadic Ambivalence. 128 Uni v e r s a l Ambivalence 129 Summary 130 Planning 131 v i i i Observation 131 Studying C h i l d r e n ..132 Guiding Learning A c t i v i t i e s 132 Evaluating Learners 133 Range of Teacher A c t i v i t i e s 133 A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s 134 6. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: COOPERATING TEACHER ROLE..136 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 139 Items Held as Expectations For the CT Role 139 Items Not Held as Expectations For the CT Role... 144 D i r e c t i o n a l U ncertainty 145 Summary 146 Planning 147 Guiding Learning A c t i v i t i e s 147 Eva l u a t i o n 148 Range of Teacher A c t i v i t i e s 148 A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s 149 7. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: DIFFERENCES WITHIN RESPONDENT GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES 150 Views of the FA Role 151 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and Views of the FA Held by FAs 153 D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y 157 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and Views of the FA Role Held by STs 158 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and Views of the FA Role Held by CTs 159 i x D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement 162 D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y 162 Views of the ST Role 164 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and Views of the ST Role Held by STs 165 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 169 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 172 D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y 174 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and Views of the ST Role Held by CTs 175 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 176 D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y 179 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement 183 D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y 183 Views of the CT Role 185 8. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS 187 Across Group Agreement/Disagreement F i ndi ngs 187 Faculty Advisor: Agreement 188 Faculty Advisor: Disagreement 188 Student Teacher: Agreement 188 Student Teacher: Disagreement 189 Cooperating Teacher: Agreement. 189 Cooperating Teacher: Disagreement 189 x Within Group Variance 199 Facu l t y Advisor Role 200 Student Teacher Role 200 Cooperating Teacher Role 200 Role Ambiguity and P o t e n t i a l Role C o n f l i c t . 2 0 3 Faculty Advisor Role 204 Student Teacher Role 205 Cooperating Teacher Role 205 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. 211 SUMMARY 211 Purpose of the Study 211 L i t e r a t u r e Review 211 Research Method 213 Research Questions 214 Major Findings of the Study 215 CONCLUSIONS 217 Facu l t y Advisor: Caught on the Horns of a Dilemma 217 Above and Beyond the C a l l of Duty: How Far Must the Student Teacher Go? 218 Cooperating Teacher Role: Too Much to Ask? 219 The Student Teacher T r i a d : Fact or F a l l a c y ? 220 The Mapmaker and the Navigator 220 IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.. 222 The Three Roles 222 FA Role 222 ST Role 223 CT Role. 224 Within Role Variance 225 Fur t h e r Research 226 BIBLIOGRAPHY 230 APPENDIX A EXPLICATION OF FRAMEWORK 240 APPENDIX B DETAILED RESEARCH QUESTIONS 250 APPENDIX C COVERING LETTER TO SURVEY RESPONDENTS (FA, ST, CT) 253 APPENDIX D SURVEY INSTRUMENT 256 APPENDIX E COVERING LETTER SUPERINTENDENT 264 APPENDIX F FREQUENCY TABULATIONS 267 APPENDIX G WITHIN ROLE TABLES (FA, ST, CT) 281 APPENDIX H DATA HANDLING 318 APPENDIX I DISCUSSION OF MULTIPLE COMPARISONS 319 APPENDIX J ROLE EXPECTATIONS HELD BY EACH RESPONDENT GROUP 325 APPENDIX K POTENTIAL ROLE AMBIGUITY AND ROLE CONFLICT..347 x i i LIST OF TABLES ble Page 1. Expectations Held f o r the Role of the FA by A l l Three Respondent Groups: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 96 2. Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Expectations f o r the FA Role 100 3. Survey Items Held By a l l Three Respondent Groups as Non-expectations f o r the FA Role 103 4. Items of D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement f o r the FA Role....105 5. Items of Dyadic Agreement f o r the FA Role 107 6. Items of Dyadic Ambivalence f o r the FA Role 109 7. Item of Universal Ambivalence f o r the FA Role 110 8. Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by A l l Three Respondent Groups: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 115 9. Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Expectations f o r the ST Role 118 10. Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Non-expectations f o r the ST Role 123 11. Items of D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement f o r the ST Role.124 12. Items of Dyadic Agreement f o r the ST Role 127 13. Items of Dyadic Ambivalence f o r the ST Role 129 14. Item of Universal Ambivalence f o r the ST Role 130 15. Expectations Held f o r the Role of the CT by A l l Three Respondent Groups: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 137 16. Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Expectations f o r the CT Role 140 17. Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Non-expectations f o r the CT Role 144 18. Items of D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y f o r the CT Role..146 x i i i 19. A Comparison of Urban (U) and Rural (R) FAs f o r the FA Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 154 20. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the FA by FAs i n Urban (U) and Rural (R) S e t t i n g s 156 21. A Comparison of Urban (U) and Rural (R) CTs f o r the FA Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 160 22. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the FA by CTs i n Urban (U) and Rural (R) S e t t i n g s 161 23. A Comparison of Male (M) and Female (F) STs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 166 24. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by Male (M) and Female (F) STs 168 25. A Comparison of Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) STs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 170 26. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by STs i n Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) S e t t i n g s 173 27. A Comparison of Male (M) and Female (F) CTs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 176 28. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by Male (M) and Female (F) CTs 178 29. A Comparison of Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) CTs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages 180 30. D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by CTs i n Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) S e t t i n g s 182 31. Across Group Agreement/Disagreemnt Summary Findings i n R e l a t i o n t o P e r t i n e n t L i t e r a t u r e 190 32. Within Group Variance Summary Findings and Related Research L i t e r a t u r e 201 33. P o t e n t i a l Role C o n f l i c t and Role Ambiguity Summary Findings and Related Research Literature..206 x i v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Garland's Model 68 2. T r i a d i c I n t e r a c t i o n Among Members of the Student Teaching T r i a d 7 0 3. T r i a d i c I n t e r a c t i o n Among and Between Members of the Student Teaching T r i a d 7 4 4. P o s s i b l e Patterns of Response Among Respondent Groups 91 5. P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and the Three Respondent Groups f o r the FA Role 152 6. P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and the Three Respondent Groups f o r the ST Role 164 7 . P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and the Three Respondent Groups f o r the CT Role 185 xv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n s are seldom completed i n i s o l a t i o n and without the support and a s s i s t a n c e of f r i e n d s , and now, colleagues. I- would l i k e to thank my research committee: Dr. Ian Housego, my chairman, Dr. Peter Grimmett and Dr. Harold R a t z l a f f , my research co-supervisors and Dr. Graham Kelsey f o r t h e i r d i r e c t i o n and undaunting f a i t h . I would a l s o l i k e to thank Dr. John Brewster, f o r without h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n i t i s u n l i k e l y t h i s p r o j e c t would have reached f r u i t i o n . My s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n i s extended to Dr. John Oster and Mr. Al K i f f i a k at the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a f o r making the arrangements necessary to survey the respondents described i n t h i s study. I would l i k e to thank my very good f r i e n d s at Red Deer College: Dr. Janet Panuska, Dr. Torben Andersen, Dr. B i l l Stuebing, and Dr. John Tobias f o r t h e i r s t r e n g t h when I needed i t and t h e i r confidence i n me to complete t h i s study. I would a l s o l i k e to acknowledge and thank my parents, Jean Ryan, and Amy and Jack Brewster f o r t h e i r never ending support and 'west coast h o s p i t a l i t y ' . F i n a l l y , I am e s p e c i a l l y g r a t e f u l to my w i f e , M a r t i , f o r her t i r e l e s s support, encouragement and love, and to my c h i l d r e n , Roby and R i c h e l l e , f o r t h e i r patience and forbearance, a l l of which, enabled me to br i n g c l o s u r e t o t h i s chapter of my l i f e . x v i CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , student teacher, and cooperating teacher form what i s r e f e r r e d t o i n the l i t e r a t u r e as the student teaching t r i a d . In t h i s t r a d i t i o n a l student teaching model, the student teacher i s placed i n a school under the auspices of a cooperating teacher. The u n i v e r s i t y assigns a sup e r v i s o r to oversee t h i s o n - s i t e experience. The membership of t h i s group i s c l e a r l y defined but the r o l e s are le s s so and, as Watts (1987) p o i n t s out, " T r a d i t i o n r a t h e r than e m p i r i c a l evidence seems to be the basi s f o r t h i s arrangement" (p. 152). Since Garland's (1965) i n i t i a l study of the r o l e of the student teacher i n the i n t e r a c t i o n system of the student teaching t r i a d , the subject of r o l e expectations held among the groups representing each of the three members of the t r i a d has been v a r i o u s l y explored. Zimpher (1987) bemoans the current s t a t e of research on u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r s and s t a t e s t h a t " r a r e l y i n the student teaching l i t e r a t u r e does the [ r o l e of the] u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r become c e n t r a l to the d i s c u s s i o n " (p. 119). Further co m p l i c a t i n g the r o l e of the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r i s the low s t a t u s afforded t h i s r o l e w i t h i n the f a c u l t y : "In many u n i v e r s i t i e s , s u p e r v i s i o n of student teachers ranks at the bottom of the academic b a r r e l " (Horton & Harvey 1979, p. 56). 1 2 In commenting on the l e g a l s t a t u s of the student teacher i n the United S t a t e s , Watts (1987) suggests t h i s issue needs r e s o l v i n g as there i s l i t t l e agreement f o r the r o l e of the student teacher. Gettone (1980) b e l i e v e s t h a t "the student teacher's problem with r o l e d e f i n i t i o n may a f f e c t the maximization of the teacher t r a i n i n g experience" (p. 99). A number of researchers have i d e n t i f i e d the need to c l a r i f y the expectations of the cooperating teacher: Diem & S c h n i t z , 1978; Gallemore, 1981; Yoder & Arms, 1981; Horton & Harvey, 1979; Reniham & Schwier, 1980. The recent trend i n teacher education programs to place an increased emphasis on c l i n i c a l experiences puts a major su p e r v i s o r y burden on the cooperating teacher with few c l e a r l y defined r o l e expectations and l i t t l e more than nominal support from u n i v e r s i t y personnel (Redburn, 1981). The r o l e each member plays i n the student teaching t r i a d i s determined by a set of expectations a p p l i e d to the occupant of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n . The i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the student teaching ' s o c i a l system' i s governed by the expectations held by each member. Role expectations are those f u n c t i o n s and behaviors expected of the i n d i v i d u a l which c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of a given p o s i t i o n and which are held both by the i n d i v i d u a l and by other s . Role agreement occurs when s i m i l a r r o l e expectations are held by members f o r the occupant of a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n . Garland (1982) suggests t h a t such agreement i s oft e n assumed to e x i s t when i n r e a l i t y i t does not. She contends that each member of the t r i a d approaches the student teaching experience with expectations 3 derived from a d i f f e r e n t frame of reference and she emphasizes the need t o i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y these e x p e c t a t i o n s . The absence of such c l a r i f i c a t i o n could lead to i n e f f e c t i v e r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r o l e c o n f l i c t where c o n t r a d i c t o r y r o l e e x pectations are held f o r the occupant of a p o s i t i o n . A c l e a r e r understanding of the r o l e expectations f o r members of the t r i a d i s needed i f the student teaching experience i s t o be improved as a major dimension i n the prep a r a t i o n of prospective teachers. The problem addressed i n t h i s study, then, i s to gain knowledge about who i s expected to do what i n the cooperative f u n c t i o n i n g of the t r i a d i n the student teaching f i e l d experience. D e s c r i b i n g r o l e behavior f o r members of the student teaching t r i a d i s made d i f f i c u l t by the lack of c l a r i t y with respect t o r o l e expectations. Few e m p i r i c a l s t u d i e s have examined the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p of the r o l e expectations held by members of the student teaching t r i a d . Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985), who studi e d the r o l e expectations f o r the three p o s i t i o n s , s t a t e that "we s t i l l know l i t t l e about the student teaching t r i a d and the r o l e s each r e s p e c t i v e member i s expected t o play" (p. 9). In the Province of A l b e r t a , where data f o r t h i s study were c o l l e c t e d , no i n v e s t i g a t i o n on r o l e e x pectations has been reported. E a r l i e r s t u d i e s by Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971) report t h a t members of the t r i a d lack awareness or knowledge about the r o l e expectations held both f o r t h e i r own p o s i t i o n and f o r the other p o s i t i o n s i n the student teaching t r i a d . Further, these w r i t e r s found a lack of 4 communication among the members of the t r i a d and contend t h a t a lack of awareness f o r r o l e expectations combined with i n e f f e c t i v e communication represent p o s s i b l e sources of c o n f l i c t . Diem and Schnitz (1978) point out t h a t "student teaching i s a t r i p a r t i t e partnership i n which the r e l a t i o n s h i p between each member remains s u b s t a n t i a l l y undefined" (p. 72). Zeichner (1987) contends that researchers have paid l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to the p o t e n t i a l impact of contextual v a r i a b l e s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between f i e l d experiences and teacher development. Zimpher et a l . (1980) s t a t e t h a t there i s a: need to study the student teaching experience u n t i l the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among p a r t i c i p a n t s are d e l i m i t e d and understood w i t h i n the context of the t o t a l experience (p. 11). The s t u d i e s by Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985, 1986), Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971) each examined student teaching experiences and i n d i v i d u a l respondents i n a number of v a r i e d and d i f f e r e n t contexts. The most evident d i f f e r e n c e s involve time and pla c e , r e f l e c t e d i n the recency of the Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) study and the examination of a Canadian context as contrasted with the American s t u d i e s of Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971). In a d d i t i o n to these two d i f f e r e n c e s a number of others e x i s t among these s t u d i e s . These in c l u d e d i f f e r e n c e s i n : ( i ) the length of the student teaching experience examined, which ranged from three to eighteen weeks; ( i i ) the time, r e l a t i v e to the progress of the student teacher, i n the 5 d i s t r i b u t i o n and completion of the survey; ( i i i ) the geographic l o c a t i o n of the student teaching experience; ( i v ) the d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e number of female student teacher and cooperating teacher respondents i n the American s t u d i e s ; (v) the d i s p a r i t y i n experience between the cooperating teachers i n the Garland (1965) and Kaplan (1967) s t u d i e s ; ( v i ) the l e v e l of student teaching experiences addressed, the American s t u d i e s considered only elementary student teaching experiences, the Canadian study examined student teaching experiences at both the elementary and secondary l e v e l s ; ( v i i ) the ex i s t e n c e of v a r i a t i o n (from 1 to 7) i n the number of u n i v e r s i t i e s or c o l l e g e s represented i n the sample of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . However, p o t e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s associated with these i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s were not examined by these researchers. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY I f student teaching i s to be the core component of the teacher education program, i t i s necessary t o c l a r i f y the expectations f o r each member of the student teaching t r i a d . G r i f f i n (1986) contends t h a t the: r e c i p r o c a l i n f l u e n c e s of ,the student teacher, cooperating teacher, and u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r visor upon one another provide means to bet t e r understand the student teaching experience (p. 246). The primary purpose of t h i s study was to i d e n t i f y the r o l e e x pectations held among the groups representing each of the three members of the student teaching t r i a d both f o r t h e i r 6 own r o l e and f o r th a t of each member. Zeichner (1987) argues t h a t research has not taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the contextual i n f l u e n c e s and v a r i a b l e s i n student teaching and s t a t e s t h a t : the f a i l u r e of s t u d i e s to attend t o the complex, dynamic, and multidimensional nature of s e t t i n g s and people, i n d i v i d u a l l y and i n i n t e r a c t i o n ("the ecology of f i e l d experiences") i s a major reason f o r the current u n s a t i s f a c t o r y s t a t e of our knowledge base r e l a t e d to the i n f l u e n c e of f i e l d experience on teacher development (p. 95). The present study attempts to respond i n part to t h i s d i r e c t i v e by c o n s i d e r i n g the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s of: (1) the gender of each respondent; (2) the l e v e l of the student teaching experience; and (3) the geographic l o c a t i o n of the student teaching experience. The second purpose, then, was to explore d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e expectations which may be associated with c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s . The t h i r d purpose was to uncover areas of p o t e n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity among and w i t h i n the groups represented. S i g n i f i c a n c e of the Study The work of Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971) suggests t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations among student teachers, cooperating teachers and f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s — both f o r t h e i r own r o l e and f o r the r o l e of other members of the t r i a d can be assumed t o be due to d i f f e r e n c e s i n background, goals, and p o s i t i o n . I t i s to t h i s body of knowledge that t h i s study hopes to c o n t r i b u t e e m p i r i c a l evidence about the 7 fu n c t i o n s and behaviors expected of each member of the student teaching t r i a d . Borg and G a l l (1979) s t a t e t h a t the " r e a l value of research l i e s i n developing theory and advancing knowledge so th a t the answers i t does provide are sound and lead t o r e a l gains" (p. 2). They f u r t h e r suggest t h a t research p r o j e c t s t h a t "show promise of making a c o n t r i b u t i o n to educational research" should be r e p l i c a t e d (p. 431). The present study f o l l o w s the work s t a r t e d by Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985) i n the Province of B r i t i s h Columbia and uses the same survey instrument to determine the r o l e expectations held by members of the student teaching t r i a d i n the p r o v i n c i a l context of A l b e r t a . Several important d i f f e r e n c e s d i s t i n g u i s h these two s t u d i e s . F i r s t , the present study examines the expectations held f o r an e i g h t week practicum. The student teachers i n the Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985) study were completing a three week practicum. Secondly, the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n the present study were comprised of b o t h - u n i v e r s i t y based (urban) and f i e l d - b a s e d ( r u r a l ) s u p e r v i s o r s whereas the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n the e a r l i e r study were a l l u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d . T h i r d l y , the student teaching experiences i n the present study were i n both urban and r u r a l s e t t i n g s and included both urban and r u r a l cooperating teachers. The Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985) study examined student teaching experiences hosted i n r u r a l school s e t t i n g s with r u r a l cooperating teachers. F o u r t h l y , the present study examined and reported on a l l three members of the t r i a d whereas the work of Grimmett and R a t z l a f f thus f a r has focussed p r i m a r i l y on the r o l e of the cooperating teacher. F i n a l l y , 8 t h i s study considers a number of i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s common to a l l three respondent groups, described e a r l i e r , which have not yet been addressed by Grimmett and R a t z l a f f . This study then, i n r e p l i c a t i n g the study of Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985), w i l l not only a s s i s t i n the development of a s o l i d research base but w i l l a l s o extend t h e i r work by examining c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s a s s ociated with the student teaching experience. In a report (May 1984) prepared by the Deans of the four f a c u l t i e s of education i n the Province of A l b e r t a and released by the M i n i s t e r of Education, l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n was given to the actual student teaching experience. The Deans s t a t e : Teacher Education programs should be s t r u c t u r e d and presented i n a way i n which w i l l ensure appropriate l i n k i n g and i n t e r r e l a t i n g of knowledge gained through both formal study and p r a c t i c a l experience. Consistent i n t e r p l a y between theory and p r a c t i c e i s e s s e n t i a l i n teacher education and i n teaching; r e f l e c t i o n on the a c t of teaching should be an e s s e n t i a l outgrowth of classroom experiences both on and o f f campus (p.7). The recommendation which stemmed from t h i s statement provides l i t t l e guidance f o r the cooperating teacher. The Deans recommend: The practicum should a f f o r d an arena where cooperating teachers model appropriate behavior and, e q u a l l y important, help p r e - s e r v i c e teachers to appreciate the i n t e r f a c e between theory and p r a c t i c e (p.8). However, t h i s recommendation provides l i t t l e concrete a s s i s t a n c e to members of the student teaching t r i a d . Government and f a c u l t i e s of teacher education i n the Province of A l b e r t a seem to have l i t t l e s o l i d information upon which to 9 descr i b e cooperating teacher behavior. An understanding of the r o l e expectations f o r the cooperating teacher and f o r the other two members of the t r i a d may provide e s s e n t i a l information f o r the d i r e c t i o n of the student teaching experience and i n so doing begin to b u i l d a knowledge base t h a t may o f f e r guidance i n the implementation of t h i s recommendation. The nature of each member's r o l e and incumbent expectations has received l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n r e c e n t l y reported research. This study, then, attempts to add t o the student teaching l i t e r a t u r e by i d e n t i f y i n g the r o l e expectations held f o r each member of the t r i a d and by i d e n t i f y i n g the areas i n which p o t e n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity e x i s t . In so doing, t h i s study helps to provide c l a r i f i c a t i o n and understanding of the student teaching experience f o r teacher educators and student teachers. I t i s hoped that t h i s understanding w i l l lead to improved student teaching experiences and b e t t e r prepared teacher graduates. L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study Three l i m i t a t i o n s are recognized on t h i s study. F i r s t , the researcher was unable t o conduct a follow-up survey of non-respondents to determine i f the respondents represent a biased sample. Borg and G a l l (1979) suggest that follow-up procedures should be employed when more than 20% of the respondents' questionnaires are not returned. Given the t r a n s i e n t nature of the sample, the anonymity of respondents, and the d i f f i c u l t y of reaching students a f t e r the practicum, such a follow-up was not f e a s i b l e . 10 Second, the use of a sample c o n s i s t i n g of student teachers, cooperating teachers, and f a c u l t y advisors p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n an eight-week f i n a l practicum associated with the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a l i m i t s the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of r e s u l t s to teacher education programs with s i m i l a r student teaching experiences. T h i r d , the study i s l i m i t e d by the p r a c t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n t h a t i s g e n e r a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with the student teaching t r i a d . D e l i m i t a t i o n s of the Study The respondents i n t h i s study c o n s i s t e d of elementary and secondary l e v e l student teachers, cooperating teachers, and f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n both urban and r u r a l s e t t i n g s . The study included only those p a r t i c i p a n t s involved i n the 1984-1985 second term 'Phase Three' eight-week f i n a l practicum, o f f e r e d by the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s report i s given i n nine chapters. Chapter 1 has presented the background to and the purpose of the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to student teaching and the r o l e s of each member of the t r i a d . Chapter 3 presents the i n t e r p r e t i v e framework developed from the review of the l i t e r a t u r e , s e t s out the research questions, and o u t l i n e s the method employed i n t h i s study. Chapters 4-7 deal with the pr e s e n t a t i o n and the 11 a n a l y s i s of data. Chapter 8 presents an overview of and and d i s c u s s i o n of the f i n d i n g s i n r e l a t i o n t o the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e . Chapter 9 presents a summary of the study, the co n c l u s i o n s , and the i m p l i c a t i o n s and recommendations f o r p o l i c y makers and f o r f u r t h e r research. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Four areas of the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the present study were reviewed. The f i r s t s e c t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e review examines the assumed importance of student teaching i n the p r e p a r a t i o n of teachers. The second s e c t i o n reviews some of the e a r l i e r r o l e expectation s t u d i e s which examine the terminology used to describe the i n t e r a c t i o n ' among t r i a d members and the d i f f e r e n c e s i n research methodologies and i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s used i n these s t u d i e s . The t h i r d s e c t i o n begins with a d i s c u s s i o n of r o l e theory and then considers the r o l e of each member of the t r i a d . The f i n a l s e c t i o n addresses the lack of knowledge about the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s associated with student teaching. STUDENT TEACHING Student teaching normally occurs i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l year(s) of the student's teacher education program. I t i s considered by many a u t h o r i t i e s to be the c r i t i c a l component of teacher t r a i n i n g (Freeland, 1979; McAteer, 1976; Funk, Hoffman, K e i t h l e y & Long, 1982; Gallemore, 1981; Karmos & Jacko, 1977; Campbell & Williamson, 1983; Ellenburg, 1981). 12 13 Karmos and Jacko (1977) s t a t e : Student teaching i s the major u n i f y i n g experience of most teacher t r a i n i n g programs. I t i s a time f o r the student teacher to explore, experiment, and 'put i t a l l together' before becoming a p r o f e s s i o n a l . The f u t u r e teacher attempts to i d e n t i f y and meet the expectations which come from s e l f , cooperating teachers, u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r s , students and s o c i e t y i n general. S i g n i f i c a n t others d i r e c t and guide r o l e behaviors as they assume the r o l e of coach, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y (p. 51). The value of student teaching to the student teacher has seldom been questioned. There seems l i t t l e doubt t h a t student teachers need an opportunity to apply t h e i r s k i l l s i n a p r a c t i c a l s e t t i n g . However, a l l outcomes of student teaching may not be h e l p f u l . The l i t e r a t u r e suggests that student teachers do undergo a t t i t u d e changes as the r e s u l t of student teaching and that these changes are not always d e s i r a b l e (Zeichner, 1978). Hoy and Rees (1977) report that student teachers become more c u s t o d i a l i n t h e i r p u p i l c o n t r o l behavior and adopt a b u r e a u c r a t i c o r i e n t a t i o n the c l o s e r they get t o the end of the practicum experience. S i l v e r n a i l and C o s t e l l o (1983) i n a review of the l i t e r a t u r e found that by the end of student teaching, student teachers e x h i b i t e d more negative a t t i t u d e s toward c h i l d r e n , were more a u t h o r i t a r i a n and impersonal, l e s s accepting of p u p i l ideas and more r e s t r i c t i v e of p u p i l behavior. Zeichner (1980) suggests that much of the c r i t i c i s m r e l a t e d to the p r a c t i c e of student teaching: 14 centres around the argument th a t f i e l d - b a s e d experiences are conservative i n s t i t u t i o n s which serve merely to s o c i a l i z e prospective teachers i n t o e s t a b l i s h e d patterns of school p r a c t i c e (p. 45). S a l z i l l o and VanFleet (1977) contend t h a t "the l a r g e s t unvalidated segment of p r o f e s s i o n a l education programs i s the student teaching area" (p. 28). There seems to be some doubt about the assumption t h a t the student teaching experience, i n i t s present form, holds b e n e f i c i a l e f f e c t s f o r a l l student teachers. Watts (1987), a f t e r conducting an extensive review of the l i t e r a t u r e i n student teaching concludes t h a t : (1) the e x i s t i n g research i n d i c a t e s t h a t current student teaching programs are g e n e r a l l y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y and do not achieve the goals of teacher education and (2) that c u r r e n t research e f f o r t s on student teaching are inadequate. In view of the present shortcomings he maintains t h a t " . . . i t does not deserve i t s p r i v i l e d g e d s t a t u s " (p. 165). A major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r f a c u l t i e s of teacher education, then, i s an examination of the the expectations held f o r the c l i n i c a l experience t o ensure that the espoused goals of student teaching are c l e a r l y s t a t e d and t h a t what goes on i n the schools i s congruent with these goals. The t r a d i t i o n a l model of student teaching includes a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the student teacher, cooperating teacher and f a c u l t y a d visor (Mclntyre & Morris,1980). T y p i c a l l y , the student i s placed i n a classroom s e t t i n g , the placement being made by the u n i v e r s i t y i n c o n s u l t a t i o n with the school d i s t r i c t . The teacher of t h a t classroom assumes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the student i n cooperation with the u n i v e r s i t y and so 15 d e r i v e s h i s or her t i t l e . The u n i v e r s i t y assigns a f a c u l t y member or graduate student t o a s s i s t i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of the student teacher and to provide l i a i s o n between the u n i v e r s i t y and the school. In a study of cooperating teacher, student teacher and u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r perceptions of the importance and achievement of o b j e c t i v e s i n the student teaching experience, Gallemore (1981) found t h a t the gr e a t e s t s i m i l a r i t y of views was held between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher and the g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e i n views between the cooperating teacher and the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r . Her research a l s o showed a d e f i n i t e lack of r e l a t i o n s h i p between what student teaching personnel perceived t o be important outcomes and what student teachers achieved. She concludes by suggesting t h a t : Perhaps the lack of agreement about perceptions r e l a t e d to these r o l e s i s a r e s u l t of disagreement between the purposes of student teaching. I f s i g n i f i c a n t agreement could be reached about expectations f o r the student teacher, the task of what r o l e s the cooperating teacher and the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r would play i n helping the student teacher achieve s p e c i f i c competencies might be more e a s i l y defined (p. 188). Garland (1982) contends t h a t i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c l i n i c a l experiences to examine c a r e f u l l y the r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s a p p l i e d t o t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g . She maintains t h a t consensus about r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s i s o f t e n assumed to e x i s t when i n r e a l i t y i t does not. The outcome i s p o t e n t i a l misunderstanding, c o n f l i c t and the development of i n e f f e c t i v e r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Lipton and Lessor's (1978) analogy i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s 16 contention. They describe the t r i a d as a f a m i l y u n i t with the cooperating teacher and f a c u l t y a d visor as the heads of the f a m i l y ; and the student teacher as e i t h e r "helper, b a b y s i t t e r , e l d e s t s i b l i n g or j u s t a guest; but never a co-equal f a m i l y head" (p. 57). They suggest, as i n many f a m i l y u n i t s , c o n f l i c t between f a m i l y heads a r i s e s over content and p h i l o s o p h i c a l i ssues and over which s u p e r v i s o r w i l l be the favored parent. They contend t h a t the student i s " l i k e a c h i l d i n a dy s f u n c t i o n a l f a m i l y t r i a n g l e , [ i n t h a t ] he or she has the impossible task of p l e a s i n g both parents" (p. 58). They conclude t h a t d i s r u p t i o n occurs i n c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e areas of student teacher l e a r n i n g because of the nature of the student teaching t r i a d and propose a re-examination of t h i s teacher t r a i n i n g model. This review suggests t h a t student teaching i s widely assumed to be a c r i t i c a l component i n the preparation of student teachers. However, the v a l i d i t y of student teaching has r e c e n t l y been questioned (Watts, 1987; S a l z i l l o & VanFleet, 1977). Is the student teaching experience accomplishing what f a c u l t i e s of teacher education d e s i r e and expect or i s i t merely s o c i a l i z i n g student teachers to the conservative norms of school p r a c t i c e (Zeichner, 1980)? The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the t r a d i t i o n a l model of student teaching has a l s o been questioned. I s i t a dy s f u n c t i o n a l t r i a n g l e as Lipton and Lessor (1980) suggest? Is i t the most appropriate model of student teaching? Do members of the t r i a d have c l e a r l y defined r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , both f o r themselves and f o r the other two members of the t r i a d ? Several w r i t e r s have 1 7 addressed these questions by examining the r o l e expectations held f o r members of the t r i a d . STUDIES OF ROLE EXPECTATIONS Three s t u d i e s examining the r o l e expectations of t r i a d members were conducted i n the United States i n the 1960's and e a r l y 1970's and one i n Canada i n the 1980's. Garland (1965) s t u d i e d the r o l e of the student teacher, Kaplan (1967) the r o l e of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , and C a s t i l l o (1971) and Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) the r o l e of the cooperating teacher. The purpose of these s t u d i e s was t o determine the r o l e expectations held f o r re s p e c t i v e members of the student teaching t r i a d i n terms of consensus or c o n f l i c t . Although a s i m i l a r framework f o r r o l e a n a l y s i s was used i n each research p r o j e c t , a number of methodological and contextual d i f f e r e n c e s were found among these s t u d i e s . Garland (1965) and Kaplan (1967) maintain that i t i s p o s s i b l e to c l a s s i f y expectations according t o the pattern of responses reported f o r each item by the three respondent groups. These w r i t e r s r e f e r to t h i s as i n t e r p o s i t i o n consensus which c o n s i s t s of: 1) agreement; 2) d i f f e r e n t amounts of agreement; and 3) disagreement. In these two s t u d i e s agreement i s defined as high consensus (90-100%) among a l l three respondent groups f o r a given survey item. C a s t i l l o (1971) a l s o uses the term i n t e r p o s i t i o n consensus. However, i n h i s study, high consensus ranges from 86-10096 and agreement f o r a given item i s achieved when two or more groups report a s i m i l a r 18 pa t t e r n of responses. This d e f i n i t i o n f a i l s t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between what might be termed t r i a d i c agreement, that i s , when a l l three respondent groups respond i n a s i m i l a r pattern f o r a given item, and dyadic agreement, t h a t i s , when only two of the three respondent groups respond i n a s i m i l a r pattern f o r a given item. Garland (1965) and Kaplan (1967) seem to use agreement to r e f e r to t r i a d i c agreement whereas C a s t i l l o (1971) uses agreement to r e f e r to both t r i a d i c and dyadic agreement without d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between them. Lack of c l e a r l y defined terminology i s f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e d i n the second part of i n t e r p o s i t i o n consensus or d i f f e r e n t amounts of agreement. Garland (1965) and Kaplan (1967) used four c a t e g o r i e s t o describe d i f f e r e n t amounts of agreement from high consensus: high-moderate consensus (80-89*); moderate consensus (70-79%); low-moderate consensus (60-69%) and low consensus (50-59%). C a s t i l l o (1971) used only two c a t e g o r i e s ; moderate consensus (71-85%) and low consensus (51-70%). No explanation i s provided as t o how these w r i t e r s determined t h e i r response c a t e g o r i e s . Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986), on the other hand, used the chi-square goodness-of-fit t e s t at the .01 l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to v e r i f y agreement and d i d not attempt to determine v a r i o u s degrees of agreement. The f i n a l aspect of i n t e r p o s i t i o n consensus, disagreement, "includes those items which r e f l e c t a tendency toward disagreement among the responses of the three groups" (Garland, 1965 p.48, Kaplan, 1967 p.29). Unfortunately, n e i t h e r of these w r i t e r s defines what i s meant by 'tendency 19 toward disagreement' or p r e c i s e l y how t h i s i s determined. C a s t i l l o (1971) does not define disagreement, although he does suggest t h a t low consensus items were considered p o t e n t i a l sources of c o n f l i c t among the three groups. A l l four r o l e expectation s t u d i e s used patterns of response among respondent groups to determine consensus or lack of consensus f o r r o l e items. The term ' i n t e r p o s i t i o n consensus' has been used i n c o n s i s t e n t l y and defined according to d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a . As w e l l , i n the American s t u d i e s i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t the various a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d response c a t e g o r i e s and methods f o r determining disagreement would be able t o withstand the r i g o r of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . In order to d e f i n e c l e a r l y the r o l e expectations held f o r each t r i a d member and the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the t r i a d , c o n s i s t e n t terminology must be developed which can a c c u r a t e l y describe and defi n e t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n . I t i s d i f f i c u l t to conduct f o l l o w up research when i n c o n s i s t e n t terminology i s used but even more so when there are variances i n methodological procedures. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n research methodology may e x i s t between these s t u d i e s . Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) c l e a r l y s t a t e that the purpose of t h e i r research was t o examine the f u n c t i o n s t r i a d members should or should not be expected to perform. From the i n s t r u c t i o n s provided on C a s t i l l o ' s survey instrument i t appears t h a t he too was i n t e r e s t e d i n the fu n c t i o n s cooperating teachers should or should not be expected to perform. However, i n d i s c u s s i n g the l i m i t a t i o n s of h i s study C a s t i l l o (1971) s t a t e s : 20 The main focus of t h i s study i s the viewpoints of student teachers, c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r s , and cooperating teachers on the r o l e expectations f o r cooperating teachers. The r o l e s that are r e f e r r e d t o are the act u a l r o l e s of cooperating teachers, not t h e i r behavior as p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l s , but what they do as occupants of the p o s i t i o n (p. 8). I t i s unclear whether C a s t i l l o (1971) examined a c t u a l behavior of cooperating teachers, that i s , what they p r e s e n t l y do as cooperating teachers or expected behavior of cooperating teachers, t h a t i s , what they b e l i e v e they should or should not do as cooperating teachers. Further, i f t h i s confusion was present among respondents at the time the survey instruments were completed, C a s t i l l o ' s (1971) f i n d i n g s must be considered with extreme c a u t i o n . A number of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the student teaching context were a l s o found among these s t u d i e s . With the exception of the Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) study, r o l e expectations of t r i a d members were stud i e d at the elementary l e v e l only. Do t r i a d members i n elementary s e t t i n g s hold the same or s i m i l a r views f o r each member's r o l e as t h e i r secondary counterparts? Further, 77-92% of the cooperating teacher and student teacher respondent groups i n the American s t u d i e s were female. Can i t be assumed th a t female, as d i s t i n c t from male, cooperating teachers and student teachers hold s i m i l a r expectations f o r t h e i r own r o l e and f o r the r o l e s of the other members of the t r i a d ? Experience as a p a r t i c i p a n t i n student teaching practicums may a l s o i n f l u e n c e the perceptions of t r i a d members and the r o l e expectations they hold. The cooperating teachers i n Garland's (1965) study were comparatively inexperienced, 75% 21 having supervised l e s s than three student teachers and 19% having no previous experience. On the other hand, the cooperating teachers i n Kaplan's (1967) study were con s i d e r a b l y more experienced, 75% having p r e v i o u s l y supervised more than three student teachers and 38% more than seven student teachers. The experience of the student teacher seems to be a s s o c i a t e d with the number of weeks of student teaching completed and the nature of the practicum. The student teachers i n the Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) study completed the survey during the f i n a l three-week phase of a 10-week d i s t r i b u t e d practicum. The American s t u d i e s f e a t u r e d semester long practicums ranging from 15 to 18 weeks. The student teachers i n the Garland (1965) study were surveyed p r i o r t o t h e i r student teaching experience whereas the student teachers i n the Kaplan (1967) study were surveyed a f t e r the completion of student teaching; but the student teachers i n the C a s t i l l o (1971) study were surveyed during t h e i r student teaching experience. Garland's (1965) study examined the r o l e expectations held f o r student teachers. I t must be questioned how we l l the prospective student teachers i n her study understood the r o l e of the student teacher when they had not yet p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a student teaching experience. Would they have responded to the survey items i n a s i m i l a r f a s h i o n i f they had completed i t at the conclusion of t h e i r practicum? A d i f f e r e n t group, completing the survey at the end of t h e i r student teaching, would have provided some us e f u l data with regard to p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e e x pectations held 22 between experienced as d i s t i n c t from inexperienced student teachers. D i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found among the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r respondent groups i n these s t u d i e s and the geographic l o c a t i o n s of the student teaching experiences. The f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n the Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) study were a l l from one major u n i v e r s i t y i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia. However, these u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s were s u p e r v i s i n g student teachers and working with cooperating teachers i n r u r a l student teaching s e t t i n g s only. Kaplan's (1967) f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s were s i m i l a r l y a l l from one u n i v e r s i t y but were s u p e r v i s i n g student teachers i n both urban and r u r a l l o c a t i o n s . The f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n the Garland (1965) and C a s t i l l o (1971) s t u d i e s a l s o supervised i n both urban and r u r a l s e t t i n g s ; however, the respondents i n these s t u d i e s were from three and e i g h t u n i v e r s i t i e s or c o l l e g e s , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s from e i g h t u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s or even three would share s i m i l a r educational p h i l o s o p h i e s or i d e o l o g i e s . How might the d i f f e r e n c e s have a f f e c t e d the f i n d i n g s i n these l a t t e r two s t u d i e s ? Would f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s s u p e r v i s i n g i n urban, as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l s e t t i n g s , hold d i f f e r e n t r o l e expectations f o r t r i a d members? S i m i l a r l y , do urban cooperating teachers hold d i f f e r e n t r o l e expectations from t h e i r r u r a l counterparts? Role e x p e c t a t i o n s t u d i e s have not addressed the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with s e v e r a l contextual v a r i a b l e s f o r the r o l e expectations held among and w i t h i n the respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d . The nature of 23 these d i f f e r e n c e s , and indeed, whether or not there are d i f f e r e n c e s remains l a r g e l y unexplored. ROLE THEORY AND TRIAD MEMBER'S ROLES Role Theory The t r a d i t i o n a l model of student teaching, discussed e a r l i e r , i s comprised of three members. Each member, w i t h i n t h i s t r i a d i c arrangement, occupies a p o s i t i o n or s t a t u s and performs a r o l e . L inton (1949) maintains t h a t r o l e and s t a t u s , though r e l a t e d , are not i d e n t i c a l and should be c a r e f u l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d from each other. He describes s t a t u s as the "standing a person or group holds i n r e l a t i o n or reference to the p o s i t i o n of another person or group...in a c u l t u r a l l y defined s c a l e of p r e s t i g e and power." Role r e f e r s to the " i n d i v i d u a l ' s f u n c t i o n , performance, or 'doing' d i r e c t e d t o some aim, be i t work, play, or other a c t i v i t y . " Levinson (1964) suggests there may be some confusion i n the s p e c i f i c sense i n which the term ' r o l e ' has been used. He maintains t h a t r o l e has been defined as: (1) the s t r u c t u r a l l y given demands associated with a given s o c i a l p o s i t i o n , (2) the member's o r i e n t a t i o n or conception of the part he i s to play i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and (3) the a c t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l members i n terms of t h e i r relevance f o r the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e (p. 284, 285). The term ' r o l e ' i s oft e n used i n a way that i n c l u d e s a l l three d e f i n i t i o n s and has i t s o r i g i n i n the w r i t i n g s of Linton (1949). This general perspective includes both the i n d i v i d u a l ' s normative environment ( d e f i n i t i o n number 1) and 24 h i s or her unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( d e f i n i t i o n s number 1 and 2). In the student teaching s e t t i n g , then, members of the t r i a d b r i n g t h e i r conceptions t o the s t r u c t u r e of student teaching and behave i n accordance with t h e i r perceived set of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l norms. Levinson (1964) warns t h a t i t i s commonly assumed th a t the expectations " f o r any p o s i t i o n are as a r u l e defined with a high degree of e x p l i c i t n e s s , c l a r i t y and consensus among a l l p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d . " That the assumption does not n e c e s s a r i l y hold t r u e i s emphasized i n a study conducted by Cheal and Andrews (1958) i n the Province of A l b e r t a . Cheal and Andrews (1958) examined instances of c o n f l i c t i n the r o l e of the p r i n c i p a l and found many i n c o n s i s t e n t and incompatible expectations among a l t e r groups. These authors used the term r o l e as "the expected p a t t e r n of behavior attached t o a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u s i n an i n s t i t u t i o n " (p. 222). They reported, contrary to r o l e theory, t h a t i t was the p r i n c i p a l ' s own conception of h i s or her r o l e t h a t determined h i s or her r o l e behavior. This f i n d i n g may be a t t r i b u t e d to the small sample of only two p r i n c i p a l s . They conclude, however, by s t a t i n g t h a t according to the r o l e t h e o r i s t s , the p r i n c i p a l cannot de f i n e h i s or her r o l e i n i s o l a t i o n and that i t i s a product of a l l a l t e r group expectations. I t i s assumed, then, t h a t the r o l e of each member of the student teaching t r i a d i s defined both by the i n d i v i d u a l member and the other two members of the t r i a d and th a t each r o l e has a set of expectations f o r the behavior of the occupant of each p o s i t i o n . The remainder of t h i s s e c t i o n examines the 25 r o l e of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , student teacher, and cooperating teacher and addresses the i n f l u e n c e each member has w i t h i n the t r i a d , the s e l e c t i o n and prepar a t i o n of each member, some of the r o l e expectations held f o r each member, and some of the problems encountered by each member. Role of the Faculty Advisor The u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r has a demanding, almost impossible r o l e i n a student teaching program (Knop, 1977). She suggests t h a t decreased u n i v e r s i t y funding, excessive numbers of student teachers, and long distance placements r e s u l t i n f a t i g u e and f r u s t r a t i o n on the part of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . Jacko and Karmos (1978) contend t h a t the f a c u l t y a d visor has a unique r o l e : He can be found on the road, out i n the f i e l d , i n the classroom, and on the playground. They act as everything from c o n s u l t a n t t o ombudsman f o r both student teachers and cooperating teachers. When compared to most on-campus f a c u l t y members, supervisors are a t y p i c a l of u n i v e r s i t y personnel (p.21). The r o l e of the f a c u l t y advisor has received l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Zimpher (1987), i n an extensive review on u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s i o n s t a t e s , "At every t u r n , the reviewer d e c r i e d the sor r y s t a t e of research on student teaching i n general and on u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s i o n " (p. 128). Often the r o l e i s mentioned c u r s o r i l y as i f only to acknowledge ex i s t e n c e (see, f o r example, Zalokar and LoGuidice, 1982; Gustafson, 1980; and H a t t i e et a l . 1982). Zimpher, deVoss and Nott (1980) suggest t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y supervisor has been unduly c r i t i c i z e d and they contend t h a t the r o l e i s extremely 26 comp1 ex. Bowman (1979) suggests t h a t f a c u l t y s u p e r v i s i o n of student teachers wastes valuable resources and maintains t h a t : Since, according to some evidence, the supervisor doesn't have a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the development of student teachers, the most s e n s i b l e plan would be to stop s u p e r v i s i n g (p. 30). This plan may be a l i t t l e premature given the lack of research upon which i t i s based. Mclntyre (1984) argues t h a t : Although the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r ' s r o l e has been the one most often targeted f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n or e l i m i n a t i o n , there i s evidence to suggest t h a t such a move would be i l l - a d v i s e d (p. 44). Influence of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . A number of w r i t e r s question the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r i n attempting t o perform h i s or her r o l e ( E l l e n b u r g , 1981; Emans, 1983; Funk, 1982; Horton and Harvey, 1979; K i l g o r e , 1979; Bowman, 1979; Lipton and Lesser, 1978). Zeichner (1978) suggests that the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r has l i t t l e or no e f f e c t on the a t t i t u d e s and behaviors of the student teacher. Mclntyre and Morris (1980), however, contend that the research concerning the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r i s not c l e a r . They suggest the l i t e r a t u r e on the i n f l u e n c e of the f a c u l t y advisor has not been as c l e a r l y documented as that of the cooperating teacher and that the f a c u l t y a dvisor has been shown to be h e l p f u l i n improving teaching s k i l l s and i n p r o v i d i n g suggestions about what to do i n s p e c i f i c instances. They maintain t h a t i n f l u e n c e i s more a f u n c t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people involved than the p o s i t i o n s they hold. The nature of the i n f l u e n c e the f a c u l t y advisor e x e r t s on the student teacher and the cooperating teacher w i t h i n the student teaching t r i a d i s not w e l l understood. I f , as Zeichner (1978) and others contend, the f a c u l t y advisor has l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e on the other two members of the t r i a d , i t may be th a t the r o l e expectations held f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n are e i t h e r unclear or l i m i t e d . S e l e c t i o n and preparation of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . I t might be assumed that the s e l e c t i o n of the f a c u l t y advisor would i n v o l v e a f a i r l y j u d i c i o u s process given the espoused importance of the student teaching experience. However, as Ell e n b u r g (1981) contends, "student teaching has been at the bottom of the p r o f e s s i o n a l ladder i n most c o l l e g e s and un f o r t u n a t e l y s t i l l has that unenviable s t a t u s " (p. 202). Emans (1983) suggests that even i n f a c u l t i e s of education, teacher education receives a low p r i o r i t y . Knop (1977) s t a t e s : I t must be admitted t h a t , at most i n s t i t u t i o n s , s u p e r v i s i o n of student teachers i s not u s u a l l y an a c t i v i t y which i s given r e c o g n i t i o n i n the form of p r o f e s s i o n a l advancement, f i n a n c i a l rewards, or p o s i t i o n s of p r e s t i g e (p. 623). Jacko and Karmos (1978) take the p o s i t i o n t h a t being a f a c u l t y a d v i s o r presents problems f o r securing tenure and promotion. Bowman (1979) claims that "often i t wastes f a c u l t y members' careers" (p. 29). Who then, would a s p i r e to be a f a c u l t y advisor or want to be s e l e c t e d as one? The preparation required to be a f a c u l t y advisor has not been reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I t i s perhaps assumed th a t the preparation needed to become a f a c u l t y member i s s u f f i c i e n t . However, t h i s could be questioned. Conducting 28 research and teaching graduate and undergraduate courses at the u n i v e r s i t y and p r o v i d i n g s u p e r v i s i o n f o r student teachers are two d i f f e r e n t r o l e s and both would appear to require appropriate p r e p a r a t i o n . Bowman (1979) notes t h a t few f a c u l t i e s of education make any s e r i o u s attempt to determine the competence of u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r s . Knop (1977) s t a t e s t h a t -'We who are sup e r v i s o r s are not born t o the r o l e ; i n f a c t , we are u s u a l l y not even t r a i n e d f o r the r o l e " (p. 623). Yates (1981) repo r t s t h a t none of the responding i n s t i t u t i o n s i n t h e i r study provide t r a i n i n g programs f o r f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . This f i n d i n g , as s i g n i f i c a n t as i t may be, does not n e c e s s a r i l y represent what occurs i n Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s . However, can f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s with l i t t l e or no prepar a t i o n f o r t h i s r o l e , knowing the p o s i t i o n o f f e r s few rewards, be expected t o have a c l e a r understanding of the r o l e of the f a c u l t y a d visor? I t may be t h a t the cu r r e n t inadequate procedures f o r s e l e c t i n g and preparing f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s add to the lack of c l a r i t y of r o l e expectations i n the student teaching t r i a d . Role expectations f o r the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . Cohn (1981) suggests t h a t i n the t r a d i t i o n a l model of student teaching the f a c u l t y advisor t y p i c a l l y monitors and assesses the student teacher's progress, i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c areas of d i f f i c u l t y , o f f e r s advice, and performs a l i a i s o n f u n c t i o n by keeping i n touch with cooperating teachers and p r i n c i p a l s . Martin and Sheehan (1982) found t h a t cooperating teachers expected f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s to work d i r e c t l y with the student teacher on a one-to-one basis observing, a n a l y s i n g , and 29 c o u n s e l l i n g and making recommendations f o r student teacher improvement. Zimpher et a l . (1980) found t h a t the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r i n t h e i r study performed three formal r o l e s . The f i r s t was d e f i n i n g and communicating the purposes and expectations of the student teaching experience. The second r e l a t e d t o phasing the student teacher i n t o the cooperating teacher's classroom. The t h i r d r o l e had to do with e v a l u a t i o n and p r o v i d i n g c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m . They found t h a t cooperating teachers d i d not provide feedback of a c r i t i c a l nature. An 'extra-formal' r o l e the f a c u l t y advisor performed was t h a t of personal confidante t o both the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. Zimpher e t a l . ' s (1980) f i n d i n g s , though data-based, have d e f i n i t e l i m i t a t i o n s because the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s t u d i e d only one f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , three cooperating teachers and three student teachers. The methods of s u p e r v i s i o n p r a c t i c e d by f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s are i n f r e q u e n t l y reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Cohn (1981) suggests that f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s use a v a r i a t i o n of c l i n i c a l s u p e r v i s i o n : S p o r a d i c a l l y the u n i v e r s i t y - d e s i g n a t e d i n d i v i d u a l a r r i v e s on the school premises, enters the novice's classroom, observes and takes notes, and then arranges a conference during lunch or f r e e p e r i o d s . The conference i s u s u a l l y a s u p e r v i s o i — l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the lesson observed, f o c u s s i n g on c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s , s i g n i f i c a n t p a t t e r n s , strengths and weaknesses, and s t r a t e g i e s f o r change (p. 26). That t h i s i s the most common method of s u p e r v i s i o n i s questionable s i n c e i t i s based on Cohn's experience "over the years." This may or may not be the most t y p i c a l s t y l e of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s u p e r v i s i o n ; however, i t would appear to bear 30 l i t t l e resemblance to phases of c l i n i c a l s u p e r v i s i o n developed by Cogan (1973) or Goldhammer (1969). Funk et a l . (1982) found t h a t cooperating teachers rated the o v e r a l l s u p e r v i s i o n of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s as "not impressive" (p. 320). R e i f f (1980) p o i n t s out the importance of e f f e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n procedures to ensure t h a t only the competent student teachers graduate and receive c e r t i f i c a t i o n . In most student teaching programs the f a c u l t y advisor has the r e s p o n s i b i 1 i t y of completing the student teaching e v a l u a t i o n report form. The v a l i d i t y of the information contained i n these rep o r t s has been questioned by Johnson and Hodge (1981). They suggest t h a t the l i m i t e d number of d i r e c t observations s e v e r e l y a f f e c t s the judgments t h a t f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s can make on the student teacher's classroom a b i l i t i e s . The number of v i s i t s by the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r seems to vary by i n s t i t u t i o n . Yates (1981) repor t s t h a t the average number of v i s i t s received by student teachers i n England i s one v i s i t a t i o n every seven working days. Bowman (1979), w r i t i n g from the U n i v e r s i t y of Kansas, s t a t e s t h a t i n a 16-week f i e l d experience f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s are expected to make f i v e v i s i t s . She a l s o notes t h a t f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s have extreme d i f f i c u l t i e s i n arranging school v i s i t a t i o n s . Mclntyre and Morris (1980), from a n a t i o n a l survey, r e p o r t t h a t f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s observe one hour of d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n every two weeks. The i n a b i l i t y of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s to spend more time i n the s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of student teachers places f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n an unenviable p o s i t i o n . How much time can f a c u l t y advisors be expected to spend s u p e r v i s i n g and e v a l u a t i n g student teachers given the 31 c o n s t r a i n t s of t h e i r p o s i t i o n ; and how can i t be determined i f a l l members of the t r i a d hold s i m i l a r views with respect t o the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s r o l e i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of the student teacher? I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that i n the B r i t i s h model of student teaching as reported by Jacobs and Foster (1980) the c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r plays a more c r i t i c a l r o l e i n the e v a l u a t i o n of the student teacher. The f a c u l t y a d v i s o r i n t h i s model i s s o l e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of the student teacher's progress and determines whether or not he or she w i l l r e ceive c e r t i f i c a t i o n . The f a i r n e s s of t h i s system seems questionable given the infrequency of f a c u l t y advisor v i s i t a t i o n s . Problems of the f a c u l t y a dvisor. A number of the problems f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s encounter have already been discussed: l i t t l e or no s t a t u s w i t h i n the academic i n s t i t u t i o n ; d i f f e r e n c e s i n p o i n t of view and philosophy between f a c u l t y advisor and cooperating teacher r e s u l t i n g i n p o s s i b l e r o l e c o n f l i c t ; lack of c r e d i b i l i t y i n the schools as viewed by both the cooperating teacher and the student teacher p a r t i c u l a r l y i n terms of e v a l u a t i o n ; lack of preparation t o f u l f i l t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; l i t t l e or no i n f l u e n c e on the a t t i t u d e and behaviors of student teachers; and a lack of c l a r i t y with respect to t h e i r r o l e . Faculty a d v i s o r s face other d i f f i c u l t i e s as w e l l . M a r t in and Sheehan (1982) contend t h a t both student teachers and cooperating teachers want f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s to spend more time i n t h e i r schools. One of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s 32 major problems i s a lack of time ( C o l l i n s et al.,1983). Horton and Harvey (1979) p o i n t out that f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s have d i f f i c u l t y ' f i n d i n g time' given the l o g i s t i c s of t h e i r workload. F a c u l t y a d v i s o r s are expected to be productive i n terms of research, teach c l a s s e s and supervise i n c r e a s i n g numbers of student teachers placed i n d i f f e r e n t schools — a l l at the same time. C l e a r l y , t h i s i s a d i f f i c u l t task and perhaps an u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n . Southhall and King (1979) surveyed f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n a number of u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s i n the United States using a c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique. They found the most common problem perceived by f a c u l t y advisors was a lack of communication between cooperating teachers and student teachers; the second most common problem was student teachers not l i v i n g up t o the expectations of cooperating teachers; followed by student teachers not preparing as they were assigned; and, f i n a l l y , student teachers not knowing pedagogical methods and techniques. These f i n d i n g s have a d e f i n i t e i m p l i c a t i o n f o r f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . They must possess the s k i l l and a b i l i t y to f a c i l i t a t e and encourage communication between the cooperating teacher and themselves, assuming, of course, t h a t they have the time i n which to do i t . The f i n d i n g s reported, though tenable, are somewhat l i m i t e d . The authors used ten c a t e g o r i e s as p o s s i b l e c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t s , the tenth being "Other, Please e x p l a i n . " The c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t problems a l l r e l a t e d to d i f f i c u l t i e s between the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. This may account f o r the f a c t t h a t no problems were reported between the cooperating 33 teacher and the f a c u l t y advisor or between the student teacher and the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . Olsen (1981) suggests that f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s do have problems with cooperating teachers. The f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s conception of the cooperating teacher's supervisory r o l e i s t h a t of "drama c r i t i c , " t h a t i s , analyzing the elements of the student teacher's performance using appropriate forms and c r i t e r i a f o r a p p r a i s a l . The cooperating teachers, however, view t h e i r r o l e as more supportive and u n a n a l y t i c a l as a " f r i e n d i n the audience." Olsen (1981) s t a t e s t h a t cooperating teachers followed t h e i r own preference and d i d not meet the expectations of the f a c u l t y advisor. I t could be questioned how c l e a r l y the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s expectations were s t a t e d and whether or not the cooperating teacher had a c l e a r understanding of what he or she was required to do. However, the problem of r o l e confusion s t i l l remains. I t seems t h a t many of the problems encountered by f a c u l t y advisors are e i t h e r caused by or are d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to the confusion of r o l e expectations i n the student teaching t r i a d . Summary The r o l e of the f a c u l t y advisor has been described as being extremely complex (Zimpher et a l . , 1980) and almost impossible (Knop, 1977). Unfortunately, t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n provides few i n s i g h t s i n t o the nature and expectations f o r the r o l e of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . The i n f l u e n c e of the f a c u l t y advisor on the student teacher i s not c l e a r l y understood. I t has been described as 34 being l i b e r a l , c o n servative, and most f r e q u e n t l y , non-existent (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). This d i s p a r i t y , with respect t o the impact of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r w i t h i n the student teaching t r i a d , has given r i s e t o questions regarding the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the f a c u l t y ' s r o l e as i t i s c u r r e n t l y performed. Bowman, (1979) contends that the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s r o l e i s a waste of resources and she suggests t h a t he or she "stop s u p e r v i s i n g . " Others, Ellenburg, (1981); Horton & Harvey, (1979); and Emans, (1983) propose a change i n the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s r o l e t h a t would see the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r working more c l o s e l y with cooperating teachers i n the development of t h e i r s k i l l s and competencies with respect to t h e i r s u p e r v i s i o n of student teachers. In t h i s model the f a c u l t y a dvisor would play a l e s s d i r e c t r o l e i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of student teachers. This proposal, however, does not address the current expectations of cooperating teachers or student teachers. Do cooperating teachers, student teachers, and f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s perceive t h i s as an expectation of the f a c u l t y advisor? I t i s evident t h a t the r o l e of the f a c u l t y advisor i s extremely complex and fraught with many d i f f i c u l t i e s . F a c ulty a d v i s o r s may perceive or indeed a c t u a l l y r eceive l i t t l e support from t h e i r u n i v e r s i t i e s i n attempting to f u l f i l t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . There seems t o be a wide range of expectations held f o r the r o l e of f a c u l t y a dvisor but few which are c l e a r l y defined. The l i t e r a t u r e , as i t p r e s e n t l y stands, o f f e r s l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e or guidance i n understanding the r o l e of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . 35 The Role of the Student Teacher Funk et a l . (1982) contend t h a t the student teaching component of the teacher p r e p a r a t i o n program i s perceived by most students as the s i n g l e most productive experience i n t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l education. Mott (1976) b e l i e v e s that student teachers are the most important people i n the teaching p r o f e s s i o n f o r they represent the f u t u r e of the p r o f e s s i o n . He a l s o suggests t h i s p o s i t i o n of importance may not be widely recogni zed: Many times the student teacher i s taken somewhat f o r granted and i s not given the proper type and amount of guidance or a s s i s t a n c e to make h i s experience p o s i t i v e and long l a s t i n g . . . . The student teacher needs comforting reassurance t h a t h i s r o l e i n the teaching -l e a r n i n g process i s acknowledged and appreciated (p. 5). Hoy and Rees (1977) p o i n t out t h a t student teaching i s a c r u c i a l aspect of teacher p r e p a r a t i o n and t h a t f o r most student teachers i t provides t h e i r f i r s t experience i n the schools as a p r o f e s s i o n a l . They contend t h a t "teachers learn t o teach by teaching" (p. 23). They f u r t h e r suggest the student teaching experience "provides the prospective teacher with an understanding of the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n of the classroom and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l m i l i e u i n which i t i s embedded" (p. 23), something that cannot be a t t a i n e d through textbooks and formal preparation courses. 36 The student teacher has received c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e on student teaching. This might be expected given the assumed importance of the student teaching experience and the student teacher's r o l e w i t h i n i t . Areas examined i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n c l ude: a t t i t u d e changes of student teachers during the c l i n i c a l experience (Mahon & L a c e f i e l d , 1978; Mclntyre & M o r r i s , 1981a; Hoy & Rees, 1977; Karmos & Jacko, 1977); models of student teaching (Emans, 1983; E l l e n b u r g , 1981; Horton & Harvey, 1979; Marsh, 1976; Mclntyre & M o r r i s , 1980a; Stout, 1982); the need f o r matching student teachers t o cooperating teachers ( T h i e s - S p r i n t h a l 1 , 1980; E a s t e r l y , 1978; Mahon & L a c e f i e l d , 1978; Newport, 1982); problems i n student teaching ( S i l v e r n a i l & C o s t e l l o , 1983; Copeland, 1977; Lehman, 1981; Reniham & Schwier, 1980); i n f l u e n c e of cooperating teachers on student teachers (Karmos & Jacko, 1977; Diem & S c h n i t z , 1978; E l l e n b u r g , 1980; Brodbelt, 1980; Emary, 1983) and r o l e expectations f o r student teachers (Garland, 1965). These s t u d i e s , though p r o v i d i n g i n s i g h t s i n t o the nature of the student teaching experience, have not c l e a r l y defined the expectations held f o r the student teacher. That the r o l e of the student teacher i s not c l e a r l y understood i s noteworthy, given the assumed importance of student teaching f o r the student teacher. Influence of the student teacher. I t may be assumed th a t the student teacher has l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e i n the student teaching t r i a d . Lipton and Lesser (1978) d e s c r i b e the student teacher's p o s i t i o n i n the 'family u n i t ' as t h a t of "helper, 37 baby s i t t e r , e l d e s t s i b l i n g among the c h i l d r e n or j u s t a guest, but never a coequal f a m i l y head" (p. 57). Lipke (1979) adds t o t h i s t h a t some cooperating teachers "welcome a student teacher as an e x t r a p a i r of hands" (p. 32) but notes t h a t others see the experience as a l e a r n i n g opportunity both i n terms of s e l f - r e f l e c t i o n and i n l e a r n i n g new methods and techniques from the student teacher. Stout (1982) found t h a t 62% of the cooperating teachers i n her study reported a f f i r m a t i v e l y to the questi o n , "Do you look upon a student teacher as your peer?" Mclntyre and Morris (1980) s t a t e : research on the student teaching t r i a d f a i l s to examine any e f f e c t the student teacher has on e i t h e r the cooperating teacher or the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r . I t i s taken f o r granted t h a t the student teacher i s inf l u e n c e d by the other two members of the t r i a d . But might not the other be inf l u e n c e d by the student teacher (p. 195)? They suggest the mere presence of the student teacher i n the cooperating teacher's classroom may a f f e c t the cooperating teacher's behavior. As w e l l , i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the student teacher may a f f e c t the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r . The nature and impact of the student teacher on the student teaching t r i a d i s not well understood. As Mclntyre and Mo r r i s (1980a) contend, f u t u r e research on the t r a d i t i o n a l model of student teaching should a l s o focus on the i n f l u e n c e of the student teacher. This could perhaps be accomplished by studying the expectations held f o r the r o l e of student teacher by the other two members of the t r i a d and by student teachers themselves. Preparation of the student teacher. The student 38 teacher would appear to be the member of the t r i a d given the most formal preparation f o r the practicum experience. Students take a wide v a r i e t y of courses i n t h e i r u n i v e r s i t y program, many s p e c i f i c a l l y designed t o prepare the student f o r the student teaching experience. Student teaching i s often the c u l m i n a t i o n of the formal preparation program (Hoy and Rees, 1977). I t would be expected, then, that student teachers would be w e l l prepared to enter the c l i n i c a l experience. This may, however, be an unwarranted assumption. P u r c e l l and S e i f e r t h (1981) i n v e s t i g a t e d the perceived adequacy of preparation gained through teacher education programs and found i t to be l e s s than adequate. Southal1 and King (1979) reported t h a t lack of p r e p a r a t i o n , and lack of enthusiasm and commitment on the part of student teachers are major problems encountered by cooperating teachers. These f i n d i n g s suggest t h a t student teachers may lack the necessary s k i l l s and a t t i t u d e s required f o r student teaching. Morrow and Lane (1983) note: To a degree, students' performances i n the student teaching experience are measures of how we l l the teacher education program prepares students t o meet the demands of classroom teaching. The i n s t r u c t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by student teachers i n d i c a t e those aspects of the teacher education program which might r e q u i r e review and m o d i f i c a t i o n (p. 71). , An a n a l y s i s , as suggested by Morrow and Lane (1983), of the d i f f i c u l t i e s student teachers experience i n student teaching may provide a productive means to evaluate the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the teacher education program and the degree of preparation of student teachers. However, i m p l i c i t i n t h i s method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the assumption that student teachers acquire 39 the r e q u i s i t e knowledge and s k i l l s before and not during a practicum experience. In p a r t i c u l a r , i t assumes th a t a l l p a r t i e s i n v olved i n the student teaching experience are aware of the e x p e c t a t i o n s held f o r them i n c a r r y i n g out t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r o l e s . The adequacy of student teacher p r e p a r a t i o n , or perhaps lack of i t , f o r the student teaching experience i s not c l e a r l y understood. I t may be t h a t poorly defined r o l e expectations f o r the student teacher c o n t r i b u t e to the perception t h a t student teachers are inadequately prepared. Role expectations f o r the student teacher. The r o l e of the student teacher v a r i e s depending on the amount of c o n t r o l r e l i n q u i s h e d by the cooperating teacher. I f the student teacher has assumed f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the cooperating teacher's c l a s s h i s or her d u t i e s would be c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o those of the cooperating teacher i n terms of planning, teaching and managing c l a s s e s , and e v a l u a t i n g p u p i l s . Although t h i s r o l e seems s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d , d i f f e r e n c e s may a r i s e over methods of planning, teaching techniques, classroom management procedures, and e v a l u a t i o n of p u p i l s i n the absence of c l e a r l y defined expectations. I t i s assumed th a t the r o l e of the student teacher i s more ambiguous when he or she does not have f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the cooperating teacher's c l a s s . Zalokar and LoGuidice (1982) suggest t h a t i t i s the student teacher's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to arrange a meeting with the cooperating teacher p r i o r to the beginning of the student 40 teaching experience. This meeting should take place a t the school and lay the foundation f o r the c l i n i c a l experience. Reniham and Schwier (1980) maintain t h i s planning meeting should take place as e a r l y as p o s s i b l e t o avoid problems i n communication and r e l a t i o n s h i p development because of a perceived lack of concern and enthusiasm on the p a r t of the student teacher. The i n t e n t of holding such a meeting i s laudable; however, the usefulness may be l i m i t e d by the absence of c l e a r l y defined r o l e expectations f o r both the student teacher and the cooperating teacher which frame the context w i t h i n which such a meeting would take place. Problems of the student teacher. Reniham and Schwier (1980) and Gettone (1980) suggest that c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e perceptions and expectations present a major problem f o r student teachers. Morrow and Lane (1983), i n a b r i e f review of the l i t e r a t u r e , s t a t e t h a t the most pres s i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l problem encountered by student teachers i s a lack of d i s c i p l i n e , f o l l o w e d by inadequate teaching methods and d i f f i c u l t i e s m otivating p u p i l s . Beauchamp (1983) surveyed cooperating teachers and student teachers t o determine what they most and l e a s t appreciated about t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e partners. He c a l l e d these 'beefs' and 'bouquets.' Although he di d not c i t e the number of i n c i d e n t s , student teachers reported that " f a i l i n g t o c l e a r l y define t h e i r expectations of us" (p. 4) was a 'beef.' Role ambiguity i s p a r t i c u l a r l y problematic when cooperating teachers and f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s hold d i f f e r e n t or opposing expectations f o r student teachers. Mahon and 41 L a c e f i e l d (1978) maintain t h a t t h i s can lead t o student teacher dissonance. Student teachers may be torn between the a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s they hold and those of the cooperating teacher or f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . To reduce the perceived dissonance student teachers are forced to adopt, at l e a s t t e m p o r a r i l y , the a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s of one or both of t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s . The problem i s most extreme when student teachers must do t h i s f o r both s u p e r v i s o r s , each ho l d i n g d i f f e r e n t and opposing views. P u r c e l l and S e i f e r t h (1981) found t h a t student teachers perceived a lack of p r e p a r a t i o n f o r student teaching. Mott (1976) notes t h a t a problem r e l a t e d t o student teacher preparation i s the i n a b i l i t y on the part of student teachers t o be able to use i t . He contends that the new and i n n o v a t i v e methods of teaching espoused at the u n i v e r s i t y may not be appropriate t o or even p r a c t i c e d i n the student teacher's c l i n i c a l s e t t i n g . Copeland (1979) suggests t h a t each classroom has i t s own unique e c o l o g i c a l system. The use or non-use of a p a r t i c u l a r s k i l l depends on how well i t ' f i t s i n t o ' the e c o l o g i c a l network of the classroom. He s t a t e s : From t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e , s k i l l u t i l i z a t i o n by a student teacher would seem to depend on the degree to which the t a r g e t s k i l l acquired i n t r a i n i n g i s congruent with the ecology of the p a r t i c u l a r classroom i n which he or she i s student teaching (p. 195). Student teachers are i n a dilemma. I f they use the s k i l l s learned at the u n i v e r s i t y , and perhaps required by the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , they r i s k f a i l u r e i f these same techniques are not i n f o r c e i n the classroom 'ecosystem'. They must teach, and, of n e c e s s i t y , f o l l o w the cooperating teacher's approach to 42 teaching; an approach i n which they are l i k e l y untrained. This problem would seem to warrant f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . However, i t may e x p l a i n why student teachers perceive a lack of preparation i n t h e i r formal program and why they are c r i t i c i z e d f o r being poorly t r a i n e d . P r o s p e c t i v e teachers may a c t u a l l y be well-prepared but from the cooperating teacher's perspective i n inappropriate techniques. Feedback i s another problem c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Beauchamp (1983) reported two 'beefs' r e l a t e d to feedback: [1] Withholding c r i t i c i s m and feedback t h a t could have improved our teaching and then s u r p r i s i n g us with these comments and observations on the f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n report. [2] Using too much negative feedback (p. 4). Reniham and Schwier (1980) concur with Beauchamp and add t h a t " i n many ins t a n c e s , feedback i s given i n f r e q u e n t l y , i r r e g u l a r l y and i n a poor f a s h i o n " (p. 25). Johnson (1977) contends t h a t feedback i s necessary i n promoting the growth of the student teacher but t h a t i t can be detrimental i f i t i s not provided i n a systematic way. A f i n a l problem r e l a t e s to phasing the student teacher i n t o h i s teaching r o l e i n the cooperating teacher's classroom. Martin (1982), Beauchamp (1983) and Mott (1976) contend t h a t t a k i n g over r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the c l a s s on the f i r s t day or before the student teacher i s ready presents a major d i f f i c u l t y f o r most student teachers. I t seems u n l i k e l y t h a t the problems encountered by student teachers w i l l be resolved i n the current confusion about r o l e e x pectations i n the student teaching t r i a d . Summary The importance of the student teaching experience and the r o l e the student teacher plays may be taken somewhat f o r granted (Mott, 1976). Student teaching as a f i e l d of study has been widely examined, yet the expectations f o r the student teacher remain l a r g e l y undefined. Stout (1982) reported t h a t the student teacher was t r e a t e d as a co-equal by only si x t y - t w o percent of the respondents i n her study. Is i t an expectation of the student teacher t o play a subservient r o l e i n the student teaching t r i a d ? Student teachers are assumed t o be adequately prepared f o r t h e i r c l i n i c a l experience. However, t h i s assumption may be unfounded. P u r c e l l and S e i f e r t h (1981) and Southal1 and King (1979) both reported t h a t student teachers were perceived to be inadequately prepared f o r t h e i r student teaching experience. I t seems inconceivable a f t e r four or f i v e years of preparation i n a teacher education program t h a t the student teacher would lack the necessary t r a i n i n g t o meet the expectations of h i s or her r o l e i n the student teaching experience. A c l o s e r examination of the perceived expectations of the student teacher, w i t h i n the student teaching t r i a d , may provide useful i n s i g h t s with respect t o t h i s discrepancy. 44 Role of the Cooperating Teacher Emans (1983) w r i t i n g i n the United S t a t e s , notes that s h o r t l y a f t e r World War I I , with only a few exceptions, student teaching moved out of the u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d laboratory schools and i n t o the schools neighboring the u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s . This change gave r i s e to the appointment of the 'cooperating teacher' who was charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of s u p e r v i s i n g the student teacher. In e d i t i n g a s e r i e s of l e t t e r s from Michigan U n i v e r s i t y p r o f e s s o r s , Kaplan (1979) s t a t e s : The classroom teacher who works with prospective teachers i s an extremely important person i n the teacher preparation program. Not only does t h i s teacher provide the opportunity f o r the teacher education student t o experience the r e a l world of the classroom, he/she a l s o guides the student i n the i n t e g r a t i o n of theory and p r a c t i c e (p. 63). In examining the r o l e and the assumed i n f l u e n c e of the cooperating teacher i t i s evident t h i s person plays a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i n the a s p i r a t i o n s of the student teacher. And as Mott (1976) suggests, the student teacher needs a real experience i n the r e a l world of teaching "and the cooperating teacher can do more to make i t a good l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n than anyone e l s e " (p. 6). Influence of the cooperating teacher. The i n f l u e n c e of the cooperating teacher on the p r e s e r v i c e teacher has been we l l documented. L e s l i e (1971) concludes that "...the cooperating teacher i s the s i n g l e most potent f i g u r e i n a f f e c t i n g the p r a c t i c a l experience of the prospective teacher" (p. 303). More r e c e n t l y , Karmos and Jacko (1977), i n 45 attempting to i d e n t i f y people i n the l i v e s of student teachers who were perceived as having a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r r o l e as a teacher, found t h a t cooperating teachers had the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e . Mclntyre and Mo r r i s (1980) reached s i m i l a r c onclusions a f t e r t h e i r review of the l i t e r a t u r e : "...research evidence seems to suggest t h a t cooperating teachers i n f l u e n c e the a t t i t u d e s and performance of student teachers" (p. 194). Emans (1983), i n reviewing the nature of small groups, suggests t h a t groups c o n s i s t i n g of three members are i n h e r e n t l y unstable. There i s a tendency f o r two members of the t r i a d to form a c o a l i t i o n and i s o l a t e the t h i r d member. He points out th a t s i n c e the cooperating teacher and the student teacher spend the m a j o r i t y of time together w h i l e the c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r i s part of the group f o r only a few hours per week i t i s most l i k e l y the c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r who w i l l be i s o l a t e d from the group. Consequently, the student teacher i s l i k e l y to be more i n f l u e n c e d by the cooperating teacher. Does t h i s mean th a t the student teacher a l s o expects more from the cooperating teacher than from the f a c u l t y a d visor? Are cooperating teachers aware of t h e i r i n f l u e n c e and i f more i s expected of them are they prepared t o meet these expectations? I t seems p o s s i b l e , then, t h a t the uneven d i s t r i b u t i o n of infl u e n c e between the student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s could lead to r o l e confusion and i n e f f e c t i v e r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the members of the student teaching t r i a d . 46 S e l e c t i o n and preparation of cooperating teachers. A number of authors suggest t h a t one of the major problems i n student teaching i s the s e l e c t i o n of cooperating teachers ( L e s l i e , 1971; Brodbelt, 1980; Newport, 1982). Reniham and Schwier (1980) s t a t e , "One of the basic needs of f i e l d experience programs i s f o r the input of committed p r o f e s s i o n a l s as cooperating teachers" (p. 24). Morris e t a l . (1981) i n studying i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and s e l e c t i o n procedures of cooperating teachers found t h a t s u p e r v i s i n g teachers were most f r e q u e n t l y recommended by the b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l . The s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a included the f o l l o w i n g t r a i t s : possesses f u l l c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; p a r t i c i p a t e s w i l l i n g l y ; teaches i n area of major preparation; demonstrates high q u a l i t y teaching performance; has minimum of three years teaching experience, and possesses (or i s w i l l i n g to develop) b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of student teacher s u p e r v i s i o n . They conclude: c r i t e r i a such as a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , reading widely, keeping up with current developments i n education, possessing a masters degree, and p r e p a r a t i o n p r i o r to s e l e c t i o n are not widely used (p. 20). Lowther (1970), i n reviewing s u c c e s s f u l and unsuccessful student teaching experiences, suggests that twenty percent of such experiences are l e s s than s a t i s f a c t o r y and t h a t c o l l e g e s seldom r e j e c t s u p e r v i s i n g teachers. Haberman and H a r r i s (1982) examined the le g a l requirements f o r s e r v i n g as a cooperating teacher i n a l l f i f t y s t a t e s i n the United States. Twenty-four of the f i f t y s t a t e s reported t h a t they have no le g a l requirement, two r e q u i r e only t h a t a teacher be c e r t i f i e d , s i x t e e n t h a t a teacher have some 47 teaching experience (2 or 3 years), nine t h a t r e q u i r e a program or course i n s u p e r v i s i o n and three that r e q u i r e the cooperating teacher to hold a master's degree. Lipke (1979) concurs t h a t the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to be a cooperating teacher vary widely. M o r r i s , Hawk and Drake (1981) i n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e survey attempting t o i d e n t i f y the most f r e q u e n t l y used c r i t e r i a employed by d i r e c t o r s of c o l l e g e f i e l d experiences f o r s e l e c t i n g and c o n t i n u i n g s u p e r v i s i n g teachers s t a t e , " I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t p r i o r preparation f o r the r o l e of s u p e r v i s o r or a master's degree are not widely used as c r i t e r i a f o r s e l e c t i o n or c o n t i n u a t i o n " (p. 20). One comment from a d i r e c t o r suggested t h a t "the choice of s u p e r v i s i n g teachers i s the weakest l i n k i n the chain of preparing people f o r a teaching career" (p. 22). Yoder and Arms (1981) f i n d i t incongruous t h a t cooperating teachers r e c e i v e l i t t l e or no preparation f o r t h e i r r o l e as f i e l d experience s u p e r v i s o r s and r e j e c t the notion t h a t a good teacher w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y be a good student teacher supervisor. They maintain t h a t : teaching students and providing s u p e r v i s i o n f o r teachers i n t r a i n i n g are two d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s . Both req u i r e the appropriate education and p r e p a r a t i o n , and i t i s important t h a t the s k i l l s r e q u ired f o r both f u n c t i o n s be obtained (p. 40). In a d d i t i o n , Ellenburg (1981) argues that the s u p e r v i s i o n of student teachers i s a complex undertaking and one t h a t i s o f t e n taken too l i g h t l y . He a l s o suggests that classroom teachers need s p e c i a l preparation i n s u p e r v i s i o n , should be l i c e n s e d , and should have the competencies to supervise. Lipke (1979) found that p r i n c i p a l s , cooperating teachers, and student teachers expressed a need f o r the 48 t r a i n i n g of cooperating teachers. Redburn (1981) contends t h a t untrained school personnel w i l l i n g to a s s i s t student teachers f i n d l i t t l e support from anywhere i n t h e i r attempt t o develop the competencies required of the s u p e r v i s i n g teacher. Yates (1981), i n a survey of student teaching i n England, p o i n t s out t h a t both c o l l e g e s u p e r v i s o r s and cooperating teachers supported the idea of t r a i n i n g f o r cooperating teachers but none of the responding i n s t i t u t i o n s provided any form of preparation f o r cooperating teachers. Can i t be assumed, then, t h a t cooperating teachers with l i t t l e or no p r e p a r a t i o n s e l e c t e d by b u i l d i n g p r i n c i p a l s using the above c r i t e r i a w i l l hold c l e a r expectations f o r t h e i r r o l e as cooperating teachers? I t seems that t r a d i t i o n a l methods of cooperating teacher s e l e c t i o n and preparation may add t o the confusion about r o l e e x p e c tation i n the student teaching t r i a d . Role expectations f o r the cooperating teacher. The expectations, t h a t i s , the f u n c t i o n s and behaviors which c o n s t i t u t e the r o l e of the cooperating teacher have been pre s c r i b e d i n a number of a r t i c l e s , most of which appear not t o be research based. Zalokar and LoGuidire (1982) s t a t e "The r o l e of the cooperating teacher i s to help the student teacher through suggestions, guidance and personal e x p e r t i s e " (p. 12). They suggest t h a t c o n s i s t e n t e v a l u a t i o n , e f f e c t i v e communication and involvement of the student teacher i n the t o t a l f u n c t i o n i n g of the school w i l l help ensure a p o s i t i v e experience f o r the student teacher. S h i r a k i (1979) describes the cooperating teacher's r o l e as supporting the student teacher i n a l l areas such as lesson planning, classroom management and personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth. El kind (1976) suggests t h a t i t i s important t o provide a welcome atmosphere, plan together, evaluate c a r e f u l l y , engage i n purposeful observation and allow f o r gradual takeover of the c l a s s . Emans (1983) adds t o t h i s the need to provide c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m . According to Mott (1976) cooperating teachers should o u t l i n e the school's r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , discuss the grading system, e x p l a i n the obvious and not so obvious needs and wants of the secondary student and warn the student teacher not to get too cl o s e t o the p u p i l s . McAteer (1976) contends t h a t cooperating teachers should plan f o r the f i r s t meeting with the student teacher, introduce the student teacher to the c l a s s , do some demonstration t e a c h i n g , help the student teacher with lesson planning, schedule conferences and provide w r i t t e n feedback a f t e r o b s e r v a t i o n s , and e x p l a i n e v a l u a t i o n procedures t o the student teacher. E l l e n b u r g (1981), i n d i s c u s s i n g what he sees as some of the problems i n student teaching, suggests t h a t the competencies of s u p e r v i s i n g teachers are c r i t i c a l but are not well a r t i c u l a t e d . He c i t e s Spanjer's ten competencies f o r cooperating teachers but i n so doing questions t h e i r adequacy: 1. Work j o i n t l y w ith a supervisee to plan i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s t h a t i n c l u d e observable p u p i l behavior, c o n d i t i o n s f o r l e a r n i n g , and c r i t e r i a f o r acceptable performance. 2 . Observe a supervisee's teaching performance and record o b j e c t i v e data by va r i o u s means. 3. Analyse the data from classroom observations f o r 'patterns' of teaching and l e a r n i n g behavior, i n t e r a c t i o n , q u e s t i o n i n g s t r a t e g i e s , and the l i k e t h a t are r e l a t e d to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and i n d i c a t e the supervisee's s t y l e . 50 4. Plan and conduct conferences on the basis of o b j e c t i v e data t h a t enable the supervisee to gain i n s i g h t i n t o h i s teaching behavior and formulate p r o v i s i o n a l a l t e r n a t i v e s f o r change. 5. Demonstrate s k i l l s i n e s t a b l i s h i n g e f f e c t i v e communication with p u p i l s , colleagues, and supervisees by performing v a r i o u s i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s . 6. E s t a b l i s h a t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p with a supervisee by conveying i n t e n t i o n s t o help and e x h i b i t i n g competence as a helper. 7. U t i l i z e recent educational developments and trends i n teaching and understanding the s t r u c t u r e and i n q u i r y procedures of the s u b j e c t s he teaches. 8. Make p r o v i s i o n s i n planning and teaching f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among learners and s e t expectations and tasks a c c o r d i n g l y . 9. Sp e c i f y and measure behavioral change i n students as an important c r i t e r i o n upon which to evaluate teaching performance. 10. Employ quest i o n i n g s t r a t e g i e s that r e s u l t i n p u p i l t h i n k i n g at var y i n g l e v e l s . (p. 202-203) The question may not l i e i n the adequacy of these competencies but rat h e r i n the s e t t i n g of these as expectations f o r the cooperating teacher. Supervision and ev a l u a t i o n of the student teacher a l l u d e d t o i n these ten competencies are u s u a l l y part of the cooperating teacher's responsi b i 1 i t y and r e q u i r e f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n . 51 Cohn (1981) s t a t e s : that teacher educators and others have p e r s i s t a n t ! y questioned how, by whom and f o r what purpose p r e s e r v i c e © s u p e r v i s i o n should be conducted, and they have responded with d i f f e r i n g t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l responses to these questions (p.26). The focus of these varying models, she contends, may be on 'the improvement of i n s t r u c t i o n ' , the c r e a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r 'context of l e a r n i n g ' , or the assumption t h a t there i s a 'process of becoming a teacher'. Regardless of the t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , Johnson (1978) maintains t h a t s u p e r v i s i o n must be more than j u s t i n t u i t i v e . While the understanding of the term s u p e r v i s i n g teacher i m p l i e s systematic s u p e r v i s i o n , i n r e a l i t y t h i s i s not always the p r a c t i c e . Copeland (1982), i n studying supervisory preferences of student teachers, s t a t e s : the s u p e r v i s o r should be s e n s i t i v e to the changes i n preferences i n student teachers brought about by the passage of time and attendant accumulation of experience and confidence i n teaching (p. 34). In an e a r l i e r study, Copeland (1980) found t h a t student teachers p r e f e r r e d a more d i r e c t approach to s u p e r v i s i o n . In t h i s study s u b j e c t s were sampled s h o r t l y a f t e r assuming r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the classroom. In h i s 1980 study respondents were sampled both i n the s p r i n g and the f a l l . He found t h a t over time and with experience student teachers' preference tended to favor a more n o n - d i r e c t i v e approach. Johnson (1977) contends t h a t the student teacher's r e a l concern i s f o r him or h e r s e l f and how he or she i s doing. The r o l e of the cooperating teacher i s to help the student teacher recognize that he or she i s i n the 'process of becoming' a b e t t e r teacher r a t h e r than moving toward a f i n i s h e d product. The focus of s u p e r v i s i o n i s t o p r o v i d e a feedback system t h a t p l a c e s the emphasis on the student teacher as a person and acknowledges h i s i n d i v i d u a l needs. S t r u c t u r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n d e l i b e r a t e l y so t h a t the student gains knowledge of s e l f , Johnson (1977) maintains, "leads to self-awareness, s e l f knowledge and s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t " (p.72). Focussing only on the student teacher's personal frame of r e f e r e n c e has s e v e r a l s e r i o u s drawbacks. The f i r s t i s t h a t student t e a c h e r s may take negative feedback as a personal a f f r o n t r a t h e r than as c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m e s p e c i a l l y i f they are having d i f f i c u l t y i n student t e a c h i n g . The second i s t h a t c o o p e r a t i n g t e a c h e r s may come to a p o i n t where they must omit c e r t a i n c r i t i c i s m s f o r f e a r of d e s t r o y i n g the student t e a c h e r ' s s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . The t h i r d drawback r e l a t e s t o the c o o p e r a t i n g teacher's a b i l i t y t o assess the student teacher's l e v e l of development and personal needs and provide feedback t h a t w i l l a s s i s t the student teacher i n becoming a b e t t e r teacher. Other r e s e a r c h e r s have a l s o recognized the student t e a c h e r ' s concern with s e l f . For example, Campbell and Wheatley (1983) see as a major requirement f o r the c o o p e r a t i n g teacher the a b i l i t y to assess the student t e a c h e r ' s stage of development. They argue t h a t p r e - s e r v i c e t e a c h e r s pass through three ordered stages i n becoming a beginning teacher and t h a t the c o o p e r a t i n g teacher must recognize each stage and s u p e r v i s e a c c o r d i n g l y . In the f i r s t stage, 'concern with s e l f , student teachers are preoccupied with s e l f r a t h e r than with t e a c h i n g and l e a r n i n g and t h a t d i s c u s s i o n of other than i d e n t i t y - r e l a t e d issues may be f u t i l e and inappropriate. As the student teacher passes i n t o stage two, 'concern with teaching a c t i o n s and students' behavior', the cooperating teacher o f f e r s suggestions on classroom management and lesson planning. At t h i s phase student teachers are s t i l l concerned with t h e i r own a c t i o n s and are not concerned with p u p i l s ' l e a r n i n g . As they progress i n t o stage three, 'concern with l e a r n i n g ' , they begin to ask "Did the p u p i l s learn"? At t h i s time, cooperating teachers should encourage student teachers to assess t h e i r own teaching. These authors contend that the 'stages of concern' model can serve as a useful g u i d e l i n e to cooperating teachers i n planning i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Copeland (1982) assumes th a t a productive supervisory r e l a t i o n s h i p depends i n part on the cooperating teacher's a b i l i t y to use the appropriate supervisory approach. Johnson (1977) suggests that the cooperating teacher must focus on the student teacher as an i n d i v i d u a l and provide feedback which enables the student teacher to become more self-aware. Campbell and Wheatley (1983) contend t h a t the cooperating teacher must be able to recognize the student teacher's stage of development. These expectations of the cooperating teacher r e q u i r e s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s . Is i t reasonable t o expect t h a t cooperating teachers possess these c a p a b i l i t i e s ? Can they employ more than one supervisory method? Perhaps the more important question i s how widely held are the expectations required to implement these s t r a t e g i e s ? Can s u p e r v i s i o n be separated from e v a l u a t i o n i n student teaching? Often 54 s u p e r v i s i o n i s undertaken f o r e v a l u a t i v e purposes. McDonough (1980) contends t h a t e v a l u a t i o n of the student teacher i s one of the most d i f f i c u l t t a s k s faced by the cooperating teacher because of the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p developed over the length of the student teaching experience. Supervisory teachers must separate t h e i r h e l p i n g concerns from t h e i r need to rate student teachers, knowing f u l l w e l l t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n s are often i n f l u e n t i a l i n d e c i d i n g the career of the prospective teacher. H a t t i e et a l . (1982) note t h a t there i s a paucity of research r e l a t i n g to how s u p e r v i s o r s r a t e student teachers, t h e i r a b i l i t y to rate student teachers and what c r i t e r i a they use. They examined these issues and found t h a t cooperating teachers can r e l i a b l y rate student teachers. They s t a t e : the major c r i t e r i a used by s u p e r v i s i n g teachers of both primary and secondary t r a i n e e s r e l a t e t o whether the m a t e r i a l i s well sequenced and w i t h i n the r e c i p i e n t ' s a b i l i t y , whether the student teacher can gain and maintain the r e c i p i e n t ' s a t t e n t i o n , and whether they can a p p r o p r i a t e l y and c l e a r l y demonstrate what they are teaching (p. 782). Through f a c t o r a n a l y s i s they concluded t h a t there are two major dimensions underlying the r a t i n g of student teachers: p r e p a r a t i o n and presentation. Wheeler and Knoop (1982) i n v e s t i g a t e d the a p p r a i s a l of student teaching performance by cooperating teachers, c o l l e g e f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s and student teachers. They found the r a t i n g of cooperating teachers and the r a t i n g of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d and much l e s s l e n i e n t than the s e l f - r a t i n g s of student teachers. The data a l s o revealed that cooperating teachers were more impressed with personal and 55 p r o f e s s i o n a l q u a l i t i e s of student teachers than f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . They s t a t e t h a t both s u p e r v i s o r s tend to reduce e v a l u a t i o n t o a s i n g l e o v e r a l l impression and conclude: I t would appear then that academic s u p e r v i s o r s , as we l l as f i e l d s u p e r v i s o r s , are poor sources of i d e n t i f y i n g t r a i n i n g needs of student teachers, because they are unable t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e among v a r i o u s performance c a t e g o r i e s on the instrument (p. 181). These f i n d i n g s are i n c o n t r a s t t o those presented e a r l i e r by H a t t i e et a l . (1982) who contend t h a t s u p e r v i s o r s can r e l i a b l y r a t e student teachers and i n so doing use prep a r a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n as major f a c t o r s i n student teacher e v a l u a t i o n . These d i f f e r e n c e s seem t o p o i n t to the lack of c l a r i t y regarding the cooperating teacher's r o l e i n the e v a l u a t i o n of student teachers. Copas (1984) stu d i e d student teachers' perceptions of c r i t i c a l requirements f o r elementary cooperating teachers using a c r i t i c a l i n c i d e n t technique. She found t h a t student teachers perceived cooperating teachers to be most s u c c e s s f u l i n o r i e n t i n g and i n d u c t i n g behaviors and l e s s s u c c e s s f u l i n g u i d i n g , cooperating, supporting, and r e f l e c t i n g behaviors. The l a t t e r f o u r c a t e g o r i e s accounted f o r almost 79% of the t o t a l behaviors r e l a t e d to student teachers. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , then, t h a t Copas (1984) concludes ..."student teachers are concerned with t h e i r s u p e r v i s i n g teachers' behavior t h a t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s them..." (p. 53). The g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of these f i n d i n g s i s l i m i t e d as the study i n v e s t i g a t e d only the elementary l e v e l of student teaching and j u s t one respondent group, student teachers, of the student teaching t r i a d . However, a Canadian study (Grimmett & 56 R a t z l a f f , 1986) examined the expectations held by a l l members of the t r i a d f o r the CT r o l e which included respondents from both elementary and secondary l e v e l s . They found considerable agreement among respondents f o r the f u n c t i o n s expected of the cooperating teacher r o l e which included f u n c t i o n s under the cat e g o r i e s of o r i e n t a t i o n , p l a n n i n g / i n s t r u c t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n and p r o f e s s i o n a l development. They conclude by s t a t i n g t h a t a l l members of the t r i a d "perceive the need f o r cooperating teachers t o play a more a c t i v e r o l e i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n of would-be teachers" (p. 48). Problems experienced by cooperating teachers. Applegate and Lasley (1982) contend that classroom teachers view f i e l d experiences as both a burden and a b l e s s i n g : a burden i n t h a t i t r e q u i r e s a d d i t i o n a l work i n the s u p e r v i s i o n of the student teacher; a b l e s s i n g i n t h a t i t sometimes provides r e l e a s e time to pursue p r o f e s s i o n a l development a c t i v i t i e s . T h e i r study attempted to a s c e r t a i n problems perceived by cooperating teachers. They i d e n t i f i e d s i x major problems: (1) cooperating teachers had concerns when student teachers d i d not have the necessary p r e p a r a t i o n f o r the experience of teaching; (2) cooperating teachers had problems caused by a lack of c l e a r l y defined expectations and understanding of the nature of the p a r t n e r s h i p (student teaching t r i a d ) ; (3) cooperating teachers had concerns regarding p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m and commitment t o the p r o f e s s i o n of teaching expected from both the student teacher and the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r ; (4) cooperating teachers had problems r e l a t e d t o student teachers' a t t i t u d e s toward becoming teachers and adopting the 'mind-set' of teachers; (5) cooperating teachers expressed a concern with the lack of i n i t i a t i v e and enthusiasm e x h i b i t e d by student teachers; (6) cooperating teachers had problems associated with the planning and o r g a n i z a t i o n of the student teaching program. Applegate and Lasley (1982) suggest t h a t the various p a r t i e s involved i n teacher education have a tendency to d i s c l a i m ownership of the problems inherent i n student teaching and conclude by emphasizing a need f o r r o l e c l a r i f i c a t i o n : Cooperating teachers must know what r o l e s they are t o perform and what s k i l l s they are to encourage. ... Problems a r i s e f o r cooperating teachers because of u n f u l f i l l e d e xpectations (p. 18). S i m i l a r problems are reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e by Renihan and Schwier (1980): lack or absence of communication; low v i s i b i l i t y and lack of commitment and involvement of u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y ; c o n f l i c t i n g r o l e perceptions and expectations between members of the t r i a d , p a r t i c u l a r l y between the cooperating teacher and the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ; and poor a r t i c u l a t i o n of e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a and procedures cause problems f o r cooperating teachers. H a t t i e e t a l . (1982) add to t h i s the d i f f i c u l t y cooperating teachers f i n d i n using the student teacher e v a l u a t i o n report form. R o l e - c o n f l i c t between the cooperating teacher and the f a c u l t y a dvisor i s held by Lipton & Lessor (1978) to be i n e v i t a b l e . Diem and Sc h n i t z (1978) suggest t h a t t h i s i s the r e s u l t of a d i f f e r e n c e i n perspectives between these two su p e r v i s o r s : the f a c u l t y advisor i s embodied with theory and 58 the cooperating teacher with p r a c t i c e . They maintain there i s a need f o r r o l e n e g o t i a t i o n and understanding of the others' p o i n t of view i n order t o f u l f i l t h e i r common purpose of preparing prospective teachers. Summary I t i s widely recognized, (Karmos & Jacko, 1977; Zeichner, 1978, 1980) t h a t the cooperating teacher e x e r t s considerable i n f l u e n c e on the a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s of the student teacher. The nature of t h i s i n f l u e n c e i s not c l e a r l y understood. I t i s assumed th a t the expectations cooperating teachers hold, both f o r themselves and f o r student teachers, have an impact on the way student teachers perform t h e i r r o l e ; but these expectations appear to be l a r g e l y undefined. The s e l e c t i o n and preparation of cooperating teachers may be the weakest l i n k i n the preparation of prospective teachers as M o r r i s , Hawk, and Drake (1981) contend and perhaps only committed p r o f e s s i o n a l s (Reniham & Schwier, 1980) and experienced and e x c e l l e n t teachers (Lipke, 1979) should act as cooperating teachers. However, few s t u d i e s have examined whether or not teachers understand what i s expected of them as student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s ; or, indeed, what expectations they hold f o r themselves. In the absence of c l e a r l y defined r o l e expectations the s e l e c t i o n and preparation of cooperating teachers may not be as c r i t i c a l as these w r i t e r s suggest. A host of r o l e expectations have been pres c r i b e d f o r the cooperating teacher, from s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of the student teacher t o i n v o l v i n g the student teacher i n the t o t a l 59 f u n c t i o n i n g of the school — few of these f u n c t i o n s are supported by e m p i r i c a l data. When the breadth of these expectations i s considered perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t impression i s the enormity of what i s expected of the cooperating teacher r o l e . Are cooperating teachers capable of f u l f i l l i n g a l l t h a t might be expected of t h e i r r o l e ? A number of problems experienced by cooperating teachers have been i d e n t i f i e d (Applegate & Lasley, 1982; Reniham & Schwier, 1980; H a t t i e e t a l . , 1982). These w r i t e r s p o i n t out t h a t many of the problems experienced by cooperating teachers r e s u l t from a lack of c l e a r l y defined r o l e expectations f o r the cooperating teacher r o l e i n the student teaching t r i a d . I t i s evident t h a t agreement f o r r o l e d e f i n i t i o n cannot be assumed. I t i s only through an understanding of r o l e expectations and the nature of the p o s i t i o n t h a t e f f e c t i v e r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s can be e s t a b l i s h e d . Both Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) and Copas (1984) suggest that f u r t h e r research i s required to provide research based data e s s e n t i a l f o r the preparation of cooperating teachers. INDIVIDUAL CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT TEACHING A search of the l i t e r a t u r e i d e n t i f i e d some of the contextual v a r i a b l e s at issue i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s associated with student teaching and the r o l e expectations f o r members of the student teaching t r i a d . These included such v a r i a b l e s as gender; student teaching l e v e l ; geographic l o c a t i o n of the 60 student teaching experience; experience of the cooperating teacher, f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , and student teacher; p o s i t i o n of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ; and entry i n t o teacher education; confirming G r i f f i n ' s (1986) statement t h a t : L i t t l e demographic information c h a r a c t e r i z i n g e i t h e r cooperating teachers or u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r s , as d i s t i n c t groups, i s a v a i l a b l e . Other demographic v a r i a b l e s such as age, sex, or e t h n i c i t y have not been well researched i n r e l a t i o n t o p r e s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g outcomes i n teacher education (p. 241). The lack of research was not confined t o student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s but a p p l i e d to student teachers as w e l l . Studies t h a t were located more oft e n described, f o r example, the age or gender of the respondent rather than the e f f e c t t h i s might have on the respondent's expectations f o r student teaching. Only f i v e s t u d i e s were found that addressed p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n a respondent group or groups. The f i r s t study considered the v a r i a b l e of gender. The remaining four s t u d i e s were concerned with d i f f e r e n c e s a s s o c i a t e d with student teaching l e v e l , the f i r s t between student teachers and the l a t t e r two between cooperating teachers. Weaver and Segrest (1978) looked w i t h i n respondent groups i n studying the dogmatism of cooperating teachers and student teachers. In t h i s study they found no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n dogmatism between the male and female student teacher and cooperating teacher respondent groups. Lieberman and M i l l e r (1984) draw a t t e n t i o n to a number of d i f f e r e n c e s between elementary and secondary schools. They point out that conventional wisdom suggests that elementary teachers teach ' c h i l d r e n ' whereas secondary teachers teach 61 'subjects'. They a l s o maintain t h a t secondary schools are more complex more bureaucratic o r g a n i z a t i o n s than elementary schools. Further, they s t a t e , t h a t "the secondary school f a c u l t y c u l t u r e i s p r i m a r i l y a male c u l t u r e ; t h i s i s i n marked c o n t r a s t to the predominently female environment of most elementary schools" (p. 49). This d i f f e r e n c e , they contend, leads to d i f f e r e n c e s i n career and p r o f e s s i o n a l engagement between teachers at these two l e v e l s . Book and Freeman (1986) reported a number of d i f f e r e n c e s i n entry c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of elementary and secondary teacher candidates based on the r e s u l t s of a survey given a l l teacher candidates e n t e r i n g Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y . They found t h a t (1) secondary candidates had stronger academic backgrounds i n math and science, (2) elementary teacher candidates were more l i k e l y to have had previous teaching experiences, but, (3) secondary teacher candidates, e s p e c i a l l y males, had somewhat higher l e v e l s of confidence i n t h e i r teaching a b i l i t y , (4) elementary teacher candidates were more c h i l d centered whereas t h e i r secondary counterparts were more subject o r i e n t e d , and (5) elementary teacher candidates had higher expectations regarding the value of education courses. The researchers were attempting to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n c e s i n teacher candidates f o r the purpose of making program development d e c i s i o n s . The e f f e c t these d i f f e r e n c e s may have on the r o l e e x pectations f o r student teaching was not addressed. Martin and Sheehan (1982) examined the most important f u n c t i o n s provided by u n i v e r s i t y i n s t r u c t o r s who supervised 62 student teachers. They found t h a t elementary as d i s t i n c t from secondary cooperating teachers, held d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations f o r the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r r o l e . Elementary cooperating teachers expected the f a c u l t y a dvisor to work d i r e c t l y with the student teacher. On the other hand, secondary cooperating teachers expected f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s t o : work more d i r e c t l y with the cooperating teacher; increase t h e i r understanding of the school; and work with the student teacher and cooperating teacher at the same time. An a r b i t r a r y c r i t e r i o n was employed t o determine d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations between elementary and secondary cooperating teachers and these f i n d i n g s should t h e r e f o r e be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . H a t t i e et a l . (1982) i n examining whether or not classroom teachers could r e l i a b l y evaluate student teachers found d i f f e r e n c e s i n the c r i t e r i a used between elementary and secondary teachers: Primary s u p e r v i s o r s placed emphasis on whether students could analyse, organize, and synthe s i z e r e c i p i e n t s ' responses, and secondary s u p e r v i s o r s placed emphasis on the students' communication s k i l l s (p. 784). The research l i t e r a t u r e on the demographic v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with student teaching i s of l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e i n pr o v i d i n g i n s i g h t s about the e f f e c t these v a r i a b l e s may have on the expectations held by members of the t r i a d f o r each member's r o l e . Zeichner (1987) contends that the ecology of f i e l d experiences i s a c r i t i c a l and neglected f a c t o r i n the student teaching experience and charges the research community to explore the contextual v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with student teachi ng. 63 SUMMARY Four areas of the l i t e r a t u r e have been reviewed. The f i r s t s e c t i o n examined student teaching. Student teaching i s perceived to be a c r i t i c a l component of the teacher education program. Recently, however, the v a l i d i t y and the outcomes of student teaching have been c a l l e d i n t o question. The second s e c t i o n reviewed some of the e a r l i e r r o l e e x p ectations s t u d i e s and found a lack of c o n s i s t e n t terminology used to desc r i b e the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the members of the student teaching t r i a d . As w e l l , d i f f e r e n c e s between respondent groups associated with d i f f e r e n c e s i n the context of the student teaching experience were not considered i n these s t u d i e s . S e c t i o n three addressed r o l e theory and the r o l e of each member of the student teaching t r i a d . I t was found that the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r has l i t t l e i n f l u e n c e on the a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s of the student teacher. The f a c u l t y a dvisor a l s o s u f f e r s from a lack of r e c o g n i t i o n w i t h i n the c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y i n which he or she i s employed. The process of s e l e c t i n g f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s has not been c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d and most o f t e n they lack formal preparation f o r t h e i r r o l e . The f a c u l t y a d v i s o r often encounters s e r i o u s time c o n s t r a i n t s i n the s u p e r v i s i o n and ev a l u a t i o n of student teachers r e s u l t i n g i n a l o s s of c r e d i b i l i t y with respect to the perceived a b i l i t y to f u l f i l l h i s or her r o l e . The student teacher i s perceived t o hold l i t t l e 64 i n f l u e n c e w i t h i n the student teaching t r i a d and i s o f t e n afforded l e s s than peer s t a t u s . Student teaching holds the g r e a t e s t s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the student teacher i n terms of f i n a l p r e p a r a t i o n and p o s s i b l e entry i n t o the teaching p r o f e s s i o n . Success, with respect to summative e v a l u a t i o n , may w e l l determine the student's career i n teaching. The student teacher has the most formal preparation f o r h i s or her r o l e i n the t r i a d yet o f t e n i s perceived to be inadequately prepared. The student teacher faces a number of problems i n h i s or her student teaching experience — not the l e a s t of which i s poorly defined r o l e e x pectations. The l i t e r a t u r e suggests that the cooperating teacher plays a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n i n f l u e n c i n g the a t t i t u d e s and b e l i e f s of the student teacher. The s e l e c t i o n of the cooperating teacher i s most oft e n made at the school d i s t r i c t l e v e l and formal preparation was found not t o be a p r e r e q u i s i t e . The major r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the cooperating teacher appear to be i n the areas of s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n . One major problem encountered by most cooperating teachers i s a lack of c l e a r l y defined r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s . The f i n a l s e c t i o n considered some of the demographic v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with student teaching and found t h a t l i t t l e research has been conducted i n t h i s area. The nature of the i n t e r a c t i o n s and the expectations held by each member w i t h i n the student teaching t r i a d are not c l e a r l y understood. Indeed, Mclntyre (1984) sums up the need f o r f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of each member's r o l e : I t i s c l e a r t h a t there i s s t i l l much to l e a r n about the t r i a d and how each member i n f l u e n c e s and i s inf l u e n c e d by each other. Thus, before we begin to consider dramatic reforms i n f i e l d experience s u p e r v i s i o n , we must f i r s t commit ourselves to a more c r i t i c a l a n a l y s i s of i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p a r t i c i p a n t s (p. 4 4 ) . I f such an a n a l y s i s i s to be undertaken, a framework must be developed which permits a c l e a r e r examination of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s among and w i t h i n the student teaching t r i a d and a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the expectations held f o r each member's r o l e . I t i s t o the development of t h i s framework t h a t we turn i n the next chapter. CHAPTER 3 INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROCEDURES INTERPRETIVE FRAMEWORK The purpose of t h i s chapter i s t o present the i n t e r p r e t i v e framework and research procedures f o r t h i s study. The framework f o r t h i s study was developed from a review of the l i t e r a t u r e and from personal experience as a f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . In the preceding chapters the r o l e s of the members of the student teaching t r i a d were discussed i n some d e t a i l . I t was a l s o shown tha t the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with student teaching have been the focus of some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . These v a r i a b l e s , i t was assumed, i n f l u e n c e the perceptions of r o l e s held by each member of the t r i a d . The l i t e r a t u r e suggests t h a t the expectations held by members of the t r i a d , f o r t h e i r own posi t i o n . a n d f o r the p o s i t i o n s of the other two members, are not n e c e s s a r i l y shared. This p o s s i b l e d i s p a r i t y , then, may a f f e c t the operation of the t r i a d during the student teaching experience. Expectations held f o r a given p o s i t i o n are derived i n a number of ways. They may r e s u l t from i n t e r a c t i o n s with i n d i v i d u a l s i n tha t p o s i t i o n or from ac t u a l experiences i n th a t p o s i t i o n or i n s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n s . Members of the t r i a d develop the expectations they hold f o r t h e i r own r o l e and f o r the r o l e s of the other two members of the t r i a d . The i n t e r a c t i o n of r o l e s occurs l a r g e l y during the student teaching 66 experience, but i n t e r a c t i o n may a l s o begin p r i o r t o t h i s i n the form of e a r l y communication between the f a c u l t y advisor or the student teacher and the cooperating teacher. I n t e r a c t i o n normally occurs on a d a i l y b a s i s between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher. I n t e r a c t i o n between the f a c u l t y advisor and the student teacher normally occurs when the f a c u l t y advisor v i s i t s the s c h o o l . At t h i s time, i n t e r a c t i o n between the f a c u l t y a dvisor and the cooperating teacher may a l s o occur, as well as i n t e r a c t i o n among a l l three members of the t r i a d . The degree t o which expectations are communicated and whether or not r o l e expectations f o r each t r i a d member's r o l e are indeed c l a r i f i e d i n these i n t e r a c t i o n s i s not c l e a r . Garland's Model Garland (1965) views the operation of the t r i a d as an i n t e r a c t i o n system. Her model (Figure 1) allows f o r an examination of expectations f o r r o l e s and a means f o r viewing two-way r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the p o s i t i o n s of cooperating teacher, f a c u l t y a dvisor and student teacher. She maintains t h a t each r o l e can be viewed i n terms of i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the other two r o l e s . For example, i t could be determined whether there i s agreement between the cooperating teacher and the student teacher on the expectations they hold f o r the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . The double arrows i n d i c a t e the way i n which p o s i t i o n s are r e l a t e d . Each p o s i t i o n i s separated i n t o a number of p o s i t i o n a l s e c t o r s which represent the r e l a t i o n s h i p 68 of one p o s i t i o n to the other two p o s i t i o n s . Blank s e c t o r s i n d i c a t e t h a t only a l i m i t e d s et of p o s i t i o n s i s shown i n the f i g u r e . These blank s e c t o r s recognize the existence of a d d i t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s with p u p i l s , p r i n c i p a l , school s t a f f , and p o s s i b l e others. Teacher Education Student Cooperating College Teacher Supervisor Figure 1 Garland's Model Although Garland's (1965) model, a l s o used by Kaplan (1967) and C a s t i l l o (1971), i n d i c a t e s t h a t there are r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t r i a d members, i t f a i l s to describe, i n p r e c i s e terms, the nature of these i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s and does not incorporate i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s which may a f f e c t the r o l e expectations held by members of the student teaching t r i a d . So, the framework developed f o r t h i s study attempts to extend Garland's model by p r o v i d i n g a means f o r 69 viewing t r i a d i c or three-way r e l a t i o n s h i p s among members of the student teaching t r i a d and by co n s i d e r i n g some of the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with student t e a c h i n g , i d e n t i f i e d by Garland (1964) but not addressed. As expectations f o r various r o l e s are analysed the framework should enable one t o i d e n t i f y the amount of agreement or disagreement held among respondent groups f o r t h e i r own and f o r other members' r o l e s . Extension of Garland's Model The framework of r e l a t i o n s h i p s used i n t h i s study t o descr i b e the t r i a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n among the three respondent groups, f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s (FAs), student teachers (STs) and cooperating teachers (CTs) i s presented i n Figure 2. The members of the student teaching t r i a d are each represented by a c i r c l e c o n t a i n i n g the r o l e expectations each member holds f o r him or h e r s e l f and f o r the other two members of the t r i a d and f o r o t h e r s . The inner c i r c l e represents the r o l e being examined, FA, ST, or CT and i s akin to a b a l l o t box. Members of the t r i a d r e g i s t e r t h e i r viewpoint (one-way arrow) f o r the f u n c t i o n under c o n s i d e r a t i o n at a s p e c i f i c p o i n t i n time. The boxes t o the l e f t of the t r i a d represent those f u n c t i o n s and behaviors t h a t are seen to describe the r o l e of each member of the t r i a d . I t i s p o s s i b l e , then, to desc r i b e the t r i a d i c i n t e r a c t i o n , t h a t i s , what i s oc c u r r i n g at the center of the t r i a d , i n terms of the agreement or p o s s i b l e disagreement f o r the r o l e expectations held among the three respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d . This framework a l s o allows f o r the 70 a n a l y s i s of dyadic i n t e r a c t i o n between two respondent groups and f o r the a n a l y s i s of the r o l e expectations held i n d i v i d u a l l y by each respondent group f o r h i s or her own r o l e or f o r the r o l e s of the other two members of the t r i a d . Figure 2 T r i a d i c I n t e r a c t i o n Among Members of the Student Teaching T r i a d The two-way d i r e c t i o n arrow i n d i c a t e s : 1) t h a t communication i s p o s s i b l e among a l l three members of the t r i a d , and 2) t h a t each member of the t r i a d has some i n f l u e n c e on the other two members. As the practicum progresses and as members of the t r i a d are inf l u e n c e d by, and are i n communication w i t h , each other, they may change t h e i r viewpoint with respect to the r o l e expectations they hold f o r each member's r o l e . The ST, f o r example, at the outset of the student teaching experience may expect the CT t o help the ST develop i n t e r e s t and s k i l l i n doing simple educational research. I f the CT does not share 71 t h i s viewpoint and i n some manner conveys t h i s t o the ST the ST, a f t e r a number of weeks of student teaching, may be influ e n c e d such t h a t he or she changes h i s or her viewpoint t o c o i n c i d e with t h a t of the CT and l i k e w i s e changes h i s or her "vote." I t was pointed out e a r l i e r t h a t i n t e r p o s i t i o n consensus as used by Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971) lacked the r i g o r t o describe c l e a r l y the i n t e r a c t i o n among t r i a d members. Consequently, three c a t e g o r i e s were developed f o r use i n t h i s study — d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y — t o desc r i b e the i n t e r a c t i o n observed among the three respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d . The c o l l e c t i v e o p i n i o n of a group of i n d i v i d u a l s i s s a i d to be p o s i t i v e towards an i s s u e — o r i n the p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n — i f more than 50% are i n favor; i t i s s a i d t o be negative i f more than 50% are opposed. D i r e c t i o n a l agreement, then, occurs when the data provides s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t evidence t h a t a l l three groups have opin i o n s i n the same d i r e c t i o n , i . e . , are i n favor of an item as an exp e c t a t i o n or are opposed. D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement occurs when the data provides s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t evidence t h a t one group has an opinion i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n t o at l e a s t one of the other two groups. D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y , i n the absence of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreeent, occurs when the data does not provide s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t evidence about the d i r e c t i o n of opinion f o r at l e a s t one of the groups. The framework, then, attempts to provide terminology that w i l l help c l a r i f y the present i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n language found i n the research l i t e r a t u r e on the study of r o l e expectations i n student teachi ng. Several s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d that c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s are associated with the student teaching experience. I t i s assumed i n t h i s framework t h a t , f o r any student teaching experience, overlapping s e t s of i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s w i l l be associated with each t r i a d member's r o l e and can p o t e n t i a l l y i n f l u e n c e the r o l e expectations held by each member of the t r i a d . A number of i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d i n previous research but not examined: gender of the respondent, geographic l o c a t i o n of the student teaching experience, experience of the respondent, l e v e l of the student teaching experience, p o s i t i o n and academic q u a l i f i c a t i o n of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , p o i n t of entry i n t o the teacher education program, length of the student teaching experience (Garland 1964, Kaplan 1967, C a s t i l l o 1971). Of these v a r i a b l e s , three were common t o the respondent groups i n t h i s study: gender, l e v e l of the practicum (elementary or secondary), and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum (urban or r u r a l ) . G i l l i g a n (1982) p o i n t s out, that d i f f e r e n c e s between sexes are being rediscovered i n the s o c i a l sciences. She contends t h a t p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i s t s s u f f e r from an obser v a t i o n a l b i a s " i m p l i c i t l y adopting the male l i f e as the norm, they have t r i e d to f a s h i o n women out of a masculine c l o t h " (p. 6). The work of Kanter (1977) suggests t h a t women conceive of t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r o l e s i n d i f f e r e n t ways t o men. Lieberman and M i l l e r (1984) report t h a t a number of d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between elementary and secondary schools and s t a t e t h a t " l i f e i n secondary school i s very d i f f e r e n t from l i f e i n elementary sc h o o l " (p. 37). Martin and Sheehan (1982) found t h a t elementary and secondary cooperating teachers held d i f f e r e n t expectations f o r f a c u l t y advisors and H a t t i e et a l . (1982) contend t h a t elementary and secondary cooperating teachers use d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a when e v a l u a t i n g student teachers. Koehler (1984) found that f i e l d - b a s e d f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s enjoyed a greater sense of e f f i c a c y i n the performance of t h e i r r o l e than d i d u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . The U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a u t i l i z e s both r u r a l f i e l d - b a s e d f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s and urban u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s i n t h e i r phase 3 student teaching program. Are there d i f f e r e n c e s between respondents t h a t can be a t t r i b u t e d to gender? How do the d i f f e r e n c e s between elementary and secondary schools a f f e c t the expectations held by members of the t r i a d ? Does the i n t r i g u i n g p r a c t i c a l s i t u a t i o n at the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a (urban and r u r a l student teaching placements) provide d i f f e r e n t practicum o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r student teachers? These three v a r i a b l e s appeared to warrant f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and were acc o r d i n g l y explored i n t h i s study. Figure 3 represents the framework f o r t h i s study and takes i n t o account the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s associated with the student teaching experience may have on each respondent group. 74 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual Vari ables STs Role Expectations Possi ble Functions/Behaviors FA Role »-ST Role CT Role Role Expectations Role Role Expectations FAs I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s CTs I n d i v i d Context Vari abl ual and ual es Figure 3 T r i a d i c I n t e r a c t i o n Among and Between Members of the Student Teaching T r i a d I t i s assumed, then, that the formulation and maintenance of the r o l e expectations held by the members of each respondent group are a f f e c t e d by a number of i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s . CTs, f o r example, located i n urban s e t t i n g s may hold d i f f e r e n t expectations f o r v a r i o u s aspects of t h e i r r o l e and f o r the r o l e s of the ST and the FA than t h e i r r u r a l counterparts. Thus a change i n the i n d i v i d u a l or contextual v a r i a b l e s may lead t o a change or d i f f e r e n c e i n r o l e e xpectations held w i t h i n the CT respondent group and i n the survey response f o r the expectations held f o r t h e i r own or f o r others' r o l e . An understanding of the nature of these p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s and the linkage between i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s and t r i a d member expectations may be c r i t i c a l to the e f f e c t i v e operation of the student teaching t r i a d . Garland (1982) contends t h a t i t i s e s s e n t i a l f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s i n c l i n i c a l experiences t o examine c a r e f u l l y the r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s a p p l i e d to t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r s e t t i n g . She maintains that agreement f o r r o l e d e f i n i t i o n s i s o f t e n assumed to e x i s t when i n r e a l i t y i t does not. The p o t e n t i a l outcome i s c o n f l i c t and misunderstanding and the development of i n e f f e c t i v e r o l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Four f e a t u r e s , then, d i s t i n g u i s h t h i s study's framework from the Garland (1965) model. The present study's framework provides: 1) a means of viewing three way r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the groups representing each of the three members of the student teaching t r i a d , 2) concise vocabulary f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n of the i n t e r a c t i o n among the members of the t r i a d , 3) a means of examining i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s a s s o c i a t e d with the student teaching experience, and 4) a framework f o r examining r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n other t r i a d scenarios and a method of an a l y s i n g survey data c o l l e c t e d i n such s i t u a t i o n s . Research Questions The present study, using the framework described above, attempts to i d e n t i f y the r o l e expectations held among the groups representing each of the three members of the student teaching t r i a d both f o r t h e i r own and f o r each member's r o l e . F u r t h er, i t seeks to determine whether d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s , w i t h i n respondent groups, were associated with the i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b l e of gender and the contextual v a r i a b l e s of l e v e l of the student teaching experience and geographic l o c a t i o n of the student teaching experience. Three general research questions guided t h i s research. A d e t a i l e d l i s t of the research sub-questions i s included i n Appendix B. Question 1. What r o l e expectations are held by each of the three respondent groups i n the student teaching t r i a d f o r each of the t r i a d i c r o l e s and to what extent do the r o l e expectations d i f f e r among these groups? Question 2. What d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e expectations e x i s t w i t h i n the groups representing each of the three members of the t r i a d , separated according to the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the experience, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the experience? Question 3. In l i g h t of the responses to questions one and two can p o t e n t i a l areas of r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity among and w i t h i n the groups representing each of the three members of the student teaching t r i a d be i d e n t i f i e d ? PROCEDURES The questionnaire survey method was chosen f o r t h i s research p r o j e c t because i t i s appropriate f o r the explor a t o r y o b j e c t i v e s of such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Data were c o l l e c t e d i n the Province of A l b e r t a during the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a Winter Term of the 1984-1985 academic year. Permission to conduct research i n Edmonton C i t y and Suburban D i s t r i c t s (25 mile r a d i u s of Edmonton) was arranged through the F i e l d Services 77 O f f i c e , F aculty of Education, U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . Permission to conduct research i n Regional A l b e r t a , defined by the U n i v e r s i t y as being outside the 25 mil e r a d i u s of Edmonton, was requested by l e t t e r sent to each d i s t r i c t superintendent by the researcher. The Edmonton School D i s t r i c t s and Suburban School D i s t r i c t s are subject to numerous requests f o r research. The F i e l d S e r v i c e s O f f i c e monitors a l l research requests through the Cooperative A c t i v i t i e s Program. The researcher met with the A s s i s t a n t Dean, F i e l d S e r vices and the School L i a i s o n O f f i c e r and explained the research p r o j e c t , reviewed the survey instrument, and gained support to conduct the research i n cooperation with the Faculty of Education, U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . A p p l i c a t i o n was then made to the Cooperative A c t i v i t i e s Program with subsequent approval granted t o conduct research i n the Edmonton C i t y School D i s t r i c t s and Suburban Di s t r i c t s . Surveys were d i s t r i b u t e d to secondary student teachers through t h e i r Curriculum and I n s t r u c t i o n c l a s s e s during a two week ' c a l l back' and returned to the researcher through the F i e l d S e r v i c e s O f f i c e . A l l other respondents received t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s through the mail and returned them by mail to the researcher using the sel f - a d d r e s s e d , stamped envelopes provided. The F i e l d Services O f f i c e d i s t r i b u t e d q u estionnaires to urban elementary student teachers and both elementary and secondary urban cooperating teachers and f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . The researcher mailed instruments to r u r a l elementary student teachers and elementary and secondary cooperating teachers and 78 f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s located i n r u r a l s e t t i n g s . A covering l e t t e r (Appendix C) was included with each instrument e x p l a i n i n g the study and i n d i c a t i n g t o the respondent what was required to complete the instrument. To ensure a standard presentation f o r a l l respondents, the covering l e t t e r was read to each Curriculum and I n s t r u c t i o n c l a s s p r i o r t o completing the quest i o n n a i r e . Instrumentation Development of the instrument. Three separate forced choice survey questionnaires developed by Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967) and C a s t i l l o (1971), r e s p e c t i v e l y , were combined to form the 166 item survey instrument used i n t h i s study (Appendix D). These instruments were p r e v i o u s l y used i n s t u d i e s of r o l e expectations i n c l i n i c a l experiences conducted i n the United States and more r e c e n t l y i n Canada by Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986). The combination of these instruments provides data on the expectations each member of the t r i a d holds f o r him or her s e l f and f o r the r o l e s of the other two members. The use of e x i s t i n g q uestionnaires i n t h i s research provided c o n t i n u i t y and a l i n k to previous l i t e r a t u r e as w e l l as helped to broaden and develop the knowledge base f o r the r o l e e xpectations held f o r each member of the student teaching t r i ad. The researchers who developed the survey instruments used i n t h i s study followed g e n e r a l l y p r e s c r i b e d questionnaire design methodology (Borg and G a l l , 1979). Garland (1965) e s t a b l i s h e d a l i s t of f u n c t i o n s f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e which student teachers were expected or not expected to perform. She then developed survey items and p i l o t t e s t e d her i n i t i a l form of the instrument. Cooperating teacher, student teacher, and f a c u l t y advisor groups were asked to respond to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e using f i v e response d e s i g n a t i o n s : a b s o l u t e l y must, p r e f e r a b l y should, may or may not, p r e f e r a b l y should not, a b s o l u t e l y must not. Garland (1965) found t h a t a large number of respondents chose the "may or may not" d e s i g n a t i o n and so decided t o employ a forced choice technique. Comments from the respondents were used to e d i t and c l a r i f y i n d i v i d u a l items with p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n paid to the relevance of items and p r e c i s i o n of terms. The f i n a l form of Garland's (1965) qu e s t i o n n a i r e included 76 items which she found described the r o l e of the student teacher. These items c l u s t e r e d under seven headings: planning, o b s e r v a t i o n , studying c h i l d r e n , g u i d i n g l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r s , range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s , and a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Kaplan (1967) followed an i d e n t i c a l procedure i n the development of h i s r o l e expectation instrument f o r f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . His i n i t i a l form was p i l o t t e s t e d and i n d i v i d u a l items were e d i t e d and c l a r i f i e d based on the comments of f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s , student teachers, and cooperating teachers. Kaplan's (1971) f i n a l form of the r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n instrument included 40 items grouped under the headings: planning, o b s e r v a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n , and a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . C a s t i l l o (1971) used a s i m i l a r procedure to Garland (1965) and Kaplan (1967) i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of h i s r o l e 80 expectation q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r cooperating teachers. Following an extensive l i t e r a t u r e search to determine the r e c u r r i n g f u n c t i o n s of cooperating teachers, he conducted personal i n t e r v i e w s with f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s , student teachers, and cooperating teachers t o c l a r i f y and modify items and ensure relevance. The f i n a l form of C a s t i l l o ' s r o l e e x p e c tation instrument included 50 items categorized under the headings: o r i e n t a t i o n of the cooperating teacher, o r i e n t a t i o n of the student teacher, planning with the student teacher, i n d u c t i n g the student teacher i n t o the teaching process, guiding the student teacher, e v a l u a t i n g the work of the student teacher, encouraging the student teacher to develop p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r e s t s and a t t i t u d e s , and working with the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . The three q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , then, which combined formed the survey instrument used i n the present research, were c a r e f u l l y developed and p i l o t t e s t e d by the previous researchers. Further, they have been f i e l d - t e s t e d through the research of Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971) and more r e c e n t l y have been used by Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) and found t o be a p p l i c a b l e i n the Canadian context. In an attempt to i d e n t i f y d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n respondent groups a s s o c i a t e d with i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s , c e r t a i n demographic data were c o l l e c t e d f o r each respondent group. The demographic information requested was not changed from t h a t obtained i n the previous research s t u d i e s i n an e f f o r t to maintain the i n t e g r i t y of the use of these survey instruments and f o r c o m p a r a b i l i t y of data. 81 V a l i d i t v and r e l i a b i l i t y . The assessment of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y i s problematic i n a l l s o c i a l science and behavioral research. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true of measurement instruments such as the one employed i n the present study which used a c h e c k l i s t of 166 r e l a t i v e l y d i s c r e t e items. One p o s s i b l e means of e s t a b l i s h i n g r e l i a b i l i t y i n v o l v e s r e t e s t i n g the sample at a l a t e r time upon the assumption t h a t nothing happened to members of the sample to a l t e r t h e i r perceptions between the d i f f e r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s of the instrument. Without extensive a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l f o r maturation and h i s t o r y e f f e c t s and given the nature of the sample t h i s was not f e a s i b l e . However, to the extent t h a t v a l i d i t y presupposes r e l i a b i l i t y , the concern f o r r e l i a b i l i t y of the instrument i s c e n t r a l t o the v a l i d i t y of the instrument. V a l i d i t y i s the degree to which a t e s t or questionnaire instrument measures what i t purports to measure. For the purposes of t h i s study both content v a l i d i t y and face v a l i d i t y must be considered. Content v a l i d i t y i s the degree to which the sample of t e s t items represents the content that the t e s t i s designed to measure. Face v a l i d i t y r e f e r s t o the s u b j e c t i v e 'surface' a p p r a i s a l of the content of the i n d i v i d u a l t e s t items. Content v a l i d i t y presumes face v a l i d i t y and i s f u r t h e r concerned with how well the t e s t incorporates the t o t a l content area. During the p r e t e s t i n g of t h e i r instruments Garland (1965), Kaplan (1967), and C a s t i l l o (1971) used r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from a l l three respondent groups with p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n paid to the relevance of i n d i v i d u a l items and the p r e c i s i o n of 82 terms. Test items were then e d i t e d and c l a r i f i e d and the f i n a l form employed i n t h e i r research. P r i o r to the adoption of these instruments f o r use i n the present study, the researcher reviewed the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to the r o l e expectations held f o r each member of the t r i a d . As w e l l , the members of a graduate c l a s s at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia t a k i n g Supervision of I n s t r u c t i o n (Education 576), comprised p r i m a r i l y of students with experience as a cooperating teacher or f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , generated a l i s t of expectations d e s c r i b i n g the r o l e of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , student teacher, and cooperating teacher f o r the researcher. The i n d i v i d u a l items from the re s p e c t i v e survey instruments were then compared to those found i n the l i t e r a t u r e review and those provided by the graduate c l a s s . Agreement was found f o r most t e s t items and on the substantive content of the r o l e s described. I t was concluded, then, t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l t e s t items a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t e d the r o l e of each r e s p e c t i v e member of the student teaching t r i a d and that face and content v a l i d i t y could be p r e d i c t e d with confidence. U s e a b i 1 i t v . The instrument was p r i n t e d on colored paper and d i s t r i b u t e d i n the format shown i n Appendix D. The i n s t r u c t i o n s were given on the f r o n t cover and the instrument was organized by s e c t i o n . One disadvantage became apparent as i t was used; i t s o v e r a l l length — 1 6 6 i t e m s — r e q u i r e d too much time to complete and t h i s l i k e l y c o n tributed to the lower than expected response r a t e s . 83 Target population. The t a r g e t population was those members of the 'student teaching t r i a d ' who have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the Phase Three F i n a l Practicum a s s o c i a t e d with the Bachelor of Education Program at the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . This i n c l u d e s , then, f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s , student teachers, and cooperating teachers, at both the elementary and secondary l e v e l and i n urban and r u r a l s e t t i n g s . For l o g i s t i c a l reasons the study included only those f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s , student teachers, and cooperating teachers who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the 1985 Phase Three Winter Practicum. I t i s recognized t h a t i n a s t r i c t s t a t i s t i c a l sense t h i s i s not a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample over time. However, the nature and duration of the Phase Three Practicum has changed very l i t t l e s i n c e the i n c e p t i o n of t h i s program. For the purposes of t h i s study, then, the sample w i l l be considered to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t a r g e t population and, on t h i s b a s i s , s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s were performed. I t could be argued t h a t the respondents i n t h i s study were a population and that no formal t e s t s were required. However, t h i n k i n g of the respondents as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t a r g e t population, i t i s use f u l to ask whether the observed d i f f e r e n c e s could have been due t o chance. Moreover, i n order f o r the i n t e r p r e t i v e framework and corresponding method of a n a l y s i s developed i n t h i s study t o make a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the research l i t e r a t u r e i t i s important f o r the methodology to be of use i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which random samples have been s e l e c t e d ; i n such s i t u a t i o n s s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s would be requi red. The F i e l d Services O f f i c e of the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a 84 provided the researcher with the names of a l l superintendents and school d i s t r i c t s i n Regional A l b e r t a as well as student placement information which contained the names and l o c a t i o n s of student teachers, t h e i r cooperating teachers, and t h e i r f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . At l e a s t one student teacher had been placed i n each of these r u r a l school s e t t i n g s . A l e t t e r e x p l a i n i n g the research and requesting permission t o conduct research (Appendix E) was sent to each of the 59 school d i s t r i c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s Phase 3 Practicum. T h i r t y - n i n e school d i s t r i c t s responded w i t h i n three weeks of the i n i t i a l m a i l i n g , 35 g r a n t i n g , and 4 d e c l i n i n g permission. The remaining 20 school d i s t r i c t s were contacted by telephone. A f t e r a f u r t h e r two weeks 11 school d i s t r i c t s responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y ; 9 d i d not respond and were not surveyed. The re g i o n a l sample, then, c o n s i s t e d of t r i a d members from 46 of the 59 r u r a l school d i s t r i c t s used by the U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a . In t o t a l , 1,417 questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d t o 609 student teachers (291 secondary, 318 elementary), 609 cooperating teachers, and 199 f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s . There was an o v e r a l l response rate of 47.7%. This c o n s i s t e d of 296 student teachers (48.6%), 284 cooperating teachers (46.6%), and 97 f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s (48.7%). 85 Data A n a l y s i s The management and coding of the data are described i n Appendix H. The responses were on a four p o i n t q u a s i - i n t e r v a l , f o r c e d choice s c a l e , with the four p o s s i b l e responses being " a b s o l u t e l y must" ( 1 ) , "p r e f e r a b l y should" ( 2 ) , "preferably should not" ( 3 ) , and "a b s o l u t e l y must not" ( 4 ) . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses across the four response c a t e g o r i e s and the corresponding mean scores f o r each item f o r each respondent group are presented i n Appendix F. Although the mean scores were used t o e s t a b l i s h the " i n t e n s i t y of response", they were not be used i n the r e s t of the a n a l y s i s . Rather, the ma j o r i t y of the a n a l y s i s was based on the percentages of 'yes' and 'no' responses, where the 'yes' category was obtained by combining the "a b s o l u t e l y must and p r e f e r a b l y should" and the 'no' category was obtained by combining the "p r e f e r a b l y should not and a b s o l u t e l y must not." This dichotomization of the responses i n t o 'yes' and 'no' was done i n order to s i m p l i f y the a n a l y s i s , t o a s s i s t i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s , and t o provide a method f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g a d i r e c t i o n of response. The i n t e n s i t y of response held f o r an item was determined by the mean score. High i n t e n s i t y was considered t o have occurred when a mean score was 1.5 or l e s s or 3.5 or more. High i n t e n s i t y i n d i c a t e s that a high percentage of respondents chose the "a b s o l u t e l y must" (1) or " a b s o l u t e l y must not" (4) response category. For example, 97.9% of a l l FAs responded 'yes' on item number s i x t e e n , and of these, 76% responded " a b s o l u t e l y must" and 21.9% responded " p r e f e r a b l y should" 86 r e s u l t i n g i n a mean score of 1.28. The mean score i n d i c a t e s , then, t h a t most FAs hold t h i s o pinion very s t r o n g l y or with high i n t e n s i t y . T r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y f o r r o l e items occurred when a l l three members of the t r i a d responded i n the same d i r e c t i o n and with high i n t e n s i t y . I t i s assumed t h a t t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y provides an i n d i c a t i o n of how s t r o n g l y an ex p e c t a t i o n i s held t r i a d i c a l l y . The percentage of responses from a l l groups on each of the four c a t e g o r i e s ( a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably s h o u l d / p r e f e r a b l y should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not) f o r each item together with the mean scores are included i n Appendix F. The data a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s study c o n s i s t s of two p a r t s , the f i n d i n g s of which are reported i n Chapters 4, 5, 6, (par t 1) and Chapter 7 (par t 2). Part one addresses the f i r s t research question and examined the r o l e expectations held by each of the three respondent groups f o r each member's r o l e . Part two addresses the second research question and was concerned with the d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the respondent groups as s o c i a t e d with the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s explored. S i m i l a r analyses are used i n the two p a r t s , but the emphases were d i f f e r e n t because of the research questions. In each case item by item analyses were performed. Par t one: across group agreement/disagreement. For each item, the a n a l y s i s i n part one c o n s i s t s of two d i f f e r e n t , but complementary, subanalyses. The f i r s t (primary) s u b a n a l y s i s deals with agreement and disagreement of a d i r e c t i o n a l nature among the three groups. That i s , each respondent group was examined to see whether the group f e l t 87 p o s i t i v e l y or n e g a t i v e l y towards a p a r t i c u l a r item, or whether the group was approximately evenly d i v i d e d . The d i r e c t i o n s of the three responses were then compared, and three c a t e g o r i e s — d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y — were developed and used t o describe the i n t e r a c t i o n among the three respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d . Although these c a t e g o r i e s w i l l now be described i n d e t a i l , i t may be useful f o r the reader t o f i r s t b r i e f l y examine Figure 3 on page 91, where a summary i s given. The f i r s t step i n t h i s f i r s t subanalysis was t o summarize the data. For t h i s purpose the data were f i r s t c o l l a p s e d i n t o 'yes' and 'no' c a t e g o r i e s as described above. D i r e c t i o n r e f e r s to the respondent's choice of "a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should" combined (1 or 2) or "preferably should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not" combined (3 or 4) on the four p o i n t L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e used on the instrument. When the data provides s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t evidence t h a t the opinions of a l l three groups are i n the same d i r e c t i o n , d i r e c t i o n a l agreement can be concluded. A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the proportion of 'yes' and 'no' responses was determined by the chi square t e s t . The alpha l e v e l was s e t at .01 to be c o n s i s t e n t with the e a r l i e r work of Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1985). The choice of l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s discussed i n Appendix I where the issue of m u l t i p l e comparisons or m u l t i p l e t e s t i n g i s a l s o addressed. D i r e c t i o n a l agreement can be defined, then, as the p a t t e r n i n which the yes and no responses across a l l three respondent groups are i n the same d i r e c t i o n departs s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 88 50-50 s p l i t w ith the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r , as determined by the ch i square g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t , being equal to or l e s s than 1% (p < .01). The second response category, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, occurs when the data provide s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t evidence t h a t the opin i o n s of one group are i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n to at l e a s t one of the other two groups. D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement i s defined as a pa t t e r n i n which the d i f f e r e n c e i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s departs s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r , as determined by the chi square g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t , being l e s s than or equal to 1% (p < .01). D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement may be c l a s s i f i e d as: 1) dyadic disagreement, i n which the yes and no responses across two respondent groups i s in the same d i r e c t i o n (+ or -) and i n which the t h i r d respondent group responds i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n ; 2) t r i a d i c disagreement, i n which opposing viewpoints are held by two respondent groups (+ or -) while the t h i r d group i s evenly d i v i d e d ( 0 ) , i . e . , there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o i n d i c a t e the d i r e c t i o n of response. The f i n a l response pattern i s d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y and includes those items f o r which the pattern of responses f o r one or more respondent groups does not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t , with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r , as determined by the chi square goodness-of-fit t e s t , being l e s s than or equal t o 1% (p > .01) and i n which there i s no d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. A respondent group i s considered to be approximately evenly d i v i d e d (0) when there i s l i t t l e 89 d i f f e r e n c e i n the pa t t e r n of yes and no responses, i . e . , when the data do not provide s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t evidence about the d i r e c t i o n of opinion of the group. D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y may be c l a s s i f i e d as: 1) dyadic agreement, i n which the d i f f e r e n c e i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n (+ or -) and i n which the t h i r d respondent group i s approximately evenly d i v i d e d ( 0); 2) dyadic ambivalence, i n which two groups are r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d (0) and a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t majority of the t h i r d group i s i n favor of or opposed to the item as an expectation (+ or - ) ; and 3) u n i v e r s a l ambivalence, i n which a l l three respondent groups are r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d on an item (0) i n terms of response. A d e t a i l e d e x p l i c a t i o n of the development and use of the framework and h y p o t h e t i c a l scenarios f o r each of the response patterns used i n t h i s study appear i n Appendix A. The nature and extent of disagreement f o r occurrences of dyadic agreement i s somewhat ambiguous, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n those instances where the proportion of yes and no responses of the evenly d i v i d e d group i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n as the two respondent groups which were i n agreement. The d i s t i n c t i o n with regard to the presence of dyadic disagreement i s much c l e a r e r i n those cases where the t h i r d respondent group responds i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . For occurrences of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y some disagreement or ambiguity i s evident. Owens (1970) suggests that r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity are s i m i l a r but, i n some respects, d i f f e r e n t . The l a t t e r occurs when the r o l e p r e s c r i p t i o n i s c o n t r a d i c t o r y or 90 vague; the s i t u a t i o n i s not so much one of c o n f l i c t as i t i s of confusion. Role c o n f l i c t e x i s t s when c o n t r a d i c t o r y expectations are held f o r an occupant of a p o s i t i o n . I t may be, then, i n s i t u a t i o n s qf d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y where one or more respondent groups are approximately evenly d i v i d e d t h a t r o l e ambiguity or confusion i s present and i n cases of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement where one respondent group i s opposed to one or both of the other respondent groups t h a t r o l e c o n f 1 i c t e x i s t s . I t appears t h a t i n occurrences of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement (dyadic disagreement, t r i a d i c disagreement) t h a t some disagreement i s present and i n cases of d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y (dyadic agreement, dyadic ambivalence, u n i v e r s a l ambivalence) that some u n c e r t a i n t y e x i s t s . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study may i d e n t i f y areas of disagreement or p o t e n t i a l sources of r o l e c o n f l i c t or r o l e ambiguity. Whether such disagreement leads t o ac t u a l c o n f l i c t or confusion among members of the student teaching t r i a d i s beyond the scope of t h i s study. However, the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s study may provide the necessary understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the members of the student teaching t r i a d to reduce the number of occurrences of p o t e n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t and r o l e ambiguity inherent i n the t r i a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p . Figure 4 summarizes the p o s s i b l e patterns of responses held f o r a given survey item by the three respondent groups and shows the d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s that may e x i s t among the members of the student teaching t r i a d . 91 Respondent Group 1 2 3 A. D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement + + + B. D i r e c t i o n a l Di sagreement ( 1 ) Dyadic Disagreement + + -+ - -(2) T r i a d i c Disagreement + — 0 C. D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertai nty ( 1 ) Dyadic Agreement + + 0 - - 0 (2) Dyadic Ambivalence + 0 0 - 0 0 (3) U n i v e r s a l Ambivalence 0 0 0 + = yes ( a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should combined) - = no ( a b s o l u t e l y must n o t / p r e f e r a b l y should not combined) 0 = evenly d i v i d e d ( i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to determine a d i r e c t i o n of response) Figure 4 P o s s i b l e Patterns of Responses Among Respondent Groups The second (secondary) sub a n a l y s i s i n part one examines the n o n - d i r e c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s among the three respondent groups. For items i n which d i r e c t i o n a l agreement i s found i n the f i r s t subanalysis the 2x3 chi square t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n i s used to see whether the percentage of p o s i t i v e responses d i f f e r among the three groups. For items i n which d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y i s found i n the f i r s t s u b a n a l y s i s , the 2x3 chi square " t e s t can a l s o be used to remove some of the ambiguity. The f i n d i n g s f o r each member's r o l e are presented i n Chapters 4-6 under the ca t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y , with the r e s u l t s of the 2x3 chi square t e s t s being used to help i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n when c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s warranted. The 2x3 chi square a n a l y s i s i n part one i s thus supplementary to the d i r e c t i o n a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n , although the two analyses a l s o complement each other when taken together. Part two: w i t h i n group v a r i a t i o n . In part two, the order of the subanalyses are the reverse of those i n part one. The primary focus here was t o determine the ( n o n - d i r e c t i o n a l ) d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e expectations w i t h i n each of the three respondent groups a s s o c i a t e d with the v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the practicum, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum. The f i r s t s u b a n a l y s i s thus c o n s i s t s of performing a 2x2 c h i square t e s t f o r a s s o c i a t i o n , to see whether d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t w i t h i n subgroups. The secondary focus considered the d i r e c t i o n of response f o r each subgroup on the items where d i f f e r e n c e s a ssociated with the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s were found. Determining the d i r e c t i o n of response i s concerned more with how the respondents view t h e i r r o l e than p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t among the members of a respondent group. These f i n d i n g s are presented i n Chapter 7. The chi square t e s t s f o r the e q u a l i t y of proportions (2 x 3 i n part one and 2 x 2 i n part two) were performed at two l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e , the f i r s t being .01 and the second being based on Bonferroni's method using an o v e r a l l e r r o r rate of .05 f o r the group of items p e r t a i n i n g to a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e . 93 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Terms used i n a s p e c i a l i z e d sense i n t h i s research are defined as f o l l o w s : Student Teaching T r i a d . A group c o n s i s t i n g of three members, the cooperating teacher, f a c u l t y a d v i s o r and the student teacher, who work together during the length of the practicum. CTs, i n t h i s sample, s u p e r v i s i n g U n i v e r s i t y of A l b e r t a STs were remunerated at the rate of 55 d o l l a r s per week. Student Teaching Experience. The act u a l o n - s i t e experience, where the student operates w i t h i n the confines of a cooperating teacher's classroom. Also r e f e r r e d to as a practicum, f i e l d experience, or c l i n i c a l experience. Expectation. The f u n c t i o n s and behaviors held by each member of the t r i a d whether executed or not which c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of a given p o s i t i o n . Role Expectation. The f u n c t i o n s and behaviors expected of the i n d i v i d u a l which c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of a given p o s i t i o n and which are held by both the i n d i v i d u a l and by others. Role. A s e t of f u n c t i o n s and behaviors a p p l i e d to an occupant of a p a r t i c u l a r p o s i t i o n . Role Agreement. A s t a t e t h a t e x i s t s when s i m i l a r e xpectations are held f o r an occupant of a p o s i t i o n . Role C o n f l i c t . A s t a t e that e x i s t s when c o n t r a d i c t o r y expectations are held f o r an occupant of a p o s i t i o n with respect to a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e . Role Ambiguity. A s t a t e that e x i s t s (confusion) when the expectations held f o r the occupant of a p o s i t i o n with respect t o a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e are vague or c o n t r a d i c t o r y . D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement. The pa t t e r n i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes and no responses across a l l respondent groups i n the same d i r e c t i o n departs s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r being equal t o or le s s than 1% (p < .01). D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement. The pa t t e r n i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s departs s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r being equal to or l e s s than 1% (p < .01). Two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are p o s s i b l e : 1) dyadic disagreement, i n which the yes and no responses across two respondent groups i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n (+ or -) and i n which the t h i r d respondent group responds i n the opposite 94 d i r e c t i o n ; (2) t r i a d i c disagreement, i n which opposing viewpoints are held by two respondent groups while the t h i r d group i s approximately evenly d i v i d e d as there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response. D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty. The pa t t e r n i n which the yes and no responses f o r one or more respondent groups does not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r being l e s s than or equal to 1% (p < . 0 1 ) , i e . , there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response, and i n which there i s no d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. Three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y are p o s s i b l e : (1) dyadic agreement, i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n and the t h i r d group i s approximately evenly d i v i d e d (does not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t ) ; (2) dyadic ambivalence, i n which two groups are r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d and a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y of the t h i r d group i s i n f avor or opposed to the item as a r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n , and (3) u n i v e r s a l ambivalence, i n which a l l three respondent groups are r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d on an item. D i r e c t i o n of Response. The respondent's choice of "a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should" combined or "preferably should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not" combined on the forced choice s c a l e used on the instrument; may be " p o s i t i v e " or "negative". I n t e n s i t y of Response. The i n t e n s i t y of response f o r an item was determined by the mean score. A mean score of 1.5 or l e s s or 3.5 or greater i n d i c a t e s t h a t a lar g e proportion of t h a t respondent group were e i t h e r s t r o n g l y i n favor ( a b s o l u t e l y must) or s t r o n g l y opposed ( a b s o l u t e l y must not) t o a given item and were responding with high i n t e n s i t y . T r i a d i c I n t e n s i t y . T r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y occurred when a l l three members of the t r i a d responded i n the same d i r e c t i o n and with high i n t e n s i t y f o r a r o l e item. The f i n d i n g s f o r the r o l e expectations held by each of the three respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d f o r each member's r o l e and the d i f f e r e n c e s across groups associated with the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s examined are now presented. CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: FACULTY ADVISOR ROLE The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study f o r the expectations held by the three respondent groups f o r the r o l e played by one member of the student teaching t r i a d are presented i n Chapters 4, 5 and 6. Chapter 4 considers the expectations held f o r the r o l e of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r (FA), Chapter 5, the student teacher (ST) and Chapter 6, the cooperating teacher (CT). Table 1 presents an overview of the f i n d i n g s f o r the FA r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t hand s i d e of the page. The next column, headed F-S-C, gives the d i r e c t i o n s of response (+, -, 0) f o r each of the respondent groups and i s followed by the d i r e c t i o n a l category (DIR CAT): d i r e c t i o n a l agreement (DA); d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement (DD); or d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y (DU). The column f o l l o w i n g gives the 2X3 chi square values. The l e v e l of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e of the 2X3 chi square t e s t i s i n d i c a t e d i n the next column with an I i f the item meets the itemwise ( i n d i v i d u a l ) l e v e l of 1% or with a B i f i t meets the more s t r i n g e n t o v e r a l l l e v e l of 5% f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of items i n t h i s t a b l e (.00125 as determined by the Bonferroni method). These are followed by the corresponding percentage of 'yes' responses f o r each respondent group, FA, ST, and CT r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r i g h t s ide of the page d i s p l a y s a p l o t of the yes percentages by respondent group and demonstrates, i n a d e s c r i p t i v e sense, the extent of the agreement or disagreement among respondent 96 Table 1 Expectations Held f o r the Role of the FA by A l l Three Respondent Groups: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM F--s- •c DIR CAT CHISQ (2X3) SIG FA %Y ST %Y CT %Y MIN MAX 0 50 100 FA 1 _ 0 _ DU 22.71 B 34 56 39 — * I. m - - - • i F C - - S FA2 - - - DA 5.46 1 1 20 21 F- -# FA3 + + + DA 5.30 96 90 94 SCF FA4 0 0 + DU 12.00 I 49 47 61 S F - - C FA5 0 0 + DU 20.28 6 49 44 63 S - : - - c FA6 0 + + DU 7.79 47 62 63 F FA7 0 0 + DU 21.28 B 51 44 65 S- : - - c FA8 + + + DA 13.48 B 85 94 85 #-S FA9 0 + - DD 60 .93 B 39 71 39 #-- ---s FA10 - + - DD 50.75 B 33 63 34 F C - - - - - S FA 1 1 - 0 - DU 32.44 B 22 48 28 F - C - - - S FA12 0 + + DU 8.11 64 72 79 F - S - C FA13 - - - DA 2.61 20 25 29 FSC FA14 + + + DA 1 .89 99 98 97 FA15 + + + DA 0. 15 80 80 81 # FA16 + + + DA 1.91 98 99 98 # FA17 - - - DA 0.94 30 34 31 #S FA18 0 + - DD 44.46 B 41 63 34 CF- - --s FA19 - - - DA 10.02 I 7 10 3 C# FA20 0 + + DU 12.12 T i. 64 79 68 FC-S FA21 + + + DA 2.30 90 95 93 F# FA22 - - - DA 0.42 11 10 12 #C FA23 + + + DA 5.80 95 85 87 #-F FA24 0 0 0 DU 6.35 43 52 58 F- ! 5-C FA25 0 + 0 DU 23.07 B 37 65 54 F - - - c-s FA26 0 + + DU 16.46 B 58 77 81 F - - - S C FA27 - - 0 DU 6.15 30 39 46 F - S - C FA28 + + + DA 0.47 99 98 98 # FA29 + + + DA 3.70 85 80 86 s# FA30 + + + DA 8.53 87 73 76 SC- - F FA31 + + + DA 0.01 90 90 90 # FA32 + + + DA 2 .92 94 88 91 #F FA33 + 0 + DU 8.19 65 56 68 S-FC FA34 - - - DA 2 .96 22 21 15 C# FA35 - - - DA 2.42 22 19 15 CSF FA36 + + + DA 20.64 B 70 72 87 F S - - C FA37 + + + DA 2 .75 85 91 88 F# FA38 + + + DA 10.42 •I 93 91 98 #C FA39 - - - DA 9.81 I 26 24 14 - c--# FA40 0 + 0 DU 7.72 53 60 48 C FS DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 3 +'s or 3 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : at l e a s t 1 + and at l e a s t 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X3 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i tems i n t h i s t a b l e groups f o r each item. By viewing the t a b l e as a whole, and by looking at the lengths of the l i n e s j o i n i n g the symbols (F,S,C), i t i s p o s s i b l e to get a general i n d i c a t i o n of the extent of the disagreement among the three respondent groups f o r the FA r o l e . Moreover, by noting t h a t FA1-FA7 deal with planning, FA8-FA18 observation, FA19-28 e v a l u a t i o n , FA29-FA40 a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i t i s p o s s i b l e to see where the disagreement l i e s . A number symbol (#) i n d i c a t e s t h a t the percentage of responses of two or more groups were so c l o s e together ( u s u a l l y w i t h i n two or three percentage points of each other) that i t was not p o s s i b l e to f i t two symbols (F-S-C) on at one po i n t . Table 1 shows the extent of the agreement and disagreement found among respondent groups f o r the r o l e of the FA. These f i n d i n g s w i l l now be discussed under the c a t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement D i r e c t i o n a l agreement i s defined as a patte r n i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes or no responses across a l l respondent groups, i n the same d i r e c t i o n , depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r being equal to or l e s s than 1% (p < .01). D i r e c t i o n r e f e r s to the respondent's choice of " a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should" combined or "preferably should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not" combined on the forced choice s c a l e used on the instrument and was determined by the chi square go o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t at the .01 l e v e l of 98 s i g n i f i c a n c e . Item number 3 ("study the student teacher's u n i t and d a i l y plans") provides an example of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement. The combined percentage of responses ( a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should) from FAs f o r t h i s item was 95.9%, from STs 90.1%, and from CTs 94.4%. A l l three respondent groups responded i n the same d i r e c t i o n and, f o r t h i s item, expected the FA to undertake t h i s f u n c t i o n . The i n t e n s i t y of response r e f e r s to the degree i n which a respondent group held an item as an expectation and was determined by the mean score. High i n t e n s i t y was considered to have occurred when a mean score was 1.5 or l e s s or 3.5 or more on a given item. T r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y f o r r o l e items occurred when a l l three members of the t r i a d responded i n the same d i r e c t i o n and with high i n t e n s i t y . I t i s assumed t h a t i n t e n s i t y of response provides an i n d i c a t i o n of how s t r o n g l y an expectation i s held e i t h e r by a respondent group or t r i a d i c a l l y . The mean scores f o r each item f o r a l l three respondent group are reported i n Appendix F. For some items i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t there w i l l be d i r e c t i o n a l agreement but yet there w i l l be evidence of disagreement of a n o n - d i r e c t i o n a l nature. For example, the proportion of yes's i n the three groups could be 90%, 90%, 65%. Such d i f f e r e n c e s could be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t although a l l three are i n the same d i r e c t i o n . Thus, i n cases of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, a 2 x 3 chi square t e s t i s performed to t e s t the e q u a l i t y of the three proportions, i . e . , to t e s t to see i f respondent group and opinion with respect to th a t r o l e item are independent. 99 Items Held as Expectations f o r the FA Role Table 2 shows the survey items held as expectations f o r the r o l e of the FA. The survey item number i s l i s t e d down the l e f t hand s i d e of the page followed by the FA r o l e f u n c t i o n . Items marked with a s i n g l e a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e that although d i r e c t i o n a l agreement was reached some d i f f e r e n c e (as discussed above) i s evident among the three groups. This i s based on the 2 x 3 chi-squared t e s t f o r e q u a l i t y of proportions using a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of .01. Items marked with a double a s t e r i s k (**) i n d i c a t e t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y . Table 2, f o l l o w i n g , shows the items held as expectations f o r the FA r o l e by a l l three respondent groups. For the purposes of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n the items have been c l u s t e r e d i n accord with the ca t e g o r i e s used on the survey instrument (planning, o b s e r v a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n , a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ) . Planning. (FA1-FA7) The members of the student teaching t r i a d expected the FA to be involved i n planning with the ST by studying the ST's u n i t and d a i l y plans ( 3 ). 100 Table 2 Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Expectations f o r the FA Role Item No. Function Some Tr i a d Di f f e r e n c e T r i a d i c I n t e n s i t y 3 study the ST's u n i t and d a i l y plans 8 observe c h i l d r e n i n the classroom * assigned to the ST 14 take notes while ST i s teaching 15 i f notes (on ST) are taken, make these notes a v a i l a b l e t o the CT 16 i f notes (on ST) are taken, make these notes a v a i l a b l e to the ST ** 21 share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i o n with ST and CT 23 use e v a l u a t i o n procedures designed by the u n i v e r s i t y 28 guide the ST toward the goal of s e l f e v a l u a t i o n 29 a s s i s t CT i n f u l f i l l i n g h i s or her r o l e 30 act as l i a i s o n between ST and CT 31 a s s i s t ST's adjustment to p u b l i c school and u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c i e s 32 serve as resource c o n s u l t a n t f o r ST 36 conduct student teaching i n - s e r v i c e * programs 37 c l a r i f y the o b l i g a t i o n of the school to the u n i v e r s i t y and the u n i v e r s i t y t o the school 38 work with the u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y i n developing the t o t a l teacher t r a i n i n g program * = d i f f e r e n c e among the three groups at the 1% l e v e l ** = t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y 101 Observation. (FA8-FA18) FAs were expected by members of the student teaching t r i a d t o observe p u p i l s i n the classroom assigned to the ST (8) and take notes while the ST was teaching (14). The t a k i n g of notes and making them a v a i l a b l e (15), p a r t i c u l a r l y t o the ST (16), appears to be an expe c t a t i o n f o r the FA r o l e i n the view of a l l respondent groups. Ev a l u a t i o n . (FA19-FA28) T r i a d members expected the FA t o share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i o n with both the CT and the ST (21) using the e v a l u a t i o n procedures designed by the u n i v e r s i t y (23). Members of the t r i a d f u r t h e r agreed t h a t the FA should guide the ST toward the goal of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n (28). A d d i t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s . (FA29-FA40) The three respondent groups expected the FA t o a s s i s t the CT i n f u l f i l l i n g h i s or her r o l e (29) by conducting student teaching i n s e r v i c e workshops f o r CTs (36) and by pr o v i d i n g l i a i s o n between STs and CTs (30). FAs were expected to serve as resource c o n s u l t a n t s t o the ST (32) and both a s s i s t with the ST's adjustment to school and u n i v e r s i t y p o l i c i e s (31) and c l a r i f y the o b l i g a t i o n of the school t o the u n i v e r s i t y and the u n i v e r s i t y to the school (38). A l l members of the t r i a d endorsed the FA's r o l e of working with the u n i v e r s i t y f a c u l t y i n developing the t o t a l teacher education program. Di f f e r e n c e s among groups were evident on two items (8,36) held as expectations f o r the FA r o l e . This d i f f e r e n c e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of one group holding the item as an expectation than e i t h e r or both of the other two 102 groups. Items Held as Non-Expectations f o r the FA Role Table 3 presents the survey items reaching d i r e c t i o n a l agreement f o r items not held as expectations f o r the r o l e of the FA. The survey item number i s again l i s t e d down the l e f t hand column of the page followed by the r o l e f u n c t i o n . A s i n g l e a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s t h a t some d i f f e r e n c e among groups i s present. A double (**) a s t e r i s k i n the r i g h t hand column i n d i c a t e s t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y . Table 3, f o l l o w i n g , shows tha t e i g h t items were not held as expectations f o r the FA r o l e by a l l three respondent groups. The d i s c u s s i o n f o l l o w s the same format used f o r Table 2. Planning. Members of the student teaching t r i a d d i d not expect the FA to work i n a planning f u n c t i o n with the CT regarding u n i t planning ( 2 ). Observation. Members of the t r i a d were i n agreement with respect t o the FA's r o l e i n note t a k i n g and were opposed to these notes, on e i t h e r the CT (13) or the ST (17), being made a v a i l a b l e to the school p r i n c i p a l . 103 Table 3 Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Non-expectations f o r the FA Role Item Function/Item Some T r i a d i c No. T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f e r e n c e 2 work with the CT i n planning a u n i t 13 i f notes are taken (on the CT) make these notes a v a i l a b l e to the school p r i n c i pal 17 i f notes are taken (on the ST) make these notes a v a i l a b l e to the school p r i n c i p a l 19 assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e v a l u a t i n g the ST 22 designate t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i o n t o the CT 34 serve as consultant f o r l o c a l P.T.A. 35 serve as resource consultant f o r a l l teachers i n the school 39 attend s t a f f meetings i n the cooperating schools E v a l u a t i o n . FAs were c l e a r l y expected n e i t h e r to assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the e v a l u a t i o n of the ST (19) nor t o designate t o t a l l y t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the CT (22). A d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . FAs were not expected to serve i n a c o n s u l t a t i v e capacity f o r the l o c a l P.T.A. or f o r a l l teachers i n the school and were not expected to attend s t a f f meetings i n the cooperating schools. 104 D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement i s defined as a pa t t e r n i n which the d i f f e r e n c e i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t with the p r o b a b i l i t y of e r r o r being l e s s than or equal to 1% (p < .01). Two p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement may be found: 1) dyadic disagreement, i n which the d i f f e r e n c e i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i s i n the same d i r e c t i o n (+ or -) and i n which the t h i r d respondent group responds i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n ; and 2) t r i a d i c disagreement, i n which opposing viewpoints are held by two respondent groups (+ or -) whi l e the t h i r d group i s approximately evenly d i v i d e d ( 0 ) , i . e . , there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response. Data are presented i n the form of percentages of yes and no responses by a l l three groups. The Yes column represents the percentage of combined " a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should" responses (+) and the No column represents the percentage of combined " p r e f e r a b l y should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not" responses (-). Table 4 shows the items of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement associated with the FA r o l e . The r i g h t hand columns present the yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each respondent group followed by a +, -, or 0 i n d i c a t i n g the d i r e c t i o n of response ( d i r ) . 105 Table 4 Items of D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement f o r the FA Role Item Function Yes No Di r No. (X) (X) 9 observe cooperating teacher ST 70.7 29. 3 + p r i o r to placement of CT 39.3 60. 7 -student teacher FA 39. 1 60. 9 0 10 observe cooperating teacher ST 62.7 37. 3 + during period of student CT 34.2 65. 8 -teachi ng FA 33.0 67. 0 — 18 observe i n the classroom of other ST 63. 1 37. 9 + teachers f o r purposes of s e l e c t i n g CT 34.2 65. 8 -cooperating teachers FA 40.7 59. 3 0 Table 4 shows one item of dyadic disagreement. The m a j o r i t y of STs expected the FA to observe the CT during the round of student teaching. However, both student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s were opposed to t h i s FA r o l e item. T r i a d i c disagreement occurred between the ST and the CT on two items, both r e l a t i n g t o observation of the CT. Most STs expected the FA both to observe CTs p r i o r to the placement of the ST and observe other classroom teachers f o r the purpose of s e l e c t i n g CTs. Most of the CTs i n t h i s study were opposed to these FA r o l e expectations while the FAs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d so t h a t there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response f o r the FAs. D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y includes those items i n which the p a t t e r n of responses f o r one or more respondent groups did not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t , i . e . , were 106 approximately evenly d i v i d e d or there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response, and i n which there was no d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. Items f a l l i n g i n t h i s category may be c l a s s i f i e d i n three ways. F i r s t , dyadic agreement, i n which the p a t t e r n of responses across two respondent groups i n the same d i r e c t i o n depart from a 50-50 s p l i t and the t h i r d respondent group i s evenly d i v i d e d . For example, dyadic agreement was found on item number 1, "study the CT's u n i t and d a i l y plans." Both CTs and FAs were opposed to t h i s item, responding 61.5% and 66.3% r e s p e c t i v e l y (combined p r e f e r a b l y should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not). The d i f f e r e n c e i n yes and no responses f o r the t h i r d respondent group, STs, d i d not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t . The items on which dyadic agreement occurs have been c l a s s i f i e d according to dyadic r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( i . e . , FA-ST, FA-CT, ST-CT). Second, dyadic ambivalence, i n which two groups are evenly d i v i d e d and a m a j o r i t y of the t h i r d group i s i n favor of or opposed to an item as an e x p e c t a t i o n . T h i r d , u n i v e r s a l ambivalence, i n which there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r any of the three respondent groups to i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response, a l l groups being r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d on an item. 107 Table 5 Items of Dyadic Agreement f o r the FA Role Item Function Yes No D i r No. (%) (%) 1 study the cooperating ST 56. 0 44. 0 0 teacher's u n i t and CT 38. 5 61 . 5 -d a i l y plans FA 33. 7 66. 3 — 6 conduct cooperative planning ST 62. 4 37 . 6 + sessions with cooperating CT 63. 0 37. 0 + teacher and student teacher FA 47. 3 52. 7 0 1 1 take notes whi1e ST 48. 4 51 . 6 0 cooperating teacher CT 28. 2 71 . 8 -i s teaching FA 22. 3 77. 7 — 12 i f notes are taken, (of CT) ST 71 . 6 28. 4 + make these notes a v a i l a b l e CT 79. 1 20. 9 + to the cooperating teacher FA 63. 7 36. 3 0 20 share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of ST 78. 9 21 . 1 + e v a l u a t i o n (of ST) with the CT 67 . 6 32. 4 + student teacher FA 63. 6 36. 4 0 26 make t h i s e v a l u a t i o n (of CT) ST 76. 8 23. 2 + a v a i l a b l e to the CT 80. 8 19. 2 + cooperating teacher FA 57. 9 42. 1 0 27 make t h i s e v a l u a t i o n (of CT) ST 39. 0 61 . 0 — a v a i l a b l e t o the CT 45. 8 54. 2 0 school p r i n c i p a l FA 30. 4 69. 6 — 33 serve as resource ST 55. 6 44. 4 0 consultant f o r CT 67. 5 32. 5 + cooperating teacher FA 64. 9 35. 1 + Dyadic Agreement Table 5 shows the items of dyadic agreement f o r the FA r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t hand column followed by the item described i n the center of the t a b l e . The r i g h t hand columns present the yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each of the three respondent groups. The 108 d i r e c t i o n of response ( d i r ) , f a r r i g h t , i s i n d i c a t e d with a +, 0. Dyadic agreement was found between the FA and the ST f o r item number 27, the outcome of the e v a l u a t i o n of the CT. The majority of both FAs and STs were opposed to making t h i s e v a l u a t i o n a v a i l a b l e to the p r i n c i p a l whereas CTs were almost evenly d i v i d e d . FAs and CTs agreed on three FA r o l e items. A m a j o r i t y of both supervisors were opposed to the FA studying the CT's u n i t and d a i l y plans (1) and t a k i n g notes while the CT i s teaching (11). On the other hand, most FAs and CTs expected the FA to serve as resource consultant to the CT (33). STs were evenly d i v i d e d with regard to a l l three of these items as the d i r e c t i o n of response was i n c o n c l u s i v e . Dyadic agreement between STs and CTs was found on four FA r o l e items. Most STs and CTs expected the FA to conduct cooperative planning sessions with them (6). FAs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d with respect to meeting as a t r i ad. Most STs and CTs were i n favor of the FA making a v a i l a b l e to the CT both the notes taken during any observation of the CT's teaching (12) and any e v a l u a t i o n s of the CT (26). FAs tended to be evenly d i v i d e d there being i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to i n d i c a t e a d i r e c t i o n of response f o r these expectations. The majo r i t y of STs and CTs were i n favor of sharing the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of e v a l u a t i o n (of ST) with the ST (20). FAs again tended to be evenly d i v i d e d . 109 Dyadic Ambivalence Table 6 d i s p l a y s the items of dyadic ambivalence f o r the r o l e of the FA. The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the page followed by the corresponding survey item. The r i g h t hand column presents the yes and no responses f o r each of the three respondent groups i n percentage form followed by the d i r e c t i o n of response i n d i c a t e d with a +, - , o. Table 6 Items of Dyadic Ambivalence f o r the FA Role Item No. Function/Item Yes (X) No (%) Di r 4 work with the student ST 46.6 53.4 0 teacher i n planning CT 61 .4 38.6 + a u n i t FA 49.5 50.5 0 5 work with the student ST 43.6 56.4 0 teacher i n developing CT 63. 1 36.8 + lesson plans FA 49.5 50.5 0 7 conduct i n - s e r v i c e planning ST 44.3 55.7 0 sessions with cooperating CT 64.8 33.2 + school s t a f f FA 50.6 49.4 0 25 evaluate e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the ST 65.2 34.8 + cooperating teacher i n t h i s CT 54. 1 45.9 0 capaci ty FA 36.8 63.2 0 40 work toward the improvement ST 60.4 39.6 + of the t o t a l school CT 48. 1 51 .9 0 program FA 53.5 46.5 0 STs and FAs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d about the FA's r o l e i n planning u n i t s (4) and lesson plans (5) with STs and p r o v i d i n g i n s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s f o r the cooperating school s t a f f s ( 7). Most CTs, on the other hand, were g e n e r a l l y i n 110 favor of these items. Dyadic ambivalence was a l s o found between the CT and the FA f o r the FA's r o l e i n e v a l u a t i o n , s p e c i f i c a l l y , as i t p e r t a i n e d to e v a l u a t i n g the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the CT as s u p e r v i s o r (25). Most STs were g e n e r a l l y i n favor of t h i s FA r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n . Both groups of supervisors were r e l a t i v e l y evenly s p l i t with regard to the FA's r o l e i n working toward the improvement of the t o t a l school program (40) whereas most STs held t h i s item as an e x p e c t a t i o n . U n i v e r s a l Ambivalence Table 7 shows the item of u n i v e r s a l ambivalence f o r the FA r o l e . The item number followed by the item i s l i s t e d on the l e f t hand s i d e of the page. The r i g h t hand column presents the yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each of the three respondent groups followed by the d i r e c t i o n of response. Table 7 Item of Universal Ambivalence f o r the FA Role Item Functi on/Item Yes No Di r No. (X) (X) 24 use e v a l u a t i o n procedures ST 51 .6 48. 3 0 designed by the school or CT 58.2 41 .8 0 school d i s t r i c t FA 42.7 57.3 0 U n i v e r s a l ambivalence was found f o r only one FA r o l e item. A l l three respondent groups were approximately evenly 111 d i v i d e d with regard t o the FA using e v a l u a t i o n procedures designed by the school or school d i s t r i c t . Summary F i f t e e n of the f o r t y survey items examined i n t h i s study were held as expectations by a l l members of the student teaching t r i a d f o r the FA r o l e , one of these reaching t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y (Table 2). An a d d i t i o n a l e i g h t items reaching d i r e c t i o n a l agreement were not held as expectations f o r the FA (Table 3). Hence, 23 (58%) of the 40 expectations are not di sputed. D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement was evident on three items, one item of dyadic disagreement and two items of t r i a d i c disagreement (Table 4 ) . Fourteen survey items met with d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . Dyadic agreement was evident on e i g h t items: three between the FA and CT, four between the ST and CT and only one between the FA and ST (Table 5). Dyadic ambivalence was i n d i c a t e d on f i v e items (Table 6) and u n i v e r s a l ambivalence on one item (Table 7). Kaplan (1967) who st u d i e d the r o l e of the FA used the categ o r i e s of planning, o b s e r v a t i o n , e v a l u a t i o n , and a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s to describe the r o l e of the FA. These d e s c r i p t o r s w i l l now be used to summarize the f i n d i n g s f o r the FA r o l e . PIanni ng. c l e a r l y defined, the STs' u n i t and to work with the The r o l e of the There i s d i r e c t i o n a l d a i l y plans. However, CT i n t h i s respect but FA i n planning i s not agreement f o r studying the FA i s not expected i s expected to conduct 112 cooperative planning sessions with both ST and CT. The CT i s the only member of the t r i a d who holds the expectation t h a t the FA w i l l work i n a developmental manner ( i . e . , plan lessons and u n i t s with the ST and provide i n - s e r v i c e planning sessions with the cooperating school s t a f f ) . Observation. The FA i s expected t o observe the ST, take notes and make these notes a v a i l a b l e to both the ST and the CT. Neither s u p e r v i s o r expects the FA to observe the CT during the student teaching experience. The STs, however, expect the FA to perform t h i s f u n c t i o n and to observe the CT p r i o r to placement and to observe other CTs f o r the purpose of CT s e l e c t i o n . The CTs i n t h i s study were not i n favor of them being observed i n the classroom by the FA. Eva!uation. The members of the student teaching t r i a d b e lieved t h a t the u n i v e r s i t y designed e v a l u a t i o n procedures should be used and t h a t the e v a l u a t i o n of the ST i s a shared r e s p o n s i b i l i t y among t r i a d members. No one member or dyad should assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The ST was the only member of the t r i a d who wanted the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the CT evaluated by the FA. A d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The FA i s expected to a s s i s t the CT and a l s o conduct i n - s e r v i c e student teaching programs. A l l members of the t r i a d b e l i e v e d that the FA should be a resource consultant f o r the ST but only the CT and FA suggested t h i s was appropriate with respect to the CT. P r o v i d i n g l i a i s o n 113 between the ST and the CT, the ST and the school, and the u n i v e r s i t y and the school a l s o achieved d i r e c t i o n a l agreement. The FA was not, however, expected to get involved at the school l e v e l . This a n a l y s i s has provided an o v e r a l l view of the FA r o l e . Beyond the commonly held expectations t h a t the FA w i l l observe and evaluate the ST, there i s a lack of agreement about the r o l e . I t i s unclear whether FAs are expected to d i r e c t t h e i r energies s o l e l y toward the s u p e r v i s i o n of STs, work developmental 1y with CTs i n an e f f o r t to improve school based s u p e r v i s i o n or perhaps do both. As w e l l , f a c t o r s such as l o c a t i o n of practicum, grade l e v e l , or gender of t r i a d member may i n f l u e n c e the expectations held w i t h i n respondent groups f o r the FA r o l e . These v a r i a b l e s w i l l be addressed i n Chapter 7 . CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: STUDENT TEACHER ROLE Chapter 5 examines the e x p e c t a t i o n s h e l d by the three respondent groups f o r the r o l e of the ST. The f i n d i n g s are presented under the c a t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . Table 8 presents an overview of the f i n d i n g s f o r the r o l e o f the ST. The items d e s c r i b i n g the ST r o l e are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the page f o l l o w e d by the d i r e c t i o n of response (+, -, 0) under the headings F-C-S. The d i r e c t i o n a l c ategory (DIR CAT) f o r each item f o l l o w s . The next column g i v e s the 2x3 c h i square values f o l l o w e d by the items t h a t were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t the i n d i v i d u a l l e v e l of 1% ( I ) and the o v e r a l l l e v e l of 5% (B) f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of items i n t h i s t a b l e (.00066). The percentage of 'yes' responses f o r each respondent group, FA, ST, and CT f o l l o w r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r i g h t s i d e of the page d i s p l a y s a p l o t of the yes percentages by respondent group and d e s c r i b e s the ext e n t of agreement or disagreement among respondent groups f o r each item. By viewing the t a b l e as a whole and by noting t h a t ST1-ST11 deal with p l a n n i n g , ST12-ST19 o b s e r v a t i o n , ST20-ST28 st u d y i n g c h i l d r e n , ST29-ST43 g u i d i n g l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , ST44-ST52 e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r s , ST53-ST68 range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s , and ST69-ST76 a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i t i s p o s s i b l e t o see where the disagreement f o r the ST r o l e l i e s . A number symbol (#) i n d i c a t e s t h a t the responses of two or 114 1 15 Table 8 Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by A l l Three Respondent Groups: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages FA ST CT MIN - MAX % Y % Y %Y 0 5 0 100 ST 1 + + + DA 10 51 I 98 93 87 CSF ST2 + + DA 6 72 96 92 97 s# ST3 + + + DA 17 02 B 91 82 93 S-FC ST4 + + + DA 6 88 100 97 100 # ST5 + + + DA 9 54 I 75 59 69 S-CF ST6 + + + DA 4 42 91 87 93 S# ST7 + + + DA 31 36 B 98 84 96 s--# ST8 + + + DA 12 01 I . 99 92 98 S# ST9 0 - 0 DU 9 35 I 49 33 43 S - -CF ST10 + + + DA 10 76 I 79 67 79 s--# ST 1 1 0 + 0 DU 7 05 53 63 52 '• #--s ST12 + + + DA 7 21 95 89 85 CS-F ST13 + + + DA 2 70 95 89 90 #-F ST14 + + + DA 6 78 79 65 71 S - C - F ST15 + + + DA 0 44 68 64 64 #F ST16 - - - DA 9 52 I 7 18 12 F-CS ST17 - - - DA 23 74 B 11 36 41 F SC ST 18 + + + DA 2 06 98 94 94 #F ST19 + 0 + DU 7 60 69 53 59 S - C - F ST20 + + + DA 5 23 100 95 97 # ST21 + + + DA 8 61 95 84 89 SC-F ST22 + - + DD 48 27 B 75 42 68 s- - - - C F ST23 + + + DA 8 82 99 89 92 SCF ST24 + 0 + DU 14 77 B 78 57 68 S - - C - F ST25 + 0 0 DU 7 63 72 55 54 # - - -F ST26 + - 0 DD 58 50 B • 65 24 51 S C - - F ST27 + 0 - DD 15 63 B 65 43 39 cs- - - F ST28 + - 0 DD 38 35 B 71 32 49 s---c F ST29 + + + DA 16 88 B 88 76 89 s--# ST30 + + + DA 10 05 I 99 94 98 S# ST31 + + + DA 0 48 98 98 98 # ST32 + + + DA 3 42 98 92 92 #F ST33 + + + DA 3 38 98 95 98 S# ST34 + + + DA 0 84 99 100 99 # ST35 - 0 - DU 56 19 B 25 43 14 C - - F - - - S ST36 + + + DA 2 43 100 99 100 # ST37 + + + DA 0 76 99 98 97 # ST38 - 0 - DU 70 86 B 31 57 22 C-F -s ST39 + + + DA 5 35 82 70 76 S-CF ST40 + + + DA 42 08 B 91 68 89 S CF ST41 + + + DA 0 80 97 96 94 C# DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 3 +'s or 3 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D i sag reement : at l e a s t 1 + and at l e a s t 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X3 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e ITEM F - S - C DIR CAT CHISQ SIG (2X3) 1 16 ITEM F-•s-•c DIR CHISQ SIG FA ST CT MIN MAX CAT (2X3) %Y %Y %Y 0 50 100 ST42 + + + DA 3.03 98 98 100 # ST43 + + + DA 2.62 ' 85 83 79 c-# ST44 + + + DA 1 .38 100 99 98 # ST45 + + + DA 15.14 B 97 86 94 s - CF ST46 0 + 0 DU 82.06 B 44 83 51 F.-C S ST47 + + + DA 0.81 92 90 89 #F ST48 + + + DA 0.68 95 94 93 #F ST49 + + + DA 3.04 88 80 79 CS-F ST50 + + + DA 1 .20 83 78 79 #-F ST51 + + + DA 4.56 71 72 63 CFS ST52 + + + DA 0.58 94 92 92 # ST53 0 + 0 DU 36.54 B 47 77 58 F - C - - - S ST54 + + + DA 2 .20 89 89 85 C# ST55 + + 0 DU 15.07 B' 69 73 57 C-FS ST56 - - - DA 5.36 20 23 15 CFS ST57 - - - DA 15.41 B 30 40 24 CF-S-ST58 + + + DA 8.63 74 80 69 CF -S ST59 + + + DA 4.79 98 95 98 # ST60 + + + DA 10.37 I 76 58 66 S C - - F ST61 + + 0 DU 14.91 B 81 62 57 C S - - - F ST62 0 - 0 DU 24.30 B 62 34 51 S - - - C - - F ST63 - - - DA 10.07 I 8 12 5 CFS ST64 + + + DA 2 .25 94 98 96 F# ST65 0 0 0 DU 7.75 57 45 56 s - CF ST66 0 + + DU 4.00 58 66 70 FSC ST67 0 + + DU 11 .66 1 54 73 72 F - - - # ST68 0 + + DU 0.98 63 68 67 #S ST69 + + + DA 24.37 B 95 86 97 S - -# ST70 + + + DA 4.26 97 93 96 S# ST71 + + + DA 6.09 99 100 100 # ST72 + + + DA 10.34 I 86 73 82 S-CF ST73 + + + DA 4 .55 100 98 100 ST74 0 - - DU 3.09 38 29 35 SCF ST75 + + + DA 0.39 97 95 96 # ST76 + + + DA 2 .96 94 96 98 F# DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 3 +'s or 3 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : at l e a s t 1 + and at l e a s t 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X3 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e 1 1 7 more groups were so c l o s e together that i t was not p o s s i b l e t o f i t two symbols (F-S-C) on at one point. Table 8 shows the extent of the agreement and disagreement held f o r the ST r o l e among the three respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d . The f i n d i n g s are presented under the c a t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement D i r e c t i o n a l agreement as p r e v i o u s l y defined i s a pattern i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes and no responses across a l l respondent groups i n the same d i r e c t i o n departs s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t . Items Held as Expectations f o r the ST Role Table 9 presents the survey items held as r o l e expectations f o r the ST r o l e . The survey item number i s l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the page followed by the ST r o l e f u n c t i o n f o r each item a c h i e v i n g d i r e c t i o n a l agreement. The s i n g l e a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s that although d i r e c t i o n a l agreement was reached some d i f f e r e n c e i s evident among the three groups based on the 2 x 3 chi square t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n using a l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of .01 or a c r i t i c a l value of 9.21. T r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y i s again i n d i c a t e d by a double a s t e r i s k (**). 118 Table 9 Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Expectations f o r the ST Role Item No. Function Some T r i a d i c T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f e r e n c e 1 study the CT's u n i t and d a i l y plans * 2 work with the CT i n planning a u n i t 3 plan a u n i t independently * 4 develop w r i t t e n lesson plans f o r h i s or her own teaching a c t i v i t i e s ** 5 prepare d a i l y lesson plans a week i n advance * 6 use a c o n s i s t e n t format f o r w r i t i n g lesson plans 7 submit the lesson plans t o the CT p r i o r t o teaching * 8 r e v i s e lesson plans i n accordance with the CT's suggestions * 10 r e l y on the recommendations provided the teacher's manual f o r a lesson i n an area such as reading by * 12 study the CT's plan before observing 13 take notes while CT i s teaching 14 i f notes (of CT) are taken, make these notes a v a i l a b l e to the CT 15 observe i n the classroom f o r a week before beginning t o teach 18 observe i n the classrooms of other teachers 20 seek to acquire an understanding of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the community i n which the school i s located / c o n t i nued 119 Item Function Some T r i a d i c No. T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f e r e n c e 21 observe c h i l d r e n at age l e v e l s above and below th a t to which the ST i s assigned 23 observe c h i l d r e n i n school s i t u a t i o n s outside of the classroom 29 begin teaching by working with small groups * 30 create h i s or her own i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s i n the absence of s u i t a b l e m a t e r i a l s * ** 31 teach at some time when the CT i s not i n the room ** 32 work with one c h i l d who needs s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e (diagnosing d e f i c i e n c i e s , applying remedial procedures) 33 assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r guiding the a c t i v i t i e s of temporary and/or permanent groups 34 express h i s or her own imagination and c r e a t i v i t y i n teaching ** 36 teach groups of d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s 37 assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r grouping f o r an a c t i v i t y 39 organize and conduct a f i e l d t r i p 40 f o l l o w the same i n s t r u c t i o n a l program as t h a t of the CT * 41 assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the teaching program before the c o n c l u s i o n of the student teaching experience ** 42 use community resources i n teaching 43 teach at more than one grade l e v e l during the student teaching semester or period 44 c o n s t r u c t , give, and i n t e r p r e t t e s t s ** 45 develop and maintain progress c h a r t s * /co n t i nued 120 Item No. Function Some T r i a d i c T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f e r e n c e 47 p a r t i c i p a t e with the CT i n pu p i l conferences 48 guide c h i l d r e n i n developing group standards 49 conduct group e v a l u a t i o n sessions 50 conduct i n d i v i d u a l conferences with p u p i l s to discuss t h e i r growth 51 administer an i n t e r e s t inventory 52 use non-test methods of e v a l u a t i o n 54 work at some time with consultants or s p e c i a l teachers 58 p a r t i c i p a t e i n parent - teacher conferences 59 attend s t a f f meetings 60 Become a member of a s t a f f committee * 64 keep attendance records 69 keep a d a i l y log of experiences * 70 v i s i t the CT's classroom before student teaching begins 71 contact the cooperating teacher p r i o r to student teaching ** 72 maintain anecdotal records f o r c h i l d r e n i n the classroom * 73 be a v a i l a b l e e i t h e r before or a f t e r school f o r conferences with the CT ** 75 d i s c u s s a c t i v i t i e s of student teaching seminars with the CT 76 organize a p r o f e s s i o n a l f i l e of teaching material of both p i c t u r e and subj e c t matter * = d i f f e r e n c e among the three groups at the 1% l e v e l ** = t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y 121 Table 9 shows t h a t a large number of items were held as expectations f o r the ST r o l e by a l l three respondent groups. Given t h i s large number the d i s c u s s i o n w i l l be l i m i t e d t o only those items which reached t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y . The c a t e g o r i e s developed by Garland (1964) and used on the survey instrument (planning, o b s e r v a t i o n , studying c h i l d r e n , guiding l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r s , range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s , a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ) w i l l be used, where ap p r o p r i a t e , to frame the d i s c u s s i o n . PIanning. STs were expected by a l l three respondent groups to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r g e n e r a l l y a l l aspects of u n i t and lesson planning and i n p a r t i c u l a r developing lesson plans f o r t h e i r own teaching a c t i v i t i e s ( 4 ). Guiding l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Members of the student teaching t r i a d were i n agreement about the ST assuming t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the teaching program (41) and i n so doing teach at a time when the CT was not i n the classroom (31). Tr i a d members a l s o expected STs to crea t e t h e i r own i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s (30) and use them i m a g i n a t i v e l y and c r e a t i v e l y (34). Eva!uation T r i a d members expect STs to be involved i n most aspects of p u p i l e v a l u a t i o n and p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n s t r u c t i n g , g i v i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g t e s t s (44). 122 A d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Members of the student teaching t r i a d expected the ST to contact the CT p r i o r to student teaching (71) and be a v a i l a b l e f o r conferences with the CT before or a f t e r school (73) during the student teaching experience. D i f f e r e n c e s among respondent groups were evident on a number of items (1,3,5,7,8,10,29,30,40,45,60,69,72) held as expectations f o r the ST r o l e . This d i f f e r e n c e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of one group holding the item as an expectation than e i t h e r of the other two groups. Items Not Held as Expectations f o r the ST Role Table 10 presents the items reaching t r i a d i c agreement that were not held as expectations f o r the ST r o l e . The item number i s l i s t e d down the l e f t hand column of the page fo l l o w e d by the r o l e f u n c t i o n . D i f f e r e n c e s among the three respondent groups f o r items where d i r e c t i o n a l agreement was found are in d i c a t e d with an a s t e r i s k (*). No items achieved t r i a d i c i ntensi t y . 123 Table 10 Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Non-Expectations f o r the ST Role Item No. Function Some T r i a d i c T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f erence 16 s e t t l e a disturbance while the CT i s teaching 17 c o n t r i b u t e to c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s while the CT i s teaching * 56 p a r t i c i p a t e i n changing school p o l i c i e s 57 spend two or three days working with the school p r i n c i p a l * 63 conduct a parent-teacher meeting alone * * = d i f f e r e n c e among the three groups at the 1% l e v e l Table 10 shows th a t only f i v e items were not held as expectations f o r the ST r o l e . Members of the student teaching t r i a d d i d not expect STs to s e t t l e disturbances or c o n t r i b u t e to c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s while the CT i s teaching. A l l three respondent groups were opposed to the ST's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n changing school p o l i c i e s and working f o r two or three days with the school p r i n c i p a l . Further, STs were not expected to conduct parent-teacher meetings alone. D i f f e r e n c e s among groups were found on three items not held as expectations f o r the ST r o l e (17,57,63). This d i f f e r e n c e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a l a r g e r proportion of one group holding the item as an expectation or being opposed to the item as an expectation than e i t h e r or both of the other two groups. 124 D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement occurs when the pattern i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes and no responses across two respondent groups i n opposite d i r e c t i o n s depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t . Both p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, dyadic disagreement and t r i a d i c disagreement, were evident f o r the ST r o l e . Data i n the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s are presented i n the form of percentages of yes and no responses by each of the three respondent groups. The yes column represents the percentage of combined "a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should" responses and the no column represents the percentages of combined "preferably should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not" responses. Table 11 Items of D i r e c t i o n a l Disagreement f o r the ST Role Item No. Function Yes No D i r (X) (X) 22 maintain an anecdotal record ST 42 .0 58 .0 -of the behavior of one c h i l d CT 68 .0 32 .0 + during student teaching FA 75 .0 25 .0 + 26 prepare an i n d i v i d u a l ST 24 .2 75 .8 — case study CT 51 .0 49 .0 0 FA 65 .3 34 .7 + 27 p a r t i c i p a t e i n one r e l a t e d ST 42 .8 57 .2 0 community agency CT 39 .0 61 .0 -FA 65 .3 34 .7 + 28 administer a sociogram ST 32 .5 67 .6 — CT 48 .9 51 . 1 0 FA 71 .2 28 .8 + 125 Table 11 presents the items of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement f o r the ST r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t hand column fo l l o w e d by the expectation which has been described i n the center of the t a b l e . The r i g h t hand columns present the yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each of the three respondent groups followed by a +, -, or 0 i n d i c a t i n g the d i r e c t i o n of response. Table 11 shows one item of dyadic disagreement. Most STs disagreed with t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s and were opposed to maintaining an anecdotal record of the behavior of one c h i l d during student teaching. The majority of FAs and CTs, on the other hand, were i n favor of t h i s item. T r i a d i c disagreement was found on three items. Most FAs tended to favor ST involvement i n studying c h i l d r e n . The m a j o r i t y of STs were opposed to preparing i n d i v i d u a l case s t u d i e s and a d m i n i s t e r i n g sociograms whereas most FAs expected STs to perform these t a s k s . CTs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d on these two items. Supervisors tended to disagree with each other about the ST's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a community agency. The m a j o r i t y of FAs were i n favor of t h i s expectation of the ST whereas most CTs were opposed. There was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to determine a d i r e c t i o n of response f o r STs who were s t a t i s t i c a l l y evenly d i v i d e d . D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y includes those items i n which the p a t t e r n of responses f o r one or more respondent groups d i d 126 not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t and i n which there was no d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y f o r items a s s o c i a t e d with the ST r o l e were c l a s s i f i e d under the c a t e g o r i e s of dyadic agreement, dyadic ambivalence, and u n i v e r s a l ambivalence. Dyadic Agreement Table 12 shows the items of dyadic agreement f o r the ST r o l e . Each item number i s l i s t e d down the l e f t hand column followed by the item described i n the center of the t a b l e . The r i g h t hand columns present the yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each of the three respondent groups and are followed by a +, -, 0 i n d i c a t i n g the d i r e c t i o n of response. Table 12 shows t h a t dyadic agreement was found between STs and FAs f o r two items, the majority of whom were i n favor of the ST attending PTA meetings (61) and assuming major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r lunchroom s u p e r v i s i o n at some point (55). CTs were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d . Dyadic agreement between student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s was found on f o u r items. The majority of FAs and CTs expected the ST to observe the teaching of another ST (19). The maj o r i t y of FAs and CTs were both opposed to STs s u b s t i t u t e teaching (35,38) during the student teaching experience. STs were g e n e r a l l y evenly s p l i t with regard to these items. 127 Table 12 Items of Dyadic Agreement f o r the ST Role Item No. Function Yes (%) No (X) Di r 19 observe the teaching of ST 52. 8 47. 2 0 another student teacher CT 59. 4 40. 6 + FA 69. 0 31 . 0 + 24 use a s p e c i f i c form f o r ST 56. 8 43. 2 0 observations of i n d i v i d u a l CT 67. 9 32. 1 + and group behavior FA 78. 0 22. 0 + 35 do s u b s t i t u t e teaching ST 43. 3 56. 7 0 in other classrooms CT 14. 1 85. 9 -FA 25. 3 74. 7 — 38 do s u b s t i t u t e teaching ST 57. 5 42. 5 0 in assigned classroom CT 22. 2 78. 8 -FA 31 . 4 68. 6 — 55 assume major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ST 73. 1 26. 9 + f o r lunchroom s u p e r v i s i o n CT 57 . 1 42. 9 0 at some time FA 69. 3 30. 7 + 61 attend PTA meetings ST 62. 4 37. 6 + CT 57. 4 42. 6 0 FA 81 . 2 18. 8 + 66 c o l l e c t money f o r such ST 65. 7 34. 3 + purposes as milk, lunch, CT 70. 0 30. 0 + Community Chest, e t c . FA 58. 1 41 . 9 0 67 c o r r e c t papers/tests ST 72. 9 27 . 1 + administered by the CT 71 . 8 28. 2 + cooperating teacher FA 54. 1 45. 9 0 68 evaluate reference books ST 68. 4 31 . 6 + CT 66. 8 33. 2 + FA 62. 7 37. 3 0 74 accept s o c i a l i n v i t a t i o n s ST 29. 4 70. 7 — from parents CT 35. 1 64. 9 -FA 38. 5 61 . 5 0 128 Dyadic agreement between STs and CTs was found on four ST r o l e expectations. The m a j o r i t y of respondents i n the ST-CT dyad agreed that STs should be res p o n s i b l e f o r c o l l e c t i n g money (66), c o r r e c t i n g CT administered papers and t e s t s (67) and e v a l u a t i n g reference books (68). They a l s o agreed that STs should not accept s o c i a l i n v i t a t i o n s from parents (74). FAs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d on each of these items. Dyadic Ambivalence Table 13 shows the items of dyadic ambivalence f o r the ST r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t hand column followed by the item i n the center of the t a b l e . The yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each respondent group are presented i n the r i g h t hand columns followed by the d i r e c t i o n of response (+, -, 0). Table 13, f o l l o w i n g , shows th a t dyadic ambivalence was found between the FA and CT on f i v e items. The majority of STs expected to conduct cooperative planning sessions with c h i l d r e n , c o n t r i b u t e information to cumulative records and r e q u i s i t i o n s u p p l i e s and m a t e r i a l s . Most STs d i d not expect to use the same planning format as used by the CT or accompany the CT on home v i s i t s . The student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s i n t h i s study were approximately evenly d i v i d e d on these items. 129 Table 13 Items of Dyadic Ambivalence f o r the ST Role Item No. Function Yes (%) No (%) Di r 9 use the same format as that ST 32.8 67.2 used by the cooperating CT 43.0 57.0 0 teacher f o r planning FA 48.7 51 .3 0 11 conduct cooperative planning ST 63. 1 36.9 + s e s s i o n s with c h i l d r e n CT 51 .7 48.3 0 FA 52.6 47.4 0 25 study the a b i l i t i e s of ST 54.6 45.4 0 mentally retarded c h i l d r e n CT 54.2 45.8 0 FA 71 .6 28.4 + 46 c o n t r i b u t e information to ST 83.4 16.6 + cumulative records CT 50.6 49.4 0 FA 43.8 56.2 0 53 r e q u i s i t i o n s u p p l i e s and ST 77.2 22.8 + i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s CT 57.5 42.5 0 FA 47.0 53.0 0 62 accompany the cooperating ST 34.3 65. 7 — teacher on home v i s i t s CT 51 . 1 48.9 0 FA 61 .5 38.5 0 Most FAs were i n favor of STs studying the a b i l i t i e s of mentally retarded c h i l d r e n whereas the ST-CT dyad was r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d on t h i s expectation. U n i v e r s a l Ambivalence Table 14 d i s p l a y s the item of u n i v e r s a l ambivalence f o r the ST r o l e . The item number i s l i s t e d on the l e f t hand side of the page fo l l o w e d by the item. The r i g h t hand columns present the yes and no responses i n the form of percentages and d i r e c t i o n of response f o r each of the three respondent groups. 130 Table 14 Item of Uni v e r s a l Ambivalence f o r the ST Role Item No. Function Yes No D i r (X) (X) 65 attend a conference of the ST 44.8 55.2 0 p r i n c i p a l and CT when the CT CT 55.8 44.2 0 i s d i s c u s s i n g some aspect of FA 57.3 42.7 0 h i s or her work  Table 14 shows t h a t u n i v e r s a l ambivalence was found on only one ST r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n . A l l three respondent groups were approximately evenly d i v i d e d with regard to the ST's attendance at a conference between the p r i n c i p a l and the CT when d i s c u s s i n g some aspect of the CT's work. Summary This Chapter described the expectations held by a l l three respondent groups f o r the ST r o l e . Members of the student teaching t r i a d held f i f t y of the seventy-six survey items considered i n t h i s study as expectations f o r the ST r o l e (Table 9). Eight items achieved t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y . D i r e c t i o n a l agreement was evident on only f i v e items not held as expectations f o r the r o l e of the ST (Table 10). D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement was found on four items a s s o c i a t e d with the ST r o l e , one item of dyadic disagreement and three items of t r i a d i c disagreement (Table 11). D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y was found on eighteen items associated with the ST r o l e . Four items of dyadic agreement were evident between the FA-CT dyad, four between the ST-CT 131 dyad, and two between the FA-ST dyad (Table 12). Dyadic ambivalence was found on s i x items (Table 13) and u n i v e r s a l ambivalence on one item (Table 14). Garland (1964) c l u s t e r e d the items used t o describe the ST r o l e under seven c a t e g o r i e s (planning, observation, studying c h i l d r e n , guiding l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , e v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r s , range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s , a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ) . These headings w i l l now be used to summarize the f i n d i n g s f o r the ST r o l e . PIanning. Considerable agreement was evident f o r the ST's r o l e i n planning. STs were expected by a l l members of the t r i a d to be involved i n the process of lesson and u n i t planning i n d i r e c t c o n s u l t a t i o n with the CT. Further, STs were expected to use a c o n s i s t e n t format and r e v i s e lesson plans i n accordance with the CT's suggestions. C l o s e l y associated t o these l a s t two expe c t a t i o n s , most STs were opposed to using the same format f o r planning as t h e i r CT. Neither group of student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s held t h i s as an expectation, both being approximately evenly d i v i d e d . Observation. STs were c l e a r l y expected to observe i n the classrooms of other teachers and take notes while observing the CT's teaching. I t was a l s o agreed by members of the student teaching t r i a d t h a t i t would be inappropriate f o r the ST t o s e t t l e disturbances or c o n t r i b u t e to c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s while the CT was teaching. Both s u p e r v i s o r s agreed that the ST should observe the teaching of another ST; however, STs were 132 l a r g e l y evenly d i v i d e d . Studying c h i l d r e n . Members of the student teaching t r i a d agreed t h a t STs should understand the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the community i n which the ST teaches and observes c h i l d r e n i n school s i t u a t i o n s outside of the classroom. However, a cons i d e r a b l e lack of agreement among respondents was evident on a number of ST expectations. Both groups of ST s u p e r v i s o r s expected STs to use s p e c i f i c observation forms f o r recording i n d i v i d u a l and group behavior and maintain an anecdotal record f o r the behavior of one p u p i l . Most STs, however, d i d not hold e i t h e r of these expectations being opposed to the f i r s t and e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect to the second. Further, the majority of STs d i d not expect to administer sociograms or prepare case s t u d i e s and were approximately evenly s p l i t with respect to p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a community agency. FAs were i n favor of the ST performing each of these tasks whereas CTs were l a r g e l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect t o the f i r s t two and most were opposed t o the t h i r d . Only FAs expected STs to study the a b i l i t i e s of the mentally retarded. STs and CTs were both evenly d i v i d e d . Guiding l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . STs were expected to express t h e i r imagination and c r e a t i v i t y i n teaching and i n the development of s u i t a b l e i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . P r i o r to the co n c l u s i o n of the student teaching experience STs were expected by a l l members of the t r i a d to assume both t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 1 33 f o r a l l aspects of the teaching program and teach at a time when the CT i s not i n the classroom. This d i d not include s u b s t i t u t e teaching i n t h e i r own or other teacher's classrooms or c o n t r i b u t i n g to the cumulative records of p u p i l s . Both groups of s u p e r v i s o r s were opposed to the former ST expectations and e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect to the l a t t e r . STs, on the other hand, were approximately evenly s p l i t with regard to the f i r s t two expectations and c l e a r l y i n favor of the l a s t one. E v a l u a t i n g l e a r n e r s . Considerable agreement was evident f o r most aspects of the ST's r o l e i n e v a l u a t i n g p u p i l s . A l l three respondent groups expected the ST t o c o n s t r u c t , administer, and i n t e r p r e t t e s t s , use non-test methods of e v a l u a t i o n and develop and maintain p u p i l progress c h a r t s . STs expected t o c o n t r i b u t e information t o cumulative records whereas t h e i r s u p e r v i s o r s were approximately evenly d i v i d e d with respect t o t h i s item. Range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s . T r i a d members agreed t h a t STs should attend s t a f f meetings but not conduct parent-teacher conferences alone. Most FAs and STs f u r t h e r agreed t h a t STs should attend P.T.A. meetings and assume some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r lunchroom s u p e r v i s i o n . CTs d i d not seem to hold these as expectations, being r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d on both. Although the majority of CTs d i d not expect STs to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a community agency, they d i d expect the ST to 134 become a member of a s t a f f committee and shared t h i s view with FAs. STs were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect to t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n . FAs were approximately evenly s p l i t regarding the ST's r o l e i n c o l l e c t i n g money, marking t e s t s and papers administered by the CT and ev a l u a t i n g reference books. Most respondents i n the ST-CT dyad were i n favor of these expectations. Both groups of student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s were l a r g e l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect t o the ST r e q u i s i t i o n i n g s u p p l i e s and m a t e r i a l s and accompanying the CT on home v i s i t s . Most STs, on the other hand, were decided and were i n favor of the f i r s t e x p e c t a tion and opposed to the second. A d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Members of the t r i a d c l e a r l y expected the ST t o accept a number of a d d i t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s r e l a t e d to the student teaching experience. STs were expected to contact the CT and v i s i t the CT's classroom p r i o r to student teaching and be a v a i l a b l e f o r conferences with the CT during the practicum. The m a j o r i t y of STs d i d not expect to accept s o c i a l i n v i t a t i o n s from parents. Most CTs shared t h i s viewpoint and FAs were approximately evenly s p l i t . An o v e r a l l p i c t u r e of the r o l e expectations held f o r the r o l e of the ST was provided by the d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s i n t h i s chapter. Considerable agreement among members of the student teaching t r i a d was found f o r the ST r o l e . Lack of agreement f o r the n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e expectations a s s o c i a t e d with the ST r o l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the area of studying c h i l d r e n , was a l s o evident. The nature of t h i s 135 disagreement i s not c l e a r , but i t seems probable that t h i s lack of agreement could lead to c o n f l i c t among members of the t r i a d . CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: COOPERATING TEACHER ROLE This chapter considers the r o l e expectations held f o r the CT r o l e by the three respondent groups of the student teaching t r i a d . The f i n d i n g s are presented under the cat e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . An overview of the f i n d i n g s f o r the CT r o l e are presented i n Table 15. The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the page followed by the column headed F-S-C which shows the d i r e c t i o n of response (+, -, 0) f o r each item held by the r e s p e c t i v e respondent group. Also on the l e f t side of the page i s the d i r e c t i o n a l category (DIR CAT) f o r each item. The 2x3 chi square value f o r each item and corresponding i n d i c a t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e f o l l o w s next. The percentages of 'yes' responses by respondent group f o l l o w i n the center of the t a b l e . The p l o t of the yes percentages on the r i g h t s ide of the page describes the extent of agreement or disagreement among respondent groups f o r each item. A number symbol (#) i n the p l o t i n d i c a t e s t h a t two or more groups were so clo s e together that i t was not p o s s i b l e to f i t two symbols (F-S-C) on at t h a t p o i n t . 136 137 Table 15 Expectations Held f o r the Role of the CT by A l l Three Respondent Groups: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM F -s -c DIR CHISQ SIG FA ST CT MIN MAX CAT (2X3) %Y %Y %Y 0 50 100 CT 1 + + + DA 10.63 I 81 90 81 #-s CT2 + + + DA 3.94 98 95 92 C# CT3 + + + DA 5.32 100 97 99 # CT4 + + + DA 6.80 99 91 94 #F CT5 0 0 0 DU 2 .93 50 43 51 S-# CT6 + + + DA 1. 12 99 98 99 # CT7 0 0 - DU 9.97 I 49 54 39 C-F s CT8 0 0 0 DU 2.85 64 53 55 SC-F CT9 + + + DA 1.29 100 100 100 CT10 + + + DA 0.17 99 99 99 CT 1 1 + + + DA 1.34 100 100 100 CT12 + + + DA 0.32 100 100 100 # CT13 + + + DA 0.22 99 99 99 # CT14 + + + DA 2.49 94 98 96 F# CT15 + + + DA 2.62 74 72 78 #C CT16 + + + DA 6.20 93 93 97 #C CT17 + + + DA 2.04 83 78 76 #F CT18 + + + DA 9.77 I 91 83 92 S-# CT19 + + + DA 21.59 B 95 87 97 s--# CT20 + + •+ DA 3.40 99 96 98 # CT21 + + + DA 5.66 97 94 98 s# CT22 + + + DA 5.20 100 98 100 # CT23 + + + DA 11 .36 I 87 72 80 S - C - F CT24 + + + DA 1.52 82 87 85 FCS CT25 + + + DA 9.50 I 90 98 95 F-# CT26 + + + DA 15.68 B 86 81 92 SF -C CT27 + + + DA 0.92 84 88 87 F# CT28 + + + DA 7.63 97 98 100 # CT29 + + + DA 7.82 96 100 97 CT30 + + + DA 1.91 99 99 97 CT31 + + + DA 1.10 71 74 70 C# CT32 + + + DA 0.06 87 86 86 # CT33 + 0 + DU 45.32 B 88 57 78 S C - - F CT34 + + + DA 3.58 100 98 99 CT35 + + + DA 0.32 100 100 100 # CT36 + + + DA 6.31 80 87 90 F-# CT37 + + + DA 9.64 I 83 75 86 SFC CT38 0 0 + DU 10.27 I 50 45 58 s- : - C CT39 + + + DA 23.37 B 100 92 99 CT40 + + + DA 5.21 99 96 99 # CT41 + + + DA 16.07 B 91 82 93 S-FC DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 3 +'s or 3 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : at l e a s t 1 + and at l e a s t 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X3 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e 1 38 ITEM F -s -c DIR CHISQ SIG FA ST CT MIN MAX CAT (2X3) %Y %Y %Y 0 100 CT42 + + + DA 1 .08 97 94 95 S# CT43 + + + DA 2 .48 79 74 79 s-# CT44 + + + DA 1 .26 85 89 89 F# CT45 - - - DA 47.61 B 6 23 5 # — S CT46 + + + DA 0.91 95 93 94 #F CT47 + + + DA 2 .22 86 90 87 F# CT48 + + + DA 8.16 69 79 69 #-s CT49 + + + DA 4 .28 92 83 86 CT50 + + + DA 0.33 81 79 79 #F DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 3 +' s or 3 -' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : at l e a s t 1 + and at l e a s t 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X3 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i tems i n t h i s t a b l e 139 The p l o t of the yes percentage i n Table 15 provides a p i c t u r e of the overwhelming agreement among the members of the student teaching t r i a d f o r the CT r o l e . The f i n d i n g s are presented under the categories of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y only as no instances of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement were found. D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement D i r e c t i o n a l agreement i s a p a t t e r n i n which the d i f f e r e n c e s i n yes and no responses across a l l respondent groups i n the same d i r e c t i o n departs s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t . Items Held as Expectations f o r the CT Role Table 16 shows the survey items held as expectations f o r the CT r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of each item a c h i e v i n g d i r e c t i o n a l agreement i n the center of the t a b l e . On the r i g h t hand s i d e , the s i n g l e a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s t h a t although d i r e c t i o n a l agreement was reached some d i f f e r e n c e i s evident among the three respondent groups based on the 2 x 3 chi square t e s t f o r the e q u a l i t y of p r oportions. Two a s t e r i s k s (**) i n d i c a t e t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y . The f i n d i n g s shown i n Table 16 i n d i c a t e s u b s t a n t i a l agreement f o r the CT r o l e . Members of the student teaching t r i a d expected the CT to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a l a r g e number of f u n c t i o n s . The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l again be l i m i t e d t o only those 140 Table 16 Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Expectations f o r the CT Role Item No. Function Some T r i a d i c T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f e r e n c e 1 work with the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r i n planning the student teaching program * 2 p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y i n seminars and i n i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g f o r CTs 3 develop a w e l l balanced program of student teaching a c t i v i t i e s f o r the ST 4 e x p l a i n to the p u p i l s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the ST 6 provide the ST with a place f o r h i s or her m a t e r i a l s 9 introduce the ST to members of the a d m i n i s t a t i v e s t a f f , co-teachers, and other school employees ** 10 i n v i t e the ST t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s t a f f meeti ngs 11 e x p l a i n a l l school r o u t i n e s , r u l e s and p o l i c i e s ** 12 show the ST the p h y s i c a l set-up of the classroom, the school b u i l d i n g s and the school grounds ** 13 inform the ST of the aims and o b j e c t i v e s of teaching i n the school d i s t r i c t ** 14 e x p l a i n the o v e r a l l plan of the course of study f o r each s u b j e c t ** 15 plan f o r the ST the d i f f e r e n t phases of h i s or her t r a i n i n g / c o n t i nued 141 Item No. Function Some T r i a d i c T r i a d I n t e n s i t y D i f f e r e n c e 16 e x p l a i n the p r i n c i p l e s r e l a t e d to c e r t a i n teaching techniques 17 prepare a set of observation g u i d e l i n e s f o r the student teacher 18 show the ST how d a i l y or u n i t plans are prepared * 19 demonstrate f o r the ST the d i f f e r e n t methods or procedures of teaching * 20 share with the ST information about the i n t e r e s t and a b i l i t i e s of the p u p i l s 21 t e l l the ST proven techniques of classroom management 22 involve the ST i n planning and d i r e c t i n g l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s of the c h i l d r e n 23 i n s t r u c t the ST how to e s t a b l i s h " c l o s e " rapport with the p u p i l s * 24 give p r e c i s e guidance on how d i f f e r e n t types of teacher made t e s t s are prepared 25 give the ST d e t a i l e d information as to how report cards, attendance forms, and permanent records are prepared and used * 26 demonstrate operation and use of the d i f f e r e n t a u d i o - v i s u a l equipment and o f f i c e machines * 27 supply reference books, p r o f e s s i o n a l magazines to be used by the ST 28 supply the ST with copies of the teacher's guide, teacher's manual, textbooks, and other types of teaching a i d s 29 allow maximum freedom f o r the ST as he or she assumes more teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 30 share with the ST the ideas, d i s c o v e r i e s , and innovations i n education 31 help the ST develop i n t e r e s t and s k i l l i n doing simple educational research ** / c o n t i nued Item Function No. Some T r i a d i c T r i a d I n t e n s i t y Di f f e r e n c e 32 a s s i s t the ST to search f o r v a l i d p r i n c i p l e s t h a t would support h i s or her a c t i v i t i e s or teaching methods 34 make the ST aware of h i s or her vo i c e , p r o n u n c i a t i o n , and l e v e l of vocabulary 35 evaluate the progress of the ST ** 36 develop the bas i c c r i t e r i a f o r judging the success of the ST 37 act with v i g i l a n c e i n p r o t e c t i n g the educational welfare of the p u p i l s from the i n e f f i c i e n c y of the ST * 39 check the u n i t and d a i l y plans of ST * 40 hold scheduled conference periods with ST 41 review the w r i t t e n h i s or her student 42 arrange f o r the ST classrooms i n the report of the ST about teaching experience * to observe i n other school or d i s t r i c t 43 help the ST i n t e r p r e t h i s or her observation notes of other classrooms 44 keep a comprehensive record of the a c t i v i t i e s and progress of the ST 46 evaluate the a c t i v i t i e s and progress of the ST with FA at regular i n t e r v a l s 47 i n v o l v e the ST i n e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s t h a t are sponsored j o i n t l y by the school and the community 48 e x p l a i n to the ST the merits and demerits of the unsolved issues of the p r o f e s s i o n 49 c l a r i f y f o r the ST the p r o v i s i o n s of the teachers' "code of e t h i c s " 50 take the ST to teachers' conventions and other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l meetings  143 items a c h i e v i n g t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y . The headings used to c l u s t e r the items f o r the CT r o l e have been adapted from Garland (1964) and Kaplan (1967) as C a s t i l l o (1971) d i d not use headings on h i s survey instrument. These c a t e g o r i e s i n c l u d e : planning, guided l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , e v a l u a t i o n , range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s , and a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Guided Learning A c t i v i t i e s . Members of the student teaching t r i a d expected the CT to develop a program of a c t i v i t i e s f o r the ST t h a t would include planning and d i r e c t i n g l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s f o r the p u p i l s (22). Eva!uation. CTs were expected by a l l three respondent groups to evaluate STs and inform STs of t h e i r progress (35) at scheduled conferences. CTs were f u r t h e r expected, at regular i n t e r v a l s , to evaluate the performance of the ST with the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r . Range of Teacher A c t i v i t i e s . D i r e c t i o n a l agreement was a l s o found on a number of items r e l a t e d to the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of the ST to the environment of the student teaching experience. CTs were expected to show the ST the p h y s i c a l s e t up of the school (12), introduce them to the school s t a f f ( 9 ) , o u t l i n e school and d i s t r i c t p o l i c i e s (11) and the aims and o b j e c t i v e s of the school d i s t r i c t (13), e x p l a i n the o v e r a l l c u r r i c u l u m f o r each subject (14) and supply the ST 144 with appropriate teaching m a t e r i a l s (28). D i f f e r e n c e s among the three respondent groups were evident on a number of items achieving d i r e c t i o n a l agreement (1,18,19,25,23,26,37,39,41). The d i f f e r e n c e among groups i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to a l a r g e r proportion of one group holding an item as an expectation or being opposed to an item as an expectation than e i t h e r or both of the other two groups. Items Not Held as Expectations f o r the CT Role Table 17 shows the survey item not held as an expectation f o r the CT r o l e . The item number i s l i s t e d down the l e f t hand s i d e of the t a b l e followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of the expectation i n the center of the t a b l e . The s i n g l e a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s t h a t some d i f f e r e n c e s are evident among the three respondent groups f o r t h i s item. T r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y was not achieved on t h i s item. Table 17 Survey Items Held by a l l Three Respondent Groups as Non-Expectations f o r the CT Role Item No. Functi on Some T r i adi c Divergence 45 s h i e l d the shortcomings of the ST from the c r i t i c a l view of the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r * Table 17 shows tha t d i r e c t i o n a l agreement was found on item number 45 and that members of the t r i a d d i d not expect the CT to s h i e l d the shortcomings of the ST from the c r i t i c a l view of the u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s o r . 145 D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y includes those items i n which the pattern of responses f o r one or more respondent groups d i d not depart s i g n i f i c a n t l y from a 50-50 s p l i t , i . e . , were approximately evenly d i v i d e d and i n which there was no d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of dyadic agreement, dyadic ambivalence and u n i v e r s a l ambivalence w i l l be used to discuss the f i n d i n g s f o r the CT r o l e . Table 18 shows the f i v e items of d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y evident f o r the CT r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e followed by the item described i n the center of the t a b l e . The yes and no responses i n the form of percentages f o r each respondent group are di s p l a y e d on the r i g h t hand s i d e of the t a b l e followed by the d i r e c t i o n of response i n d i c a t e d by a +, - , o. Only one CT r o l e item (33) reached dyadic agreement. Both student teacher s u p e r v i s o r s supported the notion of c o u n s e l l i n g the ST with respect to "proper" grooming i n the classroom. STs were r e l a t i v e l y evenly d i v i d e d with regard to t h i s task. Dyadic ambivalence was found between the FA-ST dyad on two items (7,38). The m a j o r i t y of CTs tended t o be i n favor of assuming the s o l e a u t h o r i t y i n deciding the ST's readiness to assume f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n teaching but were opposed to a s s i s t i n g the ST i n f i n d i n g accommodations i n the community. Both FAs and STs were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly s p l i t on these two i terns. 146 Table 18 Items of D i r e c t i o n a l Uncertainty f o r the CT Role Item No. Function Yes (X) No (X) Di r 5 arrange f o r contact between ST 43. 5 56. 5 0 parents of the p u p i l s and CT 50. 6 49. 4 0 the student teacher FA 50. 0 50. 0 0 7 a s s i s t the student teacher i n ST 53. 6 46. 4 0 f i n d i n g accommodations i n CT 39. 0 61 . 0 - • the community FA 48. 7 51 . 3 0 8 take the student teacher ST 52. 7 47. 3 0 f o r a tour of the CT 55. 1 44. 9 0 communi ty FA 63. 6 36. 4 0 33 counsel the ST about ST 56 . 8 43. 2 0 "proper" grooming and decorum CT 78. 4 21 . 6 + i n the classroom FA 87 . 6 12. 4 + 38 assume the s o l e a u t h o r i t y i n ST 44. 8 55. 2 0 deciding the ST's readiness to CT 58. 4 41 . 6 + assume f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n FA 50. 0 50. 0 0 teachi ng Universal ambivalence was found on two CT r o l e items (5,8). A l l three respondent groups were approximately evenly d i v i d e d with respect to arranging contact between parents of the p u p i l s and the ST and t a k i n g the ST on a tour of the community. Summary The expectations held f o r the CT r o l e by members of the student teaching t r i a d were described i n t h i s chapter. The f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d considerable agreement f o r the r o l e of the CT. For t y - f o u r of the f i f t y items examined were held as 147 expectations by a l l three respondent groups, e i g h t of these a c h i e v i n g t r i a d i c i n t e n s i t y (Table 16). D i r e c t i o n a l agreement was found on only one item not held as an expectation f o r the CT r o l e (Table 17). No evidence of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, e i t h e r dyadic disagreement or t r i a d i c disagreement, was found f o r the r o l e of the CT. D i r e c t i o n a l u n certainty was evident on f i v e items. Dyadic agreement between the FA-CT dyad was evident on one item, dyadic ambivalence on two items and u n i v e r s a l ambivalence on two items (Table 18). The.categories of planning, guiding l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , e v a l u a t i o n , range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s , and a d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s mentioned e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter w i l l now be used to summarize the f i n d i n g s f o r the CT r o l e . PIanning. CTs were expected by members of the student teaching t r i a d to be involved i n the planning of the student teaching program p a r t i c u l a r l y at the school by developing a we l l balanced program of student teaching a c t i v i t i e s f o r the ST. The CTs involvement ranges from the planning of the d i f f e r e n t phases of the ST's t r a i n i n g t o the s p e c i f i c s of d a i l y and u n i t planning. Guiding l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s . CTs were a l s o expected by t r i a d members to involve STs i n planning and d i r e c t i n g the l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s of p u p i l s and provide feedback to STs about t h e i r v o i c e , pronunciation and l e v e l of vocabulary. A d d i t i o n a l l y they were expected to hold scheduled conferences 148 with the ST to review h i s or her student teaching experience and as the ST assumed more teaching r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to allow maximum freedom. E v a l u a t i o n . The CTs i n t h i s study were expected to evaluate the progress of the student teacher and were expected to do t h i s i n conjunction with the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r . The maj o r i t y of CTs expected to assume the s o l e a u t h o r i t y i n dec i d i n g the ST's readiness f o r assuming f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n teaching. STs and FAs were both approximately evenly d i v i d e d with respect to t h i s important d e c i s i o n . Range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s . CTs were expected by a l l three respondent groups to e x p l a i n to t h e i r p u p i l s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the ST. This i s an i n t e r e s t i n g expectation f o r the CT because i t assumes that the CT knows what the r o l e of the ST i s . A d d i t i o n a l l y , CTs were expected to help s o c i a l i z e the student teacher to the environment of the student teaching experience by showing the student teacher the p h y s i c a l set up of the s c h o o l , i n t r o d u c i n g the student teacher to school s t a f f , o u t l i n i n g school and d i s t r i c t p o l i c y , e x p l a i n i n g the o v e r a l l c u r r i c u l u m f o r each subject and supplying the student teacher with appropriate m a t e r i a l s . D i r e c t i o n a l agreement was a l s o reached on the expectation that CTs p r o t e c t t h e i r p u p i l s from the i n e f f i c i e n c y of the ST. 149 A d d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Members of the student teaching t r i a d f u r t h e r expected CTs to p a r t i c i p a t e i n seminars and i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g as well as to share with the ST the ideas and innovations i n teaching, c e r t a i n teaching techniques and methods of classroom management. A l l members of the t r i a d were opposed to the CT s h i e l d i n g the shortcomings of the ST from the c r i t i c a l view of the FA. CTs were opposed t o a s s i s t i n g the ST i n f i n d i n g accommodation i n the community whereas both STs and FAs were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d . The f i n d i n g s i n Chapters 4, 5, and 6 provide an o v e r a l l view of the r o l e expectations held f o r the r o l e of the FA, ST, and CT r e s p e c t i v e l y . The p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n f l i c t was evident f o r both the FA and ST r o l e s . The FA's r o l e i n planning and observation p a r t i c u l a r l y i n working with the CT was unclear. Considerable agreement among a l l three respondent groups was found f o r most aspects of the ST r o l e . However, a lack of agreement f o r the n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e expectations associated with the ST r o l e , l a r g e l y i n the area of studying c h i l d r e n , was a l s o evident. The r o l e of the CT was found t o have the most o v e r a l l agreement among the members of the student teaching t r i a d . I t may be tha t c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t the expectations held by members of the three respondent groups. The f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s i s of the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s examined i n t h i s study are presented i n Chapter 7. CHAPTER 7 FINDINGS OF THE STUDY: DIFFERENCES WITHIN RESPONDENT GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES This chapter has three s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n describes the d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the FA r o l e associated with the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the practicum, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum w i t h i n respondent groups. The second and t h i r d s e c t i o n s describe the corresponding d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the ST and CT r o l e s . The data a n a l y s i s i s i n two p a r t s . In the f i r s t part the v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the practicum, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum, common to each of the three respondent groups, were examined to determine i f these v a r i a b l e s c o n t r i b u t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n respondent groups f o r expectations held f o r each member's r o l e . D i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n respondent groups, f o r example, between male and female FAs and t h e i r views of the FA's r o l e were examined using 2x2 chi square t e s t s . The 2x2 chi square t e s t i s a t e s t f o r the e q u a l i t y of the two pro p o r t i o n s (or f o r independence of, f o r example, gender and " o p i n i o n " ) . I t i s analogous to the 2x3 chi square t e s t s used i n Chapters 4, 5, and 6 f o r the e q u a l i t y of the three p r o p o r t i o n s . The c h i square t e s t s were performed at two d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e - the f i r s t being the itemwise l e v e l of .01 and the second being based on Bonferroni's method f o r m u l t i p l e comparisons with an o v e r a l l e r r o r rate of .05 f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of items under c o n s i d e r a t i o n (see Appendix I ) . The second part of the data 1 50 151 a n a l y s i s employed chi square go o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t s to examine the d i r e c t i o n of response f o r each subgroup. As opposed to t h a t i n Chapters 4, 5, and 6 the emphasis i n re p o r t i n g the f i n d i n g s i s now more on the p o s s i b l e d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n a respondent group than on the d i r e c t i o n a l nature of these d i f f e r e n c e s . In a student teaching s i t u a t i o n seldom w i l l d i r e c t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n a respondent group lead to c o n f l i c t among the members of that group or the t r i a d as o p e r a t i o n a l l y , they w i l l r a r e l y come i n t o contact with each other. I t i s important, then, to i d e n t i f y f i r s t the presence of d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations that may be associated with i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s but at the same time to be aware of the d i r e c t i o n a l nature of these d i f f e r e n c e s so that we may begin to understand how these p a r t i c i p a n t s view t h e i r r o l e . The d i s c u s s i o n w i l l f i r s t focus on the d i f f e r e n c e s between subgroups determined by the 2 x 2 chi square t e s t s . However, d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t are found to be s i g n i f i c a n t w i l l then, f o r r e p o r t i n g purposes, be c l a s s i f i e d according to t h e i r d i r e c t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s s i m i l a r to those used i n Chapters 4, 5, and 6. Views of the FA Role The v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the practicum, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum were examined to determine i f d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e expectations e x i s t e d w i t h i n the groups representing each of the three members of the t r i a d f o r the FA r o l e . Figure 5 shows i n a broad sense the po s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r each respondent group (FA, ST, CT) and the 152 i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s (gender, l e v e l of practicum, geographic l o c a t i o n of practicum) examined i n t h i s study f o r the FA r o l e . An a s t e r i s k i n the c e l l i n d i c a t e s that a number of d i f f e r e n c e s were found between subgroups f o r the i n d i v i d u a l or contextual v a r i a b l e being examined. The f i n d i n g s from the cross t a b u l a t i o n s , shown i n Figure 5, i n d i c a t e d with an a s t e r i s k show tha t d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations held f o r the FA r o l e across respondent groups were as s o c i a t e d with the geographic l o c a t i o n v a r i a b l e , urban as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l , but only f o r the FA and CT respondent groups. An important d i s t i n c t i o n must be made between the FAs examined i n t h i s study. The urban FAs i n t h i s study were u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d whereas the FAs i n r u r a l areas were f i e l d - b a s e d with l i t t l e or no attachment to the u n i v e r s i t y . The f i n d i n g s f o r the c e l l s with no a s t e r i s k s are reported i n Appendix G. I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s FA Respondent Groups ST CT Gender Level of Geographic Practicum Location Figure 5 P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and the Three Respondent Groups f o r the FA Role 1 53 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and  Views of the FA r o l e Held by FAs Table 19 provides an overview of the f i n d i n g s associated with the geographic l o c a t i o n of the experience and the FA respondent group reported by each of the FA subgroups (urban, u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d (U) as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l , f i e l d - b a s e d (R)) f o r the FA r o l e . The item numbers are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the page followed by the 2 x 2 chi square value and i n d i c a t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e (SIG). An ' I ' i n t h i s column i n d i c a t e s t h a t the item was s i g n i f i c a n t at the itemwise l e v e l of 1%. A 'B' i n d i c a t e s that the item was s i g n i f i c a n t at the o v e r a l l l e v e l of 5% f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of items i n t h i s t a b l e (.00125 as determined by the Bonferroni method, Appendix I ) . The d i r e c t i o n of response f o r each subgroup under the heading U-R and the d i r e c t i o n a l category (DIR CAT) f o l l o w next. The percentage of 'yes' responses f o r each item reported by urban and r u r a l FAs appears near the middle of the page fol l o w e d by a p l o t of the 'yes' percentages. The p l o t d e s c r i b e s the extent of the agreement or disagreement between subgroups f o r each item. By examining the lengths of the l i n e s j o i n i n g the symbols (U-R) i t i s p o s s i b l e to get a general i n d i c a t i o n of the extent of disagreement between the two subgroups f o r the FA r o l e . A number symbol (#) i n d i c a t e s that the responses of the two subgroups were so cl o s e together that i t was not p o s s i b l e to f i t two symbols on at one p o i n t . 154 Table 19 A Comparison of Urban (U) and Rural (R) FAs f o r the FA Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM CHISQ SIG U--R DIR URB RUR MIN MAX (2X2) CAT %Y %Y 0 50 100 FA 1 29 22 B 0 DU 12 66 D U K FA2 7 92 I - - DA 3 22 u--- R FA3 0 35 + + DA 95 97 UR FA4 4 09 0 0 DU 58 37 R -u FA5 1 39 0 0 DU 55 42 R- u FA6 4 50 0 0 DU 38 61 u-- -R FA7 12 72 B 0 + DU 35 73 u--- R FA8 1 03 + + DA 82 89 U-R FA9 9 57 I - 0 DU 26 58 u -R FA10 4 75 - 0 DU 24 46 U R FA 1 1 15 37 B - 0 DU 9 43 u-- R FA12 2 03 0 + DU 57 72 U - - - R FA13 11 75 B - 0 DU 7 37 u--- R " FA14 0 62 + + DA 98 100 FA15 3 50 + + DA 73 89 U - - - R FA16 1 28 + + DA 97 100 FA17 7 30 I - 0 DU 19 46 u R FA18 5 98 - 0 DU 29 55 U — - - R FA19 0 04 - - DA 7 8 UR FA20 0 24 0 0 DU 62 67 # FA2! 0 89 + + DA 93 87 R-U FA22 0 53 - - DA 9 14 UR FA23 0 98 + + DA 97 92 RU FA24 8 38 I - 0 DU 30 61 u - - R FA25 3 25 - 0 DU 29 47 U - - - R FA26 1 17 0 0 DU 52 65 U- -R FA27 5 33 - 0 DU 20 44 U R FA28 1 57 + DA 100 97 # FA29 7 15 I + + DA 77 97 -U R FA30 0 04 + + DA 88 86 RU FA31 0 62 + + DA 92 86 R-U FA32 1 36 + + DA 92 97 UR FA33 9 56 I 0 + DU 53 84 II p U KFA34 10 77 B - 0 DU 10 39 u-- R FA35 18 80 B - 0 DU 6 44 u--- R FA36 0 28 + 0 DU 72 67 R-U FA37 4 39 + + DA 91 75 R U FA38 0 26 + + DA 95 92 # FA39 38 60 B 0 DU 2 61 I f D u K FA40 7 35 I 0 0 DU 41 70 u-- R SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D i sag reement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 155 Table 19 shows that a number of d i f f e r e n c e s were evident across the FA respondent group associated with the contextual v a r i a b l e of geographic l o c a t i o n . These d i f f e r e n c e s between respondents can a l s o be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d i r e c t i o n a l agreement, d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement, or d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . D i r e c t i o n a l agreement occurs when a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y of both subgroups respond i n the same d i r e c t i o n . In those cases i n which the 2 x 2 chi square i n d i c a t e s a d i f f e r e n c e , however, a greater m a j o r i t y of one subgroup holds the expectation than i s the case f o r the other. D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement occurs when one subgroup has a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y i n favor of the item as an e x p e c t a t i o n and the other subgroup has a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t m a j o r i t y opposed. D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y occurs when the d i r e c t i o n of response i s not c e r t a i n f o r at l e a s t one subgroup. The r e s u l t s f o r each survey item where d i f f e r e n c e s between urban (U) and r u r a l (R) FAs were found are displayed i n Table 20. The FA r o l e f u n c t i o n and number are l i s t e d on the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e with corresponding percentages of 'yes' ( a b s o l u t e l y must/preferably should) and 'no' p r e f e r a b l y should n o t / a b s o l u t e l y must not) responses i n the center. The d i r e c t i o n of response ( d i r ) again using the chi square g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t at the .01 l e v e l and the p-value from the 2 x 2 chi square t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n are reported i n the r i g h t hand columns. An a s t e r i s k (*) i n the f a r r i g h t hand column i n d i c a t e s t h a t the item meets the s t r i n g e n t Bonferroni value (B) of .00125. 156 Table 20 Dif f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the FA by FAS i n Urban (U) and Rural (R) S e t t i ngs FA Role Yes No Di r P-value B Function (•%) (X) 1 . study CT u n i t and U 12.3 87.7 — .0001 * d a i l y plans R 65.8 34.2 0 2. work with CT i n U 4.5 95.5 - .0049 planning a u n i t R 21 .7 78.3 -7. conduct i n - s e r v i c e planning U 34.6 65.4 0 .0004 * sessions CT school s t a f f R 72.9 29. 1 + 9. observe CT p r i o r to U 25.9 74. 1 - '• .0020 placement of ST R 57 .8 42.2 0 11 . take notes while U 4.9 96. 1 - .0001 * CT i s teaching R 43.2 56.8 0 13. make notes (of CT) U 6.5 93.5 - .0006 * a v a i l a b l e to p r i n c i p a l R 37. 1 62.9 0 17. make notes (of ST) U 18.8 81 . 2 - .0061 a v a i l a b l e to p r i n c i p a l R 45.7 54.3 0 24. use e v a l . procedures U 30. 1 69.9 - .0038 designed by sch./sch. d i s t R 61 . 1 28.9 0 29. a s s i s t CT i n f u l f i l l i n g U 77 . 1 22.9 + .0075 h i s or her r o l e R 97.2 2.8 + 33. serve as resource U 54.3 45. 7 0 .0022 co n s u l t a n t f o r CT R 83.7 16.3 + 34. serve as con s u l t a n t with U 10.6 89.4 - .0010 l o c a l PTA groups R 38.8 61 .2 0 35. serve as resource consult U 6.1 93.9 - .0001 * f o r a l l teachers i n sch. R 44.4 55.6 0 39. attend s t a f f meetings i n U 1 .2 98.8 - .0001 * cooperating schools R 61 . 1 38.9 0 40. work toward improvement of U 40.8 59.2 0 .0062 t o t a l school program R 70.2 29.8 0 * = .00125 Table 20 shows a large number of d i f f e r e n c e s between urban, u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d FAs and r u r a l , f i e l d - b a s e d FAs. Most items f e l l under the category of d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y with only two items of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement and no items of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. Only those items reaching the .00125 1 57 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e as determined by the Bonferroni method having an o v e r a l l e r r o r rate of .05 over the 40 items w i l l be di scussed. D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . The majority of FAs working i n r u r a l s e t t i n g s expected the FA to study the CT's u n i t and d a i l y plans (1) and t o conduct i n - s e r v i c e planning sessions with the cooperating school s t a f f ( 7). Most FAs s u p e r v i s i n g i n urban s e t t i n g s , however, were opposed to both these expectations. A d i f f e r e n c e i n the proportion of responses was al s o evident on the items p e r t a i n i n g to attendance at s t a f f meetings i n cooperating schools (39). The large m a j o r i t y of urban FAs were opposed to t h i s item and i n p a r t i c u l a r to the notion of attending cooperating school s t a f f meetings. On the other hand, a l a r g e r proportion of r u r a l FAs supported such attendance. The expectations t h a t the FA take notes while the CT i s teaching (11) and make these notes a v a i l a b l e to the p r i n c i p a l (13) were responded to c l e a r l y by urban FAs. For these two items both subgroups were opposed with a l a r g e r proportion of urban FAs more so than t h e i r r u r a l counterparts. D i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o p o r t i o n were a l s o found on one item p e r t a i n i n g to the FA's p r o f e s s i o n a l i n t e r a c t i o n s with the teachers i n cooperating schools. Most urban FAs were opposed to the FA s e r v i n g as resource consultant f o r a l l teachers i n the cooperating school (35). Rural FAs, on the other hand, were approximately evenly d i v i d e d i n t h e i r responses. In summary, the f i n d i n g s i n Table 20 i n d i c a t e that r u r a l FAs responded 'yes' more f r e q u e n t l y than t h e i r urban 158 counterparts on FA r o l e items, a f i n d i n g which suggests t h a t r u r a l FAs expected to be more involved i n the student teaching experience. More so than t h e i r urban counterparts, r u r a l FAs expected FAs to study CT u n i t and d a i l y plans, provide i n - s e r v i c e f o r CTs, observe and s e l e c t CTs, attend s t a f f meetings when p o s s i b l e , and work toward the improvement of the t o t a l school program. I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and  Views of the FA Role held by STs An examination of the ST v a r i a b l e s of gender, student teaching l e v e l , and geographic l o c a t i o n showed l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p to the expectations STs held f o r the FA r o l e . Few d i f f e r e n c e s were reported between d i f f e r e n t subgroups of STs f o r the FA r o l e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t STs as a group tended to be i n agreement with and hold s i m i l a r expectations f o r the FA r o l e . The p i c t u r e s of the yes percentage p l o t s demonstrate very c l e a r l y the lack of d i f f e r e n c e a s s o c i a t e d with these v a r i a b l e s across the ST respondent group. The f i n d i n g s of the cross t a b u l a t i o n s are reported i n Appendix G. I t may be t h a t STs are s o c i a l i z e d through t h e i r attendance at u n i v e r s i t y and t h a t t h i s " s o c i a l i z a t i o n process" i s common to a l l students with the r e s u l t a n t e f f e c t of n e u t r a l i z i n g the impact of the ST demographic v a r i a b l e s examined i n t h i s study. A more important v a r i a b l e might be the contextual v a r i a b l e of the u n i v e r s i t y i t s e l f . The s i z e of the u n i v e r s i t y , l o c a t i o n , educational p h i l o s o p h i e s , v a r i e t y of programs o f f e r e d , s t r u c t u r e of the student teaching program and s t a f f i n g p o l i c i e s could have a p o t e n t i a l l y dramatic i n f l u e n c e on the expectations held f o r the FA by the ST. 159 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and  Views of the FA Role Held by CTs The r e s u l t s of the cross t a b u l a t i o n s f o r the r o l e of the FA as viewed by the CT respondent group are now presented. The CT i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s of gender, supervisory l e v e l of the student teaching experience and the geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum were examined. The geographic l o c a t i o n of the CT was a s s o c i a t e d with a greater number of key d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the FA r o l e held by CTs than the other CT demographic v a r i a b l e s of gender and supervisory l e v e l . The d i f f e r e n c e s found between CTs f o r the l a t t e r two v a r i a b l e s are presented i n Appendix G. Table 21 presents an overview of the f i n d i n g s a s s o c i a t e d with the geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum and the views of the urban and r u r a l CT subgroups. Table 21 f o l l o w s the i d e n t i c a l format as Table 19 which has p r e v i o u s l y been described. Table 21 shows a s u b s t a n t i a l number of d i f f e r e n c e s i n response between CTs, urban as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l , f o r the FA r o l e . These d i f f e r e n c e s are presented i n Table 22. The survey item number and FA r o l e f u n c t i o n are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e followed by the corresponding percentages of 'yes' and 'no' responses. The r i g h t hand columns show the d i r e c t i o n of response and the p-values from the cross t a b u l a t i o n chi square t e s t . An a s t e r i s k (*) i n d i c a t e s t h a t the item meets the Bonferroni value (B). 160 Table 21 A Comparison of Urban (U) and Rural (R) CTs f o r the FA Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM CHISQ SIG U -R DIR URB RUR MIN (2X2) CAT %Y %Y 0 FA 1 13.56 B - 0 DU 35 69 FA2 8 .48 I - 0 DU 18 41 FA3 0.90 + + DA 95 91 FA4 5 .04 + 0 DU 64 44 FA5 0.90 + 0 DU 65 56 FA6 3.44 + + DA 60 77 FA7 2.81 + + DA 63 79 FA8 0.11 + + DA 85 88 FA9 25.87 B - + DD 33 81 FA10 8 .92 I - 0 DU 31 58 FA 1 1 12.01 B - 0 DU 25 55 FA12 0.29 + + DA 79 83 FA13 9 .88 I - 0 DU 25 54 FA14 1 .22 + + DA 96 100 FA15 0.86 + + DA 80 87 FA16 0.70 + + DA 98 100 FA17 14.10 B - 0 DU 26 61 FA18 22.02 B - 0 DU 28 71 FA19 1 .17 - - DA 3 6 # FA20 0.26 + 0 DU 68 72 FA21 0.02 + + DA 93 94 FA22 0 .15 - DA 12 9 RU FA23 0 .33 + + DA 87 90 FA24 1 .69 0 0 DU 56 69 FA25 5 .78 0 + DU 51 74 FA26 0.10 + + DA 80 83 FA27 6 .60 0 0 DU 42 68 FA28 0 .73 + + DA 98 100 FA29 1 .68 + + DA 85 94 FA30 2. 10 + 0 DU 78 66 FA31 0 .58 + + DA 90 86 FA32 1 .57 + + DA 90 97 FA33 2 .49 + + DA 66 80 FA34 1 .87 - 0 DU 14 25 U FA35 13.45 B - 0 DU 1 1 38 U FA36 5.27 + + DA 86 100 FA37 4 .92 + + DA 86 100 FA38 0.22 + + DA 98 97 FA39 24.90 B - 0 DU 9 43 u-FA40 1 1 .73 B 0 + DU 43 77 50 MAX 100 U - - -U R R-U-u-U-U-U - -R - - U R-U U - - - R U - - - R RU UR -R R •R UR U-R UR U- -R U R R R - -U UR U-R RU U-R U - - - R U- -R U - -R # SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one. 0 161 Table 22 Di f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the FA by CTs i n Urban (U) Urban (U) and Rural (R) S e t t i n g s FA Function Yes No D i r P-value B Role (%) (%) d a i l y plans R 68. 8 31 .2 0 2. work with CT i n U 18. 0 82 .0 - .0036 planning a u n i t R 40. 6 59 .4 0 9. observe CT p r i o r t o U 32. 8 67 .2 - .0001 * placement of ST R 80. 6 19 .4 + 10. observe CT during period U 30. 7 69 .3 - • .0028 of student teaching R 58. 0 42 .0 0 1 1 . take notes (of CT) while U 24. 6 75 .4 - .0005 * CT i s teaching R 54. 8 45 .2 0 13. make notes (of CT) U 24. 8 75 .2 - .001 7 a v a i l a b l e to p r i n c i p a l R 41 . 0 59 .0 0 1 7 . make notes (of ST) U 25. 8 74 .2 - .0002 . * a v a i l a b l e to p r i n c i p a l R 60. 7 39 .3 0 18. observe other teachers f o r U 27. 9 72 . 1 - .0001 * purposes of s e l e c t i n g CTs R 70. 9 29 . 1 0 25. evaluate e f f e c t i v e n e s s of U 49. 0 51 .0 0 .0016 CT i n t h i s c a p a c i t y R 74. 1 25 . 9 + 27. make t h i s e v a l . (of CT) U 41 . 9 58 . 1 0 .0102 a v a i l a b l e t o p r i n c i p a l R 67 . 8 32 .2 0 35. serve as resource c o n s u l t U 1 1 . 3 88 . 7 - .0002 * f o r a l l teachers i n school R 38. 4 61 .6 0 39. attend s t a f f meetings i n U 9. 3 91 . 7 - .0001 * cooperating schools R 43. 3 56 . 7 0 40. work toward improvement U 43. 1 56 .9 0 .0001 * of t o t a l school program R 76. 6 23 .4 + * = < .00125 162 The r e s u l t s shown i n Table 22 i n d i c a t e that r u r a l CTs hold s i m i l a r views to r u r a l FAs f o r the r o l e of the FA. CTs teaching i n urban, as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l , s e t t i n g s held markedly d i f f e r e n t perceptions f o r the FA r o l e . Most d i f f e r e n c e s f e l l under the category of d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y with only one item of d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement and no items of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement. The d i s c u s s i o n includes only those items reaching the s t r i n g e n t .00125 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e determined by the Bonferroni method. between urban and r u r a l CTs were evident on only one item. Most urban CTs were opposed to the FA observing the CT p r i o r t o the placement of the ST ( 9 ) . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a large m a j o r i t y of r u r a l CTs held t h i s item as an expectation f o r FAs. found on the item p e r t a i n i n g to the FA's involvement i n studying the CT's u n i t and d a i l y plans (1). The m a j o r i t y of urban CTs were opposed to such s c r u t i n y , whereas most of t h e i r r u r a l counterparts seemed to expect t h i s of the FA. On one item d e a l i n g with the FA's involvement with the observation and s e l e c t i o n of CTs (18) urban and r u r a l CTs had notably d i f f e r e n t responses. Most urban CTs were opposed to t h i s expectation f o r the FA r o l e whereas a l a r g e r proportion of r u r a l CTs were i n favor of FAs observing CTs f o r the purpose of s e l e c t i n g CTs. D i f f e r e n c e s between subgroups were a l s o found on two items associated with the a c t i v i t y of notetaking during a teaching D i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. Differences i n d i r e c t i o n D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . A d i f f e r e n c e i n response was 163 performance of e i t h e r the ST or CT. The expectation that FAs take notes while the CT i s teaching (11) was opposed by most urban CTs while r u r a l CTs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d i n t h e i r responses. On the second item, a d i f f e r e n c e i n response was evident f o r the expectation t h a t FAs make t h e i r notes of the ST a v a i l a b l e to the p r i n c i p a l (17). Most urban CTs d i d not expect the FA to perform t h i s task whereas a l a r g e r proportion of r u r a l CTs tended to be i n f a v o r . The m a j o r i t y of r u r a l CTs expected the FA to work toward the improvement of the t o t a l school program (40). The l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of urban CTs were opposed to t h i s item as an e x p e c t a t i o n . Most urban CTs were c l e a r l y opposed to FAs attending s t a f f meetings i n cooperating schools (39). Rural CTs were l e s s so being approximately evenly d i v i d e d . Rural CTs, more so than t h e i r urban counterparts, expected the FA to be more involved i n the student teaching experience. Marked d i f f e r e n c e s i n response between urban and r u r a l CTs were c l e a r l y evident i n the expectations f o r the FA i n the observation and s e l e c t i o n of CTs. Unlike t h e i r r u r a l counterparts urban CTs tended not to hold these expectations as FA r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . A number of key d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations between respondents were found f o r the r o l e of the FA. When FAs and CTs are grouped according to the geographic l o c a t i o n of the student teaching experience, a s u b s t a n t i a l number of between-group d i f f e r e n c e s are evident. Views of the ST Role 164 Figure 6 shows the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r the ST r o l e f o r each of the three respondent groups and the v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the practicum, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum examined i n t h i s study. An a s t e r i s k i n d i c a t e s t h a t a number of d i f f e r e n c e s were found between subgroups f o r the a s s o c i a t e d i n d i v i d u a l or contextual v a r i a b l e . I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s Gender Level of P r a c t i cum Geographic Location FA Respondent Groups ST CT Figure 6 P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and the Three Respondent Groups f o r the ST Role The f i n d i n g s i n Figure 6 i n d i c a t e that d i f f e r e n c e s across respondent groups were ass o c i a t e d with both gender and l e v e l and f o r both the ST and CT respondent groups. The f i n d i n g s f o r the f i v e non-asterisked c e l l s are reported i n Appendix G. I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and  Views of the ST Role Held bv STs 165 Table 23 provides an overview of the f i n d i n g s a s s o c i a t e d with the gender of the respondent and the ST respondent group. Table 25 f o l l o w s the i d e n t i c a l format as Table 19 which has p r e v i o u s l y been described. The length of the l i n e s j o i n i n g the symbols (U-R) provides a general i n d i c a t i o n of the extent of the disagreement between subgroups f o r the ST r o l e . Table 23 shows that a number of d i f f e r e n c e s were evident across the ST respondent group f o r the v a r i a b l e of gender. The survey items on which d i f f e r e n c e s between males and females were found f o r the ST r o l e are shown i n Table 24. The item number and d e s c r i p t i o n are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e f o l l o w e d by the corresponding percentage of 'yes' and 'no' responses f o r each subgroup. The d i r e c t i o n of response (+, -, 0) and the p-value f o r the cross t a b u l a t i o n c h i square t e s t of a s s o c i a t i o n complete the t a b l e . An a s t e r i s k i n the r i g h t hand column i n d i c a t e s the item meets the Bonferroni value (B) of .00066. 166 Table 23 A Comparison of Male (M) and Female (F) STs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM CHISO (2X2) SIG M--F DIR CAT "MAL %Y FEM %Y MIN 0 50 MAX 100 ST 1 6 .98 I + + DA 87 96 M-F ST2 1 .73 + + DA 89 93 MF ST3 14.70 B + + DA 71 89 BU- F ST4 0.00 + + DA 97 97 # ST5 0.68 0 + DU 56 61 MF ST6 1 .36 + + DA 85 89 MF ST7 0.72 + + DA 82 85 MF ST8 0 .75 + + DA 91 94 MF ST9 3.02 - - DA 27 37 M-F ST10 0.01 + + DA 66 67 MF ST 1 1 0 .04 + + DA 64 63 # ST12 1 .47 + + DA 92 87 FM ST13 0.03 + + DA 89 90 ST14 0.06 + + DA 64 66 ST15 8 .88 I 0 + DU 54 71 M- -F ST16 1 1 .60 I - - DA 8 24 M - - - F ST17 0.02 - - DA 35 36 # ST18 0.45 + + DA 93 95 # ST19 0.02 0 0 DU 52 53 MF ST20 0.46 + + DA 96 95 FM ST21 1 .58 + + DA 81 86 MF ST22 0 .93 0 0 DU 38 44 MF ST23 0. 12 + + DA 90 89 # ST24 0.00 0 0 DU 57 57 FM ST25 0.10 0 0 DU 56 54 ST26 12.05 B - - DA 13 31 M - - - F ST27 0. 14 0 0 DU 41 44 ST28 0.00 - - DA 32 33 ST29 2 .54 + + DA 71 79 M- -F ST30 4 .49 + + DA 90 96 M-F ST31 0 .23 + + DA 98 97 # ST32 2.41 + + DA 89 . 94 MF ST33 12.28 B + + DA 89 98 M-F ST34 0.59 + + DA 100 99 # ST35 1 .34 0 0 DU 48 41 F-M ST36 0.29 + + DA 98 99 ST37 1 . 19 + + DA 96 98 # ST38 2 .12 + 0 DU 63 54 F-M ST39 0.82 + + DA 67 72 M-F ST40 0 .65 + + DA 65 70 MF ST41 0.46 + + DA 95 96 MF SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 1 67 ITEM CHISQ (2X2) SIG M--F DIR CAT MAL . %Y FEM %Y MIN 0 50 MAX 100 ST42 0.39 + + DA 97 98 — — — — -ST43 9 .23 I + + DA 92 78 F - - - M ST44 • 2 .40 + + DA 100 98 ST45 .4 .07 + + DA 81 89 M-F ST46 '3 .57 + + DA 89 80 F-M ST47 0 .53 + + DA 88 91 # ST48 . 0 .27 + + DA 93 94 # ST49 0 .82 + + DA 83 78 FM ST50 2 .56 + + DA 83 74 F-M ST51 0 .12 + + DA 70 72 MF. ST52 0.02 + + DA 93 92 ST53 0.37 + + DA 79 76 FM ST54 0.26 + + DA 90 88 # 5T55 0 .70 + + DA 76 71 FM ST56 0.34 - - DA 21 24 MF ST57 0 .03 0 - DU 39 40 # ST58 2 .25 + + DA 75 83 MF ST59 0. 19 + + DA 95 96 MF ST60 4.66 0 + DU 50 63 M- -F ST61 7.46 I 0 + DU 52 69 M- - - F ST62 4 .33 - - DA 27 39 M- -F ST63 0 .02 - - DA 12 12 ST64 1 .22 + + DA 96 98 # ST65 2 .04 0 0 DU 39 48 HA- F ST66 11.10 I 0 + DU 54 73 M - - - F ST67 5.61 + + DA 65 78 M--F ST68 0 .35 + + DA 66 70 MF ST69 1.41 + + DA 89 84 FM ST70 0 .00 + + DA 93 93 # ST71 + + DA 100 100 # ST72 o !64 + + DA 70 74 MF ST73 1 .13 + + DA 99 97 J ST74 3.37 - - DA 36 26 F- NI ST75 0 .20 + + DA 94 96 MF ST76 0 .10 + + DA 95 96 # SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s o r 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 168 Table 24 D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by Male (M) and Female (F) STs ST Role Yes No Di r p-value B Function (X) (X) 1 . study CTs u n i t and M 87.2 12.8 + .0087 d a i l y plans F 95.6 4.4 + 3. plan a u n i t M 70.6 29.4 + .0001 * i ndependent1y F 88.5 11.5 + 15. observe f o r week before M 53.6 46.4 0 .0029 beginning to teach F 70.7 29.3 + 16. s e t t l e disturbance while M 9.0 91 .0 - .0007 * CT i s teaching F 24. 1 75.9 -26. prepare an i n d i v i d u a l M 12.6 87 .4 - , .0005 * case study F 31 . 1 68.9 -33. assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r M 88.8 11.2 + .0005 * guiding groups F 98.3 1 .7 + 43. teach at more than one M 91 .8 8.2 + .0024 grade l e v e l F 78. 1 21 .9 + 61 . attend PTA meetings M 52.3 47.7 0 .0063 F 68.5 31 .5 + 66. c o l l e c t money f o r milk M 53.7 46.3 0 .0009 lunch etc F 72.9 27. 1 -* = < .00066 The f i n d i n g s i n Table 24 i n d i c a t e t h a t male STs, as d i s t i n c t from female, hold somewhat d i f f e r e n t perceptions f o r t h e i r r o l e as student teachers. Most items f e l l under the category of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement with only three items of d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y and no d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement. Only those items having an o v e r a l l e r r o r r a t e of .05 over the 76 items w i l l be discussed. 169 D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement. D i r e c t i o n a l agreement was evident on one item p e r t a i n i n g to the ST's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r planning. Both subgroups expected to plan a u n i t independently (3) with a l a r g e r proportion of females holding these items as expectations than males. Most STs were r e l u c t a n t t o s e t t l e disturbances while the CT was teaching (16) and showed l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n preparing i n d i v i d u a l case s t u d i e s (26). A higher proportion of males were opposed to these items than females. Both male and female STs expected to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r guiding groups (33). A l a r g e r proportion of females were i n favor of t h i s item than males. Table 25 provides an overview of the f i n d i n g s f o r the ST r o l e a s s o c i a t e d with the ST respondent group and the l e v e l of the student teaching experience. Table 25 f o l l o w s the i d e n t i c a l format as Table 19 which has p r e v i o u s l y been d e s c r i bed. I t can be seen i n Table 25 that a large number of d i f f e r e n c e s were evident across the ST respondent group f o r the v a r i a b l e of l e v e l of the student teaching experience. The items on which d i f f e r e n c e s between elementary and secondary STs were found f o r the ST r o l e are shown i n Table 26. 1 70 Table 25 A Comparison of Elementary (E) and Secondary ( s ) STs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM CHISQ (2X2) SIG E -s DIR CAT ELE %Y SEC %Y MIN 0 50 MAX 100 ST 1 3.91 + + DA 97 90 S-E ST2 3. 19 + + DA 96 90 S-E ST3 8.97 I + + DA 92 77 S - - - E ST4 0.07 + + DA 97 97 # ST5 0.34 0 0 DU 61 58 SE ST6 0.66 + + DA 90 86 SE ST7 3.47 + + DA 90 81 S-E ST8 3.95 + + DA 97 90 S-E ST9 12.03 B 0 - DU 47 26 S E ST10 0.00 + + DA 67 67 # ST 1 1 0.01 0 + DU 64 63 # ST12 1 .32 + + DA 86 90 ES ST13 2.87 + + DA 94 87 SE ST14 2 .09 + + DA 71 62 SE ST 15 7.42 I + 0 DU 75 59 s--- -E ST16 5.89 - - DA 26 14 S - - E ST17 1 .02 - - DA 32 38 E-S ST18 2.31 + + DA 97 92 SE ST19 0.37 0 0 DU 55 52 SE ST20 0.05 + + DA 95 95 ES ST21 2.95 + + DA 90 82 S -E ST22 15.75 B 0 - DU 59 34 s--- -E ST23 0.04 + + DA 90 89 # ST 24 0.71 0 0 DU 60 55 SE ST25 1 .73 0 0 DU 60 52 S-E ST26 12.22 B 0 - DU 38 18 S E ST27 2 .30 - 0 DU 36 46 E - - S ST28 0.20 - - DA 31 33 ES ST29 24.65 B + + DA 94 67 s- E ST30 0.00 + DA 94 94 # ST31 4 .75 + + DA 95 99 ES ST32 1 .46 + + DA 95 91 SE ST33 4 .92 + + DA 99 93 SE ST34 2 .03 + + DA 99 100 # ST35 16. 16 B - 0 DU 27 52 E S ST36 0. 12 + + DA 99 98 ST37 0.06 + + DA 98 97 ST38 7.01 I 0 + DU 46 63 E - - S ST39 7.52 I + + DA 81 65 S - - - - E ST40 18.04 B + + DA 86 60 s--- — E ST41 0.04 + + DA " 96 95 # SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the B0NFERR0NI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 171 ITEM CHISQ SIG E--s DIR ELE SEC MIN MAX (2X2) CAT %Y %Y 0 100 ST42 0 76 + + DA ' 99 97 - - - - " •--«•. # ST43 94 80 B 0 + DU 53 98 E - - - S ST44 0 52 + + DA 98 99 # ST45 14 23 B + + DA 97 81 S - - - E ST46 0 56 + + DA 81 85 ES ST47 5 56 + + DA 96 87 S - - E ST48 0 78 + + DA 96 93 SE ST49 0 88 + + DA 83 79 S-E ST50 2 74 + + DA 84 75 S - - E ST51 0 79 + + DA 75 70 S-E ST52 2 33 + + DA 96 91 S-E ST53 0 28 + + DA 75 78 # ST54 4 12 + + DA 83 91 E-S ST55 9 19 I 0 + DU 62 79 E - - S ST56 0 18 - - DA 25 22 SE ST57 1 07 - 0 DU 36 42 E-S ST58 5 27 + + DA 88 76 S - - E ST59 4 35 + + DA 99 93 SE ST60 2 79 + 0 DU 65 54 S-E ST61 2 36 + + DA 69 59 S-E ST62 10 72 I 0 - DU 48 28 S - - - E ST63 .4 95 - - DA 6 15 E - - S ST64 0 05 + + DA 98 97 # ST65 0 13 0 0 DU 46 44 SE ST66 8 78 I + + DA 78 60 S - - - E ST67 22 28 B + + DA 91 64 S E ST68 0 15 + + DA 70 68 # ST69 7 12 I + + DA 94 82 S - - E ST70 0 00 + + DA 93 93 # ST71 + + DA 100 100 ST72 25 88 B + + DA 92 63 S E ST73 2 97 + + DA 100 97 # ST74 0 96 - - DA 26 31 ES ST75 0 09 + + DA 95 95 ES ST76 0 43 + + DA 95 96 ES SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 172 Table 26 presents the d i f f e r e n c e s i n responses f o r the expectations held between elementary and secondary STs f o r the ST r o l e . The survey item numbers followed by ST expectation are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e . The d i r e c t i o n of response and the p-values f o l l o w on the r i g h t . An a s t e r i s k (*) i n the l a s t column i n d i c a t e s t h a t the item met the Bonferonni value (B). Table 26, f o l l o w i n g , shows t h a t STs student teaching i n elementary, as d i s t i n c t from secondary schools, have markedly d i f f e r e n t perceptions of t h e i r r o l e . D i f f e r e n c e s between subgroups f e l l under the c a t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . Items having an o v e r a l l e r r o r r a t e of .05 over the 76 items (.00066) as determined by the Bonferroni method w i l l be discussed. D i r e c t i o n a l agreement. STs expected to maintain anecdotal records f o r c h i l d r e n i n the classroom (72) and develop and maintain p u p i l progress charts (45). Both subgroups g e n e r a l l y supported these items, but f o r both items a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of elementary STs were i n favor than t h e i r secondary counterparts. Most STs expected t h e i r CTs to allow them to begin teaching by working with small groups (29) and expected to f o l l o w the same i n s t r u c t i o n a l program as the CT (40). On both items, the responses of STs d i f f e r e d i n p r o p o r t i o n with more elementary STs responding favorably than secondary STs. For one a d d i t i o n a l item, a l a r g e r proportion of elementary STs than secondary STs expected to c o r r e c t papers and t e s t s administered by the CT (67). 1 73 Table 26 D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by ST's i n Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) S e t t i ngs ST Role Yes No Di r p -value B Function (*) (X) 3. plan a u n i t E 91 . 5 8. 5 + .0027 i ndependently S 77. 1 22. 9 + 9. use same format as t h a t E 46. 7 53. 3 0 .0005 * used by CT f o r planning S 26. 1 73. 9 -15. observe f o r a week before E 75. 2 24. 8 + .0064 beginning to teach S 59. 0 41 . 0 0 22. maintain anecdotal record E 58. 5 41 . 5 0 .0001 * of one chi1d S 33. 6 66. 4 -26. prepare an i n d i v i d u a l E 37. 6 62. 4 0 .0005 * case study S 18. 0 82. 0 -29. begin teaching working E 93. 8 6. 2 + .0001 * with small groups S 67 . 3 32. 7 + 35. do s u b s t i t u t e teaching E 26. 8 73. 2 - .0001 * i n other classrooms S 51 . 5 48. 5 0 38. do s u b s t i t u t e teaching i n E 46. 1 53. 9 0 .0081 assigned classroom S 62. 7 37. 3 + 39. organize and conduct E 81 . 1 19. 9 + .0061 a f i e l d t r i p S 65. 1 34. 9 + 40. f o l l o w same i n s t r u c t i o n a l E 85. 5 14. 5 + .0001 * program as CT S 60. 4 39. 6 + 43. teach at more than one E 52. 6 47 . 4 0 .0001 * grade l e v e l S 97. 9 2. 1 + 45 . develop and maintain p u p i l E 96. 8 3. 2 + .0002 * progress c h a r t s S 80. 5 19. 5 + 55 . assume major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y E 61 . 7 38. 3 + .0024 lunchroom s u p e r v i s i o n S 78. 5 21 . 5 + 62. accompany the CT on E 47 . 7 52. 3 0 .001 1 home v i s i t s S 27 . 8 72. 2 -66. c o l l e c t money f o r milk, E 77. 6 22. 4 + .0030 lunch e t c . S 60. 0 40. 0 + 67 . c o r r e c t papers/tests E 90. 5 9. 5 + .0001 * administered by CT S 64. 2 35. 8 + 69. keep a dai1y log E 93. 6 6. 4 + .0076 of experences S 82. 0 18. 0 + 72. maintain anecdotal records E 91 . 6 8. 4 + .0001 * f o r c h i l d r e n classroom S 63. 3 36. 7 + * = < .00066 1 74 D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . The m a j o r i t y of secondary STs were opposed to using the same format f o r planning as used by the CT ( 9 ) . Elementary STs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d there being i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to determine a d i r e c t i o n of response. A large proportion of secondary STs were opposed to both preparing i n d i v i d u a l case s t u d i e s (26) and maintaining the anecdotal record of one c h i l d (22). P r o p o r t i o n a l l y , a l a r g e r proportion of elementary STs were i n favor of t h i s l a t t e r e x p e c t ation and s i m i l a r to t h e i r secondary counterparts were opposed t o the former. On two items p e r t a i n i n g to the ST's r o l e i n s u b s t i t u t e teaching d i f f e r e n t responses were found. The majority of STs at the elementary l e v e l d i d not expect to s u b s t i t u t e teach i n other classrooms (35) and were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect to s u b s t i t u t e teaching i n t h e i r assigned classroom (38). Secondary STs were approximately evenly d i v i d e d with respect t o the f i r s t item and i n favor of s u b s t i t u t e teaching i n the assigned classroom. The large majority of secondary STs expected to teach at more than one grade l e v e l (43) whereas elementary STs were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d . The f i n d i n g s f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n response across the ST respondent group suggests that f o r the most par t , elementary STs were more p o s i t i v e l y predisposed to holding items as expectations of the ST r o l e than were secondary STs. 175 I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and  Views of the ST Role Held by CTs Figure 6 showed th a t two of the CT v a r i a b l e s , gender and supervisory l e v e l , are a s s o c i a t e d with a greater number of key d i f f e r e n c e s than the contextual v a r i a b l e of geographic l o c a t i o n . The d i f f e r e n c e s found on t h i s l a t t e r v a r i a b l e are reported i n Appendix G. The f i n d i n g s f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s i n response between CTs f o r the v a r i a b l e s of gender and supervisory l e v e l are reported below. Table 27 provides an overview of the f i n d i n g s f o r the CT r o l e associated with the v a r i a b l e of gender. Table 27 f o l l o w s the i d e n t i c a l format to t a b l e s used e a r l i e r i n t h i s s e c t i o n (Table 19) and which have been p r e v i o u s l y described. The r e s u l t s f o r each item where d i f f e r e n c e s between male and female CTs f o r the ST r o l e were evident are displayed i n Table 28. The ST r o l e item and number are l i s t e d on the l e f t s i d e of the t a b l e followed by the percentage of 'yes' and 'no' responses, the d i r e c t i o n of response and corresponding p-values. Items reaching the Bonferroni value are i n d i c a t e d with an a s t e r i s k (*). 1 76 Table 27 A Comparison of Male (M) and Female (F) CTs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM CHISQ SIG M -F DIR - MAL FEM MIN MAX (2X2) CAT %Y %Y 0 100 ST 1 2 .24 + + DA 83 89 M-F ST2 0 .02 + + DA 97 97 U ST3 0 00 + + DA 93 93 ST4 0 54 + + DA 100 99 # ST5 0 23 + + DA 70 68 # ST6 5 71 + + DA 88 96 M-F ST7 4 27 + + DA 93 98 MF ST8 0 08 + •f DA 98 98 # ST9 4 90 - 0 DU 33 49 M - - F ST 10 2 55 + + DA . 85 76 F-M ST 1 1 3 79 0 0 DU 43 57 M- F ST12 0 66 + + DA 82 86 MF ST13 0 21 + + DA 88 90 ST14 2 10 + + DA 65 74 M-F ST15 1 42 0 + DU 59 67 MF ST16 0 10 - - DA 12 11 ST17 2 66 0 - DU 48 37 F - -M ST18 0 95 + + DA 92 95 MF ST19 0 48 0 0 DU 62 58 FM ST20 0 15 + + DA 98 97 # ST21 2 89 + + DA 85 92 M-F ST22 16 17 B 0 + DU 51 77 M F ST23 4 52 + + DA 88 95 M-F ST24 8 62 I 0 + DU 55 75 M - - - F ST25 5 13 0 0 DU 43 61 M- -F ST26 4 02 0 0 DU 42 57 M- F ST27 1 53 - 0 DU 33 43 M-F ST28 4 28 0 0 DU 39 55 M - - F ST29 0 66 + + DA 86 90 MF ST30 0 17 + + DA 99 98 # ST31 0 18 + + DA 99 98 ST32 4 02 + + DA 87 94 M-F ST33 0 00 + + DA 98 98 ST34 0 20 + + DA 99 99 ST35 0 05 - - DA . 15 •14 # ST36 0 55 + + DA 100 99 ST37 0 13 + + DA 98 97 ST38 0 04 - - DA 21 23 # ST39 5 23 + + DA . 67 81 MI- -F ST40 0 30 + + DA 87 90 ST41 5 32 + + DA 90 97 M-F SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 ITEM CHISQ SIG M -F DIR MAL FEM MIN MAX (2X2) CAT %Y %Y 0 100 ST42 1 .93 + + DA -99 100 # ST43 11 .60 I + + DA 91 72 F - - - M ST44 2 .23 + + DA 100 98 # ST45 0 .55 + + DA 93 95 MF ST46 0 .68 0 0 DU 47 53 M ST47 3.02 + + DA 84 91 M -F ST48 0 .43 + + DA 91 94 # ST49 0. 11 + + DA 78 80 MF ST50 1 .53 + + DA 74 81 M-F ST51 9.87 I 0 + DU 49 71 M F ST52 1 .02 + + DA 89 93 MF ST53 0. 13 0 0 DU 56 58 MF ST54 0.36 + + DA . 83 86 MF ST55 0.16 0 0 DU 55 58 MF ST56 0.07 - - DA 14 16 MF ST57 0 .13 - - DA 23 25 MF ST58 5 .50 0 + DU 59 74 M- -F ST59 2 .83 + + DA 97 99 ST60 1. 15 0 + DU 62 69 MF ST61 3 .85 0 + DU 49 63 M - - F ST62 6.91 I 0 0 DU 39 58 M -F ST63 0 .33 - - DA 3 5 # ST64 0.02 + + DA 97 96 ST65 1 . 15 0 0 DU 60 53 FM ST66 16.78 B 0 + DU 54 79 M F ST67 1 .33 + + DA 67 74 MF ST68 2.27 0 + DU 60 70 M-F ST69 3.82 + + DA 100 96 ST70 0 .33 + + DA 96 97 ST71 + + DA 100 100 ST72 24.67 B + + DA 65 92 M -F ST73 1 .85 + + DA 99 100 ST74 2.31 - 0 DU •28 39 M-F ST75 0 .08 + + DA 95 96 # ST76 1 .42 + + DA 96 99 # SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s or 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 1 78 Table 28 D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the s ST by Male (M) and Female (F) CT's ST Role Yes No Di r p-value B Function (X) (X) 22. maintain anecdotal record M 57. 2 48.8 0 .0001 * one c h i l d F 77 . 5 22.5 + 24. use s p e c i f i c form record M 55. 2 44.8 0 .0033 obs ind grp behavior F 74. 8 25.2 + 43. teach at more than one M 90. 6 9.4 + .0007 * grade l e v e l F 71 . 8 28.2 + 51. administer an i n t e r e s t M 48. 6 51 .4 0 .0017 i nventory F 70. 8 29.2 + 62. accompany the CT on M 38. 6 61 .4 0 .0090 home v i s i t s F 58. 3 41 .7 0 66. c o l l e c t money f o r milk M 53. 5 46.5 0 .0001 * lunch etc F 79. 1 20.9 + 72. maintain anecdotal records M 64. 9 35. 1 + .0001 * c h i l d r e n i n classroom F 91 . 6 8.4 + * = < .00066 Table 28 shows the d i f f e r e n c e s between male and female CTs f o r the ST r o l e . The items f e l l under the c a t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . Discussion focusses on those items reaching the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (.00066) as determined by the Bonferroni method. D i r e c t i o n a l agreement. Both CT subgroups expected STs to teach at more than one grade l e v e l (43). However, a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of male CTs held t h i s item as an expectation than female CTs. On the other hand, a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of female CTs expected STs to maintain anecdotal records of c h i l d r e n i n the classroom (72). 1 79 D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . A l a r g e r proportion of female CTs than male CTs supported two items d e s c r i b i n g the ST r o l e . Most female CTs were i n favor of the ST maintaining anecdotal records of one c h i l d (22) and c o l l e c t i n g money f o r milk, lunch e t c . (66). Male CTs were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect to these items, there being i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to determine a d i r e c t i o n of response. Table 29 presents an overview of the f i n d i n g s f o r the views of the elementary and secondary CT subgroups f o r the ST r o l e . The format of t h i s t a b l e has been p r e v i o u s l y introduced (Table 19). Table 29 shows a s u b s t a n t i a l number of d i f f e r e n c e s across the CT respondent group, elementary as d i s t i n c t from secondary, f o r the ST r o l e . These d i f f e r e n c e s i n response are presented i n Table 30. The item numbers and corresponding r o l e f u n c t i o n s are l i s t e d down the l e f t s i d e of the page followed by the percentage of 'yes' and 'no' responses, d i r e c t i o n of response, and p-value. Items i n d i c a t e d with an a s t e r i s k (*) i n the f a r r i g h t column met the s t r i n g e n t Bonferonni value (B). 180 Table 29 A Comparison of Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) CTs f o r the ST Role: A P l o t of the Yes Percentages ITEM CHISQ (2X2) SIG E -s DIR CAT ELE %Y SEC %Y MIN 0 MAX 5 0 100 ST 1 10.46 I + + DA 93 79 S - - E ST2 0.00 + + DA 97 97 ST3 3 .15 + + DA 96 90 S-E ST4 0.80 + + DA 99 100 # ST5 4 .02 + + DA 63 75 E-S ST6 0.82 + + DA 94 91 SE ST7 0.00 + + DA 96 96 # ST8 0.51 + + DA 98 97 # ST9 0.59 0 0 DU 46 41 S-E ST10 1 . 19 + + DA 82 76 SE ST 1 1 2 .90 0 0 DU 57 45 S -E ST12 2 .95 + + DA 88 80 S-E ST13 0 .38 + + DA 91 89 SE ST 1 4 2 .34 + + DA 75 66 S - - E ST15 14.52 B + 0 DU 74 51 S E ST16 2 .65 - - DA 15 8 SE ST17 3.47 - 0 DU 35 47 E - - S ST18 0.76 + + DA 93 95 ES ST19 1 . 16 0 + DU 57 64 E-S ST20 0.02 + + DA 97 97 # ST21 7.81 I + + DA 94 83 S - - E ST22 20 .63 B + 0 DU 81 52 S E ST23 4 .68 + + DA 96 88 S -E ST24 2 .69 + 0 DU 72 62 S-E ST25 0 .03 0 0 DU 54 55 # ST26 10.11 I 0 0 DU 62 39 S - - - - E ST27 0 .28 0 0 DU 40 36 SE ST28 2 .15 0 0 DU 53 42 s- E ST29 16.46 B + + DA 96 80 S - - - E ST30 3.27 + + DA 97 100 # ST31 2.47 + + DA 98 100 ST32 8 .63 I + + DA 96 85 S - - E ST33 1 .36 + + DA 99 96 ST34 2 .48 + + DA 100 98 ST35 1 .53 - - DA 12 17 ES ST36 0.81 •f + DA • 99 100 ST37 2 .60 + + DA 96 99 # ST38 2 .06 - - DA 19 26 E -S ST39 8.47 I + + DA' 83 66 S - - - E ST40 2.91 + + DA 92 85 S -E ST41 10.67 I + + DA 99 89 S-E SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +'s o r 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 181 ITEM CHISQ SIG E -s DIR ELE SEC MIN MAX (2X2) CAT %Y %Y 0 100 ST42 1.31 + + DA 100 99 # ST43 33 .53 B + + DA 64 95 E - - S ST44 3.32 + + DA 97 100 ST45 2 .59 + + DA 96 91 SE ST46 3 .53 0 0 DU 57 44 s- E ST47 6 .58 + + DA 93 82 s- - E ST48 1.80 + + DA 95 90 SE ST 49 0.01 + + DA 80 80 # ST50 3.67 + + DA 83 73 S - - E ST51 20 .44 B + 0 DU 77 46 S E ST52 7 .68 I + + DA 96 86 S - - E ST53 0.04 0 0 DU 56 57 ES ST54 1 .46 + + DA 87 81 s- E ST55 4 .06 0 + DU 50 64 E - - S ST56 0.41 - - DA 17 14 SE ST57 7.94 I - - DA 30 14 S - - -E ST58 12.51 B + 0 DU 78 57 S E ST59 1 .55 + + DA 99 97 ST60 2 .29 + 0 DU 70 60 S-E ST61 1 .97 0 0 DU 61 52 S - - E ST62 7.58 I 0 0 DU 60 40 S - - -E ST63 0.01 - - DA 5 5 ST64 0.54 + + DA 96 97 ST65 0.04 0 0 DU 55 56 # ST66 25.01 B + 0 DU 82 52 S E ST67 9. 19 I + 0 DU 80 62 S - - - E ST68 3 .64 + 0 DU 72 60 S - - E ST69 0.00 + + DA 97 97 ST70 0.51 + + DA 96 97 ST71 + + DA 100 100 ST72 24 .44 B + + DA 93 67 S -E ST73 1 .26 + + DA 100 99 # ST74 0.97 - - DA 38 31 S-E ST75 4 .12 + + DA 98 93 SE ST76 0 .05 + + DA 98 98 # SIG = STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF 2X2 CHI SQUARE TEST I = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the ITEMWISE (INDIVIDUAL) l e v e l o f 1% B = s i g n i f i c a n c e at the BONFERRONI (OVERALL) l e v e l o f 5% - - f o r the c o l l e c t i o n o f i tems i n t h i s t a b l e DIR CAT = DIRECTIONAL CATEGORY DA = D i r e c t i o n a l Agreement: 2 +' s o r 2 - ' s DD = D i r e c t i o n a l D isagreement : 1 + and 1 -DU = D i r e c t i o n a l U n c e r t a i n t y : at l e a s t one 0 Table 30 D i f f e r e n c e s i n the Expectations Held f o r the Role of the ST by CT's i n Elementary (E) and Secondary (S) S e t t i n g s ST Role Function Yes (X) No (X) Di r p-value B 1. study the CT u n i t E 93. 3 6. 7 + .0012 and dai1y pians S 79. 4 20. 6 + 15. observe f o r a week E 74. 4 25. 6 + .0001 * before teaching S 50. 9 49. 1 0 21 . observe at age l e v e l s above E 94. 1 5. 9 + .0052 & below that assigned S 82. 8 1 7 . 2 + 22. maintain anecdotal record E 80. 9 19. 1 + .0001 * of one c h i l d S 52. 0 48. 0 0 26 . prepare an i n d i v i d u a l E 61 . 7 38. 3 0 .0015 case study S 38. 6 61 . 4 0 29. begin teaching working E 96. 3 3. 7 + .0001 * small groups S 79. 7 20. 3 + 32. work one c h i l d needs E 96. 2 3. 8 + .0033 s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n c e S 85. 4 14. 6 + 39. organize and conduct E 82. 8 17. 2 + .0036 a f i e l d t r i p S 65. 9 34. 1 + 41 . assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y E 98. 5 1 . 5 + .001 1 teaching program S 88. 7 1 1 . 3 + 43. teach at more than one E 64. 0 36. 0 + .0001 * grade l e v e l S 95. 3 4. 7 + 51 . administer an i n t e r e s t E 72. 3 22. 7 + .0001 * i nventory S 46. 1 53. 9 0 52. use non-test methods E 96. 2 3. 8 + .0056 of e v a l u a t i o n S 86. 4 13. 6 + 57 . spend 2 or 3 days working E 30. 2 69. 8 - .0048 with school p r i n c i p a l S 14. 1 85. 9 -58. p a r t i c i p a t e i n parent- E 78. 0 22. 0 + .0004 * teacher conferences S 56. 6 43. 4 0 62. accompany the CT on E 60. 3 39. 7 0 .0059 home v i s i t s S 40. 0 60. 0 0 66 . c o l l e c t money f o r milk E 79. 8 20. 2 + .0001 * lunch etc S 51 . 5 48. 5 0 67 . c o r r e c t p apers/tests E 79. 8 20. 2 + . 0024 administered by CT S 62. 0 38. 0 0 72 . maintain anecdotal records E 93. 0 7 . 0 + .0001 * f o r c h i l d r e n i n classroom S 67 . 0 23. 0 + * = < .00066 183 Table 30 shows t h a t CTs s u p e r v i s i n g i n elementary as d i s t i n c t from secondary school s e t t i n g s have markedly d i f f e r e n t perceptions f o r the r o l e of the ST. D i f f e r e n c e s between CT subgroups f e l l under the c a t e g o r i e s of d i r e c t i o n a l agreement and d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . Those items reaching the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e (.00066) as determined by the Bonferroni method are discussed. D i r e c t i o n a l agreement. Several items dealing with the ST's i n d u c t i o n i n t o teaching produced d i f f e r e n c e s between CT subgroups. CTs at both s u p e r v i s o r y l e v e l s expected STs to begin t h e i r student teaching experience by working with small groups (29) and e v e n t u a l l y t o assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the teaching program (41). STs were f u r t h e r expected to teach at more than one grade l e v e l (43). While both subgroups were i n favor of these e x p e c t a t i o n s , a l a r g e r proportion of elementary CTs held these items as expectations than secondary CTs with the exception of the l a s t item where a l a r g e r m a j o r i t y of secondary CTs held t h i s item as an expectation. STs were a l s o expected, by both subgroups of CTs, to maintain anecdotal records f o r c h i l d r e n i n the classroom (72). A l a r g e r m a j o r i t y of CTs at the elementary l e v e l were more i n favor of t h i s item than CTs at the secondary l e v e l . D i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y . Most CTs s u p e r v i s i n g at the elementary l e v e l expected STs to observe f o r a week before teaching (15). CTs s u p e r v i s i n g at the secondary l e v e l , however, were e s s e n t i a l l y evenly d i v i d e d with respect to t h i s 184 exp e c t a t i o n . A d i f f e r e n c e i n pr o p o r t i o n between subgroups was evident on the items p e r t a i n i n g to the ST administering i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s t o p u p i l s (51), and maintaining anecdotal records f o r one c h i l d (22). A large proportion of elementary CTs tended to be i n favor of these items while t h e i r secondary counterparts were approximately evenly d i v i d e d . Elementary CTs had s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t responses from secondary CTs i n t h e i r expectation t h a t STs should become involved i n a number of n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n parent-teacher conferences (58) to c o l l e c t i n g money f o r such purposes as milk and lunch (66). CTs s u p e r v i s i n g i n secondary school s e t t i n g s were again e s s e n t i a l l y evenly s p l i t with respect to these expectations as there was i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence to determine a d i r e c t i o n of response. A s i m i l a r p a t t e r n to t h a t held by STs f o r the ST r o l e a s s o c i a t e d with l e v e l was a l s o found f o r CTs. Elementary CTs scored lower on most items than d i d t h e i r secondary counterparts. Elementary CTs more so than secondary expected STs to perform a number of n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l tasks from c o l l e c t i n g money f o r lunch to a d m i n i s t e r i n g i n t e r e s t i n v e n t o r i e s , preparing case s t u d i e s and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n parent-teacher conferences. Secondary CTs tended to expect, more so than elementary CTs, th a t STs w i l l teach at more than one grade l e v e l . 185 Views of the CT Role Figure 7 shows the p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s f o r the CT r o l e f o r each of the three respondent groups and the v a r i a b l e s of gender, l e v e l of the practicum, and geographic l o c a t i o n of the practicum explored i n t h i s study. An a s t e r i s k located i n a c e l l i n d i c a t e s t h a t a number of d i f f e r e n c e s were found w i t h i n subgroups associated with that i n d i v i d u a l or contextual v a r i able. I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s Gender Level of Geographic Practicum Location FA Respondent Groups ST CT Figure 7 P o s s i b l e R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between the I n d i v i d u a l and Contextual V a r i a b l e s and the Three Respondent Groups f o r the CT Role Figure 7 i n d i c a t e s that few d i f f e r e n c e s across any of the three respondent groups were associated with the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s examined i n t h i s study. As was evident i n Chapter 6 members of the t r i a d seem to have a c l e a r conception of what they perceive the r o l e of the CT to be. 186 Perhaps t h i s c l a r i t y f o r the CT r o l e e x p l a i n s why there were so few d i f f e r e n c e s i n expectations according to the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s explored. The f i n d i n g s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e and views of the CT r o l e are reported i n Appendix G. Chapter 8 presents a d i s c u s s i o n of the f i n d i n g s i n r e l a t i o n to the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e and draws some i n i t i a l c o n c l u s i o n s . CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS The previous four chapters presented the f i n d i n g s of the a n a l y s i s governed by the research questions. Those f i n d i n g s were i n e v i t a b l y d e t a i l e d and complex. The purpose of the present chapter i s to engage i n a d i s c u s s i o n of the f i n d i n g s i n such a way as to make sense of what up to t h i s p o i n t may have been confusing by i t s volume. Chapter 8 has three s e c t i o n s corresponding to the purposes of t h i s study. Each s e c t i o n begins with an overview and attempts to i d e n t i f y those f i n d i n g s which are s a l i e n t . The r e s u l t s are then discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e l eading to conclusions about the respondent groups i n the student teaching t r i a d . Across Group Agreement/Disagreement Findings Across group agreement r e f e r s to those r o l e expectations about which d i r e c t i o n a l agreement was achieved. Across group disagreement r e f e r s t o those r o l e expectations about which d i r e c t i o n a l disagreement or d i r e c t i o n a l u n c e r t a i n t y were found. The major d e s c r i p t i v e f i n d i n g s associated with each t r i a d member's r o l e are now presented according to agreement or disagreement among the groups representing each of the three members of the t r i a d . 187 188 Fac u l t y Advisor: Agreement 1. Faculty a d v i s o r s are expected t o play a-role i n the s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of student teachers by members of the student teaching t r i a d . 2. Faculty a d v i s o r s are expected to play a r o l e i n l i a i s o n between the u n i v e r s i t y and the school by a l l members of the student teaching t r i a d . 3. Faculty a d v i s o r s are not expected to play a r o l e i n e i g h t of the 40 items hypothesized as c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the execution of the f a c u l t y a dvisor's r o l e . F a culty Advisor: Disagreement/Uncertainty 4. Members of the student teaching t r i a d were not i n agreement with respect to 17 of the 40 r o l e expectations which were hypothesized to c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r ' s r o l e . 5. Faculty a d v i s o r s are not expected to observe, evaluate, and s e l e c t cooperating teachers except by student teachers. 6. Fa c u l t y a d v i s o r s are expected to a s s i s t cooperating teachers to f u l f i l t h e i r r o l e s as cooperating teachers, e s p e c i a l l y i n the area of planning. This e x p e c t a t i o n was held with more i n t e n s i t y by cooperating teachers than by f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s or student teachers. Student Teacher: Agreement 7. Student teachers were expected u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y to assume complete r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program i n the cooperating teacher's classroom by members of the student teaching t r i a d . 8. Student teachers were expected to meet with the cooperating teacher p r i o r to and during the student teaching experience by members of the student teaching t r i ad. 9. P o s i t i v e expectations f o r student teachers were held by members of the student teaching t r i a d on 49 of the 76 items held to c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of the student teacher's r o l e . 10. Student teachers were not expected by members of the student teaching t r i a d to play a r o l e i n 5 n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l items of the 76 items held to c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of the student teacher r o l e . Student Teacher: Disagreement/Uncertainty 189 11. Members of the student teaching t r i a d were not i n agreement with respect to 27 of the 76 items hypothesized to c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of the ST's r o l e . Most of these r o l e expectations were as s o c i a t e d with the n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e expectations i n the areas of studying c h i l d r e n and the range of teacher a c t i v i t i e s . Cooperating Teacher: Agreement 12. Cooperating teachers were expected u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y to play a r o l e i n the s u p e r v i s i o n and e v a l u a t i o n of student teachers by members of the student teaching t r i a d . 13. Cooperating teachers were expected u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y to play a r o l e i n the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of the student teacher to the teaching p r o f e s s i o n by members of the student teaching t r i a d . 14. P o s i t i v e expectations f o r cooperating teachers were held by members of the student teaching t r i a d on 45 of the 50 items held to c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of the cooperating teacher's r o l e . Cooperating Teacher: Disagreement/Uncertainty 15. Members of the student teaching t r i a d were not i n agreement with respect to 5 of the 50 items hypothesized to c h a r a c t e r i z e the r o l e of the CT. Table 31 d i s p l a y s the across group agreement/disagreement f o r each t r i a d member's r o l e and the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e a ssociated with each f i n d i n g . The l e f t s i d e of the page shows the r o l e expectations followed by the agreement (A) or disagreement/uncertainty (D) held by the members representing each of the three respondent groups f o r these r o l e expectations. The columns on the r i g h t s i d e of the page c i t e the researchers whose work e i t h e r supports or Table 31 Across Group Agreement/Disagreement Summary Findings in Relation to Pertinent Literature $£[9§§_!k9yfi_Agre8Bent/Disagree E§L§ilQQihiBjo_Literatur§ Qonfl i c t s Associated N§¥_EiQ<!i[!2 1. Supervision and Evaluation 2. Liaison 3. 8/40 non-expectations A A A* Cohn,1981; Zimpher, Bowsan, 1979; Emans, Johnson and Hodge, et a l . , 1980; Reif, 1983; Horton and . 1981 1980; Martin and Harvey,1979, Bowman Sheehan, 1982 1979; Ellenburg,1981 A A A A A A Cohn, 1981; Koehler,1984 it 4. Lack of agreement 17/40 role expectations D D D 5. Observation, evaluation, selection D A D of cooperating teachers Zimpher,1987; Zimpher et al . f 1980 Mclntyre and Morris 1980; Gr i f f in and Edwards,1981; Kaplan, 1967 Copas, 1984; Applegate and Lasley 1985 /continued Supports Q o Q i i i t t i Associated New_Finding 6. Working relationship with CT 7. Responsibility for classroom instructional prograsi 8. Meetings with CT D D A FA ST CT A A A Hoy and Rees, 1979; NCATE 1982 A A A McAteer,1976; Zalokar and LoGuidace, 1982 Renihaai and Schwier, 1980 Ellenburg, 1981; Horton and Harvey, 1979; Eaians, 1983 Copeland,1979; Mott 1976) Southall and King,1979; Horrow and Lane,1983; Applegate and Lasley 19B2; Purcel l and Seiferth, 1981 Tabachnick, Popke witz, Zeichner,1979 9. Observation of the CT 10. 5/76 non-expectations A A A A A A SI.Rolgi.Pisagreefflent/Uncertainty FA_ST_CT 11. Non-instructional role expectations D D D tt /continued Supports Q o Q i i i i t l Associated New_Finding 12. Supervision and evaluation 13. Professional Social izat ion of ST 14. Overall agreement CI_E2l§L_iLii9!lii!!!§QUyQ^§!iyi!!^  15. Few findings EA-SLQI A A A Ziapher,1987; Copas 1984; Johnson,1977; Copeland, 1980/82; Ellenburg, 1981 El kind, 1976; Zalokar and LoGuidace, 1982; McDonough, 1980; Hattie et a l . , 1982 A A A Grimmett and Ratzlaff, 1986; Copas,1984; Kaplan, 1979; Zalokar and LoGuidace, 1982; Mott, 1976 A A A Ellenburg, 1981 01 sen,1981; Wheeler and Knoop, 1982; Beauchanp,1983 * A = Agreement; D = Disagreement/Uncertainty 193 c o n f l i c t s with the present study's f i n d i n g s or whose work i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h , but n e i t h e r supports nor c o n f l i c t s with the present study's f i n d i n g s . The column on the f a r r i g h t i s reserved f o r those f i n d i n g s new t o the l i t e r a t u r e . New f i n d i n g s are i n d i c a t e d with a double a s t e r i s k (**). The f i n d i n g s are then discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e and conclusions are drawn. The f i n d i n g s of the present study concerning agreement f o r the FA r o l e are i n keeping with some of the t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e s of the FA described i n the l i t e r a t u r e (Cohn, 1981; Martin and Sheehan, 1982; Zimpher et a l ., 1980). FAs were expected t o supervise and evaluate the ST and to provide l i a i s o n between the u n i v e r s i t y and the school. However, Bowman (1979) questions the a b i l i t y of the FA t o evaluate the ST given the f i n d i n g s of Mclntyre and Morris (1980) which i n d i c a t e that FAs spend only one hour every two weeks observing the ST. Funk et a l . (1982) report t h a t the CTs i n t h e i r study gave FAs a very low r a t i n g with regard to the o v e r a l l s u p e r v i s i o n FAs provided. The FAs would appear to be i n a very d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n . On the one hand, they are expected to supervise and evaluate STs but, on the other hand, they are not deemed to do t h i s very e f f e c t i v e l y . FAs are a l s o plagued by an o v e r a l l lack of agreement about t h e i r r o l e . This f i n d i n g i s c o n s i s t e n t with Zimpher's (1987) extensive review of the l i t e r a t u r e on u n i v e r s i t y s u p e r v i s i o n . Further, a f i n d i n g of t h i s study not p r e v i o u s l y reported i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t CTs more so than STs 194 or FAs expect the FA to work more c l o s e l y with the CT and provide i n s e r v i c e r e l a t e d to the planning of ST's teaching experience. This f i n d i n g may lend some support to those who would argue f o r a r e c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the FA r o l e from one of s u p e r v i s i n g and ev a l u a t i n g STs to one of s u p e r v i s i n g and t r a i n i n g CTs (Emans, 1983; El l e n b e r g , 1981; Horton and Harvey, 1979). However, the f i n d i n g s of the study are q u i t e c l e a r with regard t o the FA's r o l e i n the e v a l u a t i o n of the ST. The l i t e r a t u r e i s l i m i t e d regarding the FA's r o l e i n observing, e v a l u a t i n g , and s e l e c t i n g CTs. Martin and Sheehan (1982), surveying only CTs, reported t h a t CTs viewed with s k e p t i c i s m the notion t h a t the FA should observe them. This i s c o n s i s t e n t with the present study's f i n d i n g r e l a t e d to the r o l e expectations held by CTs. An i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g , a l s o new to the l i t e r a t u r e , suggests t h a t STs expect the FA to observe, evaluate, and s e l e c t CTs. Copas (1984) maintains that "student teachers are concerned with t h e i r s u p e r v i s i n g teachers' behaviors t h a t d i r e c t l y a f f e c t them..." (p. 53). The present study supports t h i s contention and f u r t h e r suggests t h a t STs want CTs screened p r i o r to placement. The f i n d i n g s associated with the FA r o l e demonstrate a lack of agreement and perhaps of understanding of the FA r o l e . One co n c l u s i o n t h a t can be drawn from the d e s c r i p t i v e f i n d i n g s a s s o c i a t e d with the FA r o l e i s that the FA r o l e i s fraught with dilemmas. The r o l e expectations that are c l e a r l y defined are time i n t e n s i v e ; t h a t i s , e f f e c t i v e s u p e r v i s i o n and ev a l u a t i o n of the ST and l i a i s o n with the cooperating schools and teachers r e q u i r e s a s u b s t a n t i a l expenditure of time on the part of the 195 FA. However, the r o l e expectations associated with the student teaching experience are not the only expectations held f o r FAs. University-based FAs are a l s o expected to teach c l a s s e s and be productive i n terms of research. The problem f a c i n g FAs, then, i s one of p r i o r i t i z a t i o n . Should FAs spend more time working with STs and CTs i n the practicum at the expense of teaching, research and p r o f e s s i o n a l advancement? Are STs and CTs aware of these a d d i t i o n a l FA r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ? Further, should FAs be working p r i m a r i l y with the CT i n an attempt to improve the CT's supervisory a b i l i t i e s at the expense of s u p e r v i s i n g and e v a l u a t i n g the ST? F i n a l l y , should FAs address the concerns held by STs and attempt to observe, evaluate, and s e l e c t CTs at the expense of a l i e n a t i n g and p o s s i b l y l o s i n g the s e r v i c e s of a number of offended CTs? C l e a r l y , the FA occupies a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n i n the student teaching t r i a d : one t h a t may place him or her i n a l o s e - l o s e s i t u a t i o n before the student teaching experience even begins. The l i t e r a t u r e i s somewhat l i m i t e d i n r e p o r t i n g the p r e c i s e r o l e e x p e c t a t i o n s t h a t define the ST's r o l e . I t i s assumed th a t most o f f i c e s of student teaching produce a handbook which d e s c r i b e s the o b j e c t i v e s of each practicum o f f e r e d . However, Watts (1987), i n d i s c u s s i n g the purpose of the student teaching experience, contends t h a t : the p r o f e s s i o n a l s k i l l s t hat teacher t r a i n e r s are expected to develop during the program ... are not i d e n t i f i e d . N e ither are any s p e c i f i c educational a c t i v i t i e s of the practicum experience described (p.152). The f i n d i n g s of the present study demonstrate t h a t STs are expected to assume t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the teaching 196 program. This includes developing t h e i r own lesson plans and c r e a t i n g t h e i r own i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s as well as c o n s t r u c t i n g , a d m i n i s t e r i n g , and i n t e r p r e t i n g t e s t s . Further, STs are expected t o express t h e i r own imagination and c r e a t i v i t y i n teaching and to teach at a time when the CT i s not i n the classroom. These expectations appear s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d enough, but Copeland (1979) maintains t h a t the e c o l o g i c a l system i n f o r c e i n the CT's classroom may p r o h i b i t STs from f u l f i l l i n g them. A number of researchers ( P u r c e l l and S e i f e r t h , 1981; Southal1 and King, 1979; Mott, 1976) contend that STs do not always perceive themselves as adequately prepared to f u l f i l these r o l e expectations. The f i n d i n g s of the present study support the contention of Zalokar and LoGuidace (1982) and Reniham and Schwier (1980) t h a t STs should arrange a meeting with the CT p r i o r to the student teaching experience. The present study's f i n d i n g s f u r t h e r suggest t h a t STs must be a v a i l a b l e f o r conferencing with the CT during the practicum. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the examination of the FA r o l e revealed t h a t FAs do not perceive a need to take part i n these meeti ngs. I t i s g e n e r a l l y assumed that STs w i l l begin t h e i r student teaching experience by observing the teaching of the CT (McAteer, 1976). The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study are c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s contention and add t o the l i t e r a t u r e by suggesting that STs should review the CT's lesson plan p r i o r to observing, take notes while the CT i s teaching, make these notes a v a i l a b l e to the CT, and be s t r i c t l y a s i l e n t observer. 197 There i s a general assumption t h a t the student teaching experience provides the ST with an opportunity to assume a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. However, the f i n d i n g s of the present study ( a l s o new to the l i t e r a t u r e ) i n d i c a t e considerable disagreement about the n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e expectations. I t may be that practicum preparation c l a s s e s focus on areas such as c u r r i c u l u m , pedagogy, and classroom management and pay l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to a n c i l l a r y n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s such as preparing case stud i e s or becoming.a member of a s t a f f committee. These f i n d i n g s permit s e v e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s . F i r s t , the primary o b j e c t i v e of the student teaching experience i s i n s t r u c t i o n a l , p r o v i d i n g the ST with the opportunity to assume t o t a l independent r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n a l program. Second, the performance of n o n - i n s t r u c t i o n a l r o l e expectations a s s o c i a t e d with the ST r o l e appears to be ambiguous and of secondary importance. T h i r d , communication through meetings between the ST and the CT i s considered an important dimension of the student teaching experience by a l l members of the t r i a d . However, the nature of these meetings and the r o l e of the FA i n t r i a d i c meetings i s unclear. F i n a l l y , the ST's behavior when observing the CT i s narrowly defined and f a l l s w i t h i n imposed 1i mi t a t i ons. The f i n d i n g s i n the present study demonstrate o v e r a l l agreement f o r the CT r o l e which i s c o n s i s t e n t with the f i n d i n g s of Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) and E l l e n b e r g (1981). Zimpher (1987) contends t h a t : 198 the s i n g l e most important observation regarding student teaching i s that s u p e r v i s i o n i s viewed as the most important feature of the student teaching experience and t h a t , i n the second place, t h a t process, the study f i n d s , i s dominated l a r g e l y by the CT (p.129). The f i n d i n g s of the present study lend credence to t h i s c o n c l u s i o n and i n d i c a t e t h a t members of the t r i a d expect the CT to supervise and evaluate the ST. However, c o n f l i c t i n g reports appear i n the l i t e r a t u r e regarding the CT's a b i l i t y to supervise and evaluate STs e f f e c t i v e l y . H a t t i e et a l . (1982) maintain t h a t CTs can r e l i a b l y rate STs whereas Wheeler and Knoop (1982) contend CTs cannot. 01 sen (1981) p o s i t s that CTs view t h e i r r o l e as more supportive and n o n - a n a l y t i c a l and are not w i l l i n g t o be c r i t i c a l of the ST. That the CTs i n the present study expected to p r o t e c t t h e i r p u p i l s from the i n e f f i c i e n c y of the ST and were not prepared to s h i e l d the shortcomings of the ST from the FA does not support 01 sen's (1981) argument. Grimmett and R a t z l a f f (1986) and others have concluded t h a t the c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the CT r o l e i s changing. CTs are now regarded as p l a y i n g a more a c t i v e r o l e i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n of prospective teachers. The f i n d i n g s of the present study support t h i s c onclusion and i n concert represent a s o l i d tenet of knowledge f o r the CT r o l e . Two conclusions may be drawn from the f i n d i n g s of the present study f o r the r o l e of the CT. One, the overwhelming agreement about the CT r o l e has produced at l e a s t one side e f f e c t which must be addressed. I t i s evident from the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study and the work of Grimmett and R a t z l a f f 199 (1986) th a t t r i a d members expect a great deal from the CT, so much so tha t one questions the a b i l i t y of any one person to accomplish, s a t i s f a c t o r i l y , a l l the tasks expected of the CT. I t may be concluded with some confidence, then, that one aspect of the CT r o l e i n v o l v e s the p r o f e s s i o n a l s o c i a l i z a t i o n of prospective teachers. I t may a l s o be concluded, perhaps somewhat s p e c u l a t i v e l y , t h a t CTs are u n l i k e l y to be able to f u l f i l a l l the expectations which c h a r a c t e r i z e the execution of t h e i r r o l e . T h i s , i n t u r n , could lead t o r o l e ambiguity, i f not p o t e n t i a l r o l e c o n f l i c t , as CTs attempt to determine t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s i n teacher education. Within Group V a r i a t i o n Within group v a r i a t i o n r e f e r s to the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r o l e expectations a s s o c i a t e d with c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s held w i t h i n the groups representing each of the three members of the student teaching t r i a d . The major f i n d i n g s a s s o c i a t e d with the i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s examined i n t h i s study are now presented. 200 Faculty Advisor Role 16. The contextual v a r i a b l e of geographic l o c a t i o n of the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r , urban u n i v e r s i t y - b a s e d as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l f i e l d - b a s e d , was associated with a large number of d i f f e r e n c e s f o r the expectations held w i t h i n the f a c u l t y advisor respondent group f o r the f a c u l t y a d v i s o r r o l e . 17. The contextual v a r i a b l e of geographic l o c a t i o n of the CT, urban as d i s t i n c t from r u r a l , was associated with a lar g e number of d i f f e r e n c e s f o r r o l e expectations held w i t h i n the cooperating teacher respondent group f o r the f a c u l t y advisor r o l e . Student Teacher Role 18. The i n d i v i d u a l and contextual v a r i a b l e s of gender and l e v e l of the student teaching experience, elementary as d i s t i n c t from secondary, were associated with a large numbe