A problem analysis of the difficulties peculiar to student-teaching

264 Pages·013.053 MB·English

by  Devine, John Robert

A PROBLEM ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFICULTIES
PECULIAR TO STUDENT-TEACHING
A D issertatio n
Presented to
the Faculty o f the School of Education
The U niversity of Southern C alifornia
In P a rtia l F ulfillm ent
o f the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
hy
John Robert Devine
June 1950
UMI Number: DP25800
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP25800
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance
Committee and approved by all members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Education.
Date......
Dean
Guidance Committee
Cnairman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
chapter page
I . THE PROBLEM A® ITS SETTING...................... I
The problem 1
Im plioatlone o f the problem . . . . . . . 0
Underlying assum ptions. . . . • • • » • • 3
D elim itations • » • . • • • . . . . • . • 4
D efinition of terms . . . . . . . . . . . 5
O rganisation of the rep o rt. . . . . . . . 7
I I . BELATED LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Teacher education curriculum . . . . . . . 8
Problems of student ^teacher s. . . . . . . 14
Student-teacher problems and the
curriculum . • • » . » . • • • • • • . . 15
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
I I I . SELECTION OF METHODS AND PRELIMINARY
TRIALS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
S election of method fo r co llectio n
of d iffic u ltie s 18
D escriptive explanation of problem
co llectio n method ♦ * . . ♦ • • ♦ • • • El
Summary . • • . . . . . . • • • . • • • * 23
IF . ADAPTATION AND STANDARDISATION OF METHOD. . 04
Establishm ent of categories * * • • » » * 04
I ll
CHAPTER PAGE
Standardisation of categories ♦ ♦ ♦ • • * . 26
A dditional check on categories * . . ♦ . * 29
Summary...................... 31
¥• APPLICATION OF THE METHOD TO COLLECTION
OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
In stitu tio n s used in the study . . . . . . 33
C ollection of d iffic u ltie s * . . . ♦ . ♦ ♦ 34
Method used to evaluate d iffic u ltie s * ♦ • 33
S ta tistic a l method used to tre a t data • • • 38
Summary 41
VI. ANALYSIS OF DIFFICULTIES BY FREQUENCY
COUNT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s
submitted by student-taachers ................... 42
Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s
submitted by sp ecialists 48
Comparison of the frequency count of
student-teaehers and sp ecialists . • ♦ • 52
Im plications of frequency count 56
Summary 58
FIX. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF
DIFFICULTIES PECULIAR TO STUDENT-TEACHING • 60
C lassification of d iffic u ltie s ♦ 60
iv
GH&PTER PAGE
C heeR -list ratin g of d iffic u ltie s • * ♦ ♦ . * 61
A nalysis of ratin g s . ♦ . . . . * • • * . ♦ * 63
R esults of the an aly sis of the importance
of major areas of d ifficu lty * • • • • • * # 66
R esults of the analysis of the im portance
of individual d i f f i c u l t i e s ................................. ?0
Summary * * • • • • * * • * • • * * * * * » • IB?
¥111 • AN ANALYSIS OF THE DIFFICULTY OF PROBLEMS
PECULIAR TO STUDENT-TEACHING* • . ................... 130
A nalysis of d iffic u lty ratings* * * * * * * ♦ 130
R esults of the an aly sis of the d iffic u lty
of major problem areas* * • • « * • • • • * 138
R esults o f the analy sis of the d iffic u lty
of individual problems* . * . * .......................* 137
Summary • • * • * • » • * • * • • * • • • • • 193
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................* . 198
Statem ent of findings and conclusions * * * • 198
Recommendations • * * • • « • • » * • * * • * 806
Statem ent of lim itatio n s in
conclusions * * • * • • * • * * * • • * * * 80?
A pplication of conclusions * * * * * * * * * 808
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY * ............................................... . 210
APPENDIX A* Correspondence * • * ♦ * * • * • • 21?
V
CHAPTER PAGE
APPENDIX B* In stru ctio n s • 225
APPENDIX C. Ch.eek~li st ♦ 230
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I . Number of problems subm itted by prelim in­
ary groups at the U niversity of
Southern C alifornia 28
I I . In stitu tio n s th a t p artic ip ated in the
study 35
I I I . D istrib u tio n of student-teachers train in g
for elem entary and secondary teaching
who contributed d iffic u ltie s of stu d en t-
teaching. • 44
IF* Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s subm itted
by student-teachers . . » # . • • • # . . • 47
7 . Bank order of frequency of d iffic u ltie s as
mentioned by student-teachers . . . . . . . 49
F I. Frequency count of d iffic u ltie s subm itted
by sp e c ia lists. 51
¥11* Bank order of the frequency of d iffic u ltie s
as mentioned by sp e c ia lists « • . . . • • • 55
F ill. The three categories mentioned most fre ­
quently by student-teachers and by
sp e c ia lists + . 54
IX. The three categories mentioned le a st fre ­
quently by student-teachers and by
sp e c ia lists 55
v ii
ta b le page
X* Comparison of frequency counts of d iff­
ic u ltie s mentioned by student-teachers
and sp e c ia lists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
XI* Number of item s c la ssifie d under each
category. . . . . . . . . . • • • • » • * , 68
XII* Significance of differences between average
ratin g s of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists
as to the importance of problems under the
major categories * • • * • « * • • • • • • 67
XIII* Percentage of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists
who rated categories of student-teaching
d iffic u ltie s im portant • * • * * * • • » • 69
XIV* Significance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 1. • • • * * * * . . • • • • • * • 78
XV* S ignificance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 8. * . . * • • . • * . • • . * * • 75
XVI* Significance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 3* • • • • • • • • • • . . * • . • 73
v iii
TABLE PAGE
XVII* Significance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the im portance of problems under
category 4* * • * * • * • • ? • * * « * « * 81
XVIII* Significance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 5* * • » * * » • * * • « • • • * * 83
XIX* S ignificance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the im portance of problems under
category 6* .................... * • * * • • • • • • • 87
XX* S ignificance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 7 . * * , * . « . • • • • » • • « • 90
XXI* S ignificance o f differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 8* * * • * * * • • * * * # • * # * 98
XXII* Significance of differences between ratin g s
of student-teachers and sp e c ia lists as
to the importance of problems under
category 9* • * • • * * • • * * * • • * * * 101