N080830 ERIC REPORT RESUME

ED 010 009 8- 31-66 24 (REV)CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF STUD .NT TEACHERS WHO STAY IN TEACHING.LOHMAN, MAURICE A. * AND OTHERSOGF48320 CITY UNIV. OF NEW YOEX, RESEARCH FOUNDATIONCRP -S -332OGF48286 CITY UNIV. OF NEW YORK, DIV. OF TEACHER EDUCATION-66EORS PRICE MF$0.09 MC -A2 ®04 51P.

*PREDICTIVE MEASUREMENT, *TUDENT TEACHERS, *TEACHING,*OCCUPATIONAL PERSISTENCEv *PSYCHOMETRICS, TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS,TEACHERS, TEACHER ATTITUDZS, PERSONALITY STUDIES, NEW YORK, NEW YORK

PERSISTENCE IN TEACHING,, FOLLOWING COLLEGE GRADUATION IN THE FIELDOF EDUCATION, WAS STUDIED TO DEFINE AND DETERMINE THE SPECIFICCHARACTERISTICS OF STUOL4T TEACHERS WHICH CAN BE USED TO PREDICTLONGEVITY IN THE TEACHEG PROFESSION. THE PROJECT HAD A LONGITUDINALAPPROACH, USING OVER 4FIJO FEMALE SUBJECTS WHO HAD GRADUATED 10 YEARSPREVIOUSLY FROM 4 NEW WORK CITY MUNICIPAL COLLEGES. ALL SUBJECTS HADTAKEN PERSONALITY AND ATTITUDE TESTS WHILE STILL IN SCHOOL, AND HADRESPONDED TO FOUR QUETIONNAIRES AFTER GRADUATION DURING SUBSEQUENTYEARS AS FOLLOWUP PRGJECTS. PARTICIPANTS WERE FIRST ASSIGNED TOGROUPS IN ACCORDANCE AITH THEIR CAREERS AS TEACHERS (WITH RESPECT TOTIME AND DURATION) AGED WITH THEIR FUTURE PLANS. THE GROUPS WERE THENSUBJECTED TO MULTIVE DISCRIMINATE FUNCTION ANALYSIS ON A NUMBER OFPSYCHOMETRIC MEASURES, TAKEN IN SCHOOL, IN SUCH A WAY AS TO DETECTGROUP DIFFERENCES. HOWEVER, NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WERE NOTEDWHEN THE MEASURES t'ERE CONSIDERED SINGULARLY WITHIN THE GROUPCLUSTERS NOR IN ANY MULTIPLE COMBINATIONS THEREIN. IT WAS THUSCONCEDED THAT NO PREDICTIVE MEASURES FOR TEACHING PERSISTENCE COULDBE FOUND, AND SUGGLiSTEU THAT ADDITIONAL MEASURES AND NEW INSTRUMENTSWERE NEEDED TO FC2A POSITIVE CONCLUSIONS. (JH)

00=RUM CHARACTERISTICS OF STUDENT trams WHO STAY

IN TEACHING

Cooperative Research Project No. 5332

kkurice A. Lohman . Ed.14, Project Dimetor

Frieda Humph

Lien-Huang Chiu

The Research Foundation of the City University of `.,1-or York

for and on behalf of

The Office of Research and EvaluationThe Division of Teacher Education535 East 80 StreetNew Yorks Rev York 10021

1966

The research reported herein vas supported by the CooperativeResearch Program of the Office of Education. U.S. Departmentof Health§ Education and Welfare.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFAREOttloe Edson's.

Title desNaelt Nos Nee reproduced exactly as tiecelved fremthe person er orpeloatlea erigleatleg it. Polets et slew orsplines& stated de mot iesessarlly represeet Mobil Officeif Mettles positive or policy.

Table of Contents

List of of TabLes . a o ea ea a a oat a me. ea. a mese aAcknowledgments. a a 41I 0150006 a taea otaeafiaa

Page

titi

Ptrevord a Oa a, CI 06000e 060000008a a aChapter I - The Problem................... 1

Objectives . . a a a a o amaaaaea 5Chapter It Related Research . waaaaeo ea 7

The Longitudinal Study a ea@ fa a a eea a a 8Chapter in - Procedures a o a (pea a oats a coe @sae a a 11

Groups . .. ta e a o a a a a ogle a a 15Data and instrumentation ow *se es& 16Statistical Analysis a a sea e a a a oast a 23

Chapter IV - Results .. ... a eta etoa aeao sato a 25Chapter V - Discussion and genclusion. a a a a a e a a to a 31References @ow a a ea see() a ea a ea a coo a a 33

List of Tables

Table

1 - Comparisons of the 1956-57, 1959 and 196 Respondents

by. Sex and College Attended . .. ***** 122 - Comparison of the "LongitudIral" Respondents with the

Respondents to the 1957 Questionnaire on the Basis of

Level of Undergraluate Training aad "Persistence" Cat-

egory as

Gratitude is expressed to Dr. Dorsad M. Medley, who ini-tiated and inaugurated the Project and gave valuable advice forits effective administration.

Special thanks are extended to Paul Barbuto who collect-ed and revised the various ccaputer programs needed for the sta-tistical analysis.

The Project is deeply indebted to Professor Rosedith Sit-grews' of Teachers Colleges Columbia University, and to Dr. JohnE. Bicknell* Director of Research, State of Minnesota, Departmentof Blucation, for advice in the use and interpretation of Toni-ple discriminant function techniques.

A number of staff members in the Office of Research andEvaluation have contributed to the Project in many ways.

iv

Maurice fr. Lohman

The present report is one of a series of reports onan organized series of studies of the 1954 graduates of theteacher education programs in the colleges of The City Universityof New York. The original plan was drawn up by Herold Mittel,

William Rabinowitz and Donald K. Medley. The 19518 data which

are analyzed in this report include the results of severaloriginal instrunents and modifications of existing instrtmentowhich were devised for the longitudinal study. In a sense,then, the planning for this study was initiated twelve years ago.

The proposal, for the current study was drafted byDr. Donald M. Medley. The project has been capably directedand carried to a successful conclusion by Dr« Maurice A. Lohman.Thanks are due to fortmer Dean Joseph a. Cohen and to Dean

Harry N. Riviin and Associate Dean W. Virgil Neetrick for theircontinued and unfaltering support of the entire longitudinalstudy, mast of 16ich was carried out with local resources andsupport.

With the completion of this twelve-year study of asingle class of teacher graduates, a cicle comes to a close.It is the intention of the Division of Teacher Education, whichcoordinates what is probably the largest university teachereducation program in the United States, to continue to planand conduct research on teacher education and teacher effectivetftnests.

Albert J. Barris, DirectorOffice of Research and Valuation

CHAPTER I

TIM PBOBL1

The inadequate surly of fully-qualified teachers in

the period following the end of the Second World War, is one

of the problems which has aroused great continuing concern in

American education. Annual statistics on teacher supply anddemand, carefully collected. by the National Education Associ-

ation eince 1950, reiterate the glcorror fact that there are not

enough, tally qualified teachers to staff the claserooms of this

country, end. that there wIn not be enough in the forseeable

future.

The well-publicized need for adequately-prepared teachershas inevitably led to a wide variety of programs designed to in-creme teacher supply. Eny of these programs represent efforts

to recruit able college students for teaching careers. The

success of these recruitment efforts is apparent in the data

collected by the Research Division of the National EducationAssociation. Between 1948 and the present, the percentage of

co] l*ge exaduates who prepared for teaching increased fairly

steadily. Locally, a similar trend toward increased enrollmentsin teacher education programs is revealed by a semi-annual cen-sus of the student body of Tile City University of New York.

Evidence that more and more college students are pre-paring for teaching is encouraging. The number of graduateseligible for standard teaching certificates in 1965 increased9.9 percent aver 1964. However, reflection will reset questionsabout the .ultimate significance of this increase in proypective

4

teachers. It is obvious that we must educate students who

will enter teaching and who, once employed, will remain to

make teaching a long-term career. Row many of the nearly

191,000 newly-trained teachers who were graduated from

American colleges in 1965 will be able to meet this test?

It the trends of the past continue into the future,

the werwhelming majority or these new teachers will not be

found In the classroom five years from now. Nationwide sur-

veys among teacher education graduates clearly indicate that

although between 70 and 80 percent of these students enterteaching within a few months after completing their "under-graduate studies, many of them leave within their first five

years in any one school system (3),

Pert of the difficulty lies in the nature of the teach-

ing profusion. Teaching eri a career field attracts more women

then men. in 1965, of those who were graduated from Americancolleges with sufficient preparation to teach, only 32 percent

were men. In the conflict between career and family responsi-

Unties it is usually the career which is sacrificed, atleast temporarily. Large numbers of women teachers leaveteaching shortly after entering service.

Men graduates, who must also reach decisions aboutentering and leaving teaching, are probably less often subjectto pressures from conflicting family responsibilities. Butmen too leave teaching. Many fields with the same generalentrance requirements offer greater prestige and higher salaries

-3-

as well as more rapid advancement than teaching, and many men

are probably lured away by these attractions.

For many years it has been recognized that the annual

rate of teacher turnover is very high, although the actual

rate is subject to some disagreement. Recent estimates range

from a high of 10.9 percent reported by the Department of Health,

Education and Welfare in 1957-58 (10) to a low of 8.5 percent

reported by the National Education Association in 1964-65 (20).

Reports from other sources, however, would lead one to disre-

gard the appearance of a diminishing trend and to attribute

the differences to sampling procedures. Even the 8.5 percent

figure represented a loss to the teaching profession of

175,000 classroom teachers in 1964-65.

In the 1957 report on teacher supply and demand (19),

the Research Division of the National Education Association,

while lamenting the dearth of adequate statistics on teacher

persistence, concluded quite bluntly:

"The high annual mortality in teaching has not beencharged with its enormous share in creating andextending the teacher shortage. Thousands of newteachers are required each year to replace those whothough well prepared, have successful records andare capable of mashy more years of effective service,nevertheless leave the profession. Too many timesthe schools of the nation profit only briefly from asubstantial invcotment in counseling, selecting,training, and inducting into service a person compe-tent to carry out the highly complex task of teaching.Probably the financial loss in this existing routivais not duplicated elsewhere in the professionaloccupations. But it is the loss of competent personnelthat is moat to be deplored. Only a careful, patientstudy of the reasons teachers leave classroom servicecan point the way to a diminution of this annual loss."

j

-4-

It was against this background of concern for allevi-ating the teacher shortage that the Office of Research and Evalu-ation has undertaken a longitudinal study of the teaching per-sistence of a group of approximately 1600 graduates of the NewYork City municipal colleges.

The study* was initiated in 1954 in the convictiRun

that objective data on teaching persistence is a necessary* baseon which to plan programs for strengthening teaching as a careerfield and ultimately for alleviating the teacher shortage.

Teaching persistence may be defined objeCAvely asthe length of time following graduation in which a teachereducation student is employed as a teacher. In practice themeasurement of teaching persistence may present some ambiguities®Since a teacher's decisions to enter, remain in, leave, andreturn to the teaching profession are not it evocable, theteacher's persistence record depends, in part at least, on thetime at which follow-up data are obtained. The problems Bug-seated here argue strongly for the collectLa of longitudinalcareer data.

Municipal college seniors in student teaching courserwere given a battery of,standardised and experimental tests. Inthe eleven yearn since their graduation, they have been contactedfour tines to obtain information on their rni,sarcence status aswell as on their marital, family and other situational ntattioeseDescriptive reports on this data have been incited in 1954, 1938,1960 and 1965. At the time of the fourth questionnaire a

-5.

supplementary investigation was initiated to obtain data thatwas difficult to secure through a brief questionnaire. A sampleof 50 career-oriented, persistent teachers was interviewed, and

the interviewing of another sample of 100 non-persistent' teachersis in process.

The purpose of the current study was to report on andto relate for the first time the psychometric information securedin 1954 from the student teachers to their persistence as teachersten years later.

Objectives

The principle objective of.this study was to extend

and amplify work which he.s been done in studying the 1953-54

class of former student teachers.

Reports on this work during the past ten years, de-

rived from queitions dealing with career history data, havebeen descriptive. They emphasize that non-persistence is re-

lated mainly to the fact that the teaching staff is composed inoverwhelming proportion of women and that the woman's career

pattern generally involves one or more interruptions in service

for maternity leave and child care. This leaves education witha fact of life that it. will have to live with and for which itwill, hopefully, be able to make adjustments. Suggestions asto possible adjustments have already been made (7).

Though the present study did. not focus on hypotheses

to be tested, it was designed to provide answers to some importantquestions:

A

I

.6

1. To what extent is teacher persistence ten years

after graduation predictable on the basis of

test data obtained when the teachers were stu-

dent teachers?

2. Tet teacher persistence is, at least in part,

predictable, what measured variables are the

most successful prognostic indicators? More

specifically, to what extent is it possible

to go beyond the situational factors described

in former reports (sex, age, marital status,

family status) in an attempt to identify some

personality variables that might account for

different behavior in spite of similar

situations?

Chapter II

MATED RESEARCH

During the academic year 195354, the Office of Research andEvaluation of the Division of Teacher Education began a longitudival studyof approximately 1,00 students who were completing teacher education pro-grams at the four-year municipal colleges of The City University of NewYork. The students were all enrolled in student teachings which is theculmination of the teacher-education program at the municipal colleges andis therefore taken during the student's senior year.

Since the subjects of the study were graduates of the New YorkCity municipal colleges, it my be instructive to describe these institurtions briefly. The City University of New York i3 comprised of eleventax-supported collegiate institutions, Inc/Wing four senior colleges whichoffer teacher-education programs: The City College, Hunter College, BrooklynCollege, and queens College. Operating under the jurisdiction of theBoard of Higher Education, these colleges are open day and evening through-out the year. About 140,000 New Yorkers are in attendance at The CityUniversity, with nearly 50,000 students in four-year baccalaureate programa.

One of the largest subgroups of this vast student body is cceposedof those students over 38,000 in ;cumber -- who are enrolled in teacher-education programs. During 1965, over 4,000 students* about three-fourthsof Whoa were underesraduates and one-fourth of whom were graduate students,were graduated after completion of a teacher- education program at one ofthe municipal colleges (6) .

Each year since 1950, the smicipal colleges have preparedover 1.5 per teat of the national supply of new teachers. The largestsingle employee of these graduates is the Board of education of the Cityof New York. Nora than 60 percent of the approximately 40,000 teachersin the New York City public schools are graduates of the municipal colleges.Although most of The City University graduates teach in the local area,smny are employed in suburban committee and IMO are teaching inschools far frail New York.

Tait.I.szkitudinal_aet

As an initial step in the conduct of the study, the subjects,who were then student teachers, took a group of personality and attitudetests. The tests were all paper-and..pencil inventories which were assem-bled as a "packet" for group administration (18).

During the academic year 1954 -55, a follow-up of a small groupof the student teachers who had been tested the year before was under-taken. Those students who were then teaching in Grades 3 to 6 in NewYork City public elementary schools in which at least one other member ofthe group was also teaching were encouraged to participate as subjectsin an observational study. Of approximately 75 teachers who met thesecriteria, it was possible to conduct intensive observations in the class-roans of 49. In addition, several tests were administered to the milstaught by these 49 teachers and to the teachers themselves. The datathus collected have been used to examine a variety. of issues related tothe measurement and prediction of teacher effectiveness and papil-teacher rapport (12, 13, 15).

-9-

In 1955, the first of the mail questionnaire follow-up studieswas begun. This first questionnaire was primarily designed to establishcontact with the subjects and therefore no report was prepared. Subse-quent follow -ups, each based on a questionnaire mailed to the graduates,were conducted in 1957, 1959, and 1964. The findings of these surveyshave been reported as part of the series of research publications issuedby the Office of Researrih and 'Evaluation (114 26, 8).

The results of all, four surveys were similar. The overwhelmingmajority of student teachers were females who were prepared for teachingat the elementary level, as compared to the small number of males whotended to prepare for secondary school teaching. Mies were more likelyto be persistent teachers, provided they entered the profession soonafter graduation. It was quite clear that virtually all those leavingteaching were women, and that they left because of marital and familyobligations. The difference between the group that returned to teachingand tic group who at the time of the survey had not returned seemedlargely due to the presence of children of pre-school age. Anotherfactor contributing to persistence was the annual incase of the spouse.

The trends were directly related to sex differences. Forexample, a consistent finding was that older respondents tended to bemore persistent; with increasing age there appeared to be a decreasein the marriage probability for females.

Although 56 percent of the graduates who were teaching inNew York City elementary schools were assigned to "difficult" schools,the difficulty of a school had no appreciable relationship to thegraduates' persistence in teaching.

1Portyafive percent of those employed as teachers indicatedan intention to teach indefinitely or until retirement. Over 20 moor*of the women planned to leave teaching in the near future.

About 85 percent of those with teaching experience formerteachers as well as those currently teaching evaluate& their teachingexperience as either "fairly satisfying" or "very satisfying."

It is widely recognised that the data that can be obtainedthrough a nail questionnaire is inevitably limited in zany ways. Inthis respect, the questionnaire surveys of the 19538.54 graduates weretypical. To obtain a mob= proportion of returns, the number ofquestions was deliberatelw kept mall. Moreover, the questions werestructured to permit relatively simple answers which in some cases wereprecoded. Thus depth and extensiveness of information were sacrificedto obtain the broadest possible sample of respondents.

CRAPTSR

PROCEMINS

The subjects of this study represent a selected sampleof the total population of anroximataly 1,800 student-teachersof the class of 1953-54; initial ter.; protocols and biographicaldata were available for 1,628 of them. Both the first (1955)and the second ftllov-up survey (1956-57) questionnaires weresent to these 1,628 subjects. Ninety-one percent or 1,476 sub-jects responded to the first survey. There were 1,323 respon-ses, an 81 percent return, to the second follow-up study in

1956-57 (26).

The next follow-up was initiated in 1959. Since itwas already known that mailing addresses were obsolete for 106

persons, the tubber of questionnaires mailed in 1959 was 1,522.The muter of responses was 1,144 70 percent of the original.

number of 1,628 and 75 percent of the 1,522.

In Januar,- 1964 a slightly revised questionnaire wasmailed to the 1,522 subjects for wham itddroesea had.been avail-able in 1959. To encourage replier fros non-respondents, two

additional letters-of reminder and copies of the question-naire were mailed. Of the 1,522- questionnaires mailed,ozay...

1,122 were actually delivered. Every effort was made to secure

addresses-for the other four hundred subjects, but (partly be-cause of the Post Office policy of not forwarding mail for morethan three years after change of residence) they were neverlocated. Of the 1,122 subjects who received the 1964 fallow-upquestionnaire, 75 percent or 840 subjects replied.

Summarizing, the returns received in each of the

surveys were as follows:

first follow-up (1955) ...... replies (91% of 1,628)

sacond follow-up (1996-57)....1,323 replies (81% of 1,628)

third follow-up (1959)........1,144 r eplies.(70% of 1,628;

75% of 1,522 delivered)

fourth follow-up (2964).......840 replies (52% of 1,628;

75% of 1,122 delivered)

Table 1 sumsarizes the wither and percentage of maleand female respondents to the 1956-57, 1959 and 1964 questionnaires,according to the municipal college attended. Inspection ofthe data indicated no differences in the percentage of respon-dents in 1957, 1959 and 1964 with regard to sex or college

attended.

Table 1

Comparisons of the 1956057, 1959 and 1964

Respondents by ilex and College Attended.

MunicipalCollege

City

Hunter

Brooklyn

Queens

Total

;956-7MaleN

57 (4%)27()70 ( 5%)

(171 (12%)

195Kale

9

N

48 ( 5%)

18 ( 2%)

52 ( 4%)

12 ( 1%)

130 (12%)

Male Female5

( 9%)

(45%)

(200(3.)%)

(88%)

N

30 ( 3%) 3.1515 ( 2%) 589

38 ( 5%) 269

9 ( 1%) 179

92 (11%) 1152

FemaleN 5

u6 (a.o%)505 (44%)

233 (20%)

3.60 (14%)

1%4 (88%)

104FemaleN %

78 (387 (46)161 (19%)

122 (150748 (89%

-13"

There seems to be no reason to doubt that the respondents to the

1964 questionnaire adequately represented the population in which the

owlet originated.

Of these 840 subjects, 659 had responded to all. three of the

earlier surveys, thus forming a "longitudinal sub- sample" for whom career

data were available from the time of graduation to the present. As far ao

can be determined, the 659 teachers in this longitudinal. sub-sample do not

differ frail the other 969 teachers for wham we have test and biographical

data and who did not respond to one or more of the fair questionnaires. Of

these 969 teachers, 664 responded to the second questionnaire in 1957,

which was the first time that survey data was reported. Table 2 ccespares

this 1957 group with she longitudinal sub - sample with respect to level of

undergraduate training and career persistence status as of January no1957.1 Inspection of the table reveals that the two groups of respondents

do not differ in these respects. Although these data describe the repre-

sentativeness of the respondents, the question, beyond the scope of this

study, of whether the 1955-54 class of student tewhers is itself repre-

sentative of student teachers graduated from the municipal collages in

earlier and later years is unanswered.

1Persistence is the length of time following graduation a teacher-

education student spends in teaching. Soso leave teaching; some leave andsubsequently return. Since most of these decisions are not irrevocable,persistence or non-persistence is largely a function of the time at whichthe information is obtained (22).

11.

TABLE 2

Costperisce of the "Longitudinal" Respondents with the Respondents tothe 1957 Questionnaire on the Basis of Level. of Undergraduate

Training and "Persistence" Category as of 3.957.*

Persistence Categories as of 1957Respondents

Not Never Taught,Teschin Taught. but Left

AP111111011111111111MINII

Total

Longitudinal sub-sample 465 55 139 659/rLestentary Level 359 24 102. 484

Secondary Level 106 31 38 175

Other respondents to1957 questionnaire

Elementary LevelSecondary Level

461 41 157 659359 17 126 502102 24 33. 157

volo.mmourowsimmillmmows. .es.N.wilmmiammlfal

* Rote: There was a total of 1,323 responses to the 1957 questionnaire.Of these, 659 responded to each of the later surveys, formingthe "longitudinal group. Of the remaining 664 subjects, 5could not be categorized leaving, coincidenta13,y, an equal nuber of 659 subjects.

-15-

The lOngitudinal sub-sample consisted of 590 tamale and 69 misle subjects.

Since 62 of the 69 Isles Were repotted as persisting in teaching, it

did not seem wise to include the miles in the study. Thus, the 453

sUbjects included in the present analysis were drawn frun the longitud-

inal sub-simple or 590 femsles.

0.

The 590 fatale subjects were divided into seven groups as follows;

1. Females who begin teaching soon after graduation and were

still teaching ten years later (AT),

2. Females who began to teach soon after graduation, left

after a period of time, and have since returned to the

profession (TLR).

3. Females who began teaching soon after graduation, but

are now in an educationallyrelated field such as college

teaching or school administration (RP').

4. Fees los who, although they completed a teacher education

program and were qualified to teach, have rover taught (e).5. Females who began to teach soon after graduation, but left

after a short time to take u2 family responsibilities,

and who express no intention of returning to the prow

fessice Cm RE).

6. Females who began to teach soon after graduation, left

the profession, and express an retention to return to itat sow future time (TL IR).

7. Females who boon to teach soon after graduation, leftthe profession and are undecided about the future CT L 11).

. r

h

Table 3 presents a frequency distribution of the seven groups, along

with 'the frequencies used in the study,

Table 3Frequency of Each of the seven

Persistence Categories

Group4001.11111.11..iftellielmeLINIERssINIal

Longitudinal Sub - Sample Used in Study'

1 AT2 TIR3 BF4 NT5 TIM6 TIJET TLIT

10679

2868

22268

Total 590

96591120

17055

453

.M.0111r-41,1010

l*Note: Since the statistics used in the study required twateach subject have a score for each measure, 137 caseswere dropped from the study due to acme items of miss-ing data.

Data and Instramentation

Prom the data available ca these subjects from their student

records, the following 15 items were selected as awing promise for thepresent study.

Item 1. inventor, L This instrument is a modification of true "10Seale developed by the Berkeley group of social psychologists from their

studies in prejudice (1) , A high score on this scale designates a

tendency toward implicit anti-democratic attitudes, The scale consistsof 30 items . The respondent is asked to indicate the extent of his agree.sent with each item, The items are so phrased that agreement indicatesan outlook characterized by little tolerance of ambiguiti, unquestioned

-17-

acceptance of authority figures, and a perception of the world as hostile

and threatening. Inventory I differs from the 61T3 Scale to the extent of

a Mgt* alteration in directions, elimination of two items, and an addl..»

tion of two educationally-oriented items to the original pool reported in

Adorn, et al. (See Appendix)

In many echools today emphasis is placed on a democratic educatLon

al proem. This emphasis is based on the belief that a ilemocratic class-

roan climate is essential to the development of democratic attitudes

among pupils. If many schools are goVerned by this philosophy, it seems

reasonable to assume that the degree to which the teacher agrees with the

philosophy may be related to the success she has in adjusting to school

life

The original plan had been to deal only with the total score of

the scale as one of the possible predictive measures of persistence.

Howerrer, we believed that the individual subscores yielded by this scale

should be considered as additional independent predictive variables, since

they are meaningful in their an right as well as in the way they contri-

bute to an overall authoritarian orientation.

The subscores, each ranging from 0 to 7, are thought to reflect

central personality trends, which, in dynamic relation to each other:

underly a single pattern of potential receptivity to antidemocratic propa-

ganda or of authoritarian attitudes. These underlying personality trends

are:

Item2. Conventionalism: rigid adherence to conventional, middle-class values.

Ite Au.thoritariansuhmission: submissive, uncritical attitudetoward idealized moral authorities of the ingroup.

Item 4. Authoritarianion: tendency to be on the lookoutfor, and to =dem, reject, and pa& people who violate conventionalvalues.

Item 5. Anti-intracetption: opposition to the subjective, theImaginative, the tender-minded.

Item 6. Lwretition and stereo : belief in mystinal determlpwag of the individual's fate; disposition to think in rigid categories.

Item 7. Paver and "toutihnesaa: preoccupation with the dominance-

submission, strong-week, leader-follower dimension; identification with

power figures; overemphasis on the conventionalized attributes of theego; exaggerated assertion of strength and toughness.

Item 8. Prollectivity: disposition to believe that wild anddangerous things go on in the world; the projection outward of unconscious

emotional impulses.

Two other subscores yielded by the standard "P" Scale were not

included. Ouse are destructiveness and cynicism (generalized hostility,

vilification of the human) and sex (exaggerated concern with sexual. "goinge-

on"). These subscores could not be obtained because the modification of

the standard scale involved the omission of two items which contributed

to these values.

A former study by the Office of Research and Evaluation provided

some suggestion for the possibility that the teachers who stay within theNew York City system might have personality structures somewhat similar to

high socress onthe "I" Scale. In 1953, as part of an investigation intoteacher personality and teacher effectiveness, an attempt was made to

identify a pattarn of Rorschach performance that would reflect personality

characteristics considered desirable for teaching as rated by student

-19-

teacher supervisors. The desirable patterns, for elementary level teachers,seemed to be associated with an enotionAlly outgoing, ganewhat ambitious,

labile and suggestible orientation, a primary interest being in peopleand in the environment (31). These desirable teachers seam to be, in thepopular sense, relatively more extroverted than Introverted. The possib:;..,lity was suggested that the desirable teachers, or those who "fit" bettmand therefore tend to persist in the field, Amy be those individuals whoare characterized in "I" Scale terminology by the broad psychological

mechanism of externalization rather than internalization.

Externalization is seen as a mechanism used by high rather thanby low scorers. It refers to the tendency not to face unacceptableimpulses and reactions in oneself (such as ambivalence, aggression, or

passivity) and to defend against them mainly by the mechanism of project-ion, whereby much of what cannot be accepted as part of oneself is externnalized. Thus, it is not oneself but others that are seen as hostile anithreatening. Or, one does not recognize one's own 1111013.1111 ar1 does not

deal with it within oneself but tends instead to see much that is walk

in the environment and proceeds to condemn and tight against this external

weakness. A frequent accompaniment of this contempt for external weakness

is a compensatory drive for power, strength, and sumo.*

Another aspect of externalization is a tendency toward avoidance of

introspection and of insight in general. There is a tendency to ignorethe social and psychological determinants of human characteristics and

events and not to take into account possible inner sources of one's ideas

and behavior. There is also an inclination toward mobility and activityand a striving for material benefits as opposed to the favoring of more

-1

passive, internalized pleasures such as affection, ccmpanionship, ox thearts.

In the light of these aspects of externalization and the suggestionthat externalization might be a mechanism that characterizes persistingteachers, we will looking ease what more closely at the variables ofproleetivity, poser and toughness, antiftintraception, and thoritarianaggression as possible discriminators between persistent and nen-persisturtgroups.

Item 9. Minnesota Tes...L.che2141tilude The MinnesotaTeacher Attitude Inveatwar, was designed to measure those attitudes ofa teacher which are related to his ability to establish and maintainrapport with pupils. It consists of 150 opinion statements, to each ofwhich the respondent indicates the extent of his agreement or disagreementon a five-step scale (11.).

The concurrent validity of the MinnesoinA cl.......,....tftudeTeaInventorhas been well documented in several studies and has also been shown todiscriminate teachers reliably at various levels of training and experience.If ability to get along with pupils, to establish an maintain harmoniousrelationships with them, is a factor in determining a teacher's willingnessto stay in the profession, it seems likely that this instrument ray pre.diet such persistence.

It 10. 1114.tospera, Class Idea*;! :!.eat on 0..sema,.....ti *nal RatScale. This scale is a standardized instrument designed to determinethe social class with which a person identifies himself. It consists ofa list of 42 occupations rated according to the socio- economic statusascribed to each. The response consists of the judgment of the individualwhether people in each occupation belong to the same, a higher or a law

-23.-

social class than be himself does. The social class identification ofthe individual is inferred from, the extent to which his responses resemblethose of persons who declared themselves as belonging to various socio-economic classes (30).

This instrument was given to the student teachers under the hypesthesis that one factor which might reduce the bolding power of the terscIAlag proNssion* at least in New 'fork City, is the discrepancy betweenthe teacher's socio-economic level and the level represented by themajority of his pupils. There might this conceivably be a relationshipbetween a teacher's perceived socio-economic status and his persistencein the profession. It should be remarked that a large number of studentteachers (about 10 percent) objected to the inistrument because it violatedan egalitarian philosophy which they held. They stated to the proctorsof the test that they did not believe any occupation bad a higher orlower status than their csnie Some individuals mated all occupations ashaving the seas prestige value as their own or that of their family.

/tam U. 8T.3 T..tftntiltva This form* prepared by theresearch staff of the Office of Research and Evaluation* elicits bothsubjective and objective information about student teaching experiences.In it each student is asked questions about the pupils he taught* thenumber of schools in which he taught* and estimates of the amounts oftime spent in various activities connected with student teaching. (SeeAppendix)

Items laatiaLti. Self Evaluation kwintory. On this fora* eachstudent teacher was asked to evaluate himself in three roles played byall tuckers:

Role, I. The role of providing learning experiences that will

result in pupils' acquisition of fundamental knowledge.

Role 3t. The role of providing children with learning experiences

that will result in their acquiring modes of behavior

leading to good citizenship, personal satisfaction, and

selfftunderstanding.

Role XII. The role of professional colleague to other teachers,

supervisors, and administrators.

Under ths hypothesis that the degree to which a teacher feels successful

in the various roles she mist play in the classroce is related to persis-

tence in teaching, it seemed reasonable to obtain the student's own

reaction to the only teaching experience he had had thus far -- that is,

the student teaching experience. Rather than ask for a single overall.

judgment, without spelling out the nature of teaching success, three

alternative concepts of success as a teacher were defined, and the teacher

asked to evaluate her own success in midi respect. (Bee Appendix)

It.taat Invent,........maz This inventory consists of 32 multiple-choice statements designed to maple opinions about student teaching

experience. Each of the 32 items contains throe choices, one of which

indicates satisfaction with sivadent teaching. The score on Inventory IV

was the total of such "satisfaction" responses. The possible range is

therefore 32 points. An estimated reliability coefftcient of 84. vas

obtained for this insti-laient with a sample of 174 student teachers (2).

The rationale for including a measure of satisfaction with studentteaching as a possible predictor of persistence in the teaching professiondoes riot seem to need any elucidation. (Bee Appendix)

Statistical ansklas

The principal hypothesis to be tested in the study was whether ornot the teacher in training who would later fall into one or (mother ofthe seven groups differed on any of fifteen measures obtained at that

time. The appropriate statistical technique for testing this hypothesisseemed to be Mthalanobist D2 or generalized distance function, as des-cribed by Itao (27).

Multiple- discriminant analysis is a technique for analyzing data

that consist of a number of measures on each individual in each of a numb

of groups. Soaps defined the method as follows (29):

"The technique is analogous to the analysis of variance (except thatmore than one measure is involved) in that it can be used fortesting hypotheses about group differences. It is analogous tofactor analysis (except that more than one group is involved) inthat it provides a basis for interpreting the nature of groupdifferences in terms of dimensions. It is analogous to multiplecorrelation (expect that the criterion is group membership andnot a linear variant) in that the results of the analysis can beused to Rrelict the group to which an unclassified individualbeleefill

Multiple . discriminant functions are computed as the vectors

associated with the latent roots of the determinantel equation

Siv L T.-when I is an identity matrix and W its the pooled within-groups deviationscores roes products matrix,

TWhen T is the total samples deviation score mss -p-iRoducts matrix. Thematrix A is the among-groups cross products of deviations ®f group fromvend means weighted by group sizes g

115 (:).miK a'l'i4.)(5?.)K '56)K

Wilke lambda criterion is used to test the discriminatingapower of the

resulting multiple discriminant functions. Wilke lambda criterion isderived as a function of the roots of Ir3A as follows:r r

A Trut ( 1 +A }The percentage of the total discriadnating power of the battery contairneZ

in the discriminant function is represented by

1 00 41111"..

A moro detailed discussion of the itatiple-diacriminant Asia to :hnique may be found in Rao (27) and Cooley & Lohnes (5).

The 1620 model It IBM Computer, Teachers Colleges Columbia

University vas used for the statistical analysis. The following computer

programs Were utilized:

T.C. Cuter Center Library Program No. 0314Multiple Discriminant Function IP.R. Lobnes, t3UNY at Buffalos 1963

T.C. Computer Center Library Program No. 021-SMultiple Discriminant Function IIP.R. Lobules, SW at Buffalo, 1963

T.C. Computer Center Library Program No. 040-2Sub - routine L Diagonal, Ibwer 4 ExhaustionEigetvalues Solution.P.R. Lanes, SUE at Buffalo, 1963

T.C. Cceputar Center Library Program No. 042-SMatrix Inversions (R, E, Determinant)P.R. Wines, SUE at Buffalo, 1963

T.C. Computer Center Library Program No. 034-SRectangular Matrix MinchP.R. Lolling*, SUB! at Buffalo, 1963

0Ematoy,W. W. and lanes, P.R. (27)Centroids and Dispersions in Diserirdnarit or Factor Spac(BS PACE)Revised by Barbuto, 1966

Chapter N

AMR

keens and standard deviations were oceputed for each of the

fifteen measures for each of the seven groups and for the total sample.

Tables i and 5 show the distribution of group moans and standard derive.-

tions It berates evident at this point that there was little difference

in group MUM and variance. Table 6 summarises the fifteen P tests

frog an Analysis of variance of group differences in each of the fifteen

measures. None of the measures ins significant at the .05 level of

confidence.

On the premise that a combination of measures* when the entire

profile was coosidereds might prove significant, a discriminant funetirr,

analysis was conducted to test tits) illisTaiiicance of the group separations.

The analysis described four discriminant functions which accounted for

99.97 per cent of the total variance.

The scaled vectors (Table 7) indicate that the large contri-

butors to exogp separation along the first discriminant function are s

negative weighting of the peels a positive weighting of the

Minnesot...de wale, and the Submission scale of theNeale. Icy scores on the Total P scale and high scores on the sot...

Teaching Attitude scale and the Submission scale of the P scale resulted

in high scores on function X.

The large contributors to the second descriminant function were

the scale and the total P scale. There were

no evident patterns in the two remaining discriminant functions.

The significance of the difference between the seven groups on

the four ccearated discriminant functions was tested by the computation of

TA

ME

4

Grc

up M

eans

for

Sev

en C

ateg

orie

s of

Tea

cher

Per

sist

ence

on 1

5 M

easu

res

Mea

sure

= -

1. F Scale - Total

2. F

Conventionalisa

3.

F -AuthoritariammSubmission

4.P

Aut

hori

tari

an-A

ggpm

aica

5. F

Ant

i-In

trac

eptio

n6.

FSu

pera

titic

c &

Ste

reot

ypy

7. 8. 9. 1 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

1A

T

93.4

6

3.31

3.57

2.90

3.00

2.95

F -

Pave

r &

"T

ough

ness

'*2.

94.

FPr

ojec

tivity

2.74

Min

neso

ta T

each

er A

ttitu

de15

7.26

Sias

Soc

ial C

lass

19.0

3

ST-3

Tot

al19

.27

Rol

e I

- Fa

cts

4.23

Rol

e II

-C

itize

nshi

p5.

07R

ole

III

Prof

.-C

olle

ague

5.40

Satis

fact

ion

Inv.

5.14

23

TL

RR

F

86.5

0

3.07

2.85

3.0

3.16

2.66

2.88

2.83

2.97

2.70

2.75

2.89

2.75

2.64

2.87

157.

4414

8.50

19.0

320

.10

20.2

316

.90

4.06

4.20

4.23

5.20

5.71

6.30

5.26

5.00

90.0

085

.23

86.4

2

3.42

2.74

2.97

3.31

5.44

3.35

3.08

2.52

2.72

2.98

2.80

2.84

2.52

°

E.8

52.

63

3.19

2.55

2.73

2.60

2.5:

32.

47

88.2

5

3.03

3.29

2.64

3.04

2.65

2.76

2.67

Tot

al

88.6

3

3.06

3.38

2.74

2.90

2.73

2.81

2.59

149.

1516

1.84

163.

0916

4.74

160.

24

20.8

520

.02

19.9

320

.23

19.7

0

17.1

018

.41

19.9

719

.00

19.4

0

3.05

4.33

4.16

4.14

4.13

3.25

4.(5

44.

924.

124.

674.

605.

73-

5.64

5.23

5.52

4.05

5.17

5.01

5.29

5.08

96

AN

L

3911

2042

170

5545

3

1

TA

BL

E 5

Stan

dard

Dev

iatio

ns f

or S

even

Cat

egor

ies

of T

each

er P

ersi

sten

ceon

15

Mea

sure

s

1. 2. 3© 5. 6. F

-Su

pere

titic

eSt

ereo

typy

1,0

47.

F -

Par

erIT

toug

hnes

s"1.

098,

FPr

ojec

tivity

1.25

9.M

inne

sota

Tea

cher

Atti

tude

26.5

9

Mea

sure

3.

AT

7 Sc

ale

- T

otal

26.9

9

F m

Con

vent

iona

lism

1.25

FA

utho

rita

rian

-Sul

mis

sion

1.11

F -

Aut

hori

tari

an-A

ggre

ssio

n1.

05

7 -

Ant

i-In

trac

eptio

n1.

10

10©

Sias

Soc

ial C

lass

3

11.

ST-3

Tot

al5.

74

12©

Rol

e I

- Fa

cts

2.81

13.

Bol

e I

-C

itize

nshi

p2.

6714

.R

ole

mPr

of.-

Col

lsag

ue2.

88

15.

Satis

fact

ion

Inv.

23

45

67

T!

BP

NT

TIE

RT

LIE

TT

hJT

ata

22.6

5

145

1.03

34.1

622

.44

18.1

0

1.56

1.21

.87

1.69

1.16

1.01

21.1

917

.07

22.5

3

1.01

1.06

1.11

1.13

1.08

1.11

1.25

1.16

.99

.72

.97

.96

1.33

.61

.69

1.01

.93

1.00

1.16

1.03

1.01

1.01

.88

1.01

1.40

.42

.67

.91i

.79

.9h

1.30

1.22

1.06

1.04

.90

1.10

33.8

931

.62

20.3

723

.95

23.4

25.8

64.

203.

714.

434.

223.

594.

00

8.29

6.96

7.16

5.75

5.51

5.96

3.85

2.39

2.61

2.59

2.91

2070

5.42

3.17

2.96

2.61

13.

162.

86

2.58

2.94

2.52

2.74

2.86

2.78

1.87

2.00

1.63

1.93

1.97

1.96

1.97

1.94

1.12

26.9

6

3.58

5.46

2.85

3.24

.

2.85

ram

s 6

Ana

lysi

s of

Var

ianc

e fo

r 7

Cat

egor

ies

on 1

5 M

easu

res

M-e

asur

eSu

ss o

f Sq

uare

s

Within

Bet

wee

nW

ithin

Bet

wee

n

Mea

n Sq

uare

s7 ratio6

P*

n2

446

1. F

Sca

le-

Tot

al

2. F

Con

ve.n

tioz2

alis

m

3. F

- A

utho

rita

rian

Subm

issi

on

4. F

Aut

hori

tari

an-A

ggre

ssio

n.

5.

F - Anti-Intraception

6.P

superstition

EJStereotypy

7.F -

PC

ifer

&"Tcrighness"

8. F

- Pr

ojec

tivity

9.M

inne

sota

Tea

cher

Atti

tude

D. S

ims

Soci

a/ C

lass

11.

ST-3

Tot

al

12.

Rol

e I

- Fa

cts

13.

Rol

e II

- C

itize

nshi

p

14.

Rol

e II

I Pr

of.-

Col

leag

ue

15.

Satis

ftet

iQa

Inv.

225848.85

5728.35

506.39

621.39

547.06

14.91

1.23

2.49

558.17

5.42

125

.90

49.72

7.0

.94

1.31

449.86

3.45

1.01

.58

456.15

8.20

1.02

1.37

398.85

8.59

.69

1.43

542.91

6.28

1.22

1.05

294539.e5

7793.15

660.40

1298.86

7131.49

129.05

15.99

21.34

15746.36

315.09

35.31

52.52

5271.52

26.53

7.34

4.42

3674.77

97.81

8.30

16.30

3148

1.90

35.0

57.

815.84

1690

.14

27.e

43.

794.

64

1.22

2.02 .7

2

1.39 .5

7

1.33

1.60 .8

5

1.96

L.3

3

1.48 .60

1.97 .7

4

1.22

* *n

ee:

Not

e of

the

Ft*

wer

e si

gnif

ican

tat

the

.05

leve

l of

conf

iden

ce.

P11

11 it

TA

BL

E7

Discriminant Analysis:

Roots and Vectors of

WlA

Measure

Nor

mal

ized

Vec

tors

II

III

1.

F Scale

- Total

2.

F - Conventionalism

3.

F - Authoritarian-Submission

4. F

- Authoritarian-Aggression

5.

F - Anti-Intriception

6. F

- Superstition & Stereotypy

7.

F - Power & "Toughness"

8. F

- Projectivity

9.

Minnesota TeacherAttitude

10.

Sims Social Class

11.

ST-3 Total

12.

Role I

- Facts

13.

Role II

- Citizenship

14.

Role III Prof.-Colleague

15.

Satisfaction Inv.

.005

7.4724

.5966

.0253

.151

1

.1702

.6140

.0437

.oc44

.0186

.0062

.045

. 0533

. 0313

.0646

.0133

-.5258

-.1437

.2820

.5719

.0189

.1621

.0575

.0285

-.0903

.0627

.0335

.0067

-.0283

.1023

-.00

05-

.179

0

-.70

17.7

890

. 051

5

.052

5

-.13

46..

-.27

77-.0o8o

-.0436

.0279

-.0372

. 250

7

-.05

93.

-.2637

Scaled

Vectors

IV

III

III

IV

.0342

-1.0000

.6110

-.0872

.034

2...2250

.1534

-.0445

- .0540

-.22

50-.2746

.1976

-.0124

- .2

163

-.27

46-.2431

.0063

.0183

.182

9-.

2431

.2409

.0403

.030

.0127

.240

9-.6164

- .0460

.0013

.0132

-.61

64.2956

.1453

.0100

- .0296

2956

-.2925

- .0140

.0048

- .0832

-.29

25.0006

.5953

1.0000

-1.0000

.0006

.o865

- .0790

-.0998

-.1720

.0865

.0719

- .0581

.1530

.2428

.0719

.0e93

- .0670

.0169

- .0673

.0293

-.0725

- .1164

.0038

.5089

-.0725

-.06

72-

.064

7-.0152

- .1137

-.0672

-.1089

.0648

.0268

.2461

- .1

089

Lat

ent R

oots

Xi

6°89

3A

2 =

.055

4.0428

A4

23

.031

9The

IX.0000 where i

= 5 to 15; trace of

Wal

l'A=

.219

3.T

he O

kip

not significant

at

the

.05

leve

lof

con

fide

nce.

Per

Cen

t of

Tra

ce40.69

25.24

19.5

214

.52

.219

4,.8084

90

odoth

w2436 =

1.0434,

Wilke lambda criterion. The". for the seven groups was .8084, whichwas not significant at the .05 level. Thus, the probability of produc-

ing group differences this large or larger by drawing random samplesfrom the fifteen- dimensional multivariate 311atrix is due to chance alone.

The generalized multivariate, mill lwpothesis was that theseven groups had similar scores on each of the fifteen measures. Therais insufficient reason to reject the null hypothesis.

Since we had obtained ample evidence that none of the fifteen,measures, taken alone or in a multiple combination of any form, woulddiscriminate among the seven groups, there was little value in estamining the group differences further. Any attempt to predict groupmembership in terms of any of the fifteen measures would be merely a"chance" prediction.

Chapter V

DISCUSSION AM) CONCLUSION

This study lois the latest of a series initiated in 1953 by the

Office of Research and Evaluation. The 453 subjects were drawn from

a longitudinal sub-semple of 590 females who ccepleted their teacher

training during the 1953-51e academic year and had answered four subse-

quent follow-up questionnaires.

The objective was to relate extensive psychometric information

secured in 1951e when the subjects were student teachers to their

subsequent persistence as teachers. It was hoped that the results would

make it possible to determine the extent to which the test scores were

predictive of teacher persistence.

In interpreting the findings it is important to review some

of the limitations inherent in the study. The current study was based

upon data collected from one class of student teachers graduated from

the four New York City municipal colleges. About two-thirds of the

original graduating class was lost to the sample during the subsequent

ten-year period. Although the remaining sub-asmple appeared to be

representative of the original sample, there was no proof that these

graduates were representative of all student teachers graduated from

the municipal colleges in other years.

It is also important to note that the psychometric information

available was limited to those measures administered by the researchers

in 1953.

The sub-sample of 453 females was divided into seven groupsof teacher persistence:

1. always taught2. taughtwlettwreiturned3. related fields4. never taught5. taught-left-not returning6. taught-left-intend to return7. taught-left-undecided.

The groups were then subjected to multiple discriminant function4IDanalysis in order to separate the seven groups on 15 psychometric

measures, taken in 1953, in such a way as to maximize the differences

among the groups.

Although four discriminant :Unctions were resolved, and a slightpattern appeared in the first two functions, it was evident from thedata that there was no significant difference between the group clusterson any of the fifteen measures taken singularly or in any multiplecombination, Thus, it would be impossible to predict membership in anyone of the seven groups from scores derived from the 15 measures usedin the study.

This does not prove that there is no difference between thegroups. It is entirely possible that other measures such as theString Vocational Interest Blank, the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule,or projective techniques like the Draw a Teacher in a Classroan mightdifferentiate among the groups. However, it must be conceded at thepresent time that ten years of study have failed to provum measuresfor predicting persistence in teaching. The Office of Research andEvaluation has interviewed a sample of 50 career-oriented, persistentteachers and is currently interviewing 100 non-persistent teachers. Itis possible that new insights will be gained and, as a result, newinstruments developed for predicting teacher persistence.

-33-

References

1. Adorn, T.W., Prenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, R.N.The Authoritariez.personalitz. New York: Harper, 1950.

2. Allman, L.P., and Ostreicher, L.M. Development of a...Alnvenfeas-sULL3a.W.:_jb....ction with Studefi'mtchi. Research Series No. 22,Division of Teacher Education, Board of Higher Education, New YorkCity, July 1954.

3. Chandler, B.J and Petty, P.V. Personnel Man ement in School Admini-stration, Yonkers' World BoWarimpany, 1

4. Cook, W.W., Leeds, C.H., and Calls, R. Minnesota Teacher Attitude In-.....Menual. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1951.

5. Cooley, W.W. & Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate Procedures for the BehavioralSciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1 2.

6. Division of Teacher Education, The City University of New York. Emplco-:lent Status of Students Who Completed 1 a Stete-1k2masl.Teacher Education Pr ram Annual Employment Status Survey.New York, 1966:

7. Fund for the Advancement of Education. Teachers for Tomorrow. New York:1955.

8. Impenitteri, J.T. Teacher Education Graduates of 1954: Their CareersTen Years after Graduation. Div. of Teacher Nue., the City Univ.fo 11"WW,

9. Lohman, M.A. An Investigation of Teacher Turnover. IAR Research Bulle-tin, Nov. 1963, Lip' 7410. Mason, W.S., and Bain, R.K.. Teacher Turnover in the Public Schools

1957.58. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, OfficeTelMettion. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington: 1959.11. Medley, D.M. and Klein, Alix A. Measuring Classroom Behavior with a

Pupil-Reaction Inventory. School 1957, 21,315 -319.

12. Medley, D.M., and Mittel, H.E. A Technique for Measuring Classroom Be-havior. Journal of Educational Pa choloa, 1958, 112, 86-92.

13. Medley, D.M., and Mitzel, H.E. Some Behavioral Correlates of TeacherEffectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1959, 2, 239.246.

34. Medley, D.M., Mitzel, H.E., and Rabinowitz, W. Longitudinal Studies ofa Grew of Teacher Education Graduates. Journal of Teacher Educa-Dim 1959, 12, 117-119.

15. Mitzel, LB., et al. Studies of Teacher ehavior: =De ive Notes Olt!Smile of Student Teachers. Research Series No. 27, Division orTeacher Education, Board of Higher Education, New York City, July,1955.

16. Mitzel, H.E., and Medley, D.M. Pupil Growth in Reading: an Index of Ef-fective Teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1957, 4j1,227.239.

17. Mitzel, H.E., Ostreicher, L.M., and Reiter, S.R. Developsent of Attitud-nal Dimg2sSm Drfrote awl s. Research Series No. 04Division of Teacher Education, Board of Higher Education, New YorkCity, October, 1954.

18. Mitzel, H.H., and Wendt, E. Studies of Teacher Behavior: Plan for aResearch. Research Series No. 21, Division of Teacher

Education, Board of Higher Education, New York City, June, 1954.

19. National Education Association, Research Division. The 1957 TeacherSupply and Demand Report. Journal of Teacher Education, 1957, L3,.1746.

20. National Education Association, Research Division. Teacher Su andDemand in Public Schools, 1965. Research Report 1 -R 10, June,1965.

21. Rabinowitz, W., and Crawford, Key E. Teacher Education Graduates of1954: Their Careers Duriecthe First Five Years. Research Series,Division of Teacher Education, Board of Higher Education, New YorkCity, August, 1960.

22. Rabinceritz, W., and Crawford, Kay E. A Study of Teachers* Careers. TheSchool Review, 1961, 6.11, 377..399.

23. Rabinowitz, W., and Rosenbaum, I. A Failure in the Prediction of Pupil-Teacher Rapport. Journal of Educational Psychologr, 1958, 122,93-98.

24. Rabinowitz, W., and Rosenbaum, I. Teaching Experience and Teachers'Attitudes. The Elementam_School Journal, 1960, OA 313419.

25. Rabinowitz, W., and Travers, R.M.W. A Drawing Technique for StudyingCertain Outcomes of Teacher Education. Journal of EducationalLugh03mr 1955, 4c, 257-273.

26. Rabinowitz, W., and Williams, Ida F. Initial Re. on the Teed.Careers of the 19.P.1934 Classes udent- Teac ers of.the Munici-pal Collegithe City of New York. Research Series No. 35,Division of Teacher Education, Board of Higher Education, New YorkCity, January, 1958.

27. Rao, C.R. Advanced Statistical Methods in Bicetetric Research. New York:Wiley, 1952.

-35-

Report of the Chairman, Board of Higher Education of the City of NewYork. The Time is Aloes Now--Education Cannot Waite 1961-63.New York: 198.

29. Situps, J.L. Factorial-Design liatiple-Discriminant Analysis: A 'Descrip-tion and an illustration. Americoil .Educational Research Journal)1965, 2, 175-18L

30. Sims, V.M. Simational Rath Scale. New York: World Book,1952.31. Page, & Travers, R.M.W. Relationship Between Rorschach Perform-ance and Student Teaching in: Travers, R.M.W. et al, Exploratory.Studies _ip Techer k)ersonality, Research Series No. IA, Divisionof Teacher Education, New 'York City, March, 1953.

=r-

..reerorvw.w

riWaft_fit

City CollegeHunter College

The City University of New YorkDivision of Teacher Education

OFFICE OP RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

DIRECTIONS

Indicate the extent of your agreement or die-agreement with each of the numbered statementsgiven below by Aacing'an "X" under the approprimate column. Work rapidly and record your firstimpression.

1. Obedience and respect for authority are themost important virtues children should learn.

2. No weakness or difficulty can hold us back ifwe have enough willpover.

3. Science has its place, but there are many im-portant things that can never possibly be un-derstood by the human mind.

4 Human nature being what it is, there will al-ways be war and conflict.

5. Every person should have complete faith isome supernatural power whose decisions heobeys without question.

C. When a person has a problem or worry, it isbest for him not to think about it, but tokeep busy with more cheerful. things.

7. A person who has bad manners, habits, andbreeding can hardly expect to get along withdecent people.

8. What the youth needs most is strict disci-pline, rugged determination, and the will towork and fight for family and country.

9. Some people are born with an urge to jumpfrom high places.

10. Nowadays when so many different kinds ofpeople move around and mix together so much,a person has to protect himself especiallycareful against catching an infection ordisease from them.

11. An insult to our honor should always bepunished.

Brooklyn CollegeOmens College

AGREE DISAGREE

t43

Ncd 43 Ed

0 i fa ii34 1 Co 1

SNOW E214110

02101141 015110611 ONWS111

MEMO Meiggi MINYA

ebootave anew

A-2

12. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas,but as they grow up they ought to get overthem and settle down.

13. It is best to use some prewar authoritiesin Germany to keep order and prevent chaos.

14. What this country needs most, more than lawsand political programs, is a few courageous,tireless, devoted leaders in wham the peoplecan put their faith.

15. There is too much emphasis in college on in-tellectual and theoretical topics, not enoughemphasis on practical matters and on thehomely virtues of living.

16. People can be divided into two distinctclasses; the weak and the strong.

170 There is hardly anything lower than a personwho does not feel, a great love, gratitude,and respect for his parents.

18. Some day it will probably be shown that astro-logy can explain a lot of things.

19. The true American way of life is disappearingso fast that force may be necessary to pre-serve it.

20. Nowadays more and more people are prying intoratters that should remain pergoual and pri-vate.

21. Wars and social troubles may someday be endedby an earthquake or flood that will destroythe whole world.

22. M st of cur social problems would be solvedif we could somehow get rid of immoral,crooked, and feebleminded people.

23. One of the main values of progressive educa-tion is that it gives the child great free-dom in expressing those natural impulses anddesires no often frowned upon by conventionalmiddle-class society.

AGREE DISAGREE

h6-4GP

V: 4244 li o.

0 0 ih 4 g I'0AV2

7g

2 621164 t04 I cam erg k0 4a...oveles 410111111E3 61111190 11111110 MINIONS MIIIIIMAD

...6191111119 straw NINA NEMO OSIWZ eSigef9

NHEIIN 4E59E0 WOO& 0111111e

CSONNO tOMMEe CSSMIN1 eilaan ommos ents,

mums mom, evrEso ,m:seao agwzw, caatra

MOND OEM. faff0 WISP 03aNNED MEM.

teMei ,MORWA 601M93 OWNS MIMI

ENNIM 643E13, &/£4r3b 419M41111 0911M,

0%%, (WeRa, M4EW6 OWES Q*0

amgem oats, mese e*ssee t*ae,

A3

24. If people would talk less and work more,everybody would be better off.

25. Most people don't realize how much of ourlives are controlled by plots hatched insecret places.

26. Homosexuals are hardly better than crimi-nals and ought to be severely punished.

27. The businessman and the manufacturer aremuch more important to society than theartist and the professor.

28. No sane, normal., decent person could everthink of hurting a close friend or relative.

29. Familiarity breeds contempt.

3o. Nobody ever learned anything really import-ant except through suffering.

AGREE DISAGREE.

4rZ e.>Is 44.4 1-4

t V) 0 0g tiq

mesas ammo "Wm maim esipm .eyes

0611101 63.161111 11111411Ce CAMEO GliSiSMO 49%69

egii419 GOEIMB filliMWS %IMMO MINIM

eswima aeon& MOM MEMO IMMO 01:111Mli

1111111000 NIMIMI9 MOM ~NO MIMS 41MIES1

seas WSINNO 619111010 (1199,80 eMEW,

OVIIIIN3 MINNS 0111Mile 4301ED dielea9 CESOM.

A-4

Division f Teacher Education GT, NtD.Offiee of Research & Evaluation

AS YOU SEE YOURSELF,

During your teaching experience this year, you have betraduced to a variety of roles played by teachers. For the

purposes of this study, we would like you to judge how well youhave played some of these roles during this past year. To do this,

agine that you are a member of a typical group of 20 teachers.Then estimate where you would stand in this group in each of thethree roles described below. For example, if you feel that youhave been more successful in playing a role than 16 of the 20teachers in the typical group, you would write the number 16 inthe appropriate space. If, on the other hand, you feel that y.0had been more successful in playing a role than only 5 out of 20teachers, you would enter the number 5 in the appropriate space.

Read each of the three role descriptions carefully andthen assign yourself a number corresponding to the position youestimate you would have in the typical group of 20 teachers.

Role I. The teacher in this role is responsible forproviding learning experiences which will result in pupil'sacquisition of fundamental knowledge. The task of the teacherwhen playing this role is to insure that children will acquireenough of the basic academic tools to enable them to take theirappropriate place in society. This role involves such activitiesas preparing learning materials and explaining work to the children.

I believe that I have been more successfulthan of the typical group of 20 teachersin playing Role I.

Role II. The teacher in this role is responsible forproviding children with learning experiences which will resultin their acquiring modes of behavior leading to good citizenship,personal satisfaction, and self-understanding. This role in-cludes the tasks of developing self-reliance in the pupils, get-ting them to work together cooperatively, and teaching them toexhibit responsible behavior toward others.

I believe that I have been more successf 1than of the typical group of 00 teachersin playing Role II.

sole III. In this role the teacher is a professionalcolleague of other teachers, supervisors, and administrators.The teacher who plays this role well works smoothly and coopera-tively with other teachers, supervisors, and administrators.

I believe that I have been more successfulthan of the typical group of 20 teachersin playing Role III.

City CollegeHunter College

The City University of New YorkDivision of Teacher Education

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND EVALUATION

IIATENTORY 111

Brooklyn CollegeQueens College

DIRECTIONS

This inventory consists of 32 multiple choice statements designedto sample opinions about student teaching experiences. There is consider-able variation as to the kinds of experiences encountered by student teach-ers. What is wanted is your feeling about your own individual experiences.There are, of course, no irightl or 'wrong' answers.

If you have worked with more than one cooperating teacher, respondin terms of the situation in which you spent the most time. If you havespent about as much time in each situation, respond in terms of your lastexperience.

Read each statement and decide which one of the three choices bestindicates how YOU feel. Then mark your choice on the special answer sheetby blackening between the parallel lines corresponding to the number of yourchoice.

Your opinions about your student teaching experiences will, ofcourse, be held strictly confidential. The data will be used for researchpurposes only. We are interested solely in group data and there will be noattempt to identify your cooperating teacher or college supervisor.

PLEASE.RESPOND TO EVERY ITEM

1© I feel that the contributionsI made to the class activity asa whole:

were not usually very effective.2 were constructive and helpful.(3) were too infrequent to be ef-

fective.

2. In general, I thought the behaviof the pupils I taught vas:

too subdued.2) too rowdy.(3) a tisfactow.

44

3. The comments made by my cooper-sting teacher regarding my nis-

i takes were:

(1) just critical enough t bohelpful.

(2) overly critical.(3) not critical enough.

4. I was made responsible for atm-ducting the class:

(1) sooner than I would haysliked.

(2) later than I would heyeliked.

(3) at just abet the 'Uls7Lgo

A-6

5. My student teaching experiencesleft me with a. feeling thatteaching is:

(1) somewhat unorganized.(2) very challenging and inter-

esting.(3) a little too routine.

6. When discussing my student teach-ing performance with me, my col-lege supervisor was:

(1) too critical.(2) not critical enough.(3) just critical enough.

7. The intelligence level of mostof the pupils I taught:

(1) was lower than I would, haveliked.

(2) was just about what I wouldlike in my own class.

(3) was higher than I would haveliked.

8. A caparison of what I strivedfor and what I attained in teach-ing my pupils made me:

(1) feel that I may have expectedtoo much of myself.

(2) feel a sense of accomplishment.(3) feel a bit discouraged.

9. In preparing me to become a mem-ber of the teaching profession,student teaching has left me witha feeling of being:

(1) unqualified to enter, theschools as a teacher.

(2) barely prepared to teach inthe schools.

(3) adequately prepared to teachin the.schools.

100 personal relationships withstaff embers at the scho 1:

(1) were very pleasa t d ccrd-ia1 .

were distant and ers ne2.(3) we c ewhat unsatisfying.

11. My cooperating teacher's inter-est in my professional improve-ment and growth was:

(1) somewhat superficial.c2 sincere and helpful.(3) intensive to the point of

being annoying.

12. The regulations to which I, asa student teacher, had to con-form seemed:

(1) unnecessary in many respects..(2) rather vague but not unrea-

sonable.

(3) reasonable and agreeable tome.

13. The assignments given to me bymy cooperating teacher:

(1) were about as varied as theyshould be.

(2) were too varied to learn anyone aspect of teaching.

(3) were not varied enough tobroaden my experience.

14. In discussions with my collegesupervisor, my viewpoint:

(1) was accepted too often with-out adequate understanding.

(2) was accepted and understoodpractically all of the time.

(3) was seldom accepted.

15. V$ own plans for using methodsand materials:

(1) were needed a little tooften.

(2) were employed often eno(3) were not employed often

enough.

26. as given cemplete charge ofthe class:

(1) not as often ao / w uld halmliked.

(2) about the right number oftimes.

(0) more often than wulci haveliked.

A-7

17. The pupils I had in my class:

(1) seemed indifferent to schoolactivities.

(2) mildly resisted my attemptsto teach them.

(3) were easily motivated.

18. The amount of clerical workgiven to me by my cooperatingteacher was:

(1) too little for me to learnthis aspect of the teachingjob.

2) appropriate and helpful.3) a little more than I con-

sidered necessary.

19. As I evaluate my student teach-ing experience in light of myother college work, I em con-vinced that it:

(1) was one of my least valu-able courses.

(2) was the most valuablecourse I have taken.

(3) was about as valuable aother college courses.

20. tly college supervisor's ges-tions were:

of little help to me.2) too demanding of my time(3) reasonable and help ..

21. student teaching gave me a fael-ing of:

(1) personal it dequacy in Ogafgrespects.

(2) achievement and personalsatisfaction.

(5) discouragement with the gapbetween educational theoryand practice.

22. In generals the atmosphera ofthe classroom to which zasassigned was

(1) t o easy going for yinaDETulearning by children.

(2) about as democratic as itshould be.

(3) overly demi ated by theteacher.

23. If I had the opportunity to domy student teaching over again,I would want to:

(1) have a more free choice ofschool and cooperatingteacher.

(2) teach more in accord withthe theory I learned.

(3) do very much what I havedone.

24. I found that my personal rela-tionships with school personnelduring student teaching prompttidme to:

(1) just coast along until theend of the semester.

(2) consider postponement of myteaching career.

(3) put forth a great deal ofeffort.

25. ideally I would like to teachpupils whose socio-economic background is:

(1) lower than the socio-econo-mic background of those whinI taught.

(2) about the same as the socio-economic background of thosewham I taught.

(3) higher than the socio-econo-vie background of those uha,aI taught.

26. The cunt of satiSfaction I halfrom my student teaching c4peri-ence made me wonder:

(1) whether student teachingcouldn't be organized moresatisfactorily.

Q2) whether some ether activityshouldn't be vaotitutedfor A,t.

Q5) why some people dislike thisexperience.

A827. When delegating tasks to me,

my cooperating teacher:

(1) proportioned my work ac-cording to the amount oftime I had available.

(2) was not too considerate ofthe amount of work I hadto do outside of studentteaching.

(3) was often unable to findenough things to keep mebusy.

2e. The methods of teadhing ad-hered to by my cooperatingteacher:

(1) were too subject-centeredto meet the needs of enoughchildren.

(2) were too child-centered toeffectively teach the ne-cessary subject matter.

(3) were appropriate for ob-taining the desired pupilgrowth.

When planning the classroomactivities, my cooperatingteacher:

(1) sometimes assigned the plan,-ning to re but often ig-nored my efforts.

(2) usually had ma participatein the planning with her.

(3) seldom gave me a chance toparticipate in the gaming.

30. The goals toward which I wasstriving in my student teaching:

(1) were generally attai ed tomy satisfaction.

(2) were seldom attained to mysatisfaction.

(3) were probably not appropriateto the pupils I taught.

31. The kinds of activities in whichpupils in my student teachingclass participated:

(1) were too routine to stinuelate the interests of thechildren.

(2) were about like those Iwould like in my own class-room.

(3) were lacking in purpose andeaning for ,e.st of the

children.

un

32. The skills I learned duringstudent teaching:

(1) should be of enormous valuewhen teaching 'on my own.e

(2) will probably be unimportan:°:to my future teaching per-formance.

(3) were actually too few innumber to affect fatureteaching.