Post on 18-Jan-2023
University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Amherst
ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst
Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014
1-1-1974
Educator's perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal Educator's perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal
cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship. cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship.
Richard Draffen Elliott University of Massachusetts Amherst
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Elliott, Richard Draffen, "Educator's perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship." (1974). Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014. 2943. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_1/2943
This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations 1896 - February 2014 by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.umass.edu.
EDUCATORS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
AN IDEAL COOPERATING TEACHER/STUDENT TEACHER
WORKING RELATIONSHIP
A Dissertation Presented
By
Richard Draffen Elliott
Submitted to the Graduate School of the
University of Massachusetts in paroicix
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree oi
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
197^October
Education
iiiEDUCATORS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF
AN IDEAL COOPERATING TEACHER/STUDENT TEACHER
WORKING RELATIONSHIP
A Dissertation
by
Richard Draffen Elliott
Approved as to style and content by:
Dr. Mary Quilling, Chairperson of Committee
Dr. R. Mason Bunker, Member
Dr. Harry Schumer, Member
Dwight Allen, Dean
School of Education
October 197^
IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. R. Mason
Bunker and Dr. Harry Schumer as members of my dissertation
committee for their challenging critiques and constructive
support throughout this labor. To Dr. Mary Quilling, my
committee chairperson, I want to extend my highest praise
and sincerest thanks. The patience and leadership she
provided were beyond description. I deem it a rare privilege
to have worked with her.
As with all the successes in my life, they would not
have happened without the boundless energy and constant
love of a family. To my wife, Eloise, I thank her for
making so many, many things possible and fun. To my
daughter, Karen, and my parents, I thank them for helping
me to discover life and myself. And to Edna and Gilbert
I want to express all our thanks for the years of help and
personal commitment. They know more about sharing and
helping than any people I have ever known.
Educators’ Perceptions of the Characteristics ofan Ideal Cooperating Teacher/Student Teacher
Working Relationship
(October 1974)
Richard Draffen Elliott, B.S in Education, State UniversitvCollege at Oneonta, New York
M.S. in Education, State University College at Oneonta,New York
Directed by: Dr. Mary R. Quilling
The purpose of this study was to investigate what
educators, including those preparing to teach, perceive as
characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship and how these perceptions
compare with characteristics of an ideal helping relation-
ship identified in other studies of the teacher/learner
relationship and studies of the therapist/client relationship.
A review of the literature in teacher education revealed
a real lack of direct attention in teacher education research
to the specific qualities of interpersonal relations that
teachers and teacher educators consider central to an ideal
working relationship during the professional field experience
in teacher training. In an effort to deal specifically with
the characteristics of this relationship the writings of
Maslow, Rogers, and Combs were reviewed to determine the ways
in which humanist psychologists perceived any ideal inter-
personal relationship. A 75 item Q-sort instrument developed
by Fiedler in 1950 to examine the ideal interpersonal
working relations of a therapist and a client was selected
and modified for use in the present study. The Q-sort,
divided into three subdimensions, addresses the inter-
personal qualities of communication, emotional distance, and
status relationship, areas considered central in the inter-
action of people. Fiedler's Q-sort instrument was adapted
in the 1960s for use in several studies in education. This
multiple application of a common data gathering device to
several interpersonal situations enabled this investigation
to compare perceptions of an ideal interpersonal relation-
ship in therapy, teaching, and teacher education.
Procedures
Data were collected by use of the Q-sort from 104 study
participants. These people were grouped according to their
prior experience in teacher education. The four groups were:
classroom teachers who had recently been cooperating teachers?
student teachers just completing their student teaching
semester? prestudent teachers just ready to enter fulltime
student teaching? and college undergraduates with no previous
teaching experience. The resultant Q-arrays were inter-
correlated to determine the degree of intragroup concordance
with respect to the commonality of perceptions. Participants'
Q_a.rrays were then pooled to determine each group s composite
perceptions and these group perceptions were intercorrelated
to determine the degree of intergroup agreement. Because
the study followed a data gathering procedure and used a
Q-sort instrument that had been previously designed and
used in similar studies in psychotherapy and education,
portions of the data from the present study were compared
to these earlier investigations.
Findings
The hypothesis that educators with varying quantities
of experience in teaching and involvement with teacher
education are able to recognize the characteristics of an
ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working relation-
ship was substantially suppprted by this study. Further,
the high correlation between the lay group and the educator
groups indicated that the characteristics of such a
relationship are well known to the public.
The actual statements selected by the groups as most
and least characteristic of an ideal relationship indicate
that in a cooperating teacher/student teacher dyad, the
cooperating teacher is expected to interact with the student
teacher on a peer level and to show respect for the new
teacher’s ideas and professional potentialities. The
cooperating teacher is expected to provide guidance and
direction in a warm and pleasant manner. The student
teacher wants first to clarify the limits of authority and
to receive assurance of support and encouragement when trying
on new behaviors. As a follow-through in providing secure
circumstances, the cooperating teacher is expected to enter
into dialogues that involve give and take on issues of
teaching and student teacher progress. Among all the qualities
of interpersonal relations from which to choose, partici-
pants in the study placed greatest emphasis on the concern
that the student teacher not be personally rejected.
The results of the study also tended to support the
belief that an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher
working relationship is simply a variation of good inter-
personal relations generally. Interstudy analysis of
composite Q-sort statements suggested that the commonalities
among group perceptions far outweigh the differences.
Recommendations
A useful next step for investigation would be to compare
perceptions of an ideal relationship with the actual con-
ditions that exist in the interpersonal relations of a par-
ticular program. The Q-sort procedures lend themselves well
to comparisons of this nature. Further, the baseline of
data established by this study needs to be enlarged. With
data from secondary teacher education programs, as well as
more from elementary programs, the Q-sort has potential as
a diagnostic tool for selecting and evaluating student
teaching participants in terms of their skill for creating
positive interpersonal relationships.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF TABLES
CHAPTER
I THE PROBLEM
Statement of the ProblemBackground of the Study ...Importance of the StudyQuestions of the Study ...Definition of TermsSummary
II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
IntroductionInterpersonal Relations Reflected
in Concerns of TeachersHumanists' Concern with
Interpersonal Relations .
Synthesizing the HumanistsConditions of a Helping Relationship
in Therapy and EducationConclusionHypotheses To Be TestedSummary
Ill RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
IntroductionDesign of the StudyThe Data Gathering InstrumentData Collection ProceduresStatistical Treatment of the DataSummary .
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction#
Examination of Intragroup Perceptions . . .
Examination of Intergroup Perceptions . . .
Examination of Interstudy Perceptions . . .
Summary *
Page
. 1
. 1
. 1
3. 18. 19. 21
. 22
. 22
. 24
. 31
. 44
. 48
. 58
. 60
. 63
. 65
. 65
. 65
. 71
. 76
. 77
. 84
. 86
. 86
. 87
. 104
. 113
. 126
X
CHAPTER Page
V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 128
Conclusions 129Interpersonal Skills Training Recommended
for Inclusion in Teacher EducationPrograms 134
Recommendations for Further Study 139
LIST OF REFERENCES 142
APPENDIX
A Fiedler Q-Sort Statements 148
B Fiedler's Composite Q-Sort Rankingsby Therapists 153
C CTIR Q-Sort Statements and Rankingsof Statements by Study Groups 157
D CTIR Q-Sort Practice Instrument 164
E CTIR Q-Sort Instrument 169
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1. Groups Participating in the Study . . . .
2. Q-Sort Dimensions and Subdimensions . . ,
3. Q-Sort Category Meanings,
4. Statistical Tests Used to TestHypotheses of the Study
5. Intercorrelations of CooperatingTeacher Q-Arrays
6. Intercorrelations of Intern Q-Arrays . . . . . 92
7. Intercorrelations of PreinternQ-Arrays
8. Intercorrelations of Lay GroupQ-Arrays . .
9. Summary Statistics Derived FromFour Group Intercorrelations
10. Communication Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the
11. Emotional Distance Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the
12. Status Relationship Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the
13. Correlations Between Composite Q-Sort
Rankings of Cooperating Teachers,Interns, Preinterns, and a Lay Group . ... 106
14. Correlations Between Composite Q-Sort
Rankings of Educator Groups and... 114
15. Emotional Distance Q-Sort Statements
Selected by Groups in the Present
Study and Fiedler's Therapists . . . .
Xii
TABLE Page
16. Status Relationship Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the PresentStudy and Fiedler's Therapists 117
17. Communication Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the PresentStudy and Fiedler's Therapists 118
18. Communication Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the PresentStudy and Studies of Teacher-Learner .... 121
19. Emotional Distance Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the PresentStudy and Studies of Teacher-Learner .... 122
20. Status Relationship Q-Sort StatementsSelected by Groups in the PresentStudy and Studies of Teacher-Learner .... 123
1
CHAPTER I
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the present study is to examine and
compare the perceptions of educators concerning the inter-
personal relations that characterize an ideal cooperating
teacher/student teacher working relationship. An additional
purpose is to compare data gathered in the present investi-
gation with earlier studies in psychotherapy and education
using a similar data gathering instrument, in an effort to
relate the characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/
student teacher working relationship with the large body of
literature concerning helping relationships in general. The
problem to be studied is
:
What do educators, including those preparing to teach,perceive as characteristics of an ideal cooperatingteacher/ student teacher working relationship and howdo these perceptions compare with characteristics of anideal helping relationship identified by a lay groupand in other studies of both the teacher/learner and
the therapist/client relationship?
Background of the Study
Recent estimates indicate that the marketplace is
oversupplied with certificated teachers. That this
situation might somehow discourage college students from
entering the profession would seem a reasonable conclusion.
2
The opposite, however, appears to be happening. In a
Gallup Poll ( "Teaching is First . . . 1974) students on
60 college campuses were asked, "What field or occupation
do you plan to enter when you complete your education?"
A full 23% responded, "Teaching." Projected to the entire
college population this means that nearly 1.5 million
college students plan to complete teacher training programs
by June 1977. Compared to the number of people presently
engaged in teaching, this means that the quantity of
certificated teachers will nearly double. While reasons for
this continuing appeal of teaching as a vocation are complex
the implications seem clear that teacher education programs
will continue to feel the pressure for providing relevant
academic programs and quality professional field experiences.
Within most teacher education programs student teaching
is widely accepted as the most important and intense
experience an aspiring teacher will face in his/her under-
graduate program. Its importance in the professional
training of teachers has increased over the years to begin
earlier, last longer, and effect greater experiential impact
on the student than ever before. While specific goals of
any teacher program vary somewhat, there is broad support
for Lindsey's (1971) description of a high quality student
teaching experience*
What is hoped for as the outcome of a teacher
education program is a teacher who finds satisfying
self-expression in his individual, personal style o
3
encounter with others in the teaching act. With sucha goal in mind, persons responsible for laboratoriesand the student’s experience in them allow a widelatitude for creativity, independence and differences
»/ in pace and style of learning. . . . Also, where focusin the laboratory is on inquiry rather than on imitation,the student is free to ask questions that are importantto him and to seek answers in ways consistent with hispersonal style [pp. 86-87],
Juxtaposing this "hoped for outcome" with the actual field
conditions offered in so many student teaching experiences
one is led to examine what is lacking between the quality
desired and the quality so far attained? Yee (1968), explor-
ing the interaction operating in the student teaching triad,
best summarized the reasons for this qualitative gap when he
stated
:
Little attention has been given to the identificationof factors that significantly determine the nature of
outcomes in student teaching. . . . Until much greaterknowledge is sought and found concerning what variablesreally matter and how they affect behavior, systematicimprovements in student teaching programs will be
unlikely[p. 96].
The need to learn more about factors critical to a
successful student teaching experience is widely recognized
by both supporters and critics of teacher education today.
Importance 0$ the Study
In the following pages a survey of education research
dealing with the interpersonal qualities of student teaching
is presented. Studies of cooperating teacher role behaviors,
qualities of modeling, and personality characteristics are
4
considered. Investigations of student teacher self concept,
anxiety, attitude, and perceptual changes during student
teaching are summarized. And finally, efforts to identify
most and least helpful field experiences in teacher
education are reviewed. The purpose of the survey is to
demonstrate that, while there has been extensive activity
investigating selected qualities of the field experience in
teacher education, very limited progress has been made in the
process of selecting better student teaching sites or
identifying helping and nonhelping behaviors of the cooperat-
ing teachers at these field locations. At the conclusion,
a proposal is made that a crucial variable in the field
experience of teachers in training is the quality of the
interpersonal relationship created between a cooperating
teacher and a student teacher. Finally, questions are
articulated that the present study has been designed to
explore.
Through the years much has been written about the
training of teachers in America, The debate has continued
undiminished about the appropriateness of programs for
educating both the scholars and the practitioners who will
be responsible for educating the nation's youth. Throughout
this controversy, however, one segment of teacher training
has survived and, indeed, generally expanded in scope and
impact. That segment is the professional field experience
in education, commonly referred to as student teaching,
5
practice teaching, or interning. In spite of the shift in
attitudes toward the overall professional education of
teachers, no one disputes the central place of student
teaching and the powerful influence this portion of the
program has on the development of teachers in training.
Support for it comes from students in statements such as
(Laughrey and Cromwell, 1970, p.42), . . the total
learning experience of student teaching has been the greatest
of my life. . . ." It is supported in the statements of
educators and professional education groups such as the
Association of Classroom Teachers (1970). Even critics of
teacher education find and voice support that is consistent
with Conant’s ( 1963 , p.142) view that "... the one
indisputably essential element in professional education is
practice teaching." j
Yet, in spite of the central role attributed to the
professional field experience in teacher training, relatively
little is known about the nature of the relationship that
occurs between a student teacher and a cooperating teacher,
during student teaching. Statements pointing out this lack
of information can be found in educational literature of the
last two decades. Michaelis (Encyclopedia of Educational
Research, i 960 ) concluded:
The general status of critical, evaluative research
on student teaching is poor. . . .Available published
literature is made up largely of articles based on
opinion, descriptions of practice, recommendations of
committees, surveys and related recommendations ,an
a few critical studies[p. 1473]
.
6
A dozen years later, Hohman (1972, p. 376 ) was still
lamenting the state of knowledge? "Very little is known at
present about how student teacher and cooperating teacher
interrelationships may affect the success or failure of the
student teaching experience."
Education researchers and professional education groups
have expended substantial quantities of time and energy in
the exploration and definition of selected qualities of the
student teaching experience. One idea that has attracted
broad support is that the cooperating teacher is a central
and influential factor in student teaching (Association of
Classroom Teachers, 1970). Silberman's (1970, p. 453)
investigation led him to conclude that the cooperating
teacher "... exerts considerably more influence on the
student teacher's style and approach than do his supervisor
or the education professors under whom he has studied."
Some researchers have extolled the quality of the
co-operating teacher as a tutor who holds a crucial place in
the growth of the student teacher. Corrigan (1967, p. 63 )
deplored the continued lack of knowledge". . . about the
nature of this individualized teaching of student teachers
and about the relationship which may exist between the
conference discussion and subsequent teaching behavior.
Heidelbach ( 1969 ) explored the verbal behavior of the
cooperating teacher and proposed a model for analyzing and
describing that tutorial behavior in the supervisory
conference
.
Educational writers, with little empirical evidence
available as a touchstone of support, have ascribed certain
role qualities to the cooperating teacher. One role often
imputed to the cooperating teacher is that of a senior
partner in a team relationship, (Tanruther, 1967 ? Bennie,
1972). Another role, probably the most widely mentioned
quality of all, is that of a model of teaching excellence to
be emulated by the student teacher. This modeling should
include the ability to demonstrate successful teaching
techniques and to exemplify attitudes and interests of a
leader in the profession. The role quality, which found
early expression in the writings of Stratemeyer and Lindsey
(1958) and Andrews (1964) has been labeled by Bennie ( 1966 )
as "essential" to the makeup of a good cooperating teacher.
Some writers, interested in establishing guidelines for
selecting and evaluating cooperating teachers, have identi-
fied behaviors necessary for effectiveness in guiding a
student teaching experience - again, more the result of
personal hunches and feelings than empirical evidence. These
behaviors can be found both woven through texts about
student teaching and organized as lists promoted oy individ-
uals and groups involved with student teaching programs
(Curtis and Andrews# 1954* Roth, 1961 1Edwards, 1966;
Association for Student Teaching, 1966).
8
Other writers, also concerned with the selection and
evaluation of cooperating teachers, but hesitant to engage
the issue of "effectiveness” of cooperating teachers, have
explored selected personality characteristics to test the
hypothesis that matching a cooperating teacher with a student
teachers can be improved by the identification of personality
qualities. Bell (1971) investigated selected cooperating
teacher and student teacher personality traits and found some
areas for matching opportunities. He concluded that student
teachers expressed high opinions of cooperating teachers who
were practical, conservative, and subdued. These student
teachers tended to be emotionally stable, humble, and shrewd.
Hohman (1972), on the other hand, concluded that personality
factors such as deference, order, succorance, and endurance
did not play a significant role in the evaluation of the
student teacher and it would not be practical to use these
factors as guides for matching a cooperating teacher with
a student teacher.
In addition to the interest in the cooperating teacher
as a key figure in the student teaching experience, educa-
tional researchers have contributed a plethora of studies on
self-concepts, anxieties, attitudes, and perceptions of
student teachers. Some studies (Lantz, 1964? Dumas, 1969)
have been concerned with the effect of the student teaching
experience on the individual’s self-concept, while others
(Garvey, 1970) have attempted, prior to the field experience,
9
to predict success in student teaching from the self-concept
scores. Some studies (Sorenson and Halpert, 1968) have
explored the intensity and duration of anxieties during
student teaching, while others have attempted to discern
change in student teachers' perceptions of teaching methods
and children during student teaching. And, finally, re-
searchers have investigated aspects of student teachers'
attitudinal changes and their causes. While Brim (
1
966
)
reports that student teaching was the "most effective in
changing attitudes. ..." Campbell (1968), using the
Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, found things less
clearcut. Peck and Tucker (1973) summarized their reading
of a large cluster of studies by stating:
by the end of student teaching, there are some almostuniversally reported decrements in attitude and inteaching behavior, as compared with the startingposition of the students prior to their fieldexperience[p. 967]
.
Another and still different approach to clarifying and
evaluating the student teaching experience has revolved
apound those who ask what experiences during student teaching
are most or least helpful. Data for these lists of experi-
ences are generated by questionnaire, interview, and
observation. McConnell (I960) and Lowther (1968) complied
lists of most and least helpful activities of cooperating
teachers as reported in student teachers' evaluations of
their cooperating teachers. Roth (1961), using a critical
incident technique, generated specific behaviors of the coop-
10
erating teacher's interaction with the student teacher.
These behaviors were grouped to create a list of effective
supervising teacher qualities. Garland, Williams, and
Corrigan ( 1968 ) compared student teachers’, cooperating
teachers’, and college supervisors* expectations for student
teacher experiences during the field experience. The
comparison was accomplished by culling from the literature
on student teaching a list of 76 experiences and asking
participants to attach their perceptions of importance to
each item.
After at least two decades of the foregoing kind of
ascription and investigation, educators are still arriving
at the same conclusions Steeves expressed in 1952:
Availability of the cooperating teacher and thewillingness to accept student teachers are, apparently,the only determining factors most frequently employedin selection [of cooperating teachers] [p.129].
Bosley made a similar statement in 1969 :
Even the most optimistic among us realize that . . .
we often settle for less than the best. Typically, awide range exists between the best and the worstlearning situations into which student teachers areplaced. The resultant loss in learning opportunity for •
at least some teachers cannot be lightly dismissed [p.120-
].
And Silberman concluded in 1970 that:
Perhaps the weakest link in the chain of practiceteaching, and the one that is most difficult to correct,
is the public school teacher in whose classroom the
student teacher does his practice teaching [p.458 j.
After all this effort, teacher educators still do not have
much empirical baseline data upon which to structure theory
11
or practice in a prospective teacher’s field experience.
The research is at best highly contradictory, and at worst
non-existent. Look, for example, at the work done to
identify variables on which to base the matching of
cooperating teachers with student teachers. Leslie (1971)
in his exploration for criteria that would be useful for a
matching procedure does an excellent job of summarizing the
literature that supports a matching process as a viable
idea. He concludes, however, in his own comparison of five
randomly established treatment groups of secondary student
teachers and cooperating teachers, ranging from no matching
treatment to matching on a long list of psychological and
demographic variables that
. . . it would seem that colleges of educationwould be ill advised for the present to spend greatamounts of time and effort in matching cooperatingteachers with student teachers [p. 308]*
Leslie further suggests that previous studies of cooperating
teacher/student teacher "compatibility" have generally been
the basis for supporting the process of matching, but that
personality and attitudinal compatibility does not necessarily
infer that the matching will be productive.
A second area of contradiction involves educator’s
concern for the cooperating teacher's ability to model
successful teaching skills. While teacher trainers nod in
agreement with the need for this quality, Hayes ( 1973 )
concluded that the beliefs student teachers bring to student
12
teaching have a greater impact on later beliefs than do the
external influences of the cooperating teacher. In 1971
Sepersen and Joyce explored student teacher styles as
related to the styles of their cooperating teachers. While
their conclusions support the influence of a cooperating
teacher as model, they inject a significant qualification.
It is their finding that
. . . the influence of the cooperating teacher wasfelt during the very early weeks of student teachingrather than being the result of a slow and cumulativeimpact[p, 15].
This qualification tends to shift concern for the impact
of the cooperating teacher to focus on the initial weeks
of student teaching.
And, of course, educators are all too well aware of the
discrepancies between what ought to be and what is the
reality of modeled teacher behaviors in many student
teaching situations. Silberman (1970) concluded:
All too often the classroom teacher affords anything
but a proper model of how to teach. The sheer number
of education students means that many, if not most will
be placed with teachers who are dull or harsh or
both[p.459].
In another and related area two decades of work failed
to establish precisely how a cooperating teacher should
perceive the student teacher in the teaching- learning
process. Lindsey (195^. P. 215) addressed this issue
and concluded that working with a student teacher was
college teaching. She insisted that a qualified cooperating
13
teacher must not only demonstrate superior classroom
teaching competencies, but also display "... deep under-
standing of and ability to apply what is known about college-
age youth and learning process to work with college students."
Thirteen years later, Kraft and Casey (Tanruther, in
Kraft and Casey, 1967 ) in assembling a book of readings about
student teaching, deemed it valid to include an article
which directly contradicts Lindsey’s argument. The article
concludes, "wise supervising teachers" know that the best
way to teach student teachers is to follow the same princi-
ples and conditions for learning as those used to teach
children. At about the same time, Clayton ( 1969 ) exploring
the influence of cooperating teachers on student teachers,
concluded that
Effective teaching and effective supervision requiredifferent skills. Out experience suggests thatsupervising teachers, though successful and perhapsoutstanding in the classroom, typically (a) lack skillin giving useful feedback to student teachers concerningtheir instructional behavior, (b) lack the kind ofconceptual understanding of the teaching- learningprocess necessary to help student teachers develop
' generalizations from exemplars of concepts, (c) tendto shape the student teachers’ instructional behaviorin their (the cooperating teachers') own mold[p,2].
It is with little wonder that in 1972 Max Cooley
suggested that
The behavioral role of the cooperating teacher. . .
as it relates to student teaching programs has never
been clearly defined. Writers have endlessly described
what it is the cooperating teacher does or what it is
he should to, and the descriptions run the gamut[p. 109]
.
14
The importance of the present study lies in its attempt
to move away from lists of role behaviors of cooperating
teachers and student teachers, the qualities of modeling,
personality characteristics, and identification of helpful
activities. The study addresses, instead, the quality of
human interaction that is implicit in the interpersonal
relations of a cooperating teacher and a student teacher
during the professional field experience of the latter. As
Sorenson and Halpert (1968) concluded:
Whether practice teaching turns out to be satisfyingor disappointing depends, it appears, on neither theparticular student traits nor the particular kind ofsetting but rather on the interaction between a studentteacher and the personnel in the school where he doeshis student teaching [p. 32 ].
Generally, however, teacher educators have been slow to
investigate or articulate the element of human interaction
in student teaching. They have preferred to focus on the
"professional", "modeling", "resourceful" behaviors cooper-
ating teachers should possess. The 1966 Association for
Student Teaching publication, The Supervising Teacher :
Recommended Standards for Selection and Function , is an
excellent and typical example of this point. Of 28 personal
and professional characteristics identified by the Associa-
tion, only three are concerned with the cooperating
teacher's competence in human relations. And these items
were dealt with in such general terms that an interested
15
cooperating teacher or student teaching program director
would be hard pressed to operationalize the qualities
prescribed (p. 3):
In human relations:
1. Demonstrates a respect for the worth and dignityof others, adults and children.
2. Demonstrates an understanding of factors involvedin personality development.
3. Possesses the skills and understanding for developingeffective team working relationships and can applythese strengths in working with colleagues andstudent teachers in interpreting theory and practice.
The net result is that in order to explore this quality
of interaction teacher educators need to look beyond the
research in teacher education. An area that appears fruitful
is that of the helping relationships as set forth in the
work of humanistic psychology in the clinic and in the
classroom.
In 1950 Fred Fiedler initiated a study to explore
"the differences of opinion as to what constitutes a
good therapeutic relationship. " Recognizing that there
was little disagreement among authorities in the field of
therapy concerning the crucial importance of a good
therapist/client relationship, Fiedler sought to determine
the degree to which therapists agreed on the characteristics
that are common to a good therapeutic relationship.
Using subjects representing several schools of thought
and years of experience in psychotherapy, Fiedler
hypothesized that
16
If there are any real differences in schools ofthought as to the therapeutic relationship whichthey attempt to achieve one will expect a" factoranalysis to yield as many factors as there are pointsof vievt. If, on the other hand , , , only one type ofrelationship is actually considered maximally effective,we will expect to find only one general factor amongtherapists of various schools [p. 239 ].
Fiedler further hypothesized that lay persons and
therapists of limited clinical experience "... would be
unable to describe the therapeutic relationship with any
degree of success as compared to experienced therapists."
Two consecutive investigations were undertaken, with
the second study confirming the results of the first study.
Fiedler found that only one general factor existed among the
diverse subjects and that, "naive subjects were well able
to describe the ideal therapeutic relationship" in the
same manner as the experts (p. 245 ).
From these findings Fiedler drew two important
conclusions. Since only one factor existed among the
subjects, the ideal therapeutic relationship could be
obtained by means of pooling individual subjects' ratings
into a composite "ideal." Second, since naive raters were
well able to describe a good therapeutic relationship, it
was possible to suggest that a good therapeutic realtion-
ship is very much like any good interpersonal relationship.
In the years that followed Fiedler's study his
investigatory procedures were applied to explorations in the
field of education, Soper and Combs (1962, p. 288 ) tested
the hypothesis "that good teachers will describe the teacher/
17
student relationship in very similar terms to the therapist's
description of the ideal therapeutic relationship. " A
correlation between their data and Fiedler's of .81 led
Soper and Combs to conclude that "no appreciable difference
was found between . . . our good teacher population and
Fiedlers' therapists." Reiterating Fiedler's conclusion,
Soper and Combs state their belief that there seem to be
common characteristics in good helping relationships wherever
they are found.
In subsequent years others continued to apply Fiedler's
research instrument and technique to the study of helping
relationships in education with essentially similar results.
A detailed discussion of these studies is presented in
Chapter II since their results are particularly relevant to
the present study. As these studies have produced additional
empirical evidence, support gathers for stating with
increasing confidence that the good helping relationship can
be described by a set of common characteristics, whether that
relationship is to be found in the home, the classroom, or in
the doctor's office.
In summary, teacher educators, with all of their
investigative and descriptive efforts, have been slow to
recognize the central role of interpersonal relations in
creating a positive student teaching experience. The
importance of the present study is its effort to articulate
the characteristics that constitute an ideal cooperating
18
teacher/student teacher interpersonal relationship. The
results of the study will offer teacher educators a new
perspective for defining and selecting student teaching
locations and for identifying helping and non-helping
behaviors of cooperating teachers. The greater generaliza-
bility that can be established about the human interaction
in this teacher training dyad, the greater will be the
opportunity for teacher education programs to establish
viable and constructive field experiences for teachers
in training.
Questions of the Study
In the present study four groups of people, three
groups with varying quantities of teaching experience and a
fourth group of non- educators, were described and compared
with respect to their separate and composite perceptions of
the characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship. First, questions were posed
regarding each of the group's perceptions separately.
How do cooperating teachers, interns, preinterns, andand lay people when examined as separate groups, perceivethe characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship?
What degree of agreement exists within each of the
groups concerning the characteristics of an idealcooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship?
A second set of questions required the comparison of the
various groups' perceptions:
19
Do educators with varying years of teaching experiencehold similar perceptions of the characteristics of anideal cooperating teacher/student teacher workingrelationship when they are compared as groups?
How doa lay group’s perceptions of the characteristicsof an. ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher workingrelationship compare to those of educators’ perceptions?
In an effort to test the strength of association between
perceptions of the nature of helping relationships found in
the present study with those in other areas, a final
question was posed:
Do groups of educators with varying years of teachingexperience describe the ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship in terms similarto descriptions of an ideal therapeutic relationshipfound in psychotherapy and descriptions of an idealteacher/learner relationship identified in education?
Definition of Terms
Cooperating Teacher
Student Teacher
or
Intern
Pre intern
One who teaches children or youth in apublic school classroom and also super-vises student teachers and other pro-fessional field experiences forteachers in training.
A college undergraduate - junior orsenior - spending nine or more consecu-tive weeks working fulltime in a schoolclassroom with a cooperating teacherand enrolled in a college/universityteacher training program. The termsstudent teacher and intern are inter-
changeable labels in this study.
A college undergraduate spending about
six hours per week in a school. class-
room, teaching children in a limited,
small group situation. This field
experience is completed in the semester
prior to the student teaching semester.
20
Lay Group A group of college undergraduateswhose members have had no previousinvolvement in teacher training andno formal teaching experience inpublic schools. Considered naiveraters since their perceptions of ahelping relationship were not theresult of any personal experience inteacher education.
Student Teaching The period of guided teaching duringwhich a college student in teachertraining takes increasing responsi-bility for the work with a givengroup of learners over a period ofweeks
.
Helping Relationship A relationship in which at least oneof the parties has the intent ofpromoting the growth, development,maturity, improved functioning, im-proved coping with life of the other.
Q Methodology A technique for ranking objects orstatements. It is a method of rank-ing attitudes or judgments and isparticularly effective when thenumber of items to be ranked is
large. The procedure is known as a
Q Sort, in which cards or slips ofpaper bearing statements or itemsare arranged in a series of pilesrepresenting an approximately normaldistribution.
CTIR Q-Sort The data gathering instrument used
in this study. The full name is the
Cooperating Teacher/intern Relation-
ship Q-Sort Instrument. It is anadaptation of the Fiedler instrumentused to study the characteristics of
a therapist/client relationship in
therapy.
21
Summary
In Chapter I an overview of a problem in the field
experience of teacher education has been presented. An
investigation of literature in teacher eduation revealed
that almost nothing has been done to enhance educator's
understanding of the interpersonal relations that occur in
the student teaching dyad. In the second chapter the
literature in teacher education and humanistic psychology
that addresses the characteristics of helpful interpersonal
relations will be reviewed. Earlier studies in therapy and
education that used data gathering procedures similar to
those followed in the present study are discussed in detail
in Chapter II. The research methodology of the study is
described in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains the results
and discussion of the study findings, and in Chapter V
the conclusions and recommendations for further research
are outlined.
22
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH
Introduction
Much has been done in the past two decades to explore
and define various roles and competencies of participants
in student teaching. Nonetheless, the quality of the actual
field experience is often much less than hoped for and much
less than needed to promote significant learning for the
teacher in training. In an effort to identify variables
that may be more central in improving the quality of the
student teaching experience, selected characteristics of the
human relations between a cooperating teacher and a student
teacher were explored in the present study. In essence, the
effort of the present study was to define an operational
construct of the ideal interpersonal relationship between a
cooperating teacher and a student teacher in the learning
environment of student teaching.
The literature review presented in this chapter is
organized in two parts. In the opening portion, the work of
four people is reviewed. First, the work of Frances Fuller
at the Research and Development Center for Teacher Education
at the University of Texas is examined. She has made
extensive investigations of the quality and intensity of
teacher concerns as expressed by both preservice and
inservice teachers. A result of Fuller’s work has been the
23
articulation of a hierarchical code of teacher concerns that
is being used in several teacher training programs in the
country.
Fuller’s conclusions about the maturation of teacher
concerns are in accordance with the principles of human
growth and motivation that are evolving from the field of
humanistic psychology. As a way of demonstrating these
similarities ,between research in teacher education and the
broad study of psychology of humankind, the work of three
humanistic psychologists is reviewed and synthesized. The
work of Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Arthur Combs, have
been selected for review because it reflects most clearly
the central principles of humanistic psychology and its
relationship to interpersonal relations in teacher education,
The first section of this chapter concludes with a synthesis
of the ideas of these four people as their work relates to
the present study.
The second portion of this chapter contains a review of
six studies in therapy and education. The common denomi-
nator of these studies is that each explored peoples’ percep-
tions of good interpersonal or helping relations through use
of the same methodology and a similar research instrument.
The second portion of the chapter closes with a synthesis of
those studies as they reflect the humanist’s construct of a
good helping relationship. The chapter concludes with a
presentation of the hypotheses that have been established to
24
evaluate the date gathered in the present investigation.
Interpersonal Relations Reflected in Concerns of Teachers
Within the student teaching experience there normally
exists a dyad of human interaction that surpasses in inten-
sity and importance any relationship the teacher in training
will encounter in the entire teacher preparation program.
For a period of time, often as long as one academic semester,
the student teacher interacts continuously with a classroom
teacher. The success or failure of that experience for the
teacher in training is largely dependent upon the quality of
the relationship established between the classroom teacher
and the student teacher.
When a classroom teacher accepts the role of cooperating
teacher, he/she is also accepting the primary responsibility
for establishing and maintaining a crucial interpersonal
relationship. It is a kind of relationship Carl Rogers
(1958, p. 6) described ", . . in which at least one of the
parties has the intent of promoting the growth, development,
maturity, improved functioning, improved coping with life of
the other." In other words, the cooperating teacher is
accepting responsibility for providing a kind of relationship
in which the student teacher has the opportunity and the
security to develop a personal teaching style that will bear
so heavily on his/her future as a teacher.
25
The work over the last decade of Frances Fuller and her
colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin generated
much useful data on student teaching and provided excellent
insights into the concerns of student teachers and their
developing relationship with a cooperating teacher. The
development of a Teacher Concerns Code that evolved from
Fuller’s work shall he dealt with at length here, because it
enables teacher educators to view with new perspective the
maturation of student teachers as individuals and the pro-
gress of the dyadic interaction between the student teacher
and the cooperating teacher.
Fuller's (1969) work evolved from an interest in
identifying the concerns of student teachers as they proceed-
ed through their field experience. The underlying assump-
tion for the work was that if commonalities in the interests
and concerns of beginning education students could be
discerned, then they might serve to guide the planning of
preservice courses and supervisory activities during student
teaching.
During each semester of 1963 a group of student teachers
met weekly with a counseling psychologist to discuss "any-
thing they wanted to talk about." These sessions were in
lieu of the usual student teaching seminar. All sessions of
the counseling were tape recorded, type-scripts were prepared
and analyzed to discern the type and duration of student
teacher concerns about their field experience. The result
26
of the pilot study was to generate a "concern-with-self/
concern-with-pupils" dichotomy of the data and an interest
in the further conceptualization of student teacher
concerns (Fuller, 1969 , pp. 210-213).
Accordingly, a second and larger study of student
teacher concerns was undertaken. At eleven regular inter-
vals during a field experience, student teachers were asked
to write, "What are you concerned about now?" (Fuller,
1969).
Responses were classified in three categories:(1) Where do I stand? How adequate am I? How doothers think I’m doing? (2) Problem behavior ofpupils. Class control. Why do they do that?(3) Are puoils learning? How does what I do effecttheir gain[p.2l4]?
When 29 student teachers' concerns were categorized by
this classification scheme, it was discovered that 22
student teachers expressed only concerns in the first
category, 6 student teachers expressed concerns in the first
and second categories, one student teacher expressed only
concerns in the second category, and no student teacher
expressed any concerns in the third category. In short,
student teachers throughout the entire student teaching
experience consistently expressed a primary concern for self
adequacy, with a secondary concern for class control.
Fuller concluded from this research that the original
concern-with-self/concern-with-pupils dichotomy was
supported
.
27
In 1968, in a third phase of research, Fuller applied
the three category scheme to other studies of concerns of
student teachers and beginning inservice teachers. Of six
studies done between 1932 and 1967, including two studies
conducted in England, all reported concern-with-self state-
ments and none reported statements of concern-with-pupils
.
Two other studies produced somewhat less definitive, but
consistent results. Statements in one study of the concerns
of first year Indiana teachers separated into 78$ concern-
with-self statements and 22$ concern-with-pupils statements.
The second study, that of first year Texas teachers,
dichotomized into 67$ concern-with-self statements and 33$
concern-with-pupils statements (Fuller, 1969* PP. 214-218).
The similarity of findings for such a large geographic area
during such a long time frame is significant.
To determine the duration of the dominance of teacher's
concern-with-self, Fuller reviewed two studies of superior,
experienced teachers' concerns - one in England and one in
the United States. In both studies experienced teachers
expressed significantly more concern-with- pupil statements
than they did concern-with-self statements. From this Fuller
was able to extend the time frame of the concerns scheme to
include "Early vs. Late Concerns."
From this research, Fuller and Case (1972) proposed a
three phase developmental conceptualization of teacher
concerns and in turn, structured a seven-point instrument for
28
use in further research (Fuller and Case, 1972).
Overview of Concerns Codes
I. Concerns about Self
Code 0. Non- teaching Concerns
Statement contains information or con-cerns which are unrelated to teaching.Codes 1 through 6 are always concernswith teaching. All other statements areCoded 0.
II. Concerns about Self as Teacher
Code 1. Where Do I Stand?
Concerns with orienting oneself to ateaching situation, i.e., psychological,social, and physical environment of theclassroom, school and/or community.Concerns about supervisors, cooperatingteachers, principal, parents. Concernsabout evaluation, rules, or administrativepolicy, i.e., concern about authorityfigures and/or acceptance by them.
Code 2. How Adequate Am I?
Concern about one's adequacy as a personand as a teacher. Concern about disci-pline and subject matter adequacy.
Code 3. How Do Pupils Feel About Me? What ArePupils Like?
Concern about personal, social, and emo-
tional relationships with pupils. Con-
cern about one's own feelings towardpupils and about pupils' feelings toward
the teacher.
III. Concern
Code 4.
about Pupils
Are Pupils Learning What I'm Teaching?
Concern about whether pupils are learning
material selected by the teacher. Con-
cern about teaching methods which help
pupils learn what is planned for them.
Concern about evaluating pupil learning.
29
Code 5. Are Pupils Learning What They Need?Concern about pupils’ learning what theyneed as persons. Concern about teachingmethods (and other factors) which in-fluence that kind of learning.
Code 6. How Can I Improve Myself As a Teacher?(And Improve All That Influences Pupils?)
Concern with anything and everything whichcan contribute to the development not onlyof the pupils in the class, but ofchildren generally. Concern with personaland professional development, ethics,educational issues, resources, communityproblems, and other events in or outsidethe classroom which influence pupil gain.*
[PP. 3-5]What Fuller was able to develop was a conceptual model
for investigation of a crucial dimension in the student
teaching experience of teacher education. Further, she
identified a hierarchical order within the items of the
model in such a fashion that it was possible to discern both
the stage of maturation of teacher concerns and the develop-
ment of interpersonal relations during the student teaching
experience
.
Fuller's investigations generated a number of consistent
and insightful conclusions. First, the content of education
courses prior to the student teaching experience deals with
1 Several teacher education programs are using this
Concerns Code to some degree in sequencing and personalizing
teacher training experiences. Indications of its use at the
University of Houston, the University of Alabama, the
University of Texas at Austin, and Kansas State Teachers
College are reported in: Roger Pankratz and John Williams,
"Selected Experiences and Ideas from the Rural Eastern
Kansas Teacher Corps Program," Presented at the New York
Conference on Competency Based Teacher Education, Syracuse,
New York, April 197^. 27pp.
30
topics such as curriculum planning, methods, individualizing
instruction, and pupil evaluation, that are not part of the
of student teachers are very similar to those of beginning
teachers. This similarity indicates that teacher concerns
probably change little during student teaching. While Fuller
felt her counseling seminar did show some concern change,
the data from other studies pointed toward no change. Third,
student teacher expressions of concern-with-self have both
an overt and a covert dimension. Overtly, student teachers
expressed concerns that could be subsumed under the question,
"How adequate am I as a person and as a teacher?” It is a
conern about discipline and about authority as a teacher.
Covertly, however, student teachers were asking, "Where do I
stand?" In counseling seminars, and among themselves, student
teachers tried to (Fuller, 1969)
estimate how much support will be forthcoming from theschool principal and supervisor ... s to build workingrelationships with school personnel; to determine thelimits of their acceptance as professional persons in halls,cafeterias, teachers' lounge and principal's office.
As a result, they seemed, overtly, to be concerned withteaching pupils and coping with the class. Covertlyhowever they were trying to discover the parameters of
the school situation. It seemed to us that teachers who
continued to be uncertain about these parameters were
'stuck. ' Their concern about where they stood might abate
even if they discovered that they were not wanted or
that they had little authority. What did get them 'stuck'
was continuing in a state of uncertainity[p. 20 ]
.
early concerns of student
31
Finally, experienced, superior teachers seemed to shift
concerns away from self and focus more on pupil gain and
success of their former students.
The total import of Fuller's hierarchical code is, it
would appear, at least two fold. First, the articulation of
levels of concerns provides a specificity for planning and
evaluating student teaching experiences that, heretofore,
has been unavailable to teacher educators. It would seem
advantageous to use the Teacher Concerns Code several times
during a field experience as a device to explore and
individualize the student teacher's learning environment.
The second part of the code's significance rests on the
compatibility it has with the Basic Needs construct developed
by Abraham H. Maslow. The similarity of segments of these
two hierarchical models shall be dealt with here at some
length since the theoretical propositions of Maslow’ s work
lend substantial credence to Fuller's data and proposed
field applications.
The Humanists' Concern With
Interpersonal Relations
Abraham H. Maslow, trained originally as a behavioral
osychologis t ,concluded early in his professional career
that certain "humanistic questions" he had formulated were
not addressed in any acceptable ways by the two most
32
comprehensive psychologies available at the time - behavior-
ism and Freudian psychoanalysis (Frick, 1971, p. 20). Some-
what as a reaction to the limitation of these schools of
psychology, Maslow became one of the central figures in the
development of humanistic or "third force" psychology. This
movement, in its maturation over the last four decades, has
come to be concerned with the capacities, potentialities, and
goals of human nature. As Hamachek (1971 ) pointed out:
The humanistic point of view does not see itself ascompetitive with the other two systems f rather itattempts to supplement their observations and tointroduce further perceptions and insights (jp. 46]
.
In the early 1960s, first as part of an ASCD Yearbook
(1962) and second in his own book, Maslow (1962) put forth a
series of basic propositions that, for him, represented the
essence of third force psychology. The original list was 38
items and later expended to 42 items. Listed below are
seven of those items that relate most specifically to the
work in the present study (Maslow, 1968)
- We have, each one of us, an essential inner naturewhich is instinctoid, intrinsic, given, ’natural,'
i.e. with an appreciable hereditary determinant,and which tends strongly to persist. . . .
- These are potentialities, not final actualizations.
Therefore they have a life history and must be seen
developmentally. They are actualized, shaped or
stifled mostly ... by extra- psychic determinants
(culture, family, environment, learning, etc.). . . .
- This inner core, even though it is biologically
based and ' instinctoid ,' is weak in certain senses
rather than strong. It is easily overcome, suppressed
33
or repressed. It may even be killed off permanently.• • . These are weak, subtle and delicate, veryeasily drowned out by learning, by cultural expect-ations, by fear, by disapproval, etc. . . .
- Each person's inner nature has some characteristicswhich all other selves have (species-wide) andsome which are unique to the person (idiosyncra-tic). . . .
- If this essential core (inner nature) of the personis frustrated, denied or suppressed, sickness results,sometimes in obvious forms, sometimes in subtle anddevious forms , sometimes immediately
, sometimes later.. . . The character disorders and disturbances arenow seen as far more important for the fate of theworld than the classical neuroses or even thepsychoses. From this new point of view, new kinds ofillness are most dangerous, e.g. 'the diminished orstunted person,' i.e. the loss of any of the definingcharacteristics of humanness, or personhood, thefailure to grow to one's potential, valuelessness,etc. . . «
- No psychological health is possible unless thisessential core of the person is fundamentally accept-ed, loved and respected by others and by himself. . . .
- Coordinate with this 'acceptance' of the self, offate, of one's call, is the conclusion that the mainpath to health and self-fulfillment for the masses is
via basic need gratification rather than via frustra-tion[pp. 190-199J.
Maslow articulated the idea of basic need gratification
in his conceptualization of A Theory of Human Motivation. It
was his feeling that while motivation theory was only part
of behavior theory and that cultural determination played
its role (Maslow, 1970
the only sound and fundamental basis on which any
classification of motivational life may be constructed
is that of the fundamental goals or needs, rather than
on any listing of drives in the ordinary sense of
instigation (the 'pulls' rather than the 'pushes )[p. J
•
In this light, Maslow offered a construct of basic
34
needs of humankind. The needs were hierarchically arranged
into five levels of priority or prepotency. The motivation
of human action is strongly dependent upon the level of need
at the time and the degree to which the person is able to
attain gratification for that need (Maslow, 1970).
- The Physiological Needs . . . the most prepotentof all needs, . . . the human being who is missingeverything in life in an extreme fashion, it is mostlikely that the major motivation would be thephysiological needs rather than any others ....
- The Safety Needs . . . security, stability; dependen-cy; protection; freedom from fear, from anxiety andchaos; need for structure, order, law. limits. . . .
The attempt to seek safety and stability in the worldare seen in the very common preference for familiarrather than unfamiliar things, or for the knownrather than the unknown.
- The Belongingness and Love Needs The hunger foraffectionate relations with people in general,namely, for a place in his group or family . . . .
- The Esteem Needs . . . classified into two subsidiarysets. There are, first, the desire for strength,for achievement, for adequacy, for mastery andcompetence, for confidence in the face of theworld .... Second . . . the desire for reputationor prestige (defining it as respect or esteem fromother people). . . .
The Need for Self-Actualization . . . refers to man's
desire for self-fulfillment, namely, to the tendency
for him to become actualized in what he is potential-
ly ... . The desire to become more and more what
one idiosyncratically is ... . At this level,
individual differences are greatest [pp. 35-46 J.
[t is the combination of this basic needs hierarchy and
people’s natural inner persistence to gratify needs that
Maslow believed encompassed the central principles in all
35
healthy human development. In other words, the distinction
between a sick and a healthy person can be seen as the
distinction between one whose basic need at any level is
being thwarted or fulfilled. While this is not meant to
imply that a prepotent need must be fulfilled completely
before a higher need can emerge, it does require that a
person’s freedom to speak, act, explore, express, and to
defend oneself not be pressured or threatened (Maslow,
1970, p. 47).
Maslow *s further development of the basic needs
construct attempted to delineate between "higher" and "lower"
needs as being psychologically and operationally different.
While in stressful or frustrating situations the prepotent
or lower needs are stronger, it is the "pursuit and grat-
ification of the higher needs that represent a general
healthward trend , a trend away from psychopathology (1970, p.99).
In summary, then, Maslow offered a theory of human
motivation that derived its impetus from a view of people
a§ desirous and capable of more than mere attainment of
homeostasis. He depicted individuals as having the potential
to grow and maintain physiological and psychological health
through a process of need gratification. As a person is able
to attain higher levels of need gratification he/she is
actualizing more of the uniqueness of self and is simultane-
ously becoming more healthful, interdependent, and productive.
36
While Maslow ' s construct was intended to have applica-
tion to the society at large, its compatibility with the
research of Fuller, which was reviewed earlier, is striking.
First, both Maslow' s basic needs model and Fuller's teacher
concerns model place strong emphasis on the momentum of the
individual toward growth, maturation, and health. In
Maslow 's scheme, people functioning at higher need levels
display a whole host of positive, personal characteristics
and potentialities. In Fuller’s scheme, teachers who
express phase III concerns are found to focus more on
student growth and self evaluation than on personal status
and evaluation by others. In essence, the correlation
between operating at higher need levels and being perceived
as a mature teacher or a mature person is very high.
Second, people functioning at lower levels in either
scheme tend to be more egocentric. Need for food and safety
in the Maslow hierarchy and concern for adequacy and knowl-
edge of conditions in the Fuller hierarchy, result in strong
self-centered behaviors. Further, these are considered
prepotent qualities in both instances. Until one can attain
gratification for these needs on the one hand, or alleviate
concerns for acceptance and support of others on the other
hand, there can be little expectation that the individual
will be able to respond to others in an accepting and
supportive manner.
A concomitant idea is that a healthward or maturation
37
movement within either schema is strongly related to the
individual’s increasing interpersonal proficiency. For
example, as a person’s concerns and needs turn away from
the self, there emerge qualities of friendliness and civic
consciousness identified by Maslow that are almost identical
to the qualities of concerns about students as individuals
and concern with community problems identified by Fuller.
Both writers speak, also, of the potential for getting
’stuck' or 'thwarted' at a particular level and not being
able to continue to move in a growth direction. Fuller
described the problem as concern for knowing where one
stands? what the real rules are? and what the supervising
teacher thinks.
Maslow (1970) characterized it this way:
The one concept that is important is neither conflictnor frustration but the essential pathogenic character-istic of both, namely, threat of thwarting or actualthwarting of the basic needs [p. 109 ]
And, finally, both schema place strong emphasis, if
individual growth is to occur, on the necessity for positive
outside conditions or support. As noted earlier, Maslow
identified outside conditions as required for gratification
of higher needs. The reaching out for belongingness, esteem,
and respect demand that positive and encouraging data be
fed back through interpersonal relations. Growth toward the
phase III concerns of Fuller’s model similarly requires
positive and encouraging feedback from teachers and students
33
to the student teacher about his/her personal and profession-
al adequacy and competence. While outside support is no
guarantee of a person’s continued growth, it is certain that
without encouraging feedback, little if any growth will
occur beyond the need for safety and a consuming concern for
self.
It is quite clear that what Maslow theorized about
human motivation and growth is paralled to Fuller's model of
teacher concerns. Fuller's investigations of concerns of
student teachers and the articulation of a Teacher Concerns
Code provide empirical support for Maslow 's theory.
Carl Rogers, another central figure in humanistic
psychology, has focused his research on conditions that
pfacilitate growth toward higher needs gratification.
Rogers has quite consistently through the years investigated
and articulated those characteristics of interpersonal
behavior that he felt, for his work in the clinic and in the
classroom, provided the best environment to enhance personal
growth. He shared with an audience in the early 1950s his
conversion to humanistic psychology this way (1961)*
2 Much of what Rogers has written over the years has
found its way into his two most oft quoted books: On
Becoming a Person, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1901):
Freedom to Learn, (Columbus, Ohio: C. E. Merrill Co.
,
1909).
For this reason much of what follows, while available in a
variety of journal articles over the years, has been
extracted from just these two excellent volumes.
39
"ay?f
?esoribinK the change which hastaken place in me is to say that in my early orofes-sional years I was asking the question, How can Itreat, or cure, or change this person? Now I wouldphrase the question in this way: How can I orovide arelationship which this person may use for his own
personal growth [p. 32 ]?
Rogers’ personal response to this question - and
throughout his writing he continually admonishes the reader
that he is only describing what works for himself - is one
that comes across essentially the same throughout his
writing, but is often rephrased. In 1954 in a talk at
Oberlin College he said (Rogers, 196l)«
I have found that the more that I can be genuinein the relationship, the more helpful it will be. . . .
The more accepting and liking I feel toward thisindividual ... a warm regard for him as a person ofunconditional self-worth . . . acceptance and regardfor his attitudes ... a relationship of warmth andsafety, and the safety of being liked and prized as aperson. ... a sensitive empathy with each of theclient's feelings and communication as they seem tohim at that moment. . . . When these conditions areachieved, I become a companion to my client, accompany-ing him in the frightening search for himself, which henow feels free to undertake [p. 33-3*0 •
And in 1969. when describing an interpersonal relationship
for facilitating learning, Rogers reiterated these ideas in
this list (1969 ) *
1. Realness in the facilitator of learning - congruence
2. Prizing, accepting trust attitude
3. Empathic understanding of the student’s reactionsfrom inside
4. A trust in the human organism and its potentialities[pp. 106-114]
From his earliest writings Rogers espoused the belief,
highly consistent with Maslow, that a growth tendency exists
40
within each person and that when proper conditions can be
created by a helper, an individual will move toward mature,
autonomous well being. The tendency toward growth is often
buried deep within the individual and "elaborate facades"
often tend to deny its very existence, but it can be
released under the right condition within a relatively short
time span.
The release of such growth tendencies means that the
individual can now move away from facades and toward real-
ness. The person is compelled less by what "ought to be"
and more by his/her own internal compass. This is true in
dealings with both the individual’s family and the culture's
expectations. A person begins to see goals toward which to
move and thus derives satisfaction from shaping his/her own
life. Growth is expressed in greater openness to experience
and to people. The openness enhances the acceptance of
others and a greater trust of self and ones own values. The
individual is, in essence, at a new state of becoming?
living at a high level of need gratification? secure and
open, accepted and loving, capable and respected (Rogers,
1961, pp. 167-176). In two words, so often used by Rogers,
the individual is moving toward a state of freedom and
congruence
.
Consistent with the humanists, but with a distinctly
educational point of view, the work of Arthur //. Combs and
his associates at the University of Florida have conducted
41
research related to the application of human relations ideas
to education and the training of people in the helping
professions. In their work, the Combs* group has sought to
learn the qualities needed in a professional worker if he/
she is to be successful in the process of helping to produce
adequate personalities. Stated another way: What is it
that distinguishes *good* helpers from ’poor* helpers in the
varied helping professions?
The series of investigations that have come to be known
as "The Florida Studies" (Combs, 1969 ) provided the research
base for Combs’ ideas about helping relationships. These
studies, carried out by both faculty and doctoral candidates
at the University of Florida, v/ere based on the perceptual
psychology premise (p. 11), ". . . that behavior is a
function of the perceptual field of the behaver at the
instant of action." A series of research designs was
generated to test about 20 hypotheses related to the internal
perceptual pattern of helpers in teaching, counseling,
nursing, and the ministry. The helping qualities identified
in good and poor helpers in the various professions differed
somewhat, but the investigations tended to produce a common
pattern of findings (Combs, 1969 )*
1 ( ( , . workers who tend to be people-oriented are
likely to be more effective. . . . Apparently,
effective helpers tend to see the persons they work
with in essentially positive ways as dependable,
friendly, and worthy people,
2, effective helpers appear to see themselves as
42
one with mankind, as sharing a common fate.
3. A . . . major characteristic of a good helper seemsto be the existence of an essentially positive viewof self.
4. Effective helpers apparently tend to see their tasksmore as freeing than controlling.
5. The concern of effective helpers with larger ratherthan smaller issues also seems to be consistent withthe freeing of people [pp. 72-74],
Using the results of the Florida studies, Combs and his
associates have elaborated upon the nature of the helping
relationships (Combs, Avila, and Purkey, 1971). These
results led, also, to a series of writings about teacher
education. Combs’ book ( 1965 ) entitled Th e Professional
Education of Teachers , was essentially a position paper for
the reorganization of teacher education. In 1957, a teacher
training program following Combs’ design was established at
the University of Florida. The result has been that Combs'
more recent writings (1974) are based more and more on the
findings of research in the new teacher education experience.
In 1972, Combs listed what he felt were seven basic
concepts for teacher education that evolved from the Florida
experiences and the work of one of his former students, Dr.
Richard Usher at the University of Northern Colorado (Combs,
1972)
:
1. The production of an effective teacher is a highly
personal matter ....
2. The production of an effective ^ teacher must be
regarded as a problem of becoming. . . . Teacher
.
education must be seen not as a process of teaching
43
how to teach but as a process of becoming, ofpersonal discovery.
3. The process of becoming must start from securityand acceptance.
4. Effective teacher education must concentrateits efforts upon meanings rather than behavior.
5. If sensitivity and empathy are prime characteristicsof effective helpers, and if behavior is the productof
.perception, teacher preparation programs must
shift their main concerns from objectivity tosubjectivity.
6. The dynamic importance of need in learning must befully exploited. . . . Field experience should bea time for discovering what the problems are, nota place to practice preconceived solutions.
7. If the self-concept is as important a determiner ofbehavior as research suggests, teacher educationmust actively apply what is known about it. . . .
Teacher education must produce teachers who seethemselves in positive waysjjpp. 286-290].
Combs' concepts for structuring teacher training
suggests that teacher education presents a dual challenge in
the helping professions. On the one hand, teacher educators
are helpers, and as such, they need to exhibit certain
perceptions and behaviors if teachers in training are to
develop a sense of personal adequacy and professional
effectiveness. On the other hand, teachers in training are
in the process of becoming helpers themselves. They, too,
need to begin exhibiting certain perceptions and behaviors
that are consistent with the characteristics of good helpers.
In other words, if the goal of a program is to produce
effective helpers, then the staff of that program needs to
exhibit effective helping behaviors themselves. Combs' new
44
edition of The Profe s sional Education of Teache rs has been
written to address exactly this dual challenge.
Synthesizing the Humanists
What is it that binds all these people and their ideas
together in the present study? It is, actually, a series or
progression of propositions that lends support to the idea
that it is possible to rethink the student teaching portion
of teacher education as an interpersonal relations experi-
ence. Through the incorporation of certain research in
teacher education with humanistic psychology, a new perspec-
tive is provided for defining and evaluating the interaction
of a cooperating teacher and a student teacher as a helping
relationship.
People need to reach a certain level of functioning,
need gratification, or adequacy to be considered operant in
an efficient, mature, and productive way. Fuller (1969* p.
221), in her studies of concerns of student teachers,
concluded that the ’good' teacher was one who had been able
to get beyond egocentric concerns and could be sensitive to
children and the community. Maslow (1970, pp. 97-110)
characterized the level of functioning as having gratified
the physiological, safety* and belongingness needs and,
therefore, able to live at the higher need levels. In his
view, this meant greater efficiency, richness of inner life,
and individuality. Rogers (1961, pp. 167-176) conceptualized
45
the reaching of a certain level of functioning as being that
self that one truly is. it is a quality of living without
facades, away from "oughts" of trying to please others. And,
finally, that level of functioning is what Combs (1971, pp.
13-14) depicted as a feeling of adequacy* a personal belief
the individual holds that he/she is able, wanted, and a person
of dignity and integrity. "People who feel inadequate can-
not afford the time and effort requried ta assist others as
long as they feel deprived themselves.
Second, the growth toward that level of functioning is,
essentially, an individual, personal process that is true of
people in general, said Maslow and Rogers. It is true also
in the development of adequate teachers, Combs et al.
(1974) concluded.
Research on competencies has been unable to isolate anycommon trait or practice of good teachers. But thisunanimous failure in itself demonstrates an importantfact: A good teacher is primarily a unique personality.
[pp. 5-6]
Much of the growth that is necessary to reach a level of
competent adequacy comes to a person through interaction with
other people and the data about self that the individual picks
up from these interactions . Maslow (1970, p.242) concluded,
. basic needs are mostly satisfiable only by other
human beings." Rogers (1969» p.126) said, "This kind of
learner develops best, so far as we now know, in a growth-
promoting, facilitative ,relationship with a person .
"
Combs (1962) was particularly concerned with this
46
process. He pointed out that people are essentially social
and that from this interaction, people receive all sorts of
data about self. The quality of those data teach people who
they are and what they are.
People develop feelings that they are liked, wanted,acceptable and able from having been liked, wanted,accepted and having been successful. One learns thathe is these things, not 'from being told so, but onlythrough ^the experience of being treated as though hewere so [p. 53].
&
Consistent with this, Fuller and Case (1972, pp. 13-20) point
out that student teachers' first concerns are with the data
about themselves as reflected by students, teachers and
administrators
.
Combs (1971, PP. 48-49) goes a bit further with his
concern for the data a person receives from interaction with
others. He believed that the individual tends to place extra
importance on what some special people say. For example,
the input of a loved one, the boss, or a respected teacher
can have much more impact on the individual than remarks by
a total stranger. This distinction of important people
Combs labeled as "significant others," and he pointed out
the importance of their behavior to the growth of self.
For most student teachers, the cooperating teacher is an
example of a significant other in the field experience of
student teaching.
That significant others, such as cooperating teachers,
do things in a helping relationship that are perceived to
47
be more or less helpful is recognized in a great deal of the
literature about the helping professions. Helping should
not be a haphazard process. The lists of appropriate help-
ing behaviors are extensive. For Maslow ( 1968 , pp. 57-59),
helping behaviors that create conditions of safety by
minimizing danger, where feelings of capability and self-
esteem exist, where needs for belongingness, love and respect
are gratified, these are the behaviors that make a positive
helping relationship. Rogers ( 1969 , pp. 106-112), in his
articulation of the helping behaviors, spoke of realness in
the facilitator, prizing, accepting, trust of the learner
and his feelings, and empathic understanding. For Combs et al.
(1974, pp. 39-40), " he atmosphere required for effective
discovery of personal meaning is the same as that needed for
the production of creativity, the expression of individuali-
ty." That list of qualities included providing choices,
encouraging cooperative interaction, creating feelings of
belonging, valuing openness, and trusting in people.
' Most importantly, what the significant other does is to
establish conditions in which the individual feels accepted,
feels willing to risk, shares feelings openly, and is
respected as a person of ability and worth. Rogers was able
to summarize it succinctly ( 1969 )*
We know . . . that the initiation of such learning
rests not upon the teaching skills of the leader, not
uoon his scholarly knowledge of the field, not upon,
his curricular planning, not upon his use of . audiovisualaids, not upon the programmed learning he utilizes, not
48
upon an abundance of books, though each of these mightat one time or another be utilized as an importantresource. No, the facilitation of significant learn-ing rests upon certain attitudinal qualities whichexist in the personal relationship between the facil-itator and the learner [pp. 1 05-106 _|.
Conditions of a Helping Relationship
in Therapy and Education
A conceptualization of the helping relationship as a
set of facilitating, interpersonal conditions was proposed
25 years ago by Fiedler in the field of psychotherapy.
The facilitative conditions Fiedler saw in the helping
relationship were cast along three dimensions:
open communication in which the participant’s feelingsand ideas are freely exchanged and respected
emotional closeness in which the participants feelrespect, caring and worthiness
status relationship in which the participants areregarded with equal worth, both personallyand professionally
As a result of this conceptualization, a series of investi-
gations were undertaken to explore the characteristics of an
ideal helper/helpee relationship in both psychotherapy and
teaching. The remainder of the chapter deals with the focus,
methodology, and conclusions of those investigations.
The initial investigation in this series was reported
by Fiedler at the University of Chicago. Fiedler's
(1950, pp. 239 - 240 ) study attempted to ascertain, ". . .if
there are any real differences in schools of psychotherapy
49
as to the relationship which they attempt to achieve during
therapeutic interaction with a client.” The study Fiedler
designed focused on identifying and correlating the percep-
tions of psychologists from various 'schools' of psycholog-
ical persuasion concerning the characteristics that are
central to a good therapeutic relationship. Fiedler
hypothesized that if differences in perceptions existed, a
factor analysis would yield as many factors as there were
points of view. Further, since some therapists contended
that the therapeutic relationship is unique and does not
exist outside the therapist's office, lay people and
inexperienced therapists, "... would be unable to describe
the therapeutic relationship with any degree of success as
compared to experienced therapists."
To test these hypotheses Fiedler used the Q-Technique
developed by William Stephenson ( 1953 ). In this technique
subjects are asked to arrange a series of qualitative state-
ments about an event in such a way that the resultant array
is a modified rank-order of all respondents perceptions
about that event. In the Fiedler study the respondents were
given 75 statements about the therapist/client relationship
with instructions to sort these into seven categories rang-
ing from their idea of the most ideal relationship at one
extreme and their idea of the least ideal relationship at
the other extreme. The correlations between pairs of indi-
vidual’s Q-sort lists would yield coefficients that could be
50
used to test the hypothesis.
Two similar investigations were carried out with the
second study confirming the results of the first study.
Fiedler found that only one general factor existed among
the diverse schools of psychology. Further, lay people and
inexperienced therapists could describe the ideal therapeu-
tic relationship about as well as the experts. Fiedler
(1950, pp. 239-245) drew several conclusions from his
investigation. Since only one general factor was found,
therapists were in essential agreement concerning the
qualities that characterized the ideal therapist/client
relationship. Second, he concluded that "the concept of a
good therapeutic relationship is not peculiar to
therapists, ..." It is possible to suggest from this that
the good therapeutic relationship is very much like any
good interpersonal relationship. Finally, the ratings of the
various pairs of psychologists were so highly correlated
that a pooled, composite "ideal" ranking of the perceptions
of the group adequately describe the opinions of the
individual psychologists.
What Fiedler had accomplished was, first, the conceptu-
alization of the therapist/client relationship as consisting
of three dimensions: communication, emotional distance, and
status relationship. These three dimensions were then
articulated along continua of quality in a series of 25
statements each. Application of the Q- technique to these
51
statements enabled Fiedler to compare individual perceptions
of the characteristics of a "most ideal" and "least ideal"
therapeutic relationship. And, finally, he was able to
offer insights into the composite perceptions of one half of
that therapeutic dyad.
In the early 1960s, Daniel Soper and Arthur Combs (ADI,
No. 7116) finding Fiedler's work relevant to their own
interests, applied his investigatory procedures to the study
of the characteristics of "good" teachers. They hypothesized
that good teachers would characterize the ideal teacher/
student relationship in very similar terms to the therapists’
description of the ideal therapeutic relationship. To
accomplish this Soper and Combs modified Fiedler’s Q-sort
instrument by substituting the words "teacher" for
"therapist" and "student" for "client" wherever each
occurred in the 75 original Q-sort statements. This modified
Q-sort was then administered to 41 "good" elementary and
secondary teachers at the laboratory school at the University
of Florida in the same manner that Fiedler had used with the
psychologists. Intragroup correlations were made as was an
intergroup correlation between the composite rankings of
Fiedler's psychologists and the Soper and Combs' "good"
teachers. All intragroup correlation coefficients exceeded
+.90, while the teachers' composite Q-sort correlated +.81
with the psychologists' composite Q-sort.
52
These data led Soper and Combs to conclude that "good"
teachers did describe the ideal teacher/student relationship
in very similar terms to the therapist’s description of the
ideal therapeutic relationship. They further concluded!
The results of the study seem to cast additional weightin the direction of a belief that there are commoncnarac teristics in good helping relationships whereverthey are found and whatever the techniques and rolesthat may be involved[p. 5]
.
Like Fiedler, Soper and Combs had provided insights
into the perceptions of the role of one half of the helper/
helpee dyad. They did not investigate the perceptions of
non- teachers concerning the teacher/student relationship.
Encouraged by what they felt were new insights for
distinguishing between "good" and "poor" teachers, Soper
and Combs conducted a second study (1963, pp. 64-68) using
the same methodology to investigate the hypothesis that
"good" and "poor" teachers would differ significantly in
their perceptions of the characteristics of the ideal
teacher/student relationship. Identifying 112 "good" and
"poor" teachers across the country, the Q-sort was
administered and correlation coefficients with the
psychologists composite Q-sort were determined. It was
found that both good and poor teachers were well able to
describe an ideal teacher/student relationship, and that
both were in essential agreement with the expert
psychologists. "... the nature of good helping relation-
53
ships is generally recognized by everyone,” they concluded.
Teachers and therapsits did differ slightly, however, amongthe most ideal items; ’’Teachers show more concern for
guidance and direction, while the therapists emphasize the
importance of empathy and 'being with' their clients.”
While this study strengthened earlier conclusions about the
qualities of the helping relationships, it did not
distinguish "good” teachers from "poor teachers. Soper and
Combs do not appear to have pursued this line of investiga-
tion any further.
Others did, however, and in 1964 Tyler at UCLA, without
citing the Soper and Combs studies, reported that she had
replicated the Fiedler procedures in a study of the teacher/
student relationship. She reported a significant agreement
among subjects about the nature of the ideal teacher/
student relationship and a great similarity between the
ideal teacher/student and the ideal therapeutic relationship.
Tyler, like Fiedler, included one lay person in the study
and found that this person could describe the ideal teacher/
student relationship about as well as experienced teachers
could.
Tyler's findings were highly compatible with the
earlier investigations of Fiedler and they would also
have correlated positively with the Soper and Combs'
findings, had she been aware of their work. On close
inspection, however, her research report revealed that
54
Tyler modified Fiedler’s Q-sort statements beyond merely
substituting "teacher" for "therapist" and "student" for
"client." In at least 18 statements Tyler also substituted
the word "ideas" for "feelings." This is a substantial
meaning change. For example, one of Fiedler's original
statements read (1950):
The Therapist's tone of voice conveys the completeability to share the patient’s feelings [p.243].
In Tyler's study this statement became (1964):
The teacher's manner conveys the ability to acceptcontroversial ideas [p.ll4J,
In other instances words were added or altered almost beyond
recognition. As a result, although Tyler claims to have
replicated Fiedler's findings, her modifications of the
instrument were such that her study can not be viewed as
part of the sequence of studies applying the Fiedler
investigatory procedures.
In 1965, in a study of college teaching, Reitz, Very,
and Guthrie raised the question
„ whether universtiy teachers of varying content areas
and different lengths of teaching experience will describe
the ideal teaching relationship differently (j?.1052 j.
In this study two "good" teachers from each of the faculties
of six different colleges within the Pennsylvania State
University, and 12 "novice" graduate teaching assistants from
the same colleges participated. With the Fiedler Q-sort
modified as Soper and Combs had described, the 24 subjects'
Q-sorts were obtained and correlation coefficients determined.
55
The findings indicate that experienced college
teachers, regardless of content area taught, agree more with
each other and the therapists about the ideal helping
relationship than they do with inexperienced teachers in
their same content areas. The correlation of the composite
rankings of inexperienced teachers with each group, however,
exceeded +.60. Like the earlier studies, this investigation
added strength to conclusions about the perceptions of the
helper in a helping relationship dyad. The study did not
investigate the lay person's perception of the ideal college
teacher/student relationship.
The most recent study to have adapted the Fiedler
methodology was conducted by R. C. Bradley in 1966 at North
Texas State University. Bradley's study explored the
interpersonal relationship between a cooperating teacher and
a student teacher. That investigation’s findings are highly
pertinent to the present study. However, several important
qualifications must be noted.
x The author sought: ( 1 ) to identify those factorscharacteristic of any good inter-personal relationshipbetween the cooperating teacher and his assignedstudent teacher; (2) to determine if cooperatingteachers agree that factors identified are in factwhat should be; and (3) to find whether or not studentteachers are cognizant of an ideal relationship [p. 50 ].
In carrying out the study, Bradley first asked 60
supervisors of student teachers to complete the Q-sort.
Next, 20 cooperating teachers, classified as "outstanding"
cooperating teachers and 20 student teachers also completed
56
the Q-sort. The results showed that the correlations
between pairs of supervisors of student teachers ranged
between . 6l to .93. Bradley reported no intergroup
correlations for cooperating teachers or student teachers.
His only conclusion in this area was (p. 93), "The
responses coming from cooperating teachers and student
teachers were also supportive of the college raters". It
would appear that Bradley was primarily interested in the
ratings of the college supervisors rather than the agree-
ment of cooperating teachers.
What made Bradley's study important was that of all the
research here, his was the only study that sought to
identify the perceptions of the helpee in the interpersonal
dyad. No other study addressed both sides of the relation-
ship. Unfortunately, Bradley's report did not provide data on
the perceptions of the student teachers tested, and so the
research still lacked that specific perspective of the
helping relationship.
The major qualification, however, of the Bradley study
related to the Q-sort instrument. Bradley used the Q-tech-
nique and some statements from the Fiedler study, but he
also added statements from the Tyler study and from
periodical literature on student teaching. As a result his
Q-sort contained 110 statements that characterized not the
three interpersonal dimensions, but seven dimensions. It is
the feeling of this writer that the inclusion of additional
57
dimensions extended the scope of the study beyond an
investigation of the interpersonal relationship. For
example, two statements that were ranked high by supervisors
of student teachers were t
The cooperating teacher actively encourages the pupilsto respond to the student teacher as a person ofauthority.
The cooperating teacher sometimes leaves the classroomso that the student teacher has opportunity to teachon his own [p. 93J .
Neither of these statements describe specific inter-
action between the cooperating teacher and the student
teacher. They describe, rather, a non-interaction.
As a result of these differences, only one statement
selected by the supervisors of student teachers as
characteristic of an ideal cooperating teacher/student
teacher relationship fell within the three dimensions of
interpersonal relations articulated in the Fiedler study.
At the least characteristic end of an ideal relationship,
all six of the most often selected statements fell within
the three original Fiedler dimensions. If any comparison of
this study is possible with the others reported here, it
might be that there is strong agreement about what an inter-
personal relationship should not be li^ke. As with the other
studies, Bradley’s groups most strongly rejected helper
behavior that exhibits a feeling of superiority, is threat-
ening and hostile, and rejects the personal feelings of the
helpee. Beyond this comparison, however, Bradley's study,
58
like the Tyler study, made alterations that were too
extensive to permit close statistical comparison with the
work of Fiedler; Soper and Combs; and Reitz, Very, and
Guthrie
.
Conclusion
The literature examined here provides two central
themes to support the present study, As reviewed in Chapter
I, within the broad perspective of literature about the
field experience in the professional education of teachers,
almost nothing of a specific nature has been done to
articulate the characteristics of a good cooperating
teacher/student teacher interpersonal relationship. This
lack of investigation has perpetuated hunches, "gut
feelings," and professional longevity as the primary
determinants for selecting and evaluating the quality of
student teaching locations and personnel.
The field experience in teacher education is universal-
ly accepted as the single greatest influence on the
professional growth of a teacher in training. Because the
quality of this experience is so vital, new perspectives
must be brought to bear on decisions about student teaching
sites and staff identification. A perspective that appears
useful, but so far largely neglected by teacher educators is
that of humanistic psychology. This movement, with its focus
59
on human motivations and capacities, offers an approach to
understanding human interaction known as the helping
relationships. Primarily, through the work of Maslow,
Rogers, and Combs, it is possible to organize a construct of
interpersonal actions that reaches the heart of the coopera-
ting teacher/student teacher dyad in teacher education.
That construct has been very concisely articulated in
the work originated by Fred Fiedler in 1950 in his investi-
gations of the characteristics of good and poor interpersonal
relationships in clinical therapy. Fiedler's investigations
explored the qualities of open communication, emotional
closeness, and status relationships that should exist
between therapist and client as perceived by therapists in
that clinical dyad. His conceptualization of the helping
relationship, as promoted by the humanistic psychologies,
was so well captured in the Q-sort instrument Fiedler
developed, that several explorations of helping relationships
in educational settings were undertaken. The results of
these studies have provided strong support for the ideas
that j
- The qualities of good and poor helping relationshipsare identifiable
- A good helping relationship has a fairly common set
of characteristics whether it takes place in the
doctor's office, the classroom, or the home
- Helpers know the characteristics of a good halpingrelationship whether or not they can implement them
60
noteworthy that these studies generally ignore the
perceptions of the helpee. Except for the Bradley study,
no investigator surveyed both sides of the dyad to identify
or compare variations of perceptions of helping behaviors.
Hypotheses to be Tested
The hypotheses tested in the present study were
clustered in three areas of investigation* a) intragroup
concordance or agreement? b) intergroup correlation?
c) interstudy correlation of groups in the present study
with the Fiedler study in psychotherapy, and the interstudy
comparison of groups in the present study with two other
studies of the teacher/learner relationship in education.
The test of Hypotheses I through IV involved the
examination of intragroup concordance in the present study.
Since the wording of these hypotheses is identical except
for the change in group referent, only the first hypothesis
and its alternative are stated in full here. Below the first
hypothesis are the group referents to be substituted in
Hypotheses II, III, and IV.
Hypothesis I
H * There is no concordance, W, among cooperating° teachers in their rankings of 75 statements
in the CTIR Q-Sort.
H t There is concordance, W, among cooperatinga teachers in their ranking of 75 statements
in the CTIR Q-Sort.
61
Hypothesis II : interns
Hypo the s is Ills pre interns
Hypothesis IV : lay group
Ihe examination of intergroup correlations represented
the second focus of the present study. This cluster includes
Hypotheses V through X. Again, since the wording of
these hypotheses is identical except for the change in group
referents, only Hypothesis V and its alternative are stated
in full here. Below the fifth hypothesis are the group
referents to be substituted in Hypotheses VI, VII, VIII,
IX , and X
.
Hypothesis V
Hq
s The correlation between the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the CTIR Q-Sortby cooperating teachers and interns is equal toor less than . 60 .
H : The correlation between the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the CTIR Q-Sort bycooperating teachers and interns is greaterthan ,6o.
Hypothesis VI: cooperating teachers and preinterns
Hypothesis VII: cooperating teachers and the lay group*
Hypothesis VIII: interns and preinterns
Hypothesis IX: interns and the lay group
Hypothesis X: pre interns and the lay group
The comparison of perceptions of educators in the
present study with the perceptions of psychotherapists and
educators sampled in earlier studies represented the third
focus on this study. This segment of the study had two
62
parts. First, the composite rankings of the three educator
groups in the present study were correlated with the
composite rankings obtained in Fiedler’s study of therapists.
The hypotheses for these correlations are XI through XIII.
Once more, since these hypotheses are all worded identically,
except for the change in group referent, only Hypothesis XI
and its alternative are stated in full here. Below
Hypothesis XI are the groups referents to be substituted in
Hypotheses XII and XIII.
Hypothesis XI
HQ
t The correlation between the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the CTIR Q-Sort bycooperating teachers and the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the Fiedler Q-Sortby therapists is equal to or less than . 60 .
Ha
: The correlation between the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the CTIR Q-Sortby cooperating teachers and the compositerankings assigned to 75 statements in the FiedlerQ-Sort by therapists is greater than .60.
Hypothesis XII: interns
Hypothesis XIII: preinterns
The second portion of this third segment of the study
required a comparison of groups in this study with other
studies in education that employed Fiedler’s Q-sort instru-
ment to examine characteristics of the teacher/learner
relationship. Specifically, comparisons were made between
the educator groups in the present study and groups examined
in the study made by Soper and Combs (ADI, No. 7116) of
63
elementary and secondary teachers, and the study of college
teachers made by Reitz, Very, and Guthrie (1965).
The reports of findings from these other studies did
not include the complete composite rankings of Q-sort
statements that were available in the Fiedler report. In
both instances only the eight "most ideal" and the eight
"least ideal" characteristics were reported for each group.
Therefore, the final comparison, rather than being articulat-
ed as a testable hypothesis, involved the examination of
rankings for the extreme sixteen statements of each group
with respect to the following questions:
- Do educators from different teaching experiences holdsimilar perceptions of the characteristics of anideal teacher/learner working relationship in theirrespective learning environments?
- What are the characteristics considered most and
least ideal of such a relationship as perceived byeducators from diverse teaching backgrounds?
The descriptive statistics, tests of hypotheses, and
interstudy comparisons of characteristics provided the data
for the conclusions and recommendations of the present study.
Summary
The work reviewed in this chapter provides the concep-
tual and methodological basis for the investigation
undertaken here. Specifically, the methodology of the
earlier studies is applicable to the exploration of the
64
interpersonal relationship of a cooperating teacher and
a student teacher. Empirical data about this relationship
will provide a basis for selecting staff and evaluating
conditions of field experiences in teacher education.
65
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The primary purposes of the present study were to
obtain data relating to educators' perceptions of the
ideal characteristics of a cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship and to compare those data with
earlier studies in psychotherapy and education that employed
an essentially parallel data gathering instrument. In the
present chapter the subjects studied, the development and
modification of the data gathering instrument, the data
collection procedures, and the statistical treatment of the
data are described.
Design of the Study
Four groups were chosen for participation in the present
study to represent a continuum of both teaching experience
apd involvement with a teacher education program. The first
group of participants, considered the professional group,
were certificated elementary teachers who served also as
cooperating teachers for a university teacher education
program. The second and third groups were considered pre-
professionals and consisted of university undergraduates
majoring in elementary education. These groups were
referred to as the intern and preintern groups. The
66
fourth group, a lay group, was made up of nonprofessionals
and was selected for its lack of formal teaching experience.
To insure that participants* perceptions of a cooperating
teacher/student teacher relationship were based on recent
personal involvement, the individuals, except for the non-
professionals, were required to have participated in some
segment of a teacher training program during the fall of
1973. Because the completion of the data gathering process
consumed more than one hour of time for each participant,
subjects were used who could complete the process in groups
with other subjects. This criterion was necessary because
of the time constraints of the study and the desire to
create a group support environment, considered to be more
conducive to the task than an individual, isolated
environment.
The present study focused upon an exploration of
cooperating teacher and student teacher interaction, and
the underlying assumption was that this relationship is
similar regardless of the grade levels of the children
being taught. Two studies reported earlier by Soper and
Combs and by Reitz, Very, and Guthrie dealt with learners
in elementary and secondary classes and college classes
respectively. An examination of the findings across these
studies showed no differences that can be attributed to the
age differences of the learners. Therefore, the grade level
taught by the participants involved in the study was not
67
considered to be a relevant variable.
The professional and preprofessional groups in the
present study were part of the Amherst Elementary Teacher
Education Program in the School of Education at the
University of Massachusetts. This program is a multi-
phase professional development sequence carried out
cooperatively with the Amherst, Massachusetts, School
District to provide field experiences for elementary
teachers in training. Each participant volunteered to be
part of the study after he/she had been given a description
of the purposes of the study and the procedures for data
collection. The data gathering instrument was administered
to each of these groups either during mid-December or early
January of the 1973 - 7^ school year.
The first group participating in the study consisted of
classroom teachers from two open-space schools in the
Amherst School District who were acting as cooperating
teachers with the Amherst Elementary Teacher Education
Program during the 1973 fa.ll semester. These participants
had a range of teaching experience from less than one
year to over thirty years of experience. The median
years of experience for the group was seven. Experience
as a cooperating teacher was also varied. One-third of
the cooperating teachers worked with interns in their
classes less than once a year, on the average. At the
other extreme, one-quarter of the cooperating teachers
68
worked with interns almost continuously, at a rate of about
one intern every semester. The remainder of the group, on
the average, acted as cooperating teachers about once a
year during their professional careers. Of the 30 teachers
eligible by criteria established for participation in the
present study, 25 of them volunteered to participate.
The second group of participants consisted of full-
time student teachers, designated as interns by the Amherst
Elementary Teacher Education Program. Each intern was
working fulltime for 15 weeks during the semester with one
cooperating teacher and in one of two open-space schools
in the district. Of the 30 interns eligible in the two
schools to participate, 26 volunteered.
The third group, designated pre interns by the program,
was composed of college students who were participating
in a weekly seminar in education with a university instructor
and simultaneously working six hours per week with a child
or small group of children in one of the elementary schools.
This field experience represented an introduction to teaching
and to teacher training, and the experience provided limited
contact with the classroom teacher. These students were
expected to enroll in a fulltime internship the following
college semester.
The fourth group in the study, designated as the lay
group, was included because its members had no previous
involvement in teacher training in the School of Education
69
and no formal teaching experience in the public schools.
The group was enrolled in an orientation course at the
University of Massachusetts called, School, Kids, and the
School of Education. In the one semester course students
are introduced to the variety of teacher training programs
available in the School of Education. At the conclusion of
the course, students are expected to apply for admission to
a specific teacher training program or opt to pursue a non-
teaching undergraduate major. This group was considered
naive for purposes of the present study in as much as their
perceptions of the cooperating teacher/student teacher
relationship were not the result of any personal experience
in teacher education. The lay sample consisted of 24
volunteers from the group of 75 students who received advance
description of the purposes and procedures for the data
being collected. The sample included eight college freshmen,
eight sophomores, and eight juniors. When asked to specify
the grade level each person hoped to teach in the furture,
14 people indicated elementary level, six indicated secondary
level, and four were uncertain. All participants were in
their early twenties. The data were collected from the
group early in the semester while they could be considered
naive for the purposes of the study.
In summary, the present study involved 104 people in
four groups of approximately the same size. Eighty people
were participants in a teacher training program and were
70
grouped by teaching experience as cooperating teachers,
interns, and pre interns. Twenty- four other people with
no experience in teacher education were designated as a
lay group. In Table 1 the characteristics of the groups
are summarized.
TABLE 1
GROUPS PARTICIPATING IN THE STUDY
GroupSampleSize Teacher Training Experience
CooperatingTeachers 25 Classroom teachers designated
by school administration ascompetent to work with stu-dent teachers and presentlyserving as cooperatingteachers.
Interns 26 Fulltime student teachershaving continuous contact witha cooperating teacher forfifteen weeks.
Pre interns 28 College undergraduates spend-ing six hours a week in a
classroom with a few children.Limited contact with coopera-ting teacher.
Lay Group 24 No teaching or teachereducation experience.
Total 104
The Data Gathering Instrument
The instrument used in the present study was an
adaptation of an instrument developed earlier by Fiedler.
71
In this section a review of the procedure Fiedler used
to construct the instrument and the procedure used to
adapt Fiedler’s instrument to the purposes of the present
study are outlined. Additionally, the administration of
the instrument to the participants in the study is described.
Fiedler (1950) developed a Q-sort to determine if
therapists of varying theoretical views and therapeutic
techniques held differing conceptions of an ideal thera-
peutic relationship. The procedure that Fiedler followed
was in accordance with the Q technique of Stephenson (1953)
which provided a means of studying the traits or perceptions
an individual holds. Fiedler in his investigation first
conceptualized a therapeutic relationship to consist of
three dimensions (1950)
j
a. The therapist’s ability to communicate with,
, and understand the patient.
b. The emotional distance which the therapist takes
toward the patient (emotionally withdrawing,
neutral, or close to patient).
c. The status of the therapist in relation to the
patient (superior to the patient, subordinate
to the patient, or equal with the patient) j_p.242J.
For each of the three dimensions Fiedler developed
25 statements about the therapist/client interaction.
72
These statements were subdivided into five groups of five
statements each, with each subdimension representing one
of five steps along qualitative continua shown in Table 2.
The statements, written according to the three dimensions,
were submitted to seven therapists for validation. To be
retained as part of the Q-sort instrument, each statement
had to be judged descriptive of a therapeutic relationship
and therapists had to agree that each statement fit in the
subdimension for which is was designed. Statements were
TABLE 2*
Q-SORT DIMENSIONS AND SUBDIMENSIONS
Communication
1. No communication is possible2. Communication is poor3. Some communication exists4. Communication and understanding is good5. Communication and understanding is excellent
Emotional Distance
, 1. Therapist draws away from or rejects patient2. Therapist is somewhat cool toward patient
3. Therapist is emotionally neutral4. Therapist tends to draw emotionally close to patient
5. Therapist tends to be too close, is sticky
Status
1. Therapist feels very inferior and insecure
2. Therapist tends to look up and defer to patient
3. Therapist maintains peer relationship with patient
4. Therapist tends to look down on patient
5. Therapist feels very superior to patient
*Fiedler (1950) p.242.
73
adjusted until all therapists agreed on the dimension and
subdimension placement. Appendix A contains the list of
75 statements that evolved from Fiedler's investigation.
In the subsequent study of therapists' perceptions of
an ideal therapeutic relationship Fiedler involved nine
therapists and one lay person. Each subject was instructed
to sort the 75 statements, each mounted on an individual
card, into seven categories with 1, 7, 18, 23 , 18, 7, 1,
statements alloted to the ordered categories. The
categories were defined as shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3
Q-SORT CATEGORY MEANINGS
CategoryNumber ofStatements Category Meanings
1 1 Most Characteristic of an IdealTherapeutic Relationship
2 7 Very Characteristic of an IdealTherapeutic Relationship
' 3 18 Somewhat Characteristic of anIdeal Therapeutic Relationship
4 23 • Middle Category
5 18 Somewhat Uncharacteristic of anIdeal Therapeutic Relationship
6 7 Uncharacteristic of an IdealTherapeutic Relationship
7 1 Least Characteristic of anIdeal Therapeutic Relationship
74
The Q array resulting from sorting the 75 statements
into seven categories produced a modified rank order of
statements about the ideal therapeutic relationship as
perceived by each therapist in the study. Each set of
ranking was then intercorrelated with each other set in the
study. Since the correlation coefficients were uniformly
high, Fiedler concluded that individual ratings by therapists
could legitimately be pooled, resulting in a composite
ranking of the ideal relationship between a therapist
and client. The composite concept of the ideal character-
istics of a therapeutic relationship is presented in
Appendix B. Retest reliability for this set of statements
was reported by Fiedler to be .92 (p. 242).
Fiedler's Q-sort instrument was adapted for use in
the present study. The adaptation was done for two
purposes* (1) because Fiedler's three dimensional model
and findings proved a conceptual framework for examining
educators' perceptions of the ideal characteristics of a
cooperating teacher/student teacher relationship, and (2)
common instrumentation was desirable if strong statistical
comparisons were to be made of educator and therapist
75
perceptions of ideal interpersonal relationships in their
respective professional fields. Fiedler’s conception and
instrumentation were central to accomplishing these
purposes.
To adapt Fiedler’s Q-sort instrument for the present
study, the 75 statements were changed by simply substitu-
ting the words "cooperating teacher" for "therapist" and
the word "intern" for "patient” wherever they occurred.
By changing only the referents in each statement, the three
dimensions and the subdimensions within the Q-sort were
retained with no loss of meaning. This process of word
substitution was similar to that followed by Soper and
Combs (1962) in studying the teacher/learner relationship
and by Reitz, Very, and Guthrie (1965) in studying the
teacher/learner relationship in undergraduate education.
The 75 statements, as adapted for the present study, appear
in Appendix C. To distinguish the modified Q-sort instrument
from the original Fiedler instrument, the adapted instrument
has been named the Cooperating Teacher - Intern Relation-
ship Q-sort (CTIR Q-Sort).
76
Data Collection Procedures
The Q-sort instrument used in the present study was
administered to the four groups of interest in six group
sessions of approximately one hour each. The lay group and
the pre interns each completed the instrument in separate
large group sessions. The interns and cooperating teachers
completed the Q-sort instrument in two sessions, each
according to the school in which they were working. Thus
four separate testing sessions were required for these two
groups. The testing sessions for the groups involved in
teacher education were conducted near the end of the fall
semester of 1973 at the University of Massachusetts. The
lay group was tested during the early weeks of the spring
semester of 1974. The investigator presented the task and
monitored all data collection sessions.
The data collection sessions lasted about one hour, and
included the use of both a practice instrument and the CTIR
Q-Sort. On the assumption that only a limited number of
people had prior experience completing a Q-sort, a practice
experience using a 25 item Q-sort instrument (Liebert and
Spiegler, 1970, pp. 248-50) was provided at the beginning
77
of the same testing sessions in which the CTIR Q-Sort was
administered. In the practice experience procedures and
directions were similar to those used with the CTIR Q-Sort,
except for three differences. First, the practice instrument
had a different topical focus, recreational activities. Next,
it contained only one- third the number of Q-sort statements
to evaluate. Finally, the verbal instructions for
completing the CTIR Q-Sort varied somewhat from instructions
for completing the practice Q-sort. Appendix D contains
the complete package of materials for the practice Q-sort.
Similar materials and written instructions for
completing the CTIR Q-Sort instrument were given to all
groups. The cooperating teachers were asked to consider
and rank the Q-sort statements from the perspective of a
cooperating teacher. Interns and preinterns were instructed
to consider and rank the Q-sort statements from the per-
spective of an intern. Members of the lay group were asked
to consider and rank the Q-sort statements without assuming
either role as a cooperating teacher or an intern. The
CTIR Q-Sort directions, statements, and recording materials
are contained in Appendix E.
Statistical Treatment of the Data
The raw data of the study were essentially
categorical, with seven ordered categories ranging from
most to least characteristic of a cooperating teacher/
78
student teacher working relationship. However, because
earlier writers had used rank order correlation techniques,
the categorical data were transformed into standard ordinal
form with ties. By applying the Spearman rank correlation
statistic, r^ , the Q-sort of each group member was compared
to the Q-sort of every other group member and a correlation
coefficient was obtained for each pairwise comparison.
The range of coefficients and other statistical qualities
of the sets of correlations were determined by inspection
of the resulting correlation matrices.
Further statistical treatment of the data gathered in
the present study is best described in relation to the
hypotheses being tested. As presented in Chapter II, the
hypotheses were organized into three areas of investigation!
(1) intragroup concordance or agreement; (2) intergroup
correlation; and (3) interstudy correlation of groups in
the present study with the Fiedler study in psychotherapy
and the interstudy comparison of groups in the present
study with two other studies of the teacher/learner
relationship in education.
The simultaneous analysis of rank orders within each
group provided the data to test Hypothesis I through IV,
concerning the degree of agreement among group members with
respect to their perceptions of the ideal characteristics
of a cooperating teacher/student teacher working relation-
ship. From the rank order data a measure of the agreement
79
between the Q-sorts of all members of each group was
obtained using Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance, W.
Whereas Spearman’s rank correlation statistic expresses
the degree of association between pairs of ranked data,
Kendall’s W expresses the degree of association among k
sets of N ranks. The formula for this test when ties occur
in the individual rankings, as is the case with Q-sort
data, is (Siegel, 1956 ):
W = s
k2(N3— N) - kSl
T
where s is the sum of the squares of the differencesbetween the sum of ranks assigned to an itemand the average sum of ranks across N items
and k£T is a correction factor for ties amongT item ranks
W ranges from 0.0 to 1.0 with higher values indicating
substantial agreement among group members. Despite the
investigator's interest in detecting population values of
W greater than or equal to .60, methodology is developed
only to test the hypothesis that the population value of
W is zero (Kendall, 1970, pp. 102-103). Accordingly, the
test of independence of the k Q-sorts was performed with
CC set at the conservative .01 level. When the null
hypothesis is rejected, one is justified in forming a
composite ranking of the statements by the group, by the
method described as a ’’'best' in a certain sense associated
80
with least squares” by Kendall (1970, p. 101).
The second cluster of hypotheses in the present study
dealt with the degree of correlation between the composite
rankings of the 75 Q-sort statements by the four groups
tested. A composite value for each Q-sort statement was
achieved by summing the rank order values for each statement
as assigned by a particular group’s members. The summed
values were then assigned ranks from 1 to 75. Unlike the
raw data of the study which ranked 75 statements in seven
categories, each statement in the composite has a unique
rank. Applied to the data of the present study, the
procedure produced four composite rankings of Q-sort
statements, one for each group.
Pairwise comparisons of the composite rankings of
each group were then obtained using Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficient for each intergroup comparison.
In other words, the same procedure used in the intragroup,
pairwise analysis of subjects was used to obtain these
intergroup coefficients. The analysis of composite rank
orders between groups in the present study provided the
data to test Hypotheses V through X.
Testing an hypothesis that rg
is equal to some value
other than zero requires the use of an approximation
because the sampling distribution of rgwhen is non-
zero is not known. The maximum value of the standard
error of r is known, however, so that a conservative,s
81
possible larger than necessary, confidence interval can
be placed around the obtained statistic. If the interval
includes the hypothesized value, .60 in this case, the
hypothesis is accepted, otherwise it is rejected. A 95#
confidence level was used in obtaining the outside limits
for the value of the parent/?* (Kendall, 1970, pp. 62-65).
Hypotheses XI, XII, and XIII were essentially
concerned with the degree of correlation between each of
the composite Q-sort rankings of the three educator groups
in the present study and the composite ranking of the
therapists in Fiedler’s original study. The statistic
used to compare the studies was again Spearman’s rank
correlation with the approximate test described above. The
lay group data collected in the present study was deleted
from this segment of the analysis because of its lack of
relevance to the purposes of the investigation set forth here
.
Table 4 summarizes the major hypotheses of the present study
and the statistics used to evaluate them.
The final purpose of the present study was to explore
the similarity of perceived ideal characteristics of a
teacher/learner working relationship among several groups
of teacher, teacher educators, and student teachers.
Specifically, the present investigation represents the
third study of a teacher/learner interpersonal relation-
ship in which an adaptation of the data gathering instrument
designed by Fiedler was used. In the first study, Soper
STATISTICAL
TESTS
USED
TO
TEST
THE
HYPOTHESES
OF
THE
STUDY
o•HPCO
•HPcdPin
to rH<H 0 CtJ
O to pto 0P 0 >
p P 00 P 10 cd•H X pO w tu} cd•H P r)'h o<h • £ T)CD 5: cd 0OO 0 p ^
o o cd
to p •H pcd P
rH X} cd PrH P •H oCd o o'd o o to
P r*to P
o o to CD
X O cd to
p Co o•H •Hp Pcd cdrH CD rHCD to CDP -H Pp £ po p OO -H o
cd cdm ppP cd
cd p TdP O
'h <p
<D
CO
•H5P•rl
cd cdPPP cd
cd P TdP o
to o to o• O • oP *H to P »H tocd P .H cd P *H£ to to £ to toP *H >> P -H >>Cd P rH Cd P rHcd cd cd cd cd cdPP P pp pin to cd in to cd
to
pooCt,
p<H P aO <D «H
+» T3 -CP W 3 toO O P PP-H ® Ocd p\.h
CO P PP-H <D Cd
P p .C rH0 0 O 0E P cd P000o cd p w)
cd .c p Xo •H P
Pi p oP rH cd £O cd PP CD CD PM'd Pi CD
cd •H O -CP o op <D o cd
P s: CDM p cd p
to
to»
to 0 pcd >> cd (ox 0P cd rl p CD PP H
P to P 3 P top d TJO O -H p P O O *H O TJ 0P H to P to x-rl to P p-r(cd p o o cd P o w cd p
to PiCh P to PP *H £ p P »H £ p >j Ch •
P P O «H 0 P P o o Td o toCD CD O O tO 0 0 O P P P£ P CD £ P cd P W) toCD O CD -P p 0 O 0 O to P -HCD Cd -C O Pi 0 cd -P 3 .HPP P p cd P P p t3 p ^ cd
UD cd CD CD W cd 0 P P Pcd -c p x: cd -C P 0 cd 0OH<hP OHP tO PXP o >s O 0 PPH-d P -dd-d P 0O cd CD to *H P cd 0 to pp <hp CD P W) P 0 P W) -HOW)X3 O P tO to X$ O P 0 to
p «H CD «H P P *H 0 -d Jd o P0 rH M P 0 H X P P PP 0 «H P O P 0 <H P £ oP .P 0 cd P P s: 0 cd P o pM P P P W) M p p p -H o fcuO
>MI
M
XI
>
MMWX
I
MX
83
and Combs (1962) described teachers with respect to their
perceptions of an ideal teacher/learner relationship at
elementary and secondary levels. In another study, Reitz,
Very, and Guthrie ( 1965 ) described teachers with respect
to their perceptions of an ideal teacher/learner relation-
ship in undergraduate education held by college teachers
.
The findings of these studies, when compared with the data
from the present study, provide a view of the similarities
of perceptions of people involved in a variety of teacher/
learner environments.
Unlike the Fiedler study, however, Soper and Combs,
and Reitz, Very, and Guthrie, did not report the composite
Q-sort rankings that were necessary to apply the Spearman
rank correlation statistic as was done for Hypotheses XI
through XIII. What was reported for the two studies were
the eight statements receiving the ’most ideal' composite
ranking and the eight statements receiving the 'least
ideal' composite ranking. It was with the 16 statements
from the Soper and Combs study and the 16 statements from
each of two groups sampled in the Reitz, Very, and Guthrie
study that comparisons with the present study were made.
Block (1961) provided insight for the justification of this
partial comparison in his discussion of the relative
reliability of extreme and middle placement of Q-sort items:
84
For most Q- sorters, the extreme judgments are theeasiest ones to offer; it is the discriminationsin the middle portion of the continuum that aredifficult and less reliable. At the same time,by definition of the categories, middle place-ment of an item implies that it is relativelyunimportant as a characteristic [ p. 81 L
Study questions for comparison of the results of the
present study with the earlier studies of the teacher/
learner dyad were as follows
:
What are the characteristics considered most andleast ideal for a teacher/learner working relation-ship as perceived by educators from diverse teachingbackgrounds?
Do educators from different teaching experienceshold similar perceptions of the characteristicsof an ideal teacher/learner working relationshipin their respective learning environments?
The analysis of the extreme statements proceeded by
tabulation of the number of studies in which a statement
was ranked extreme, and subsequent interpretation of
these statements was made in light of the dimension and
subdimension to which they belonged.
Summary
This chapter has outlined the procedures for collecting
and analyzing data used in the present study. The Character-
istics of the four groups involved in the study were
described. Since one of the purposes of the study was
to compare present findings with those of earlier studies,
the data gathering instrument and investigatory procedures
85
outlined here were parallel to those earlier studies.
The chapter concluded with an overview of the statistical
procedures that were followed in organizing and analyzing
the three sets of hypotheses and questions tested.
86
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the results
of the data analyses and to discuss these results in light
of the questions and hypotheses formulated. The goals of
the present study were to explore educators' perceptions
of the characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/
student teacher working relationship and to compare these
perceptions with earlier studies in psychotherapy and
education. Since the questions and hypotheses of the study
were organized in three clusters, the analyses and discussion
of results are presented around those same clusters. First,
the intragroup correlations and each group's composite Q-
sort rankings are presented and discussed. Next, the
composite rankings of the four groups participating in the
study are reported and discussed in relation to humanistic
psychology propositions outlined in Chapter II. Finally,
comparisons are made between data gathered in the present
study and those gathered in earlier studies of interpersonal
relationships of therapist/client in psychotherapy and of
teacher/learner in elementary, secondary, and college
classes. The test of hypotheses and related discussions
will set the framework for the conclusions and recommendations
set forth in the final chapter.
87
Examination of Intragroup Perceptions
The initial section of this chapter involves the
examination of the four groups sampled in the present study
with resptect to their separate perceptions of the ideal
cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship.
First, the matrix of intercorrelations between each pair of
individuals within the groups is discussed. The set of
correlations provides information concerning the degree of
agreement between any two participants in their ranking of
the Q-sort statements. Next, the degree of consensus in
each group is summarized by the statistic W and the hypothesis
about that group’s concordance is evaluated. Hypotheses I
through IV were established to evaluate the groups' con-
cordance. Since the wording of these four hypotheses is
identical except for the change in group referents, only
Hypothesis I and its alternative are stated in full here.
Below the first hypothesis are the group referents to be
substituted in Hypotheses II, III, and IV.
Hypothesis I
H : There is no concordance, W, among cooperating° teachers in their rankings of 75 statements
in the CTIR Q-Sort.
H : There is concordance, W, among cooperatinga teachers in their rankings of 75 statements
in the CTIR Q-Sort.
Hypothesis II: interns
Hypothesis III: pre interns
Hypothesis IV: lay group
88
Following the evaluation of hypotheses, a composite
ranking of Q-sort statements for each group is presented and
discussed. An analysis of the Q-sort statements selected
as most and least characteristic of an ideal cooperating
teacher/student teacher working relationship concludes
this first section.
Cooperating Teacher Concordance
The rank order correlations, r , between the Q-arrayss
of pairs of cooperating teachers (n = 24p range from .46
to .83 as the correlation matrix in Table 5 indicates. An
index of the individual's agreement with others in the
group is provided by the median value of the correlations
in the row and column of the matrix relating to that
individual. For instance, the intercorrelations of coop-
erating teacher 12 range from .57 to .80 with a median of
.73. The skewed distribution of median correlation co-
efficients for all cooperating teachers range from .57 to
.73 with the central coefficient of these medians being
.68. The range of these medians suggests that moderate
agreement exists among the cooperating teachers with respect
to the characteristics of an ideal cooperating teacher/
student teacher working relationship.
-^Twenty-five cooperating teachers completed the CTIR Q-Sort,
but one teacher's data was not usable due to inaccuracies
in the recording of Q-sort statement numbers.
89
I -3- vO VO VA H VA VO vO CM (A vO O (A Ov CA VA CM VO 00 »A c^- 00(VI vO VO VO VA VO vO vO A vO VA vO vO VA VO VA vO VO VO VA VO A- vO
ca W CM ca rH (A H 00 A VA Ov vO CM CM vO rH rH -3- CA VO rH 00 A-(VI vO VO a VO VO 'O VO VO vO VA VO A vO VA vO c vO A- J- 0- VA vO
(VI A- VA A- (M VA -3- VO MO A (A VA 00 VA VA VO vO 0- Ov CM -d- CM 1
to (VI A- A- vO vO A- vO A A VO VO A A A vO VO a Cs- vO VA vO I
H O CO (A A- 00 (A vO (M A (A (M A VA rH oo VA CA Ov 1
cc (V A- VO VO VA A- A A 00 vO VO VO A VO A A VO O- VO VO 1
cc V< o o vO A- (A -3- Ov rH CM CO rH Ov CA vO Ov o a 00 CM Ov 1
i (VI fv VO A- vO A- vO a A vO a A A vO VO vO a vO A- VA t
OfON VA O <A O VA H J- CM rH co VA A Ov CM A OS CA O 1
‘
cc rH VA vO VA VO VO VO VA VO VA VA O' VA -cT VA VA -M- VO vO IMX CO (V (A Ov H VA 00 A rH O vO vO CM rH VA CA 00 CM 1
o 1—
t
VO a- VO A- A vO A A vO vO vO A A vO VO VO 1
cw CK vO 00 VA Ov vO VA vO rH O rH 00 CM CA CA 00 1
Eh H VO a- VO vO vO A a A A A VO A A vO A O- 1
CO VO vO (A CO (A VA vO VA VA o CO rH Ov VA VA rH 1
X H A- vO vO A- VO A A A vO A A A vO A 1MEh 03 vo (A VO 00 A- CM 00 oo Ov CM Ov a vO A vO 1
H vO VA VA VA vO VA vO vO A VA -3- A VO VA 1
CC <13
W SC J- O VA (A vO 00 CO CM VA vO Ov H CM -3" 1
Oh o H -3- VA VO VA vO VA vO vO VA VA vO vO VA 1
o cti
O1
<1) (A vO O CM (A CM CM O CM CM VA 1
°1
EH r—
l
vO VO vO A- vO A A vO vO MO A 1
tc 1 (VI vO -H- A- O <A (Tv Ov O (A Ov CM 1
o c rH (A a- vO A- A- vO A co A VO A 1
to•r~1
P H (VI H O VA VA VA CM rH -3- (A 1
z 03 H A- A- VO vO A- vO A a vO vO 1
o1—
1
Q) O 00 vO O H (A (A rH H CM 1
Eh fX *—t VO VO VO VA A- A a A vO 1
<< ot-3 o Ov o CM Ov VA 00 o CA »
W o a- VO VO VA vO VA A A 1
0^PC 00 o O CM Ov (A J- -3- 1
o co A- A- VA 00 A A 1
occ. A- a (A o Ov CM A t
w A- A- cv vO A A 1
EHVAZ vO oo (A a- (A 1
M vO A- VO VO A t
VA
Wt-3
pa«:EH
VA A- A- A- rH t
A- A- vO vO I
^ ^ (T N I
vO VO VT\ |
ca <MA-
COva
t
i
CM COvO
l
I
h N ra ^ 'A vo A- 00 o o (VI rv 4 >n vo A-COOvOtHCMCA^ThhhnwnnnsjenoBaj, SutveJsdooo
Coefficient
decimals
omitted
from
matrix
90
The second area of intragroup analysis was the deter-
mination of the degree of concordance with respect to each
group’s perception of an ideal cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship. The Coefficient of concordance,
W, which is linearly related to the average r , summarizess
the agreement among all teachers. For the group of 24
cooperating teachers W equaled .68, a value significantly
different from zero (p .001) and sufficient to reject the
first null hypothesis and accept its alternative. The size
of the concordance coefficient confirmed the previous evidence
that a moderate degree of agreement exists among teachers
in their rank orderings of the Q-sort statements.
Intern Concordance
The intercorrelations of 26 interns' Q-arrays range
from .51 to .86. The median individual correlations for
this group* range from .62 to .80 with a median of .73.
These and other descriptive statistics associated with the
distribution of medians had uniformly higher values than
those observed in the case of the cooperating teacher
correlations.
The value of the concordance coefficient for interns
was .73. This value of W is again significantly different
from zero (p .001) and leads to the decision to reject the
null hypothesis regarding intern's concordance and accept
its alternative for Hypothesis II.
91
Pre intern Concordance
The pairwise intercorrelations of 28 preintern Q-arrays
are presented in Table 7. Inspection of the matrix shows
that correlations range from .32 to .88. The median
individual correlations for the group range from .43 to
.78 with a median of .74. Actually, the distribution of
medians was more negatively skewed than that of any other
group because of the median score of just one participant.
The next lowest median coefficient for a group member was
. 60 , revealing that the distribution of median correlations
for the group was much like that of the intern group.
The coefficient for the preinterns ' concordance with
respect to their perceptions of an ideal cooperating
teacher/student teacher working relationship equaled .71.
This value of W is significantly different from zero
(p .001) and the null hypothesis regarding no concordance
may be rejected.
Lay Group Concordance
The rank order correlations between the Q-arrays of
pairs of 24 lay group members ranged from .48 to .84 as the
correlations in Table 8 indicate. Median correlations for
the individuals in the group ranged from .60 to .75 with
a median of .68.
The degree of lay group concordance, W, with respect to
their perceptions of an ideal cooperating teacher/student
TABLE
6.
INTERCORRELATIONS
OF
INTERN
Q-
ARRAYS
92
1
1
tn
1Cc(1)
4->
c
VOCM
vr\
CM
J-<M
cvCM
CMCM
CM
OCM
CNHcoHfN-
vOHvj~n|
T—
<
-d-
t—
1
r\T-l
CM.—
I
r-(
T—
(
oHOn
CD
Cn
VO
.wv
o-
rv
CM
t-C o H o CO o VO CO H CM VO vo, vo vO J- vOCO CN CN CD CD VO CN CN CO 00 Cn vO VO Cn CN oo
vo co VO t-H O H CO CM VO Ov -3- O CM vO J- oCN. vo vO CN CN vo vO vo VO VO VO CN VT\ vo vo CN
CN- H CD CM Ov CM VO H CO CM CN CM Ov CM CM o'ccD CN CN CN CN vo Cn CN Cn 00 CN CN VO CD 00 00
Ov H O O CO -3- CO CN O CO CN rv CO CM oC- CN Cn co co VO CO CN CO CO vo CN CN CN oo CO
rH H VO vo tH CO OV o Ov J- Ov tH CO CN 0^CD CN VO Cn co VO CN CN CN CO VO CN CN CN CN 00
H Ov CM CD CM CM i—
1
Ov CM vo OV Ov tH CM oco VO CN CN CN VO cv vO CN CN vo CN vr\ 00 CN 00
Ov t—c VO H CD vO vo CM CO -3- vo CM vO VO o oCN- Cn Cn CN CN vo CN Cn CN CN vO CN vO Cn CN oo
CM Ov CD O Ov vO co vo o -3- -3- CM vO 00 -d- ovCD VO CN CN CN VO CN CN CN CN CN CN vo Cn CN CN
Cn- VO Cn CD VO CM CD -3- vo -3- O CN tH CN -3- •cj-
Cn- vO VO vO CN VO vO CN vO CN CN MO CN VO VO CN
CN- CM CO CN co Cn CO o vO Ov OV CN o Ov tH VOO- VO VO vO CN vO CN CN CN CN VO VO CN CN CN CN
co vo VO CD CM -3- H 00 o ('"V VA Ov vo, O <r\ 1
CD CN CN Cn CO VO CO CN 00 oo CN CN O- oo 00 1
H CD VO vO CM o -3- co Ov vo, H VO, CN 1
CN- VO vO CN CN VO 00 CN CN CN Cn CN VO CN 1
VO O vO CN O Cn CD CO CO CM 0"\ tH O 1
CD CN CN O- CO VO CN vo CN oo o- O- CN 1
r-C c CN CN Cn CM H rv. CM CM' H VO, t
Cn vo VO VO vO VO CO CN CN CN VO VO !
-3- co CD O CD CN co CM H tH tH \
Cn vO vO CN VO VO CN CN CN CN vO 1
VO VO CN CD -3- r-l t—
4
CN CN 1
CN- VO VO v0 O- vo vO VO vo VO 1
ov CO CO VO co Ov CO VO H 1
CN. CN Cn CN CO vO 00 CN co 1
Ov vo Cn O vO VO -d- o 1
Cn- CN vO CD Cn vo CN CN 1
H CN CO H 'O CN -3- 1
o- vo CN o- CN VO CO 1
-3- Ov -d- Ov co CN 1
CN VO Cn vO CN CN 1
N^J’J-NHCOCOrlN N N N (v 03 c^C^-Cv-
O On vo vO CN VO
VO CO (X) (M >-l
CO N N 00 00
oO-
o- CON N CO
O- CV O-oCD
OCn Cn
CO oCN- O-
VO OOvO VO Cn-
Ov
On
COvO
CO Cn- vOvO vo vo
CD
CN.
CN
vOCN-
CMCn
I
I
COCN-
cn
CDvO
I
I
OCN-
CMCN-
VOO-
O-vo
CM CO^}1 vovO Cn- CO OnO Cvjrv^-'OVOCN-CDONO^CMCO^ 'AVO^hhhhhhncmcmncmcmcmsujaq.ui
Coefficient
decimals
omitted
from
matrix
93
i
CD ON CM -3- CA CO A On 4* CD On CM 00 A O- o NO ON o CA vO vO oCM NO A NO 00 A A A CD A A 00 NO A CA co A NO 00 A VO C^ vo
A CM A CM CA co CA -3- -3- CA tH o CA O CA NO H o -3- CMCM CD CA NO NO NO A NO A A NO A A A -3- NO A NO A A vO
NO On CD H NO CA A CA A CM CA A co 00 O NO O H co NO CTv o CM
\
CM A NO A A A A A A 00 A A A A -3- A 00 A A A vO CO
VN -3- O CO CA CA On tH A A O NO CM H NO NO A CM CA ^rH Ov oCM A CA CA NO NO ca A NO NO NO NO A A CA NO NO NO A A -3- vO VO
-d- CA H CM NO CA CA O ON 00 CA 3- CA CA -3- o CA A A -3- On o co
1
CM A A NO A CO A CO A A 00 CO A 00 -d- CO 00 NO 00 A ca o- VA
1
CA CO CD H ON CA CM CA CA A tH CM CA A PA -d- -3- O NO CA CM c^- C^-CM A NO NO A A A A A A A co NO A -3- A A A A A NO c*- VO
CM A CM CD -3- co A CA CA H ON NO CA •3- CM CM H rH CA CA CM c°\ 1
in CM A NO CA NO NO NO NO NO A CA NO NO NO. CA NO A NO NO NO CA (N 1
H -3- A NO A CM CA CA O ON 00 -3- 'A 00 A O CA CA •3" O CM 1
£K CM A CA NO A A A A 00 A NO A A A -3- A A NO A CD CA t
OC< O NO CA O O H J- A A CM *—
1
00 H O CA t““
1
CA CA A CAt
1 CM CA CA NO NO NO NO CA NO NO NO NO CA A -3- NO NO CA CA CA1
OfOn NO O CM NO CM CA CM On oo A A CA On ON A O NO A 1
52 H A A NO A A A A A A A A A A -3" A 00 NO A 1
C£W CD <A CA A CO CA CA 00 rH tH O CA tH o CM CA NO 1
e-t H A A NO A 00 A A CD oo A CO A 00 -3- 00 CO NO t
:si-i A CM CD CO CA CO -3" A CA A CM CA 1—
1
A O -3" 1
w tH NO CA CA NO VA NO NO A NO NO A CA NO CA A NO 1
cc(X, NO ON ON -3- CA H 00 A CM CA CM H O CM NO On !
tH A NO NO A 00 A A 00 OO 00 oo A 00 •3- A 1
tin
oto
c CA CA CD tH NO H NO O CM CM CA co CA o NO 1
1^1
H A NO NO CO oo A 00 CO CD A CO NO 00 -3- 1
to7?.
<u+> J- CD CM o NO tH ON A CA A NO A -=)- CA i
o I r- H -X. fA -V 'A -3- CA .h- CA CA 4- -:} i
(-H IhE-i Q) ca -3- H CA NO CM NO 00 On H On CM O 1
tH H A A NO A 00 A A A CO A 00 A 1
i—1 i
wPh
CM -3" A O O NO CM On A tH -3- A 1
cc rC A CA NO A NO NO NO NO A NO NO 1
fto tH A ON NO CA 00 NO 00 ca J- co 1
o W A NO NO CO A A A CO CO A !
cr:
w o nO CA 1—
1
H rH NO CM -3- CA 1
EH H NO A NO A A A A A A 1
M ON NO CD CO H T—1 On tH O 1
a NO NO CO co A 00 oo 1
CD NO CO -3- -3- 3- -3- On |
CN. VA NO CO A A NO 11
1
w a A On o CM ON 1
A A NO CO oo NO 1
CD«< NO ON CM J- NO co 1 .
EH NO A NO A A 1
vr CA J- CM NO 1
A A NO A 1
nO CA CM 1
A NO NO 1
(*• CO O 1
CA NO 1
<M Oca
l
i
CM VT\ VO A CO On o CVJ(T\ ^3- CA NO A 00 ON O
rH CMrH CM CA CA NO ACM CM CM CM CM CM CM
sujo^uiaJd
78
64
75
66
79
--
71
73
69
79
—
68
61
65
—
76
75
TABLE
8.
INTERCORRELATIONS
OF
LAY
GROUP
Q-ARRAYS
94
-3-1 cmCM vO
CN| On
P*
ot-i
CM
CM
OCM
ONHcoHCNHVOHu\H-3-
rH
o~vJHOJ
CMCv
COo-
UN[V
COCv
-3-
O-
NOCN-
CMCO
cocv
>>
ONCv
ONNO
(VO-
COUN VO
o CvCv o-
coVO VO
CM COO- VO
O unCV VO
CM unCV VO
On voUN Cv
Cv- CMvO O-
CO tHVO Cv
On COUN NO
CM CNNO CV
On CMVO Cv
o .s-VO NO
CN -d-
NO NO
o ON O Cv On NO i—
1
Cv j- -3- CN On CNCv Cv UN NO VO NO UN UN NO NO UN Cv
o Cv CM NO CV CV O co o- UN -3- CNCv Cv Cv VO Cv Cv Cv Cv UN 00 Cv Cv CO
ON UN 00 vo CM NO On H NO CV CN CO CNUN un NO vo NO NO un UN UN NO NO NO NO
On Cv -3‘ vo UN o CN UN O CN CM Cv OnNO NO Cv UN NO Cv Cv NO Cv Cv NO NO Cv
CO NO O H UN H UN CV CM CM H UN CvNO NO Cv vO NO NO Cv NO NO co NO NO Cv
CN ON Cv NO NO CM CM CM H NO co UN CvNO UN NO UN UN NO Cv NO UN CV UN NO NO
UN O CO CM Cv On 00 NO NO CM CO CO ooVO Cv NO NO NO NO NO NO UN OO NO NO Cv
ON NO UN On ON -3- CN CN CM CN Cv Cv «—
1
Cv NO Cv VO NO Cv Cv Cv NO 00 NO NO CO
O ON On On co CM CM H 1 On CO H 1
00 Cv Cv VO Cv Cv Cv CO NO Cv NO Cv 1
O UN oN 'O NCO
fN-
4h O N (MCv Cv Cv cv-
t-c CO OnCv UN UN
Cv CO On CNCv. NO no cv-
CM On CNCv- NO Cv-
Cv-
IV
ONO M3
CM -3-
VO UN
CN -3-
vO Cv
H «-?
no V.j-
NO NO
o -3-
CV- NO
NO
-3-
cv
OnJ-
OCv
CV ONno UN
On Onno UN
«-t 00NO UN
NO ONNO NO
CO CMNO CV
VO OnUN un
ON -3-
nO vO
o oo On CM Cv NO 1—
1
tH Cv CMH CV NO Cv NO NO Cv NO NO Cv
On CM -3- H o NO Cv CO On 1
Cv NO Cv NO NO NO -d- NO 1
CC Cv CO H UN CN CM CM 1
Cv NO Cv Cv NO Cv NO 1
Cv o CM O CM CN 00 1
nO VO
Cv CNvO no
UNO- Cv
UN OVO vo
r-t I
Cv |
t
I
CV NOUN Cv
OO CvUN NO
3-Cv
I
I
ONNO
NO
UvJ
.;}•
ON
CM
Cv
Hco
cv
CMCV
ONCv
UNCv
I
I
UN nO NO u\ NO
CM CvCv Cv
CO ONUN NO
unNO NO
ON -3-
vo NO
ON |
UN l
OCv
upc3
1=
sOu
•V3<1)
PPHEo
lv<ItM
(1)
oo
CN1 ON UNnO Cv CO OnO <-1 Aii rr\ UN vO Cv CO On O «H CM ON
dnoao XbI
95
teacher working relationship equaled . 69 . As in the
previous three cases the test of the hypothesis is signif-
icant (p . 001 ) and leads to the decision to reject the
null hypothesis.
In summary, the correlation matrices were much alike
in terms of the range of correlation values and distribution
of median correlation values, and the values of W for the
four groups ranged from . 68 . to .73. These values of W
were sufficiently high in each case to reject the null
hypothesis regarding lack of agreement among individuals
in each group. Statistics regarding W, the ranges of
pairwise correlations, and distributional features of the
median correlations are given in Table 9.
TABLE 9
SUMMARY STATISTICS DERIVED FROMFOUR GROUP INTERCORRELATIONS
CooperatingTeachers Interns Preinterns
LayGroup
Median RangeUpper Limit .73 .80 .78 .75
3**d Quartile .71 .76 .76 .71
Median . 68 .73 .74 .68
1st Quartile .65 .70 .68 . 65
Median RangeLower Limit .57 .62 .43 .60
Group Range .17 .19 .36 .16
Group W .68 .73 .71 .69
Group n 24 26 28 24
96
Because of each group’s reasonably high concordance a
composite ranking can be used to describe adequately the
group’s perceptions. A composite ranking is obtained by
summing the rank order values assigned to each statement by
each group participant. The 75 statements are then reordered
by summed value into standard ordinal form, that is 1 to 75.
The composite Q-sort rankings for each group in the present
study are found in Appendix C.
While examination of the ranking of all 75 statements
for each group would be an unwieldy task, the statements in
categories 1, 2, 6, and 7» of the composite Q-sorts provide
a view of the most reliably placed statements available for
each group. These sixteen statements for each group - the
eight most characteristic and the eight least characteristic
of an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working
relationship - are presented and discussed in this section.
The sixteen Q-sort statements about communication, emotional
distance, and status relationship selected by each group in
the present study are organized in Tables 10, 11, and 12
respectively.
Cooperating Teacher Composite Q-Sort Statements
The cooperating teachers’ eight statements selected as
most characteristic of an ideal cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship were quite evenly distributed
across the three Q-sort dimensions. The communication
COMMUNICATION
Q-SORT
STATEMENTS
SELECTED
BY
GROUPS
IN
PRESENT
STUDY
ft>» 2cti ox uo
to
pi pCD cd
U POh C
•H
CO
cu<DPc:M
§?H (0
ft Jh
Cti CD
tn XCD Oft cti
o oO EHo
to
ppCD
e0)
pcti
pt/)
pJh
0in
1
<Of
X X
X
X X
XXX. *
-3" r>>1*
to( ^—
'
»
Pa> • to
rH to CD •HX W) •H Cti
cti C u . s•h p to
rH i—
1
W) >JrH CD >5 C rH •
CD CD rH -H rH P£ ft rH iH Cti Jh
Cti CD 2 CD
to to CD <D to P•H • U ft 2 P
P •HJh Jh Jh tO Jh
CD 0) CD • CD CD
x p x P X Xo P O $H O Pcti *h Cti CD Cti
<d CD P CD Xo p a) P 2 P P•rH X •H •HP MP w> M £to 2 C CD C•H •rH •H X •H Pu P C P P P Jh
CD cti cti Cti Cti oP Jh P Jh 73 Jh ftO CD tO CD C CD ftcti ft U ft Cti ft Cti
Jh o a; O P O Jh
cti O 73 o to OX o P O Jc o to
O 2 CD P<u CD d) «rH
P x o x 2 X Cti
to EH p eh 2 EH Pos i t t
X
Least
Characteri
stic
-
The
cooperating
teacher
shows
no
comprehension
of
the
feelings
the
intern
is
trying
to
98
wpPQ
Eh
Eh00
Eh2Wcowocft
inftPoftO>Hpq
QwEhOWpw00
coEh2
WEh«JEhCO
EhftOCO
I
Wo2<EhCOMPP<J2OMEhOSW
ft>> 30 oP dP
co
dl d0 0)
d Pft d
•H
CO
dd0pd
W)cH CO
-P d0 0d P0 oft 0o 0O EHO
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X X
X X X X
r-«»
VA J- H rH tH rH rH' '
t pd • da? d 0
r->* d CO in
d >i <u T3 0 >>o ft p d 0 dft P d o rH CO 0CO 0 ft ft ft rH >d CD CO 00 d CD CD CO 0 CO . CO in CO
G WP d •H ft •H d •H ft • ft•H P • d • dT) d d d d d d 0 d d d d dP CD CO CD 0 0 d 0 P 0 d 0 0 02 P CD p • P P 0 p d P 0 P P pCO O d o d o O P a p O P o d o—' 0 2 cd d 0 0 d 0 0 d 0 ft 0
CD CO CD 0 0 o 0 ft 0 0 0 ft 0 0o P CO p p P •H P P P p P 0 P•H 0 d P 0 P 0 P
CO P W) a) ty)ft W) CO W)P W) MP txDP U?p CO d d d d • •H d p d x) d p d dd •H •H •rH 0 •H C d •H •H d •H •H O •Ha> d P t3 P P P d 0 p >> P 0 P o P P p£ a> cd d cd p 0 0 P 0 P 0 £ 0 P 0 0a> p d cd d d P o d d O d d P d-p o CD 0 O 0 d 0 0 Td 0 P 0 W) 0 d 0 •
0 a! ft CO ftp ftp d ft 0 ft ft d ft 0 ft 0p d O CD o o 0 O P O 0 O ft o in O >CO 0 O W) o >> O 0 P o in O rH O P O 0 O ft
p o 0 a rH a P O o d o ft a a O 0 O P-p o d 6 p W) p 0 r—
1
•H
d CD d 0 d 0 P 0 CO 0 CO 0 *r-3 0 ft 0 do P p o P 0 p o CO P ft P O P 0 p d P 2CO CO EH O Eh ^ EH P 0 EH Td Eh P EH d EH 2 Eh ft
1 o 0Of S 1 l i P 1 1 1 1 1
99
QG>EhCO
25WCOW05ft
2
COft
o05o
ft>> 0cd ohi GO
10
cI g0 <1)
G -PPL. c
•r-l
to
GG0PGM
x x X X x
x x x x
XXX x X
X X
X X
X X
X
CM
whim<eh
>HPQ G
•H 10
Q -P GDO 0 0Eh G XOW
(D OPi 0
X X X X X Xhi O 0)
w O tHCO
CO
oca ca ca fA -a- VO VA VA 3-
Eh ^—<* -
—
2: ca G • >>s l 0 G G ow P • G G 0 f pEh C • G 0 0 T5 > G*< •H 6 G 0 si P G • O c 0 >> •
Q> •0 CD si -P G cd cd C o £ . si i—1 CCO '—
'
0 ft G P P •0 «rH G O t3 o p P GG G G cd G 0 to G 0 >5 •d ft p G 0
Eh o P O •H to G 0 p •H P G •H TO 0 P05 •0 G to p Si o C 0 tO SI W P 0 CO CO to ft CD 0 cd 10 P 0 t0 -H > X o T3 0 CAHCO G 0 > Si 0 P G P rH C 0 0
1 0) 0) G •H P G o o •H O 0 to cd cd 0 G • G 0or 6 to O W) P cd -p G cd si •H • p P P rH «h G
•H E SI p G 0 • •H Pft T3 G E G P G G 0 G G G G G G G C G ft G 1
w G 0 o 0 «H 0 0 > 0 0 T) 0 0 0 0 0 G 0 0 0 ftW 0 G o G £ SI Si *H SI G si P G £ SI 0 si ft G OCO CO o O o o to o o cd O G O O P O O2: 0 cd cd to cd • cd to 0 cd £ cd *H cd 0 0 C 0 G 0 V)
o CD 0 C 0 i—
i
0 »H 0 • O 0 o 0 0 si 0 *H 0 0 0 GM o P G P o p cd P E -p G •rH p P p 0 P to P P G P OEh .0 O •H 0 rO G P SI \ 0 \ •H<5 to P M W)P hD cd UO G W) 0 to W> G U0P UC 0 M w txDPhi p to G G G cd C 0 G to C P •H G 0 G G si C P G P C C0
W G •H •H <1> •H 0 •H •0 •H C G •H C •H O •H •0 G •0 005 0 G p x P P P G P G P -0 0 P G P P P Ch P G P P ttf
e 0 0 G cd *0 cd cd cd o cd P cd cd 0 cd *H 0 O 0 0 0 WCO 0) P G O G to G G G G 0 O G E G fajO G G G X G 00> p O 0 £ 0 0 to 0 0 SI cd 0 0 G 0 to 0 G 0 -H 0 If)
Eh cd 0 ft 1 ft C ft cd ft G ftp G ft G ft*H ft cd ft 5 ftp ft
< p G O O O •H o O O o cd C O O T3 o o o O O V)
Eh CO 0 O o O o G O -0 o to si O *H O C o G O 0) o C O 0CO G o o to o G O G O 0 o O G O 0 o G o O G O G
p O cd 0 0 0 T) 0 o 0 X 0 Ou 0 0 X 0 P 0 ft 0 -H p 0 ft 0 If) 0 P 0 o 0 P 0 Co P si to g cd G C si a SI G to G G SI 0 G G .G O G G GCO
1
to Eh cd EH P Eh »H P to Eh W) cd Eh CO Eh *0 EH »H Eh *H fin *H
o 0<y 2 f 1 I 1 I pi • t 1 f » I
100
statements, while not drawn from the highest subdimension,
indicate the teachers* positive and repeated interest in
understanding the intern’s feelings. The opposite quality
of not being able to comprehend an intern's feelings were
also selected as a least characteristic statement by the
cooperating teachers.
In the dimension of emotional distance the group took
its strongest stand. From the five statements available
that reflect a cooperating teacher's drawing away and
rejecting the intern, these cooperating teachers selected
four statements. The repeated selection of items from the
same subdimension suggests that teachers find a great degree
of emotional distance unacceptable in a working relationship
in student teaching. The two emotional distance statements
selected as characteristic of an ideal relationship indicate
that cooperating teachers consider the encouragement and
reassurance of the interns to be important interpersonal
qualities.
The six statements selected by the cooperating teachers
concerning status relationship are best considered together.
Five of these six selections suggest that cooperating
teacher and intern work in a peer rather than a superior-
subordinate relationship. In the perceptions of the
cooperating teachers, guidance and direction for a student
teacher should be provided in such a way that the student
teacher has some responsibilities for decision making and
101
contributes to the resolution of problems. In short, the
student teacher should be accepted as a person whose
professional ideas and skills are worthwhile.
Intern Composite Q-Sort Statements
The strongest concerns of the intern group were
centered on two dimensions. While two statements reflect an
interest in having their feelings understood, the remainder
of selections deal with the qualities of sharing in a peer
relationship and of not being personally rejected by the
cooperating teacher. The latter quality of rejection was
stated strongly by interns through their selection of all
five statements in that subdimension as least characteristic
of an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working
relationship. Concurrently, the interns perceived an ideal
professional relationship as involving coworkership, give
and take on issues, and treatment as an equal. The
selection of these peer relationship qualities was reinforc-
ed by labeling as uncharacteristic of a good relationship
the statements about a cooperating teacher who acts in a
superior manner and tends to look and talk down to the
intern.
Preintern Composite Q-Sort Statements
The perceptions of preinterns were almost identical
Thirteen of sixteen possibleto those of the interns.
102
selections by these two groups were identical and the other
three choices varied only in the intensity of the same
perceptions.
The quality of emotional distance appears to be of
greatest concern to the preinterns. Half of the sixteen
most and least characteristic statements were selected from
this dimension. As before, all five statements from
subdimension (1) concerning interpersonal rejection and
emotional withdrawal were selected by the preinterns in
addition to three emotional distance statements from the
other end of the dimension.
The pre interns vere also concerned with the status
relationship. Four of the eight most characteristic state-
ments were selected from the peer relationship subdimension
and three other statements specifically rejected the
superior-subordinate relationship as being characteristic
of an ideal working relationship. Such repeated emphasis on
the emotional and status qualities of a cooperating teacher/
student teacher relationship, with a concomitant lack of
attention to communication qualities, suggests that
preinterns were more concerned about personal support and
professional acceptance than about being understood.
Lay Group Composite Q-Sort Statements
The lay group in the present study tended to perceive
the cooperating teacher/student teacher working relationship
103
first and foremost as a status relationship. Nine of the
sixteen Q— sort statements selected by this group either
supported a peer relationship or rejected a superior-
subordinate interaction in student teaching. The second
concern of the lay group was a strong and repeated emphasis
on the negative qualities of emotional rejection and
cooperating teacher withdrawal. Half of the group’s least
characteristic statements were selected from that one
subdimension of emotional distance. Only limited concern
was shown for the dimension of interpersonal communication
with the expectation expressed that a cooperating teacher
maintain rapport and be well able to understand the intern's
feelings.
In summary, the four groups that participated in the
present study showed many common perceptions. Four of the
five status relationship statements most characteristic
of an ideal relationship were selected from just one sub-
dimension. The most characteristic statements about
emotional distance and communication came from just two
subdimensions each. In other words, not only were the
perceptions of the four groups highly concentrated within
just a few subdimensions, but the groups felt strongly
enough about some characteristics to select two or more
from the same subdimension. In the case of status relation-
ships, for example, the Q-sort instrument included five
statements that reflected a peer relationship between the
104
cooperating teacher and the intern. Four of these five
statements were selected as most ideal characteristics by
two of the four groups. This selection of parallel state-
ments about a particular interpersonal quality revealed some
of the intensity of feeling groups hold about the character-
istics of an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher
working relationship.
Examination of Intergroup Perceptions
The second portion of the study involved comparison of
the perceptions of the four groups in the present study.
Intergroup correlation coefficients of composite Q-sort
rankings were obtained using Spearman’s rank correlation
statistic. Hypotheses V through X were articulated to test
the degree of association between the pairs of groups’
Q-arrays. Since the wording of these hypotheses is
identical except for the change in group referents, only
Hypothesis V and its alternative are stated in full here.
Below the fifth hypothesis are the group referents to be
substituted in Hypotheses VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X.
Hypothesis V
H : The correlation between the composite rankings0 assigned to 75 statements in the CTIR Q-Sort
by cooperating teachers and interns is
equal to or less than .60.
H » The correlation between the composite rankingsa assigned to 75 statements inthe CTIR Q-Sort
by cooperating teachers and interns is
greater than .60.
105
Hypothesis VI:
Hypothesis VII
t
Hypothesis VIII:
Hypothesis IX:
Hypothesis X:
cooperating teachers and preinterns
cooperating teachers and the lav group
interns and pre interns
interns and the lay group
pre interns and the lay group
Following the evaluation of the hypotheses, the composite
Q-sort statements of the four groups are compared and
discussed. An analysis of intergroup perceptions in light
of the literature in humanistic psychology reviewed in
Chapter II concludes this portion.
Test of Intergroup Correlations
The determination of intergroup correlations in the
present study involved the comparison of group composite
perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal cooperating
teacher/student teacher working relationship. As indicated
in Table 13, the correlation coefficients for the various
pairs of groups all exceeded .95. The high value of these
intercorrelations lead to the decision to reject the null
hypothesis for hypotheses testing the degree of inter-
group correlations and to accept the alternative hypothesis
in each instance. All groups, regardless of experience in
teaching and teacher education, ranked the 75 Q-sort
statements in highly similar fashion.
106
TABLE 13
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMPOSITE Q-SORT RANKINGSOF COOPERATING TEACHERS, INTERNS
PRE INTERNS, AND A LAY GROUP
GroupsCooperatingTeachers Interns Pre interns
LayGroup
CooperatingTeachers — .97 .97 .96
Interns — .97 .98
Pre interns — .97
Lay Group —
Intergroup Composite Q-Sort Statements
The second perspective on the intergroup comparison of
perceptions of the characteristics of an ideal cooperating
teacher/student teacher working relationship is possible
by examining the actual statements from the composite
rankings of the four groups in the present study. The
analysis is carried out through comparison of the sixteen
statements earlier referred to as the eight most character-
istic and eight least characteristic statements of an ideal
relationship. The sixteen Q-sort statements selected by
each group have already been presented in Tables 10, 11,
and 1 2
.
Throughout all four goups there was very little concern
for the quality of interpersonal communication as the
selection of a relatively small number of statements in
The cooperating teacher group identifiedTable 10 indicates.
107
three statements as most characteristic of an ideal relation-
ship in student teaching. These statements reflect the
perceptions that a cooperating teacher should be able,
or at least try, to understand the feelings of an intern,
and that a cooperating teacher should be capable of main-
taining harmonious relations with an intern. The other three
groups each picked one or two of these same statements, but
generally, their concern in this area was conspicuous by
the absence of selections.
The groups' perceptions concerning the dimension of
emotional distance in student teaching were very strongly
and similarly expressed as indicated in Table 11, Each group
in the present study selected at least half of its eight
least characteristic statements from subdimension (1) of
emotional distance. It is a common concern that a cooper-
ating teacher not reject or draw emotionally away from an
intern during the field experience. The strength of this
concern in every group was reflected in the repeated selection
of similar negative statements. On the other end of that
same emotional distance continuum, the groups also selected
statements they felt were very much characteristic of an ideal
relationship. All groups agreed that an intern should
receive the continuous encouragement and reassurance of a
cooperating teacher, and three groups added that a cooperating
teacher should respond to an intern in a warm and pleasant
manner. These most characteristic statements, while few in
108
number, serve as reinforcement for the group's strong concern
about a hostile, re jec ting, unpleasant cooperating teacher.
The four groups also place a great deal of emphasis
on the quality of the status relationship. The lay group
chose over half of its statements from this area, while
the cooperating teacher, the intern, and the preintern
groups selected close to half their statements from the
dimension. It appears that a peer relationship in student
teaching is considered most appropriate by the four groups.
The qualities of coworkership and interpersonal give and take
in professional situations were selected by all four groups.
Except for the cooperating teacher group, the peer status
concern was reiterated by the groups in their selection of
additional subdimension (3) statements. On the least
characteristic end of the continuum the concern for a peer
relationship was again reinforced through the selection by
all groups of at least three statements each that imply a
superior-subordinate relationship. By selecting these
statements the groups specifically reject a cooperating
teacher who acts in a superior manner and tends to look and
talk down to an intern. One additional statement involving
a cooperating teacher providing direction and guidance for
an intern was selected by three of the groups. While this
statement seems to contradict the earlier concern for a peer
relationship, and three other statements from the same
subdimension (4) were selected as least characteristic, the
109
educator groups seem to attach a different meaning to the
statement than was originally intended during the instru-
ment s construction. In the present study cooperating
teachers and interns valued this statement so strongly that
they ranked it first and second respectively. Obviously, it
is the perception of these groups that within the peer
relationship of student teaching, a cooperating teacher,
usually more familiar with the children, curricula, and
physical structure of the student teaching location, will
provide direction and guidance without looking down on the
intern or ignoring his/her ideas.
In summary, the comparison of groups' most and least
characteristic Q-sort statements revealed high degrees of
similarity between the perceptions of any two groups in the
present study. Out of 16 selections to fill categories 1,
2, 6, and 7, groups made from 11 to 13 indentical statement
selections. For example, the intern and preintern groups
agreed on 13 of their statement choices and differed on the
remaining three statements. At the same time the cooperating
teacher and intern groups agreed on 11 of their statement
choices. In all, 23 statements were placed by at least one
group into one of the four extreme categories of the
composite Q-sort rankings.
A comparison of the composite perceptions of groups in
the present study with the ideas of Fuller, Maslow, Rogers,
and Combs, as reviewed in Chapter II, revealed strong
110
similarities. First, the differences in concerns of
cooperating teachers, interns, and pre interns were not
unlike those Fuller (1968) described as early and late
phase concerns of teachers in her studies. She suggested
from her studies that beginning teachers were most concerned
with the quality of support and the limits of their
acceptance as professional persons. These conditions,
classified as early phase concerns, seemed to persist
throughout student teaching. Teacher concerns classified in
the late phase, expressed more by experienced teachers, show
more extensive concern for others and their feelings than a
preoccupation with where the self stands in relation to
others. The examination of Q-sort statements selected as
most and least characteristic by the groups in the present
study seemed to reflect the pattern of teacher concerns that
Fuller suggested. In the first place, the statements
selected by the intern, preintern, and lay groups reveal a
preoccupation with concerns for support and acceptance of an
intern by a cooperating teacher. These groups show less
concern for their feelings being heard and accepted than
they show for maintenance of a peer relationship, warmth,
and professional acceptance. The cooperating teachers, while
agreeing that the latter concerns are important, deem it
desirable that a cooperating teacher exhibit concern for
the feelings and communications of an intern. In other
words, the selection of more communication statements by the
Ill
cooperating teacher group than by the other groups would
suggest that cooperating teacher perceptions reflect the
late phase teacher concern for others and their feelings.
The less experienced teachers on the other hand, show their
early phase teacher concerns for professional acceptance and
clarification of where the self stands in relation to others.
Maslow’s articulation of a basic needs hierarchy
provided a structure for evaluating the level of need
gratification perceived to be necessary in student teaching.
The statements selected by all groups suggest that the inter-
personal relations in student teaching should provide
gratification of substantially all needs, for safety and
belongingness, as well as gratification for those needs for
esteem that relate to personal and professional respect for
the individual. Rogers (1969* 106-114) proposed that the
central qualities for facilitating learning are congruence,
an accepting attitude, an empathic understanding of the
learner’s reactions from the inside, and a trust in the
potentialities of the human organism. Combs (1971) depicted
that gratification as reaching a feeling of adequacy
in which the individual is accepted as an able person of
dignity and integrity. Failure to reach that level of
functioning, Combs concluded, produces people whose feelings
of inadequacy consume so much of their time and energy
that they have little left with which to help others.
Finally, the qualities of a significant other, as
112
suggested in humanistic psychology, seem related to the role
of a cooperating teacher. Maslow (1970), Rogers (1969),
and Combs (1971) concurred that much of the growth
necessary to reach the higher need levels and feelings of
adequacy comes from interaction with other people,
particularly significant others. The data fed back to a
person through interaction with important people in one’s
environment shapes the person’s perceptions of him or her-
self and enhances or inhibits personal and professional
growth. All the groups in the present study selected Q-sort
statements that reflected the importance of a cooperating
teacher providing that kind of data. From the dimension of
emotional distance^ statements were selected that depicted a
pleasant, warm, and accepting cooperating teacher. The
desire for peer relationship and the avoidance of an
excessively superior or inferior manner on the part of the
cooperating teacher helped to reinforce this role of the
cooperating teacher as a significant other.
In conclusion, the perceptions of groups in the present
study, as reflected in their composite rankings, can be
interpreted in light of the broader ideas of interpersonal
relations in humanistic psychology. The consistency of
these perceptions across the four groups provides further
support for suggesting that teachers and teacher educators
in the present study perceive an ideal cooperating teacher/
student teacher working relationship as essentially a
113
helping relationship that can be characterized by give and
take on issues, emotional closeness, interpersonal harmony,
professional respect, and a peer relationship. Further,
the correlations between various groups' composite Q-sorts
were so great that it can be concluded a good interpersonal
relationship between cooperating teacher and student teacher
is recognized by groups regardless of teaching experience
or involvement with a teacher education program.
Examination of Interstudy Perceptions
The comparison of perceptions of educators in the
present study with the perceptions of psychotherapists and
educators sampled in earlier studies represented the third
focus of the study. Rank correlations between each of the
composite Q-sort rankings of the three educator groups in
the present study and the composite ranking of the therapist
group in Fiedler's ( 1950 ) original study were evaluated to
test Hypotheses XI, XII, and XIII. Since the wording of
these hypotheses is identical except for the change in
group referents, only Hypothesis XI and its alternative
are stated in full here. Below Hypothesis XI are the
group referents to be substituted in Hypotheses XII
and XIII.
114
Hypothesis XI
H The correlation between the composite rankingsassigned to 7 5 statements in the CTIR Q-Sort"by cooperating teachers and the compositerankings assigned to 75 statements in theFiedler Q-Sort by therapists is equal toor less than . 60 .
Ha*
The . correlation between the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the CTIR Q-Sort’bycooperating teachers and the composite rankingsassigned to 75 statements in the Fiedler Q-Sortby therapists is greater than . 60 .
Hypothesis XII: interns
Hypothesis XIII: pre interns
The correlation coefficients between Fiedler's group
and the three groups in the present study were about the
same, and exceeded .75 in all instances as Table 14
indicates
.
TABLE 14
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMPOSITE Q-SORTRANKINGS OF EDUCATOR GROUPSAND FIEDLER'S THERAPISTS
CooperatingTeachers Interns Pre interns
Fiedler'sTherapistGroup
.78 .76 .78
The examination of extreme Q-sort statements for these
four groups revealed similarities and differences between
the perceptions of educators in the present study and the
115
perceptions of therapists in Fiedler's study with respect
to characteristics of an interpersonal relationship in
their respective fields. Inspection of Table 15 reveals
that the strongest similarity among all groups was found in
the emotional distance statements selected as least
characteristic of an ideal relationship. The almost
unanimous agreement on these five statements suggests that
whether in the classroom or the therapist’s office, people
recognize hostile, rejecting, and unpleasant treatment as
highly uncharacteristic of an ideal interpersonal relation-
ship.
There is somewhat less but still strong agreement among
groups' perceptions about the quality of status in inter-
personal relations. Fiedler’s group selected three state-
ments from this dimension that were also selected by the
educators. As Table 16 indicates, educator groups, however,
chose additional statements suggesting a greater concern
for this dimension of interpersonal relationships than
the therapist group demonstrated.
The essential differences between the perceptions of
educators and therapists however, was found for the
dimension of communication as reflected by the statements
presented in Table 1?. Except for cooperating teachers, the
educator groups reflected minimal concern for the quality of
interpersonal communications . Fiedler's group, on the other
hand, placed the preponderance of its concern on this quality.
EMOTIONAL
DISTANCE
Q-SORT
STATEMENTS
SELECTED
BY
GROUPS
IN
PRESENT
STUDY
AND
FIEDLER’S
THERAPISTS*
116
to to- -p
Fiedlerherapis X X X X
E
H
Sm
OMm
bOc -
ft W P-P Sm CO
at 0 •h •
Sm ft0 a
X X X X X XPmPat C
pm at 5m 0O 0 0 EO Emo
ft 0P P= at
p0 to
toc
p53 ftM
f. p aft ato
ftr*
X X X X X X XP 0togw ub in
to
to- G
to Smc P 0
I u G P0 0 0 G5-i -P X X X X X X X X E ftPh G 0 =
•Hx-s , s „ _ r ,
Pat Sm
-3- X—
1
mtM H H P O*—
x
v-x v—
<
CO Mm1 pG • p 5m =
-—
>
0 G at 0 Pg u to to ft CO >> 0 ft at >5 ft 0ft ft p G at Sm 0 «rH
to P G o ft to 0 ft ftG c3 ft ft ft ft > P, at
O 0 to at PME 5-1 0 at to at to • CO CO CO «
1
“
•H 5m •H ft ft p •H •r-f • •H at*0 P • 5m • C C ftft 5-i 5m 5m 5m P 5m at Sm P Sm Sm Sm ft G
a) to at at at 5m 0 p 0 Sm 0 0 0 bO at
cn ft 0 ft • ft ft at ft p ft 0 ft P ft •HO 5-1 o G o o P O ft O P o C a Sm =
at d at 5m at at G at at G at ft at O Sm
a) to at at at ct at «h 0 0 0 »H 0 0 0o P to P P P •H p P ft P p 0 P 0 ftft at G P at P at ft ft O
to -p bp 0 bDft bO to Mft bO bOft bOP bO ft at
ft to G 5-( G P • •rM P P G ft G P G G 0G •H •rl •h at •H G 5m ft ft 5m ft •H O ft ft ft
0) 5-i P ft P ft P 5m at P >> P at p o P P P oE 0) at 5 at P at at p at ft at 5 at P at at P bOcu ft 5-i at 5m 5m p a Sm 5m O Sm Sm P 5m Sm G-p a at at o at P at at ft 0 P 0 bO 0 G 0 • ft ft
at at PM to ftp ft»H 5m Pm at PM PM G PM at Pm 0 CO ft
ft 5-. o at o O at O P O 0 O ft o to o > G at
CO at O bD O >i o at ft o to O ft O P o at O ft O Sm
ft o at . a ft O ft o O P O ft o o a 0 O P O 0ft o Sm E p bO p 0 i—
i
•rH 0 PM
JU at 53 at 5m at p at to 0 CO 0 •<—) 0 PM 0 C Sm Oo p £ o ft at X o to ft ft ft o ft 0 ft G ft P OCO
t
to E-t O E-i £ ft p at ft ft ft ft ft Sm ft P ft Pm O Oo at Em s
or s 1 I i ft i 1 I t 1 1*
TATUS
RELATIONSHIP
Q-SORT
STATEMENTS
SELECTED
BY
GROUPS
IN
PRESENT
STUDY
AND
FIEDLER'S
THERAPISTS*
117
i
Fiedler
'
s
herapists
|
X X X
1
1
ft poft
toc :
•h to •M
P P CO
0 0 ft •
P x ftp0 oft 0
X X X X X*
X0 Gp 0
O 0 0 EO Eh X 0O ~ P P
= 0P
0 to
pto
gc.
3 XP Oft 0
0-Pi—
•
X X X X X X XP 0to
X C1—
1
3 ftto
- GW to p
p 0G C Pl P 0 GO 0 £ "HPi -P X X X X X X X 0 =ft G P
•H G 0 PP'-' s r—* ,—-s P O0) r\ cn -3- P V/> vn vr>y -3- CO ftp^ *•
—
^
^
P ^ 0 •—
-
i— v
—
*
C 0 X > G P =•H X G • o G 0 P
-— • X -P 0 0 G o ft Gc o g G * •H P o o X 0o x <d 0 G 0 CO C 0 >> X p 0 ft•H P ft to P G 0 p ft p p ft Pto X p CO 0 X a c 0 CO to ft 0G to o cd 0 -p CO -P 0 in ft > .w X ft0 O P 0 > G ft P p rH G i—1
“
e a) ft P •H ft o o •h O 0 to 0 0 0 0•H to p> to 0 -P X 0 X •H • P X P C Xx G X p c to . ft cX P o P • P -P P 0 p p p p P\ P c ’to 03 0 £ 0 i—
i
0 ft 0 > 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 0 p ft
C/3 X £ X cd X £ X ft X X P X P X X X 0 P =
o o O 3 o O CO o O 0 a G o a p O Pcd o cd cd 0 in 0 tO 0 0 5 0 ft 0 Ch 0 C 1 0a) 0 0 0 G 0 ft 0 • 0 0 o 0 0 ft 0 .H 0 X
o ft td ft -P o -P £ P G •rH p p P 0 P P X O•H G •»H X P p X m 0 P 0
to P to G to 0 toft to 3 to 0 to to p top to 0 tox 0P to C o C G 0 G to G P •rH G 0 G G C P P PG •H •H •H CO ft 3 ft ft C P •rH G •rH O •rH C • •H aO p -p p ft 0 ft ft ft P P ft 0 P G P P P P X P c 3 tor-*c 0 cd o 0 0 ft 0 O 0 P 0 0 0 0 0i—1 0 O P GO -P P ^ P G P CO P G P 0 o P £ P to p P ft p p ft
P o 0 P 0 P 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 G 0 G X 0 c CO P0 0 ft o ft 0 ft G ft P PhP P ft p ft ft ftft a ft 5 G 0-p p o £ O ft O ft o o • o 0 o o O X o o o O Pin td O 1 o G O Oft G O CO X O ft o G O 0 0 O X O 0
x o o o ft a co o P P O 0 o a P O 0 o X a 0 ft
-p o o 0 0 0 X 0 o p 0 P Op 0 0 0 0 X 0 ftp <D *rH p 0 ft 0 to 0 P 0 o Oo .p X CO X X X 0 X 3 G in X P X 0 X o 0 x o o o
Eh =C/3 CO EH cd
i
Eh -P Eh -P Eh 10 ft EH to 0 EH C0 EH X Eh P £ EH ft
1
GCos l 1 1 ' t
0X 1 1 1 1 *
118
wCQ<Eh
00Ohtz>
occo*
00>H Ehm ooMQ PhW CEh KO W,W XIX EhWC/5 CO
C/5 Xeh wX XW QS WC£) MEh &h
Eh p00 2Eh(X >HO QC/5 2)
l EhO’ 00
2Ol—
I
Eh<:O 00M Ph22» 2S M2oo
05 CO- PIp COI <D «H»rH p{TP (Vi
<V P•H <D
Ph XEh
hOc•H CO
P PcO 0P xa) oPh aO <D
O EHo
CO
cP0)
Pc
co
Ci P0) 0)
P +>Ph C
OE•H
x200
CO
pc(U
£<15
PCO
P00
PP0C/5
1a
x x
!p1 CO
[•H .
'QhP
X X X
X X
•H ,•—
V
r-N ..—
t
,—
>
<0 Pvn to-3- -3-
-3- p p tH P o>—
*
—I v—
^
W PO 0 • to • C !P P to 0 to P c to P =
o CO P >> p X hO P hO cO p •0 0 Pp p d p p O cO c P C £ cO 0 P 0 •—l GC x O *H p p P P £ 0 0 O X • "G <D
c 0 0 £ . rH • p p P >> C JZ CP 0 ! 0 po p £ >> 0 P to to P 0 >> 0 P • P \ p'p p•rH X 0 £ X 0 C X hO >>•00 P 0 P C o • C to to OT CO '&H cOto cO sZ O P > O cO c cO P 5 p P P cO P C C 5 *H • 2: hO O PhC p o p C p p 5 X cO 2 0 C P ox e O C »H IP =
p p= co
P<u coP2 XP o•h co
P Q)
CO
X C2 PCO
- CCO PP 0C Po CE P05 =
P P0)
pocO
pdxOPco
o2
COP C•H
p05 >> CPH OOOPcO P Po o cd
p P oPhP
h0 £ CcopH o E
Ed 05 oP P oo cd
Ph Ph CO
O P *o o CO P pP o0 P PX cd CEh PhP
5 O 0 P P hb to CO 0 to co p co 0 p X P C'cOto o to P 0 cO P •H P •» P C O P w x; 0 CO P C 03- 0 * 0 0 o c C P c p p 0 £ •H CP C O p p p P jC P p P P P p p P *H C p 0 E hO cO
0 P P 0 Ph 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 £ P 0 <M O •HJZ P X £ to X X P JZ P jz SZ „C 0 x: X C5 p =
o hO o o » O P o C o c O P O JC O 0 0 C5 0 iocO C C CO O C CO O CO •rH cO •H cO cO P CO P X cO X O 00 P P 0 P 0 0 0 0 x: O 0 0 0 p 0 P P 0 XP pMX phO•H C0P P
>> P o oX P
hOP c
. . to CO >>PPh cd 0O 5 PO rH CC5 Cd Po o o-PCX
rH
to
>1 oO X> p
- cPh O OOOPo dO O X
O CO
C5 po o
EH niP EH >p
P ocWP
C PpP CO
(Vi-
P co PP oO Po C0 PO 05
SZ XEH P
1
p a)
XhOPcp r&P cd cd
p po to
p po oO *0o C2
oX o
P oX
hOPcP 'OP ccd cd
p pG5 CO
p po oo 'do C
2oX o
p p•H
h0 >c p
popp
P dO Poo
EH P EH P
CO
c•I—I
CtJ
p
•Hptopp05
pocd
pCP
JZopto
CO
oX
p <Hp p
ho o oC Pp C hCPP CcO
P XphOPC 5•Hp pco Ppop >>*0O P O P Cp P P <D CO
O CO O P Po p o o to
O O p PP Q5
0 £ T5JZ o CPod
P X op hrtp co
hO O C 05
C PIP PP C >JC5P o pld hodjpplp
:P
c•rH
aJ
eh pI
P to
o CP oO JZO oO PP o0 £ PX o CEh O P
1
c•rH
CO P
o 00 pP o
oo oEH =
119
This difference between perceptions of educators and
therapists was originally identified by Soper and Combs
(1963, p.65) in their study of perceptions of "good" and
poor teachers. In that study Soper and Combs noted that
teachers and therapists differed slightly, with therapists
finding it more important to show empathy and 'being with'
their patients, while teachers placed their emphasis on
qualities of guidance and direction. This difference
between educator groups and therapists was even more marked
in the present study. In addition to the qualities of
guidance and direction, educators also emphasized the need
for encouragement and reassurance of interns. These
differences help to account for the lower correlation
coefficients between interstudy groups than were found
between educators in the present study.
The second part of the interstudy comparison dealt with
the examination of perceptions of several groups of teachers,
teacher educators, and student teachers with respect to the
characteristics of a teacher/learner working relationhip.
Because of the lack of complete data from earlier studies
carried out by Soper and Combs (1962) with elementary and
secondary teachers, and Reitz, Very, and Guthrie (1965) with
college teachers, interstudy correlations of composite
Q-sorts were not possible. Analysis of extreme statements
was possible, however, as the composite Q-sort statements
placed in categories 1, 2, 6, and 7, for these studies were
120
available. The specific questions of interest in the
analysis were as follows:
- Do educators with different teaching experienceshold similar perceptions of the characteristicsof an ideal teacher/learner working relationshipin their respective learning environments?
- What are the characteristics considered most andleast ideal of such a relationship as perceivedby educators from diverse teaching backgrounds?
Tables 18, 19, and 20 present the eight most and eight
least characteristic Q-sort statements selected by the
groups sampled in the present study, the Soper and Combs
study, and the Reitz, Very, and Guthrie study. Two data
sets are given for the latter study, one set each for
experienced college teachers and for graduate teaching
assistants just beginning to teach undergraduate classes.
The Q-sort statements selected by the six groups in the
three studies are presented according to the three dimen-
sions of the Q-sort instrument; communication, emotional
distance, and status relationship.
The teacher groups within these studies showed a
high degree of similarity for the dimension of communication.
This concern for communication was strongest among the
elementary and secondary teachers of the Soper and Combs
study. Teachers in training showed almost no concern for
this quality as compared to the other groups. The distinction
of teachers in training from the other teacher groups may
be partially accounted for by the Q-sort instructions given
121
DOftG> *O ftft C£J
C> fGft
Jh <« wx
Q I
w ftEh tqO XW oX •<w wDO EH
DO ftEh OS
00 ft DOtH 2W
ft mEh Q
ft C Ci-3 Eh EhX DO 00<<Eh Eh Q
ft 2O CDO
» >HC? Q;g ehO DOwEh Eh< s0 wI—I DO2 ft
1o zO M
03 <1)
,*h OI a) .H-C >O olcd ft!0) yEh
-PN Pift <uX ft,
O Xft ft
ft to
03 X>p. eo oDO OtoC 03X ft-P 0)
cd Xft o0 cd
ft CD
O Xtoo
m,dKo-p
G
03
gI fta> a)
ft ftft G
XXX
XXX X
XXX
XXX
X X
X
X
X
X
•H O r-v O r-'3A ft^- ft-3-
r'v •—
i
Xv—
r
*
0 03 G 1X 0 •H X G 03o X •iH cd ft •H 73ft cd - P • E X 1
cd 0 P^—•> 03 ft 03 £
;E 0 0
G 0 X to to >> G XO rH X c >> G X • 03 03 ft•H X 0 0 X X *H x G ft - o . G 03
03 cd x > X r—i X cd P o G G C £ X .
G •p 0 cd 0 P 0 cd P G P OX G0 03 03 0 0 0 03 ft 0 0 cd 0 pE •H G •H <H P X P G P ft o ft 03 X 0X •H •H G C ft ft73 P • P 03 P 03 P P X P X px GX 0 >5 G 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 5 xP X X o X G X G X X X X X 0 XCO O 0 -H O P a P o ft o o O X a 0 0
cd ft ft cd 0 cd 03 cd cd cd ft cd P x0 0 cd 0 ft 0 ft 0 X 0 to o 0 0 0ft
a ft r— 1 o ft G ft G ft ft ft G X ft X ft X•rH P«»H •H •H X •H ft ft P. Vt
0) ft to 2 ft to to • to £ hO 73 03 tox to 0 Oft 03 G o p G 0 G 0 G G G •H ft ? C ftG •H •H o E •H X X X X ft x cd Pi •H x G to0 P ft S ft ft ft ft ft P ft ft 0 -p ft ft x cE 0 cd 0 O cd cd cd o cd co ft cd P cd x0 ft P ft O P 73 P 73) P P. P P O P o P >>T3ft o 0 cd 0 G 0 G 0 P^ 0 0 • cd 0 P. 0 x Gcd cd P. Pi 03 P. cd P. cd P. cd Pt 73 03 P P. P. ft 0 cd
ft P O X - o ft o ft o P O G to cd o cd o ft ft
CO cd O O G O 03 O 03 o O P C X o p O 0 03
X O *H p O P o P a 03 O •rH o o O X p-p o ft 0 0 0 G 0 X G P. 0p 0 P ft 0 73 0 73 0 x 0 E 0 ft <D *H 0 E 73
Ol ft X cd G X G X G x cd x o 0 03 X cd X o Ccot 03 Eh P.X Eh P Eh P Eh ft X 03 X cd X P X a P
I 1 O 0Oft S 1 1 1 1 1 X 1 i
X
ipI oXocd
03
ft
03
ftP+->
•H-P
I 03
1.0 .
P ft03 C
03
- e03 03
-P ftC cd
03 -PE 03
X 03i-p xcd oft cd
03 03
cd
c•H
03
ox:G -P 03 6 -P
ft r
03 Cft
to 03
-p -p
X G03 Xft =
03 P,X Ol-P ft
73 =
G ftcd G
o03 73X 2
>oX X03 X
0 EP 0 20 ft ox ao 0cd x oo) ft -p-p
03ft03 03 cd
to CD.
ft x ti 73cp
G Gcd cd
P =
0 Pft 0O XCO o
0O' 0
ft UrX ftto O ft 1 ft
•rH|
CO P’<3
toGH
cd ft ft I ft ftP 03 I P cd
0 C cntft Pft 0 X ! 03 0OX !G ftO 0 clo oa p P 1 o o
P. 0 : a oE ft ft =
o ft Pa x o o
Eh ft
I#
0XEh
TABLE
19
EMOTIONAL
DISTANCE
Q-SORT
STATEMENTS
SELECTED
BY
GROUPS
IN
PRESENT
STUDY
AND
STUDIES
OF
TEACHER-
LEARNER*
122
to pP o0 »Hx >o oa 'z,
0) .
.
EhP
tS3 PP 0•H P0 Xoz WP to
0 Xp. eo oCO OM£ to•H pP 0cts xP o0 CtJp 0O EH0o
to
pppp£Mto
£1 pp pp pCP £
£o•Hto
£pE•HXX£CO
top£pEpPCTj
PCO
pp000
1
c?
X
X
X
o•Hpto
•HpppoctJ
PctJ
6pto
o2
X X
X
X x X
X X X X
p£p
P EP p2 PP ctJ
•H pP to
WX X2 O10 CtJ
P
£•H
to
P£P s
E £P PP pctJ PP £to -H
rHctJ P
oP <HP
t<J PP £•H PP XOZ 2
X pX X X X X X Xthe
"s
X* H ^—
V
X £vp -3- rp t-4 r-4 £ ctJ
!'—^ * *
CtJ ^ s /CtJ
£ *
p £ to to PP to £ X P
>» p X •H 2 E XrH P £ CtJ P o oP £ O P to P O CtJ
CtJ *H Ph £ rH > pP to •H P X PP P P to CtJ P P to • CO to CO £Mr P •H £ x> •H C •H •H • •H ctJ MP 2 - P • £ £P P P • P P P £ P P P £ P P p P *Hp to P P £ P *H p P P P P P p p p P Px p X • X P X P X P X £ X P X P X Ph CtJ
O P o £ O P O P O P O «H O P O £ o O Pct! 2 ctJ P ai P CtJ CtJ ctJ £ CtJ ctJ £ C\J *H CtJ CO Pp to p p p £ p O P »H p p P -H P p PhP to p P P *H P fH •H p P X P P P p P o
ctf £ CtJ P p P P X X OM p M-H M P M P to MX UO MX MP M P o£ P £ £ X £ P •H £ P £ X £ P £ £ z
•H •H P •H P •h d P •H •H p •H •H O •H pP
X
P X P p p P p 2 P CtJ P O P P p o PctJ £ al P CtJ O ctJ £ • P ctJ X CtJ ^ CtJ P CtJ CtJ d oP CtJ P P P p p O P P o P P P P P pp P o 0 p - d CtJ p x p p 0 M P £ o • pPi to PiP PhP Ph 2 O p pH P Ph Ph £ Ph aS Ph P to =
O P o O £ O rH X CtJ o p O P O »H O to O > £ PO M O >i O CtJ o*d M X o to O fH O P O ctJ O -H O Po ctJ O fH O CO O £ 2 o o d O *H o o O P O P O Xp c
CtJ P O M P p »H •H P oP £ p p p p 0 p p P to p to P *<“5 P Ph p £ p CtJ
x o X CtJ X rH X P X to X -H X o X P X £ x d pEH O eh > EH Ph Eh P P CtJ
pEh X Eh X Eh P Eh d EH Ph O P
Eh =
t 1 1 1 X I 1 1 I t *
TATUS
RELATIONSHIP
Q-SORT
STATEMENTS
SELECTED
BY
GROUPS
IN
PRESENT
STUDY
AND
STUDIES
OF
TEACHER-
LEARNER*
123
10 q)
P o! 0 »HX >o o X X X X X0 S0 ..
Eh•
P-P P
N P 0P a> x x X 0 E•H P X P 0>0 >s d ptr. w P 0
H PP CO p 00 X 0P. Eo o
X X X X Xd o
CO o 0 00
bjO*
P CO 0 P•i-t p P -H-P O P0 X O S
P O0 0
X X, X X X X
£ C0 p
P1 0)
o Eho
p 00 PP P
o 0 *H
CO
pPa)
pP
X X X X X X X et
al
’
for
•
M ^ pCO
p P•rH 0P 0 *d
» PX 04 d0 0 X X X pP P
Pi PX X X 0 0
X =•H Pp^ -—
N
-—
V
*—
v
>>'"" * „—
.
T3Pt rd ca (A CA -3- P VP| VA -d- d P0-—' ^
^
P*— N
—
* 0 >—I—
'
w n * P 0P 0 > P 0P X • O P•H • X p p 0 S^ o 0 p
'
—
s s P • •H P P O o X 0p 0 0 0 P 0 0 0 P 0 >> X p E Xo X •—
1
p 0 P P p •H P p o o•H P X to 0 P P o P 0 0 0 O 0to O 0 P 0 0 »H 0 0 *H > x 0p CO P > P 0 P p P i—
i
P T3 Po 0 Pi •H P O O •H O 0 0 0 0 0 Ps 0 to P 0 P 0 X •H • P X p 0 tO•H co P X P P 0 • P
o Sh P P • P 0 p P P P P\ P P PX p E 0 »H 0 i—
1
0 > 0 • 0 'd 0 0 0 0 0 P G) PG 0 s X £ X 0 X *H X P X p X P X X X 0 O. 0CO X o O O G O 0 O p O 0 o P o o p O P-—
'
o o 0 0 0 Cf 0 0 0 0 0 £ 0 »H 0 <H 0 P CO 00 0 P 0 0 0 «H 0 p o 0 O 0 0 «H 0 «H Pi
o 0 0 p o P P E p p •1-1 P P P 0 P P 0 O•iH p •H P X •H p X 0 0 X O
CO P P tOP tO 0 tO G hO 0 tC PP 0
hCP to 0 tox + J Op CO to o P 0 P P 0 P 0 •H p p P P z
p •H p •H G •H 0 •H •H X P •H P •H O •H P • •H p0 P •H Pi P P P 0 P P P P 0 P P P P p P x p p o P6 0 P 0 0 *H 0 0 O 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 i—
1
0 O d o0 P 0 rS4 P 0 P P P P P 0 a P S P tO P P *H P p pp a P p 0 0 P 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 P X 0 P p0 0 0 O Pi P Pi 0 Pi P Pi'd P Pa P Pi*H Pi*H O Pi > CO s
p Pi p, 5 O »H O P O O O »H 0 o o O X O o o CCO 0 O l O O P O •i-t o p X O *H O P O 0 0 o x O 0
x O O O 0 O *H a P a W) o O P O 0 O X o o xP o O O 0 0 p
0 a P 0 X 0 ou 0 >4 0 0 0 Pi 0 'O 0 Pi 0 0 0 p 0 O P 0o p Si co X 0 X X X P X P 0 x g X 0 X O 0 X O 0CO
i
CO
o g 0 Eh P Eh P EH 0 EH 0 00
Eh 0 EH X EH P 5 Eh i-t O PEH =
Of S- 1 1 1 1 I X 1 1 1 1 4'
124
to these groups. Pre intern and intern groups were
instructed to complete the Q-sort from the viewpoint of
the intern or learner in the teacher/learner dyad. The
preoccupation of these groups with status and emotional
distance qualities may suggest that perceptions of learner
and teacher do vary somewhat in terms of the emphasis they
place on certain dimensions of interpersonal relations.
By far the greatest degree of similarity among groups
in the three studies was found in the dimension of emotional
distance. All groups selected at least four statements from
the subdimension that revealed their rejection of inter-
personal relatios characterized by superiority, unpleasant-
ness, and hostility on the part of the teacher. Over 56% of
all Q-sort statements selected by the six groups as least
characteristic of an ideal teacher/learner relationship
came from just one emotional distance subdimension. At the
same time, their perceptions of the positive qualities of
emotional distance that should be part of a relationship
strengthened their negative perceptions already stated. It
is clear that these groups hold similar and strong percept-
ions about the qualities of emotional distance that should
exist in a teacher/learner relationship.
The other area of interstudy agreement was found in the
status relationship statements selected by the six groups.
On the most characteristic end of the dimension all groups
selected at least two statements from the same subdimension.
125
Except for the elementary and secondary teachers in the
Soper and Combs study, each group also selected at least two
statements from the same subdimension on the least
characteristic end of the dimension. The preintern and
intern groups demonstrated greater concern for the status
relationship than did any other group. Preintern and intern
groups allocated nearly half of their composite statements
to this dimension. The teachers in the Soper and Combs
study showed the least concern for the quality of status
relationship among the three dimensions.
In conclusion, six groups of educators, representing
experiences in teaching from elementay school through
college, and years of teaching experience from beginning
teacher training to college teachers with over 1? years
experience on the average. These teachers selected 13
Q-sort statements as most characteristic of an ideal
teacher/learner working relationship revealing that
considerable overlap occurred among the groups’ perceptions.
Statements about the quality of interpersonal communication
drew strongest support from the groups that perceived
themselves as teachers in the teacher/learner dyad. Teachers
in training showed little concern for this quality when
compared to the other interpersonal dimensions. One of
their concerns focused on the dimension of status. This was
reflected in both the most and least characteristic state-
ments selected by these two groups. For the other four
126
groups "the status dimension also received strong support.
Across all these studies a peer relationship in which the
teacher provides guidance and direction in an absence of a
superior teacher manner were common qualities perceived as
characteristic of an ideal teacher/learner working
relationship.
The six group’s selected 12 statements they felt did not
represent an ideal teacher/learner relationship. The over-
riding concern of all six groups was in the dimension of
emotional distance. The majority of all statements selected
as least characteristic came from the one subdimension of
emotional distance. The remainder of the educators' concerns
were spread across the other two dimensions. The three
groups in the present study showed the greatest concern
for the dimension of status. The elementary and secondary
teachers in the Soper and Combs study exhibited greater
concern for the dimension of communication, while the
college teachers showed a balanced concern for both status
and communication dimensions.
Summary
The data gathered and analyzed in the present study have
been reported and discussed. The findings were presented
and interpreted in terms of the hypotheses and questions
formulated at the beginning of the study. Data gathered
from four groups sampled in the present study were analyzed
12 ?
first to determine levels of intragroup association.
Next, the data were assessed with respect to qualities of
intergroup association. Finally, data of the present study
were compared and analyzed with data from earlier studies
of interpersonal relations in psychotherapy and education.
The data presented and discussed provides the framework
for conclusions and recommendations for further study set
forth in the final chapter.
12R
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Twenty-five years ago Fiedler (1950) initiated an
investigation of therapists' views concerning the most
effective therapeutic relationship in psychotherapy.
He concluded that a good therapeutic relationship resembles
a good interpersonal relationship generally, and the
characteristics of such a relationship are recognized by
people regardless of experience or training in therapy.
The data gathering instrument and investigatory procedures
established by Fiedler were employed in succeeding years
to extend the exploration and definition of a good inter-
personal relationship into education. These studies of
interpersonal relations in the teacher/learner dyad encom-
passed elementary, secondary, and college learning environ-
ments. Conclusions from these studies were essentially
similar to those of Fiedler; that is, a good teacher/
learner relationship generally resembles a good inter-
personal relationship. In the present study these con-
clusions were hypothesized and tested on the assumption that
educators also perceive a good cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship as characteristically parallel
to any good interpersonal relationship. The present invest-
igation has involved identifying the characteristics of an
ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working relation-
129
ship by sampling and comparing perceptions of people with
varying quantities of teaching experience and involvement
with a teacher education program. The perceptions of the
groups in the present study were further compared with the
findings of the earlier studies of an ideal therapist/
client relationship in psychotherapy and an ideal teacher/
student relationsnip in education. In this chapter the
conclusions of the study and recommendations for further
investigation are presented.
Conclusions
The hypothesis that educators with varying quantities
of experience in teaching and involvement with teacher
education are able to recognize the characteristics of an
ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher working relation-
ship is substantially supported by the data of the present
study. The high degree of intergroup composite correlation
coefficients suggests that the quantity of teaching experi-
ence or extent of involvement in teacher education does not
materially alter people's perceptions of an ideal relation-
ship. Further, the high correlation coefficients obtained
between the lay group and the educator groups indicate that
the characteristics of such a relationship are well known
to the public.
The actual statements selected by the groups as most
130
and least characteristic of an ideal relationship provide
specific descriptions of the characteristics of such a
relationship. These extreme statements collectively indicate
that in a cooperating teacher/student teacher dyad, the
cooperating teacher is expected to interact with the student
teacher on a peer level and to show respect for the new
teacher's ideas and professional potentialities. The coop-
erating teacher is expected to provide guidance and direct-
ion in a warm and pleasant manner for a student teacher
whose understanding of his/her role in the classroom and
the school building is not at all clear. The student
teacher wants first to clarify the limits of authority and
to receive assurance of support and encouragement when
trying on new behaviors. The encouragement and assurances
are not to be offered as blanket approval for any student
behavior, but rather as providing the security of an
environment in which it becomes safe to try without fear
of ridicule. As a follow-through in providing the secure
circumstances, the cooperating teacher is expected to enter
into dialogues with the student teacher that involve give
and take on issues of teaching and student teacher progress.
On the negative side, the cooperating teacher must
not reject or draw emotionally away from the student
teacher. Neither should the cooperating teacher look or
talk down to the student teacher as if he/she were a pupil.
It is possible to make a distinction between a person's
131
behavior at a particular moment and their overall worth as
a person and a professional. Regardless of what may occur,
people expect the cooperating teacher to remain close and
supportive of the student teacher as a person. Among all
the qualities of interpersonal relations from which to
choose, participants in the present study placed greatest
emphasis on the concern that the student teacher not be
personally rejected.
While the groups' perceptions were much alike, both
statistically and by comparison of composite Q-sort state-
ments, the cooperating teacher group varied slightly from
the three other groups. The cooperating teacher group
seemed to place greater emphasis on the dimension of inter-
personal communications than did the other groups. The
concerns expressed were that the feelings of a student
teacher be heard and understood by the cooperating teacher,
and that the cooperating teacher be unencumbered enough in
his/her own life to be able to sense the feelings of the
student teacher through the verbal communications of the
dyad. The other three groups in the study gave the dimension
of communication only slight attention. The preoccupation
of the other groups seemed to be with clarifying status,
respect, and emotional support relationships. Each group
appeared more concerned with the personal and professional
respect that can come from give and take on issues than with
the empathy a cooperating teacher can show by participating
132
completely in the feelings of a student teacher’s
communications.
The results of the present study tend also to support
the belief that an ideal cooperating teacher/student
teacher working relationship is simply a variation of
good interpersonal relations generally. The interstudy
analysis of composite Q-sort statements suggests that the
commonalities among groups far outweigh the differences.
The emphasis that therapists placed on the dimension of
communication in a therapist/client relationship was
greater than most groups in the present study. However,
the concern for that same dimension displayed by cooperating
teachers in the present study suggests that differences in
perceptions with respect to communication may be more a
function of the role and experience of the respondent than
the professional field in which the helper is engaged. A
review of the findings in the Soper and Combs study and in
the study by Reitz et al further supports the possibility
that the helper has a broader view of the qualities that
make a good helping relationship than does the helpee.
Despite this difference, the present study provides additional
evidence that there are common characteristics in good
helping relationships wherever they are found (Fiedler, 1950*
Rogers, 1958; Soper and Combs, 1962).
Apparently, most people have a pretty clear grasp of
what a good cooperating teacher/student teacher working
<
133
relationship is supposed to be like. One challenge for
teacher training programs lies in narrowing the gap between
participant's ability to describe the ideal relationship
and their ability to develop one. While the present study
did not involve investigating the perceptions of actual
helping relationships within a teacher education program,
there is concern that the field experience in student
teaching provides less than ideal circumstances in many
instances (Bosley, 1 969 5 Silberman, 1970).
Soper and Combs ( 1 963 ) observed that while the helping
relationships are very similar wherever they are found,
that same commonality in the helping professions is rarely
recognized. The present study helps to substantiate that
conclusion by identifying helping qualities in training
teachers. An implication of this conclusion is that the
knowledge and training skills being developed across
training programs in many professions are available to
teacher educators through training materials, ideas, and
methods that are designed to improve interpersonal skills
of both helper and helpee. Members of a student teaching
dyad, for example, need to be cognizant of what the other
person perceives as important and desirable to accomplish
during student teaching. Cooperating teachers can develop
skills to identify, implement, and evaluate common expect-
ations and goals for a semester of student teaching.
134
Interpersonal Skills Training Recommended forInclusion in Teacher Education Programs
Conclusions drawn from the data of the present study
point toward recommendations for several additions and
changes in many present teacher training programs. These
recommendations relate to both the cooperating teacher and
the student teacher and they are aimed specifically at
establishing and sustaining effective interpersonal working
relationships during the student teaching field experience.
All teacher training programs should develop and require
an ongoing inservice training for cooperating teachers in
the skills of interpersonal effectiveness - particularly
as they relate to working with a student teacher. The
importance of healthy interpersonal relations has been a
major focus of the present study. Since the cooperating
teacher must accept a significant role in building a con-
structive and interactive environment, it should be ex-
pected that each cooperating teacher will participate in
a series of interpersonal skills workshops. These sessions
should, at the minimum, address the development and main-
tenance of interpersonal trust, the improvement of two-
way communication skills, the development of listening
and responding skills, the verbal and nonverbal expression
of feelings, and the building of behaviors that show accept-
ance of self and others. These workshop topics, and others
that have been developed, should all be participatory in
135
structure and required of all cooperating teachers at
least once every two years during their careers as cooper-
ating teachers. As cooperating teachers gain skills in
these areas of interpersonal effectiveness, they could be
given the opportunity to conduct the inservice workshops
and to develop simulation experiences that would relate
specifically to cooperating teacher/student teacher work-
ing relationships. The goal of these workshops would be
to generate a pool of cooperating teachers who know what
makes a constructive interpersonal working relationship
and who can demonstrate the behaviors that enhance the
chances for accomplishing such a relationship with a
student teacher.
Second, prior to the field experience, a training
program should be established for student teachers in
two areas: a program of building interpersonal effectiveness
as proposed for cooperating teachers, and a program in
skills of classroom observation techniques and the use of
simple observational data gathering devices. Actual
construction of one or two devices could also be expected
of each student. This training would have two purposes.
Initially, these experiences introduce the student teacher
to focused observation skills and to specific qualities of
a teaching/learning environment. Like child studies, which
have so often in the past been required of student teachers,
focused observations and data gathering can help increase
136
a student teacher’s awareness of specific elements and
events in the classroom. Second, a student teacher, able
to isolate and observe phenomena in the teaching/learning
environment and to gather useful data for objective evalu-
ation, will certainly be perceived by a cooperating teacher
as initially more capable than a student teacher who is
unable to separate the several skills of teaching or
identify objective data relevant to those skills.
To reinforce the prestudent teaching development of
observation and data gathering skills, specific field
experiences could be designed that expect the student
teacher to employ these skills. Cooperating teachers could
ask student teachers to observe some classroom events and
share the data collected. Supervisory seminars could focus
discussions on data collected in several classrooms by
several student teachers. Student teachers could be
expected to design data gathering devices for use when they
are observed by a cooperating teacher. In essence, one
way to encourage cooperating teachers to view student
teachers as capable professionals with something to con-
tribute to the field experience is to build some specific
and constructive capabilities into the student teacher's
skill repertoire before he/she enters student teaching.
A third recommendation for inclusion in a teacher
training program would be to bring cooperating teachers
and student teachers together for the purposes of mutual
137
goal setting and sharing expectations that each has for
the field experience. Sessions of this type would be
designed to initiate interpersonal communication of feelings,
concerns, and goals each has for the impending relationship.
a first session participants could begin sharing a
variety of feelings, concerns, and expectations. Cooper-
ating teachers and student teachers could respond in
writing to the following incomplete thoughts.
During the student teaching experience
:
I want to . . . I am expected to . . .
I will ... I will but I don't like to .
I should ... I should but I won't . . .
I would like to try ... I can't . . .
I expect from the other person , . .
I plan to give to the other person . . .
An exchange and discussion of these responses would
represent the beginning of a working relationship built on
communication and exchange. During a second session a
cooperating teacher and student teacher could begin to work
cooperatively by setting responsibilities and goals for
each participant during the field experience. Additionally,
these cooperatively constructed statements can later serve
as excellent guidelines for evaluation of the field exper-
ience at intervals throughout the semester.
Certainly, the student teacher will not always be able
to articulate a lot of feelings, concerns, expectations,
and goals. This would, however, be valuable information
138
for a cooperating teacher. Communicating the clear goals
and expectations and the not-so-clear goals and expect-
ations offers an excellent beginning for understanding
the other person, building trust, and initiating an
openness about feelings, concerns, goals, and expectations.
The final recommendation involves a change in the time
frame within which classroom teachers are presently expected
to act as cooperating teachers. The characteristics
of an ideal working relationship identified in the present
study clearly suggest that it takes substantial amounts
of time to establish and maintain a good interpersonal
relationship. The setting of goals, exchanging ideas,
creating trust, and providing feedback are qualities of
interpersonal relations that require blocks of a teacher's
time detached from the normal teaching responsibilities.
Historically, however, teachers have been hired not as
cooperating teachers, but as classroom teachers with full
teaching responsibilities. The task of building a working
relationship with a student teacher comes later, and it is
consistently added to an already full teaching load. These
circumstances insure that the cooperating teacher will
find it more difficult to perform any portion of his/her
job adequately. A challenge for teacher educators and
school administrators is to recognize that the time factor
is a serious problem to be addressed if cooperating teachers
and student teachers are to establish and sustain the
139
qualities of a working relationship that the present
investigation has identified. The recommendation would
be that classroom teachers be relieved of several non-
teaching responsibilities by the school while they act as
cooperating teachers. While this would still not provide
adequate time to work with a student teacher, it would
demonstrate that the administration recognizes and prizes
the importance of a cooperating teacher in the development
of student teachers. Additionally, teacher training programs
might consider paying a substitute for two or three half
days during a semester as a way of generating blocks of
free time for cooperating teachers and student teachers
to reflect systematically upon the teaching experience.
Recommendations for Further Study
The present study was conducted primarily in the
context of one teacher education program with only open
space classes as field sites. Whether teachers and
student teachers in other programs, particularly those
that use self-contained classes and departmentalized
teaching patterns, perceive the cooperating teacher/
student teacher working relationship differently needs to
be investigated.
An attempt should also be made to compare perceptions
of participants at the beginning and at the end of a
140
student teaching semester to investigate changes that may
occur as a result of the cooperating teacher/student
teacher contact.
A useful next step for teacher education programs
would be to compare participants' perceptions of an ideal
relationship with the actual conditions in a particular
program or relationship. The Q-sort procedures lend them-
selves well to comparison kinds of investigations because
the number of items used, at least in this particular
Q-sort instrument, insures that subjects cannot recall
previous Q-sort rankings they made. The ability to locate
discrepancies between what participants know and how they
behave could provide substantial benefits through immediate
corrective measures.
The ease of using the CTIR Q-Sort instrument might be
improved further if the number of Q-sort statements could
be reduced by a third or a quarter of the number presently
involved. While few participants in the present study
exhibited frustrations as a result of completing the
instrument, it was also investigator's conclusion that
very few people would have been willing to repeat the
process in the same session. Reducing the volume of items
to evaluate, without destroying the reliability of the
instrument, could enhace the possibilities of getting
people to repeat the Q-sort with varying instructions,
e.g. first sort the statements to reflect an ideal relation-
141
ship, then resort the statements to describe conditions
as they actually exist in a particular relationship.
In conclusion, a baseline of data concerning per-
ceptions of an ideal cooperating teacher/student teacher
working relationship has been established. The data base
needs to be enlarged. One benefit of enlarging the base
would be to explore intragroup differences by comparing
individuals with high median correlation coefficients to
individuals with low coefficients. The perceptual differ-
ences 1 identified in this way could make it possible to
use the Q-sort as a diagnostic tool for selecting and
evaluating student teaching participants in terms of
their potential for creating a positive interpersonal
relationship.
C
142
LIST OF REFERENCES
Andrews, L,0. S~tu.de n't Teaching , New York* The Cen~ter Tor
Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964,
Association for Student Teaching. The Supervising Teacher:Recommended Standards for Selection and Function. CedarFalls, Iowa: Commission on Standards for SupervisingTeachers and College Supervisors of the Associationfor Student Teaching, 1966.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Perceiving Behaving Becoming . 1962 Yearbook Committee.Washington: National Education Association, 1962.
Association of Classroom Teachers. Role of the Class -
room Teacher in the Student Teaching Program . Washington:National Education Association, 1970.
Bell, M.L. Personalities and Perceptions of StudentTeaching . ERIC Document, ED 0?2 010, 1971.
Be nni e ,W . A . Cooperation for Better Student Teaching .
Minneapolis : Burgess Publishing Co. ,19667"
. Supervising Clinical Experiences in the Class -
room . New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1972.
Block, J. The Q-Sort Method in Personality Assessment.Springfield, ILL,: C.C. Thomas Publishers, 1961.
Bosley, H.E. Teacher Education in Transition . 2 Vols,Baltimore: Multi-State Teacher Education Project,1969.
Bradley, R.C. "Clarifying the Supervising Teacher's Role."
The Teachers College Journal 33 (December 1966): 92-9^.
Brim, B.J. "Attitude Changes in Teacher Education Students."
Educational Research 59 (July-August 1966): 441-445.
Campbell, G.V. " A Descriptive Study of the Effects of
Student Teaching Upon Attitudes, Anxieties, and
Perceived Problems of Student Teachers," Unpublished
ED. D Dissertation, University of Houston, 1968.
Dissertation Abstracts, p. 3890-A.
143
Clayton, T.E., et. al. Preparing Beginning Teachers forWorking. With The Educationally Disadvantaged : AContinuing Study of the Influence on Student Teachersof a Training Program for Cooperating Teachers.Final Report. New York: Syracuse University, Schoolof Education, 1969 .
Combs, A.W. The Profe ss ional Education of Teachers.Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc., 1965V
"
.. Florida Studies in the Helping Professions .
Gainsville, Florida: University of Flordia Mono-graphs, 1969 .
. "Some Basic Concepts for Teacher Education."Journal of Teacher Education 23 (Fall 1972 ): 286-290,
Combs, A.W.j Avila, D.L.; and Purkey, W.W. HelpingRelationships . Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971.
Combs, A.W.
;
Blume, R.A.
;
Newman, A.J.; and Wass, H.L.The Professional Education of Teachers . 2nd edition.Boston: Allyn and Bacon Inc. ,' 1974.
Combs, A.W. and Soper, D.W. "The Helping Relationshipas Described by 'Good' and 'Poor' Teachers,"Journal of Teacher Education 14 (1963): 64-68.
Conant, J. The Education of American Teachers . New York:McGraw-Hill, 1963 .
Cooley, M.G. "Perception: The Key to Ideal CooperatingTeacher Behavior." Balance Sheet 5^ (November 1972):108-111.
Corrigan, D. The Study of Teaching . Washington:Association for Student Teaching, 19&7.
Curtis, D.K., and Andrews, L.O. Guiding Your Student
Teacher. Englweood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall, 195^.
Dumas, W. "Factors Associated with Self-Concept Change
in Student Teachers." Journal of Educational Research
62 (February 1969)5 275-278.
Edwards, K.D. "Competencies of the Supervising Teacher."
Professional Growth Inservice of the Supervising Teacher .
Forthy- fifth Yearbook of the Association for Student
Teaching. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, Inc., 196b,
pp. 15-^3.
144
Fiedler, F.E. Concept of an Ideal Therapeutic Relation-ship.*' Journal of Consulting Psychology 14 ( 1950 ):239-245 .
Frick, W . B. Humanistic Psychology: Interviews withMaslow, Murphy, and Rogers. ColSbus, OhioT'cTE.Merrill Publishing Co., 1971.
Fuller, F.F. "Concerns of Teachers: A developmentalConceptualization. " American Educational Research6 (March 1969 ): 207-22^
Fuller, F.F., and Case, C. A Manual for Scoring theTeacher Concerns Statement . Austin, Texas: The™Research and Development Center for TeacherEducation, 1972.
Garland, C.; Williams, C. ; and Corrigan, D. "Proceduresfor the Development and Validation of a Role Expecta-tion Instrument for Student Teaching." Journal ofTeacher Education 19 (Spring 1968 ): 17-23.
Garvey, R. "Self-Concept and Success in Student Teaching."Journal of Teacher Education 21 (Fall 1970): 357-361.
Hamachek, D.E. Encounters with the Self . New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1971.
Hayes, A.P. "Effects of Cooperating Teachers and CollegeSupervisors on Student Teachers' Beliefs,"Unpublished ED. D. Dissertation, University ofFlorida, 1969 . Quoted in Second Handbo ok of Researchon Teaching . R.M.W. Travers, editor. Chicago:Rand McNally and Co. , 1973.
Hays, W.L. Statistics for Psyc hologists . New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 19&3.
Heidelbach, R. "The Cooperating Teacher as Teaching Tutor."In Inquiry Into Teaching Behavior of Supervisors,pp. 109-166. Edited by Margaret Lindsey. New York:Teachers College Press, 1969.
Hohman, R. "Personality and Role Expectation: Its Effect
on Success During Student Teaching." Journal of
Teacher Education 23 (Fall 1972): 375-382.
Kendall, M.G. Rank Correlation Methods . 3rd ed. London:
Griffin Co.
,
1970.
145
Lantz , D.L. "Changes in Student Teachers' Concepts ofSelf and Others." Journal of Teacher Education \
(June 1964): 200-203.—’
Laughery, W.W, and Cromwell, R.E. "Reflections of aStudent Teacher." Journal of Teacher Education 21(Spring 1970): 34-ZTJi
Leslie, L.L. "Matching Student Teachers with CooperatingTeachers: A Fruitful Effort?" Journal of TeacherEducation 22 (Fall 1971): 303-308.
Liebert, R., and Spiegler, M. Personality : An Introductionto Theory and Research . Homewood, Illinois: TheDorsey Press, 1970.
Lindsey, M. "The Status of College and University Coursesand Programs for Supervisors of Student Teaching."In Facilities for Professional Laboratory Experiencesin Teacher Education, pp, 215-223. Edited by G.D.Holstine and F.L. Steeves. Lock Haven, Pa:Association for Student Teaching, 195^.
Lindsey, M. "Teachers, Education of: Laboratory Experience."In Encyclopedia of Education , pp. 83-88. New York:MacMillan Co. and the Free Press, 1971.
Lowther, M.A. "Most and Least Helpful Activites ofSupervising Teachers." The Clearing House 43(September 1968 ): 40-43.
Maslow, A.H. Toward a Psychology of Being . New York:D. Van Nostrand Co., 1962.
. Toward a Psychology of Being. New York: 2nd Edition.
D. Van Nostrand Co.
,
1968 .
. Motivation and Personality . 2nd Edition.
New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970.
McConnell, G. "They Helped Us, But — ." Journal of
Teacher Education 11 (March i 960 ) : 84-86.
Michaelis , J.U. "Student Teaching and Internship." In
Encyclopedia of Educational Research , 3rd ed.
,
pp. l473-1^8lT Edited by Chester Harris. New York:
MacMillan and Co., i 960 .
146
Pankratz, R., and Williams, J. "Selected Experiencesand Ideas from the Rural Eastern Kansas TeacherCorps Program. " Paper presented at New York Con-ference on Competency Based Teacher Education,Syracuse, New York: April, 1974 . 2? pp.
Peck, J*. F. , and Tucker, J.A. "Research on TeacherEducation. " Second Handbook of Research on Teachingpp. 940-978. Edited R.M.W. Travers. Chicago!Rand McNally and Co., 1973.
Reitz, W.E.; Very, P.S.j and Guthrie, G.M. "Experience,Expertness, and Ideal Teaching Relationships."Educational and Psychological Measurement 25Tl 965 )
:
1051-1 061.
Rogers, C.R. "The Characteristics of the HelpingRelationships." Personnel and Guidance Journal37 (September 1958 )': 5-16.
. On Becoming a Person . Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1961.
. Freedom to Learn . Columbus, Ohio: C.E.Merrill Co., 1969".
Roth, L. "Selecting Supervising Teachers." Journalof Teacher Education 12 (December I 96TT: 476-481.
Seperson, M., and Joyce, B.R. The Teaching Styles ofStudent Teachers as Related to the Teach ing Stylesof Their Cooperating Teacher . ERIC Document,Ed 051 080, 1971.
Siegel, S. Nonparametric Statistics for the BehavioralScienc es . New York: McGraw-Hill Book CoT! 1956
.
S i 1berman , C.E. Crisis in the Classroom ; The Remakingof American Education. New~York: Random House, 1970.
Soper, D.W., and Combs, A.W. "The Helping Relationshipas Seen by Teachers and Therapists." Washington:Library of Congress, American DocumentationInstitute, No. 7116.
. "The Helping Relationship as Seen by Teachersand Therapists." Journal of Consulting Psychology26 (1962): 288.
14?
Sorenson, G., and Halpert, R. "Stress in Student Teaching."California Journal of Educational Research IQ^January 23-33.
Steeves, F. "The Off-Campus Cooperating Teacher."Educational Administration and Supervision 33TMarch 1952) 129 - 137^
Stephenson, W. Th e Study o f Behavior: Q-Techniques andIts Methodology . Chicago: University of ChilagoPress, 1953.
Stratemeyer, F.B., and Lindsey, M. Working Wtih StudentTeac hers . New York: Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, 1958.
Tanruther, E. "Role of the Cooperating Teacher. : InRole in Off-Campus Student Teaching , pp. 146-155.Edited by Leonard Kraft and John P. Casey. New York:Harper and Row, 1967.
"Teaching is First as Career Choice." New York Times ,
25 April 1974, p. 50.
Tyler, L.L. "The Concept of an Ideal Teacher-StudentRelationship. " Journal of Educational Research58 (November 1964) : 112-117.
Yee, A.H. "Interpersonal Relationship in the StudentTeaching Triad." Journal of Teacher Education19 (Spring 1968): 95-112.
149
FIEDLER Q-SORT STATEMENTS
I. The Therapist's Ability to Communicate With andUnderstand the Patient
A. No Communication is Possible
1. The therapist cannot maintain rapport withthe patient.
2. The therapist shows no comprehension of thefeelings the patient is trying to communicate.
3. The therapist's own needs completely interferewith his understanding of the patient.
4. The therapist somehow seems to" miss the patient'smeaning time and again.
5. The therapist reacts in terms of his own problems.
B. Communication is Poor
6. The therapist often flounders around beforegetting the patient's meaning.
?. The therapist often misses the point thepatient is trying to get across.
8. The therapist is unable to understand the patienton any but a purely intellectual level.
9. The therapist finds it difficult to thinkalong the patient's lines.
10. The therapist's comments tend to divert thepatient's trend of thought.
C. Some Communication Exists
11. The therapist reacts with some understandingof the patient's feelings.
12. The therapist is able to keep up with thepatient's communication much of the time.
13 . The therapist's understanding of the patient'sfeelings is neither particularly good or bad.
14. The therapist's reactions are neither particularlyfavorable or unfavorable in permitting freecommunication by the patient.
15. The therapist usually maintains rapportwith the patient.
D. Communication and Understanding are Good
16. The therapist is usually able to get whatthe patient is trying to communicate.
17. The therapist is well able to understandthe patient's feelings.
18. The therapist really tries to understandthe patient's feelings.
19. The therapist always follows the patient's
line of thought.20. The therapist usually catches the patient's
feelings.
150
• Communication and Understanding are Excellent21. The therapist’s comments are alv/ays right in
ii^is with what the patient is trying to convey,22. The therapist is able to participate completely
in the patient's communication.23. The therapist is never in any doubt about
what the patient means.24. The therapist's remarks fit in just right
with the patient's mood and content.25. The therapist's tone of voice conveys the
complete ability to share the patient's feelings.
The Emotional Distance Which the Therapist TakesToward the Patient
A. The Therapist Draws Away From or Rejects Patient
26; The therapist feels disgusted by the patient.27. The therapist is hostile toward the patient.28. The therapist is rejecting to the patient.29. The therapist is punitive.30. The therapist is very unpleasant to the patient.
B. The Therapist is Somewhat Cool Toward the Patient
31. The therapist is somewhat cool toward the patient.32. The therapist at times draws emotionally
away from the patient.33 . The therapist feels somewhat tense and on edge.34. The therapist occasionally makes the patient angry.35 . The therapist seems to be a little afraid
of the patient.
C. The Therapist is Emotionally Neutral
36 . The therapist is interested but emotionallyuninvolved.
37. The therapist's feelings do not seem to beswayed by the patient's remarks.
38. The therapist maintains a friendly, neutralattitude throughout.
39. The therapist accepts all of the patient'sstatements in a noncommittal manner.
40. The therapist shows little positive or negativeemotion in his reaction to the patient.
D. The Therapist Tends to Draw Emotionally Close
to the Patient
41 . The therapist seems to like the patient.
42. The therapist is pleasant to the patient.
43 . The therapist is pleased with the patient.
44. The therapist is trying to establish an
emotionally close relationship with the patient,
45. The therapist is sympathetic with the patient.
151
III.
E. The Therapist Tends to be Too Close, Is Sticky46. The therapist responds warmly to the patient
. The therapist showers the patient withaffection and sympathy.
48. The therapist greatly encourages and reassuresthe patient.
49. The therapist expresses great liking forthe patient.
50. The therapist is deeply moved by the patient.
The Status of the Therapist in Relation to the PatientA. The Therapist Feels Very Inferior and Insecure *
51. The therapist treats the patient like anhonored guest.
52. The therapist tries to sell himself.53. The therapist treats the patient with
much deference,54. The therapist curries favor with the patient.55. The therapist always apologizes when
making a remark.
B. The Therapist Tends to Look Up and Deferto the Patient
56 . The therapist seems hesitant about asking questions.57. The therapist readily accedes to the patient's wishes.58. The therapist lets the patient determine
the course of the session.59. The therapist assumes an apologetic tone
of voice when commenting.60. The therapist tries to please the patient.
C. The Therapist Maintains Peer Relationship with Patient
61 . The therapist gives and takes in .the situations.62. The therapist treats the patient as an equal,63 . The therapist sees the patient as a co-worker
on a common problem.64. The therapist acts neither superior nor
submissive to the patient.65. The therapist treats the patient like a friend.
D. The Therapist Tends to Look Down on the Patient
66. The therapist tends to look down on the patient.
6?. The therapist frequently ignores the suggestionsof the patient.
68. The therapist acts toward the patient in a
somewhat protective manner.
69 . The therapist treats the patient like his pupil.
70. The therapist directs and guides the patient.
152
E. The Therapist Feels Very Superior to the Patient
71. The therapist talks down to the patientas if he were a child.
72. The therapist acts in a very superior mannertoward the patient.
73. The therapist is very condescending to the patient.74. The therapist puts the patient in his place.75. The therapist gives the impression of feeling
very much above the patient in social andintellectual status.
154FIEDLER'S COMPOSITE Q-SORT RANKINGS BY THERAPISTS
Category 1 - Most Characteristic of an Ideal TherapeuticRelationship
22. The therapist is able to participate completelyin the patient's communication.
Category 2 - Very Characteristic of an Ideal TherapeuticRelationship
21. The therapist's comments are always right in linewith what the patient is trying to convey,
17 • The therapist is well able to understand thepatient's feelings.
18. The therapist really tries to understandthe patient's feelings.
19. The therapist always follows the patient'sline of thought.
25. The therapist's tone of voice conveys the completeability to share the patient's feelings.
63 . The therapist sees the paient as a co-workeron a common problem.
62. The therapist treats the paitent as an equal.
Category 3 - Somewhat Characteristic of an Ideal TherapeuticRelationship
11. The therapist reacts with some understandingof the patient's feelings.
12. The therapist is able to keep up with thepatient's communication much of the time.-
14. The therapist's reactions are neither particularlyfavorable or unfavorable in permitting freecommunication by the patient.
15. The therapist usually maintains rapportwith the patient.
16. The therapist is usually able to get what thepatient is trying to communicate.
20. The therapist usually catches the patient'sfeelings.
23. The therapist ‘is never in any doubt aboutwhat the patient means.
24. The therapist's remarks fit in just rightwith the patient's mood and content.
36 . The therapist is interested but emotionallyuninvolved.
37. The therapist's feelings do not seem to be
swayed by the patient’s remarks.
38 . The therapist maintains a friendly, neutral
attitude throughout.40, The therapist shov/s little positive or negative
emotion in his reaction to the patient.
155
41.42.58.
61.64.
65.
Category
6 .
7.
10 .
13.
32.
33.34.35.
39.
43.44.
45.48.
49.50.52.56.57.59.
60 .
68 .
69.70.
Category
4.
5.8 .
The therapist seems to like the patient.The therapist is pleasant to the patient.The therapist lets the patient determine thecourse of the session.The therapist gives and takes in the situations.The therapist acts neither superior norsubmissive to the patient.The therapist treats the patient like a friend.4 - Middle Category
The therapist often flounders around beforegetting the patient's meaning.The therapist often misses the point thepatient is trying to get across.The therapist's comments tend to divert thepatient's trend of thought.The therapist's understanding of the patient'sfeelings is neither particularly good or bad.The therapist at. times draws emotionallyaway from the patient.The therapist feels somewhat tense and on edge.The therapist occasionally makes the patient; angry.The therapist seems to be a little afraidof the patient.The therapist accepts all of the patient'sstatements in a noncommittal manner.The therapist is pleased wit the patient.The therapist is trying to establish an emotionallyclose relationship with the patient.The therapist is sympathetic with the patient.The therapist greatly encourages and reassuresthe patient.The therapist expresses great liking for the patient.The therapist is deeply moved by the patient.The therapist tries to sell himself.The therapist seems hesitant about asking questions.The therapist readily acceds to the patient's wishes.The therapist assumes an apologetic toneof voice when commenting.The therapist tries to please the patient.The therapist acts toward the patient in asomewhat protective manner.The therapist treats the patient like his pupil.The therapist directs and guides the patient.
5 - Somewhat Uncharacteristic of an Ideal TherapeuticRelationship
The therapist somehow seems to miss the patient'smeaning time and again.The therapist reacts in terms of his own problems.
The therapist is unable to understand the patient
on any but a purely intellectual level.
156
9 .
28.31.46.47.
51.
53.54.
67.’.
71.
73.74.75.
Category
1 .
3.
26 .
27.29.30.72.
Category
2 .
The therapist finds it difficult to thinkalong the patient ?s lines.The therapist is rejecting toward the patient.The therapist is somewhat cool toward the patient.The therapist responds warmly to the patient.The therapist showers the patient withaffection and aynpathy.The therapist treats the patient like anhonored guest.The therapist treats the patient with much deference.The therapist curries favor with the patient.The therapist always apologizes when making a remark.The therapist tends to look down on the patient.The therapist frequently . ignores the suggestionsof the patient.The therapist talks down to the patient asif he were a child.The therapist is very condescending to the patient.The therapist puts the patient in his place.The therapist gives the impression of feelingvery much above the patient in social andintellectual status.
6 - Uncharacteristic of an Ideal TherapeuticRelationship
The therapist cannot maintain rapport with thepatient.The therapist’s own needs completely interferewith his understanding; of the patient.The therapist feels disgusted by the patient.The therapist is hostile toward the patient.The therapist is punitive.The therapist is very unpleasant to the patient.The therapist acts in a very superior mannertoward the patient.
7 - Least Characteristic of an Ideal TherapeuticRelationship
The therapist shows no comprehension of the
feelings the patient is trying to communicate.
CTIR
Q-SORT
STATEMENTS
AND
RANKINGS
OF
STATEMENTS
BY
STUDY
GROUPS
158%
'm
oaVD
caVO
4hVO
oavO
CMvO
CMvO
Cv-
vo
COvO
43- ft 00 VO Ov OA CM Cv-vO VO 43- 43- *A VO *A VA
Jfr vO oa O o- tH CA CMvO VA 4t 4j- VA VA VA 43-
ft CM CM 43- CM 00 ft 00vO VO 4* •=3- va VA VA 43-
CM ft CM 00 ON O CA HVO vO 43" 3" -4- vO VA 43-
OA CM
CM
Ov
CO
pCo£<u
prt
Ptn
pg0in
1a
1 O ft
bOft • >ift 0) CO ft
ultto ft
PCD
ft CD P ft CO CO ft G CO CD o d £ • ft ftft G rt £ G rt P O G •H G O CO CD Ort ft CO bO G CD o G P ft CD • co bO oP £ £ rt CD d E w o o ft ft p p G ^4 Gft o co CD p ft CD rt P ft G G ft aft oft d a
d
P co co rt d • co bD P ft o prt G CD G co ft ft O - CO P CD CO P p •HOP££ O CD O CD rt ft ft ft ft CD ft P P CD G o > o
P ftp G Gft \ tv
o CD CO
ft G E bDG Pcd rt G
ft G CD Gft £ P
ft o GCO ft o
O CO ft ft CO G £ P ft P G O C co ft £ P 00 G ftft ^ ? ft • CD ft o CD ft CD P p >» d oft o * rt pft O CD O G ft £ P rt P ft P G G co o o rt C rtrt G G G O CD ft ft bO co rt •H ** CD G 00 Oo CO P • CO G CD co bjD G O o O ft ft ft G co d G O ft ft
GO ft ft
G CO P G ft ft Gft .
•
ft G co
G ft GG P G >i G O
G - GG cd G CD
P GG C G P
CD CD bD rt CD > ft CD ft CD £ CD O G CD OP fl) G o ft a £G G ft O G G rt G CD G bOG P G G G G G P G G £O O ft ft O CD CD O cd a ft o G o o G O ft o o o o ort rt ft C rt G G rt E rt G rt ft rt co rt cd • rt rt co rt G rt oCD O CD P O O ft CD CD O CDftdftOftftOCDO- CD P oP P CD £ P ft P CO P G P P P PC CD P G P G P P 00
ftCn gfaO C bO OG G £ a) oft (D ft GP P P P O P ft G ft ft P O
ft ftbO oG ftrt G
O to G MG ft G £
bDft O
o •H >bO bO bO ft bO a> bO
ft
bD <d
ooo
rt ft rt ft rt G rt
ft ft ft >>d ft ft ft ft
O O tl! <D H C O 0 (1)
G ft o rt ft <i) PpGft ft O ft ft O G 0\o>»ootoo-powH ft O ft ft O O ftco -P fft cd co gG Cl) £ d CD 00 CD
g ft g o co g o g g ft G ftE-I £ Eh G ft Eh o P Eh E Eh O
rt Cft ftCD
ft CD P<O GO -Po G<d p a
CoGoftCbOGft•H <D ft ft ft G ft G ft ft
P G P ftPPHP O P ftrt o cd ft rt rt rt ft rt
G ft G ft d PCDOCDCDCDftPOPid p<g rt o ftft^ ftp
o p o P CD
o co
oo
d
o ft
ft
<D O
G rt
O ft
O ft
G CD
a> G
OP O G ft O Gft CD CD
CD ft CD d ft CDGftGOGCCGOGftEh rt Eh ft Eh P ft Eh ft Eh d
OO PO G
CD
CD >
ftObO
ft
ftPrt
GCD
ft rt
o p
bO-Hft P•Hdft
bO ft
ft GCD
Pft
ft
oa
CD
-ft
EHft Gft Eh
rt
Gaft CD
O GO POG
CD Prt
CD
£HPCD
GP
CM OA vr* vO 00 ON CM
159
-41 VO 00 oCM
-3- OvCM CM
-4" 0r\ On O vOft ft CM t-i
-4-
CMVO (O On
CM CM
O-4"
Cv.
COMO VO 4 N 4
CM rHr~I VOCM
-4- vOor cm
MOCO
-4"
COVO CO ® 4 oo ^
CM tH-4CM
00 CO vOCM CM
tO
ftC<1)
e0ftcd
-PCO
-PGOCO
a
<ft O 0) 1O to ft x: £ o1 G ft £ ft c
to O (1) ft o O O to CD ft •HG ft G cd ft ft ft to a> 0) ft £ G.h ft cd 1 ft rO £ XJ G £ cd cd ft x3xz g £ £ cd a) to O o cd ft P ft C£ cd to £ •H ft o ft ft £ Ch cdcd ft £ cd >> & * ft ft cd to CD o •ft •
ft o £ £ ft cd C0 G • o o ft -C •p to to ftto £ ft O ft o tO ft to ft £ ft to £ c ^ oG Q> ft cd ft ft £ tO >> CD CD CD cd G Ocl) x:
. o 0) ft £ ft ft >i £ to ft £ ft ft £ > CD cd £x) ft cd ft ft to to 0) ft i—1 ft ft £ cd £> £ CD £ ££ ft 0) X> 0) • cd £ £ £ <d ft ft cd cd O j£ cd <D £ CD to£ 0) £ cd Cl) £ £ ft CD cd CD 5 £ o £ ft £ G -£ £ £ £ to to >> to ft O 0) ft CO tO £ to £ -G
to to O ft O £ ft £ ft £ ft cd • £ to x: ft ft ft CD tO G- to > ft ft to ft ft ft CDG ft G cd to £ £ £ G G - G to G JZ G G ft G CD G G G ftCD CD <H £ ft CD G CD to O G 0 - CD tO CD • <D £ 0 XI 0 ft o CJZ 10 x: ft x: cd SZ ft JZ£JZ£JZ£JZU) JZ J£ ft sz JZ fto to O >>ft CD O ft o OCDOGGOOtO O CD • a O 0 ocd £ . cd ft ft jz cd £ cd £ cdftcdcDcd-CcdC cd G >>cti C cd jz cd 0CD ft ft CD G ft ft CD ft CD G CD G CD ft CD ft CD ft CD ft a 0 ft 0 ft 0 JZft ft cd ft cd £ ft ft CD ft ft ft G ft ft ft ft ft > ft ft ft ft
o G ,a
>» o a> cd
O-HH O J4 GG ft O
a a) cd <d ft >
H ^ >j 0tO 3 0 P tO-CG O P. C ft
G ftO ft JZH nj+>G ft0 5
o ftft O ft
O GO
*Pto gG ft•H-P 0)
•HtO 0 tOc x: g a)
•H *P ft -4
ft 0yio mo
a)
C ft•H
W) cC ft•H
>5tOr-
i
C a•ft ft
ft ft ft C ft to
cd .C 0 cd 73 cd cd ft cd -
GftftGGG'GGftGa> cd <d cd 0) G a) 0)
GG
£oH
g ft-p
ft ft o ft ft ft cd ft to ft a>
O 10 Oft O* OftO^OtOOCOCO0OGOGOft'O (D <1)
_G)oa) rda>fta)<i>jg box: C£ G XI C x: x:Eh MOB 3 Eh 3 Eh ft Eh -P
ft ft o ft acd .C ft cd rHG to<u ft tO 0 £ cd
ft G £ ft o oO ft O Q ftO to >> o COi^OO?
cd ft ft £0 > o cd £jC ft to J4 ft O£h cd ft Eh ft O
ftto cd t0 .cCj: Cft•H *1 ft ftft ft £cd ft cd
i-idi^fto o a x:Pu,o p, to .
o cd o ft fto G Go o
ft ft0 to G
JZ o JZ £ OEh T3 Eh '•-> O
OO ft
0 3
CO MO vO 00 On OCM CM
CMCM
CO -4CM CM
I
co ON Mb CM Mb CMH VO O- O- MO O-
v CM <A Mb CA O xHCM c^- O- C^- O-
CA -3- 'A CM OV CMCM £>- £>- Cv. VO O-
V H Mb CA VO CA°o CM O- O- C^- VO C^-
CD
XCD P dO fl)
•H 0) PO £ to bO •
> a d C oX bO 0) •H >ft co in ft p •Ho •H •H o p
o d p fl) •H >5fl) p to •i-3 c c£ to o o d OO >1 l—
1
X c ft >p p <d
•H o to to to
CO ft ft •H •H •H •
* »H cu x £ c c c c c<d cd fl) <d fl) o o ox X X X X X PO fl) o O o o o Ccd p • cd cd cd cd cd ft
co G) <DM <d <d • <d CD op PH M P P C P P p o£ ft c c XCD bo e *h bO bO CD bO bO bDft£ COP C - C P C • C C<d ft O fl) •H £ *H c •H C «H *H Op P fl) P C P •H p C P P Pcd cd fl) ft cd fl) cd cd o cd cd
p £ X CPC fl) C P C C Pto a) ft co cd C fl) X cd C a cd C
ft * ftft ftP ft *H ft ft cd
p O tO ft O o o o o to
£ o >ic o o o d o o o o cd
o O fl) fl) 0X0 c 0X00000
1
^ *H P cd P ftfl) C P fl) cd 3= o fl) o ft
or rod X >>X O X o X x CEH O ft EhXEhPEhPEhEh 3
Mb vO o- CO OV o’
CM CM CM CM CM CA
160
-3- CO O Mb tH Mb O vO=J" CA Mb CA Mb CM H
P- Ov CM Mb Ov COCA Mb CA Mb CM -3- CM
CO OV Mb VO Ov 4j- OMb CA Mb CA Mb CM CA CM
•3- CA OV CM Mb OV vO ON-=J- CA Mb CA Mb CM CA H
ftoo in p •
o £ cd cd d o to pcd x >3 a d - dp £ £ ft CD P £ cd o
cd d o 1—
1
X to co £ XX • £ cd o bC fl) co bOft’ to £ O £ o £ £ P £ dcd O £ to o p o ft £ ft oe £ o ft p ft ft cd £o •H P CO to to £ fl) P Xto P £ ft cd £ • •H fl) CD £ P
ft O o fl) £ • ft X •Hto P O o o £ co d P cd o•H cd o ft o to o •H 0) CO £ dX P > - >3 d£ £ P u u • £ £ £ ft £ X £ Po o o o J>3 O ft o O C) O ftX X £ X X £ X X > X d X Po o o o o bO o o o £ o fl) O Pcd cd £ cd cd £ cd X cd ft cd !>i cd cd
o • o ft o • o cd o p o £ cd cd Qft £ ft POP P ft d ft 5 P ft
£ >» bD £ ft CO cd
bO a) bO cd bOd bO £ bO O bO >> bO bO ££ P £ > £ fl) £ fl) £ £ ft c 0) £ P•H £ •H cd •H ft P •H d •H ft •H X •H dp ft p p £ P £ p •H p cd P p ocd cd >) cd o cd •H cd cvJ cd £ cd o cd ££ fl) £ ft £ £ £ £ £ O £ p £fl) X fl) •—
l
a) d fl) <D fl) ft cd •<H fl) • 0) -
ftp ft cd ft £ ftx ft cd P,P ft £ to ft >>O o £ o cd o p o o o o CD bO o i
—
i
o d o O o o o fl) o £ o fl) £ o da £ a •«H o fl) O to o ft o 0) o CO •H a £
cd P 00 fl) P i—
l
fl)
cd 3c cd O cd £ fl) CD P fl) P 0) p fl) A) ft
X o X £ X fl) X cd X ft X d X o fl) X £Eh p Eh fl) Eh P Eh £ Eh ft EH X Eh £ ft Eh ft
t-h CM CA -3" 'ACA CA CA CA CA
VO CS-
ca ca00ca
161
On On cv*H CM CA
CACM
ON4 C^- nO
CMOCA
4-VA
VA4 O-
(ANO CD CO CM-r-t *-( (A
OCM
NO NO4 <A CN-
CM CA00VA
NOCA
NO4
ONCA
ooCA
CO CM O <i—
I
r-t tH r-i CAC'-
CM00 CA
VA(A VA
CMCMCA
4VA
NO CN- CM O VAr-t iH 4 r-l
NO4 VA VACM
C^-CA
OVA
COpft
<0
6:
0PC5
PCO
-pft0to
1
<y
oft-p
tHo
u<0
ft
ft
d£ ft
CD
rH Xcd o\Hf>H W
i—I -P -P *HCd *H -p ft
£ *HCO S r-i
P oft o w0 ft £o o o
ft ftCO
ft
•H
Ocd
ft
CD
ftocd
CD
PtO
cd
ft
•H
CO
-Pft
CD
£
ft
ftCD
-Pft
•H
CD
Pcd
Pco
ft
•H-Pcd
ft
CD
Pi CO
o »o ft
o ftCD
CD P CD
.ft ft -ft
E-t *H Eh
CD
>H
•p -pcd
tO tO 0ft CD ft!
•H ft -P-PCd ft
ft oCD
Pi CD
O >O «HO P
•HCO
o
opft
o•HPocd
CD
Pi ft
1
ft. ft
o P o . oCD P •H •H •HM ;> O P P•H P p cd CD
i—
!
ft rd rH ftcd CD tO CD P
O CO CO ft ft cdP cd cd •H PiCD CD >> CD c
CO —
i
rH ft CO >>e Pi Pi P O COCD i—
1
CD CO CO 10 o CO
CO •H •H •H •H>>
ft ft ft ft rH ftCD CD CD CD rH CD
ft ft ft ft cd • ftO O O o ft ft Ocd cd cd cd o ft cd
CD CD CD CD *H CD CD
P P PO ft
tvO tO tO W> S •H tO ft
ft ft ft ft CD ft ft
•H •H •H •H 0) •*“» <D
P p P P ft ft P Pcd • cd • cd • cd cd P cd ft
ft ft ft ft ft ft ft ft *H0ft0ftOft0ftft0PiCD Pi 0 PiCD PiCOP PiCDOP OP OP O -H -H O ftOCOftOftOr-t^OPO *H O *H O *H O .ft O
cd Pi ft!00O0OO0P*H0Pg^ft^Xft:^^ to ft ft *h
ft CO
ft CD
CD to>> P cd prH ft ft Cd
£ •H ft CD
ft o ft
cd CD o toft ftP CD CO >>
CO CD rH'd CO >> CO Pift ft rH CO 0o o P 0 0Pi 5 • cd ft ftCO o >i CD PiCD ft ft ft K to
ft CO P tO • 0 •Hcd ft
ft ft Pi ft ft ft ft
CD CD S CD 0 0 • 0ft ft >>ft p ft ft ftO o CO o ft o ft O •
cd cd cd •H cd 0 cd cCD CD TD CD 0 p 0 ft
p p ft p 0 p C -P 0cd ft •H p
to tO MP tO to cft * ft ft ft ft 0 c •H•H ft »H O *H CO *H ft «H-P ft P *H P CD P P P CD
ctiocdPcdftcd cdftftPftoftftftftftPCDftOCDCDCOCDOCDPi»H PiP Pi CO PiP Pi >so opocdo oftO 0 OCdOOOtOOo ft o OftOftOftp ft P CD
CD CDPCD'ftCD^iCD>ft O ft -H ft ft ft P ft OE-iPE-i^EHCd&HHE-iS
o4
r-t CM4- 4
CA4 4
4*ONCA
VA4
\0 00 On O4“ 4- 4- 4- va 51
.
The
cooperating
teacher
treats
the
intern
like
an
honored
guest.
162
CDV\
va-3-
A--a-
va'A
(V CA(A
a~CM
VOva
CVJ
CA'A CM CA y-i
CM
vava
oVO
O CD'A -j- vo»
00CA
vaCM
-3- vOca
CM A- VA
VA tHVA -ct
CV1
-=J-
oVA
'A-3-
ONCA
COCM
ON-3-
o(A
VA A- Ov OnrA
VA•3-
A- vO CMVA va va VA
CA T—i
CA-3-
VAO<A
CA O CM Cv- CMCM r-1 CM
ft CO
ft 0)CD toP •HH ft ft to
iH *H o o0) > 1
—1
CO 0) Cd o-ft Ch ft
O -P cdp CO
• CO O CO
CO ft -P •H >io) ft cd ft cd
•ft 0) 0) ft
ft p ft ft 1 i
-p ft -p o cd
•Hft ft ft ft0) 0) CD 0) oXI -C -C -ft -ft •
O P o • o o ^a cd 0) cd cd ft
CO 0) O 0) o 0) a) cd
p P P P ft p P gft 0) • 0)
0) tOft tO ft to ft to ft
g ft fft ft 0) ft ft ft
0) •H (1) Sh •H 0) •h cd
p P CO P 0) P P Pcd Cd ft Cd T) cd ft cd toP ft 0) ft ft »H ft ft
CO CD _C CD -ft 0) 0) «HP4 O ft O ftAi
-P O <H O ft O .ft o cd
ft o «—i o S O P o go O G) O o oCO CO -ft -ft ft
1 O g 0 P CD P 0) CD
Of -ft ‘ft JZ •ft x: -ft .c .ft
Eh Jft E-t £ EH £ Eh £
CM (A -ft- VAVA va VA VA
toCO ft ft CDP 0) ft •H CO
ft •o CD P cdcd 0) P • ft 0p o ft CO CD 1—
1
•H o •H o ft g ftCO cd o cd go CD ft O o-ft >> -ft CD CO o p
i—i P ft CD
CO •H CD g ft CO
g 'O CO ft ft CD 0CD cd p ft CO -ft •Hfl) 0) CD O CO > ftCO ft i—
1
o cd p<1)
ft • ft ft <H ft a ft0) CO 0) CO CD o CD •H 0-ft ft -ft CD -ft .ft O -ft
o o o -ft O CD o > ocd •H cd CO cd CO cd cd
o> P 0) •H CD ft CD ft 0P CO P p- p ft P o P
CD oto ft to CO to o toi CD toft D1
ft «ft ft ft ft
•H •H ft •H CD •H O •Hp top ft p -C P P Pcd ft cd 0) id p cd cd
ft •H ft P ft ft a fto CD ft CD a> o •H o>
ft CO ft•H ft r*f- ftp ft
o cd o o •H o CD oo O CD O g o to Oo P O -ft o ft a o a
ft P CD 1—
1
0 O 0 0 P 0 O 0 0s: £> x: o x: ox: ftx; x:Eh Cd Eh P Eh *0 Eh Cd Eh P
VO A- 00 Cv OVA VA va va vO
ft cft ft
CO 0 ft 00 P ft • pD* ft 0 c ccd •H P ft ft Pp ft • 0 0
0 •H g -ft P 0'O •ft 0 P ft -ft
ft P 0 r~i P "H Pcd -ft 0
CO P O ft 0 CO
CO P ft -ft p0 cd CO A co P cd
> 0 0 P 0•H ft 0 ft o o ft
to P CO o cd P Pg
ft ft ft g ft 0 ft
0 0 0 O 0 > 0-ft -ft -ft o -c p x:a o a o CO ocd cd cd cd cd co cd
0 • 0 0 0 p 0P CO P P ft p g p
ft o ,o
to o to to to 2 toft •H ft ft ft ft co ft •
•H P »H •H 0 .H .HidP cd P . p x p ft p ft
cd 3 cdrHcdftcdOcd 0k P ft cd ^ O ^ Ca *H 0 3 o> *: 0 0 ft
ft W ft ft I Oi ft
o ooooooo00)0 O O O *H O Cd
o .ft o ft o oftop d a o) o
0) 0) 0) 0) pH 0) ^x: ft .ft co .c m x: ft .ft *h^•HE-tCJHCJE-t 05 E-t«H
9 m • • •
rH CM CA VAvO vO vO v0 vO
163
c^-vO
ONNO
oC"-
NONO
00NO
-3-
NO
NONO
NT\
NO
OS CO ^CA no
41 h OnCA VO
nowCA VO
t>- 00 *HCM VA
*—I O fv- vOCn- vO CA vO
-3-
cv-COvO
VANO
On-cj-
C^-NO
tH O (A cv. VACn- £N- NO -3- NO
O-T-tOo--^SO N N 4 NO
CO
P£cd
£cd
pcd
pCO
PU0Uh
1a
CO
a>
qo a)
£U
£ x q p >> qbO P CD £ o . u CD CD r-\
O •r| £ »H p -d CD p > cdO 'd £ *d «—
i
> £ o di—
I
>> q a cd £ £ »H •H X PrH cd g x cd £ X cd £ CD cd o
o P > p o o q CD X CDp £ O CD CO 'd £ CD >> XCD • P > CO P cd •H P q p O rH
CO d £ •H P o CO £ CD CO d CD
'd o4 q cop aJ CD X CD CO -H > • CO CD g P£ CD CD P O CD q rH q P £ P > £o £ P o <d q •H cd CD O CD co q d •H >5 -HP ft £ d p p •d +» £ cd X •H CD ft bO £
•H o p P cd *dq q q q q q q cd q q £ q q > £CD CD CD CD ft CD CD CD X CD *d CD «H CD CD cd
X X X X x co x q x X X bOo a P O P O O o\ o cd O CD O O q hcd • cd cd cd cd • cd cd cd cd £ cd x cd cd •h cd
CD £ CD ft CD X d rH CD • CD X CD O CD P CD CD i—
1
»HP q p o p ^ p •H p £ p P P P p • P CD O
CD CD ft q ft o CD CD OU0P bO CO bO E bO d too aqqqq£oqftqp bO*H bO U bOP bO O bOP <0
•H »Hp
»H O »HP -H P
CO h *h qP £ P »H
cdcDcdPcdcdcdcDcdq x q co qo p c> <d c) q
£ xCD
q a)
o> x
q•Hpcd
qCD
ft _o £o oo
ft txO ft*H ft CO ftpbD O
o d o qo co o q
<u
O *Ho xo
0)
oO CO
o cd
'O
ft oO Po qO *H
q <d q q cd qCO «H q .H hO»H *-1 *H Picd p q p q p ftp o
cvj Cd Cd *H^ e q*cioP. £o o
£CD > (UflJfflPO^ffl’HX o X X X q X -H X dE-H'OE-t+> EH*HE-t«H£-i bO
cd cd
q 5-i q qo q o) o) b) oP. ao o o
O-rlOCOOlOOlOO q O <D O *Ho 'd x
cd cd cd ft cd q cd
X Pt*H CD
O CD Pq•Ho a
qCD Pi CD
CO
dpcd
d X OX £ X expEhPE-c CO E-c O £h *H E-t *P +* CO
VO P- 00 ON O PCMCAX-vanOnOnOnOC^ CV CN 0-
165
CTIR Q-SORT PRACTICE INSTRUMENT
Direction for Administering the CTIR Q-SORT:
I. Statement of Purpose for Data Collection
The purpose of this session is to gather information
about the characteristics of the working relationship
between a cooperating teacher and an intern (student
teacher). The data gathered here will be grouped with
data gathered from other cooperating teachers, interns,
pre interns, and a lay group. Organizing and analyzing
this data will help to construct a picture of what
the ideal cooperating teacher/intern relationship
should be like.
II. The Data Gathering Instrument
The data gathering instrument we will be using is
called a Q-Sort. It is a device used to rank order
ideas or materials so they can be later grouped and
compared with other data. There are no right, wrong,
or best answers, and this is not a test of your
knowledge or skill. It is, rather, asking for your
individual ideas and opinions about what is most and
least ideal in the working relationship between a
cooperating teacher and an intern. To clarify ohe
procedure of using a Q-Sort we will try a sample
Q-Sort before we complete the CTIR Q-SORT. Let's
read together on the direction sheet the steps to
follow in using a Q-Sort instrument.
166
PRACTICE Q-SORT
Recreational InterestsSteps for Completing the Practice Q-Sort
1.
In the envelope you have been given are 25 cards,each listing a recreational activity or interest!You are asked to sort these 25 cards into seven (7)groups according to your present interests. Theseven groups each have a values label and a limitednumber of cards that may be placed in each group,as shown here:
GroupValue Labe l No.
MostInteresting
VeryInteresting
SomewhatInteresting
Ambivalent
SomewhatUninteresting
* «>
2 i2 >
3 151
4
5 <»
VeryUninteresting 6 »>
LeastInteresting 7
(i)
2. Dump the 25 cards out of the envelope and, as you readthrough the cards, sort them into three (3) temporarygroups
:
interesting
ambivalent
not interesting
3, When all the cards have been sorted into three (3)
temporary groups, begin resorting the cards into seven
(7) groups. Do this by picking up the "interesting"group and sort these into:
most interesting (1)
very interesting (3)
somewhat interesting (5)
167
If you have extra cards from this first group, setthem aside as part of the group designated "ambivalent."
4. Next, pick up the "not interesting" group and sort theseinto
:
Somewhat uninteresting (5)
Very uninteresting (3)
Least interesting (1)
The extra cards will go into the middle "ambivalent" group.
5. Check over your groups for two things:
a. Do you have the right number of cards in each group?b. Is each activity in the value label group you
feel it ought to be?
6,
When you are satisfied with the sort, please recordthe numbers of the cards you have placed in each groupon the chart below:
l-
2.
3.a4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
7,
This Recreational Q-Sort is for practice. You will
have 15 minutes to complete it.
168
PRACTICE Q-SORT ITEMS
1. CAMPING or HIKING
2 . CARD GAMES
3. DANCING
4. DINING OUT
5. DRAWING or PAINTING
6. GOING TO MOVIES
7. HAND CRAFT WORK
8. HUNTING or FISHING
9. LISTENING TO MUSIC
10. PHOTOGRAPHY
11. PLAYING A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT
12. POLITICS
13. PREPARING FOOD SPECIALITIES
14. READING FOR PLEASURE
15. SEWING or KNITTING
16. SHOPPING
17. SINGING
18. SWIMMING
19. TALKING WITH FRIENDS
20. TENNIS
21. TRAVEL
22. VISITING MUSEUMS OR GALLERIES
23. WALKING
24. WATCHING TELEVISION
25. WRITING LETTERS
170
CTIR Q-SORT INSTRUMENT
Cooperating Teacher/intern Working Relationship
This Q-Sort has been constructed to gather ideas andopinions of educators about the working relationshipbetween a cooperating teacher and an intern (studentteacher). There are no right, wrong, or best answers.Your answers will not be analyzed individually, but will begrouped together with other educators of your experienceand position.
This study is attempting to identify what educators see ascharacteristics of:
- THE MOST IDEAL WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COOPERATINGTEACHER/INTERN
- THE LEAST IDEAL WORKING RELATIONSHIP BEWTEEN COOPERATINGTEACHER/INTERN
You are asked to arrange 75 statements in a manner thatwill indicate your ideas of which characteristics are mostideal and which are least ideal .
To complete the Q-Sort, follow the steps listed below:
1. Sort the 75 statements into three (3) groups:
- Characteristic of an Ideal Cooperating Teacher/internRelationship
- Ambivalent (Middle Category)
- Uncharacteristic of an Ideal Cooperating Teacher/internRelationship
(Numerals appearing on the face of the cards are for
identification purposes only and are randomly assigned.
)
2. Expand the three (3) groups into the seven (7) groups
as listed here:
GroupNo.
Number ofCards Value Label
1 (1) Most Characteristic of an Ideal
Cooperating Teacher/intern WorkingRelationship
2 (7) Very Characteristic of an Ideal
_
Coooerating Teacher/Intern Working
Relationship
171
GroupNo.
Number ofCards Value Label
3 (18) Somewhat Characteristic of an IdealCooperating Teacher/intern WorkingRelationship
4 (23) Middle Category (Ambivalent)
5 (18) Somewhat Uncharacteristic of an IdealCooperating Teacher/intern WorkingRelationship
6 (7) Very Uncharacteristic of an IdealCooperating Teacher/intern WorkingRelationship
7 (1) Least Characteristic of an IdealCooperating Teacher/intern WorkingRelationship
3. Work inward from the outside, i.e. complete groups 1 and2 or 6 and 7 first. Your strongest feelings are easiestto identify and categorize. Those statements about whichyou are less sure belong toward the middle category ofthe Q-Sort.
4. All cards in the same final group have equal value. Forexample, each of the seven statements in Group 2 has thesame final value as all the other statements in thatgroup.
5. When you have sorted all 75 cards into seven (7) groups,check your cards for two things
:
a. Do you have the proper number of cards in each group?(Compare your card profile with the one shown onthe next page.
)
b. Is each statement in the group you feel it oughtto be?
6. When you are satisfied with the sort you have made,
please record the numbers of the cards you have placed
in each group in the proper boxes on the next page.
7. Fill in the additional data requested and ask the person
administering the Q-Sort to check your record sheet
before you pick up your cards.
DATA
RECORDING
SHEET
172
CO 00
oo-CoCO
too0>
Eco
2
1
oI P
•C 1 Po OCO 1 •to<u 1
toJ
HW
<D bO JZc C c u po -H o •toP o c ?co cO p oH f-4 c c •to T>O O u t-t O
to o I (1) >!•to O p Q> to UO o c X o
o M to to 3=
- w 00C r. so •to k•to -C 0}P o p•to COCO a nO toto to
to oP oc (4o to <uCO $1 p<I) CO Eu a 3to Sm 2
toCOo
OStotoocr:
o
\oM\ Eh\JcoMEH to
3 5
§ 5o toCO o
toto
tooo
O too toM <S=) O
to-<to
w6co
ontoCOMtototoo«<to<too
CJ f'C vrv vO
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTREATS THE INTERN WITHKIICH DEFERENCE
1
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTENDS TO LOOK DOWN ONTHE INTERN
1)
4
THE COOPERATING TEACHERPUTS THE INTERN IN HIS/HER PLACE
7
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SOWN NEEDS COMPLETELYINTERFERE WITH HIS/HERUNDERSTANDING OF THEINTERN
1Q
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS PUNITIVE TOWARD THEINTERN
13
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSHOWS NO COMPREHENSIONOF THE FEELINGS THEINTERN IS TRYING TOCOMMUNICATE . A
THE COOPERATING TEACHERCURRIES FAVOR WITH THEINTERN
2
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTALKS DOWN TO THE INTERNAS IF HE/SHE WERE ACHILD
THE COOPERATING TEACHERGIVES THE IMPRESSION OFFEELING VERY MUCH ABOVETHE INTERN IN SOCIAL ANDINTELLECTUAL STATUS
Q
THE COOPERATING TEACHERFEELS DISGUSTED BY THEINTERN
11
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS VERY UNPLEASANT TOTHE INTERN
14
THE COOPERATING TEACHERRESPONDS WARMLY TO THEINTERN
17
173
THE COOPERATING TEACHER.ALWAYS APOLOGIZES WHEN'MAKING A REMARK TO THEINTERN
3
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS VERY CONDESCENDINGTO THE INTERN
6
THE COOPERATING TEACHERCANNOT MAINTAIN RAFrCRTWITH THE INTERN
9
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS HOSTILE TOWARD THEINTERN
12
THE COOPERATING TEACHERACTS IN A VERY SUPERIORMANNER TOWARD THEINTERN 15
THE COOPERATING TEACHERFREQUENTLY IGNORES THESUGGESTIONS OF THEINTERN , o
174
TICE COOPERATING TEACHEROFTEN MISSES THE POINTTHE INTERN IS TRYING TOGET ACROSS
19
THE COOPERATING TEACHERAT TIMES DRAWSEMOTIONALLY AWAY FROMTHE INTERN
22
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSEEMS TO BE A LITTLEAFRAID OF THE INTERN
25
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS TRYING TO ESTABLISHAN EMOTIONALLY CLOSERELATIONSHIP WITH THEINTERN 28
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SCOMMENTS TEND TO DIVERTTHE INTERN'S TREND OFTHOUGHT
20
THE COOPERATING TEACHEROCCASIONALLY MAKES THEINTERN ANGRY
23
THE COOPERATING TEACHERACCEPTS ALL OF THEINTERN'S STATEMENTS INA NONCOMMITTAL MANNER
26
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS SYMPATHETIC WITH THEINTERN
29
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SUNDERSTANDING OF THEINTERN'S FEELINGS ISNEITHER PARTICULARLYGOOD OR BAD
THE COOPERATING TEACHERFEELS SOMEWHAT TENSEAND ON EDGE
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS PLEASED WITH THEINTERN
27
THE COOPERATING TEACHERGREATLY ENCOURAGES ANDREASSURES THE INTERN
30
THE COOPERATING TEACHEREXPRESSES GREAT LIKINGFOR THE INTERN
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSEEMS HESITANT AEOU'TASKING THE INTERNQUESTIONS 34
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTRIES TO PLEASE THEINTERN
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS DEEPLY MOVED BY THEINTERN
32
THE COOPERATING TEACHERREADILY ACCEDES TO THEINTERN'S WISHES
35
THE COOPERATING TEACHERACTS TOWARD THE INTERNIN A SOMEWHAT PROTECTIVEMANNER 38
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTRIES TO SELL HIMSELF/HERSELF TO THE INTERN
33
THE COOPERATING TEACHERASSUMES AN APOLOGETICTONE OF VOICE WHENCOMMENTING TO THE INTERN
36
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTREATS THE INTERN LIKEHIS/HER PUPIL
39
THE COOPERATING TEACHERDIRECTS AND GUIDES THEINTERN
4
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSOMEHOW SEEMS TO MISSTHE INTERN'S MEANINGTIME AND AGAIN
THE COOPERATING TEACHERREACTS IN TERMS OF HIS/HER OWN PROBLEMS
42
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS UNABLE TO UNDERSTANDTHE INTERN ON ANY BUTA PURELY INTELLECTUALLEVEL ,, 0
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS SOMEWHAT COOL TOWARDTHE INTERN
THE COOPERATING TEACHERFINDS IT DIFFICULT TOTHINK ALONG THE INTERN'SLINES
44
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSHOWERS THE INTERN WITHAFFECTION AND SYMPATHY
47
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS REJECTING TO THEINTERN
45
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTREATS THE INTERN LUCEAN HONORED GUEST
4846
175
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS ABLE TO PARTICIPATECOMPLETELY IN THEINTERN'S COMMUNICATION
49
THE COOPERATING TEACHERREALLY TRIES TO UNDER-STAND THE INTERN'SPEELINGS
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SCOMMENTS ARE ALWAYS RIGHTIN LINE WITH WHAT THEINTERN IS TRYING TO CONVEY
50
THE COOPERATING TEACHERALWAYS FOLLOWS THEINTERN'S LINE OFTHOUGHT
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS WELL ABLE TO UNDER-STAND THE INTERN'SFEELINGS
51
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTONE OF VOICE CONVEYSTHE COMPLETE ABILITY TOSHARE THE INTERN'SFEELINGS ,,,
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSEES T}iS INTERN AS ACO-WORKER ON A COMMONPROBLEM ^
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTREATS THE INTERN ASAN EQUAL
56
THE COOPERATING TEACHERREACTS WITH SOME UNDER-STANDING OF THE INTERN'SFEELINGS ,n
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS ABLE TO ^2? UP WITHTHE INTERN'S COMMUNICA-TION MUCH OF THE TIME
58
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SREACTIONS ARE NEITHERPARTICULARLY FAVORABLE ORUNFAVORABLE IN PERMITTINGFREE COMMUNICATION BY THEINTERN to
THE COOPERATING TEACHERUSUALLY MAINTAINSRAPPORT WITH THEINTERN
60
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS USUALLY ABLE TO GETWHAT THE INTERN IS TRY-ING TO COMMUNICATE
6l
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SREMARKS FIT IN JUST RIGHTWITH THE INTERN'S MOOD ANDCONTENT
64
THE COOPERATING TEACHERMAINTAINS A FRIENDLY,NEUTRAL ATTITUDE
,
THROUGHOUT °7
THE COOPERATING TEACHERUSUALLY CATCHES THEINTERN'S FEELINGS
62
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS INTERESTED BUTEMOTIONALLY UNINVOLVED
65
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSHOWS LITTLE POSITIVEOR NEGATIVE EMOTION INHIS/HER REACTION TOTHE INTERN £ 8
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS NEVER IN ANY DOUBTABOUT WHAT THE INTERNMEANS /To
THE COOPERATING TEACHER'SFEELINGS DO NOT SEEM TOBE SWAYED BY THEINTERN'S REMARKS
THE COOPERATING TEACHERSEEMS TO LIKE THEINTERN
69
THE COOPERATING TEACHERIS PLEASANT TO THEINTERN 70
THE COOPERATING TEACHERACTS NEITHER SUPERIORNOR SUBMISSIVE TO THEINTERN 73
THE COOPERATING TEACHERLETS THE INTERN DETER-MINE THE COURSE OFCONFERENCES 71
THE COOPERATING TEACHERTREATS THE INTERN LIKEA FRIEND
74
THE COOPERATING TEACHERGIVES AND TAKES INSITUATIONS WITH THEINTERN 7 p
THE COOPERATING TEACHEROFTEN FLOUNDERS AROUNDBEFORE GETTING THEINTERN'S MEANING 75