Table Of ContentThe Pennsylvania State College
The Graduate School
Department of Education
A Study of Elementary Student Teachers* Evaluation of Their
Preparation for Teaching
A dissertation
by
Dorothy May Heagy
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 195>0
Approved:
-%Sf> C ^ L aJL tf). ____
Q 71 * Associate Professor of Education
Professor/of Educational Redearjbh
1 - 2
Head of the Department of Education
■Z X 1150
As sociate/Profe s s or of Education
ACKNO/JLEDGMBNTS
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to
the members of her dissertation committee who were generous
in their guidance and assistance:
Dr* Paul W* Bixby
Dr* Hugh M* Davison
Dr. George E. Murphy
Dr* Florence M* Taylor
Dean Marion R. Trabue
She is grateful also for the encouragement and co
operation of:
Mr* Anthony Amato
Mr. James E. Hawkins
Dr. Elva E. Kinney
Dr. S. Donald Melville
Mrs* Betty Reeher
Mr* Gilbert R. TIT* Selders
Finally, thanks are due to the many college officials
and to the students whose cooperation made this study
possible*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM................ ........... 1
The General Procedure................ 1*
Definition of Terms................................ 5
II SUMMARY OF RELATED LITERATURE...................... 7
Administrative and Supervisory Evaluation........... 7
Cooperative Evaluation ................... 9
First-Year Teachers' Criticism of Their
Preparation. .......... 10
Students* Evaluation of Their Preparation. 13
III PROCEDURES...........................................20
Selection of Subjects. ......................... 22
Construction of the Questionnaire. ......... 23
Administration of the Questionnaire............. 2h
IV ANALYSIS OF DATA.................................... 27
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............................ £0
Purpose...................................... 50
Procedure.............. 50
Findings ................................... 53
Limitations of the Study. ............ 55
C onclusions.................... 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... 57
APPENDIX A......................................... 60
Questionnaire...................... 61
APPENDIX B............. 63
Letters to College Officials...................... 6U
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENTS WHO REPLIED TO THE
QUESTIONNAIRE........................................ 28
II JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE OF CLASSWORK - 135 Students
■with Less Than One Semester of Student Teaching
Judge 2l* College Classwork Experiences.............. 30
H I JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE OF CLASSWORK - 135 Students
with Less Than One Semester of Student Teaching
Judge 10 Extra-Class Activities............ -....... 32
IV JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE OF CLASSWORK - 97 Students
with a Semester or More of Student Teaching Judge
2h College Classwork Experiences................. 33
V JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE OF EXTRA-CLASS ACTIVITIES -
97 Students with a Semester or More of Student
Teaching Judge 10 Extra-Class Activities........... 35
VI JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE OF CLASSWORK - 232 Students
Judge 2U College Classwork Experiences.............. 36
VII JUDGEMENTS OF VALUE OF EXTRA-CLASS ACTIVITIES -
232 Students Jtidge 10 Extra-Class Activities........ 38
VIII CLASSWORK EXPERIENCE ITEMS THAT SHOW THE GREATEST
SHIFT IN JUDGEMENT ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF
STUDENT TEACHING TIME.......... ., _.................. UO
IX EXTRA-CLASS ACTIVITIES THAT SHOW THE GREATEST
SHIFT IN JUDGEMENT ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF
STUDENT TEACHING TIME............. Ul
X ITEMS STRONGLY APPROVED BY STUDENTS.................. U2
XI CLASSWORK ITEMS FOR WHICH STUDENT OPINION IS
EVENLY DIVIDED.......................................
XII ITEMS FOR 17HICH STUDENTS INDICATE A NEED FOR
MORE COLLEGE PREPARATION............................. Uk
XIII EXTRA-CLASS ITEMS TO WHICH STUDENTS MOST OFTEN
RESPONDED AS UNCERTAIN............................... U8
Chapter I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The democratic approach to both theory and px*actice in elemen
tary schools today stresses pupil-teaeher planning and evaluating
of curricular experiences. The recent revision of the Pennsylvania
State Elementary Course of Study states; "Over-all planning by the
teacher includes time to plan and to evaluate results with the
children since this vd.ll enrich both the planning and the evaluating."
There may never be complete agreement among educators as to how much
of that cooperative planning is the responsibility of the teacher
and hew much is the responsibility of the children. There can be
no doubt, however, that establishing the habit of critical evalu
ation of the work that has been carried to completion is an impor
tant foundation in elementary education.
To train teachers who will be effective in a teaching situation
that embodies pupil-teacher planning and evaluating, it is essential
that these teachers—in—training be encouraged to share in planning
and evaluating the experiences that constitute their own pre-service
education. The Commission on Teacher education has recently made the
statements "A teacher whose own education has been mostly a matter
of passive acquiescence in programs and procedures predetermined by
his instructors is not likely easily and effectively to lead his own
pupils to share responsibility in the planning of their educational
2
experi ences 0"
The Elementary Course of Study, Bulletin 233-B, Department of
Public Instruction, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, p. I4I4.
2
Commission on Teacher Education, The Improvement of Teacher
Education, p8 96,
2
Few studies of the students' evaluation of their college cur
riculum have been reported. In the case of those studies that are
concerned with the education of teachers the majority have sought
the opinions of teachers already in service. G. D. McGrath, in
approving this procedure, writes, "It is adamant that we sample opin
ions of our recent graduates now teaching, . . * While again these
may not be regarded as ’facts', such opinions often divulge factual
weaknesses in our programs. A person can best diagnose weaknesses
3
of his training during his first three years of teaching." There
are even fewer recorded instances in which education students have
been asked while they are still on campus to evaluate their college
preparation for teaching. In this connection McGrath states:
We should obtain opinions of current trainees near the
end of the student teaching course. This technique may yield
as valid information as the sampling of recent graduates hav
ing one to three years of experience. Conferences with stu
dent teachers reveal that they have thought through their
program of training quite evaluatively and often have opinions
which will develop a consensus of feeling relative to strengths
and weaknesses of training.
Much helpful material has been gathered . . . through
the administration of anonymous questionnaires to students
near the end of the course in student teaching. Certain im
provements of the entire preservice program can be instituted
quickly when a decided trend of thought is indicated*
There is little justification of the unwillingness on the part
of curriculum builders to honor the opinions of the students them
selves. As the consumers of this education, they are in a position
to be objective about the value of the components of that education
for them. The way in which those opinions are used is important.
^ G. D. McGrath, "The Facts in Teacher Education," The School
Executive, 68:25, June, 19U9.
^ Loc. cit.
3
Appraisal should be a continuous process. It should include the
education faculty* the academic faculty, employers of teachers and
recent graduates as well as the students currently enrolled in
practice teaching.
In an attempt to answer the question, ''How should the experiences
of professional education for teachers be organized?” Margaret Lind
sey^ describes the experience of a college staff that was interested
in modifying the sequence of professional courses, Questionnaires
were sent to the senior class members of the institution, asking for
suggestions on the courses in the education department. Frequently
mentioned in the replies received were these criticisms: overlapping
and duplication in education courses, too much theory unrelated to
practice, and not enough concrete experience with children and schoolse
The conclusion reached by that faculty was that intelligent appraisal
of the professional courses certainly calls for revision in the
number, sequence, organization and content of the program. There
is a similar need in Pennsylvania,
In the reported studies of professional education for teachers
in Pennsylvania the evaluation has invariably been that of the pro
fessors of education or of the critic teachers of the students*
practice teaching experience. This study will attempt to secure
student evaluation of their preparation for teaching in teacher-edu-
cation institutions in Pennsylvania,
The present study is intended to be helpful in the more effective
organization of a curriculum for the education of elementary school
- —
Margaret Lindsey, ”What They*re Saying in Teacher Education -
Opinions of Important People,” Education, 70:lii0, November, 1?U9,
k
teachers. In planning it* the author feels that the dearth of studies
closely related to the topic of the present research indicates a need
for additional studies in the field.
The General Procedure
There is evidence of rather general agreement among students,
professors, employers of teachers and teachers themselves that the
student teaching experience is a valuable one. The present study,
therefore, limits it scope to the evaluation by the students of the
preparation for teaching that the college provided for them before
the student teaching experience,
A questionnaire consisting of a total of thirty-four items was
presented to students who were asked to judge each item in one of
three ways:
A, My college experience has been especially helpful in this
area,
B, This was required by the college, but it has not been of
value to me,
C, It would have been helpful to have this experience, but it
was not offered.
Each item described an activity of classroom living or an extra-class
activity. Item one, for example, was: "lesson planning techniques,"
The students were instructed to make their judgements with the stu
dent teaching experience as a basis for evaluation. The writer ad
ministered the questionnaire in person so that any misunderstandings
in the minds of the students could be cleared up at once, A copy
of the complete questionnaire may be found in Appendix A*
The students from ten of the twenty-eight institutions in
Pennsylvania that offer degrees in elementary education were contacted.
The representation included four universities, three teachers colleges
and three liberal arts colleges# Questionnaires were administered to
as many of the students as could be assembled who were doing student
teaching in the second semester or who had completed student teaching
in the first semester of the 191*9—50 school year# Students were
assured that their replies woxild be kept confidential. The only
identifying information they were requested to provide was the number
of weeks of student teaching they had completed at the time they
filled out the questionnaire#
Definition of Terms
Any words commonly used in educational writings are subject to
variations in meaning. In order to avoid misunderstanding the writer
has defined certain terms according to the meaning intended in this
investigation#
The term student teaching is construed to mean that period of the
student’s undergraduate training in education when he is placed in
an actual elementary school classroom and required to teach under ap
proved supervision* That supervision may be the responsibility of a
master teacher, a public school supervisor, the director of teacher
training from the student’s college or a combination of all three®
Student teaching credit may be earned in a campus laboratory school
or in a cooperating public school* The length of time spent in
student teaching may vary from less than a semester to more than a
year. The student may spend only an hour a day in student teaching
and carry college classwork concurrently, or his whole day may be
spent in the elementary classroom. The Pennsylvania state minimum
requirement of six semester hours of student teaching is based tpon
not less than ISO clock hours of actual teaching#
6
In the present stucfcr the term preparation for teaching is used
to incliide the experiences the student has in academic and professional
classwork as well a3 the extra-class activities he engages in* The
student teaching experience, then, is used as a basis for evaluating
the worth to the individual student of those pre—student teaching
activities*
