MAY 10

DIFF~ENCES IN PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY: AN ANALYSfS Of THE P-UPIL CONTROl. ATTITUDES OF STUDENT-TEACHERS

AT MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND

CENTRE FOR NEWFOUNDLAND STUDIES

TOTAL OF 10 PAGES ONLY MAY BE XEROXED

(Without Author's Permission)

DOROTHY JEAN WALKER

,'.

<..

C, I

36 .

^r)~()6"""~V ' ^"

,~ ,

,.--',

, 0

' : <,

, ^,

, ^,

,I

<1

"

,',',~ ^{, I • • '}

" ^,

.

^{" I ~.-}

,

: ^,"/

, '\

.. ^{.~. .}

.

.

, "

" ;

DIFFERENCES IN ,PUPIL

CO~TR9L

IDEOLOGY: AN ANALYSIS OF',

~'

-

" ,

THE PUPIL CONTROL

^I,

ATTITUDES OF ' STUDENT-TEACHERS ' ':,'

" "

AT MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND

,'.'

,

D

..

"

A, Thesis ' .

, I '

Presented 'to'

, " ,'f

, The ?aculty of Education

Department of Educa tio'nal Adminis tra tion

. .

^{' . ~ ,} . .

Memorial Un~ vers.i ty of Newfoundland -

"",.,1

'", I,.'

" ^'

': I

• I

.

_{• 0}

In

_. ^{Partial '}Fulfillment

6"

o,f the 'Re-quireme.!lts fo~, the Degree" , " ,-..:

>

Mast~i

.. 6£

Education ^{, ,} _..

\

"

. J"

. " i."

, , by,

DO,rothy Je~n ,Walke;!

August, 1973 ,

'Y

r

'~

, "

. , ^'

.:' \ '

. ^, ....

" ,

,

.

, I

, c

, ..

•

To' Mom and

\.

" ~,

.

'.

"

' ..

"

"

, "

. -

, -

"" .

. ':;.

f .

11'1'

,.~-'.

:1,

,P

•• '0' ,~ , ,

, ⁽

Dad

w.i.th -

^fondest

',' ... . . . memories

" ,

---

I ' :

",:' .

. : .

'"

.. ^{~ ,}

, "

.. r

> •

'0

'

..

, ^,

.

'"

,-'

., ^-

'0

"

"

..

..

,,-

iii

"

I,

,,', .

\ .

, "

; " I

_ ,f.:

. ". ^{, ,}

. , j I

, I

, :

I,

" '

, -

"

.

" ,

,

.

, "

, : '

'10 • ,

",

" '

'.

, " ,.'

. '\

. .

" I

, \

.',

• • • t'-'

.ACK~OWLEDGEMENTS

.

^,

...

A sincere thank you 'to Dr. G, Llew'ellyn Par:sons~'

. ' " ()

my thesis superviior, for his help and guidance during

th~'~ '~tuqy, A~y a~v'i~e' obtai~ed ,~rom ~~her

'fa'cu! t ;

.1 . \ : .. ^{I f}

members and gtaduate students in the Department of Ed~cation~l Administration is also ackrtowledged with . g'rati tude., .

. A spec'ial!. word

of

·tha'nks tQ M;', Ne~l Kenn,edy,

programmer for ~ewfoundla~d a~d La~~ador. ~ornputer.

'Servic~si for.his prdmpt and diligent work in analyzing

, (

, \

, th~ data; .. to Mrs :,' Millic;nt ' Bradbury ,and the' staff of the

'. ' 1 '

, ,'Education, Libra'ry :for their., kiridnes~ and' efficiency; to

• , ....~ ..,. ~ ~ , , A ' • . , ' , ' •

Tecl?-ni~ai 'Typing,- especially ·to M!?,' ,Rene.,e ,Daggett, who did more than a ,routine jqb of typing' ,'the' thesis.

, ~ • .:J,. ~ _ • , •

Gra

ti

tude, is a'k.Q.:., expre\sed for' the finan'cial

, -" I:' . ' ' . '

,

support' for the study; which wa's ' provided by ·the

.

^'.

-

^{'\ .}

Departinen t . o<f Educa tiona! Administration.

. .

^{' . ..!}

. ,

.

'0

..

^' , "

f"

,> .

, ^. ,'

"

"

,

: ^~ .

" ^" .. ^{( ~, .'}

, '*, .

,,\. ,

r

. . ^'

. .

, !

,;:

, "

.. ' "

\

.' ^,

..

, "

, ,

, , , "

, .' ^, I ^I

, '

, . . .

'.~ ."

/ ,

"

.

, "

, "

, ~.

, , , ';''\.

.. ^~. . ^-"'. ,

"

"'

" "

, ~

. _.. ~ I

~,

, '

... ^' , , ,

, iv'"

.

^"

... \t' '.' ',: one:· 'of ,th~ most crit.ic~l ,c:o'mp6nents of. the

.

\

, . '

, . ' • • " , • 1i •

competeTlt', teac;her is nis/her. atti tude towar~ ,'th~'~dren,. ,

, . , , " ,

. ', • • \ t ~

All" _. " . . f~cets of teacher~training proirams, ~hen, ~hould . be

!esear.ched"i'n',terms 'of, their' 'ef£~ct ,on'-the attitudes' of',

·the participants. Because ',?~ t~eimpoi:taIlce of ,these',

:atti tudes,

t'~is

study

' foc:us~-sl:onP

a'

c6~parison.'.,between

. ^{\ ~'} " ' , ' ",

.

student-t,each~rs _. ,in the 'first, undergraduate 'ye'in and

" .

those in the finai undergiadu~te y~a! 6i,their

~ I '

- .

^.Y'

preparation program,-

.

^I in 'an a,t tempt to" discover what ^"

at ti t'udes tow'aid pupi'l -con tr'o~

8:

re c!ysta'l~_iz.e,d and/or developed by ',studen,t..,teachers 'du'rin~ the training pe'riod •. ,'-

• ~~ I • • . ' -:-~ " "

.

^{, '}

The major proble.m of .th~'s study was to de;te,rmine whether there wer,e ;differ,ences between the a'fti tudes

...

.

.

, ' , toward pupil' control of junior and senior students in

• • • I

',.,\('S£ea~her-t~~ining,

^{.and' to}

s~o~,

^{the -re}

iati~ns.1:lips

^between'-

, ,

'. such differences of 'atti tUdes and ce'rtain si tua tional

" ,I 9 .', ~.-" ' , '

It was hypothesized that the

'.,: a~titud'es of. j'uni<?t: (flr~t year) s·tudent-teac;he,rs,'toward ,

" ,

p~Qrl, ~ontrol wo~ld be'di££erent"from ihose of senior : .

~fourth

_. a,fid/or' _{. . . .}

fifth ' yea~)

student.-tea'chers," _.

i~'

that,'the'

-

.

'at ti tudes of ,the - latter would be more humanistic . .

, >

selected to participa,te in the study wer.e reque;sted to

.,

, ^'

,

.

^{, • ' 1}

, f,

, "

" ,

"

Y-

....

...

.

,.

.., .. ^'

, ', ...

, ."

/ ,

, J

\

I •

, '

/ . .i

"

,'t ..

v

.' 0

.

^'

^./

comple'te two questionnaire.s de'aling

with.

certain aspects

,

-.

of pupil' con1;rol.·. Form A 6f ,the Pupil C.ontrol Ideol.ogy

' ~ ^. .

""

^{' , .}

'Instrument consisted of, 2'0 it.ems and the re'spbnse categories

,

'wer~ scored 5,.4, 3,2, 1, on,a continuum ;rangi!lg from

"extreme ~ustodialism

.

t.o extreme humanism. Form B of th~

'" ^, , ^\

instrument contained .60 items ~nd:was us~d to me~~ure oihdr " , .,

. ^, .

aspects of pup,il c.ontr~'l ideplogy;not measured by" F.orm A. ,

. ' \ • • •• :. " , ~bl" ^... J

.. ···O:il)each form-of_the:-iIJ'S'trument, the lower the scere obtained,

_.J . '\ . ' . ,

. )he mere 'humanistic the'resfpondent was deemed to be.. , "

..

As" hY1?othes ized ," there were ·sigt}!.-ficant dffferences

, '.

... in the attitudes toward pupil

~

' .. ,

studen~-teachers, in that the

contr.ol 'of 'junip,r and senior .'

-

^{' .}

~' .\

.

^,

-attitudes of'· the latter were ."

. o · ~t1.'" ~~ • .

~ \

much mere humtmlstic, even when co~trel1,ing for the variable,,'

~ear~ .of teaching experi~nc~.

• • • I, , .

" . " . J , '

The'implicati'oris of this . study', are. qu~ te clear •.

• • . f'

Student-teach~Js who had spent~four or.five yea!s at . Memo rial ^Un i ve r ⁵ it Y of Newfoimdl

~nd

^;;Id

~~

^{11 ?wed· ," ' "}

~omewhat' in their attitudes toward' instruction' and guida~ce of :J'>upiI"s at ~chool, ^school ~isc'ipllne ^(and

.gen~ral· vf:ew~

^'?n

>C~i1d. p~~chOlO

^gy,'

wh~.In c~m~are,d

^{.:wi th J ".}

student-teac;her,s Wh.o were )ust starting their training.

t ,... • ~ t • f , . . . . . •

at· the '. ins'~i tuti.on. Thus, under gradua teo trainin-g h~d a cons iderabl'e' }mpact';upon the socializ a tion of stu'dent - ,

I • , \ _ / •

" tea·~hers. with resp·~ct'. to their attitudes '~oward pqpi'l :

, " . , n , ,('

control '. or th.·eir _pupil control ideolo gy.

. ^"

"\ , .".

.' ' ( .

"

. I ,

,." :'

'. • f

.,

.

^{o 0 "}

" ...

'.,

, ' .

~., , '

,

.

_.

. .

,

.

I I ' "

.. .

.

^,

. , .

,

I ,

, , .

\ .

'.

;1

./

--

• ^,

.

"

,

-

^'

- _o ^'

.

^,

-' '1

, -, -

, "

t- ,

, ,

.

_, ^'

,

" )

~, ,

.

^,.

"

I.,

;

"

,',

.,

'0 ..

TABLE OF CONTEN,TS

"

:..-

" ^~

, (I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS , ..

.

^{.. ..}

. .

^..

.

^{.. "' .. • t • • ..}

'ABSTRACT • , " " _I to ' . , , _.. :". ..' ..

.. LISI','OF TABL,E'S .. .. 4, , ,

"

Chapter

, ' ~,

I.

'r11lJE

PROBbEM AND' ITS SETTING

;

t" "'_ ~tNTRODUCT ION • " _{.. ..} ..

.

^..

" ,.t .. • , ,

•

•

..

.

^..

.' ^'.

.. ,\>. ~ . . . .

, ,

. .

STATEMENT OF THE PROPLEM AND PURPOSES

" OF THE STUDY , ", ^{t . . '} , " . .', . .

The Problem' ') •

.

^{" '"}

. .

^{.. .. . J ..}

The Purposes ,', ^{t ' t , ,}

.

_{, , ..}

_". .

N~

FOR THE 'STUDY ,: ..

.

^{.. , ..}

_.

^{t "}

",

j CONCEPTUAL' ~EFERENCE, ' ... ". .. '."

, ,

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK' • _{n ,} ..

-

^{.. '}

, ^,

-

,

a v,i

Page iii

iv

x,

1

~ '

1,

4 _-

-

^,

12 Control as a~ Orgariizatjonal Theme

Related' to Roles ,, ', , . , . . , •

' . ...

; "

\ jC j

"'-, . .. J,4I

• ~ .co,:.;..

, '

,-

Orga~izati~na1 Socia11zation

Norm3:ti veBehav,jo-urs -0£ ' T'eachers that, Re,late to ,.Pt.tp'il Control" . ~ , ~ ", "

\ H1'POTHESES , J .. .',,,

... - ^"

. ASSUMP'TIONS OF THE STUDY

.,~

L1MITATI6NS OF THE" STUDY SUMMARY

.'

^{.. .. ..} •

.

^,

•

'. .

. ^.

~

• t •

'" ..

.

.

^"

, "

• ..; II.~ ^:' REVIEW OF RELATED',RESEA,RCH LITERATURE INTRODUC.TIGN " ' .. ,

.

"

. Ia.,. .~.

. ~~ " i f

~,\:' ";

" -

..

^,

:: ,,; ~':;~i: '

, i

"

"

... . . !

.. , ·0, ' ,. .. ..

, ",:

"

13 '

19

20

2¥

25 25

,.,

.26

" ' , 28 28

.

^-

" , -\

, , ,

"

"

-t,'

I,

, j .

"

, '.' , ~,

, J

'. ~ . . '"

. : ~ -:. . ^,.'

, ,

, u

"

.

·

,,' ': ": ' Chapter' ' ' , , _{. . . . )} ..

..

"

"

.

,

^, _"

,

.

;:, ,

.

. : , . ^{. ,} .. ^{, '}

:EARLY STUDIES O~ ORGANIZATIONAL'

, J.- '. ,STRUCtURE'. '.' •. • ' . .:.. ' ~ • •

, ,

','ATTITUDES TOWARD ,EDUCATION

• " " 0 •

RECENT RESEA'RCH IN 'TEACHER AND 51ubiNJ-TEACHER ATTITUbES , • •

· . ,.

, ~~ACHER CONTRQL' ID~OLOGY ~ ",

· .. .'

^{' . '}

.

CONT~OL,:'~N 'EDUCATION~J." ORGANI~~TIONS '.

II~. , ~ETHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH pESIGN . . ' , •

"

IV . .

/

.

^'

: -,

J _.w:

~

·.~;I

~ ,-,

, 'I,NTRODUCT-I O~ • . • , • • "

.

• '. , ,

. ,

, ,

"

.

^'

, I

. , ,

"

~~OCALE , POPULATION, AND' SAMPLE Of The Locale of the St,udy'

. ·

The Population of the Study ^A

, .

The Sample ,

. .

^,

· ^.

PATA COLLECTION, INSTRUMENT: ' AND ' TREATMENT OF THE DATA. , ' . "

,Collaction of Data: .

The Nature of the Instrument The Treatment of the. Data'

• j

.

^,

.

J

,

.

· . .

,: ..

, SUr-iMARY, " . , • • . , . ^{i ,}

i -,

^{~ ,}

.

ANALYSIS I,: TESTI,NG' THE HYPOTHESES USING THE PUPIL CONTROL IDEOLOGY INSTRUMENT

(FORM A) , . .:'. ' . • , • • , . • •

INTRODUCTION.. ,

.

_,

. . . .

_.

^. . _·

...:. : ^!

.

^{'. ..}

. .

Rationale ,for the ~jor' Hypot,hes ~s ^'

'"

Hypothesis One .

• • • tI •

Hypothes is Two

--,

^,

·

⁰

.. . ^.

':Hypothesis Threet · ^{' , '} .

( ^"

,

\ ^'

. . ,

^"

V:¹1. '

" , .

',P,!-ge, ,

.

>

' .• '. 28 34 '

.

^'.

....

,

~

,

v

•

39 46

" 'Sr-

• 55" ,

· " 55

·

^{. 5S}

·

⁵⁵

55

• ' 57,

68

.' ,68

~, (0.

, ;

, 74

, ...

-

76

76 77

"

-.

,78

.

·

⁸¹

84'

) ,

I'

.

^'

~

0 '

,

' "

,

.

,

f

.'

,. ,

-.

,

.

.. ir)

",~'

," "

, .,

,

.

/1 •

l) .

<' "

, . " Chapt e r.

"

H~po~~esis Fou; :

· '. . ·

^.;

^.

IlYpotl}esis Five .' • • '.'

'Hypotheses Six an,~ Sevqn'

, '1',

I '

. " ,,\>.'

H'y'p'o thcs 1 ~ E i gh tl/-;f',~ ,\'

. Iw::r

. ,

·

^.,

'SUi'-IMARY . . . f ,\; ",

. . ^{. . . .}

V. '

"

'-,

~

· ^·

^'

. _·

, ,

viii

Page

"

85'

88

^"

'92 '9.4

96' , .' ,ANALYS IS I I: TE;~iING THE HYPOTHESES' -US TNG:; . -

THE PUPIL Cm'f~~b'L IDE.OLOGY ,INSTRUHENT. ' ..

) :(FQRl'I. B) -. . '::~~~I:/. . . ^{1- ' . '} ~ ^{• ", : • '. • •} 100

.'

INTRODUCy'ION

. · . · · ^{· · ·}

.,

.

Hyp.othes is One

·

Hypothesis Two

. _·

^,

· ^· ·

^{, .:}

·

. Hypo thc~ is Three •

·

Hypothesis Four

·

^,

·

, ,

,

Hypothe,sis Five ,

· . _{· ·}

•

· · _{.. ·}

I . ,

IIypo thes Six and 'Seven· •

· ^·

Hyp'othesi Eight

·

^\'

^·

^.

. · ..

SUMMARY

.

^....

. ..

~

·

VI-. ANALYSIS I I I: FURTHER TESTING

OF

THE

~, HYPOTHESES, A COMPARISON OF THE ,RESULTS OF THE THREE ANALYSES

OF

DATA, .AND AN ANALYSIS OF THE ITEMS OF THE ^PUPIL CONTROL- IDEOLOGY INSTRUMENT

'.

, ^"

JNTROD~CTION· . • '. ' , ' Hypothesis One

Hypothesis Two Hypothesis Three Hypothesis Fpur .

.

.' _, ...

.

-. ,

, '

' .

^~

.

. "'~': : ,' ,<;,~;{~.,<:';",:: : ;; ;' ., .' ~ .: '

^Ii

·

^".

·

^{100 ,} '.

t 100

103 105 106

· ·

^{' r09}

_{. -}

·

^{; 111}

114'

· ·

^1,15

II'

a

.121

121

122 12"5 .

.

127' 12 B -

~

/

..

. )

' I'

( ,

' , . r ...

, '.

• • • I

'Chap~er

.

^{" ~ \ \}

• .

^,

Hypothesis Five,',.

.

^-,'.'

'\. _ Bypo'theses Six ,and Seyery. ' ".,'

~; Hypotpesis Eight

.' .

.

CJ

COMPAR"r SON ,OF TilE RESULTS OF THE THREE ',ANA'LYSES OF THE DATA' , • . • _ , ' _

.

^,

'ANALYSIS OF THE ITEMS, OF THE PUPIL CONTROV IDEOLOGY INSTRUMENT

, ,

•

SUMNARY • . • • . • .. .~,., •

SUMMARY" IMPLICATIONS,

ANti,~~SUGGESTIONS

^'

VI 1'.'

FOR, FURTHER RESEARCH

...

I NTRODUCT ION

.

^.

., .

^.

, "

SUMMARY-

_. .

_'"

_.

'.' t ~ , ~

Statement of ,the Problem ?nd Purpose of the Stu~)' . ',' . ~ ....

Procedures. . .

· . .

Naj or Find ings,

U1PLICATIONS OF TIIE·--RESEARCH .

.

SUGGESTIONS' FOR. FURTHER RESEARCH

o

S,ELECTED BI BLIOGRAPHY. . ' .

·

^'

.

^'~.

APPENDIX

·

^'

..

^"

!,

\

/

8

,"",

" .

,

, \'" \'.,', .. ,.:.;. ~\.

o .

"

.

I

Page -'

.:

131

.133 136

"

,

'0 ,

t.

~ " I t

,

..

,

" I

.

^'

"

~

IJ\ ^{' ,}

~ l+ ;

_"

^}\

_''(

("I' _Ci'l

" ^.

f,

, '-

,

.

"'" , ,

.~

, ,

... ~"; ,t-, ~ '

e-

LIST 'OF TABLE'S

Table

1. " . '·Studen t - tea'chers by Age in ,Years Student-teachers by' Sex

2.

3 .. St,uden't -teachers_, , ' by Marital '

.

Status

.

^"

.

^"

.

4.

> .. ,

Sfl,ldent - teachers by -Size of El'ementa ry , and Seconcta ry Scl}.po1 . ' , ' . : . .,.. i

,.5. ' ,Studen't-teachers by Type of 'Elementary

Sch601 Attended . . . •

,

.

6,., ' Student-teachers, by type of Secondary

7.' ,

., .e.g .'.

9.

10.

_{, "}

School 'Attended . . " . . • . . • Stud~nt-ieachers by Population of To~n iri

which Elementary' and Secondary School wer,e At tended • ': • • . ,. . . . •

~ .Student-teachers by ~niver.sity' Year

Student - teacheiTs by pni v,ers'i.tY 'Program' . Student-teachers' by Major Field of'Study 11. ,"--. St.udent~te~chers by,Minqr Field of Stu~y

l2 ~

13.

14 :

Student-teache'~y Years of Teaching Experience at the Primary, Elementary,

" and Secondary'Levels . . ' . ' . .

Stu~ent-teachers by Years of Total Teaching Experien~e • . . . . • .

,

.

^~ . ^;

..

. .

. .

"

Pag~

57

58 58

59'

, '60,

61 '

62 63 64

" 65 ,66

67

68

,

.

_Year at University by Mean Pupil Control ~

• Ideology 'Scores as measured by Form A '80 15.

.

^,

.

I:6.

, "

A Comparison of th~ t-va1ues of the Mean

P~pil Control Ideology Scores for Year at University as mea'sured' by, Form A . • • Age' in Years by Mean Pupil Control Ideology

Score,s as ,1!l~asured ,by For~ A . • • . • . .

..

,

8~

^,

.

^'

.

, '.

83

" \

\

.

^'

; I

" I

, , I

" f* _,

I i

r

I "

" r

I

, I I

. , I

"

, ,

.

^-

•

, \

'- ~

Tabie" "

17.

" ^A

.

^,

,

.

, "

, - _,

Results of One~l'Iay Analysis of Variance

x,F

) ,

d • P-

. .

'Page, '

Qn trre Relationship between-Pupil Control Ideology. Scores ' aD-d Age' as measured, by '\,'

Fa rrn A . . . :~ , . . .. ., '. . . . .. . ' . . . 83

. ' .

^,,'

'''P

18.

.,A Compar.:i:son of th.e Mean Pupil Control' Ide{)logy Scores for Male and Female' Stl,ldent - teach,ers \ls~measured, by Fo~m A

,

,

(

^;'

,.

20.

.; ,. ^'\

. Size of Elementary SchoOl Attended ,by Mean' Pupfl Cqntr.ol Ideo'logY Scores as

" ,measured by From A . . .. • . • .' . ' . .

". 85

~r ., I

• • ." 8 7

. J ' •

Sqmmary of the Meal! Pupil' Control 'Ideology Scores ,for Size of Elementary School Attended as Mea.'sured by, Form A· • •

T~pe of Secondary School °A~tended by

" Mean 'Pupil Control Ideology Score-s for

All Student - teachers as measured by • Form A . . . .. . . • . .

• ( 87

• , • 90 22.' , ' Type of. Secondary School At'tended Hy Mean

_ ~upil 'Control IIdeology Scores for

. Junipr Student~teac~s ~easured by Form A . . . . . . .'f:'. . • • • .~ • •

J'

. -

^. 9.1

23.' 'Typ~ 'of S'ec~ndary' School Attend·e..d by Mean Pupil Control Ideology Scores for' Senior -

Student-teachers as m.easured by Fo'rm A 91'

25.

·26.dl

,27,

Edtfcat'ion Program in whic~ Rc'gistered by Mean Pupil CO,ntrol Idet)logy Sco,res as measured by FOTm A . • (. , . • . , " .

. .

.

^U

',.,Teaching Experience b~ Me~n Pupil ·Control

Ideology'Scores as measured by Form A . . 95

A .Comparison of '~e Mean Pupil ^I Control' .

1 , . ..

Ideology ScoTes·· for Teaching Experienc;e ' . _.

~s measur-ed. by Form A

.!". . •. .

⁹⁵

,Y.ear at Univ.er,sity by Mean Pupil Control

Ideology Scores ~as~measured by F·or:m B" .102 . / 28. Summary of the Mean Pupil Control Ideology

11

.'

J

Scores for Year at University as- .'

measured by Form B '. ' • . . ' • ,( ,103

\ -

\

'i.~ .

t

... . _,

^'

'0' I .

,

"

.....

,;a ,

.-

.,

, '

. : ~ .-.

, ~.

, "

. '.~.?:

.

^;

xii

"

()

"

Table'

.

^.:~-

D

29~ Ag'~ in 'Years by Mean 'Pupil Control Ideology' c'Scores, as mea~ured by For~, B . . . • ,. 105

30:

.~

.

^,

~1.

"

.

^,

. 32 .

, , ^{, '} 33.

'"

34.

.

A Co;n.¢trison of the Mean 'Pupil , Control .,.~

Ideology Scor~s for Male an~ female

5tu,~eIlt-teachers as measurdl1:fy Fot:.m B . ^c'

f ' ' "'1

Size of Elementary School Attended by cMeirn• ' .' : Pupil-Control· Ideology Scores ,as meas~red

I by. F o~rm B" • ^tJ ~ . ^{'. • • • • . . .} . . . .

A Compar is on of" the' MeaJ1: Pup i1 Control, Ideology Scores for 'Size of Eiementa'ry School-Attended as measured by. Form ~

Type of Secondary s'~or 'Attlend'ed' by ~ean :' , Pupil C6ntrol ' Ideology Scores as measured

. by Form B . . . ... . ' . . A Comparison of the Mean;':PUpil Cont,rol "-...._

,Ideology Scores for Type 6~ Seco~~ary

.School Att6nded as ~easur~d by Form B

.

^,

3S. Educatiqn Program in wnich Regis,tered by

co. '.' : ~

36.

l-. ' ,

• ^-'~ .,.. ' 3 7 •

-<.0., .

38.

• I

"

_39.

.

_'

Mean. Pupil Con tr-01- Ideology Scqres as., ,., measu,red by Form ,B ., . . . .'. . . . •

V.;:J

,

.

A Comparison of ~he Mean Pupil Control

Ideo~ogy Scores for Education Program ·

, in which ~egistered as measured by

Form '-B . . . . ", .' . . . . .Amount of Teaching Experienc'e by Mean Pupil

'Control Ideology Scores as measured

by ~orrn B .' • • • • • • .... • • • • • • •

.

^{\- ,.}

^..'

'Year a~ University by Mean Pupil Ideology Scores a~ measure-d by ane Form B (combined)

. _.

^, _{. '} . . . .

Control Form A

A '$iimm~ry of the Mean P'upil Control'

Ideology Scores,for Year a~Un~versity as measured by F.~rm

A

and Form B' (combined)- .

10'8-

:.

~

lOS

111:

113

113

115

124

12'5

O' , u

Age in' Year~ by Mean ~upil 9ontrol Ideology ' Scores ~s measured by Form A and Form B.

_ . -. "'--,cr (cambi:ned) .. . . . . . ^, 127-

.-' .' .... -.' ..

,

,

.

"'.

• •

. ~

.,.,

" ^,

, ^'

o

.

,

..

,' .. -'

. ,

' 0

.

^' _{.. "}

: . eo'

.

'. 'Tabl,e

"

-·-~·~o-.,.

t' • .R

0:" .

..

\,

, 42. u

" "

• G ~ . '

o • '.

.

.

A ~omparison of the Mean Pupil Control

" -,Jdeology Scores for Male and Female

S~udent-teacher~ as' measured by Form A , ,ahd ·Form B (combined) , , : ,. . .- . ' . .

. .

^.

Size ~f Elementary. School Attended by Mean . Pupil Control Ideology Scores as measured by Form ~ and Form B (combined) . . . . ~

"

xiii

Page

128

130

.43;' ^""0 A Comparison of. the Mean Pupil Control _"

.l '.~.::

'.

----

~.. '.

". , I,

,

"44 •

" 0

45.

.

. .

^~'.

46 • . '

'. ^.

_47.

. 48.' .

~\ 49.

-"

:

Ideology. Scores rdr. Size of Elementary School Attended as measured by Form A .

and Form B (combined~.:. . . . -. . . ... 130 . Type of Secondary Scho-.o-l Attended by Mean

Pupil Control Ideolo~~ Scores as measured by Form A and Form .~ (comb ine.d) .' . . " .' A Su'~mary of the Mean Pupil Control Ideology

Scores for Type of Secondary School Attended 132

a,s measured by' Form A and Form B (combined) .133 Education Progr~m in ~hich Registered··at

Memorial Un}v~rsity 6f Newfoundland by Mean Pupil·tontrol Ideology Scores as . ^L·

measured

ky

Form A and Form B,(combined). 1~5

A,Comparison • ~f·tK~' ~ean' Pupil Codtrol

" Ideology Score~ ~Ior Education Program in

which Registered at Memorial University ·

»f Newfoundland as measured by Form.A .' ,

.f'and .Form B (combined) .' . . : , . . . .

. '

\ .

; .

. ..

135 Teaching Experience by

Mea~

Pupil

~ontrol

-Ideology Scores as me~sured by Form A

and. Form B (cQmbined) ' . . . , ... , -. . . . , '137

. .. . '- r..:.. .•... ...

Correlations between ~he Foims of th~~

Pupil Control Ideology Instrument , , • • , i42

-e

• _ .... :.,,-:1

,

.•.. ~

.---:-

a, .'

'.

, . ,

, - , . . -

'-

, ' _I

a

CHAPTER I

THE

'PROBLEM

A~

ITS 'SETTING

"

INTRODUCTION

, 0

bUTge'op.ing society, "whos~ e~pansive technology

" an~ 'spirall,ing mat~rial affluence prec'ipitate. social·

#' , , '

£er~ent and change at· a rapid rate

.

pl~ces stresses upon .

the' fabr.ic and framework of its institutions., Teacher

. . . ,

education has been in a position to ~e acutely'~ensitive

. . .

to these pressures, ~eflecting .and respohding to the cross'-

• ~ ~. ~ . . '8.

cuI tural cl,lrrents 'and chang-ing needs, of a' mobile population

, • Q -- " ,-'~ , • .. •

.

/'~.

-' 'l'n,

a 'state,' of flux. ' ....

~.--~ .

. As a part of \)~·e effort to adj ust to these needs'

' an~,

to

~eet

the demands fO,i

inc'r~asing.ly

hiQgher

level~ . of

, ' ,

:. t,raining an~ 'excellence, educat'ion' as a prbcess:'for

lea~ning and s vehicl~ for preparing teachers is being

{>

'. examine~d/more, clo~er'y than ever it has been in t.he pas t. '-, The continuing search to detei~ine what constit~tes

e~fective teaching has led to 'an,jncreised appraisal of

- .

the g~als and structure o~ teacher e~ucation pr6gr~ms and ,the self-evaluatio~ incumbent ,upon the training insti-

tutio,ns r·esponsible.

As w~ la~our, in ~ system of tre~ public education . '. wi tli 'the idealistic goal of edu,cating every ~ child fro~

1 ^r;;.,

4, • •

/ '

,

.

I '

-":

"~~~ "J'

_ /.:.~,:: "t " " " j~'

" ~,';. , ·1'

: ':;'Jr'

... .;.1 f' . .

. . .. r ~ . !oJ

age -six to sixteen, 'most educato~~~recognize, and are

, . , 'i .... ; ... ^{J,·..{ , ' , -'}

i;ontinua,lly c'onscious of the fao't

.}~at

our success will be

n ~ Is .

,

- .

. ^" somewhat limited by the magnitu~e of the undertaki~g, As

" ,

a consequence 'of our limited 'success, 'education suffers from an enormity of criticism, even from the ranks of its teachers. .~-.... -... ,...~.,

, II,

" The cri tics of education recoghize no facet of the, system to be innocent ,of their charges ^an~ the criticism touches all educators' fr6'm the provincial Department of

,

Education to the classroom tea~her. When the criti~ism .beg~ns to descend on the classroom teacher, ho~ever, it

. r. . ' ~

lands most heavily upon their training institutions as.

'-:,)~

"

indicated·-in ^t.hi's recent "article:

'Sadly w~ must toncur 'wit~ our educational'ctitics .that we dQ have an absurdly antiquated edl1£:atibnal ,

system, unresponsive to ^mas~ social and ^te~hno- . logical changes, ,and thatHteacher, education serves as a major reinforcer' of the stagnation and,

traditionalism permeating this system. ^{1 ,}

Teachers ^r~spond to_ the ,need to ^~ontrol their pupils by, developing their own 'classroom °style. Some establish complex,- iJopclad r~les of stude~t classroom behaviour that are enforced, in an .mpersonal detach~d

manner. Others seek to establish a student-teacher

" .j

,rapport based on their knowledge of the individual student IDwight W. Allen, and Robe£t A. Mackin, "Toward

,

t76: A Revolution in Teacher Education," Phi Deita Kapp'an, yolo LI, No. 9 (May, '1970), p. 485.

"

, "

.-

:>

'"

u'

, ^r ~

, ,

. , ^,

.'/ .

: .. ~:~ . . -j.'

~ . _.. :

..

' ~. .

<

\,

/

.'

,. 3

I;:,~ .. ^~

" ,( ,

. :"j:l,r "

~nd general psychological and sociolo~ic~l; concepts.

, ,

Evidence of these d{f!eren~ st~dene control approach~~

, '

may be seen in any classroom by even'the'most inexpert ^.1

observer. ^"

Recirit 'investigations: ~ave confirmed the fact tha(

Q , ' ,

teachers differ in their pupi~ control faeologies.

Furthermo~e, 'these beliefs h~ye' been found to 'differ

systematically according to a number of factors includ .. ing th'e ag~-grade org~nization of. the sch~ol.i' Comparisons have been made between the pu.pil control ideol~gies of ,teachers in elernentar~ schools and those of teachers in

, ,

secondary school?;2 aiso, between the pupil control ideol-

• , I • " ' -

ogi'es of teachers in ele~entary and tho~e in middle schools ^3;

~owever, l i t t l i has ~een done in this area with, regard to~, -:

student-,teachers, especially with referenG,e to' a

c~mparison

, -

'between student-teach~rs in the first unde~graduate year

, ,

. ~ .'

and those in' the' final illidergr~uate year, of '~.he~r tey,Lcher

pre:p~ration ,program.

. This study focuses on jus t such ·a comparison in "

" .

an attempt to discover ~hat attitudes toward 'pupil contiol

.2Donald J. Willower, Terry

L.

Eidell, and Wayne K.

Hoy, The School and Pupil ContrDI IdeOlO~y (Penn'State Studies, Monograph No.

XXIV,

Universltyar~:' Penn State

University Press, 1967), 'P. 53. '

-

3Edward J. Leppert, "Pupil Control Ideology and Teacher Personality" (unpubl~shed doctoral dissertation,'

R~tgers University, The State University of 'New Jers~y', .'

19.71), P. SO. '

. '

r"

'j -,

'J( ,

o

, ..

,;

,f.

I'," "

are crystallized and/or developed by st~dent-teachers d.uring the teacher-'tralning per,iod. ',~asicto the study is the realization that our educat'iona,l system mus't con':',

"\

~ ,

.

t.inue to change t'o keep __ pace with 'the 'rapidly changing

t

,world. . Cti~r icular and organizat ional changes, al though .. ~

..

4

necessary, are ha:rdly sUf'ficient; change ,in the attitudes of educational per~bnnel, more spe2.ifically principals

• ,.1\' ~

. ,and tea~hers, concerning pupils ~nd the coritrol of pupils'

. f l ·

behaviour 'is ,more' crucial.

J .

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND PURPOSES OF THE STUDY

. _.

^{/ '}

;

..

',', The Problem

"

The central

pro~lem Of~

^thiS",

st~dy

is to determine the differenc~s between ^th~ attitudes tow~rd'pupil ~ontrol

,

of' junior an'd seni'Or'students in teacher-training and. to

• • 0 ' • •

show, the'relationships.between such di~ferences of attitudes

\ ... :. .

and certain' sit·uation'al f'actors or variables.

'\

The ,Pu'l'poses ^J

, ,

'Specifically, the purposes o£ the 'study are': '

, S--'

(1) To invest'igate th'e ,differences between the·, pupil control ideology of junior student- ,',"

" .

teachers and t11at' of senior student'-teachers.

;.

(2) ,To'· determine the attitudes towards pupil·

control held by students,at the beginning .of . -' ,

th~ir teacher~training at Memorial University

, ,

~ .

-

\ -