- ,4ERIM

REPORT RESUMESED 016 E160 06 VT 004 483EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHING IN HOME ECONOMICS.BY... NELSON, HELEN Y. GRITZMACHER1 JOANSTATE UNIV. OF N.Y., ITHACAREPORT NUMBER BR -5 -1333 PUB DATE MAY 67GRANT OEG...1.4...000528-'0663EDRS PRICE MF.40.50 HC -$3.36 $2P.

DESCRIPTORS... *HOME ECONOMICS EDUCATION, *STUDENT TEACHING,*BEHAVIOR RATING SCALES, STUDENT TEACHERS, *TEACHER BEHAVIOR,*TEACHER EVALUATION,

CRITICAL INCIDENTS REFLECTING OUTSTANDINGLY EFFECTIVEBEHAVIOR IN STUDENT TEACHING OF HOME ECONOMICS WERE COLLECTEDFROM COLLEGE SUPERVISORS, COOPERATING TEACHERS, AND STUDENTTEACHERS AND CATEGORIZED ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC BEHAVIORS, ANDPROVIDED A BASIS FOR CONSTRUCTING A RATING SCALE FOREVALUATING STUDENT TEACHING PERFORMANCE. THE CRITICALBEHAVIORS WERE USED TO DESCRIBE QUALITY LEVELS ON AFIVE -POINT CONTINUUM OF 112 UNIDIMENSIONAL ITEMS. ANALYSIS OFTHIS SCALE, RS -112, BY THE DARLINGTON PROCEDURE WITH STUDENTGRADES AS CRITERION MEASURES RESULTED IN A SCALE, RS-35,35-ITEM WITH AT LEAST ONE ITEM IN EACH OF 10 MAJOR BEHAVIORCATEGORIES. USE OF THE RS-35 GAVE A BETTER DISTRIBUTION OFRATINGS THAN RS-112. THE MAJORITY OF COOPERATING TEACHERS ANDCOLLEGE SUPERVISORS REPORTED USING A RATING SCALE. ABOUT HALFPREFERRED RS -35 TO RS-112 AND OVER HALF LIKED IT BETTER THANTHEIR PRESENT INSTRUMENT. MOST REPORTED A 20- MINUTE TESTINGTIME. TWO - THIRDS SAID THEY WOULD USE THE RATING SCALE, IF

. AVAILABLE. MORE THAN HALF OF THE STUDENT TEACHERS FELT THATIT PROVIDED AN IMPORTANT OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR LOOKING AT THEIRBEHAVIOR. RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERN (1) REFINING THE SCALE, (2)DIFFERENTIATING MORE CLEARLY BETWEEN LEVELS 3 AND 5, (3)USING THE FIVE ITEMS EMERGING FROM MULTIPLE REGRESSIONANALYSIS FOR A SHORTER RATING SCALE, (4) INCLUDING A PLACEFOR RATER COMMENTS ABOUT STUDENT TEACHER GROWTH, AND (5)USING THE SCALE AT THE MIDDLE AND CONCLUSION OF STUDENTTEACHING. BOTH SCALES, OPINIONNAIRES, CATEGORIES OF STUDENTBEHAVIOR, AND THE INFORMATION FORM FOR REPORTING CRITICALINCIDENTS ARE INCLUDED. (FP)

sn,,,,,,v,,,,,,,noknonnivnippig7*,,,VM,4(9{4CMP,Pfr.nnnAPIST.nrn".^-e,'Ion+inlr *.n,nnn sn - ' 4,A.L.W^M. 1,..F 11 ,111. rrA " I., 4',

'DEC 7 ^ar7

FINAL REPORT)3.*

Project No. ERDL-928

Grant No. 0E04-6-000528-0663

The Evaluation of Student Teaching

in Home Economics

MAY 1967

U.S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

BUREAU OF RESEARCH

co,

O

cr14

EVALUATION OF STUDENT TEACHING IN HOME ECONOMICS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION a WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS TEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

Projecw No. ERD-528Grant No. OEG-l-6-000528-0663

Helen Y. Nelson and Joan Gritzmacher

May 1967

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grantwith the Office of Edvcation, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare. Contractors unaertaking such projects underGovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely theirprofessional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points ofview or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily representofficial Office of Education position or policy.

New York State College of Home Economics

Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

r` fiYw

INTRODUCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

000 OOOOOO 00.0.00Purpose and Nature of the Research... .0 OOOOOOOO .

Related Research.0. 500.000000 OOOOOOO

METHODS°. 0 000000 41000000000 OOOOORESULTS OOOOO 00000000000000000

Page

12

14

6

DISCUSSION0.00000000"00005000 12

CONCLUSIONS...0000.00.OOOOO 0000 17

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.0.00.000000000. 18

REFERENCES.0.000000000000 22

GLOSSARY000000011000011000000000 OOOOO 00041000000900(011011 25

APPENDIX4,60000060011000 OOOOO 00000000000000 OOOOO ObOOPOO 26

Participation of Institutions A-1Letter to Participants B-1Sample Critical Incident "0.0. OOOOOOOOO OOOOO O*0 C-1Sample Analysis, Critical Incident ..0.0. OOOOOOO . D-1Behavior Categories OOOOOOO .0.0.0. OOOOOOO .0...0" E-1Rating Scale: RS-112... "0.0.0.0. OOOOOOOOOOO .0. F-1Rating Scale: RS-35 0...0. OOOOO .....0. OOOOOOO .0. G-1Opinionnaire: Teacher-Supervisor Form 0. OOOOO .0* H-1Opinionnaire: Student Teacher Form000 I-1Information to Accompany Rat n.3 Scale in

Future Use "worn" OOOOO .0.........".." J-1

INTRODUCTION

The student teaching experience affords the opportunity todevelop competencies inherent in effective teaching. The pro-fessional supervision of student teachers is an attempt to givedirection to this experience. Evaluation of student teacher per-formance, i.e. the student teaching grade, provides an index ofeffective teaching and, to this extent, evaluation can be used toclarify objectives and improve role competency. A valid and re-liable evaluation device contributes to the efficacy of assessmentand therefore to the fulfilment of student teaching goals. Currentliterature reveals that there is a dearth of such instruments andthat many educators are dissatisfied with present patterns ofevaluation of student teaching.

Purpose and Nature of the Research

In an attempt to facilitate the process of student teacherevaluation in home economics, a study was designed to determineby means of the critical incident technique the performancescontributing to effective and ineffective student teaching be-havior, and to construct a rating scale to evaluate those per-formances. The critical incident technique employs collectedreports of effective and ineffective behavioral patterns asthey relate to the aim of the activity being analyzed. Thepresent study used this means to identify student teacher be-haviors related to and reflexive in effective or ineffectiveteaching. Based on the categorized incidents, descriptions ofunidimensional student teacher behavior we're written and assembledin rating scale form. It was expected that the rating scalewould thus describe student teacher behaviors which are signifi-cant in the performance of the student teacher.

Following independent use of the rating scale by cooper-ating teachers,student teachers and college suiervisors, analy-sis of the data was executed using the student teaching gradeas the criterion measure of student teaching :erformance. Thetheoretical work of Thorndike (30) and the implementation ofthis by Darlington (14) provided the base for the test analysis.Regression analysis predicting the student teaching grade fromthe rating scale items was performed.

A second stage rating scale composed of those items fromthe preliminary scale statistically determined to be the mostimportant indicators of student teaching performance, was formu-lated and administered to a second sample for purposes of crossvalidation. This instrument was tested and its reliability andusefulness as an evaluative device in the student teaching ex-perience were assessed. The reliability of the instrument was

-1-

determined by inter rater, split-half, and item discriminationmethods. The usefulness of the rating scale was investigatedthrough administration of two opinionnaires, one designel forstudent teachers, and one for cooperating teachers and collegesupervisors.

The study was limited to evaluation of student teachers inhome economics, and evaluation was restricted to the use of arating scale at the end of the student teaching experience.Operational definitions of terms used in this report may befound in the glossary.

Related Research

In reviewing literature relevant to the topic of this study,five areas were covered: (1) evaluation of student teaching inhome economics, (2) evaluation of student teaching in general,(3) teacher effectiveness, (4) the critical incident technique,and (5) rating scales.

Student Teaching in Home Economics. Studies of evaluationof student teaching in home economics have centered on surveyingpractices and instruments used to assess the effectiveness ofstudent teaching (10) and the effect of such upon the studentteacher (27), construction of scales based on the opinions ofqualified teacher educators or cooperating teachers as to theaspects of teaching necessary to measure (33), and evaluationof the performance of instruments (15).

Student Teaching. In the literature on student teaching ingeneral, there is considerable evidence of dissatisfaction withmethods of evaluation (28; 11) and some attention to identifica-tion of needs in the area of evaluation (21). Analyses of ex-isting rating scales for the evaluation of student teaching %avatbeen carried out (5; 34). Personality characteristics of infer-ior and superior student teachers were delineated (32; 29; 23).Student teachers were evaluated in terms of strengths and weak-nesses (26), and a study was conducted inquiring as to whatschool administrators desired to know about a prospective teacheremployee (25).

Teacher Effectiveness. In reviewing literature on teachereffectiveness three basic approaches to its measurement wereidentified: evaluation of pupil growth, evaluation of teacherqualities thought to influence the teaching-learning process,and appraisal of the teaching process. The measurement ofteacher effectiveness has been plagued by the problem ofvalidity of the criterion of teaching effectiveness. Someresearchers feel that consensus of authorities in the field

-2-

is the best procedure (3) while others are investigating objec-tive measures (2; 13). As yet, none of the objective means seemsto have value for appraisal of student teaching. Measurement ofteacher qualities thought to influence the teaching-learning pro-cess has usually taken the form of a rating scale formulated byteacher educators (1; 35; 19). Appraisal of the teaching processhas involved measurement of classroom behavior quantitativelyand by rating devices (6; 22). The teaching process seems mostreadily evalua.ed through the analysis of teaching behavior sincebehaviors can be observed and personality as it enters behaviorcan also be assessed (22; 8). Results of these studies in generalhave yielded inconclusive evidence about teacher effectiveness.

CritScal Inciez1Technique, The critical incident techni-que involves the identification of behaviors that are either out-standingly effective or ineffective as the individual performsthe job under scrutiny. This methodology has been used exten-sively in the analysis of many jobs and provides information re-garding the requirements of a position (16). Although Flanagansuggested the technique requires only simple judgments on thepart of the qualified observer, and thus is easy to use, Mayhew(20) pointed to some difficulties in using the critical incidenttechnique. Advantages of this method are its provision of actualmaterials for use, and valid bases _tn. construction of evaluationinstruments. A study by Blank (9) employed the critical incidenttechnique to determine characteristics of effective and ineffec-tive teaching of physical education instructors.

ItsauSa..1ei. The rating scale classified as graphic wasused in this ctudy. Such a scale consists of a continuum pre-sented to the subject with preassigned bench marks, to be markedaccording to the rating deemed most accurate. This form of rat-ing scale is felt to be simple and easy to administer, interest-ing and quick to work with (17). Criticism of rating scales haveincluded lack of satisfactory validity criteria, subjectivity,and difficulty of establishing the validity of the tote]. rating.Use of critical incident material based on student teacher's ob-served behavior took care of the validity criticism; subjectiv-ity-was handled by attempting to define as precisely as possiblethe dimension of the student teaching experience to be rated;validity of the total rating was investigated by correlating tilesummed scale scores with student teaching grade. In that a rat-ing scale is geared to standardize both what is observed and howit is appraised, it is felt that this is the most useful instru-ment for securing a quantitative appraisal of student teaching(4).

Because student teaching is asserted to be the most importantexperience in teacher preparation, the scarcity of literature onthe evaluation of student teaching was unexpected. The problemof evaluating student teacher performance is complicated by thefact that researchers have not reached definitive conclusionsabout teacher effectiveness. Rating scales appear to be the bestmethod of evaluating student teachers' performance, and thecritical incident technique seems to hold promise for indicatingthe behaviors of the student teacher that should be evaluated inthis manner.

METHOD

The major problem with which this study was concerned was theconstruction of a rating scale to serve as a summary evaluation ofhome economics student teachers' performance in student teaching.Flanagan's critical incident technique was utilized as the meansby which data on actual effective and ineffective behaviors ofstudent teachers were secured and thereafter utilized as a validbase for the construction of the scale.

Sample and First Data Collection. Colleges and universitiespreparing home economics teachers in New York State, the New Eng-land States, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee,Kentucky, and West Virginia were asked to cooperate in this re-search. (See appendix for list of participating institutions andletter to participants.) Cooperating teachers, college supervisorsand student teachers of 20 institutions participated in the collec-tion of critical incidents during May 1965, and from October 1965through February 1966. (Materials used in the collection of criti-cal incidents are appended.)

Analysis of Critical Incidents. All critical incidents re-ceived were analyzed to separate out single specific behaviors;the behaviors were then classified into ten major categories thatemerged as the incidents were studied. A randomly selected 15percent of the incidents were submitted to a panel of five homeeconomics teacher educators who classified them according to theten categories. The majority agreement of the consultants wasused as the accepted categorization for the incidents reviewed.(The appendix contains a list of the categories of student teacherbehavior derived from the critical incidents and an example of theanalysis of an incident.)

Construction._ Use and kallima of Preliminary Rating Scale.Following analysis and categorization, the specific behaviors wereutilized in the construction of a rating scale. Ineffective behav-iors reported formed the level one description on the scale, and the

effective behaviors reported were utilized in the level five descrip-tion whenever possible. The level three descriptions were writtenso as to strike a middle of the road position between levels oneand five. Based on the critical incident data received, 112 ratingscale dimensions emerged to form the first stage rating scale -hereafter referred to as RS-112. Content validity is based on the550 critical incidents of student teachers' behaviors. Search wasmade for instruments to establish concurrent validity of rating scaleitems but satisfactory instruments were found not to be available.

Twenty institutions (not the identical 20 furn1ching criticalincidents) collectel data from the use of the first-stage ratingscale by cooperating teachers, college supervisors and studentteachers. Reliability of RS-112 based on 399 scales was determinedin three ways: (1) computation of the correlation of all matchingcollege supervisor-cooperating teacher ratings (N=125 pairs), i.e.,inter-rater reliability, (2) correlation of the sum of the evenscores with the sum of the odd scores, i.e., split-half reliabil-ity of the grader group (N=194 persons responsible for gradingstudent teachers) and (3) computation of the index of discrimi-nating power of each of the items.

The Pearson product lament correlation was chosen for thoseanalyses invo]ving correlations. Rho was considered and discarded.The basis for this decision was that it was easier to make theassumptiaa-chat the intervals in the data (rating scale and studentteaching grades) were equally spaced than that the distance betweenranks vas equal. The median correlation was used to compare groupsof correlations with each other.

The student teaching grade was used as a criterion measure ofsuccess in student teaching. Standardization of student teachinggrades was implemented by a z -score conversion employing mean scoreson the rating scale and mean student teaching grades for each ins-titution and the total sample.

Production. Use and Analysis of Second Stage Rating Scale. Inorder to ascertain the items identifying those teacher behaviorsmost predictive of student teaching success, the second stage ratingscale was constructed. Darlington's method (14) based on the workof Thorndike (30) was utilized to reduce the number of items inRS-112 to the "best" predictors of the criterion. The Darlingtonmethod yields information about the ability of an item to increasethe validity of a test as determined by item validity and item -testcorrelation. The procedure involves (1) selecting the most validitems to form the basic test, (2) measuring the potential cf eachitem in the pool to increase the validity of the basic test, and(3) adding several items with the highest potential to determine ifin fact they do increase the validity of the test. The validity

-5-

coefficient is a multiple correlation of the items and the criterion.The Darliriton method yeilds high validity coefficientc upon crossvalidaxion and with less shrinkage of items than is usual for themethod of multiple regression analysis. By nature of its function,multiple regression analysis picks the "best" items from a highlycorrelated pool, and thereby disregards other highly inter-corre-lated items in the pool. With the Darlington method, those otherhighly inter-correlated items in the pool still have a chance ofcoming into the test and contributing something to its validity.Although this method was the chief analysis of the study, a regres-sion analysis was also executed. Thirty-five items emerged fromthe Darlington analysis; four additional items, as well as 10contained in the 35 items above, came from the regression analysisas significant for the evaluation of student teaching in tomeeconomics. These constituted the revised or second-stage ratingscale.

Data from administration of the second-stage rating scale inparticipating institutions were analysed using the procedure followedfor RS-112 with the exception of the Darlington and multiple regres-sion analyses. The final form of the Darlington program for RS-112(the 35 items as ordered by the partial correlation and validity pro-grams) vas used in the analysis of the second stage rating scale,and the 14 items emerging from regression analysis were utilized inthe analysis of the second stage rating scale. The determination ofthe significance of the difference of correlations obtained withRS-112 data and those of RS-35 data was facilitated by use ofFisher's s-test. In addition the scores on the 35 items were summedand the sum was correlated with the student teaching grade.

Two opinionnaires were formulated, one to determine feelings ofstudent teachers and the other the feelings of cooperating teachersand college supervisors toward the rating scale. The opinions de-sired related to comparison with evaluation devices presently inuse, and time required to fill out the instrument. See appendixfor copies of opinionnaires.)

RESULTS

Critical Incidents. Of the 563 critical incidents collected,550 were usable. Nearly half were reported by cooperating teachers,student teachers submitted about one-third, and college supervisorsabout one-fifth. Student teachers reported approximately equal num-bers of effective and ineffective incidents, while both cooperatingteachers and college supervisors contributed more ineffective thaneffective incidents; slightly less than half of the reports in thetotal sample were made of effective behavior.

Study of the 550 incidents revealed 958 specific behaviors.Classification according to behavioral areas of a randomly selected15 per cent of the incidents by a panel of home economics teachereducators was largely in agreement with the authors' classificationsof specific behaviors.

First Stage Rating Scales. The critical behaviors formed thebasis for construction of a rating scale for evaluation of studentteachers in home economics, initially consisting of 112 items. Fivehundred, ninety -two rating scales were distributed for administrationat the end of the student teaching period. (The Appendix containsa copy of RS-112 with inter-rater reliability, correlation with stu-dent teaching grade, and index of discrimination figures for eachitem noted in the margins.) Of the 405 returned, 399 (68% of ratingscales sent) were usable. Student teachers completed 124 of these,cooperating teachers 139, and college supervisors completed 136.Student teachers tended to rate themselves higher than their cooper-ating teachers and college supervisors rated them. Coor.erating

teachers made more use of all levels of the rating scale than dideither college supervisors or student teachers. The upper end of theinstrument received greatest usage with 35 per cent in each of the toptwo categories (4 and 5). Approximately 20 per cent of all responseswere found in level 3. About 5 per cent of the ratings were either"no observation" or "no answer".

Reliability of the 112 :'em instrument was ascertained byinter-rater, split-halt aid item discrimination methods. Inter -rater

reliability on the rating scale was computed on data from 125 casesof matching college supervisor and cooperating teacher. The coeffi-cient of reliability for all variables was .42, but whey ctepped-upby the Spearman Brown prophecy formula, rose to .59. The split-halfmethod of determining internal consistency was computed on 194graders' data; the coefficient was .97. When stepped-up by theSpearman Brown prophecy formula, this correlation became .98. Crossvalidation was done by dividing the entire group alternately inhalf. The cross validation split-half reliability for Graders A(N=97) was .96 and for Graders B (N=97) was .96. The cross validationshows that the coefficient of split-half reliability can be acceptedwith confidence.

The internal consistency of the first stage rating scale wasalso tested by the use of the Index of Discrimination. The statisticshowed the amount of differentiation of the 112 ratings between thehigh and low 21 percent of the student teachers as determined by stu-dent teaching grade when the grader data (N=194) were analyzed. Themode for the indices of discrimination (71 percent) fell in the.20 to .29 range, low but acceptable. There were 21 items with in-dices below .20 putting them in the questionable class. Despite thegenerally low discrimination values, all these indices were positive.

-7-

The major analysis of RS-1l2 utilized the Darlington procedureto determine the items significant for the evaluation of studentteaching in home economics. This analysis used with student gradesadjusted on the basis of mean ratings of institution in which theyoccurred resulted in a 35 item scale having a validity coefficient(multiple correlation with criterion) of .85. The same procedureusing student teacher grades as given, yielded a validity coeffi-cient of .83. The items identified with one asterisk on the 112item rating scale in the appendix are the 35 items resulting fromthe Darlington analysis.

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was also carried outon RS.;.1-12. A 14 item scale with a multiple correlation of .87 re-sulted. All of the 14 items had F levels significant at .01. Tenof these items had also been derived in the Darlington analysis.The items on the appended 112 item scale marked with two asteriskswere those selected by the regression analysis.

Second Stage Rating Scale. Second stage rating scales (389)were distributed Ito be used with new student teachers even thoughsome of the same institutions participated). By the cut-off dead-line, 276 (71 percent) of these bad been completed and returned.(The Appendix contains a copy of RS-35 with inter-rater reliability,correlation with student teaching grade and index of discriminationfigures for each item noted in the margins.) Of the total, 91 werecompleted by student teachers, 99 by cooperating teachers and 86 bycollege supervisors. Again the upper levels were used more heavily,with 28 percent of the ratings falling at the 5 level, 35 percentat 4 level and 26 percent at level 3. Although levels 1 and 2 werestill not used extensively, a better balance of levels 3, 4 and 5was achieved with the second stage rating scale.

Reliability of the second stage rating scale was determined byinter-rEter, split-half, and item discrimination methods. Correla-tion of 61 matching cases of college supervisor-cooperating teacherdata yielded a coefficient of .48, as compared with the inter-raterreliability correlation coefficient of .38 for RS-112. When theinter-rater correlation of .48 for RS-35 was stepped-up by use ofthe Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, the coefficient rose to .65vs. the stepped-up coefficient of .59 for RS-112. However, thedifferences between these correlations were not statistically sig-nificant when Fisher's z-test was applied. The inter-rater reli-ability coefficients for each of the items in RS-35 are noted onthe scale appended.

Execution of split-half reliability yielded a coefficient of.93 when carried out on the 122 graders' data. The split-halfcoefficient for RS-112 was .97. Whee Fisher's z-test was appliedto determine the significance of the difference, the results were

found to be significant at the one percent level. When the spilthalf reliability coefficient of RS-35 was stepped-up with theSpearman-Brown formula, the coefficient became .96 which was stillsignificantly different at the one percent level from the stepped-up coefficient of .98 resulting from RS-112.

Cross validation of RS-35 reliability was carried out by di-viding the grader group alternately in half. The coefficient forGraders AA (N=61) VOR ,88 and that for Graders BB (N=61) was .93.Utilizing Fisher's z-tcst, comparison of split-half reliabilitycoefficients for Graders AA and Graders BB with all Graders onRS-35 data yielded non-significant differences from the overallsplit-half reliability correlation of .93. The internal crossvalidation of RS-35 grader data indicate that the split-half re-liability coefficient can be accepted with confidence.

The Index of Discrimination was computed for the 35 items inthe second stage rating scale plus the additional 4 from the re-gression analysis using the high and low 27 percent of the studentteachers as determined by student teaching grade. The mode for thecross validation data lay in the same .20 - .29 range as with RS112, but with RS-35, 60 percent of the indices were in the .20 -.29 range whereas with RS-112, 71 percent were in that range. The.30 - .39 range now held 37 percent of the indices as compared withRS-112 where only 10 percent of the indices ware in that category.In RS-35 only one item (3 percent) had an index below .20 and thuswas questionable compared with 21 items (19 percent) on RS-112.The findings show that the items on RS-35 had better discriminatingpower than those on RS-112. As with the RS-112 data, all discrim-ination inlices, although low, were positive.

The comparison of the student teacher's perception of herselfwith ratings of college supervisors and of cooperating teachers forRO-35 data yielded correlations of .26 (N=60 matching pairs) and.21 (N=70 matching pairs) respectively. The comparable figures forRS-112 were .22 and .29; there was no significant difference betweenthe correlations resulting from the two data collections.

The validity coefficient (multiple correlation with studentteaching grade) resulting from resubmitting the Darlington order andprogram on the 35 item second stage rating scale data vas .78. Thiswas not significantly different from that of .85 obtained with RS-112data. An id erecting facet of this analysis was that the validitycoefficient built to .84 with 14 items. Table 1 presents the validitycoefficients for each item in RS-35.

TABLE 1. VALIDITY COEFFICIENTS OF ITEMS IN RS-35 IN ORDER DETERMINEDBY ANALYSIS OF R8412

1111111MIW

Order Number Item Number

12

3

56

78

9101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

313233

35

2031

1417101922121815

27

Validity Coefficient

.67

.73.80.81

.81

.81

.83

.82

. 84

.84

.84

7 .84

21 .84

33 .84

8 .84

13 .8324 .8325 .82

26 .81

34 .79

5 .774 .76

.7812322811

962329

353

1630

.T8

.79

.81

. 81

.79.80.81

.81

.81

.80

.79

. 78

-10-

Stepwise multiple regression analysis using the 14 items thatwere derived from the multiple regression analysis of RS-112 wascarried out. Five items emerged with a multiple correlation of .85.There was no significant difference between the multiple R .89 ob-tained for fourteen items from RS-112 data and the .85 obtained fromthe five items from RS-35 data

An index of validity was secured by correlating the summedscale scores for RS-35 with the adjusted and with the unadjustedstudent teaching grades. The resultant correlations were .84 forthe adjusted grade and .79 for the unadjusted student teachinggrade.

Opinionnaire Data. Sixty percent of the college supervisorsand approximately half of the cooperating teachers reported use ofa rating scale as the present instrument for measuring a studentteacher's performance. Some of these used descriptive categories;others used descriptive adjectives as superior, good, poor.

When asked whether their present instrument or RS-35 provideda better basis for grading the student teachers about half of thecollege supervisors and cooperating teachers felt that RS-35 wassuperia. Approximately a third of the cooperating teachers andsomewhat more than a third of the college supervisors thought thatboth instruments provided the same basis.

About a fourth of the cooperating teachers and one third ofthe college supervisors felt that RS-35 took less time to completethan the rating scale they were presently using. Approximatelyhalf felt that RS-35 and the presently used scale took about thesame length of time to complete, and slightly more than a fifth ofthe cooperating teachers and slightly less than a seventh of thecollege supervisors thought the scale they were presently usingrequired less time to complete. The majority of respondents hadno objection to the amount of time required to fill out the ins-trument and noted that 11-20 minutes was enough,

In general both cooperating teachers and college supervisorsfelt RS-35 and their own scales were equally easy to use. Onlyone fourth of the cooperating teachers and a fifth of the collegesupervisors thought that their own rating scale was easier to use.

When pressed to make the decision as to which instrument theythought better all things considered - more than half the collegesupervisors and cooperating teachers said RS-35 was better. How-ever, slightly more than a third of both college supervisors andcooperating teachers felt that the scale they were using and RS-35were of the same quality.

Approximately two-thirds of the cooperating teachers and col-lege supervisors stated that if R$-35 were available for their con-tinued use, they would use it. Approximately one fourth said theywould use RS-35 but made some qualification.

Student opinionnaire data indicated that the student teachersdid not object to the length of time required to fill out therating scale - again for the majority, the time required was 11-20minutes. When asked to check their feelings about using RS -35,more than half of the student teacher responses pointed up thepositive and objective basis for looking at performance. Aboutone fifth of the responses indicated they felt that it was pro-fessionally important, and one fifth of the responses centeredon the quickness with which the scale could be completed. Veryfew student responses were negative; those that were indicateda dislike for rating self on any instrument.

DISCUSSION

As the sample in this study was limited to those institutionsthat agreed to participate, the results can only be applied to thatgroup. However, it is felt that a diversity of colleges and univer-sities participated in the study and that the rating scale wouldyield similar results with other samples.

Critical Incidents. It was noted that the cooperating teacherreported the most critical incidents, nearly one half of those re-ported. The student teachers submitted somewhat less than one thirdand the college supervisors contributed somewhat less than one fifth.The fact that cooperating teachers contributed the most criticalincidents can probably be attributed to their being on the job withthe student teachers each 'day and to their continual observation ofstudent teachers' behavior. The college supervisors contributedfewest critical incidents, very 1. x:ely due to her more limited con-tact with the student teacher during the student teaching experience.

For the total sample, slightly less than half of the reportswere made of effective behaviors. Perhaps more ineffective behav-iors were reported because one has more of a tendency to note andreport ineffectiveness. This finding however was not true forstudent teachers who reported an equal number of outstandinglyeffective and ineffective behaviors.

On categorizing the critical incidents the classification withthe most number of incidents reported was found to be "Adaptationto Students' Level". Nearly a tenth of the total number of incidents

fell in this category. Of these 88 critical behaviors, about three-fourths indicated ineffective behavior. These data indicate a needfor better acqusInting the student teachers with the student theywill teach.

Three other categories in the top ten frequency also containeda greater number of ineffective than effective behaviors. "TeacherDirection and Supervision" ranked third; there was a preponderanceof five to one ineffective incidents. "Accuracy and ConceptualDevelopment of Subject Matter" also included a majority of ineffec-tive behaviors reported, as did "Organization of Time: Classroom".

Three categories included approximately equal numbers of effec-tive and ineffective behsal.ors reported. These categories were, "Useof Techniques and Methods", "Ability to Obtain Student Involvement",and "Classroom Control".

Three categories included reports of more effective than ineffec-tive behaviors. These categories were: "Behavior in Emergency orUnexpected Situations". "Use of Motivation/Interest Approach", and"Personal Qualities".

FizA13.U4,1giaiggat...le. In the distribution of ratings on2 tRS-112 greatest percentage for "no answer" and "no observation"

cells was reported by the college supervisor. This vas probably dueto the fact that the college supervisor visited the student teacheronly occasionally and did not, therefore, have enough informationto make some of the ratings. The cooperating teacher reported thenext largest number of "no answer" and "no observation" reports, andthe student teacher the least. This should be expected as the studentteacher was rating herself, and therefore she would be in possessionof more information about her performance as she perceived it.

The greatest percentage of missing observations was in the itemdescribing rapport with parents. This finding may be due to the lackof contact of student teachers with parents. Other missing observa-tions were in the categories dealing with performance in supervisionand classroom control, care of the department, rapport with faculty,extra curricular activities, and professional attitude and judgment.The nature of these catwries may account for difficulty in rating.

The student teacher tended to rate herself higher than did thecooperating teacher or the college supervisor. Perhaps studentteachers were disposed to be generous in their self appraisals asthey had survived three or more years of academic work and anyscreening of candidates for student teaching. If they viewed aca-demic achievement and student teaching performance as requirdmgsimilar effort, the halo effect would carry over.

-13-

In the item analysis of RS-112 data the mode for the indicesof discrimination lay in the .20 . .29 range, low but acceptable.Possibly the reason for low discrimination is that many incompetentprospective teachers are diverted into other areas before the stu-dent teaching experience. Secondly, perhaps student teachers tendto be a homogeneous group. There %me not much range in studentteaching grades between =he high and low groups.

The correlation of college supervisor-student teacher ratingsby iztitution ranged from ..06 to .49, averaging .22, indicatingthat student teachers viewed their performance differently from thecollege Supervisors. The averaged correlation of cooperating teachersand student teachers ratings yielded a coefficient of .29. Thefigure indicated a slightly better agreement of cooperating teacherand student teacher than of college supervisor and student teacher.

Second Stage Rating Scale. Analysis and refinement of RS-112yielded the second stage rating scale, RS-35 with at least one itemin each of the ten major behavior categories. Again the collegesupervisors reported the greatest number of "no answer" and "noobservation". The cooperating teacher had submitted a lesser per-centage and the student teacher the least. This was the same trendas had been noted on the RS-112, data. The percentage for "no obser-vation" and "no answer" was considerably lower with the second rat-ing sca]e for all three groups. This finding can probably be attri-buted to the statistical procedure which culled out th3 presumablyless important and lesr frequently seen behaviors.

The student teacher still tended to rate herself higher thandid the cooperating teacher or college supervisor. With the RS-35analysis it was impossible to determine whether cooperating teachersor college supervisors made more use of all levels on the ratingscale as the percentage for these two groups was very similar; whereasin RS-112 the cooperating teachers made most use of all levels. Theselection of items on RS-35 is probably responsible for this change.

Comparisons Items with Qualities of "Good" Teachersas Reported in the "literature. Some characteristics of 'goodteachers as reported in the literature reviewed for this studyemerged in the critical incidents, survived the eliminating due tostatistical analysis of RS-112, and appear in the final version ofthe rating scale.

Teacher enthusiasm appeared in the second stage rating scale.Mastin (19) studied teacher enthusiasm and found that studentslearned more when the teacher was enthusiastic than when she wasnot. Enthusiasm was also one of the qualities that 44 percent ofschool administrators wanted in a prospective employee as researched

-14-

by Rhodes and Peckham (25). Limy and Sorenson (1) incorporated thischaracteristic in their rating scale for teachers; they had foundenthusiasm to be one of the traits contributed most frequently bycompetent educators as an important teacher attribute. Peronto (24)analyzed performance records of social studies teachers and foundthat the "good" ones were enthusiastic.

Patience, described in one item, was found mentioned in liter-ature reviewed only once. It was among traits contributed mostfrequently by competent educators and therefore, included in theAlmy- Sorenson Rating Scale for Teachers (1).

Peronto (24) mentioned better speaking voice as differentiatingthe "good" from the "poor" teachers he studied. The item describing

pronuncistior and usqb of expressions, and the item about pitch ofvoice might be considered parts of Peronto's "better speaking voice"category. When Barr (7) summarized studies of teaching efficiency,he also included skill in speech.

Among the findings of Debernardi (11) and Schultz and Ohlsen(26)about "good" teachers was the ability to plan old organize work.Rhodes and Peckham (25) stated that school administrators looked fora prospective teacher who bad ability to plan and motivate lessons.Perhaps the planning ability mentioned by these investigators wassimilar to some of the behaviors mentioned in several RS-35 itemswhich related to lesson planning.

Barr's (7) reference to the ten skills of the "good" teachercontained one skill relating to "setting and defining goals" whichwas described by one of RS-35's items.

Skill in planning or asking questions was evaluated by twoitems. This ability was mentioned in the literature by Barr (6)and Peronto (24).

Choosing learning experiences was a skill of the "good" teacheraccording to Barr (7). This was described by three items in RS-35.

The planning of evaluative procedures was the subject of oneitem and was supported in the literature as being Important forteaching effectiveness by Barr (r).

A number of investigators mentioned ability to stimulate inter-est or to motivate pupils. Among them were Barr (6; 7), Schultz andOhlsen (26), and Rhode* and Peckham (25). The motivation factor wasassessed by two items.

Alertness to student needs, measured by another item, was de-lineated by Barr (7) as an important skill of the teacher, and byDebernardi (11).

-15-

The importance of knowledge and choice of subject matter forgood teaching vas stated by Barr (6), Barr and EMans (31), Deber-nardi (11), and Pe7onto (24). Several items assessed game of thebehaviors in this area.

Instructional skill as mentioned by Barr (7) and Barr and Emans(IL) and professional competence as reported by Rhodes and Peckham(25) as attributes of "good" teachers were broad terms, and numerousitems or perhaps most items might be ecattrued as fitting underthese categories.

Involving pupils in classroom activities as mentioned by Schultzand Ohlsen (26) was measured by one item in RS-35.

Only one item measured c1assroom control; this teacher behav-ior was found to be one u: the 10 most frequently incorporated inteacher rating scales according to Barr and Evans (31), and wasmentioned by Debernardi (11).

Care of the department was the subject of one item. Barr andEOM= (31) anted that this vas one of the categories frequentlyfound in teacher rating scales.

Pupil-teacher rapport characterized the "good" teacher as indi-cated by Barr (7), Debernardi (11), Rhodes and Peckham (25) and Hearn(11) if rapport can be equated with interest in pupils. Two ratingscale items measured teacher-pupil rapport.

ProfInsional attitude was 7.1Plesed ty an item in RS-35 and wastl be important by DebernanLL (11). It was also found as one

c c.e ten Lost :requent1y described categories in teacher ratingtscales as analyzed by Barr and Emans (31).

Ideas in the rating scale items found to be significant for theevaluation of effectiveness in student teaching that were not supportedby the literature reviewed included: provision of meaningful exper-iences and change of pace; making available neissary and appropriatematerials; provision of experiences to facilitate transfer of learning;control of movement of lesson; ability to assume full class load;preparation of assignments for students without work; reliance oncooperating teacher; assistance and participation in extra curricularactivities.

Some characteristics of "good" teachers were reported in the

literature but did not appear in the second stage rating scale. Barr(6) and Hearn (11) thought provision for individual differences animportant characteristic of the "good" teacher. Although this behaviordid not emerge in the second stage ratiug scale, the idea appearedin three items of the original instrument.

-16-

Barr (6) described a "good" teacher as requiring a notebook andoutside reading. The keeping of a notebook tends to be a bit pass;at present; and the concept of outside reading appeared in no criticalincidents in this study.

The objective teacher characteristic of standing most of theperiod as noted by Barr (6) did not appear in any of the presentresearch.

The concept of attractiveness or appearance was mentioned byCharters and Wtplos (12) and Barr and Emans (31). The study byCharters and Waples concentraterl on ouch characteristics as care-fulness, Meth, openmindedness, promptness, refinement, and thrift.Barr and Emans (31) also listed health. Since these are teachercharacteristics and not behaviors involved in the teaching process,the concepts did not emerge in the present study.

Personal habits, a rather nebulous designation, was enumeratedby Barr and Emans (31) es a characteristic of a "good" teacher.Since it is difficult to know what these two men had in mind, it isimpossible to seek comparisons in this research.

Hatcher (18) found that "good" teachers cooperated extensivelywith other departments and gained the cooperation of other facultymembers in their programs. While this idea did not emerge in thesecond stage rating scale, it appeared in the initial set of items.

Knowledge of mental hygiene was listed as an important charac-teristic of the "good" teacher by Peronto (24). This teacher char-acteristic, not behavior, was not enumerated in the present research.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has demonstrated that a valid, reliable and usefulrating scale has been constructed for the evaluation of studentteaching in home economics. Critical incidents collected from adiverse sample of cooperating teachers, college supervisors, andstudent teachers provided an empirical base for construction ofthe rating scale.

Administration and analysis of a second stage rating scale,HS-35, yielded almost completely satisfactory cross validation ofresults of RS-112, the first rating scale constructed. The overallsplit-half figures for the two scales were in the 90's indicatinga hie;h degree of consistency with which any participant rated.

-17-

fbItem discrimination indices for RS -35 were better than those

for RS-112, but the wide for both instruments was the 420 to .29range. Perhaps the discrimination indices were low because poten-tially low student teachers were directed out of the programbefore the student teaching experience.

Inter-rater reliability coefficients were not significaitlydifferent for RS-35 and RS-112. Although one 4ould like to seeagreement higher, .59 and .65 are not unacceptable figures.

The second stage scale was said to require generally less thantwenty minutes to complete. Approximately two thirds of cooperatingteachers and college supervisors said that they would use the scaleif it were available for continued use. Approximately one fourthmade some qualifications about continued use of the scale.

The method followed in the development of the scale certainlyhas merit and could beneficially be adopted by rating scale con-structors in other fields and for other purposes.

The diverse types and geographical locations of institutionsin the sample, and satisfactory cross validation supzest the findingsof the study would probably apply to the evaluation of most homeeconomics student teachers.

SUMMARY

The primary concern of this study was the construction of arating scale for the evaluation of student teaching in home economics,in particular those aspects that are critical in student teachingperformance. The problem was approached by means of the criticalincident technique. Five hundred and fifty usable reports of out-standingly effective or ineffective student teacher behaviors (958critical behaviors) were collected from college supervisors, coop-erating teachers and student teachers; these were categorisedaccording to specific behaviors, and a randomly selected 15 percentof the data submitted to a panel of home economics teacher educatorsto check agreement in classification. The researchers and the panelwere in agreement 66 percent of the time.

The critical behaviors provided a valid base for a rating scale;they were used to describe levels of. quality on a five point continuumof 112 unidimensional items. Tested in the field by a self selectedsample, percentage distribution of 399 ratings showed TO percent inlevels 4 and 5. Cooperating teachers made the greatest use of alllevels. Student teachers tended to rate themselves higher than eithercooperating teachers or college supervisors rated them.

-18.

WI "1"M r'41"?.'210,0",110W4 v

Reliability of the instrument was tested by inter-rater, split-half, and item discrimination methods. The inter-rater correlationstepped-up by use of the Spearmanuarovn prophecy formula was .59 for125 matching college supervisor-cooperating teacher pairs. Thestepped-up split-half reliability coefficient was .98 for 194 graders -those responsible for giving the student teaching grade. Itemdiscrimination analysis showed a modal response or 71 percent of theindices in the .20 to .29 category - low but acceptable.

The major analysis of the first stage rating scale was theDarlington program which involved partial correlations and validitycoefficients (multiple correlation with the criterion, student teach-ing grade). The grader data (N=194) had student teaching gradesadjusted on the basis of mean ratings of the institution in whichthey occurred as compared with the overall mean ratings, to take careof the variance of grades among institutions. The resulting validitycoefficient was .85 for 35 items. When the Darlington program wasrun with the 35 items and the student teaching grades as given, theresulting coefficient was .83.

A stepwise multiple regression analysis vas carried out whichyielded fourteen significant items with a multiple R of .87. Ten ofthese items had appeared from the Darlington analysis; the four notso generated were included with the 35'items in order to examinetheir cross validation performance.

The second stage rating scales and opinionnaires were administeredto a self selected and independent sample. By the deadline for datacollection, 276 rating Scales had been returned. The same analysis asdelineated for RS-112 was carried out. The difference between corre-lation coefficients was tested using Fisher's z.

The greatest percentage of ratings fell in level 4 while levels3 and 5 tended to be almost equal, indicating RS-35 hfd a better dis-tribution of ratings than RS-112. As with RS-112, student teacherstended to rate themselves higher than either cooperating teachers orcollege supervisors rated them. With RS-35 no one group could be saidto have made use of all scale levels.

The stepped-up inter-rater coefficient for RS-35 was .65, notsignificantly different from the .59 of RS-112. The stepped-upsplit-half reliability correlation was .96 which was significantlydifferent at the one percent level from .98 for RS-112. However,the internal cross validation of RS-35 split-half correlation yieldedresults not significantly different from those of the whole group.Item discrimination was better than that found for RS-112, but themode was still in the .20 to .29 range.

-19-

Running the Darlington program on RS-35 data yielded a validitycoefficient of .78 which was not significantly different from thefigure of .85 for RS-112. However, the figure of .73 which resultedfrom use of the unadjusted student teaching grades was significantlydifferent at the five percent level from .83 for RS-112.

When the 14 items generated from the stepwise regression anal-ysis of RS-112 were used in the analysis of RS-35, five of these itemsemerged with a multiple correlation of .85 as compared to .87 withthe 14 its in RS-112 analysis.

An index of validity was secured by correlating the summed scalescores for RS-35 with the adjusted student teaching grade whichyielded a correlation of .84. When the same procedure was followedwith the unadjusted student teaching grades, the correlation ves,.79.

The majority of cooperating teachers and college supervisorsreported use of a rating scale to evaluate student teaching. Abouthalf of the supervisors and cooperating teachers felt that RS-35provided a better basis for grading and somewhat more than halfthought it had better all around qualities than their presently usedInstrument. Most who used the scale found that it took no longerthan twenty minutes to complete; they did not object to the timerequired for its use. When queried about continued use of the ratingscale if it were available, approximately two thirds of cooperatingteachers and college supervisors said they would use it, and approx-imately one fourth gave their qualified assent. More than half thestudent teachers considered that the objective basis RS-35 providedfor looking at their behavior was important. Approximately a fifththought it professionally important, and another 20 percent stressedthe ease and quickness with which RS-35 can be used. Negative studentteacher reactions were very few.

Recommendations

Since RS-35 performed quite satisfactorily, it deserves furtherrefinement and use. If a short rating scale is desired, for an almostequivalent correlation with student teaching grade, the five itemsemerging from the multiple regression analysis are recommended. (See

items 14, 28, 31, 35, 39 in RS-35, appended.)

Should anyone be interested in a further refinement, the addi-tion of a descriptive level between three and five would be beneficialsince the upper end of the scale received extensive use. Possiblythe rating system could be changed to one through ten, to enable theraters to differentiate more at the top of the scale. This would notbe recommended, however, unless the additional descriptive level sug-gested were added.

-20-

A place should be made on the rating scale for comments by therater regarding growth of the student teacher. This is seen as ameans of making the evaluation more personal.

Regarding the use of the rating scale, its recommended use isat the middle and conclusion of the student teaching period by allinvolved in the program. The scale should be used independently bythe college supervisor, cooperating teacher, and student teacher andshould be followed by a conference so that the student :.eacherts abil-ity and progress can be eva-:ated effectively. Use at the recommendedtwo times would necessitate a second column for rating. Use at thesuggested times is not meant to preclude evaluation throughout thestudent teaching period.

A page of pertinent information on the development of the ratingscale halbeen written. (See Appendix.) Accompanying the scale, thiswill give users some concept of the basis for its construction and ofits quality.

Suggestions for further study arising from this research are:

1. to determine ways to promote growth in the student teacher in theareas emerging in the scale and especially in the five areas re-sulting from the multiple regression analysis.

2. to train raters (possibly by analysis of a film of student teacherperformance) in the use of the scale in an attempt to bring aboutbetter agreement.

3. to develop other means of evaluating student teaching performance,e.g., use the same procedure to develop a rating scale to be usedby pupils to evaluate the student teachers and compare resultswith those from this scale.

4. to use the scale in the evaluation of teaching performance offirst year teachers.

5. to develop another scale for the evaluation of first year homeeconomics teachers following this methodology.

m11.i...Y.':silaa..sal.,ie

1. Alloy, H.C. and Sorenson, Herbert. "A Teacher-Rating Scale ofDetermined Reliability and Validity," Educational Administra-tion and Supervision, 16, No. 3 (March 1930); 179-86,

2. Anderson, C.C. and Hunks., S.M. "Teacher Evaluation: Some Pro-blems and a Proposal," Harvard Educational Rpview, 33, No. 1(Winter 1963), 74-95.

3. Anderson, Harold Milton. "A Study of Certain Criteria of TeacherEffectiveness, Journal of Ex erimental Education, 23, No. 1(September 1954), 1-72.

4. The Association for Student Teaching. Evaluating Student Teach-A Forward Look at Theories and Practices. The 39th Year-

book. Cedar Falls, Iowa: Association for Student Teaching, 1960.

5. Bach, Jacob 0. "A Scale for Evaluating Student Teaching." TheEvaluation of Student Teachill. 1949 Yearbook of the Associationfor Student Teaching. Lock Haven, Pa.: Association for StudentTeaching, 1949, 124-31.

6. Barr, A.S. Characteristic Differences in the Teaching Performanceof Good and Poor Teachers of the Social Studies. Bloomington,Illinois: Public School Publishing Company, (Currently theBobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana), 1929.

7. . "The Measurement and Prediction of Teaching Effi-ciency: A Summary of Investigations," Journal of ExperimentalEducation, 16, No. 4 (June 1948), 203-83.

8. . "Teacher Effectiveness and Its Correlates," Wiscon-sin Studies on the Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effec-tiveness," Journal of Experimental Education, 30, No. 1(September 1961), 134-52.

9. Blank, Lane Burton. "Critical Incidents in the Behavior ofSecondary School Physical Education Instructors," The ResearchQuarterly, 29, No. 1 (March 1958), 1-6.

10. Brown, Clara Maude. An Evaluation of the Minnesota Ratis: ScaleFor Home Economics Teachers. Minneapolis, Minnesota: TheUniversity of Minnesota Press, 1931.

11. Castetter, D. Dee et al. Teacher Effectiveness: An AnnotatedBibliography. V. 1, No. 1 Bloomington, Indiana: Institute ofEducational Research, School of Education, 1954.

-22-

.....11111P

12. Charters, W.W. and Waples, Douglas. The Commonwealth Teacher-Trainin.A3_StAtr. Chicago, Illinois: The University of ChicagoPress, 1929.

13. Combs, Arthur W. and Mitzel, Harold E. "Can We Measure GoodTeaching Objectively?" NEA Journal, 53, No. 1 (January 1964),34-46, 73.

14. Darlington, Richard B. Increasing Test Validity through the Useof Inter-item Correlations. Ph.D. Dissertation. Minneapolis,Minnesota; University of Minnesota, 1963.

15. Drobish, Susan Kelly. "Analysis of a Rating Scale for StudentTeachers in Home Economics." M.S. Thesis. Lafayette, Indiana:Purdue University, 1966.

16. Flanagan, John C. "The Critical Incident Technique," Psychological,Bulletin, 51, No. 4 (July 1954), 327.58.

17. Guilford, J.P. Ps chometric Methods. 2nd Edition. New York:McGraw -Hill Book Company, Inc., 1954.

18. Hatcher, Hazel M. Characteristic Differences Amo HomemakiTeachers of Varying Proficiency. Bulletin No. 2 . Lansing:Department of Education, Michigan State University and theState Board of Control for Vocational Education, August 1944.

19. Mastin, Victor E. "Teacher Enthusiasm," Journal of EducationalResearch, 56, No. 7 (March 1963), 385-86.

20. Mayhew, Lewis B. "The Critical Incident Technique in EducationalEvaluation," Journal of Educational Research, 40 (1956),591-98.

21. Michaelis, John U. "Teacher Education-- Student Teaching andInternship," Enc clo edia of Educational Research. ChesterW. Harris (Ed. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960.

22. Nelson, Kenneth G. et al. Dev,' inment and Refinement of Measuresof Teaching Effectiveness. First Report of the CooperativeStudy to Predict Effectiveness in Secondary School Teaching.Albany, New York: The University of the State of New York,The State Education Department, 1956.

23. Peck, Robert G. "Personality Patterns of Prospective Teachers,"Journal of Experimental Education, 29, (December 1960), 169-78.

24. Peronto, Archie L. "The Abilities and Patterns of Behaviors of

Good and Poor Teachers," Wisconsin Studies of the Measurementand PredictiJa of Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Experimen-tal Education, 30, No. 1, (September 1961)78g:0.

25. Rhodes, Fred G. and Peckham, Dorothy R. "Evaluative Reports onStudent Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, 11 (December1960), 520-23.

26. Schultz, Raymond E. and Ohlsen, Merle M. "How to Define a GoodTeacher," School Executive, 73 (July 1954), 46.47.

27. Slater, Shirley. "A Study of the Final Evaluation of Home Eco-nomics Student Teachers." M.S. Thesis. Athens, Ohio: OhioUniversity, 1965.

28. Sugarman, Ruth. Evaluation of Student Teaching.at the BuffaloState College for Teachers. Ph.D. Dissertation. Buffalo,N.Y.: University of Buffalo, 1953.

29. Tanner, W.C. "Personality Bases in Teacher Selection," Phi

Delta Kauan, 35, (April 1954) , 271-74, 77.

30. Thorndike, R.L. Personnel Selection. New York: John Wileyand Sons, Inc., 579 r97"-----6------

31. Torgerson, T.L. "The Measurement and Prediction of TeachingAbility," Review of Educational Research, 4, No. 3 (June1934) , 261-M

32. Tyler, Fred T. and Michaelis, John U. "Diagnostic and PredictiveValues of the Johnson Temperament Analysis Uaed in StudentTeaching," Journal of Teacher Education, 2 (March 1951),18-20.

33. Velez, Naomi Rodriquez. "A Rating Scale for Evaluating StudentTeachers in Homemaking Education." Master's Problem. Ithaca,New York: Cornell University, 1950.

34. Wilson, Donald E. "A Survey of Evaluation Instruments and Pro-cedures Used in California Teacher Training Institutions Dur-ing the Directed Teaching Experiences," Journal of EducationalResearch, 48, No. 9 (May 1955).

35. Worcester, D.A. "Some Assumptions, Explicitly and Implicitly Madein the Investigations Here Summarized," Wi,consin Studies ofthe Measurement and Prediction of Teacher Effectiveness, Journalof Experimental Education, 30, No,, 1 (September 1961), 120-33.

-24-

GLOSSARY

Student Teacher - a college or university student who teaches andcarries out associated duties in a teaching cen-ter affiliated with the college; occasionallyabbreviated as ST

Cooperating teacher or supervising teacher - a school staff memberwho assists the college or university by directingthe student teacher in her student teaching exper-ience; abbreviated as CT

College supervisor - the university staff member who visits thestudent teacher in the student teaching centerand who with the cooperating teacher guides andevaluates the student teacher's performance;abbreviated as CS

Student teaching center - a school which provides its facilitiesfor the student teaching experience

Critical incident - a critical incident involves the descriptionof a student teacher's behavior that has re-sulted in her being either outstanding&effective or ineffective during the period ofpractice in which she gradually assumes therole of teacher

Grader group - composed of all individuals who were responsiblefor grading student teachers

First stage rating scale - Original rating scale of 112 items;abbreviated as RS-112

Second step rating scale - Revised instrument containing 35 itemsplus four; abbreviated as RS-35

-25-

APPENDIX

INSTITUTIONS PARTICIPATING IN SOME OR ALLOF MIME DATA COLLECTIONS

ConnecticutSaint Joseph CollegeUniversity of Connecticut

IndianaBall State UniversityButler UniversityGoshen CollegeIndiana UniversitySt. Mary-of-the-Woods CollegeValparaiso University

KentuckyBerea CollegeKentucky State CollegeMorehead State UniversityWestern Kentucky University

MaineUniversity of Maine

MassachusettsState College at FraminghamUniversity of Massachusetts

New HampshireKeene Teachers College

New JerseyDouglass College (Rutgers Univ.)Montclair State College

New YorkCornell UniversityHunter CollegeState University College,

PlattsburghSyracuse University

OhioAshland CollegeBluffton CollegeKent State UniversityNotre Dame CollegeOur Lady of Cincinnati CollegeUniversity of DaytonUrsuline College for Women

PennsylvaniaAlbright CollegeCarnegie Institute of TechnologyCheyney State CollegeIndiana UniversityJuniata CollegeMansfield State CollegeMarywood CollegeMercyhurst CollegePennsylvania State UniversitySeton Hill College

Rhode IslandUniversity of Rhode Island

TennesseeDavid Lipscomb CollegeMemphis State UniversityMiddle Tennessee State UniversityTennessee A&I State UniversityUniversity of Tennessee,

Martin Branch

VermontUniversity of Vermont

West VirginiaMarshall UniversityWest Virginia University

Each data collection involved a different group of student teachers;hence they may he considered independent samples.

A-1

LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS

Home Economics EducationMartha Van Rensselaer HallCornell UniversityIthaca, New York 14850

Dear

I am asking cooperating teachers, college supervizors, and studentteachers to assist in research that is being conducted as a part of alarger project for the Ph.D. degree. Approval for your cooperation hasbeen secured from the head of the home economics division at the collegeor university with which you ale connected. The study will ultimatelybe concerned with the construction of an instrument to evaluate studentteaching in home economics. For the initial phase of this research;, astudy of the requirements of student teachers' behavior will be collected.The description of the technique that will be used in this study is:

A critical incident involves the description of astudent teacher's behavior that has resulted in herbeing either outstandingly effective or ineffective ina period of practice in which she has the opportunityof integrating the various learnings of her professionalpreparation and thereby increasing her perspective ofthe total role of a home economics teacher. Some of theareas in which this behavior might occur are:

1. performance in the classroom2, preparation for teaching3, relationships with faculty4. relationships with parents5. relationships with cooperating teachers6. extra curricular activities7. duties associated with teaching

Your assistance is vitally needed in determining these incidents.You are asked to supply the names of the persons involved in the situationso that the critical incidents that are described by the cooperatingteacher, college supervisor, and student teacher may be matched. Alldata will be coded and handled confidentially; no namea will be used inthe report of the study. This study is to continue during the month ofMay.

B-1

Please describe the situation in terms of what was actually observedor done rather than inferred from what you saw or did. Do not statq forexample, that "the lesson plans of the student teacher, Miss Jones, thestudent teacher, did not orgenize the content logically, leaning exper-iences were not varied, objectives were not stated in behavioral terms,etc." Another situation reported in terms of inferred behavior is:"I (the student teacher reporting) scam to favor Susan." This couldbetter be described by stating: "I call upon Susan almost every timeshe raises her hand even when others volunteer."

Try to give as detailed a description as possible of the behaviorrather than listing generalized traits or abstractions. Attempt to beobjective and unbiased in your reporting.

Incidents of outstandingly effective and ineffective student teacherbehavior should be reported as they occur. You will probably not findthem occurring at any regular interval. Remember, the incident must in-volve some specific aspect of the student teacheres behavior that makesher outstandingly effective or ineffective in student teaching. Pleasereport the situations without conferrinE with the other individualsinvolved.

The attached sheets contain a sample of a type of incident that youmay be contributing this month. The format will remain the same as yousupply information about the situations you observe. Please become fam-iliar with tie information sheet and fill it in as soon as an incidentinvolving effective and ineffective student teaching behavior occurs. Donot wait. Each time an incident occurs, record the incident at once, anddo not go back and change any of your statements later. When you havefour or five incidents recorded, send them in the stamped, self addressedenvelope provided to:

Miss Joan GritzmacherHome Economics EducationMartha 'Jan Rensselaer

Cornell UniversityIthaca, New York

If you should need additional forms for recording the data, youmay use a sheet of paper and number the items or request additionalforms from me at the above address.

I will be most appreciative of your cooperation in this study.

Enc.

MMINOMMONNOWNINframenr....m.

B-2

Sincerely yours,

MATERIALS FOR COLLECTINGCRITICAL INCIDENTS

SAMPLE CRITICAL INCIDENT OF STUDENT TEACHER'S BEHAVIOR

Description-definition of critical incident: A critical incident in-volves the description of the student teacher's behavior that has re-sulted in lurbeing either outstandingly effective or ineffective duringthe period of practice in which she gradually assumes the role of teacher.Some of the areas in which this behavior might occur are:

1. performance in the classroom2. preparation for teaching3. relationships with faculty4. relationships with parents5. relationships with cooperating teacher6. extra curricular activities7. duties associated with teaching

1. Name the people involved in the situation. Place an X before yourname.

College SupervisorMEELlitgly.......Cooperating Teacher Mrs. Childs

X Student Teacher Miss RiderOther (Specify)

2. Date the situation occurred 2/211/65

3. School in which the situation took place Horace Mann High School

4. Description of the situation I gave the 7th grade class a posttest on their unit on Personal Relationships and found after anal-zi the test that the u ils had not learned the content in a

lans for theLJOda with the atproval of Mrs. Childs and retaught the contentthat the u ils a arentl had not understood

5. What caused the situation? Inability to recognize that I was notgetting through to the pupils.

6. Why do you think that this behavior indicates effectiveness orineffectiveness? When I realized_ that had done oohin certain areas of the test I decided that since this learningwas important and since I had evident_ not done a ood ob I hadbetter reteach the content that they had, not understood in ano herny. I wanted the pupils to attain the objectives that had

for this unit. Ill. vie

7. What action did the people named in item 1 take ae a result of theincident?.. When I eve the u ils a test on their be-inning foodswork at thk...ft of the next week I added a small section on the

Personal aeitt"s422.22EkEELEhalhatiggA141122222.2ZAZon be-fore. This time :ho did much better.

C-1

,111111111111111.111111.11111

SAMPLE CRITICAL INCIDENT OF STUDENT TEACHER'S BEHAVIOR

Description-definition of critical incident: A critical incident in-volves the description of a student teacher's behavior that has resultedin her being either outstandingly effective or ineffective during theperiod of practice in which she gradually assumes the role of teacher.Same of the areas in which this behavior might occur are:

1. performance in the classroom2. preparation for teaching3. relationships with faculty4. relationships with parents5. relationships with cooperating teachers6. extra curricular activities7. duties associated with teaching

1. Name the people involved in the situation. Place an X before yourname.

College Supervisor Miss GreenX Cooperating Teacher Miss SmithStudent Teacher Miss BrownOther (Specify)

2. Date the situation occurred 2/15/65

3. School in which the situation took place Gresley High School

4. Description of the situation Miss Brown was ignoring some of thework habits of the pupils in her 7th grade foods class. They werenot choosing the proper measuring tools and were not sifting andleveling the flour correctly. Dishes and utensils in some caseswere washed in dirty dishwater and equipment was occasionally putaway in the wrong places.

5. What caused the situation? Miss Brown had not reviewed with thep.la.3..sprocedures and standards before the lab. She had not con-sidered work habits when writing obas11211, and evaluatimplansincluded only an= sis of the final roduct and a a er-and. enc 1test mainl on rinci les.

6. Why do you think that this behavior indicates effectiveness orineffectiveness? Full use of learning experiences is not takinglace. Work standards are imrtant as ects involved in foodpreparation.

7. What action did the people named in item 1 take as a result of theincident?M#.aboxissBrowndIdiscussedtlan'atoaswellasot.erclasses in a conference after school. As a result Miss Brown plannedto have the pupils evaluate their learnings with emphasis on workhabits duri tl.le next class session.

C-2

NrAMIMOIRMwasromalwvanw

INFORMATION SHEET FOR REPORTING CRITICAL INCIDENTS OFSTUDENT TEACHER'S BEHAVIOR

Description.definition of critical incident: A critical incident in-volves the description of a student teacher's behavior that has re.suited in her being either outsta.z.liLfaeffective or ineffectiveduring the period of practice in which she graduslIy assumes the roleof teacher. These incidents may be rather small az illustrated bythe example involving evaluation of student 'earnings in the'unit onPersonal Relationships or relatively broad as illustrated by theexample involving Work habits of pupils in foods lab. Same of theareas in which this behavior might occur are:

1. performance in the classroom2. preparation for teaching3. relationships with faculty4. relationships with parents5. relationships with' cooperating teacher6. extra curricular activities7. duties associated with teaching

1. Name the people involved in the situation. Place an X before yourname.

College SupervisorCooperating TeacherStudent TeacherOther (Specify)

2. Date the situation occurred

3. School in which the situation occurred

4. Description of the situation

5. What caused the situation?

6. Why do you think that this behavior indicates effectiveness orineffectiveness?

VIIMMIMIMMOS!

7. What action did the people named in item 1 take as a result of theincident? 411

C-3

11=11110=10

SAMPLE ANALYSES OF CRITICAL INCIDENTSOF STUDENT TEACHER BEHAVIOR

Incident #270

Reporter: ST

4. A labor"- cl--e A'"%""ft"%.""4"obwvaj laoato .4umvuowasbwAvu va an oven baked meal . the

preparing of Swiss Steak. I was extremely nervous and uncer-tain - time ran out and the Swiss Steak was not even in theoven. The vegetables were never prepared as a demonstration.The planned student-teacher time table for procedure the fol-lowing day did not even get started.

5. I have never prepared Swiss Steak before and had not rehearsedthe demonstration, therefore I was very unsure If what stepsto take, how to do it, and whether or not it vcAs coming outright.

6. The students I know sensed this uneasiness on my part and sowere inattentive. Demonstrations should be examples of "howto" as well as why and with a poor model it is impossible toknow what to do on your own.

T. Luckily I was able to repeat the same lab demonstration thatafternoon on another class. This time it moved much moresmoothly - also as a result of a brief noon conference withthe teacher. The next day I simply outlined the procedure forthe day - no student-teacher cooperated time plan was made.

Incident #326

Reporter: CT

4. ST was aghast at her first 7th grade foods lab. It didn'ttake her long to see that she had overestimated their abilityand underestimated the time in which they could do their work.

5. So much to do and only 50 min. in which to do it.

6. This problem is one that all foods teachers have. Everyonehas to learn how to handle the individual situation. STrealized what was wrong and took care.

T. ST quickly made a lab sheet that was an excellent guide anda big help for the students.

D-1

SAMPLE ANALYSES OF CRITICAL INCIDENTSOF

STUDENT TEACHER BEHAVIOR, CONTINUED

Incident

No.

Phrases Indicating Critical Behaviors

Effectice

or

Ineffective

Behavior

Use E or I

Number of

Category(its)

Under Which

This Behavior

Fits

Circle Main One

Suggested

Category

270

extremely nervous and uncertain

time ran out and the Swiss Steakwas not even

in the oven; vegetableswere never prepared as

a demonstration

had never prepared Swiss Steak before-unsure

of what steps to take, how to do it, and

whether or not it was coming out right

had not rehearsed the demonstration

I I I -I

......

lb 5a

3c3d

5c

326

overestimated their ability and underestimated

the time in which they could do their work

I

I3b

CATEGORIES OF STUDENT TEACHER BEHAVIOR DERIVED FROM CRITICAL INCIDENTS

1. Personal Qualitiesa. voiceb. poisec. assumption of responsibility

2. Lesson Planninga. utilization of knowledge of students' abilities, backgroundb. lesson goalsc. structuring of subject-matter (concepts, generalizations)d. preparation of questions to develop students' ability

to thinke. learning experiencesf. teaching aids and materialsg. evaluation of pupils

3. Functioning in a Classroom Situationa. use of motivation/interest approachb. adaptation to students' levelc. accuracy and conceptual development of subject matterd. use of techniques and methodse. use of teaching aids and materialsf. use of reviewg. use of summary (drawing together of generalizations)h. application of 'earnings to situations outside the schooli. asking questions and handling pupils' questionsj. evaluation of students' progress

4. Ability to Obtain Student Involvement5. Organization of Time

a. classroomb. student teacher work en totoc. pre class preparation of aids, materials, etc.

6. Alertness to Classroom Activitya. teacher direction and supervisionb. classroom controlc. behavior in emergency or unexpected situation

7. Care of the Department8. Inter-personal Relationships

a. rapport with cooperating teacher, facultyb. rapport with studentsc. rapport with parents

9. Extra Curricular Activities10. Professional Qualities

a. professional attitude and judgmentb. professional growth

E-1

FIRST STAGE RATING SCALE

Student Teacher

Cooperating Teacher

College Supervisor

College or University

Date

EATING SCALE FOR THE EVALUATION OF

dSTUDENT TEACHERS IN HOME ECONOMICS

1.11

1=IN

OM

MIN

P

DIRECTIONS:

R3ad the descri$Ions and write the number (a whole number, no

frextions) correspond-

ing to the observed behavior ofthe student teacher in the box folloAug thtv, des-

criptions.

Use zero when there has been no opportunity toobserve a specific

behavior.

NOTE:

The abbreviation CT stands for Cooperating Teacher.

I

Inter-

rater

Ao observation

relieb.1

0 1(1) shows insecurity;

PERSONAL

displays anxiety

QUALITI

and fear

GENERAL

T1) does not

objec..

tively evaluate

self

3

usually appears out

confident but occasion-

ally shows symptoms of

insecurity

5

exhibits confidence in

what she is doing

Rati

rnlacks enthusiasm

has some awareness of

strengths and -limita-

tions

realises her strengths

and limitations

shows moderate enthusi

radiates enthusiasm

(4) apathetic about

rriatagEtmitter

5gives up in

crises; ceases

to function un-

der pressure

Tirracks patience

with students;

shows annoyance

usually exhibits interes

in what she is teachi

works satisfactorily

under same pressure;

begins to show signs

of upset with increased

ensure

usually remains patient

In dealings with student

(7) frequently.mis-

pronounces words

repeats trite

expressions

(8) is not willing

to help others

or does so

displays much interest

in sub ect matter

works effectively under

pressure

displays patience. with

students

generally pronounces

wards correctly; vocab-

ulary is adequate

has correct pronunciso.

tion; uses varied vo-

cabUlary

assists others most of

the time; especially

those who request as-

sistance'

is cooperative;

helps

others

NOTE:

Explanation of asterisks on following page.

Explanation of footnotes on following page.

Corre-

lation

with

student

teaching

grade

r/STG2 D

.47

.24

.51

.07

.56

.26

.59

.20

.53

.25

AT

.09

.33

.17

.09

Explanations of Asterisks

1 Ns 194

2 Nis 125 matching cases of CSCT

* Secondstage rating scale resulting from Darlington analysis.

Number indicates order of

importance in increasing Validity Coefficient

'Significant items from Regression Analysis predicting student teaching grades.

Number

indicates step in Analysis

No observation

reliab.

0

.46

.47

.34

.4o

.27

.46

.52

12

34

Rating r STG

D

.49

.26

22*

9becomes upset

with sugges-

tions

usually seeks and util-

zes suggestions

invites suggestions

and implements them

la

PERSONAL

QUALITIES

VOICE 21*

(10) does not speak

clearly; tends

to mumble;

voice is too

soft or too

loud

usually speaks clearly

so that Etulents can

hear

speaks clearly and

sufficiently loud

(11) speaks in a

monotone

usually changes the tone

of speech

effectively modu-

lates her voice

(12) lacks firmness

when speaking

secures students' atten-

tion in quiet groups; may

lack authority for large

and/or vivacious groups

voice is authority-

tive; students in

any size group give

attention promptly

(13) pitches voice at

irritating level

keeps voice at pleasant

level most of the time

pitches voice at

pleasing level

lb

PERSONAL

QUALITIES

POISE

(14) exhibits uneasi-

ness; sometimes

acts like a stu-

dent instead of

a teacher

occasionally shows nerv-

ousness under normal con-

ditions; displays maturi-

ty expected of her age

group

shows ability to con-

trol self; remains

calm and at ease in

all situations, dis-

plays unusual matur-

.1...

.Vaccepts responsibil-

ity; often seeks re-

sponsibility beyond

that which is re-

quired

lc

ASSUMPTION

OF

RESPONSI

BILITY

1331 shirk3

respon-

sibility

accepts only assigned

responsibilities

.39

.21

.38

.23

.45

.20

.34

.10

.55

.22

.53

.18

No observation

reliab.

0

.46

.63

0,1

.53

.46

.57

12

RAti

r STG

D

(16) promises to du

things but

doesn't carry

through; often

ignores or ne.

glacts obvious

tasks

usually does what she

agrees to do but occa.

sionally forgets some

things

is dependable

____

2LESSON 29

PLANNING

GENERAL

4**

12's

17

lacks detailed

planning; does

not organize

lesson; lesson

plans are in.

complete

does some detailed plan-

ning; tends to use gen-

eral outline rather than

detailed plans; organi-

zation is usually ade-

quate; 1,

on plaits are

usuallEamplete

usually has lessons done

in adver.ee; usually ex-

amines these with CT

does detailed plan-

ning; organizes con-

tent effectively;

lesson plans are

rarely incomplete

has lesson plans

completed to allow

sufficient discus-

sica with CT

:does not present

lesson plan in

time for discus-

sion and evalu-

ation before

class presenta-

tion

/73) overlooks pre-

planning for time

organization and/

or makes unreal-

istic estimate

of time needed

for each activ-

ity

establishes a time plan

for lesson but it is not

always satisfactory

adequately pre-plans

general timing of

lesson parts

(20) unwilling or

unable to adapt

plans to sug-

gestions of CT

.........

tries to implement lesson

plan suggestions of CT

but neglects or ignores

some of these

adapts lesson play

to CT's suggestions

.54

.18

.57

.29

.59

.32

.61

.25

.67

.20

No observation

reliab.

0

.41

.51

.47

.39

12

45

2a

LESSON

PLANNING

UTILIZA-

TION OF

KNOWLEDGE

OF

STUDENTS'

:ILITIES

(21) does not

con-

cern herself

with where

student is

occasionally employs

methods to ascertain

characteristics of her

students

.

uses various means to

find information about

students' knowledge,

abilities, background

___ _

22

does not under.

stand students;

considers struc-

ture of content

not students when

planning lesson

exhibits comprehension

of students but lacks

understanding occasion-

ally

..........

understands students

and uses this knovl.

edge to plan meaning-

ful lessons and in-

dividual work

2b

1SSON

23) is not concerned

with objectives

or is concerned

with her objec-

tives and with

imposing them

on students

objectives are compre-

hensive but are not al-

ways important nor stated

in student behavioral

terms

objectives are ion-

portant and compre-

hensive and expressed

in student behavioral

terms

rLANNING

BJECTIVE

13**

15** 2e

SSON 28*

-LANNING

"EPARA-

TION

OF

UESTIONS

24) does not plan

lead-in ques-

tions to lesson

plans questions to in-

,plans

volve students in learn-

ing

well thought

through questions

to motivate student

discussion

r/STG

D

.52

.22

.54

.44

.53

.23

.53

.28

No observation

reliab.

0

.24

.40

27* 8*

3.

22

plans to have

students involved

in only one ac-

tivity during

class or cannot

move students

along so that

activity can

be cha

ed

27

considers general

learning experi.

ences not de.

tails; plans ac

tivities that

have little re-

lationship to

each other

34

usually plans activities

vt varying nature to

change pace during class

period

recognizes and plans

for a change of pace

during a class period

Rati

r STG

D

.54

.27

plans learning expert..

ences that usually in-

crease from the simple

to the complex and

broad

thoroughly plans each

learning experience

and each builds on

the former

2g

.46

LESSON

PLANNING

TEAMING

4IDS AND

%%TRIALS

2h

.23

LESSON

PLANNING

EVALUA-

TION

does not provide

many teaching

aids or plans

make - shift or

inappropriate

aid; does not

make use of a-

vailable re-

sources

29

has limited con-

cept of evalua-

tion; procras-

tinates and does

not carry through

or evaluates only

at end of unit or

sees evaluatior

only in ter' 3 of

giving final

marks at the en4

of each period

usually plans and pro-

vides some appropriate

teaching aids if they

can be readily secured

plans and/or takes

initiative to provide

numerous appropriate

teaching aids

has limited concept of

evaluation but studies to

broaden it; evaluates

student growth occa-

siona3ly

ft

frequently plans

varied assessment of

student growth

.62

.29

.57

.23

.47

.24

No observation

reliab.

0

.27

.49

12

34

16*

3*

5.3a

USE OF

MOTIVA-

TION/

APPROACH

(30) constructs hap-

hazard evalua-

tion devices;

on paper and

pencil tests

uses "recall"

type items ex-

clusivel

31

does not provide

any motivation

at beginning of

period or at-

tempts at moti-

vation fail; does

not gain atten-

tion and cooper-

ation of students

plans evaluative techni

ques carefully but some

inadequacies emerge

commonly utilizes an in-

terest approach which

tends to be ordinary;

occasionally exhibits

creative effort in mo-

tivation; has some suc-

cess motivating students

evaluation procedures

are carefully thought

through and measure

student growth ade-

quately

10*

(32) threatens stu-

.42

dents in an at-

tempt to moti-

vate them; does

not expect stu-

dent self moti-

vation

provides initial and oc-

casional stimuli there-

after to motivate stu-

dents; occasionally al-

lows students to put

their ideas into action

Rati

provides initial stimu-

lus that is creative and

pertinent to the topic;

captures student atten-

tion and interest

provides continual stim

uli during class to mo-

tivate students and en-

courage them to carry

through their own ideas

34*

(33) is insensitive

.35

to students'

needs

.45

is aware of students

most obvious needs

(34) continues activ-

ity without

changing environ-

mental conditions

disregards lack

of student in-

terest

alters environmental con-

ditions when sitration

becomes such that the

majority of the students

are not paying attention

or a few are very

disru tive

is alert to students'

needs; gives incentive

to individual pupils

having difficulty with

the work

alters environmental

conditions when neces-

sary or conducive to

the increase of stu-

dent interest

maRk

D

.49

.25

.32

.59

.23

.55

.27

.60

.32

No observatia

reliabo

0

42

.20

.148

214

Rating r STG

D3b

ADAPTA-

TION

TO

STUDENTS'

LEVEL

(35

fails to con-

sider students'

previous knoyl-

edges ability

and needs

attempts to understand

students but does not

make full use of avail=

able information on back-

ground, ability) and needs

in teaching and evalu-

ating; unaware of clues

to readjust lesson

uses information on

students' background,

ability, and needs in

teaching and evalua-

tive procedures; is

alert to clues to re-

adjust lesson

(36) balance of then-

retical and

practical con-

tent bears no

relationshipto

students' abil-

ities

over emphasizes either

the theoretical or prac-

tical content at times

combines the theoreti-

cal and the practical

in accordance with stu

dents' abilities

4*

3c

STRUCTUR-

ING OF

SUBJECT

MATTER 9*

(37) presents skimpy

content; does not

develop general.

izations or at-

tempts to devel-

op too many; does

not emphasize

important points;

superficial de-

velopment of

subject

usually presents adequate

content for period; does

not always develop gener-

alizations to their full-

est

lesson is comprehen-

sive; focuses on a few

generalizations which

are developed in depth

_

(38) exhibits con-

cern over sub-

jest matter but

not whether stu-

dents understand

it; does not

clarify points

attempts largely by re-

petition to explain con-

tent that students do not

comprehend

when content is not

understoods goes over

it again in a differ-

ent way; clarifies

statements

.56

.25

.55

.25

.64

.29

.62

No observation

reliabe

0

036

.33

.32

042

040

.4o

12

14Rating r /STG

D

059

.26

6*

1**

1*

39

gives little

thought to se.

vential devel-

opment of con-

tent; presents

lesson in ramb-

ling, unorgan-

ized manner

attempts to structure

content in orderly fash=

ion but some is mism

placed

organizes content so

that it is developed

logically

0frequently di-

greases from

plan

sometime: fails to fol-

low lesson plan

follows general

lesson plan

III) does not inter.

relate parts of

lesson or lessons

attempts to point out re-

latedness or content but

this is sometimes unclear

shows relationship

between parts of

lesson and lessons

741115Wriaulty

or

false informa-

tion; does not

distinguish be-

tween fact and

o inion

does not clearly define

tact versus opinion

differeztistss fact

from opinion iL pre-

senting subject mt.

'

ter

3is not well ac-

quainted nor ex=

perienced with

most home econ-

omics subject

matter

has good grasp of subject

matter in some areas;

slight lack of knowledge

in other areas

-....

has extensive up-to-

date knowledge in

most areas of home

economics

TUTunconcerned

a-

bout familiar.

izing herself

with subject

about which she

knows little

makes an attempt to

search out information to

teach unfamiliar subjects

conscienciously pre-

pares self to teach

unfamiliar material

by reading, visits,

observations

.....-

.45

015

.63

028

.59

.214

052

.23

.67

.27

No observation

reliab.

0

.29

.33

.29

.52

13*

5

12

314

bluffs "e,sy

through answers

to ,4iestions she

does not know;

ignores ques-

tions; changes

subject

admits lack of knowledge

but neglects to find

answer

admits lack of knowl-

edge when questioned

on a specific point

she does not know;

uses resources to

answer

Ratis

.r/STG

D

(1e6) does not anti-

cipate student

questions; is

faced with many

individual ques-

tions

sometimes foresees ques-

tions that students v111

ask and handles them in

the presence of the col-

lective students

'anticipates student

questions and answers

them in the presence

of the class as a

whole

7* 3dECHNIQUE

AND

ETHODS

(47) plans and/or

changes method

little or not at

all during per-

iod; or plans

too many activ-

ities to fit in-

to period; or

cannot move stu-

dents along so

that activity

can be changed;

individual activ-

ities incongru-

ent v/respzet to

total

plans and utilizes a few

meaningful learning ex-

periences during a period;

choice of experience not

always the best; provides

different kinds of activ-

ities for change of pace

plans and provides var-

ied, meaningful activ-

ities to develop prin-

ciples presented; pro-

vides change of pace

during period

(48) does not make

use of resource

persons, commun-

ity resources;

ignores oppor-

tunities to

broaden learn-

-6-4M

contacts outside resources

but does not always follow

them up for use in class

t

enriches learning ex-

periences by occasion-

ally securing a re-

source person or using

a community resource;

takes advantage of some

unexpected circumstance

to enlarge concepts

.61

.22

.55

.311

.63

.27

.50

.26

reliab.

No observation

O1

.

34

.......7

thoroughly plans and

makes use of learning

experiences; sets

standards for work

,naming,

TIT -neglects to

bring out essen-

tial 'earnings;

when demonstrat-

ina has long

periods of si-

lence or empha-

sizes one thing

excessively;

insufficent

ex lanation

attempts to use learning

experiences to full ex-

tent but does not util-

ize all the possibili-

ties

50

lacks concern

for logical or.

ganization of

activity; plans

activities that

have little re-

lationship to

each other

tries to structure ac-

tivities in ascending

order of development but

occasionally a learning

experience is misplaced

logically develops

activities and each

builds on the former

51

does not check

to determine if

demonstration or

teaching meter-

ials are visi-

ble to all; no

eye contact with

group; almost

ignores them

is usually alert to sit-

uation and checks on

visibility of demonstra-

tion and materials to

students; tries to ascer

tain reaction of student,

to teacher activity

makes sure that all

can see materials or

demonstration; checks

to see student re-

sponse to teacher ac-

tivity frequently

3e

TEACHING

AIDS AND

MATERIALS

(52) does not make

situation real-

istic by suf-

ficient exam-

ples; makes no

attempt to

search for ex-

amples

provides scanty or ir-

relevant examples

uses appropriate ex-

amples to clarlfy and

add interest

r/STG

D

.6o

.29

No observation

reliab.

0

.26

.39

.39

.29

.22

12

3Rating

30*

(53) materials are

neither handy

nor arranged in

:ood order

has the minimum number

of materials on hand or

prepares them as they

are needed duri: class

has necessary and approl

priat,.: materials read-

ily available

5rarely uses bul-

letin board; it

has superficial

purpose or ma-

terial remains

posted past

time of use or

interest

occasionally prepares bul

letin boards, but often

they do not have signif-

icant relationship to the

lesson content or appro-

priate student learnings

prepares bulletin

boards as she sees the

need; displays are

educationally sound

as well as attractive

(551 presentation

lacks illustra-

tive material or

needs more; does

not make full

use of materials;

material is not

closely related

to objectives

of lesson

usually reinforces teachm.

ing by use of a number of

appropriate teaching aids

uses many imaginative,

attractive, and appro-

priate teaching aids

that gain student in-

terest and participa-

tion and advance

learning

(56) teaching aids

are not always

realistic

uses teaching aids but

lacks concern for having

them as realistic as

possible

makes teaching aid

situation as real

as possible if re-

ality cannot be

attained

3f

(57) reviews at a

few pre-estab-

lished times

or does not

review

is inclined to overlook

unexpected possibili-

ties for review

spontaneously re-

views material when

situation warrants

or need becomes

apparent

D

.57

.24

.49

.25

.56

.26

.55

.21

.50

.23

No observation

rcliab.

0

.28

.24

.16

.34

12

kRating r STG

D

.50

.27

15:

does not pro-

vide any or

enough review

to reinforce

learning or hur-

ries over mater-

ial so that ef-

fort is a waste

of time or

covers material

exactly as it

will be handled

in test situa

tion; uses dull

methodology

usually plans for review

but occasionally neglects

to carry it out; import-

ant content is covered

plans and carries out

comprehensive review;

interesting, creative

manner

3g

SUMMARY

(59) does not sum-

marize

sometimes brings to-

.ether learni:s

ties material to-

:ether

(60) presents stu-

dents with the

facts or gener-

alizations to be

derived or omits

this

secures some student in-

volvement in formulating

generalizations but

largely tells them about

generalizations

helps and or requires

students to make per-

tinent generalizations

17*3h

1

APPLICA-

TION

(61) does not attempt

to provide

rnough prior in

formation or ex

perience; stu-

dents are not

likely to trans

fer ideas and

pracl.ices to

the home

occasionally provides ex-

periences in the class-

room that can be carried

over

provides realistic

learning experiences

so that students can

actively transfer

learnings

.55

.24

.48

.27

.49

.22

No observation

reliab.

0

.42

.29

.36

.27

2Rating, r STG

D18*3i

QUESTIONS

(62) asks vague ques-

Itions; minor not

"meaty" ones;

does not util-

ize lead-in

questions or

confines ques-

tions to items

of fact stu-

dents may re-

member

utilizes some stimulating

and some dull questions;

some require more teacher

development

has lead, thought-

provoking, suitable

to- the. - lesson ques-

tions ready to ask

(63) dodges student

questions; ans-

vers own ques-

tions rather

than getting

answers from

students; allows

class to drift

away from topic

accepts student c'ntri-

butions but does not

thoroughly relate them

to classwork; occasion-

ally will enlarge upon

student statements

supplements student

contributions and

questions by adding

comments and asking

questions which will

clarity and relate to

the topic of the day

if possible

(64) involves few

class members in

questioning pro-

cess; does not

encourage dis-

cusslon

permits further discus-

sion as a result of

questioning process

but does not do any-

thing to encourage it

motivates further

discussion among

students by ques-

tions

.5

does not treat

student gust'.

tions with re-

spect

usually promotes atmos-

phere in which students

are free to ask ques-

tions

makes students feel at

ease to ask questions

.55

.31

.55

.20

.53

.25

.51

.17

reliab.

.33

.39

.32

.26

No observation

12

Rati

(66)

does not at-

tempt to se-

cure answers

to questions or

promises but

doesn't carry

through; stu-

dents are not

informed

attempts to obtain un-

known answer by involv-

ing students or self

effort but occasionally

forgets to inform stu-

dents

makes use of available

resources or directs

students to find ans-

vers that are not immi.

mediately known; in-

formation is reported

back to class

3j

EVALUAF.

TION

7 does not eval-

uate learnings;

assumes that

students are

learn ':

shows same interest in

whether or not students

are progressing toward

objectives

exhibits concern over

whether students are

learning what she is

teaching

0:

does no

give

pre-tests

occasionally administers

pre-tests but does not

make full use of the

results

e_ailts

usually evaluates student

progress at appropriate

times; relies on only a

few evaluative techniques

or occasionally uses

varied techniques or has

a concentration of differ

ent techniques at one tim

makes effort to keep re-

cords

utilizes pre-test in-

formation to learn

where to start with

students

continually evaluates

student progress using

varied and appropriate

methods; keeps records

(69) rarely evalu-

ates or does not

evaluate learn-

ings; utilizes

evaluation pro-

cedures that are

too difficult or

ambiguous; uses

little variety

in evaluation;

seldom keeps

records

r STG

D

.50

.21

.53

.22

.37

.27

.49

.25

No observation

.U

13

4?

prepares the environ-

ment for evaluation

procedures

MC

3.1

1g,

1

5**

rim has not

pro-

vided adequate

testing situa-

tion

tries to have appropri-

ate situation for test-

ing

71

gives same test

for make-up pur-

poses; make..up

test is either

too hard or too

easy in relation

to original;

omits make-up

tests

prepares a make -up test

not adequately different

from the original

constructs a different

but similar test for

students who have been

absent

4STUDENT

INVOLVE,

NM

(72) foals to plan

with students or

plan far enough

with students;

does not in-

volve students

occasionally includes

students in planning

.... uses teacher-pupil

planning when appro.

priate - most advan-

tageous to student

learning

(73) content and

learning exper-

iences fail to

obtain student

response

content and learning ex-

periences interest stu-

dents and stimulate some

participation

content and learning

experiences actively

involve and motivate

students

.........

174) does not call

on students by

name

does not always call

students by name

addresses all students

by name

5a

11*

CLASSROOM

TIME

(75) lesson too fast

moving and ma-

terial covered

too rapidly or

lesson too slow

moving and in-

terest wani.:

paces lesson at adequate

rate of speed

has excellent sense

of pace or tempo

in the lesson

r /STG

D .20

.43

.29

.36

.50

.31

.56

.26

.35

.12

.62

.30

No observation

....... 9**

(76) inflexibly fol-

lows time plan

no matter how

unsuitable it

might have be-

clme; fails to

urge students

to movat along;

gets "carried

away" with

topic or ac-

tivity; di-

esses

manages to keep to

time plan

sticks to time plan

as

much as possible;

uses

it as a general guide

for the class

,....

77

seems prepared

with nothing

else when

planned activ-

ity does not

fill class time

sometimes has another

activity ready when time

plar'., are exhausted be-

fore expected

can extend plans to

utilize class time

effectively if the

time plan is ex-

ecuted before class

ends

5b

STUDENT

TEACHER

MORK

EN TOTO

8**

26*

----3E----70

PRE-CLASS

PREPARA-

TION

11TD fails

to organ.

ize work which

results in its

piling up

endeavors to arrange

work so that it is

com-

pleted on time; occasion-

ally a lapse occurs

organizes work effi-

ciently so that it

is accomplished sys-

tematically

fully assumes the

teaching load as-

signed to her; may

go beyond expected

assignment

/79) requests

less

or is unable

to assume full

teaching load

adequately assumes the

classes allocated to her

does not gather9

prepare or as-

semble materials

and equipment

before class

usually has materials and

equipment assembled be-

fore class; occasionally

has to find something

on

the spur of the moment

has materials and

equipment availa-

ble and arranged

prior to class

r STG

D

.59

.35

.57

.28

.52

.22

.58

.26

.51

.16

rJ 0

reliab.

448

.37

.36

.27

4

No observation

_a_

ci

13

4)

namicl

(81) has not fa-

miliarized her-

self with

equipment or

material before

class

usually studies the

material and equipment

so that she can use it

without incident in

class

has studied the meter-

ials and equipment be-

fore class and knows

how to use them

-SUPERVI-

SION

:2

gives vague and

insufficient di.

rections to the

class or gives

no directions

but implies ex-

cected behavior

sometimes gives clear

directions to class; are

usually understandable

gives clear directions

to class; endeavors to

determine if students

understand

:3

gives little or

no supervision;

becomes so in-

volved in help-

ing some that

forgets others

guides students in their

work but is not able to

help all who need it

carefully guides stu-

dents in their work;

I

moves from student to

:

student as quickly ae

k tpossible; is able to

i

hel all who need :1:._

tries to give

students indi-

vidual atten-

tion but is

overwhelmed by

those needing

help; does not

give group ex-

lamations

occasionally gives group

explanations to minimize

individual assistance de-

sired; lacks insight into

situations where group

explanations would be

useful; has weak routine

gives group =plata,-

tions to cut down cal

individual help needd!

I 1

has an established

routine for assisCalg

students

-.........1

r/STG

D

.57

.25

.62

,28

454

.19

dr,20

1

No observation

reliab.

0 b5-

.38

CLASSROOM

CONTROL

.37

.37

.1

does not; rec-

ognize or do

anything about

inattention or

undesirable be-

havior or weakly

attempts to rec-

tify the situa-

tion or does

nothing

about

situation; is

unsure of how

much authority

she can exer-

cise

has not set or

made students

aware of behav-

ioral expecta-

tions

metes out in-

appropriate

discipline

23

recognizes .undesirable

behavior of students;

attempts to contzl but

the class is slightly

disrupted

,::cognizes sad firmly

;1#4.-Alger. unacceptable

student bebavt.ir

usually familiarizes

students with behavioral

expectations

MD

permits students

without work to

do whatever they

like which us-

ually disrupts

class

Rati

r/Mq

ik

.52

.25

establishes and clearly

communicates standards

for classroom behavior

of students

disciplines flagrant be-

havior and ignores av-

erage misbehavior

does not always have

as-

signments planned for

students without any

work

utilizes sufficient and

conFistent discipline

in au attempt to preveni

recureace of misbe-

havior

has asaigaments ready

for Q1ose temporarily

out of work or not pre-

pared to do the assign-

ment

.56

.26

.48

.23

.43

.18

No observation

reliab..

0

.46

.43

.38

.45

.30

.35

12

4(89) attempts to di-

rect a multitude

of activities at

one time; abili-

ty to control

students is

greatly decrease

(90) becomes

nerv-

ous and flus-

tered when the

unexpected hap-

pens; does

little or

nothing

usually manages class-

roam situation; rarely

has excessive noise and

inattention problems

with students

is somewhat disturbed

in unexpected Ritua-

tion; hesitantly acts;

offers some assistance

has classroce situation

under control; students

aro relatkiely quiet,

attentive and/or work-

ing

maintains composure;

takes full responsi-

bility; acts quickly

6C

UNEX-

FITAVIOR

ECTED

UATIONE

(91) does not con-

tinue or adapt

lesson; re-

mainder of class

is confused and

unorganized

attempts to adapt lesson

to changed situation;

transition is clumsy

exhibits flexibility

in adapting lesson

plans when situation

va...r,nts

(92) corrects fie-

grant errors by

own activity or

does not rec.

ognize them

discusses errors that are

very evident to the class

attempts to gain student

participation in correct

id: the concetion

corrects errors or in-

complete statements;

involves students in

this process

.....

1311 never utilizes

or is hesitant

to make use of

unexpected sit-

uation to en

large learnings

occasionally furthers

learning through use of

unexpected situations

takes advantage of un-

expected situations

to re-emphasize and

add new learnings

does no

daw

what to do;

does nothing

ac s qu c

o_prevent

dangerous situation; is

not sure of choice of

tion

acts quic

to avert

serious dangers; knows

what to do

ac

r/STG

D

.56

.27

.52

.20

.58

.22

.58

.26

.54

.26

.57

.28

I

renal).

.27

.37

.66

No observation

0

CARE OF

TIC'

35*7

057

DEPART-

MEET

8(96)

11**

RAPPORT

WITH

FACULTY

TO)

8a

RAPPORT

WITH

COOPERA-

TING

TEACHER

12

34

has not estab-

lished nor ac-

cepted a rou-

tine for care

of the depart-

ment; does not

allow suffi-

cient time for

clean-up at the

end of the per-

iod; neglects

to check room

and equipment at

the end of the

period

accepts unquestioningly

pre-established routine

for care of the depart-

ment; tries to follow

plans but occasionally

forgets to reserve time

for clean-up and super-

vision of process

has estahlished a rou-

tine for care of the

department; sets aside

definite amount of

time at end of period

for clean-up; checks

room and equipment at

end of period

Rati': r/STG,

D

has trouble re-

lating well to

other faculty

members

does not talk

to or assist

other faculty

members unless

necessary for

her work

interacts socially with

some of the faculty

is easily accepted by

the faculty as one of

them

(98) is

unable to re-

late to CT or

relationship is

strained and/or

unfriendly;

good communica-

tion and under-

stealing are

lacking

occasionally offers sug-

gestions to faculty when

asked; offers to assist

with faculty duties

offers constructive

suggestions; volun-

teers to help and

work on cooperative

tasks with other

staff members

usually relates positive-

ly to and understands CT

most of the time; occa-

sionally unwilling to

relate to CT

is patient and polite

in relationships with

CT; tries to under-

stand CT

.36

.18

.52

.29

.47

.30

.49

No observation

relied).

0

.614

.52

.35

.43

.142

12

314,

Rating r STG

D2**

2*

99

relies exces-

sively on CT

as cannot or

will not make

own decisions;

or ignores sug-

_gestions of CT

100

students are

afraid to speak

out in class;

appears ',nap-

oachable

thinks through some pro-

blems but tends to ci.-41-

suit CT occasionally

when capable of making

decisions herself

tries to engender in stu-

dents a feeling of her

approachability and her

interest in them

consults CT for advice

after considering pos-

sible solution to dif-

ficult or unusual pro-

blew; makes and abides

by decisions within

alajurisdiction

makes students feel

at ease with her; some

may even bring their

problems to her

:b

7**

25*

RAPPORT

WITH

STUDENTS

101 makes no com.

ment on student

contributions;

severely repri-

mends student

for wrong ans-

yore or work

occasionally shows ap-

proval of student con-

tributions by short

phrase; occasionally makes

a longer comment

commends students on

their contributions

102

larks interes..

and concern for

?tudmits open-

ly; plays

favorites; a-

rouses student

resentment

usually interested in and

concerned with most of

the students; gives help

and encouragement spar-

ingly or to a few

exhibits interest and

concern for all stu-

dents and gives help

and encouragement

TIM utilizes stu-

dent help in-

frequently

requests some student

help on clrtain tasks

asks students for

help in specific

areas; gives them

opportunity to be

needed and learn

.66

.30

.57

.22

.50

.21

.50

.11

.49

.21

reliab.

.46

.48

.31

.45

No observation

01

23

47

hating

12**

14*

10

does not se-

cure offers of

student 'Asia.

tance

occasionally students

ask if they can assist

ST

students volunteer

to help ST

......

105

students seek

advice of CT as

they do not

have faith in

the correctness

of student

teacher's

statements,

directions

students usually take

her word but occasion-

ally seek verification

from CT

.

students accept her

as a knowledgeable

teacher and follow

her sugustions

8c6**

W2

ARENTS

(106) ignores situ-

ations where

parents are in

etendance; ill

at ease with

parents; unable

to communicate

concerning stu-

dent problems

is hesitant about util-

izing opportunities to

meet parents but occa-

sionally does; attempts

explanation of home

economics and student

problems

takes advantage of

opportunities to

meet with parents;

explains home

economics and pro-

blems students

might have

920*

EXTRA

CURRICU,

LAR

ACTIVI-

TIES

(107I is concerned

exclusively

with classroom

activity or

helps others

in the school

to a limited

extent

recognizes some of the

extra curricular activi-

ties that need to be done;

offers and assists with

same of these; partici-

pates sometimes in cam-

munity activities and

programs

realizes that there

are many tasks to be

done in a school out -

side the classroom

and willingly helps

whether it is her

specific responsibil-

ity or not; exhibits

interest in and takes

part in community ac-

tivities and

Lalas

reliab.

.31

.44

.21

.36

No observation

01

210a

PROFES..

SIONAL

ATTITUDE

AND

JUDGMENT

14**

32*

(108)

(109)

unwilling to

give of her

personal time

to school re-

sponsibilities

seems reluctant to ex-

tend school work beyond,

the "school day"

2) realizesthat teaching

is not a 9-4 profes-

sion; willing to devot

extra time toprepara-

tion and individual

work with students

Ratin4r/STG

D

.41

.18

does not dis-

play profes-

sional attitude

and judgment in

front of Btu..

dents

Ideas and attitudes

are

occasiona1:.7 unprofes-

sional and inconsistent

with actions

(110)

M1

does not know

school policies

and regulations;

acts indepen-

dently of them

sometimes de-

grades the home

economics pro-

gram

healthy professional

attitudes and ideas

are consistently dis-

played

is knowledgeable about

some school policies and

regulations and attempts

to guide herself by them

does not

talk up "the

home economics program

to others; occasionally

speaks of the program

when others bring up the

topic

is familiar with

school policies and

regulations and

abides by them

uses opportunities

to present the home

economics program

to others

10b

PROFES-

SIONAL

GROWTH

112) does not at-

tend profes-

sional meet-

ings

occasionally goes topro-

fessional meetings espe-

cially when they are of

particular interest to

her or she is reminded of

them or little effort is

re uired

goes out of her way

to attend professional

meetings in order to

support the profession

and keep up-to-date

with new ideas

an variables .38 (by institution)

.57

.26

.50

.17

.47

.16

.48

.19

All variab.Les .53

SECOND STAOE RATING SCALE

04

46

44

Student _Teacher

Cooperating Teacher

College Supervisor

College or University

Date

RATING SCALE FOR THE EVALUATION OF

STUDENT TEACHERS IN HOME ECONOMICS

DIRECTIONS:

Read the descriptions and writethe number (a wholenumber, no fractions) corres-

ponding to the observed behavior of the student

teacher in the box following the

descriptions.

Use zero when there has been

no opportunity to observe a specific

behavior.

Please fill in the blanks at

the top of this

page.

NOTE:

The abbreviaticnCT stands forCooperating Teacher.

Inter -

rater

relia-

bility'

.57

.314

.21

.27

.57***

.148

ta)

No observation

u.I

.e

.314

?nazing

1PERSONAL

QUALITIES

1lacks enthusiasm

shows moderate enthusiasm

radiates enthusiasm

(2) lacks patience

with students;

shows annoyance

usually remains patient

in dealings with students

displays patience

with students

(3) frequently mispro-

nounces words; re-

pests trite ex-

pressions

generally pronounces words

correctly; vocabulary is

adequate

has correct pronuncia-

tion; uses varied vo-

cabulary

(4) t ,:omen upset with

suggestions

usually seeks and utilizes

suggestions

invites suggestions and

implements them

,.

(5) pitches voice at

irritating level

keeps voice at pleasant

level most of the time

pitches voice at pleas-

ing level

2LESSON

PLANNING

GENERAL

(6) lacks detailed

planning; does

not organize

lesson; lesson

plans are in-

complete

does some detailed plan-

ning; tends to use general

outline rather than de-

tailed plans; organization

is usually adequate; les-

son plans are usually

complete

does detailed planning;

organizes content ef-

festively; lesson plans

are rarely incomplete

NOTT'4

See asterisk explanations on following

page.

See footnote explanations on following page.

Corre-

In-

lsction

dex

with

of

student Dis-

teach-

crim.3

ing

grade2

.63

.31

.52

.20

.43

.17

.53

.28

.56*

**.24

.70***

.31

1Nag 61 matching pairs

2 N- 122 graders

3 Upper Na 33;

Lower Nom 33

* *

0**

e

Explanations of Asterisks

significant items from regression analysis

predicting student teaching grade;

number indi-

cated step in analysis

statistically significant difference at .01

level of confidence when Fisher's Z cempated

between this value and that obtained by

item on 112 rating scale

ditto at .05 level of confidence

r6

No observation

reliab.

0

.64

.57

49

12

3

$

5Rating r/STG

D-(7)

6*

overlooks pre-

planning for time

organization and/

,

or makes unrealis-

tic estimate of

time needed for

each activity

establishes a time plan

for lesson but it is

not always satisfactory

adequately pre-plans

general timing of

lesson parts

2b

LESSON

PLANNING

OBJEC-

TIMES

(8) is not concerned

with objectives

or is concerned

with her objec-

tives and with

imposing them

on students

objectives are compre-

hensive but are not al-

ways important nor

stated in student be-

havioral terms

objectives are impor-

tent and comprehensive

and expressed in stu-

dent behavioral terms

2c

iERBRING

PREPARA-

TION OF

QUESTIONS

(9) does not plan

lead-in ques-

tions to lesson

plans questions to

involve students in

learning

plans well thought

through questions

to motivate student

discussion

2d

LESSON

PLANNING

LEARNING

MERL-

ENCEs

10 plans too many

experiences to

fit into period

or only one;

learning expel'.

ience often does

not develop con-

cept in depth

utilizes a few learn-

ing experiences; choice

of experience not always

appropriate

plans a variety of ex-

periences by which

learning can be

achieved

.72

.33

.69***

.28

.67***

.31

.67

.25

No observation

reliab.

0(11)

,42

.33

.30

.50

3a

USE OF 2*

MOTIVA-

TION/

INTEREST

APPROACH

1plans to have

students in-

volved in only

one activity

during class

or cannot move

students along

so that activ-

ity can be

changed

23

usually plans activi-

ties of varying nature to

change pace during class

period

5Rating r /STG

Drecognizes and plans

for a change of pace

during a class

.64

.30

(12) considers general

learning experi-

ences not details

plans activities

that have little

relationship to

each other

plans learning experi-

ences that usually in-

crease from the simple

to the complex and

broad

thoroughly plans each

learning experience

and each builds on

the former

13 constructs hap-

hazard evalua-

tion devices;

on paper and

pencil tests

uses "recall"

type items ex-

clusivea

does not provide

any motivation

at beginning of

period or at-

tempts at mo-

tivation fail;

does not gain

attention and

cooperation

of students

plans evaluative tech-

niques carefully but

some inadequacies

emerge

commonly utilizes an

interest approach which

tends to be ordinary;

occasionally exhibits

creative effort in mo-

tivation; has some

success motivating

students

.11M

a111

11iM

M

evaluation procedures

are carefully thought

through and measure

student growth ade-

quately

provides initial stim-

ulus that is creative

and pertinent to the

topic; captures stu-

dent attention and

interest

.69

.31

60

.25

.74

.31

No observation

relied).

0

.47

.50

.43

.39

24

Rating

SD

(15) threatens stu-

dents in an at-

tempt to moti.

vete them; does

not expect stu-

dent self moti-

vation

provides initial and occa-

sional stimuli thereafter

to motivate students; oc-

casionally allows students

to put their ideas into

action

provides continual st

,

uli during class to mo-

tivate students and =-

courage them to carry

through their own ideas

/13)Transensitive

to students'

needs

is aware of students'

moat obvious needs

is alert to students'

needs; gives incen.

tine to individual

pupils having diffi-

culty with the work

3b

STRUCTUR

ING OF

SUBJECT

MATTER

(17) presents skimpy

content; does

not develop gen-

eralizations or

attempts to de-

velop too many;

does not empha-

size important

points; super-

ficial develop-

ment of subject

usually presents adequate

content for period; does

not always develop gen-

eralizations to their

fullest

lesson is comprehen-

sive; focuses on a

few generalizations

which are developed

in depth

exhibits

exhibits concern

over subject

matter but not

whether students

understand it;

does not clarify

points

attempts largely by rep.

etition to explain con-

tent that students do

not comprehend

when content is not

understood, goes over

it again in a differ-

ent way; clarifies

statements

.70

.30

.61

.27

.68

.24

.69

.28

No obgem...vatiou

reliab.

0

.36

.35

.35

.148

14

Rat

7*

(19) does not inter- 'attempts

relatt parts of

lesson or lessons

to point out

relatedness or content

but this is sometimes

unclear

shows relationship ben

tween parts of lesson

and lessons

20 unconcerned about

familiarizing

herself with

subject about

which she knows

little

makes an attempt to searc.

out information to teach

unfamiliar subjects

conscientiously pre-

pares self to teach

unfamiliar material

by reading, visits,

observations

21 bluffs 'way

through ans-

vers to ques-

tions she does

not know; ig-

norez ques-

tions; changes

subject

admits lack of knowledge

but neglects to find

answer

admits lack of knowl-

edge when questioned

on a specific point

she does not know;

uses resources to

answer

I

3c

TECHNIQUES

AND

METHODS

(22) plans and/or

changes method

little or not

at all during

period or plans

too many activ-

ities ';oo fit

into period;

or cannot move

students along

so that activ-

ity can be

changed; indi-

vidual activ-

ities incon-

gruent v/re-

spect to

total

plans and utilizes a

few meaningful-learning

experiences during a

period;choice of exper-

fence not always the

best; provides differ-

enx"kinds of activi-

ties for change of

pace

plans and provides

varied, meaningful

activities to devel-

op principles pre-

seated; provides

change of pace

during period

r STG

D

.70

.28

.67

.23

.60

.66

.22

reliab.

.62

.62'

No observation

2(23) materials are

neither handy

nor arranged in

good order

has the minimum number of

materials on hand or pre-

pares them as they are

needed during class

has necessary and ap-

propriate materials

readily available

I3d

LICA-

PION

(24) does not at-

tempt to pro-

vide enough

prior infor-

mation or ex-

perience; stu-

dents are not

likely to

transfer ideas

and practices

to the home

occasionally provides

experiences in the class-

roam that can be

carried over

provides realistic

learning experiences

so that students can

actively transfer

learnings

[has lead, thought

provoking, suits-

ble to the lesson

questions ready

to ask

3e

UESTIONS

(25) sake vague

questions;

minor not

"meaty" ones;

does not

utilize lead-

inorSt:Iger

questions to

items of tact

students may

remember

utilizes some atimulat-

ing and some dull ques-

tions, some require more

teacher development

4STUDENT

INVOLVE-

MENT

(26) fails to plan

with students

or plan far

enough with

students;

does not in-

volve students

occasionally includes

uses teacher-pupil

students in planning

planning when

appropriate - most

advantageous to

student learning

r/STG

D

.66

.27

.681

*.2

8

.67

.28

.65*

**.29

No observation

reliab.

0

.54

.68

45

0

.35

12

35

Rating r STG

D------5710)

CLASSROOM

TIME

lesson too fast

moving and mater-

ial covered too

slow moving and

interest mini.:

paces lesson at ads-

quate rate of speed

has excellent sense

of pace or tempo in

the lesson

5b

STUDENT 1*

TEACHER

WORK

EN TOTO.

2;

requests less

or is unable to

assume full

teaching load

adequately assumes

the classes allocated

to her

fully assumes the

teaching load as-

signed to her; may

go beyond expected

assignment

t6

CLASS.

ROOM

CONTROL

(29) permits students

without work to

do Whatever they

like which usual-

disruits class

does not always have

assignments planned for

students without any

work

has assignments

ready for those

temporarily out of

work or not prepared

to do the assi:....ent

7CARE OF

THE

DEPART-

MEET

30 has not estab-

lished nor ac-

cepted a rou-

tine for care

of the depart-

ment; does not

allow suffi-

cient time for

clean -up at

the end of the

period; neglects

to check roam

and eqpipment

at the end of

the

- iod

accepts unquestioningly

pre-established routine

for care of the depart-

ment; tries to follow

plans but occasionally

forgets to reserve time

for clean-Ap and super-

vision of process

has established a rou-

tine for care of the

department; follow

plans; sets aside de-

finite amount of time

at end of period for

clean-up; checks roam

and equipment at end

of period

.69

.31

75**

.36

.58

.20

.54***

.22

No observation

re. liab.

0 a31

(32)

.53

.37

.149

.45

RAPPORT

WITH 3*

COOPERAT-

ING

TEACHER

8b

RAPPORT

WITH

STUDENTS

(331

1relies exces-

sively on CT as

cannot or will

not make own

decisions; or

ignores sug-

gestions of CT

students are

afraid to speak

out in class;

appears unap-

proachable

students seek ad

vice of CT as

they do not have

faith in the cor

rectness of stu-

dent teacher's

statements,

directions

23

thinks through some pro-

blems but tends to con-

sult CT occasionally

when capable of making

decisions herself

5littlea an;

Dconsults CT for advice

after considering pos-

sible solution to dif-

ficult or unusual pro-

blem; makes and abides

by decisions within

her jurisdiction

tries to engender in stu-

dents a feeling of her

approachability and her

interest in them

makes students feel at

ease with her; some

may even bring their

problems to her

students usually take her

word but occasionally

seek verification from

CT

students accept her

as a knowledgeable

teacher and follow

her suggestions

9A

CU

flR

ICU

-

ACTIVI.

TIES

(31e)is concerned ex-

clusively with

classroom activ-

ity or helps

others in the

school to a lim-

ited extent

recognizes some of the

extra curricular activ-

ities that need to be

done; offers and assists

with some of these;

participates sometimes

in community activities

and programs

realizes that there

are many tasks to be

done in a school out-

side the classroom and

willingly helps

whether it is her

specific responsibility

or not; exhibits inter-

est

in and takes part

in community activities

and programs

.68

.34

.64

.30

.65

.30

.47

.28

No observation

re_ liab.

0

10

.47

PROFES.

SIGNAL

ATTITUDE

13

Rat

(35) sometimes de-

grades the home

economics pro-

gram

does not "talk ups' the

home econamil:m program

to others; occasion-

ally speaks of the

program when others

bring up the topic

uses opportunities

to present the home

economics program

to others

r/STG,

.50

.23

1:XPERIKENTAL PART

No observation

c

u.in

wel

l"

EVALUA..

TION

(36) gives same test

for make..up pure-

p4ses; make up

test is either

too hard or too

easy in relation

to original;

omits make...up

tests

prepares a makeup test

not adequately different

from the original

constructs a different

but similar test for

students who have

been absent

M !R

EE

F ,N

/

CLASS-

ROOK

TINE

37

seems prepared

with nothing

else when plan-

ned activity

does not fill

class time

sometimes has another

activity ready when time

plans are exhausted be-

fore expected

can extend plans to

utilize class time

effectively if the

time plan is exe-

cuted before class

ends

RAPPORT

WITH

FACULTY

RAPPORT

WITH

PARENTS

:has trouble re-

lating well to

other faculty

members

interacts socially with

some of the faculty

is easily accepted

by the faculty as

one of them

39

igno es situa-

time wi_lre par-

ents are in at

tendance; ill, at

ease with par-

ents; unable to

communicate con

cerning student

-oblems

is hesitant about util-

icing opportunities to

meet parents out occa..

sionally does; attempts

-explanation of home

economics and student

problems

takes advantage of

opportunities to

meet with parents;

explains home

economics rind

problems students

might have

D .09

.32

.26

Your NameStudent Teacher's NameInstitution

COLLEGE SUPERVISOR AND COOPERATING TEACHER OPINIONNAIRE ABOUT THERATING SCALE

Please place an "X" in the appropriate blanks.

I The length of time required to

5, 39* 1.

47, 21 2.

23, 18 3.16, 3 4.

2, 0 5.

2, 1 6.

3, 0 T.

fill out this rating scale was10 minutes or less11-20 minutes21-30 minutes31-40 minutes41.50 minutes51 minutes - 1 hourmore than 1 hour

II Regarding the amount of time required to fill out the ins-trument, I

93, 74

5, 6

1. have no objection to the amountof time used.

2. feel that the scale is too timeconsuming.

III What was the reaction of this student teacher to filling outher scale? (Do not inquire, but student teacher may have madesome comments voluntarily.)

I don't knowAs far as I know she took it instride and completed it.She said that she won't goingto do it.

She was agreeable about helpingwith the research.She complained about the timeinvolved.

Other--please explain

16, 47 1.

38, 13 2.

Os 2 3.

27, 15 4.

1, 0 5.

9, 2 6.

IV What kind of instrument do you presently use for evaluating astudent teacher's performance?

0, 9 1. none48, 43 2. rating scale with descriptive

categories like this one22, 1 3. rating scale with descriptive

adjectives, like superior, good,poor

10, 3 4. check list18, 27 5. other--please specify

*first number indicates frequency of CT response to item; secondnumber indicates frequency of CS response

V If you use an instrument to evaluate your student teachers,how does it compare with this rating scale?Which instrument requires a shorter length of time to complete?

the one we are presently usingthis rating scaleboth require about the sameamount of time

VI

22, 11 1.

23, 25 2.

51, 35 3.

Which instrument is easier to use?26, 15 1. the one we are presently using

35, 28 this rating scale36, 28 3. both are equally easy to use

Which instrument

dent teacher?11,

53,34,

Which instrument17,45,

35,

provides a better basis for grading the stu-

6 1. the one we are presently using34 this rating scale29 both provide the same basis

is betterall things considered?8 the one we are presently using

33 this rating scale22 3. both are of the same quality

If this scale were available for your continued use, would youuse it?

67, 527, 6

24, 24

1. Yes2. No3. Perhapsplease state qualification

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THE RATING SCALE ON THEOTHER SIDE OF THIS SHEET.

********************If you were going to rate thin J,tudent teacher independently, whatnumber grade would you give her using the following scale: Pleasewrite that number on the line.

90-100 superior80-89 better than average70-79 average60-69 poor&-below 60 failure

simmaimesseitimmessNOTE: If you supervise raore tuna one student teacher, it is not

necessary to fill out the complete form for each one. Fillout the entire opinionnaire for the first student teacher andthe top of the sheet and items 1, 2, and 3 and the last itemregarding the grade for subsequent student teachers.

11.2

NameInstitution

STUDENT TEACHER OPINIONNAIRE ABOUT THE RATING SCALE

Please place an "X" in the appropriate blanks.

I The length of time required

III

to fill out this rating scale was10* 1. 10 minutes or less49 2. 11-20 minutes21 3. 21-30 minutes4 4. 31-40 minutes2 5. 41-50 minutes3 6. 51 minutes - 1 hour0 7. more than 1 hour

Regarding the amount of time required to fill out the instru-ment, I

87 1. have no objections to the amountof time used.

2 2. feel that the scale is to timeconsuming.

My feeling toward evaluating myself using this rating scalewas

positive because negative because

75 it gave me an objective 8basis for looking at myperformance

26 it seemed importantprofessionally

23 I could do it quitequickly

I hate to rate my-self on anything

2 it seemed unim-portant

2 it took so muchtime

IV Although your cooperating teacher and college supervisor didnot see the ratings you made on yourself, would you have beenwilling to rate yourself if they had locked at your selfevaluation?

87 Yes2 No

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO MAKE COMMENTS ABOUT THE RATING SCALE BELOW AND/ORON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS SHEET.

* number indicates frequency of ST response to item

I-1

INFORMATION DESIGNED TO ACCOMPANY RATING SCALE IN FUTURE USE

Development of the rating scales The items in this rating scaleWere based an 958 critical behaviors of student teachers reportedindependently by college supervisors, cooperating teachers, and

student teachers. The critical behaviors were then categorized andutilized in constructing a first rating scale which consisted of

112 unidimensional items. The instrument was used independentlyby the three groups at the conclusion of student teaching. Threehundred and ninety-nine usable scales were returned end analyzedstatistically. The major analysis sought to determine whichitems would significantly predict the student teaching grade; 35items emerged from this analysis. These items then constituted thesecond stage rating scale; and the instrument was administered to

a second sample. Two hundred and seventy-six rating scales werereturned. Cross validation was quite satisfactory; same of the

results of analysis of the 35 items scale arenas follows:

split-half reliability .96

inter-rater reliability (collegesupervisor and cooperatingteacher) .65

validity coefficient (multiplecorrelation of 35 items andadjusted student teaching grades[to control for institutionalvariation]) .78

ditto with student teaching gradeas given .73

correlation of summed scale scoreswith adjusted student teachinggrade .814

ditto with student teaching gradeas given .79

time to complete the insturaent:less than 20 minutes 64% of par-

ticipants

For further information on the instrument, see Gritzmacher,

Joan E. "Evaluation of Student Teaching in Rome Economics",Ph.D. Dissertation, Ithaca, New York: Cornell Univer;:ity,

1967.

J-1