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

(c) Richard Draffen Elliott 1975

All Rights Reserved

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.

APPENDIX A

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.

APPENDIX B

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.

APPENDIX C

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

qq

£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

qq

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-

APPENDIX D

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

APPENDIX E

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